Tiffany 899
PR
it often.
It appears to me that, in spite of her age, Tiffany 899 can hold her
own with the best of us and may well be wise beyond her years.
Unfortunately, however, I thought I ought to point out to you that her
chronological age may, in fact, present a serious problem to those
engaging her in these d iscussions.
If she is a minor, for adults, who are not her parents nor her guardian
and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
indeed, a minor.
FWIW I think this issue needs clarifying for everyone's sake.
suzee
It really depends on the Age of Consent laws in her state. In many of
them, the age is 15 or 16, not 18. And unless there's an undercover cop
looking for pedophiles in here, I don't think there's a problem
discussing these things. And where else are teens going to be able to
discuss sexuality?
sue
Jana
"PR" <pr...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1136303644.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My god, is *talking* to a minor about sex illegal in the U.S?!
Jana
Anonymous Jack
> "PR" wrote in ...
> > I've not posted to this group in quite a while though I do try to read
> > it often.
> >
> > It appears to me that, in spite of her age, Tiffany 899 can hold her
> > own with the best of us and may well be wise beyond her years.
> > Unfortunately, however, I thought I ought to point out to you that her
> > chronological age may, in fact, present a serious problem to those
> > engaging her in these d iscussions.
Good head's up.
> > If she is a minor, for adults, who are not her parents nor her guardian
> > and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
> > this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
> > group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
> > indeed, a minor.
> >
> > FWIW I think this issue needs clarifying for everyone's sake.
>
> My god, is *talking* to a minor about sex illegal in the U.S?!
Corruption of a minor? In many places in the US, providing sexual
information without the consent of the parents is a no no.
Occassionally, the tone here gets a little flirtacious/suggestive; I'm
guilty of that. However, if I forget that Tiffany is a minor and make
those same suggestions, I've just solicited a sex act from a minor!
And some of the acts I suggest... ;-)
I don't know how far the "But your Honor, I was just joking" defense
will get me. Prolly as far as the "I coulda sworn she was over 18"
defense... :)
Don't get me wrong, I think Tiffany is wonderful in the threads where
she's contributed - I just have to be careful what I say to her. As I
said, thanks for the heads up/reminder!
Sagittaria
news:20060103190951.328$l...@newsreader.com:
> "Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jana wrote:
>> > My god, is *talking* to a minor about sex illegal in the U.S?!
>>
>> Corruption of a minor? In many places in the US, providing sexual
>> information without the consent of the parents is a no no.
>>
>> Occassionally, the tone here gets a little flirtacious/suggestive;
>> I'm guilty of that. However, if I forget that Tiffany is a minor
>> and make those same suggestions, I've just solicited a sex act from
>> a minor! And some of the acts I suggest... ;-)
>
> I don't want to get anyone into trouble. I can unsubscribe.
>
No, please don't think you have to leave. Perhaps Jack is right, and the
only caution would be not to flirt with you, but having an open
discussion is fine. I'll point out that we have no idea what anyone's
real age here is - you could say you're 14 and really be 37, or I could
say I'm 37 and really be 14.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
"That's the good thing about the internet. Something doesn't have to be
real, it just has to be interesting." -Leowulf
Jana
"Sagittaria" <sagitta...@emailias.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9740B049B2...@216.168.3.44...
> tiffa...@hotmail.com (Tiffany 899) wrote in
> news:20060103190951.328$l...@newsreader.com:
>
>> "Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Jana wrote:
>>> > My god, is *talking* to a minor about sex illegal in the U.S?!
>>>
>>> Corruption of a minor? In many places in the US, providing sexual
>>> information without the consent of the parents is a no no.
>>>
>>> Occassionally, the tone here gets a little flirtacious/suggestive;
>>> I'm guilty of that. However, if I forget that Tiffany is a minor
>>> and make those same suggestions, I've just solicited a sex act from
>>> a minor! And some of the acts I suggest... ;-)
>>
>> I don't want to get anyone into trouble. I can unsubscribe.
>>
>
> No, please don't think you have to leave. Perhaps Jack is right, and the
> only caution would be not to flirt with you, but having an open
> discussion is fine. I'll point out that we have no idea what anyone's
> real age here is - you could say you're 14 and really be 37, or I could
> say I'm 37 and really be 14.
>
And since I'm in Europe, Tiff, I'll even flirt with you if you like ;-)
Jana
MRVAS...@gmail.com
All good medicine,
GREENFEATHER
Norton
You are right and if the cops come by, I'll be happy to
be the sacrificial lamb.
I'm aware of this legal idiocy in the US and, though I'm
not anxious to do it, I'll be glad to be the test case.
Norton.
Norton
Norton
Noplace, which is the intention of those laws.
As I've already posted, I'd love to see them challenged
in court.
Norton.
Jana
"Norton" <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dpff4n$4ib$3...@reader2.panix.com...
No wonder that "sex ed" is mainly abstinence only.
How idiotic.
> Norton.
>
Jana, who would have loved to have been an ssg member in her teens
Norton
>I don't want to get anyone into trouble. I can unsubscribe.
Don't you dare!
Norton.
Norton
>tiffa...@hotmail.com (Tiffany 899) wrote in
>news:20060103190951.328$l...@newsreader.com:
>> "Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Jana wrote:
>>> > My god, is *talking* to a minor about sex illegal in the U.S?!
>>>
>>> Corruption of a minor? In many places in the US, providing sexual
>>> information without the consent of the parents is a no no.
>>>
>>> Occassionally, the tone here gets a little flirtacious/suggestive;
>>> I'm guilty of that. However, if I forget that Tiffany is a minor
>>> and make those same suggestions, I've just solicited a sex act from
>>> a minor! And some of the acts I suggest... ;-)
>>
>> I don't want to get anyone into trouble. I can unsubscribe.
>>
>No, please don't think you have to leave. Perhaps Jack is right, and the
>only caution would be not to flirt with you, but having an open
>discussion is fine. I'll point out that we have no idea what anyone's
>real age here is - you could say you're 14 and really be 37, or I could
>say I'm 37 and really be 14.
I was 17 for a week about a year ago, but nobody believed me.
Norton.
Norton
>How idiotic.
Yup. It is part of our global "infantilization" plan. The
idea, starting with teen-agers, is to treat *everybody* as
if they were an infant and only the Government knew what to
do.
And for starters sex would be *out*.
>Jana, who would have loved to have been an ssg member in her teens
Yeah, and you would have been picked on too.
Norton.
Jana
Oh shut up a bit, will you :-)
Yes, a number of people are treating Tiffany with lack of respect for her
age. I hope she stays around and they see her for her potential, and she
certainly seems strong enough to stand up to them. But a few of us are just
plain concerned that her attitude is a jerk-attractor, and the way she
describes the guys she's been with fits this image. It would be a
jerk-attractor at any age. Even yours ;-)
Now I'm sounding like the ancient one.
> Norton.
>
Jana
suzee
> Oh shut up a bit, will you :-)
>
> Yes, a number of people are treating Tiffany with lack of respect for her
> age. I hope she stays around and they see her for her potential, and she
> certainly seems strong enough to stand up to them. But a few of us are just
> plain concerned that her attitude is a jerk-attractor, and the way she
> describes the guys she's been with fits this image. It would be a
> jerk-attractor at any age. Even yours ;-)
Though it sounds like there's a lot of jerks around the area she lives,
so maybe it's not her behavior that's attracting them. That may be all
there are.
> Now I'm sounding like the ancient one.
Well you got a little bit of experience.
sue
suzee
> Sagittaria <sagitta...@emailias.com> wrote:
>
>>No, please don't think you have to leave. Perhaps Jack is right, and the
>>only caution would be not to flirt with you, but having an open
>>discussion is fine. I'll point out that we have no idea what anyone's
>>real age here is - you could say you're 14 and really be 37, or I could
>>say I'm 37 and really be 14.
>
>
> I was 17 for a week about a year ago, but nobody believed me.
You claim to be 14 off and on....
sue
Sagittaria
news:dpfg7o$4ib$3...@reader2.panix.com:
> Sagittaria <sagitta...@emailias.com> wrote:
>>I'll point out that we have no idea what
>>anyone's real age here is - you could say you're 14 and really be
>>37, or I could say I'm 37 and really be 14.
>
> I was 17 for a week about a year ago, but nobody believed me.
>
> Norton.
>
>
I believed you.
Elizabeth
Hi Tiffany,
Don't go. We need your voice on ssg.
-Elizabeth
JustGB
JustGB
Fred....@tds.net
I still have not seen any legal clarification in this thread. Does
anyone know what the real issues are?
As a therapist, I talk with minors about sexual issues all the time.
However, the legal issue regarding parental consent is not age, but
competency. Below a certain age (roughly 12), they are not considered
to be competent to make decisions regarding sexuality and mental
health, so I need parental consent and the parents are privy to the
content of therapy. Above a certain age (roughly 16) they are
considered competent to make their own decisions, so I do not need
parental consent and the therapy sessions have legal privalege (the
parents cannot access the records). Between 12 and 16 there is no legal
precedent in the state I live in (legal codes define competency, but
case law has defined the ages to which it generally applies).
Lusus Naturae
>If she is a minor, for adults, who are not her parents nor her guardian
>and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
>this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
>group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
>indeed, a minor.
That's a good heads-up, PR. For myself, I long ago decided that
I was perfectly willing to take whatever small risk there may be
in sexual discussion groups and talk as openly and freely with
someone who may be under age as I do with all others. I think
they need and deserve that kind of openness, and it has been my
experience that those who make the effort to connect are mature
enough to handle it and benefit from it.
--
Lusus Naturae
Anonymous Jack
> "Anonymous Jack" wrote:
> > Occassionally, the tone here gets a little flirtacious/suggestive; I'm
> > guilty of that. However, if I forget that Tiffany is a minor and make
> > those same suggestions, I've just solicited a sex act from a minor!
> > And some of the acts I suggest... ;-)
> >
> > I don't know how far the "But your Honor, I was just joking" defense
> > will get me. Prolly as far as the "I coulda sworn she was over 18"
> > defense... :)
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I think Tiffany is wonderful in the threads where
> > she's contributed - I just have to be careful what I say to her. As I
> > said, thanks for the heads up/reminder!
>
No, please don't! Stay and talk.
I just have to watch what I say a bit, is all. You won't be getting me
in trouble, my big mouth be getting myself in trouble - unusual for a
guy, eh? :)
Besides, if I start hitting on you, the police would be the least of
my worries - my wife might be a bit upset :)
PR
It was not my intention to start a debate on this issue, but simply to
state the fact that, in some U.S. jurisdictions and probably under
Federal law as well,, the conversation and debate with Tiffany 899 is
illegal even though she is apparently wise beyond her years.
I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
_amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation and an
'esteemed' elder of the group who offers himself up to any zealous
prosecutor as a sacrificial lamb. My guess is that, even if he were
ultimately to prevail in court, his unreimbursable legal fees would be
well up into the six figures. While I am a virtual absolutist in my
defense of this country's first amendment, I think one should know the
potential consequences, especially these days, of setting one's self up
as a potential test case. BTW, one person's offer to serve as the test
case for the group does, in no way, insure hir selection nor that many
won't be prosecuted.
I have no idea of what the rules are outside the U.S.A., but the
following are the probable consequences of being chosen for legal
investigation in this matter in the U.S.:
1. They can confiscate all your computer and electronic equipment
including all disks and programs and you can be prevented from using
the Internet.
2. In some cases if you have minor children in your home social
services agencies can be called in and your children removed from your
home even if you aren't charged.
3. Your activities can be placed on public record if you are charged
which can lead to loss of job, family troubles and public humiliation.
4. Even if you are found innocent of all charges you may find yourself
with impossible legal fees and with charges from numerous federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies.
5. You can be charged. Even if you are found innocent it will become
part of your public police record. If you are found guilty you become a
felon (in some cases), can be assessed fines and your name can be
placed on a sex offenders list. And you can find yourself unable to
vote and hold certain jobs.
6. Depending on where you are located and with whom your activities
have been conducted, information can be shared with numerous law
enforcement agencies all of which can investigate and charge you.
While there are many loopholes in the law, are you willing to put your
life, your job, your family on hold and become a test case?
Jacques Michel
>
> I still have not seen any legal clarification in this thread. Does
> anyone know what the real issues are?
>
Nobody knows what the real issues are, because nobody knows which court
would be competent. This is an international forum. The relevant court
and the law that apply is the one at the place of offense, which is
hard to define for the Usenet.
There is a special exception for pedophilia, for which US and German
citizen can be condemned by their local court (so as to curb sex
tourism), but it wasn't the case here. Tiffany is seeing boys her age.
This being said, Tiffany said she was in her "late teens", which could
be understood as "over 18" and she was constantly advised against sex
(and drugs), wasn't she?
Jacques Michel
> I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
> _amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
> 889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation
WHO is under 16? How do you know that? Serious and real question.
Now for a real and serious advice:
We have had members discussing privacy here.
My opinion is that it would be unwise, and I mean unwise as in "risking
your life because psychotic people do exist" for any young female
member (and also any young male member) to post any message stating
that she enjoys any promiscuous activity on any internet public forum,
if her real identity and address can be traced back.
The last thing I want is some wacko deciding a 18 year old female
enjoying blow jobs (or whatever) should be brought back in his idea of
God's way... at gunpoint.
And, just for the record, I define "young" as "not able to defend
herself", which could include any age between zero and 120 years. You
have been warned.
Of course, this advice, which IMHO is plain common sense, makes it
impossible to assert the age of a given poster. Which does not mean
that we should advice young people (even if of age) to practice
indiscriminate promiscuity. But we have not done that.
Anonymous Jack
PR wrote:
> If she is a minor, for adults, who are not her parents nor her guardian
> and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
> this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
> group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
> indeed, a minor.
>
> FWIW I think this issue needs clarifying for everyone's sake.
>
> It was not my intention to start a debate on this issue,
Fair' nuff, but SSG is a forum for discussing sexual topics. Debating
is what we do best :)
> but simply to state the fact that, in some U.S. jurisdictions and probably under
> Federal law as well,, the conversation and debate with Tiffany 899 is
> illegal even though she is apparently wise beyond her years.
I took a quick look at Title 18 of the US Code; statute there seems to
be primarily prohibition against visual depiction, producing,
possessing, etc., not discussing or education. Is there somewhere else
we should look? Any lawyers want to chime in here? I heard they do a
lot of screwing... just kidding :)
> I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
> _amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
> 889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation and an
> 'esteemed' elder of the group who offers himself up to any zealous
> prosecutor as a sacrificial lamb.
Not sure there is a federal law (Canadian federal legislation is so
much easier to search than US federal) against the type of casual
conversation, as long as no one solicits or induces her to travel for
sexual acts (I think - not a lawyer). First amendment thing.
> My guess is that, even if he were
> ultimately to prevail in court, his unreimbursable legal fees would be
> well up into the six figures.
You'd think the ACLU would do pro bono on this one...
> While I am a virtual absolutist in my
> defense of this country's first amendment, I think one should know the
> potential consequences, especially these days, of setting one's self up
> as a potential test case. BTW, one person's offer to serve as the test
> case for the group does, in no way, insure hir selection nor that many
> won't be prosecuted.
Good points, again, thanks.
<snip some consequences>
> While there are many loopholes in the law, are you willing to put your
> life, your job, your family on hold and become a test case?
And keep in mind the current political climate... the US gov'ment may
not be playing by the rules...
suzee
> PR wrote:
>
>>I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
>>_amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
>>889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation
>
>
> WHO is under 16? How do you know that? Serious and real question.
True. She just said some of the kids in her area who don't work, can't,
because they're under 16. She never said she was herself.
> Now for a real and serious advice:
>
> We have had members discussing privacy here.
>
> My opinion is that it would be unwise, and I mean unwise as in "risking
> your life because psychotic people do exist" for any young female
> member (and also any young male member) to post any message stating
> that she enjoys any promiscuous activity on any internet public forum,
> if her real identity and address can be traced back.
>
> The last thing I want is some wacko deciding a 18 year old female
> enjoying blow jobs (or whatever) should be brought back in his idea of
> God's way... at gunpoint.
>
> And, just for the record, I define "young" as "not able to defend
> herself", which could include any age between zero and 120 years. You
> have been warned.
Regardless of age, yes, it's a good point.
> Of course, this advice, which IMHO is plain common sense, makes it
> impossible to assert the age of a given poster. Which does not mean
> that we should advice young people (even if of age) to practice
> indiscriminate promiscuity. But we have not done that.
No we haven't.
sue
Sagittaria
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> It was not my intention to start a debate on this issue, but simply to
> state the fact that, in some U.S. jurisdictions and probably under
> Federal law as well,, the conversation and debate with Tiffany 899 is
> illegal even though she is apparently wise beyond her years.
Sorry, I believe you're wrong. Got any specific laws I can read?
Elizabeth
PR wrote:
> I've not posted to this group in quite a while though I do try to read
> it often.
>
> It appears to me that, in spite of her age, Tiffany 899 can hold her
> own with the best of us and may well be wise beyond her years.
> Unfortunately, however, I thought I ought to point out to you that her
> chronological age may, in fact, present a serious problem to those
> engaging her in these d iscussions.
I don't think engaging her in these discussions is against any law. I
think inviting her to some salacious sex romp would probably contravene
laws here in Australia, or where you are in the US. On ssg we do not do
the latter. We debate, discuss, and examine matters of sexuality,
that's all.
>
> If she is a minor, for adults, who are not her parents nor her guardian
> and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
> this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
> group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
> indeed, a minor.
I don't think so.
>
> FWIW I think this issue needs clarifying for everyone's sake.
>
> It was not my intention to start a debate on this issue, but simply to
> state the fact that, in some U.S. jurisdictions and probably under
> Federal law as well,, the conversation and debate with Tiffany 899 is
> illegal even though she is apparently wise beyond her years.
Ssg is the place for a debate.
>
> I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
> _amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
> 889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation
We don't know Tiff is under 16. I don't she's said anything of the
kind. Talking about sexuality is not against the law here in Australia,
and, I gather, in the US or the UK, or Europe.
and an
> 'esteemed' elder of the group who offers himself up to any zealous
> prosecutor as a sacrificial lamb.
A joke, Joyce. Norton jokes.
My guess is that, even if he were
> ultimately to prevail in court, his unreimbursable legal fees would be
> well up into the six figures.
You gotta learn to larf!
While I am a virtual absolutist in my
> defense of this country's first amendment,
Your country's first amendment. You need to realize that ssg is an
international community.
I think one should know the
> potential consequences, especially these days, of setting one's self up
> as a potential test case. BTW, one person's offer to serve as the test
> case for the group does, in no way, insure hir selection nor that many
> won't be prosecuted.
You're getting your knickers in a knot, here.
>
> I have no idea of what the rules are outside the U.S.A., but the
> following are the probable consequences of being chosen for legal
> investigation in this matter in the U.S.:
>
> 1. They can confiscate all your computer and electronic equipment
> including all disks and programs and you can be prevented from using
> the Internet.
>
> 2. In some cases if you have minor children in your home social
> services agencies can be called in and your children removed from your
> home even if you aren't charged.
>
> 3. Your activities can be placed on public record if you are charged
> which can lead to loss of job, family troubles and public humiliation.
>
> 4. Even if you are found innocent of all charges you may find yourself
> with impossible legal fees and with charges from numerous federal,
> state, and local law enforcement agencies.
>
> 5. You can be charged. Even if you are found innocent it will become
> part of your public police record. If you are found guilty you become a
> felon (in some cases), can be assessed fines and your name can be
> placed on a sex offenders list. And you can find yourself unable to
> vote and hold certain jobs.
>
> 6. Depending on where you are located and with whom your activities
> have been conducted, information can be shared with numerous law
> enforcement agencies all of which can investigate and charge you.
>
> While there are many loopholes in the law, are you willing to put your
> life, your job, your family on hold and become a test case?
As I say, talking about sexuality with Tiffany (and we don't know how
old she is, really) is not against the law, as far as I'm aware. Trying
to set up clandestine meetings with her would be against the law. Ssg
is not a pick-up site; it is a place for debate, discussion and
examination of issues to do with sexuality.
Nanook
> PR wrote:
> > I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
> > _amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
> > 889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation
>
> WHO is under 16? How do you know that? Serious and real question.
Actually I don't think we do know that. Someone asked why someone might
not be able to get a job, she said because they might be under 16, she did not
say that SHE was under 16, or that was why SHE couldn't get a job.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
>news:dpfg7o$4ib$3...@reader2.panix.com:
>> Sagittaria <sagitta...@emailias.com> wrote:
>>>I'll point out that we have no idea what
>>>anyone's real age here is - you could say you're 14 and really be
>>>37, or I could say I'm 37 and really be 14.
>>
>> I was 17 for a week about a year ago, but nobody believed me.
>>
>> Norton.
>I believed you.
Ouch!
:-)
Norton.
Norton
Was it 14? I don't remember. It was too long ago.
Norton.
Norton
I'm not worried. One look at me and any prosecutor will
know that I'm far more likely to be interested in his mother.
Norton, not in a good mood tonight.
Norton
Not being a lawyer I don't know the law in this sort of situation.
I do know that the appropriate laws vary from state to state. They
were designed to either give grounds for prosecuting pedophiles
or to (in some states) ensure that children only learned about
sex from their parents and playmates, or both.
I remember what I heard on the street. It wasn't pretty.
But it was mostly wrong.
Norton.
Norton
In cases like this, yes. I strongly doubt a jury would convict
me here in New York. Of course all my postings would be put
into evidence and the judge and jury would have to read them,
which might be classified as cruel and unusual punishment.
More seriously, I have no idea what the law is in New York.
And while I am aware that there have been cases prosecuted
in the US, I don't recall the circumstances very well, except
that they were very overt attempts at seduction.
That said, I am glad that you've warned everyone. But let's
not go overboard on fear.
Norton.
Norton
That's another point. For all I know, Alexis is 10 and
JustGB is 7 and very advanced for her age.
And for all we know, Tiffany may be 49.
Norton, refusing to be intimidated.
suzee
> In article <1136405374....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>PR wrote:
>>
>>>I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
>>>_amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
>>>889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation
>>
>>WHO is under 16? How do you know that? Serious and real question.
>
>
> Actually I don't think we do know that. Someone asked why someone might
> not be able to get a job, she said because they might be under 16, she did not
> say that SHE was under 16, or that was why SHE couldn't get a job.
Exactly. She mentioned some of her friends and the other kids at school,
but not herself. It happens that kids of different ages hang out
together, my sons are 3½ years apart and they hung out with the same
bunch while in 8th and 11th grades. Some were siblings and the group
ranged from 13 to 16.
sue
sue
Jana
"suzee" <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in message
news:43bb4c39$0$72599$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Jana wrote:
>
>> Oh shut up a bit, will you :-)
>>
>> Yes, a number of people are treating Tiffany with lack of respect for her
>> age. I hope she stays around and they see her for her potential, and she
>> certainly seems strong enough to stand up to them. But a few of us are
>> just plain concerned that her attitude is a jerk-attractor, and the way
>> she describes the guys she's been with fits this image. It would be a
>> jerk-attractor at any age. Even yours ;-)
>
> Though it sounds like there's a lot of jerks around the area she lives, so
> maybe it's not her behavior that's attracting them. That may be all there
> are.
Of course, that's a possibility. I must say that I think that most of the
guys I knew till I was about 16 or so neatly fit the jerk category.
>
> sue
>
Jana
JustGB
Norton wrote:
>
> Norton, not in a good mood tonight.
JustGB
JustGB
Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> This being said, Tiffany said she was in her "late teens", which could
> be understood as "over 18"
Could be but shouldn't be.
> and she was constantly advised against sex
> (and drugs), wasn't she?
No.
JustGB, the spoilsport
JustGB
If *that's* going to be your defense strategy, I'm not so sure I want
to contribute to the fund....
JustGB <who's age actually does contain 7, many many times>
JustGB
Norton wrote:
> >PR wrote:
>
> >> If she is a minor, for adults, who are not her parents nor her guardian
> >> and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
> >> this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
> >> group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
> >> indeed, a minor.
> >>
> >> FWIW I think this issue needs clarifying for everyone's sake.
>
> >I still have not seen any legal clarification in this thread. Does
> >anyone know what the real issues are?
>
> I do know that the appropriate laws vary from state to state. They
> were designed to either give grounds for prosecuting pedophiles
> or to (in some states) ensure that children only learned about
> sex from their parents and playmates, or both.
>
> I remember what I heard on the street. It wasn't pretty.
> But it was mostly wrong.
Fortunately, we live on another street here and we know what we're
talking about. Whew.
JustGB
JustGB
Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> Of course, this advice, which IMHO is plain common sense, makes it
> impossible to assert the age of a given poster. Which does not mean
> that we should advice young people (even if of age) to practice
> indiscriminate promiscuity. But we have not done that.
JM, ignorance of the fact that a person is a minor is NOT a defense in
a legal case in the United States and probably not anywhere. The fact
that many people find Tiff mature does NOT mean she is of age. Given
the conversations here, it would be hard to claim that we all thought
she was in her 40s pretending to be in high school. Again, it is no
defense.
Be careful. Just because you didn't believe you were doing anything
wrong, if indeed it is against the law, doesn't mean the law will be
put aside for you.
JustGB, very sad that the law does not distinguish between good and bad
conversations...
Jacques Michel
>
> JM, ignorance of the fact that a person is a minor is NOT a defense in
> a legal case in the United States and probably not anywhere.
I am not talking about ignoring her age, but about it being
*impossible* to know. There is a difference.
JustGB
Ignorance of a fact is not ignoring the fact. It is simply not
knowing. It makes no difference if it is impossible to know or if you
just didn't bother to find out or if someone lied.
Enough.
JustGB
Jacques Michel
JustGB schrieb:
In my part of the world, the courts make a difference between "did not
bother to find out" and "could not have known". The US may be different.
ChrisB
> "PR" <pr...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:1136303644.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I've not posted to this group in quite a while though I do try to read
>>it often.
>>
>>It appears to me that, in spite of her age, Tiffany 899 can hold her
>>own with the best of us and may well be wise beyond her years.
>>Unfortunately, however, I thought I ought to point out to you that her
>>chronological age may, in fact, present a serious problem to those
>>engaging her in these d iscussions.
>>
>>and have permission from neither, to be joining her in discussions of
>>this type may well be a crime and that is paricularly true after the
>>group has been put on notice as to the strong possibility that she is,
>>indeed, a minor.
>>
>>FWIW I think this issue needs clarifying for everyone's sake.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Jana
>
>
I don't know about illegal but it is definately against policy for a Bus
Driver in my School District in Oklahoma to talk to minors about sex and
sexuality.
<grumble>
As has been discussd before, there is a vocal contigent that says that
not talking about sex, other than don't have it, will prevent teens from
having sex. Doesn't work, but these are the people who also want to
have creationism/intelligent design officially replace evolution in
science cirriculum in schools.
</grumble>
Anonymous Jack
> In my part of the world, the courts make a difference between "did not
> bother to find out" and "could not have known". The US may be different.
I didn't have any luck in the US Code the other day, but didn't want to
spend a lot of time looking (it's a morass). However, code for my
state is different:
750.145d (1) A person shall not use the internet or a computer,
computer program, computer network, or computer system to communicate
with any person for the purpose of doing any of the following:
(a) Committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or
soliciting another person to commit conduct proscribed under section
<snipped sections of law>, in which the victim or intended victim *is a
minor or is believed by that person to be a minor.*
Note the emphasized area; *believed by that person to be a minor.*
if the person represents themself as a minor and you can't convince a
court that you had reasonable evidence that they weren't a minor, you
are treated as having committed the offense against a minor.
In the stings I've read about (usually state police rather than federal
agencies, come to think of it, which leads me to believe there is not a
federal law but numerous state laws), police represent themselves as
minors in chat rooms, etc.
There is no prosecution until someone attempts to meet the minor in
real life. So it appears that discussing sexual matters with teenagers
isn't usually prosecuted (there may be other prohibitions, such as
school bus drivers not discussing sexuality, etc).
Jacques Michel
>
> Note the emphasized area; *believed by that person to be a minor.*
>
> if the person represents themself as a minor and you can't convince a
> court that you had reasonable evidence that they weren't a minor, you
> are treated as having committed the offense against a minor.
>
Tiffany did not present herself as a minor and we have no reason to
believe she is. Or more specifically we have no information what side
of her 18th birthday she is. She said: "late teens".
Alexis D
> Tiffany did not present herself as a minor and
> we have no reason to believe she is. Or more
> specifically we have no information what side
> of her 18th birthday she is. She said: "late
> teens".
I'm not going back to check.. but I believe she said in her "teens" not
late teens...
Alexis <likes to be accurate>
Jacques Michel
You are correct. I thought she said "late teens", but I was mistaken.
Anonymous Jack
> Anonymous Jack wrote:
> > Note the emphasized area; *believed by that person to be a minor.*
>
> believe she is. Or more specifically we have no information what side
> of her 18th birthday she is. She said: "late teens".
My statement was more of a response to:
> In my part of the world, the courts make a difference between "did not
> bother to find out" and "could not have known". The US may be different
rather than specifically about Tiffany. You can't truly know how old
Tiffany is, but since there are some indications she *might* be a
minor, you wouldn't (in my state) be able to use "I could not have
known how old she really was" as a defense.
Oddly, in my state, the age of consent for sex is 16 years old and a
minor is an unemancipated person under the age of 18.
Unless I'm mistaken then, in my state you can't legally arrange for
certain acts using the internet if the other person is under 18 (or you
believe them to be under 18) but you can legally *do* the acts in as
long as they are over 16.
Also, since the language prohibits the "use the internet or a computer,
computer program, computer network, or computer system" for those
crimes, that means I can't use my computer to write dirty notes to my
17 year old lover, even though I can do to her what I can't write about
:(
christina
>Jacques Michel wrote:
>> PR wrote:
>>
>>>I'd not have gone beyond my initial statemnent, but I've seen some
>>>_amazing_ reactions to my comment, including some of you encouraging Ms
>>>889, who we now know is under 16, to stay in the conversation
>>
>>
>> WHO is under 16? How do you know that? Serious and real question.
>
>True. She just said some of the kids in her area who don't work, can't,
>because they're under 16. She never said she was herself.
>
>> Now for a real and serious advice:
>>
>> We have had members discussing privacy here.
>>
>> My opinion is that it would be unwise, and I mean unwise as in "risking
>> your life because psychotic people do exist" for any young female
>> member (and also any young male member) to post any message stating
>> that she enjoys any promiscuous activity on any internet public forum,
>> if her real identity and address can be traced back.
>>
>> The last thing I want is some wacko deciding a 18 year old female
>> enjoying blow jobs (or whatever) should be brought back in his idea of
>> God's way... at gunpoint.
>>
>> And, just for the record, I define "young" as "not able to defend
>> herself", which could include any age between zero and 120 years. You
>> have been warned.
>
>Regardless of age, yes, it's a good point.
>
>> Of course, this advice, which IMHO is plain common sense, makes it
>> impossible to assert the age of a given poster. Which does not mean
>> that we should advice young people (even if of age) to practice
>> indiscriminate promiscuity. But we have not done that.
>
>No we haven't.
>
I think the OP wasn't so much concerned about the rights and wrongs of
the situation, but whether anyone here can afford to be charged and
prosecuted, whatever the outcome. Some gung-ho prosecuting legal type
(depending on country) might decide to make a name for him/herself by
tackling ssg members. What has right and wrong got to do with the
law, and especially legal process?
christina
Elizabeth
Anonymous Jack wrote:
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> > In my part of the world, the courts make a difference between "did not
> > bother to find out" and "could not have known". The US may be different.
>
> I didn't have any luck in the US Code the other day, but didn't want to
> spend a lot of time looking (it's a morass). However, code for my
> state is different:
>
> 750.145d (1) A person shall not use the internet or a computer,
> computer program, computer network, or computer system to communicate
> with any person for the purpose of doing any of the following:
> (a) Committing, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or
> soliciting another person to commit conduct proscribed under section
> <snipped sections of law>, in which the victim or intended victim *is a
> minor or is believed by that person to be a minor.*
>
> Note the emphasized area; *believed by that person to be a minor.*
I suggest we emphasize: "Committing, attempting to commit, conspiring
to commit, or soliciting another person to commit conduct proscribed
under section...., in which the victim or intended victim is "a minor
or is believed by that person to be a minor". I again note that we on
ssg do *not* commit or conspire to commit or solicit minors for sexual
purposes. This latter seems to be what many posters are ignoring on
this thread.
As this legal extract indicates, merely debating, discussing and
examining sexual practices does not come anywhere close to committing,
conspiring to commit or soliciting minors for sexual purposes.
>
> if the person represents themself as a minor and you can't convince a
> court that you had reasonable evidence that they weren't a minor, you
> are treated as having committed the offense against a minor.
>
> In the stings I've read about (usually state police rather than federal
> agencies, come to think of it, which leads me to believe there is not a
> federal law but numerous state laws), police represent themselves as
> minors in chat rooms, etc.
>
> There is no prosecution until someone attempts to meet the minor in
> real life. So it appears that discussing sexual matters with teenagers
> isn't usually prosecuted (there may be other prohibitions, such as
> school bus drivers not discussing sexuality, etc).
Yes, that's what I keep saying.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
Firstly, Ms. Tiffany would have to be overtly sexually solicited for an
adult to be prosecuted to any extent in relation to her. Second,
someone would have to press charges, either Tiffany herself or a
concerned parent/guardian/relative. Since it's generally frowned upon
to solicit group members regardless of age, I doubt Ms. Tiffany is in
any danger of being indecently solicited.
Orlando
serene
<of...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Firstly, Ms. Tiffany would have to be overtly sexually solicited for an
>adult to be prosecuted to any extent in relation to her. Second,
>someone would have to press charges, either Tiffany herself or a
>concerned parent/guardian/relative. Since it's generally frowned upon
>to solicit group members regardless of age, I doubt Ms. Tiffany is in
>any danger of being indecently solicited.
Another option: Tiffany could be a cop. (Not saying she is, just
saying that if she were, no one would have to press charges; the state
would take care of that.)
serene (using state in the general sense)
Nanook
I might add that nobody here is trying to solicit Tiffany to conduct
said comment, a couple of individuals are trying to do quite the opposite,
while the rest are merely non-judgemental observers.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
JustGB
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> Since it's generally frowned upon
> to solicit group members regardless of age, I doubt Ms. Tiffany is in
> any danger of being indecently solicited.
>
No wonder! I thought it was maybe my choice in perfume .... :-(
JustGB
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Another option: Tiffany could be a cop. (Not saying she is, just
>saying that if she were, no one would have to press charges; the state
>would take care of that.)
These laws are quite hypocritical, as everyone knows. Teenagers do it
with older people all the time and only get caught either if their
parents press charges or if one of the parties decides they've been
raped. If local cops somewhere have hatched a plan of impersonating a
Tiffany and participating in one of SSG's longest threads about oral
sex, any solicitous guys will get what they deserve by falling for the
"trap".
Orlando
Jacques Michel
serene wrote:
>
> Another option: Tiffany could be a cop.
I find this hard to believe.
Elizabeth
Guess what. We're fighting shadows. Tiff's gone - which is a great
shame, in my view.
Jacques Michel
I really hope she is not gone. She was a nice person. And as a father,
I prefer to be informed about the mores of the young generations rather
than close my eyes to the changes.
Anonymous Jack
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> > serene wrote:
> > > Another option: Tiffany could be a cop.
Nah, a cop would be bored after a while. Better fishing in chat rooms,
or forums where more kids hang out. SSG's average age is, what,
something like 40 or 50? Low age in the 20's?
> > I find this hard to believe.
>
> Guess what. We're fighting shadows. Tiff's gone - which is a great
> shame, in my view.
Ditto. Hopefully, she's still lurking about. Wave if you are - you
won't get anyone here in trouble.
Y'know, I just remembered something... I read and post through Google -
I know many people don't - but Googe has a disclaimer you have to click
on, stating that you are over age 18 and don't object to sexually
explicit discussion, or somehting like that.
Sarah
>Tiff's gone
*very angry Sarah*
Young people need to be able to learn about sex and sexuality. I get
so pissed off when my forum (not ssg) has to ban people who has
slipped up and told they are under 18.
Each this happens, I remind myself, "well, my forum is owned by
individual who live in places where telling minors about sex is
illegal. At least ssg, which is not owned by any individuals, but is
simply an international intrest group, is not bound by these
ridiculous laws."
For gods' sakes. I'm so angry I can hardly see.
Bah!
--
If you want to contact me directly, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
Ta :)
"Driving fast is like having a large penis and thinking that makes you GGTW"
Jana
"Sarah" <STwoUnde...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:5s4tr15imvr5m8u8g...@4ax.com...
> "Elizabeth" <eli_...@yahoo.com.au> said:
>
>>Tiff's gone
>
> *very angry Sarah*
>
> Young people need to be able to learn about sex and sexuality. I get
> so pissed off when my forum (not ssg) has to ban people who has
> slipped up and told they are under 18.
>
> Each this happens, I remind myself, "well, my forum is owned by
> individual who live in places where telling minors about sex is
> illegal. At least ssg, which is not owned by any individuals, but is
> simply an international intrest group, is not bound by these
> ridiculous laws."
>
> For gods' sakes. I'm so angry I can hardly see.
>
> Bah!
>
If she really is gone... Well, then this whole thing will leave a very
bitter taste in my mouth.
Jana
Anonymous Jack
> "Sarah" wrote in...
>
I don't think she's gone for good; just lurking a bit - I hope!
(or possibly busy, as most kids are back in school now).
She's been with us since, oh, 2004/2003 or thereabouts. I remember her
from an "anal sex on a first date" thread/posting - because 899 is such
a unique last name, of course! :)
PR
Yesterday, through Google, I attempted to post a citation to, and a
quote from, a U.S. Federal statute describing the penalties for having
the kind of discussion with someone under 18 that was going on on SSG
recently, but my posts go to the moderators before being posted and
that one either disappeared with one of them or into cyberspace or may
still show up some day. Who knows?.
I have been interested in some of the blanket reactions, even from
people not in the U.S. who categorically state that such internet
conversations are legal all over the U.S, in Europe, in the UK and
Australia. I've no clue as to the laws on the subject beyond the U.S.
borders and far from complete knowledge of those applicable statutes
within these borders. It must be nice to have such a broad wealth of
legal knowledge as possessed by some of you.
I was glad to see that many of you understood that, in today's
political climate in the U.S. - which is the only place I mentioned -
there is considerable risk entailed, regardless of the merits, in
having such a conversation with someone under 18. You will note,
though it is far from an identical situation, that ONE of the reasons
porn sites give for requiring credit cards for access is that minors
tend not to have credit cards and this action tends to show a good
faith effort on the part of the sites to keep out minors.
BTW, while Tiffany 889 may very well reappear and while some of you
who, because of bravado, blind ignorance or some more noble reason,
wish for that to happen, does anyone wonder at all why, since my
original post pointing out the potential legal risks entailed in her
participation, nary a peep has been heard from her?
At any rate, those of you who are going to get my point seem to have
gotten it; those who will never get it, will only get it, apparently,
after they are taught it the hard way. Hopefully that won't happen.
On the subject of Tiffany 889 and the law, however, I have said my last
and I'm sure that will upset no one. <g>.
suzee
> I was glad to see that many of you understood that, in today's
> political climate in the U.S. - which is the only place I mentioned -
> there is considerable risk entailed, regardless of the merits, in
> having such a conversation with someone under 18. You will note,
> though it is far from an identical situation, that ONE of the reasons
> porn sites give for requiring credit cards for access is that minors
> tend not to have credit cards and this action tends to show a good
> faith effort on the part of the sites to keep out minors.
Because it is absolutely illegal for those under 18 to *view* porn
images in many jurisdictions. The legality or illegality of discussing
sexuality in general terms is more vague.
> BTW, while Tiffany 889 may very well reappear and while some of you
> who, because of bravado, blind ignorance or some more noble reason,
> wish for that to happen, does anyone wonder at all why, since my
> original post pointing out the potential legal risks entailed in her
> participation, nary a peep has been heard from her?
That isn't true. Since you first posted your warning, she wrote a few
more posts, offering to quit posting if it would mean someone *might*
get in trouble.
She may very well be back in school and doesn't have time to make posts.
We'll see.
sue
Jana
>
> Elizabeth wrote:
>> Jacques Michel wrote:
>> > serene wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Another option: Tiffany could be a cop.
>> >
>> > I find this hard to believe.
>>
>>
>> Guess what. We're fighting shadows. Tiff's gone - which is a great
>> shame, in my view.
>
> Yesterday, through Google, I attempted to post a citation to, and a
> quote from, a U.S. Federal statute describing the penalties for having
> the kind of discussion with someone under 18 that was going on on SSG
> recently, but my posts go to the moderators before being posted and
> that one either disappeared with one of them or into cyberspace or may
> still show up some day. Who knows?.
>
> I have been interested in some of the blanket reactions, even from
> people not in the U.S. who categorically state that such internet
> conversations are legal all over the U.S, in Europe, in the UK and
> Australia. I've no clue as to the laws on the subject beyond the U.S.
> borders and far from complete knowledge of those applicable statutes
> within these borders. It must be nice to have such a broad wealth of
> legal knowledge as possessed by some of you.
>
The age of consent in my country is 14. It applies to the right to act as a
minister when marrying two people. Also, if the age difference between two
people having sex is over 5 years, and the younger one is under 14, it is
considered sexual abuse. But if you are 13 and want to have sex with someone
who is 15, nobody can legally stop you.
> I was glad to see that many of you understood that, in today's
> political climate in the U.S. - which is the only place I mentioned -
> there is considerable risk entailed, regardless of the merits, in
> having such a conversation with someone under 18.
It does not matter that the US is the only place you mentioned. What matters
is that the ssg is not US property, and that quite a few of us are not from
the US.
> BTW, while Tiffany 889 may very well reappear and while some of you
> who, because of bravado, blind ignorance or some more noble reason,
> wish for that to happen, ...
I wish for that to happen because I would like to talk to her some more.
That you can get landed in jail for something you do when communicating with
her because your country has laws that don't recognize teenagers as sexual
beings - is not my problem. It is up to you not to communicate with her or
to be careful when doing so if your country can prosecute you for it.
> does anyone wonder at all why, since my
> original post pointing out the potential legal risks entailed in her
> participation, nary a peep has been heard from her?
>
I do. And if it has to do with your post, I am even more bitter. The US
prevails yet again.
> At any rate, those of you who are going to get my point seem to have
> gotten it; those who will never get it, will only get it, apparently,
> after they are taught it the hard way. Hopefully that won't happen.
> On the subject of Tiffany 889 and the law, however, I have said my last
> and I'm sure that will upset no one. <g>.
>
Jana
Elizabeth
As I keep reiterating, soc.sexuality.general is NOT a pickup joint; it
is a discussion space only.
PR, I think your abrasive tone re: those of us who suggest that your
so-called warning regarding talking to minors about sexuality as
maintaining our ignorance is not only slightly offensive but also a
little irritating. I, for one, really think you are barking up a very
erroneous tree. The laws regarding soliticitation of minors for sexual
rendevous does not apply here. We are not, again I say, a pickup joint.
We cannot be prosecuted for anything we do here. We are a discussion
space only and ssg is moderated. Salacious pickup lines are weeded out
by us moderators.
Tom Allen
>
> If she really is gone... Well, then this whole thing will leave a very
> bitter taste in my mouth.
Gosh, Jana, considering that the majority of the discussion was about
oral sex...
Tom (not going to make the obvious pun)
--
Q - Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip?
A - To get to the other... uh ... er ...
Elizabeth
This is an interesting & pertinent article:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/cyberlaw/ny_decency.html 'A
coalition of trade associations, electronic publishers and civil
liberties groups filed suit on Jan 14, 1996, challenging that a New
York law imposing criminal penalties for electronic transmission of
"indecent" material "harmful to minors" is an unconstitutional
restriction of speech.'
The main gist of the arguments presented is that restricting access to
minors of literature/discussion/etc of a sexual nature effectly means
restricting access to adults to the same lit/disc/etc that is deemed
suitable for minors. As such, this constitutes an unconstitutional
restriction of speech.
I think those who are terrified of being interrogated by the police for
sharing words about sexual practices might be very interested in the
legal arguments suggested in the above article.
Anonymous Jack
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > Guess what. We're fighting shadows. Tiff's gone - which is a great
> > shame, in my view.
>
> Yesterday, through Google, I attempted to post a citation to, and a
> quote from, a U.S. Federal statute describing the penalties for having
> the kind of discussion with someone under 18 that was going on on SSG
> recently, but my posts go to the moderators before being posted and
> that one either disappeared with one of them or into cyberspace or may
> still show up some day. Who knows?.
Google had some problems just after the Holidays. Or at least I had
some problems with certain threads. However, I would like to see the
statute reposted, if you are able, or at least the title and section.
All of the conversation with Tiffany, at least what I can recall, would
be protected by the First Amendment.
> I have been interested in some of the blanket reactions, even from
> people not in the U.S. who categorically state that such internet
> conversations are legal all over the U.S, in Europe, in the UK and Australia.
I'd still like to see the section of US code that leads you to believe
the types of conversation involved so far with Tiffany are illegal. I
took a brief look at US criminal code and didn't find it, nor did I
find it within my state code.
> I was glad to see that many of you understood that, in today's
> political climate in the U.S. - which is the only place I mentioned -
> there is considerable risk entailed, regardless of the merits, in
> having such a conversation with someone under 18.
Your reminder was appreciated, by me at least. I do a bit of joking
around - some of tha joking could be misconstrued as an attempt to
solicit sex, and that would be very wrong if I had reason to believe
the other person was a minor.
> BTW, while Tiffany 889 may very well reappear and while some of you who, because
> of bravado, blind ignorance or some more noble reason, wish for that to happen,
Or we just enjoy an open, honest discussion. Not convinced yet that
anything illegal is happening...
> does anyone wonder at all why, since my original post pointing out the potential legal
> risks entailed in her participation, nary a peep has been heard from her?
You aren't implying that Tiffany disappearing is because the
discussions are illegal, are you? As we said... school, boredom... for
all we know, she met a nice guy and has been busy doing what you say is
illegal to talk about :)
> Hopefully that won't happen. On the subject of Tiffany 889 and the law, however,
> I have said my last and I'm sure that will upset no one. <g>.
Well, you have opened up an interesting (to me) discussion on a First
Amendment issue here in the US as it relates to discussions of
sexuality and minors. Though I will be slightly annoyed if I don't
eventually see the title and section of the US code you referred to :)
(a la Fibonacci's scribbled margin note (paraphrase): "I have
discovered a wonderful proof of my theorem, but I don't have space to
write it here")
christina
wrote:
Better be careful Jana, the US might have an extraditiion treaty with
Serbia. Or, if you visit Canada you might find yourself in trouble.
christina
christina
wrote:
Recently in the US a man was prosecuted by the movie industry because
his young grandson was downloading movies. He was the legally
responsible adult. Surely if tiff is accessing sexually explicit
content on the net then it is her parents fault (or whoever is in loco
parentis). BTW, I don't think she uses google groups, so probably
doesn't get the warning, but nonetheless she is someone's
responsibility.
That being said, legal process can ruin people, even if they are in
the right. It's not a just world. Anyone who believes otherwise is a
fool (in my opinion).
chistina
Jacques Michel
> We cannot be prosecuted for anything we do here. We are a discussion
> space only and ssg is moderated. Salacious pickup lines are weeded out
> by us moderators.
Actually, the fact that s.s.g. is moderated is a further problem. The
moderators bears the responsibility of allowing the discussion to take
place. I think they would be the first to be prosecuted.
I would be ready to send money to their defense fund is such thing ever
happens, but this is not the question.
Anonymous Jack
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > We cannot be prosecuted for anything we do here. We are a discussion
> > space only and ssg is moderated. Salacious pickup lines are weeded out
> > by us moderators.
>
> Actually, the fact that s.s.g. is moderated is a further problem. The
> moderators bears the responsibility of allowing the discussion to take
> place. I think they would be the first to be prosecuted.
Oh lordy, just what Mr. Bush needs to list Oz on the Axis of Evil! <g>
It's still not clear that any US law has been broken (ignoring for the
moment that some of the moderators are not in the US) or will be
broken.
There'd also have to be proof that the moderators knowingly allowed it
to happen. I don't think you could prosecute them when they are taking
reasonable efforts to prevent solicitation/inducement of acts that are
illegal.
GM, Ford and Chrysler don't get successfully sued because of defective
products; they get sued because they knew about the defects and didn't
correct them. Yeah, not a good analogy - civil vs criminal actions;
but you get the idea.
Jana
"christina" <chri...@alphalibrae.com> wrote in message
news:vpmtr1dqdga0emk2d...@4ax.com...
I have not asked her to have sex with me. I have told her that I'm worried
that her motivation for giving blow-jobs is backwards and that she might be
attracting jerks that way. I think that not even the US creationists would
want me in prison for that.
My point is - PR has warned us, so let us take responsibility for our
further actions.
> christina
>
Jana
Jana
"Tom Allen" <taomli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4280r4F...@individual.net...
> Jana wrote:
>
>>
>> If she really is gone... Well, then this whole thing will leave a very
>> bitter taste in my mouth.
>
> Gosh, Jana, considering that the majority of the discussion was about oral
> sex...
>
Yeah, I'm mostly with Elisabeth concerning the tase of such protein...
Jana
suzee
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
>
>>We cannot be prosecuted for anything we do here. We are a discussion
>>space only and ssg is moderated. Salacious pickup lines are weeded out
>>by us moderators.
>
>
>
> Actually, the fact that s.s.g. is moderated is a further problem. The
> moderators bears the responsibility of allowing the discussion to take
> place. I think they would be the first to be prosecuted.
As none of them, to my knowledge, is a US resident, who's going to
prosecute?
sue
christina
A quick look at http://www.socsexualitygeneral.org/ and a minute on
google (not to mention the cornell.edu addy) might suggest otherwise.
christina
Alexis D
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > Actually, the fact that s.s.g. is moderated is
> > a further problem. The moderators bears
> > the responsibility of allowing the discussion
> > to take place. I think they would be the first
> > to be prosecuted.
> As none of them, to my knowledge, is a US
> resident, who's going to prosecute?
The M.D., I believe, is in California -- his name escapes me at the
moment...
Alexis
suzee
I said to my knowledge... never heard of/from Reka and Richard. Though
I've been saying a lot of things this week that were wrong. I plead
brain dead.
sue
sue
suzee
What's an M.D. in this context?
sue
christina
Can't remember what the name was.
Elizabeth
Richard Keech, MD (a co-mod of ssg)
Elizabeth
I've been doing some research on internet law and sexuality, and it
seems the area is still very grey. Where prosecutions seem to be
successful are in the area of the solicitation of minors for sexual
purposes and/or where pornography is displayed and/or promoted. In the
matter of discussions only, it appears any prosecution is on very
shakey ground. One of the reasons for this is that it is very hard to
prove the real age of participants.
As to us mods being the first ones to be prosecuted, well, I don't know
about that. We've moderated incoming messages in accordance with the
ssg charter, only.
Elizabeth
Two mods are US residents.
Elizabeth
It is useful to revisit the SSG Charter to see what we're on about:
[Please note this first: Part III: Disclaimer
The moderators of soc.sexuality.general are not responsible for the
veracity or legality of any posts to soc.sexuality.general. The
moderators are not serving in the capacity of editors or publishers,
and the approval of a post by a moderator is not an endorsement by the
moderator or the Moderator Board. Posters assume full responsibility
for the content of their posts. Readers who use any information that
appears in the newsgroup do so at their own risk. The copyright for
all posts either remains with the poster, or in the public domain, as
appropriate.]
The soc.sexuality.general Charter reads (see
http://socsexualitygeneral.org/rfd.php)
This was the original Request for Discussion (RFD) proposing the
creation of the soc.sexuality.general newsgroup and promulgating its
charter. A discussion of the interpretations of this charter may be
found here.
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group soc.sexuality.general
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup soc.sexuality.general. This is
not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
details are below.
Newsgroup line:
soc.sexuality.general Discussion related to human sexuality
(Moderated).
RATIONALE: soc.sexuality.general
Once upon a time, USENET had a forum for the discussion of human
sexuality, the newsgroup alt.sex. Despite limited propagation, those
lucky enough to have access to a system that carried the group could
participate in a free, even sometimes intelligent, discussion of a
major area of human experience, one that is normally pushed to the
margins in public discourse. At its best, the strength of alt.sex was
the strength of USENET itself -- conversations that were shaped
directly by the interests of the participants, unfiltered by the will
of editors or censors.
The group was successful enough to spawn its own hierarchy of
specialized subtopics, and was often one of the highest volume
non-binary groups on USENET. But the changing demographics of USENET
have altered the group, and its subgroups, beyond recognition.
Commercial interests have discovered that the alt.* groups provide a
cheap and easy method for the mass marketing of phone sex services and
XXX web sites. People interested in finding or trading pornographic
photos have found that the alt.* groups are an easy way to do so, one
that allows considerable anonymity. In theory, this purpose could be
served by the alt.binaries.erotica.* hierarchy, but has spilled over
into the alt.sex.* newsgroups as well. The sex groups are also a
popular target for massive trolling posts.
The vast majority of posts on alt.sex are spam and trolls, commercial
ads and binaries, a catalogue in miniature for many of the problems
that plague USENET in general and the alt groups in particular.
Whatever the proper place of commerce on USENET, alt.sex as a forum
for the discussion of sexuality has been eviscerated. We are
proposing a moderated newsgroup, soc.sexuality.general, to provide
such a forum.
In line with the new newsgroup soc.sexuality.spanking (1), we propose
the group to be part of the soc.sexuality hierarchy. The name
"soc.sexuality.general" was chosen because it was the name, compatible
with the notion of a newsgroup for a general discussion of human
sexuality, that seemed the least controversial.
(1) "2nd RFD: soc.sexuality.spanking"
ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/soc/soc.sexuality.spanking
CHARTER: soc.sexuality.general
The group soc.sexuality.general is a moderated forum for the mature
discussion of sexuality, both in a personal or a political manner.
Suitable topics for discussion include, but are not limited to social
issues, discussions of lifestyles both "alternative" and "mainstream",
questions, and advice.
Soc.sexuality.general will be moderated by software and a backup team
of human moderators. The purpose of moderation will not be to
determine which views will be expressed, but to maintain the newsgroup
as a viable avenue for the mature discussion of human sexuality.
Moderators are volunteers who wish to serve the general USENET
community.
The newsgroup is _not_ for the purpose of posting binaries, requesting
binaries or advice on how to find binaries, personal ads or posts for
the sole purpose of soliciting meetings, erotic fiction, or commercial
advertisements, except as noted below. Off-topic messages, flames,
and trolls are also not appropriate. See below for details.
The newsgroup will be moderated by software coupled with a team of
human moderators. The moderation team will rely as much as possible
on software to moderate the newsgroup, but we recognize that given the
ever-changing nature of Usenet, we will use hand-moderation when
necessary to maintain the viability of the newsgroup.
The moderation team will be structured as follows: a Moderator Board
will be responsible for maintaining the moderation software and the
elaboration and implementation of moderation policies. Additional
moderators may be appointed or dismissed by the Board, and the Board
may appoint or dismiss Board members as necessary. The composition of
the Moderator Board will be posted regularly on the newsgroup and made
available on the World Wide Web.
The following types of messages are inappropriate for the newsgroup,
and may be grounds for rejection by the moderators or the moderation
software. This does not imply that they _will_ be rejected.
1. Messages that fit the profile the moderation software is configured
to automatically reject.
2. Messages that are excessively or inappropriately cross-posted, or
reposted.
3. Binaries or ASCII art, requests for binaries or ASCII art, or
announcements for the availability of such. (Messages that contain
short binary sequences, such as PGP signatures, are acceptable.)
4. Commercial ads, except for products that primarily serve an
educational, historical, or advocacy function. Advertisements may
also be rejected if they are of excessive length, or posted too
frequently. Posts that are advertisements should make it clear in the
subject line.
5. Stories, or other works of erotic fiction.
6. Personal ads, or the solicitation for penpals or face-to-face
meetings of a personal nature.
7. Off-topic posts, and posts on topics that, while related to
sexuality, are more appropriate to other newsgroups. (For example, an
argument on the ethics of abortion may be redirected to
talk.abortion.)
8. Posts that are adequately addressed by the newsgroup FAQ
("Frequently Asked Questions") or other on-line resources.
9. Flame wars (defined for the purposes of this charter as message
exchanges for the primary purpose of trading insults).
10. Trolls (defined for the purposes of this charter as messages
posted for the sole purpose of disrupting the newsgroup).
11. Posts from bogus addresses or domain names. (Addresses that are
deliberately munged to confuse spam e-mail software is acceptable, as
long as moderators can figure out how to unmunge the address, if
necessary. Posters who munge their address, and who plan on posting
to the newsgroup regularly, are requested to munge their address
consistently.) This clause should not be interpreted as excluding
anonymous or pseudonymous posts.
12. Messages from posters or sites that are on the moderation
software's "automatically reject" list. The policies for being placed
on the "automatically reject" list are as follows:
a. Advertisements for photographic or XXX BBSes or web sites, for
phone sex or escort services, singles cruises or introduction
services, are not welcome on this newsgroup. Posters of such messages
will be immediately placed on the "automatically reject" list.
Commercial sites that are known to frequently and heavily advertise
themselves inappropriately on Usenet will be placed on the
"automatically reject" list. Posters or sites who are placed on the
"automatically reject" list for any of the above reasons will remain
on the list permanently unless they successfully appeal to the
Moderator Board.
b. Posters who violate other charter provisions may be placed on the
"automatically reject" list if the Moderator Board determines that
they have violated the posting guidelines twice within 60 days of
being warned of an infraction. The poster remains on this list for up
to 30 days. Repeated infractions may then result, with each
successive offense, of being placed on the "automatically reject" list
for up to 60 days, one year, and then permanently.
The moderators will endeavor to ensure that the actions listed above
will not be applied to users who commit infractions inadvertently or
because of misunderstandings of newsgroup policy (except as outlined
in part a above). All decisions to place a poster on the
"automatically reject" list may be appealed to the Moderator Board.
Part III: Disclaimer
The moderators of soc.sexuality.general are not responsible for the
veracity or legality of any posts to soc.sexuality.general. The
moderators are not serving in the capacity of editors or publishers,
and the approval of a post by a moderator is not an endorsement by the
moderator or the Moderator Board. Posters assume full responsibility
for the content of their posts. Readers who use any information that
appears in the newsgroup do so at their own risk. The copyright for
all posts either remains with the poster, or in the public domain, as
appropriate.
END CHARTER."
suzee
So I see, I didn't know about them; thought there was only you, Sarah
and Devin.
sue
JustGB
> >>> who, because of bravado, blind ignorance or some more noble reason,
> >>> wish for that to happen, ...
One of the stranger aspects of the discussion was the
careful-to-praise-the-maturity paternalism on the one hand coupled with
the accusation of mommy-ism on the other.
>
> I have not asked her to have sex with me. I have told her that I'm worried
> that her motivation for giving blow-jobs is backwards and that she might be
> attracting jerks that way. I think that not even the US creationists would
> want me in prison for that.
You were hardly encouraging her confused behavior. In fact yours was
one of the few voices of reason and concern, IMO.
JustGB
Tom Allen
Sarah is not a US resident ;-)
Tom (just picking at your sentence structure again ;-)
Elizabeth
Two mods are in the USA
And two mods are Australian.
One mod is in, I think, Scandinavia.
Jacques Michel
Anonymous Jack wrote:
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> > Elizabeth wrote:
> > > We cannot be prosecuted for anything we do here. We are a discussion
> > > space only and ssg is moderated. Salacious pickup lines are weeded out
> > > by us moderators.
> >
> > Actually, the fact that s.s.g. is moderated is a further problem. The
> > moderators bears the responsibility of allowing the discussion to take
> > place. I think they would be the first to be prosecuted.
>
> Oh lordy, just what Mr. Bush needs to list Oz on the Axis of Evil! <g>
>
> It's still not clear that any US law has been broken (ignoring for the
> moment that some of the moderators are not in the US) or will be
> broken.
>
I did not say they would be condemned, I said they would be the first
to be prosecuted. I think that whatever presecution would take place,
we have a fair chance to win, but the area is gray enough for it to be
a lengthly process.
Fred....@tds.net
The U.S. federal courts are very vigorous in their defense of free
speech. One of the principles established over and over again has been
that no individual has the right to be free from verbal insult or
discomfort when in a public forum. Generally, people do not need to be
aware of the audience when speaking. If you do not want to hear it, you
should not be there. If a parent does not want a child to hear it, they
should not let their child be there.
That being said, laws pertaining to the restriction of behavior and
granting of privaleges are generally within the domain of state
legislation, not federal. States frequently pass laws restricting
behavior (hate crimes legislation, for example) which take years to get
challenged in court before almost inevitably being declared
unconstitutional. The U.S. legal system is very complicated because of
the state-federal interplay.
> >I think those who are terrified of being interrogated by the police for
> >sharing words about sexual practices might be very interested in the
> >legal arguments suggested in the above article.
>
> Recently in the US a man was prosecuted by the movie industry because
> his young grandson was downloading movies. He was the legally
> responsible adult. Surely if tiff is accessing sexually explicit
> content on the net then it is her parents fault (or whoever is in loco
> parentis). BTW, I don't think she uses google groups, so probably
> doesn't get the warning, but nonetheless she is someone's
> responsibility.
"Pornography" and "sexual explicit content" are not the same. There is
a long history of case law where people have tried to remove sexually
explicit materials from libraries (Henry Miller's books, sexual
education books) by saying that they were pornography, but the courts
have struck the cases down.
This case also highlights another issue: If anyone is responsible for
Tiff's behavior, it is her parents. I doubt that there are any laws
which prevent us from disseminating information that she can access.
There may be laws that prevent her from accessing it (although I doubt
that as well).
christina
Fred....@tds.net wrote:
> This case also highlights another issue: If anyone is responsible for
> Tiff's behavior, it is her parents. I doubt that there are any laws
> which prevent us from disseminating information that she can access.
> There may be laws that prevent her from accessing it (although I doubt
> that as well).
>
As Tiff said, parents have responsibility but no effective control.
They cannot stop teenagers from doing what they want, although they are
responsible for the consequences. No doubt if something happened at
school (ie drugs, solicitation) the parents could sue the school*, but
what if it happens at home? Sue each other maybe.
*Just in case you don't believe this, there was a case in Australia of
a student who sneaked away from school at lunchtime, got involved in a
stone-thowing fight and was hit on the head and wounded. The school
was sued for negligence (inadequate supervision) and lost. What would
have happened if it occurred on the weekend? BTW, as a former
secondary teacher, I can say that razor wire around the school
perimeter and total video surveillance would probably not have
prevented this student escaping custody at lunchtime, let alone a
couple of teachers on yard duty.
christina
suzee
> suzee wrote:
>
>>Elizabeth wrote:
>>
>>>Two mods are US residents.
>>
>>
>>So I see, I didn't know about them; thought there was only you, Sarah
>>and Devin.
>
>
> Sarah is not a US resident ;-)
>
>
> Tom (just picking at your sentence structure again ;-)
:Þ THpppppttt!!
sue
Alexis
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > shame, in my view.
>
> I prefer to be informed about the mores of the young generations rather
> than close my eyes to the changes.
I remember her saying in one post that she wouldn't/couldn't be posting
beyond "next" week (which I assume is now this week). So I gathered
she was going back to school or had some similar obligation. Therefore
any assumptions about why she left may not be accurate...
Alexis