Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Judge Rules that People Who Believe What they Read on the Internet are Stupid


Look, I despise pedophiles, but how the fuck does a website have a legitimate age-verification procedure? I'm not so sure as to how this would be pulled off, which is why I'm asking. I've never run into anything online that can prevent me, or anyone, from bullshitting their age to gain access.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 30, 2007 12:16 AM

Josh, I think you meant to put "when she says she's 18" (not 14).

Posted by Emma Leigh | August 30, 2007 5:13 AM

Something else I'm confused about -- and I'm sure there's a body of case law about this but I don't feel like looking it up -- but just from a common sense perspective how the fuck is someone supposed to know how old their partner is if the partner lies? I mean, if you're having sex with someone who says they're 18 and it turns out they're 14, how is that your fault?

I can see how you wouldn't want to allow that defense in all cases, because ever pedophile would just claim they'd been lied to; but this was documented. There's proof she lied.

In what other circumstance is a person who gets duped into committing a crime, in spite of a demonstrable lack of criminal intent, actually guilty of wrongdoing?

Posted by Judah | August 30, 2007 7:13 AM

@3: You are correct that statutory rape is unique. Generally, there's a "mens rea" requirement for criminal law: you have to have some sort of criminal intent, which varies from crime to crime, in order to have broken the law. However, regardless of the circumstances, if you have sex with someone under the age of consent, you've committed a crime. Even if you took unreasonable precautions, such as seeing a birth certificate before proceeding with a sexual relationship, you will still be found guilty.

Blame it on the ridiculous level of puritanism that's still present in the law today.

Posted by Keris | August 30, 2007 7:34 AM

and what about the little shit that lied about her age? shouldn't she be punished somehow as well? her lying is at least partially (if not fully) responsible for more or less ruining that guy's life (assuming that he really did believe she was over 18, and that he would not have had sex with her if he had known she was not).

Posted by jameyb | August 30, 2007 9:04 AM


No, she's the "victim" here.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 30, 2007 9:18 AM

Bullshit, I say! What a stupid country we live in.

Posted by Matthew | August 30, 2007 9:59 AM

i've met someone at a bar before.... gone home with them only to find out the next morning they were 18! that can freak you out a bit. i mean, if 18, why not 17, and, uh, problems.....

i think adults should be allowed to opperate under reasonable expectations.

Posted by infrequent | August 30, 2007 10:43 AM

You guys do realize that this case was about whether Sexsearch is liable for the guy fucking himself over. In that case, I completely agree with the judge. The guy knew that the site didn't have a procedure to verify the members' ages. It's not their fault when a member lies.

Posted by keshmeshi | August 30, 2007 1:44 PM

@9 yes, but him being found guilty in this case is as silly as him suing the website. i don't think he should win again sexsearch, but neither do i think he should go to jail. the judge said he should have known, and he's suing to back up his claim that he did try to know... if he won, however, unlikely, that might help him appeal his other case.

Posted by infrequent | August 30, 2007 2:27 PM

when i was thinking about what to say while reading the previous comments, judah's question seemed to be a good one.

but then i thought about it, and i decided that you just shouldn't try to find sex over the internet.

Posted by frequency ass bandit | August 30, 2007 4:24 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).