Log in

No account? Create an account
15-year minimun sentence for teen sexting passes House! - Input Junkie
June 2nd, 2017
04:02 pm


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
15-year minimun sentence for teen sexting passes House!

This is monstrous-- 15 year *minimum* for teenagers involved in sexting. "Involved" includes encouraging another teen to sext. The picture doesn't even have to be sent.

Name of bill: "Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017"

Here's the roll call list in case you have a Representative you'd like to praise or punish.


Please call your Senators about this.

You are, of course, under no obligation to read comments at the link, but I'm an occasional comment reader at Reason, and this is the first time I've seen them turn against Republicans in general.

I have phoned my Senators. Both phone lines were open. If you need contact information for your Senators, here it is.


Reason is the nearest thing to a major news organization which has covered the story. Should you have a habit of hating on libertarians, please remember this-- there's so much going wrong that one point of view and one bunch of activists isn't enough to keep it covered.

The other two sites with stories about the anti-sexting bill were
Unicorn Booty (gay) and The Ring of Fire Network (progressive).

This entry was posted at http://nancylebov.dreamwidth.org/1091781.html. Comments are welcome here or there. comment count unavailable comments so far on that entry.

(5 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:June 3rd, 2017 05:45 pm (UTC)
C told me about that and I said, "Have they gone insane?" But I expect both of California's senators are going to vote against it anyway. It might not hurt to encourage them, though.
[User Picture]
Date:June 4th, 2017 04:18 am (UTC)
Thanks! Ganking and re-posting!

I can't believe my own Dem representative voted for this travesty. How is this even constitutional?!?
[User Picture]
Date:June 4th, 2017 09:39 am (UTC)

It looks as though it's making a bad law worse rather than something new, if that matters.
[User Picture]
Date:June 4th, 2017 11:51 pm (UTC)
All sorts of really bad laws are constitutional, though it's conceivable that this one might be subject to challenge as "cruel and unusual punishment." I believe the minimum penalty for forcible rape is less than fifteen years imprisonment in most states, for example. But it's hard to anticipate whether the Supreme Court will overrule an act of Congress or decide to defer to the "political branches."

It seems to me that the United States is going through a serious moral panic about adolescent sexuality, with all the ugly excesses that usually come from moral panics.
[User Picture]
Date:June 13th, 2017 04:04 pm (UTC)
Yes; moral panics about the alleged shocking behavior of some underclass or other are always good for distracting the hoi polloi from the shocking behavior of the ruling class.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Texting is obviously 'speech': it is made of words, the same as talking and writing. Moreover, it is PRIVATE speech, so the arguments re hate-speech do not apply. It is also 100% consensual, since nobody has to participate in it if they don't want to. So again I ask, how is this even constitutional?

Things have come to a pretty pass when corporations buying elections and neo-Nazis publicly screaming for genocide is 'free speech', but teenagers talking to each other in private is a crime worse than forcible rape.

The question I put to my Rep was "As a member of the local Dem party, how am I supposed to convince the young voters that the Democrats aren't just as bad as the Republicans, when you do things like this?"
nancybuttons.com Powered by LiveJournal.com