[extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us...

[Hal Finney]

I found at a couple of the Florida statues under which the DHS spokesman
is being charged; first, 847.0135:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0135.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200135#0847.0135

> (3)  CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES PROHIBITED.--Any person who
> knowingly utilizes a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local
> bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to
> seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by
> the person to be a child, to commit any illegal act described in chapter
> 794, relating to sexual battery; chapter 800, relating to lewdness and
> indecent exposure; or chapter 827, relating to child abuse, commits
> a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082,
> s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

For the purposes of this statute, a child is anyone under age 18.
Note that it applies whether the communication is actually with a child or
merely with a person believed to be a child.  Probably the reason for the
latter is to facilitate "sting" operations like this one.  Without that,
the only way to prosecute would be to expose an actual child to the
materials, which would be counter to the goals of the statute.

He is also said to be charged with 847.0138:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0138.HTM&Title=-%3E2005-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200138#0847.0138

> (2)  Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this
> state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image,
> information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001,
> to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this
> state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in
> s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The language in this one is a little more ambiguous about whether the
person must know that the recipient is a minor.  It starts off with "knew
or believed" but then it says "known by the defendant to be a minor".
The "knew or believed" part could be argued to apply to whether the
material is in fact harmful to minors, and not to the question of whether
the recipient actually is a minor.

Hal

P.S. I deduced what he is charged with from this article:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/NEWS/604060392/1004
"A hearing was scheduled for May 4 to determine whether he should be
extradited to face 23 charges, including multiple counts of using a
computer to seduce a child and transmission of material harmful to
a minor."