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

[Samantha Atkins]

The difference is one of alleged will to virtual sex versus actual  
sex with a minor.  I don't see why virtual sex or much of anything  
else virtual should carry the same penalties as actual acts.   As our  
virtual worlds become more sophisticated the issue gets more  
complex.  Also playing in the background are notions of what a  
"child" is and is not.  Many of us know from our own childhood that  
many "children" are quite sexually sophisticated by their mid-teens  
or in some cases even earlier.  Yet we have laws that say that sex  
between someone over a relatively arbitrary and culturally determined  
age and some one under that arbitrary age is heinously wrong.  That  
may or may not be a reasonable thing.  But to take it into the  
virtual world and to claim that flirtation and sexual play virtually  
between such two people on different sides of this arbitrary age  
barrier is equally heinous is more than a little strained.  Further,  
I believe a younger person might more safely explore some things  
virtually than fumble their way into something similar in meat space.
This might be a relatively good thing in some cases.

- samantha

On Apr 6, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> --- ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>> So does that mean that if someone shot a tree in the mistaken belief
>> that it was a person, they could be prosecuted for murder? Or would
>> it
>> be attempted murder?
>
> Attempted murder.  And this scenario can be made less unlikely if you
> consider the stereotype ninja trick of dressing some
> appropriately-sized object - say, a log or a tree - with one's  
> clothing
> in order to make a passable (in bad light) resemblance to oneself.  If
> the wannabe ninja did this in order to flee someone attempting to kill
> via firearm, and that someone was indeed thus tricked into shooting  
> the
> tree instead of the real target, and a police officer witnessed all of
> this - then, yes, the police officer would be legally justified in
> arresting the shooter for attempted murder, even though all the  
> shooter
> actually did was shoot a tree (and maybe some clothing).
>
>> So what was this guy arrested for, 'attempted
>> paedophilia'?
>
> Yes.  At least, that's what the crime should be titled; titles to
> distinguish between attempt and success seem to get a bit sloppy
> outside of physical things like murder, rape, and robbery.
>
>> When did your beliefs become a target for the law, rather than your
>> actions?
>
> When you believe you are doing a certain action, where that action
> (regardless of your belief about the law) would be against the law if
> it were actually performed.
>
> Note that this is separate from beliefs about things other than your
> own actions, such as belief in the existence/nonexistence of
> supernatural entities, beliefs about your life thus far (memories),  
> and
> so forth.  (Now, if those beliefs drive you towards committing actions
> that would be criminal if your beliefs were true - well, again, that's
> separate: the non-criminal beliefs produce criminal intent, but the
> initial beliefs remain free and legal under the law.)
>
>> (btw, the report just said 'teenage girl', not underage girl, which
>> also
>> struck me as strange. Is the age of consent in the US absurdly high,
>> or
>> something, so that all teenagers are under it? - surely not!)
>
> In many states, the age of consent is 18.  Not saying whether that is
> absurdly high or not, but the majority of teenagers (13-19 year olds)
> are under 18 (and, while technically correct, it is not as common to
> refer to 18 and 19 year olds as teenagers precisely because 18 is one
> widely recognized age of majority).
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat