S
slobone
Guest
I just spent some time rooting around in Google to try to get a handle on Mark Foley.
He's complicated. He entered Congress in 1995 as a moderate pro-choice Republican. Subsequently he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. That was what caused him to be outed by several gay publications, on grounds of hypocrisy.
However, he has generally been a reliable ally for gay causes and has been backed by the Human Rights Campaign and other gay organizations. He voted against the same-sex-marriage amendment and also against a ban on gay adoptions.
He has always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation, which caused an especially big stink when he tried to run for the Senate in 2004.
Around Palm Beach it's well known that he has an LTR, dermatologist Dr. Layne Nisenbaum. Word went out that if you were going to invite Foley to a gala event, you should invite Nisenbaum as well. However, they would both bring women as "dates", arrive separately, and often not exchange a word the whole evening.
BTW, nobody ever saw him drunk at one of these events.
All of which raises the issue: should politicians necessarily have to give up privacy rights that the rest of us take for granted? Which is more in the longterm interest of gay people -- to have our privacy respected, or to assume that everything we do might become a matter of public record?
I for one think it's a good thing to have a semi-out gay Republican in Congress, especially one with a good voting record on gay issues.
Now, as to the question as to whether he violated any federal statutes. There are two possibly relevant sections of the US code. Here's how they're described in Wikipedia:
=======
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as for as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if you're within 4 years of the 12-15 year old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to US Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.
=========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
If you look up the actual wording of the first section, it says "... knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, ...".
In other words, the act which Foley was attempting to persuade the page to do has to be illegal in itself -- just having gay sex isn't enough.
In the other section, the age of consent is 16 years, so that doesn't apply.
It is NOT ILLEGAL under Federal law to have a sexually suggestive chat with a minor over the Internet. It would have been, under the Communications Decency Act, but the Supreme Court struck that Act down. Remember? And remember how relieved we all were? JUB would quite possibly not exist if that law had stayed on the books.
Suggestive talk is a red flag for investigators, however, and has been used as evidence in online sting setups. But the suspect is usually not arrested unless they actually travel to meet the "under age person" they think they've been chatting with.
But there is the possibility that they Foley and the page met in San Diego, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens with that one.
Again, though, I think we need to be a little careful here. A lot of the uproar seems to be along the lines of "how dare they let pages consort with a known homosexual." That is NOT what we want to hear, and shouldn't be the issue. Right?
So in spite of all the schadenfreude, and the improved chances for the Democrats in November (some of which may have disappeared by a month from now), I now have decidedly mixed feelings about this whole thing.
Anybody else?
He's complicated. He entered Congress in 1995 as a moderate pro-choice Republican. Subsequently he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. That was what caused him to be outed by several gay publications, on grounds of hypocrisy.
However, he has generally been a reliable ally for gay causes and has been backed by the Human Rights Campaign and other gay organizations. He voted against the same-sex-marriage amendment and also against a ban on gay adoptions.
He has always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation, which caused an especially big stink when he tried to run for the Senate in 2004.
Around Palm Beach it's well known that he has an LTR, dermatologist Dr. Layne Nisenbaum. Word went out that if you were going to invite Foley to a gala event, you should invite Nisenbaum as well. However, they would both bring women as "dates", arrive separately, and often not exchange a word the whole evening.
BTW, nobody ever saw him drunk at one of these events.
All of which raises the issue: should politicians necessarily have to give up privacy rights that the rest of us take for granted? Which is more in the longterm interest of gay people -- to have our privacy respected, or to assume that everything we do might become a matter of public record?
I for one think it's a good thing to have a semi-out gay Republican in Congress, especially one with a good voting record on gay issues.
Now, as to the question as to whether he violated any federal statutes. There are two possibly relevant sections of the US code. Here's how they're described in Wikipedia:
=======
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as for as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if you're within 4 years of the 12-15 year old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to US Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.
=========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
If you look up the actual wording of the first section, it says "... knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, ...".
In other words, the act which Foley was attempting to persuade the page to do has to be illegal in itself -- just having gay sex isn't enough.
In the other section, the age of consent is 16 years, so that doesn't apply.
It is NOT ILLEGAL under Federal law to have a sexually suggestive chat with a minor over the Internet. It would have been, under the Communications Decency Act, but the Supreme Court struck that Act down. Remember? And remember how relieved we all were? JUB would quite possibly not exist if that law had stayed on the books.
Suggestive talk is a red flag for investigators, however, and has been used as evidence in online sting setups. But the suspect is usually not arrested unless they actually travel to meet the "under age person" they think they've been chatting with.
But there is the possibility that they Foley and the page met in San Diego, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens with that one.
Again, though, I think we need to be a little careful here. A lot of the uproar seems to be along the lines of "how dare they let pages consort with a known homosexual." That is NOT what we want to hear, and shouldn't be the issue. Right?
So in spite of all the schadenfreude, and the improved chances for the Democrats in November (some of which may have disappeared by a month from now), I now have decidedly mixed feelings about this whole thing.
Anybody else?
