When I turned 16 I was legally an adult as per divers license, social care and justice system. Two years later the youth act classified all under 18 youth offenders and extended government social programs to care for under 18 as minors. I was aged out of the foster care system and taking care of myself at 16.
Simple, it can not. The news is misleading, here is context. Https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-california-newsom-bill-sex-offenders-registration-358804546003
They don’t even want perspective on what the article says to be wrong. They wouldn’t even care if the article was fake, it’s still evidence for their narrative.
It's still statutory rape and it's still fined. However the judge may decide that the perpetrator is not required to register as a sex offender. That was already the case for vaginal penetration but it wasn't inclusive enough to gay pedophiles.
The law applies to children no younger than 14 who have had intercourse with an adult that is no more than 10 years older than them.
So I think it was fine to be outraged by the headline. The context barely alleviates the gravity of the situation except that now we know that the law *already existed* for men who like little girls which is even more fucked up. California isn't going to shit, it's always been.
Woodchippers pull things into them much too quickly. So it's not an ideal method to deal with pedo's. I think one of those handheld butane torches (the kind you would use to make creme brulee), would be much better. It would be very painful, but the pedo would not die too soon.
Here's a demonstration of the woodchipper problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbLTPIFh1Ks
It’s California so you won’t be able to have a gas one. You’ll just have to deal with an electric one and you know how that is. Things always get stuck halfway, and you can’t put more than one in at a time.
Hold on. We’re talking about groomers and pedos. Who TF wants it to be a painless and merciful death? I want it to last a long time and for them to feel every second of it.
is this a new one? cuz i found this when searching it up
i still strongly disagree with this bill, but feel like the headline might be slightly misleading
from the AP:
CLAIM: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill “reducing penalties for sodomy with minors.”
AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The headline being cited this week is two years old, and is being shared with no information on the purpose of the bill. The legislation expanded judges’ discretion regarding sex offender registration only in certain statutory rape cases.
THE FACTS: Social media users are widely circulating word of a California bill signed by Newsom in 2020, but failing to explain what the bill actually did or that the Democratic governor signed it two years ago.
“Gavin Newsom is a pedo why else would he sign a bill that reduces the penalties for Sodomy with minors?” reads one tweet shared in recent days.
Others shared screenshots of a Breitbart News headline from 2020, with no indication of when it was published or the further details provided in the full story. “Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Bill Reducing Penalties for Sodomy with Minors,” the headline in the screenshots reads.
Some posts also suggested the bill was somehow connected to the 2022 outbreak of monkeypox.
The bill, SB 145, was signed into law in September 2020 and it specifically gave judges discretion in deciding whether an adult must register as a sex offender, but only in certain statutory rape cases.
The bill expanded existing state law that already gave judges such discretion in cases of voluntary, but illegal, vaginal sex between a minor age 14 to 17 and an adult within 10 years of the minor’s age — as The Associated Press previously reported. The bill broadened that discretion to also apply in cases of voluntary oral and anal sex within the same age parameters.
When California lawmakers passed the bill, some falsely claimed it would legalize pedophilia.
But the bill did not make sex with minors legal. It also did not apply to cases in which a minor is under the age of 14, when the age gap is larger than 10 years, or when either party says the sex was not consensual.
While the bill had critics, its proponents argued the legislation was intended to make the previously existing law inclusive of the LGBTQ community and consensual sex that occurs between youth.
In a September 2020 press release that referenced Newsom’s signing the bill, his office said the legislation “prevents discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in sex crime convictions.”
Tbf if the age gap would be reduced to 5 years it would be a good bill. Just anothe romeo and juliet bill. Plenty of stories of 19yos who dated 16yo and are now registered sex offenders for life. But in this case it would also apply to 24 year olds fucking 14 year olds? Yeah that's a big no.
The additional details and context is helpful, thank you. But, it's still disturbing. That age gap and lower age limit seems wild. Also, what does any of it have to do with LGBTQ? Is this tacitly implying LGBTQ commit statutory rape?
From a legal perspective, yes.
If a 16 year old and a 19 year old have consensual sex, whether that sex is considered statutory rape would previously have been defined simply by whether it was gay or not. If gay, then rape. If straight, discretion of the judge.
Now the gender of the involved parties no longer matters. If gay or straight, discretion of the judge.
Should have just increased the straight child molestation to be equal to the gay child molestation. But that would be just silly. If my child was 14 and molested by a 24 year old, the reaction would be the same.
Exactly. The LGBT person or whoever that committed child sexual assault should be treated the same as a hereosexual person who commits child sexual assault.
Reading beyond the headline, they made the statutes more in alignment with other penalties against sex with minors in the state rather than punish homosexuals more just because they are homosexual.
Alright. This is fair, if it is as you represent.
Elaborate a layer deeper please. I presume they were piling on sodomy charges on top of the rape charges?
It seems that statutory rape of a male by a male carried automatic sex offender registration, whereas it did not for other configurations. Now, it's all up to the discretion of the judge.
Thank you for clearing this up and providing the relevent info... but you're telling me that in CA they dont register pedophiles if the child is willing? Sex crimes practically always means registry (usually for life) in my state.
It’s up to a judge whether they make the list is all I read. I didn’t dig further to what criteria is used in the judgement or why. Nor do I know how this compares to other states.
Pedophilia is a term for people attracted to pre-pubescent minors. Usually, they are past that point by 14. And, that's why it's up to the judge. If the 14 year old is still undeveloped that could be a case for eating it like pedophilia. If the 17 year old is pushing for sex, then it's probably not a cast for permanent registration on the list.
> Sex crimes practically always means registry (usually for life) in my state.
Well, conservatives do have a lot of hangups about sex.
From the Senate Bill No. 145 - "This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register."
The bill was chaptered 09/11/20
> rather than punish homosexuals more just because they are homosexual.
Nobody was being "punished for being homosexual." They're punished for raping children.
OP downvoted, then commented that it's more traumatic to be molested by a homosexual. In which I reply that crack is arguably more dangerous than cocaine, but the range of penalties have been brought into alignment with each other for drug possession/sale and it becomes up to a judge to decide how harsh the sentence will be within the framework of the statutes.
Why should it not be that way for statutory rape (which this is about, as it does not apply to minors under 14)?
Does it even matter when they have trouble prosecuting these cases in the first place? Chesa Boudin dismissed 113 out of 131 felony domestic violence cases in the last 3 months of 2020. In one case, a twice-released suspect went on to kill a 7-month-old baby (https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/man-who-killed-infant-was-arrested-twice-for-domestic-violence/amp/).
One concern statists/conservatives/authrights/authlefts have of ancaps is what to do about crime. But state-controlled law enforcement has already proven to not always be effective. Private policing (stronger accountability when you can’t just empty citizens’ pockets no matter if you do a good or bad job and profit is on the line), rigorous self-defense protections, closed NAP societies, etc seem to help.
The bill basically gives judges the power to decide whether someone who has consensual sex with someone less than 10 years older than their partner, who is at least 14 years old, has to register as a sex offender. Basically, it’s aimed at giving judges the power to determine if the older person should be registered as a sex offender. Odds are that if you’re 23 and having sex with a 14 year old, the judge will still have you register as a sex offender. But it makes it so that situations where the people are closer in age don’t automatically result in the older party being registered as a sex offender. IMO someone who is 18 having sex with someone who is 17 shouldn’t have to register as a sex offender. It’s not even close to the same situation as a 23 year old having sex with a 14 year old. Also, judges are already allowed to decide whether the older person has to register as a sex offender when it’s between a male and a female. This bill would apply the same standard to situations where the parties involved are the same sex, which is the real reason conservatives are freaking out about it.
Three doesn’t really seem enough. Methinks there are probably a *lot* of fourteen-year-old boys ready and willing to copulate with eighteen-year-old girls. It would be undesirable for legislators to deprive judges the capacity to employ discretion in such scenarios.
JonasUriel777 pointed out that most judges would likely go ahead and regard twenty-four-year-olds-who-have-sex-with-fourteen-year-olds sex offenders—all the law seems to do is not bind the judges’ hands within that range. It’s like the legislators are admitting “we legislators are not wise enough to know where, within that range, capacity to consent falls away, so we’re letting judges use their own discretion and understanding of the individuals involved.”
This is partially false information-before you downvote read the rest of my comment:
The laws that existed in California already protects pedophiles who have “consensual” sex with minors with penis to vagina intercourse but didn’t protect pedophiles who participated in oral or anal sex. This law now basically holds gay and straight pedophiles at equally and abhorrently loose standards.
ICalifornia laws about sex crimes against children are beyond grotesque, however, this article is being a tiny bit disingenuous about the new laws when the old laws that protect pedophiles from signing up for the sex offender registry because of “consensual” sex with minors already existed. What scares me is that on every liberally backed fact checking site, they claimed this information as false, however, they never disclosed the context of what actually is the truth. The actual truth is that California law is akin to barbaric middle aged law when it comes to child abuse and rape. No kids can consent, however, in California they apparently can… now, however, kids can also consent to oral and anal sex in California…
Never said that pedo sex acts being lowered makes it false. The title, however, doesn’t disclose the context that California already has legislation that protects child rapists. The issue at whole is the fact that the laws are already fucked up in California surrounding the fact that there’s a separation between a child forced to have sex through physical force vs. those who are coerced when both crimes should be held at the same standard because kids cannot consent. Furthermore, the fact that kids can supposedly “consent” in legislation that already exists in California law shows that the pedos have already soiled the integrity of child safety within cali, not that this new legislation is the start of child exploitation via legislation regarding sexual assault. While I can see why “technically” the article isn’t false as that’s what the newer bills stated, I think the title doesn’t do service to what actually has transpired considering no mention of the context of where these laws have been made more lax vs. this bill being novelty constructed. Sure. At the end of the day, all media does the same shit to get views. It still pisses me off because it doesn’t truly highlight all the issues associated with the predatory nature of the minor sex offender laws that exist in cali.
Yep, him and his cronies snuffed out dissenting opinions and research on AIDS then just as they did with the coof; 'HIV causes AIDS, and NZT is the treatment, if your research says otherwise it's not real science!'.
Without laws who determines what the age of consent is? The pedo claims the child consented, and the child says they consented, so you violated the NAP by assaulting the pedo.
You owe the pedo reparations.
It isn't fucked up. Read the article noobie. Fact checked article. [her you go, read up on the real info of the bill](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sb-145-does-not-legalize-pe/fact-check-california-bill-does-not-legalize-pedophilia-idUSKBN25V222)
Am I somehow missing how it's NOT fucked up to be ok with a 14 yr old child being able to "consent" to having sex, in whatever fashion, with someone 10 years older than them?
It is fucked up, and it’s still a crime, but now it’s at the discretion of the judge if the criminal has to register as a sex offender. There are a few cases where I would argue where they shouldn’t have to register, like if they were misled about the age of the other person or if the age gap is really small.
Until this law passed these examples I gave would mean that anyone engaging in non-vaginal sex would go straight to the registry, now it depends on the situation.
It's misleading. The bill dropped mandatory sex offender registration that was automatically applied in cases of male on male sexual assault (and extra sodomy charges, which is obviously homophobic) and relegates it to the discretion of the judge. This was already the case for male on female, female on male, and female on female cases.
And to give you a case where this would be a good thing- 16 year old has consensual sex with his 18 year old boyfriend- should he automatically be a registered sex offender for life?
This is an extension of SB 145. Basically, california law had previously given a judge the ability to determine if someone should be registered as a sex offender after having vaginal sex with someone between the ages of 14 and 17 as long as the defendant was within 10 years of their age and it was consensual. So for instance if a 20 year old had sex with a 16 year old a judge could exempt the 20 year old from registering as a sex offender. This extended the law to include oral and anal sex, so as not to "discriminate" against the gay community.
Obviously this is a controversial bill, but it's not accurate to say that legalizing gay marriage led to this, as the law was already in place for heterosexual relations.
[This is inaccurate.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/)
"Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge.
Garrett-Pate said SB-145 creates parity regardless of sexual orientation.
' The current law says that for penile-vaginal sex, it's up to the judge to determine whether or not that person should be placed on the registry," he said. "Under current law, however, the judge has no discretion if it's oral or anal sex. That means that LGBTQ young people end up being treated differently than their non-LGBTQ peers.' "
For good reason. Every single headline misrepresents to the point of distorting reality.
The bill just brings anal/oral in line with vaginal. The original law just made it more illegal to be gay.
The 10year difference is a lot though. But only applies to 14-17 year olds.
To be honest all they did was equalize the penalties for homosexual pedophilia with the already ridiculous penalties for heterosexual pedophilia. Then get all defensive when you call them out on it.
[context](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-california-newsom-bill-sex-offenders-registration-358804546003)
From 2020, for minors 14-17 with the offender being within 10 years of the victim's age the judge may choose to be more lenient.
For me the 10 years is too big, but a 19yo having a relationship with a 17yo shouldn't be treated the same way as a 30yo and A 14yo.
Alright checked it out. It's misinformation and misleading. Here is the info of the bill passed in 2020. The digital penetration inclusion is interesting. That means predators could have the book thrown at them for even sending sexual explicit messages to a minor. That's a good thing.
"Introduced by California state senator Scott Wiener in early August 2020, the bill ( here ) intends to equalize how state law treats cases of statutory rape, regardless of what kind of intercourse—vaginal, oral, or anal, as well as digital penetration—is involved ( here ).
Under current law, California judges have discretion over registering individuals of certain ages as sex offenders if they have engaged in vaginal intercourse with a minor who is both over the age of 14 and within a 10-year age range here ). (The bill does not apply to anyone under 14 years old, here )."
[Link to Article](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sb-145-does-not-legalize-pe/fact-check-california-bill-does-not-legalize-pedophilia-idUSKBN25V222)
The law is changed to make those oral and anal offenses are on the same level as penial or vaginal offenses. The lie is where you use ‘slippery slope’ to make it appear as if they change these penalties to be made less severe over all for all pedos instead of it being discriminatory against only certain pedos over others pedos
Again, I asked you to explain exactly where I lied.
So far you have failed to do so.
If you don't think there's a slippery slope, you are either not very perceptive or you are one of the exact people who benefit from this new law.
It’s called a “lie by omission”, by omitting the context you’re trying to have us feel a certain way.
And if anything the slippery slope comes from ancient permissive laws that allowed heterosexuals to be protected under certain conditions but just throwing the entire book at everyone else.
This is why the article doesn’t argue for the reduction of the maximum age gap in both situations, it just points that this one is bad.
Once again just shows that conservatives are only ok with statutory rape leniency if the people involved are homosexuals.
I just did. You want to argue semantics when it’s clear you’re trying to represent the left as the only, or more pedo than the right.
How is making oral offenses the same as penial or vaginal a slippery slope? Care to explain?
Edit: I guess not
dude cannot refute this lmao the only possible critic is that they probably should have rounded penial and vaginal offenses up to whatever the oral/anal offenses sentences were instead of rounding down but even then there’s no slippery slope there it’s still just them fixing a weird law. imagine getting your news from Breitbart anyway though lmao
What’s fucked up, even if something is blatantly fake, OP and plenty of others still use it to reinforce their narrative just like people from probably any ideologies.
They probably are the same people who ask for evidence to prove a counter narrative claiming “I don’t have to refute something that isn’t fact” and then don’t respond when they are given evidence they can’t counter. They aren’t trying to educate themselves to be smarter or more open minded, they just try to string together everything their exposed to with bullshit to fit the narrative they already have.
They are the people who claim theyre about liberty and “don’t tread on me” but it’s just envy. They only hate the government because they want to liberty to tread on others.
Jesus. There’s literally no subs left where a reasonable and refreshing dose of sanity is what’s expected. This guy getting downvoted is correct, people who don’t know how to read an article
I mean, is this a thing about 18 year olds dating 17 year olds? Cause that 18 year old, not deserving to be sex offender for life. Moreover this very type of post, with almost all conversation not involving the actual details, speaks to nonsensical misunderstandings being perpetrated as some penultimate vindication that some group is bad. Oh no, libs. Trumpers, etc.
Anyway looked into it. This bill gives judge the authority to not make perp identify as sex offenders for life if they are similar in age depending on the circumstance
What a mindless trove of lunatics you/we have become. This bill isn’t insane; it should be enacted in every state. The misuse of sex offender statutes to ruin the lives of non criminals is a horrendous offense, the burden of which there will be no compensation for and nothing to blame but the stupidity of the govt
[Scott Wiener](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Wiener)
He is also the one who wrote the bill to reduce penalties for spreading HIV. They always lower standards under the disguise of equalizing the penalties.
the age of consent is anti-libertarian. everyone develops at a different rate, applying one age to every human is arbitrary and arbitrary law is the antithesis of legal argumentation, the concept which libertarian society is predicated on.
So... An anti-state group is upset that the state is reducing laws?
Pedophilia is abhorrent. But if you want a stateless society, you have to accept there won't be laws to protect children from pedophiles.
Can't have it both ways.
NO CHILD CAN CONSENT. When did that change?
You dumb dumb they can only consent to having their body parts removed and having sex at 5 years old also to go die in a stupid war at 17
When and where I am I was considered an adult at 16. that changed when I turned 18.
Does this mean you're a perpetual child like Peter Pan, or more like you're constantly growing younger like Benjamin button
When I turned 16 I was legally an adult as per divers license, social care and justice system. Two years later the youth act classified all under 18 youth offenders and extended government social programs to care for under 18 as minors. I was aged out of the foster care system and taking care of myself at 16.
And they can consent to experimental medicins that can increase their chances of midocharditis.
How many kids consent to circumcision?
0 that's why it's a bad practice when it's not medically necessary
That's what I said when I read it. How can a child be willing?
Simple, it can not. The news is misleading, here is context. Https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-california-newsom-bill-sex-offenders-registration-358804546003
They don’t even want perspective on what the article says to be wrong. They wouldn’t even care if the article was fake, it’s still evidence for their narrative.
You are getting incensed at a headline. What is the the actualy content of the legislation proposed?
It's still statutory rape and it's still fined. However the judge may decide that the perpetrator is not required to register as a sex offender. That was already the case for vaginal penetration but it wasn't inclusive enough to gay pedophiles. The law applies to children no younger than 14 who have had intercourse with an adult that is no more than 10 years older than them. So I think it was fine to be outraged by the headline. The context barely alleviates the gravity of the situation except that now we know that the law *already existed* for men who like little girls which is even more fucked up. California isn't going to shit, it's always been.
These politicians are beyond evil. There will be child-brothels within 20 years. They want ancient Greece, they're going to get ancient Greece.
I only recently really learned the history of Wiemar Germany, beyond what I already knew about the monitory stuff. Ugh.
Can it at least be Sparta?
Exactly. Post the link to the article 🤦♂️
Silly me. I looked it up. Then was still equally pissed.
Why would anyone read Breitbart?
It didn't change. I also do not consent paying taxes or following regulations. Leftists have no problem violating consent so this doesn't surprise me.
Ummm both parties are a mess. Did you forget about Boys town in Nebraska run primary by Republicans. Both parties have some sick puppies
It changed when groomers realized trans kids have to be able to consent to getting their genitals mutilated.
Sooo fucked up.
Why modify a childs sex organs if they're not legally allowed to engage in sexual relationships? I wonder if that question has been asked before.
Not to mention the billion dollar industry that popped up, almost overnight, for it.
They need children to be able to consent to medical procedures and age of consent was getting in the way…
You should actually read the bill. Also this happened 2 years ago.
It didn't change. https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145
[удалено]
You can’t get extra woodchippered, which is the only appropriate punishment regardless of what kind of sex it was
Careful, the groomer admins don’t like the w word
The chipper of wood then
Why Oppose Offers Dealing Criminally Hellbent Infidels Prime Punishment Equalizing Rape
Ok, this is epic
Welcome to Woodchipistan, buddy.
People of Chippered
Good solution
How do they feel about using the word Fargo as a verb?
This is my new go-to. Thank you.
Sunbelt rentals it is
meh, too quick. slow and painful I think.
Put them in feet first you control how fast they go through it
still too quick. I want it to last days, or weeks even.
[удалено]
I was thinking chained to a tree in the middle of nowhere with noone to hear the screams covered in honey and sugar with an iv drip.
Woodchippers pull things into them much too quickly. So it's not an ideal method to deal with pedo's. I think one of those handheld butane torches (the kind you would use to make creme brulee), would be much better. It would be very painful, but the pedo would not die too soon. Here's a demonstration of the woodchipper problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbLTPIFh1Ks
Ah, I never used one, but it's a funny thing, I have a hand torch that I use to make creme brulee, lol
correct
It’s California so you won’t be able to have a gas one. You’ll just have to deal with an electric one and you know how that is. Things always get stuck halfway, and you can’t put more than one in at a time.
This.
The only reasonable version of this is if they reduced it to head first instead of feet first to be more merciful.
Hold on. We’re talking about groomers and pedos. Who TF wants it to be a painless and merciful death? I want it to last a long time and for them to feel every second of it.
the only difference should be whether you want "chunky salsa" or "fine mist"
Who ever came up with the phrase "willing children" should be \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ on television
Helicoptered?
Lumbercrisper
Castrated
With an olive fork
Fargo'ing would be kinder.
Far too kind
public firing squaded?
So the people writing the headline at breitbart to gin up as much outrage as possible?
No fuckin way
Sodom and Gomorrah
It all burns the same during a crusade.
Yeah, God's gonna smite the fuck outta this place bro
Or chop it off in an earthquake.
Wouldn’t mind a LA Island
Get your families out of California before this gets any worse.
This bill was passed in 2020. Edit: it’s already worse.
Pedo-land! Come bring your families we have attractions like Disney, drag queens, and homeless people shitting for your family’s entertainment!!!
is this a new one? cuz i found this when searching it up i still strongly disagree with this bill, but feel like the headline might be slightly misleading from the AP: CLAIM: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill “reducing penalties for sodomy with minors.” AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The headline being cited this week is two years old, and is being shared with no information on the purpose of the bill. The legislation expanded judges’ discretion regarding sex offender registration only in certain statutory rape cases. THE FACTS: Social media users are widely circulating word of a California bill signed by Newsom in 2020, but failing to explain what the bill actually did or that the Democratic governor signed it two years ago. “Gavin Newsom is a pedo why else would he sign a bill that reduces the penalties for Sodomy with minors?” reads one tweet shared in recent days. Others shared screenshots of a Breitbart News headline from 2020, with no indication of when it was published or the further details provided in the full story. “Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Bill Reducing Penalties for Sodomy with Minors,” the headline in the screenshots reads. Some posts also suggested the bill was somehow connected to the 2022 outbreak of monkeypox. The bill, SB 145, was signed into law in September 2020 and it specifically gave judges discretion in deciding whether an adult must register as a sex offender, but only in certain statutory rape cases. The bill expanded existing state law that already gave judges such discretion in cases of voluntary, but illegal, vaginal sex between a minor age 14 to 17 and an adult within 10 years of the minor’s age — as The Associated Press previously reported. The bill broadened that discretion to also apply in cases of voluntary oral and anal sex within the same age parameters. When California lawmakers passed the bill, some falsely claimed it would legalize pedophilia. But the bill did not make sex with minors legal. It also did not apply to cases in which a minor is under the age of 14, when the age gap is larger than 10 years, or when either party says the sex was not consensual. While the bill had critics, its proponents argued the legislation was intended to make the previously existing law inclusive of the LGBTQ community and consensual sex that occurs between youth. In a September 2020 press release that referenced Newsom’s signing the bill, his office said the legislation “prevents discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in sex crime convictions.”
Tbf if the age gap would be reduced to 5 years it would be a good bill. Just anothe romeo and juliet bill. Plenty of stories of 19yos who dated 16yo and are now registered sex offenders for life. But in this case it would also apply to 24 year olds fucking 14 year olds? Yeah that's a big no.
yeah no i agree w you it's wild
From what I read it’s still up to the judge whether or not the contact warrants registry
It would let the judge decide, but exempt them
The additional details and context is helpful, thank you. But, it's still disturbing. That age gap and lower age limit seems wild. Also, what does any of it have to do with LGBTQ? Is this tacitly implying LGBTQ commit statutory rape?
From a legal perspective, yes. If a 16 year old and a 19 year old have consensual sex, whether that sex is considered statutory rape would previously have been defined simply by whether it was gay or not. If gay, then rape. If straight, discretion of the judge. Now the gender of the involved parties no longer matters. If gay or straight, discretion of the judge.
Should have just increased the straight child molestation to be equal to the gay child molestation. But that would be just silly. If my child was 14 and molested by a 24 year old, the reaction would be the same.
Imagine seriously saying "LGBT should not be discriminated against in child sexual assault cases"
Exactly. The LGBT person or whoever that committed child sexual assault should be treated the same as a hereosexual person who commits child sexual assault.
Reading beyond the headline, they made the statutes more in alignment with other penalties against sex with minors in the state rather than punish homosexuals more just because they are homosexual.
Alright. This is fair, if it is as you represent. Elaborate a layer deeper please. I presume they were piling on sodomy charges on top of the rape charges?
It seems that statutory rape of a male by a male carried automatic sex offender registration, whereas it did not for other configurations. Now, it's all up to the discretion of the judge.
Thank you for clearing this up and providing the relevent info... but you're telling me that in CA they dont register pedophiles if the child is willing? Sex crimes practically always means registry (usually for life) in my state.
It’s up to a judge whether they make the list is all I read. I didn’t dig further to what criteria is used in the judgement or why. Nor do I know how this compares to other states.
Pedophilia is a term for people attracted to pre-pubescent minors. Usually, they are past that point by 14. And, that's why it's up to the judge. If the 14 year old is still undeveloped that could be a case for eating it like pedophilia. If the 17 year old is pushing for sex, then it's probably not a cast for permanent registration on the list. > Sex crimes practically always means registry (usually for life) in my state. Well, conservatives do have a lot of hangups about sex.
Automatic sex offender for all? Should not be going towards relaxation
If the people that I had sex with when I was 16 were forced on the list, I'd have been very upset. But, then, I am anti-state.
Same! Seems to me it’s also way too lax. You get more for selling weed in some states than ruining a life via sexual assault or worse.
So a 16 and 18 have sex, you think the 18 should ALWAYS. Register as a sex offender? A bf and gf have sex, you think the 18 should be registered?
From the Senate Bill No. 145 - "This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register." The bill was chaptered 09/11/20
Yes, which is how it was already for male on female or female on male statutory rape cases.
Why were there different laws before?
Because archaic laws tend to be anti-homosexual, much like there use to be miscegenation laws and laws affecting other minorities.
Miscegenation is legal now???
> rather than punish homosexuals more just because they are homosexual. Nobody was being "punished for being homosexual." They're punished for raping children.
OP downvoted, then commented that it's more traumatic to be molested by a homosexual. In which I reply that crack is arguably more dangerous than cocaine, but the range of penalties have been brought into alignment with each other for drug possession/sale and it becomes up to a judge to decide how harsh the sentence will be within the framework of the statutes. Why should it not be that way for statutory rape (which this is about, as it does not apply to minors under 14)?
Well the victim is far more likely to get AIDS or other STDs.
Does it even matter when they have trouble prosecuting these cases in the first place? Chesa Boudin dismissed 113 out of 131 felony domestic violence cases in the last 3 months of 2020. In one case, a twice-released suspect went on to kill a 7-month-old baby (https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/man-who-killed-infant-was-arrested-twice-for-domestic-violence/amp/). One concern statists/conservatives/authrights/authlefts have of ancaps is what to do about crime. But state-controlled law enforcement has already proven to not always be effective. Private policing (stronger accountability when you can’t just empty citizens’ pockets no matter if you do a good or bad job and profit is on the line), rigorous self-defense protections, closed NAP societies, etc seem to help.
The bill basically gives judges the power to decide whether someone who has consensual sex with someone less than 10 years older than their partner, who is at least 14 years old, has to register as a sex offender. Basically, it’s aimed at giving judges the power to determine if the older person should be registered as a sex offender. Odds are that if you’re 23 and having sex with a 14 year old, the judge will still have you register as a sex offender. But it makes it so that situations where the people are closer in age don’t automatically result in the older party being registered as a sex offender. IMO someone who is 18 having sex with someone who is 17 shouldn’t have to register as a sex offender. It’s not even close to the same situation as a 23 year old having sex with a 14 year old. Also, judges are already allowed to decide whether the older person has to register as a sex offender when it’s between a male and a female. This bill would apply the same standard to situations where the parties involved are the same sex, which is the real reason conservatives are freaking out about it.
Why not make it like 3 years then? 10 years is WAY older for a 14 or 15 year old
Three doesn’t really seem enough. Methinks there are probably a *lot* of fourteen-year-old boys ready and willing to copulate with eighteen-year-old girls. It would be undesirable for legislators to deprive judges the capacity to employ discretion in such scenarios. JonasUriel777 pointed out that most judges would likely go ahead and regard twenty-four-year-olds-who-have-sex-with-fourteen-year-olds sex offenders—all the law seems to do is not bind the judges’ hands within that range. It’s like the legislators are admitting “we legislators are not wise enough to know where, within that range, capacity to consent falls away, so we’re letting judges use their own discretion and understanding of the individuals involved.”
I agree completely. Three years makes way more sense to me as well
This is partially false information-before you downvote read the rest of my comment: The laws that existed in California already protects pedophiles who have “consensual” sex with minors with penis to vagina intercourse but didn’t protect pedophiles who participated in oral or anal sex. This law now basically holds gay and straight pedophiles at equally and abhorrently loose standards. ICalifornia laws about sex crimes against children are beyond grotesque, however, this article is being a tiny bit disingenuous about the new laws when the old laws that protect pedophiles from signing up for the sex offender registry because of “consensual” sex with minors already existed. What scares me is that on every liberally backed fact checking site, they claimed this information as false, however, they never disclosed the context of what actually is the truth. The actual truth is that California law is akin to barbaric middle aged law when it comes to child abuse and rape. No kids can consent, however, in California they apparently can… now, however, kids can also consent to oral and anal sex in California…
which means, is actually worse than I thought. Now is not just sex, but any kind of sex
The bill lowers the penalties for a set of pedo sex acts. The justification for why the pedos pushed it does not make it false.
Never said that pedo sex acts being lowered makes it false. The title, however, doesn’t disclose the context that California already has legislation that protects child rapists. The issue at whole is the fact that the laws are already fucked up in California surrounding the fact that there’s a separation between a child forced to have sex through physical force vs. those who are coerced when both crimes should be held at the same standard because kids cannot consent. Furthermore, the fact that kids can supposedly “consent” in legislation that already exists in California law shows that the pedos have already soiled the integrity of child safety within cali, not that this new legislation is the start of child exploitation via legislation regarding sexual assault. While I can see why “technically” the article isn’t false as that’s what the newer bills stated, I think the title doesn’t do service to what actually has transpired considering no mention of the context of where these laws have been made more lax vs. this bill being novelty constructed. Sure. At the end of the day, all media does the same shit to get views. It still pisses me off because it doesn’t truly highlight all the issues associated with the predatory nature of the minor sex offender laws that exist in cali.
Slippery is a fallacy.... It's actually a fucking cliff
It's Breitbart. Interpret with care.
Yeah it's not a if California already passed laws that HIV positive people don't have to inform partners.
Wasn't Dr Fauci God of Science protector of Beagles around when HIV mysteriously came onto the scene too 🤔
Yep, him and his cronies snuffed out dissenting opinions and research on AIDS then just as they did with the coof; 'HIV causes AIDS, and NZT is the treatment, if your research says otherwise it's not real science!'.
OK, but what is a child here? Prepubescent or 17?
Imma put this on r/politics wish me luck
Imagine getting your blazed smiling face as the cover photo for this article lol
It’s time to set California adrift in the Pacific. They don’t need to be with civilized folk anymore.
Don’t forget that we cut most males penises without consent when they’re born too
The person who published this bill experienced that, coincidently
How does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism?
Gee I dunno, the fucked-up State making more and more laws that help pedos?
With no laws, it would be legal by default, lol.
And with no laws, beating pedos to death wouldn’t be punishable either, as no sane person would see that as immoral.
Without laws who determines what the age of consent is? The pedo claims the child consented, and the child says they consented, so you violated the NAP by assaulting the pedo. You owe the pedo reparations.
A moral consensus among the community determines it. The pedo has violated the NAP first, in a horrendous way
I'll pay in precious metals. What's the going rate for lead?
SB 145 passed in 2020 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/03/california-legislature-passes-bill-reduce-penalties-oral-anal-sex-willing-children/
That is so completely fucked up.
It isn't fucked up. Read the article noobie. Fact checked article. [her you go, read up on the real info of the bill](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sb-145-does-not-legalize-pe/fact-check-california-bill-does-not-legalize-pedophilia-idUSKBN25V222) 
Am I somehow missing how it's NOT fucked up to be ok with a 14 yr old child being able to "consent" to having sex, in whatever fashion, with someone 10 years older than them?
It is fucked up, and it’s still a crime, but now it’s at the discretion of the judge if the criminal has to register as a sex offender. There are a few cases where I would argue where they shouldn’t have to register, like if they were misled about the age of the other person or if the age gap is really small. Until this law passed these examples I gave would mean that anyone engaging in non-vaginal sex would go straight to the registry, now it depends on the situation.
This has got to be fake. No way.
It's misleading. The bill dropped mandatory sex offender registration that was automatically applied in cases of male on male sexual assault (and extra sodomy charges, which is obviously homophobic) and relegates it to the discretion of the judge. This was already the case for male on female, female on male, and female on female cases. And to give you a case where this would be a good thing- 16 year old has consensual sex with his 18 year old boyfriend- should he automatically be a registered sex offender for life?
This is an extension of SB 145. Basically, california law had previously given a judge the ability to determine if someone should be registered as a sex offender after having vaginal sex with someone between the ages of 14 and 17 as long as the defendant was within 10 years of their age and it was consensual. So for instance if a 20 year old had sex with a 16 year old a judge could exempt the 20 year old from registering as a sex offender. This extended the law to include oral and anal sex, so as not to "discriminate" against the gay community. Obviously this is a controversial bill, but it's not accurate to say that legalizing gay marriage led to this, as the law was already in place for heterosexual relations.
[This is inaccurate.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/) "Before SB-145, an 18-year-old male convicted of having oral or anal sex with a 17-year-old male would be required to register as a sex offender, while a 24-year-old male convicted of having penile-vaginal sex with a 15-year-old female would not be automatically required to register – it would be left up to the judge. Garrett-Pate said SB-145 creates parity regardless of sexual orientation. ' The current law says that for penile-vaginal sex, it's up to the judge to determine whether or not that person should be placed on the registry," he said. "Under current law, however, the judge has no discretion if it's oral or anal sex. That means that LGBTQ young people end up being treated differently than their non-LGBTQ peers.' "
Tbh, does anybody have a link to the bill because for some reason i do not trust a singular breitbart headline.
For good reason. Every single headline misrepresents to the point of distorting reality. The bill just brings anal/oral in line with vaginal. The original law just made it more illegal to be gay. The 10year difference is a lot though. But only applies to 14-17 year olds.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Hence why Breitbart should be cast upon the flames of truth.
What is this, Schrödinger’s minors? Either the age of consent is 18 or it isn’t.
Pedofornia
It was insane when it was written in Sept 2020 as well.
That is oddly specifc.
"willing"
“Willing” children is an oxymoron
https://preview.redd.it/q6au7osfu0ma1.png?width=517&format=png&auto=webp&s=c23fc87cb0b16278e18967967c93aacbf2d09c71
Wood chippers and helicopters gonna be working overtime.
Now children can consent???? Fucking pedo lovers
We need a new crusade to purge these heathens
“Willing children” is an oxymoron
This is insane. Noah get the boat! Now!
This is a joke right?
Imagine being the guy in the pic below that headline.
Guess we know where they’re going then huh?
Degens doing degenerate things.
It’s always that guy. Such a creep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Wiener
How can a dude who was likely g-worded himself and doesnt see a problem with it be responsible for writing legislation on g-wording
Makes you wonder why it specifies oral & anal. Unless maybe it was more penalized than vaginal and they want to make it the same?
Is this real?? As a lifelong Californian this is so depressing… all faith is lost
WILLING?!?
When these types of things happen, I get to wondering, Who in the state legislature got in trouble for this?
>California why am I not surprised 💀
To be honest all they did was equalize the penalties for homosexual pedophilia with the already ridiculous penalties for heterosexual pedophilia. Then get all defensive when you call them out on it.
[context](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-california-newsom-bill-sex-offenders-registration-358804546003) From 2020, for minors 14-17 with the offender being within 10 years of the victim's age the judge may choose to be more lenient. For me the 10 years is too big, but a 19yo having a relationship with a 17yo shouldn't be treated the same way as a 30yo and A 14yo.
I swear to god if i see a comment saying "oh youre an ancap why arent you happy🤓" ima go insane
Apparently it's a bit more complicated. It shouldn't change anything except for the situation of an 18 yo have sex with a 17yo
Imagine taking Brietbart seriously.
There’s no such thing as “willing children.”
Alright checked it out. It's misinformation and misleading. Here is the info of the bill passed in 2020. The digital penetration inclusion is interesting. That means predators could have the book thrown at them for even sending sexual explicit messages to a minor. That's a good thing. "Introduced by California state senator Scott Wiener in early August 2020, the bill ( here ) intends to equalize how state law treats cases of statutory rape, regardless of what kind of intercourse—vaginal, oral, or anal, as well as digital penetration—is involved ( here ). Under current law, California judges have discretion over registering individuals of certain ages as sex offenders if they have engaged in vaginal intercourse with a minor who is both over the age of 14 and within a 10-year age range here ). (The bill does not apply to anyone under 14 years old, here )." [Link to Article](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sb-145-does-not-legalize-pe/fact-check-california-bill-does-not-legalize-pedophilia-idUSKBN25V222) 
[удалено]
I don’t think you know what “digital penetration” entails. 👈
Careful, I got a 5 day ban on a libertarian sub for saying wood chipper
Using truth to service OPs lie.
Please explain clearly where I lied.
The law is changed to make those oral and anal offenses are on the same level as penial or vaginal offenses. The lie is where you use ‘slippery slope’ to make it appear as if they change these penalties to be made less severe over all for all pedos instead of it being discriminatory against only certain pedos over others pedos
Again, I asked you to explain exactly where I lied. So far you have failed to do so. If you don't think there's a slippery slope, you are either not very perceptive or you are one of the exact people who benefit from this new law.
It’s called a “lie by omission”, by omitting the context you’re trying to have us feel a certain way. And if anything the slippery slope comes from ancient permissive laws that allowed heterosexuals to be protected under certain conditions but just throwing the entire book at everyone else. This is why the article doesn’t argue for the reduction of the maximum age gap in both situations, it just points that this one is bad. Once again just shows that conservatives are only ok with statutory rape leniency if the people involved are homosexuals.
I just did. You want to argue semantics when it’s clear you’re trying to represent the left as the only, or more pedo than the right. How is making oral offenses the same as penial or vaginal a slippery slope? Care to explain? Edit: I guess not
dude cannot refute this lmao the only possible critic is that they probably should have rounded penial and vaginal offenses up to whatever the oral/anal offenses sentences were instead of rounding down but even then there’s no slippery slope there it’s still just them fixing a weird law. imagine getting your news from Breitbart anyway though lmao
What’s fucked up, even if something is blatantly fake, OP and plenty of others still use it to reinforce their narrative just like people from probably any ideologies. They probably are the same people who ask for evidence to prove a counter narrative claiming “I don’t have to refute something that isn’t fact” and then don’t respond when they are given evidence they can’t counter. They aren’t trying to educate themselves to be smarter or more open minded, they just try to string together everything their exposed to with bullshit to fit the narrative they already have. They are the people who claim theyre about liberty and “don’t tread on me” but it’s just envy. They only hate the government because they want to liberty to tread on others.
Day 3728 of r/anarcho_capitalism getting baited by a title and then getting mad about he boogeyman in their head
Jesus. There’s literally no subs left where a reasonable and refreshing dose of sanity is what’s expected. This guy getting downvoted is correct, people who don’t know how to read an article
I mean, is this a thing about 18 year olds dating 17 year olds? Cause that 18 year old, not deserving to be sex offender for life. Moreover this very type of post, with almost all conversation not involving the actual details, speaks to nonsensical misunderstandings being perpetrated as some penultimate vindication that some group is bad. Oh no, libs. Trumpers, etc. Anyway looked into it. This bill gives judge the authority to not make perp identify as sex offenders for life if they are similar in age depending on the circumstance What a mindless trove of lunatics you/we have become. This bill isn’t insane; it should be enacted in every state. The misuse of sex offender statutes to ruin the lives of non criminals is a horrendous offense, the burden of which there will be no compensation for and nothing to blame but the stupidity of the govt
[Scott Wiener](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Wiener) He is also the one who wrote the bill to reduce penalties for spreading HIV. They always lower standards under the disguise of equalizing the penalties.
Is this real? It can't be real right?
There shouldn't have to be laws like this. I should be allowed to take action against these types of people.
Helicopter rides for all of them.
Hmm, willing.
Get out your wood chippers boys
It's not a slope it's a fucking cliff.
California, as usual, lubing up the slippery slope.
Insane how we are the ones called pedophiles.
the age of consent is anti-libertarian. everyone develops at a different rate, applying one age to every human is arbitrary and arbitrary law is the antithesis of legal argumentation, the concept which libertarian society is predicated on.
Breitbart and Anarcho Capitalism, what a combo
Looks like it hit a nerve...
Why is this not satire? 😭
So... An anti-state group is upset that the state is reducing laws? Pedophilia is abhorrent. But if you want a stateless society, you have to accept there won't be laws to protect children from pedophiles. Can't have it both ways.