4 ms·

And yet they pass SB 145. Absolute whack jobs running CA.

codemac 6y ago
This is why quality local papers & media is so important, because the title of SB 145 is very different that the legal consequences of it's content. The number of friends I have that read nytimes, twitter, etc every day, but don't know the name of their state representatives or even the mayor of their city, is far too high. When I try to talk to them about these issues, I have to start so far back explaining the history of California politics, the statistics of the current issue, etc. Whereas I can talk to them about some minute federal tax detail and they generally teach me. However, I don't know how to make local news more profitable as it's a smaller market.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  More and more I want to find ways for us to do un profitable things that we agree are good ideas. Yes we have patreon etc which is super good, but I also want ways to better organize groups. Patreon backers are not organized in the traditional sense. They do not hold meetings or have a simple way to talk to one another.
dntrkv 6y ago
Why do you think anal/oral sex should be treated different from vaginal?
- jedberg 6y ago
  I believe what OP was trying to express is that they think vaginal intercourse with a minor should also always require registration regardless of the circumstances. Instead of making it possible for LGBT+ people to be exempt, they want to make it so heterosexual people cannot be exempt.
anaisbetts 6y ago
To save you the Google, SB 145 makes the laws around discretion in consensual yet illegal underage sex not explicitly reference "vaginal intercourse", so that they are equivalent for both straight and queer people. This law is unequivocally good. You could certainly make an argument about the tenets before it, where people within 10 years of age do not have to register as sex offenders, but there is absolutely zero reason to special-case heterosexuals.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  It's not unequivocally good; the law could have equalized by removing discretion in all cases.
  - anaisbetts 6y ago
    It's like you read the first part of what I wrote then wandered off
- refurb 6y ago
  I think it’s the 10 year thing. So basically a 24 year old who has sex with a 14 year old will no longer have to register as a sex offender.
  - anaisbetts 6y ago
    The 10 year thing was previous law. You are not arguing about SB 145, you are arguing against some other decision

This is why quality local papers & media is so important, because the title of SB 145 is very different that the legal consequences of it's content. The number of friends I have that read nytimes, twitter, etc every day, but don't know the name of their state representatives or even the mayor of their city, is far too high. When I try to talk to them about these issues, I have to start so far back explaining the history of California politics, the statistics of the current issue, etc. Whereas I can talk to them about some minute federal tax detail and they generally teach me. However, I don't know how to make local news more profitable as it's a smaller market.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
More and more I want to find ways for us to do un profitable things that we agree are good ideas. Yes we have patreon etc which is super good, but I also want ways to better organize groups. Patreon backers are not organized in the traditional sense. They do not hold meetings or have a simple way to talk to one another.

dntrkv 6y ago

Why do you think anal/oral sex should be treated different from vaginal?

jedberg 6y ago
I believe what OP was trying to express is that they think vaginal intercourse with a minor should also always require registration regardless of the circumstances. Instead of making it possible for LGBT+ people to be exempt, they want to make it so heterosexual people cannot be exempt.

anaisbetts 6y ago

To save you the Google, SB 145 makes the laws around discretion in consensual yet illegal underage sex not explicitly reference "vaginal intercourse", so that they are equivalent for both straight and queer people. This law is unequivocally good. You could certainly make an argument about the tenets before it, where people within 10 years of age do not have to register as sex offenders, but there is absolutely zero reason to special-case heterosexuals.

SamReidHughes 6y ago
It's not unequivocally good; the law could have equalized by removing discretion in all cases.
- anaisbetts 6y ago
  It's like you read the first part of what I wrote then wandered off
refurb 6y ago
I think it’s the 10 year thing. So basically a 24 year old who has sex with a 14 year old will no longer have to register as a sex offender.
- anaisbetts 6y ago
  The 10 year thing was previous law. You are not arguing about SB 145, you are arguing against some other decision