3 ms·

> It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break

by MikeUt 5y ago

> It is fundamentally dangerous to offer abusers the opportunity to claim it was all willing, which is why the law makes it always rape. If you choose to break that law, that's on you and you deserve to be treated as an abuser. How right you are. It's similarly dangerous to offer traitors the opportunity to claim they were engaging in protected political speech [1]. Which is why any such acts should be referred to only as "sedition", instead of anything more specific such as "urging resistance to the draft". This way, by re-defining words using legal categories, and resisting any pressure to be more precise, we can make sure the bad guys can't fool us into thinking they're not the vile monsters the prosecution accuses them of being. If a hypothetical law said it's theft, they shouldn't get to claim "it's only copyright infringement" - that would be fundamentally dangerous! At least journalists should be responsible enough not to repeat such claims, and only describe the alleged crime as "theft" or "sedition". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Dracophoenix 5y ago
I hope you're being sarcastic. If you aren't, I can only say you'd be quite at home in Maoist China or the Former Soviet Union. No need to worry about the letter of the law or pesky obstacles like due process.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  That was USA in Vietnam War era.
Latty 5y ago
This a false equivalence. Adults in countries with statutory rape laws have a responsibility placed upon them by the law not to have sex with minors, if they do so, they are breaking the law and—at least—endangering minors by giving cover to abusers. Having sex with a child is not equivalent to protected political speech. It is an action we have specifically placed restrictions on because of the potential harm involved. Your response might as well be applied to driving licenses, or basically anything else, to equate all restrictions or responsibilities in the law to censorship. It's absurd.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  You completely missed my point. I'm not equating it to censorship, nor do I even think statutory rape laws are unjust. My point was we should describe crimes accurately, regardless of what the law calls them. If an act is wrong, it should be clear to the public it is wrong on its own terms, without misleadingly categorizing it as something else.

by MikeUt 5y ago

Dracophoenix 5y ago

I hope you're being sarcastic. If you aren't, I can only say you'd be quite at home in Maoist China or the Former Soviet Union. No need to worry about the letter of the law or pesky obstacles like due process.

AstralStorm 5y ago
That was USA in Vietnam War era.

Latty 5y ago

This a false equivalence. Adults in countries with statutory rape laws have a responsibility placed upon them by the law not to have sex with minors, if they do so, they are breaking the law and—at least—endangering minors by giving cover to abusers. Having sex with a child is not equivalent to protected political speech. It is an action we have specifically placed restrictions on because of the potential harm involved. Your response might as well be applied to driving licenses, or basically anything else, to equate all restrictions or responsibilities in the law to censorship. It's absurd.

MikeUt 5y ago
You completely missed my point. I'm not equating it to censorship, nor do I even think statutory rape laws are unjust. My point was we should describe crimes accurately, regardless of what the law calls them. If an act is wrong, it should be clear to the public it is wrong on its own terms, without misleadingly categorizing it as something else.