|
October 05, 2006
"Emails" that weren't with children who weren't? (A correction)
Maybe this is a correction, and maybe it's a partial correction, but Justin pointed out earlier that in a number of posts in which I referred to "emails," I was actually talking about instant messaging -- which isn't email at all, but a sort of text-oriented conversation, much like a phone call but accomplished by means of text. [FWIW, I don't use instant messaging.] This might not be as minor a point as it seems, because it raises another issue, which is the distinction between emails on the one hand, and telephone conversations and instant messaging on the other. An email is not a conversation. It is a single communication transaction, and it need not be answered. As we all know, an email can be annoying or unwanted, or it can be complete junk. The remedy in such cases is to not reply to the email, to delete it, possibly block the sender or ask him to send no more. In the case of conversation, the situation changes. If you are talking on a phone, or talking by way of instant messaging, as long as you remain on the phone or online, you're engaged in the conversation. There's a certain voluntary aspect to it that isn't present in email. If you don't wish to continue a conversation, you end it! If you don't want the conversation in the first place, you simply hang up (or in the case of IM, exit, and close the window). Continuing to chat means that you want to chat. What about harassment? Normally, we don't stay in conversations which are harassing. Certainly, not for an entire hour! Telephone harassment consists of repeatedly calling someone after being told to stop, and I think a similar rule applies to instant messaging. From what I've seen, there's no indication that Foley's "victims" (certainly not this one) asked Foley to stop communicating. Nor did they state that they were offended and terminate the conversation. In the case of the emails, though, I don't think they have to do anything. Receiving an email requires no response. Is this distinction relevant? I think it is at least as relevant as the age of the "victim." And now I'm I seeing reports that the young man whose lengthy chat with Foley created so much of the current uproar was eighteen at the time. Is it possible to have a "pedophile sex email scandal" that didn't involve pedophilia, or sex, or emails? Stay tuned. MORE: And how about this? XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXXA joke? I could have sworn people were taking it seriously.... MORE: Is it worth taking another look at all the facts and finding out exactly what Foley did? AND MORE (3:32 p.m.): It's now beginning to make sense why the former page would hire a prominent attorney. QUESTION: At the risk of being redundant, what did the MSM know and when did they know it? Sigh. MORE: New post here. Anyone who thinks that I am making excuses for Foley, please think again. The man's lack of self control got him into this mess -- and he got what he deserved. UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and welcome all. This origin and etiology of this thing just gets crazier and crazier, and I think the blogosphere needs to keep digging. At this point, it's not about Foley, who no one defends, and who deserves to spend his life skulking around as the shameful betrayer of the public trust that he is. This is more on the level of a post mortem of what has the makings of being a malignant hidden scandal wrapped inside the ostensible scandal. In other words, yes, there remains a Foley scandal. The question is, was it the only scandal? MORE: The media dispute is heating up. The page reported by Drudge to have engaged in a prank is said to deny there was a prank, and ABC News claims that three more pages (whose names are being withheld) have come forward. It's news versus news. I'm sure the real news is in there somewhere. CORRECTION: Reading the above closely, it doesn't appear the latest claimants are denying the Drudge Story; they're just denying their own IMs were pranks. MORE: This really has the feel of a media war to it. The latest allegations from ABC date back to 1998. Why did they not appear until hours after Drudge reported the prank story? UPDATE (10/06/06): Wonkette is claiming that Drudge's prank story "didn't work," because it's no longer featured as the main headline with the flashing light. The link is still there, though, headlined "CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE CHATS WERE PAGE 'PRANK GONE AWRY'..." -- so I don't know how to evaluate this. The story is now called an "Update" and here's the current text: **Update**Other than the denial by the young man's attorney, it's the same story. FWIW, I've never liked the fact that Drudge doesn't have links, and doesn't issue corrections, but it seems to be standard fare for him. posted by Eric on 10.05.06 at 10:11 AM
Comments
Correction: Anyone under 18 years of age. Mrs. du Toit · October 5, 2006 12:52 PM I think they're talking about this law, which prohibits using computers to entice or seduce, and this law prohibitng transmitting pornography to minors. It seems that Foley was in Florida during the IMs, but was the teenager there too? Before getting to whether there was seduction or pornography, I think the victim had to have been in Florida at the time of transmission for Florida jurisdiction to obtain: (5) STATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION A person is subject to prosecution in this state pursuant to chapter 910 for any conduct proscribed by this section which the person engages in, while either within or outside this state, if by such conduct the person commits a violation of this section involving a child residing in this state, or another person believed by the person to be a child residing in this state. Eric Scheie · October 5, 2006 01:32 PM It's often a struggle to get to the truth. Most people hear what they want and shut out the rest. Good for you, for wanting to know more when a man's reputation and career are at stake. You're asking the sort of questions that tend to put people in the line of fire, and so they don't get asked - even though they're the right ones. Many pulled the trigger on this matter really, really quick. They're being really, really slow in taking a second look even though it's clearly warranted. We are judged, one day, as we once judged in life. Mr. Snitch · October 5, 2006 04:28 PM Mrs. du Toit - it appears that neither Foley nor the "victim" (I'm using the quotes because he may have been a prankster, not a true victim) were in Florida (e.g., Foley allegedly messaging in the midst of a House vote; the "victim" is an Oklahoman with no apparent contact to Florida). It also appears that the "victim" was over 18 at the time of the incident. Foley is a creep, but he doesn't appear to have done anything illegal. Moqui · October 5, 2006 04:45 PM What will be interesting to see is if the 'victim' was with a bunch of his buddies when the IM's were being traded. If it was a prank, very few teenage boys would do something like this without a few pals around to share the laughs. Wouldn't it be odd at the end of all this for Mark Foley to get shifted into the victim category? Creep that he is, he may have been set up and people don't take too kindly to that. MagicalPat · October 5, 2006 05:05 PM If Drudge's report is true, then it appears that Foley wasn't engaging in predatory conduct at all. Instead, it seems that he was a lonely old gay man who, while he should have resisted being played, was nonetheless weak and allowed himself to be manipulated. The harsh moral judgments against Foley that everybody has been bandying about, including myself, appear to have been premature. We assumed the worst, yet the worst may not have been true. It seems that in some respects, Foley has been the victim of a gross injustice, insofar as the accusations against him of perversion and evil are far disproprortionate to his actual offense - especially when one considers that others have done far worse things and punished much less, if at all. If Drudge's report is true, then Foley is not the despicable man he has been portrayed - instead he is to be pitied, even though Foley did slit his own throat by going along with the false come-ons. Youths playing nasty tricks on lonely old gay men is/was a sadly typical form of queer-bashing. In the end, that is all this episode appears to be - if Drudge is correct. Patrick Rothwell · October 5, 2006 05:12 PM No, it's Republican bashing -- using whatever stick is at hand, whatever mud might stick. As soon as a rumor starts, if it's against a Rep ... it MUST be true! Just like the Mass Media against America. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad · October 5, 2006 05:44 PM I'm not sure why everyone is so motivated to make excuses for Foley. The only morally appropriate response is condemnation, and at such a point that he truly repents, forgiveness. The House leadership may not have handled the situation very well, but I don't think they had any ill-intent. However, they are CURRENTLY handling the situation horribly. Hastert doesn't need to set-down, but he SHOULD take full responsibility for his in-actions and ask for forgiveness. Trying to deflect the blame is only helping the Democrat cause. Foley's actions might have hurt a few Republican votes in November --- but this current trend of excusing his actions is going to GUARANTEE we lost a LOT more votes. Howard Cronin · October 5, 2006 05:57 PM Everyone is motivated to make excuses for Foley? Quite the contrary, from what I can see. That Foley is an indefensible jerk who abused his position and breached the public trust is beyond dispute, as are his lack of personal morality and absence of self control. However, to expose a hardball political operation is not making an excuse. To maintain that Foley wasn't in Florida is not making an excuse. Nor is it making an excuse to say that sophisticated teenagers are not innocent children. I might not like all this phony moralistic posturing, but that's not making excuses for Foley. Eric Scheie · October 5, 2006 06:05 PM Hello, no one forced Mr Foley to write what he did. And Please read the fine print in Drudge "this does not apply to other emails" only the one from the youth from OK. In any case, this is not about Foley or his lust for young boys. This is about the Republican Congress and their lust for power without moral bounds. Rather than protect the minor Pages, they chose to protect their majority. The young boys give the story traction which is indeed a sad but true reflection of our society. kapots · October 5, 2006 06:05 PM And by the way, I do condemn Foley! And no, I do not forgive him! Eric Scheie · October 5, 2006 06:18 PM It's the severity and magnitude of the charge that makes this so important. Ask Clarence Thomas. Arlo · October 5, 2006 06:53 PM There is a difference between making "excuses" for Mark Foley and trying to determine if he violated criminal law. Just because one questions opines that there is a reasonable likelihood that Foley violated no law does NOT mean that one is excusing Foley's conduct. Sheesh. Somethings can be totally reprehensible, worthy of contempt, and still not be unlawful. Here's where things stand: Everything else is conjecture. There are lives and reputations at stake here. Not just Foley's. His is pre-ruined now and rightfully so. But in the rush to judgment, there's also the lives and reputations of the pages such as Jordan Edmunds and, less importantly to me, of the House Republican leadership. If you're genuinely interested in protecting "the children," you owe it to those same children to wait for the evidence before trumpeting the conclusions. retrofuturistic · October 5, 2006 07:47 PM Retro, you're right, it's almost all conjecture. About the only thing we REALLY know is that Foley resigned - when he was given no choice about it at all. We don't *know* that the transcripts are real. We don't *know* if Foley has ever had sex with anyone - man or woman. It disturbs me that a trascript of an IM session with no verifiable data attached, given to a news organization by an anonymous third party, is now considered to be enough evidence to ruin careers, start an FBI investigation and throw an election. Did we learn nothing from Rathergate? svolich · October 6, 2006 02:26 AM Did we learn nothing from Rathergate? That ought to be the question of the day. All I've seen is dirty talk of questionable provenance, and even that's lame compared to what I used to hear routinely on Howard Stern. Eric Scheie · October 6, 2006 07:05 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The right to be irrational?
I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I heard a report yesterday, don't know how accurate it is... Florida has laws which prohibit making lewd (don't have the right word) contact with minors. That includes anyone under 16 years of age.
The communications don't have to rise to the level of solicitation or resulting in an act of sex (consensual or otherwise). They just have to be obscene in nature.
The penalty is 10 years her incident, so if there are 10 instant message histories, that could be 100 years.
I think some have approached this from the standpoint that nothing illegal occurred. If there were boys under age 16, something illegal very well might have occurred.