In one sense, it doesn't matter if Foley's acts were illegal.

[Jackpine Radical]

It matters, of course, in determining whether or not he can be prosecuted, whether he will spend any time in a small cell with someone named Butch. There seems to be some dispute over whether the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction is 16 or 18. It may also matter where geographically a given page was when he was talking to Foley. If the page was in a 18-consent jurisdiction, the law of that jurisdiction might have been broken even if Foley was in a 16-consent jurisdiction. The federal laws people keep talking about are, I assume, the laws governing DC.

But here is the sense in which it doesn't matter whether it was 18-consent or 16-consent. Whether or not Foley's actions were illegal, they were WRONG. It is improper for a person in their 40's or 50's to use their power & influence to induce a young, impressionable teenager to engage in sexual activity. These are, after all, kids too young to vote, to be emancipated from parental control, to drink, and to volunteer for the military without parental consent.

The upshot is that, whether or not any prosecutions follow in this case, the public will care that one or more dirty old men enticed people who are legally minors for most purposes into sexual activity. If there is not a legal case here, there is still a moral and political one.

[MADem]

1. The issue is inappropriate senior-subordinate relationships

There's also a bit of intimidation and harassment in the mix as well.

And that ASSUMES that he "didn't do anything wrong."

But in addition to all that, and perhaps more egregiously, the guy was a CHEAPSKATE...look at how he consummated his relationship with a former page that he had been grooming for four years:

The two had wine and pizza on a backyard patio and then retired to a spare bedroom, he recalled.

The former page, who served during Foley's first term, said that he believed Foley became bolder in his behavior during his decade in Congress.

"He clearly has used his position, but who hasn't?" the former page said. He still follows protocol in referring to the former congressman as "Mr. Foley."

He said Foley was really two very different people: a legislator "really devoted to his cause," and a sexual being.

He and other former pages were surprised that it took so long for Foley "to get caught," he said. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-page8oct08,0,3896853.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[MichiganVote]

2. It always matters if public officials commit illegal acts, or it should

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Of course it matters if something illegal was done.

I said "in one sense."

My point was that even if nothing illegal transpired, some thoroughly improper acts did.

[Not Me]

3. Nor would it make any difference if the attention were initiated

by a love-struck page toward Foley. (recall that Monica is reported to have initiated as well.) It is inappropriate.

[Zensea]

4. I agree, except ...

... since I'm about to turn 50, I don't think I'd describe Foley as a dirty old man.
In comparison to a 17 year old, yes; but in general terms, 52 (Foley's age) is not really old.
I know it's just a figure of speech.

[northzax]

5. well, DC is a 16 consent

so that's the law they're talking about in DC. the federal laws involve soliciting a minor over interstate lines, and the feds define minor as 18.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Thanks. That is an important clarification.

[unpossibles]

8. yes, but I thought that using the internet to prey on minors

makes it an interstate issue. Am I wrong?

[Jackpine Radical]

12. No, I believe you are right.

But when was this law passed? Was it in effect when Foley was active?

[northzax]

15. my admitedly limited understanding of federal law

is that you actually have to meet someone you have solicited for sex over the internet, or intend to meet them (like going to a pre-arranged place) before it is a crime. this is why prosecutors are looking to state law in Florida and Louisiana, where it is illegal to proposition a minor for sex over the internet. the laws are screwy. the relevant federal law in play here, as I know it, is the 1996 Communications Decency Act which was certainly in effect.


further reading of DC law shows that while you can have sex with someone over 16 (as long as you aren't in a position of authority over them) you cannot provide sexually explicit written material to a minor. it doesn't specify the internet. (strangely, this means that, as a resident of DC, I can have sex with a 17 year old, but I can't write a love letter to her saying I want to have sex with her, strange) I can tell a 16 year old that I want to have sex with her and then do it, but I can't email it, text it or write it in any way. strange law.

[Jacobin]

9. It didn't matter than Monica consented and was of age

Why shouldn't we be glad the RW is crashing down, regardless of the reason that it is

[Rex]

10. Not just 40s or 50s, anyone in charge of teens are responsible

for the damage to their mental makeup. Taking advantage of teens and pre-teens is abhorrent and one of the lowest things an adult can do, IMO.

There are some very smart kids out there, they seem to grow up a lot faster then any other generation. Unfortunately (and now I see why my parents told me these things and I rolled my eyes as a kid) there are some things you just cannot know, even at the age of 18. Some things older people know and can naturally manipulate teens in malicious ways.

To me this is more a moral thing then legal. There are things you just shouldn't do in a supposed civil society.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

That is really what was wrong with what he did, regardless of the law.

[bahrbearian]

11. "spend any time in a small cell with someone named Butch" ?

Why would you reward him ?

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Butch has AIDS.