Classical Values :: Republican perverts menacing the nation's youth?

October 01, 2006

Republican perverts menacing the nation's youth?

I'm a bit confused by the huge fuss over the Foley scandal, because while what he did (sexually suggestive flirting with a page) was inappropriate, this jerk was caught and he resigned.

While Foley's conduct was a reprehensible breach of the public trust, what people seem to be forgetting is that nothing illegal happened. The age of consent in DC is sixteen, but there isn't alleged to have been any sex.

Here's Say Anything:

....given information available now, it doesn't appear as though Foley has broken any laws. The age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16 years old, and apparently Foley never actually had sex with the boy. Also, Foley is not married. He was, as far as the law is concerned, a single man flirting with a young staffer in his office. Not exactly an ethical situation given the boy's age and that Foley basically manipulated someone who worked for him, but it wasn't illegal either.

So what, really, could Hastert and Boehner have done? Foley didn't commit a crime, and the boy's parents apparently have said that they didn't want the matter to go any further...so what options would they have been left with?

Not many, as far as I can see.

It's inappropriate behavior by a high-ranking congressman, and no more. (The conflation of earlier emails into the latest scandal changes nothing, as there's no actual sexual activity, and the email participant(s) haven't even been identified.)

So why is the left acting like it's Watergate?

I don't know much about Foley, and he may well be the hypocrite people are saying he is. But the whole thing is so puffed up as to be almost ridiculous.

The nation's children are at risk?

Spare me.

When I was sixteen I had a pretty good idea what was going on. Then as now, there were occasional older men who were sexually interested in male teenagers. This was laughably obvious. Among my peers, such sexual interest was treated as a subject of amusement, and the men were regarded as worthy of either contempt or pity. (I also remember a couple of examples when physical violence was meted out against the older man.) But fear? The idea would have been absurd. Healthy young male teenagers did not fear lecherous old perverts when I was a kid. Do they now? Did I grow up too fast or have teenagers become helpless children?

It's possible that times have changed, but I'm skeptical.

MORE: Rick Moran looks at the incredible skullduggery behind the emails. I found myself wondering what kind of outcry there'd be if Republicans carried on the same way about a Democratic congressman who talked dirty to male teenagers. (Worse things have been known to happen in the past.....)

AND MORE: A fake blog involved? (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Who'da thunk it?

UPDATE (10/02/06): My thanks Glenn Reynolds for linking this post. Welcome all.

I also agree with this comment from Glenn's reader:

Once the FBI starts investigating, and they will, all sorts of lurid things are going to come out about the use and abuse of pages on both sides of the aisle.

You mean, someone actually will get to read through Ted Kennedy's emails?

MORE: My reading of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act does not indicate that it creates any new sex crimes, so much as it mandates the creation of a database for existing offenses. There is an expanded definition of "specified offenses," but the offenses themselves would have to exist elsewhere:

(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ``SPECIFIED OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR'' TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS.--The term ``specified offense against a minor'' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:

(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.

(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.

(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.

(D) Use in a sexual performance.

(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.

(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title 18, United States Code.

(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.

(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.

(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.

The above assumes the existence of an underlying offense, so I see several problems with the argument that Foley is indictable under his own law:

there is no underlying offense (a sex act would not have been specifically illegal);

the discussions of sex do not appear to have been actual solicitations for sex.

unless Foley specifically requested a lewd photo from the page, no video or graphic depictions of a sexual nature appear to have been involved.

If I am missing something, perhaps a reader can point it out.

UPDATE (10/03/06): According to Andrew Walden, sexual interest in teens (something I wouldn't call "pedophilia") is not limited to Republicans. Nor is hypocrisy (if it's not too hypocritical to point that out).

UPDATE (10/03/06): Via Glenn Reynolds, Orin Kerr looks at the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which makes it illegal to entice minors to engage "in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." Whether an attempt to entice occurred, depends on whether or not a sex act was contemplated, and where. Says Kerr,

...the legal question is whether Foley's communications were a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in persuading a minor to commit a sexual act that would be illegal where the act was expected to occur.

From what I've seen so far, I don't think there's much of a case, but there might be more emails.

It's interesting that the law descends from the Mann Act, under which musician Chuck Berry was convicted and imprisoned. The girl was 14.

In a more recent post, I wonder whether there would be as much fuss if Foley's victim had been female.

(Now that I think about it, Chuck Berry isn't really thought of as a pedophile....)

MORE: More emails here, and the allegations now involve online sex. I don't think online sex can possibly constitute illegal sex (any more than phone sex), because sex has to take place in person.

posted by Eric on 10.01.06 at 10:34 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4072

Comments

Of course the issue here is hypocrisy, but hypocrisy on this grand a scale is a big deal! Foley built his reputation in Congress as the protector of minors from pedophiles. He wrote legislation to outlaw websites with sexually suggestive pictures of minors. He wrote legislation giving organizations like the Boy Scouts access to FBI fingerprint checks so they could weed out pedophiles, whom Foley refered to as "sickos." This situation reminds me of the movie "La Cage aux Folles", in which the President of the Society for Moral Order dies in the arms of a black underage prostitute, throwing his organization into chaos.

Chocolatier · October 2, 2006 01:49 AM

I haven't researched it extensively, but didn't Democrats support this same legislation?

http://www.answers.com/topic/mark-foley

Foley's legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, America's Most Wanted host John Walsh, and a number of victims' rights groups. President George W. Bush signed it into law as part of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006.

Here's John Walsh on the Act:

http://www.movieweb.com/tv/news/47/13947.php

...there are lots of really powerful, good components to this legislation. It was a long battle. Congressman Mark Foley from Florida wrote it about 2.5 years ago, when we were talking about sex offenders in Florida. James Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the House Judiciary, got it passed three times, the last time being yesterday. And the Senate, on the Senate side, Bill Frist was a champion of the bill; Senator Oren Hatch introduced it to the Senate, along with Senator Joe Biden from Delaware, the democratic senator who became a champion of the bill. Senator Kennedy worked on it. Senator Leahy worked on it. Arlen Specter, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, was a very strong advocate for the bill. Diane Feinstein. There are a lot of people who worked hard to perfect and fine tune this bill to make it as tough as it is. I really think it's a true bipartisan piece of legislation. Finally, after almost 2.5 years it is passed and I really think it will impact the way that this country's criminal justice system deals with sex offenders.

The law doesn't strike me as evidence of any uniquely Republican morality. Obviously, Foley is a hypocrite, but I don't think this see why his hypocrisy makes this particularly more huge than if a Democrat had sent a sexually suggestive email to a sixteen year old. (It's not as if the Republicans are claiming to be against sex with children, but the Democrats aren't.)

Another question I don't quite understand is why sexual transgressions are seen as more hypocritical than other varieties. Had Foley voted to criminalize mail or tax fraud, and then been found to have committed such a crime, he'd be out of office, but would he (much less other Republicans) be loudly condemned as a hypocrite?

The full text of the Walsh Act is here (pdf file).

Eric Scheie · October 2, 2006 09:30 AM

Chocolatier

Let's please try to be specific here. Foley, while was being a lech in "talking dirty" with a 16 y/o, there's nothing to suggest he was a pedophile. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation for a prepubscent child. Teenagers are adolescents. Ephebophilia.

We are dealing with two separate incidents. The emails with the 16 y/o page were innocuous. No sexual suggestions or allusions at all. The recently revealed, sexually explicit IM's are both from 2003 (so the Walsh legislation of 2006 doesn't apply) we still don't know the age or status of the anonymous participant. I've read the IM's. They are consensual.

I think the resignation of Foley is spot on because of the power differential between a Congressperson and a page.

Kinda like a President and an intern.

Darleen · October 2, 2006 10:13 AM

I think my initial comment above was misunderstood. I didn't accuse the Republican Party of being hypocritical about this; I accused one man of being a hypocrite. Democrats running for election may try to paint themselves as the defenders of youth and American morality, but I didn't say that. I seem to recall a recent Democratic president who had an "improper relationship" with a young White House intern and then lying about it, or does my memory fail me?

Chocolatier · October 2, 2006 10:36 AM

Yes, and the relationship was improper but not illegal. The crime involved perjury and not sex, which was legal.

There's no allegation of perjury here. So far, the Foley allegations don't amount even to legal sex, but improper sexual discussions.

Eric Scheie · October 2, 2006 11:35 AM

Hypocrisy is always a legitimate political issue, even if no law was broken. Most people don't know it, but hypocrisy was a very popular subject in American literature and music in the late 19th Century. One of my favorite songs from this period was the theme song of the popular singer and humorist Eddie Foy Sr. entitled "They Call Him An Honest Man." The first verse goes:

He goes to church on Sunday
And passes �round the contribution box.
But meet him in the office on a Monday:
He�s as crooked and as cunning as a fox.
On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday
He�s robbing everybody that he can�
But he goes to church on Sunday,
So they say that he�s an honest man.

Chocolatier · October 2, 2006 01:20 PM

I still ain't seeing the hypocrisy on Foley's part here, Chocolatier.

Unless you know something we don't and those IM logs involved an actual child, rather than a - perfectly legal, and for purposes of sex, "adult" enough in DC - 16 or 17 year old.

Even the impropriety of his actions doesn't seem hypocritical, unless he was pushing propriety rather than protection from sexual abuse.

(Contra Eric, I'm not even sure his support of the Walsh act is hypocritical - he's not a "sex offender", by any of the evidence we have.

Being "icky" is not the same as being either a sex offender, a hypocrite, or a child molester.)

Sigivald · October 2, 2006 04:43 PM

Gee, I am surprised that no one here seesm to thinks that Foley is a hypocrite except me. It seems pretty obvious. While a 16 year old page has reached the age of consent in D.C., we need to remember that a 16 year old is still a minor. The parents of these pages expect that the Congressmen they serve will act "in loco parentis", which Foley clearly has not.

Chocolatier · October 2, 2006 05:30 PM

Chocolatier

At this point we don't know the age or status of the participant in the IM session. We only know the participant in an email exchange with Foley was 16 at the time, and those emails contain no sexual solicitations or talk at all. Merely friendly.

Darleen · October 2, 2006 08:32 PM

The Republicans, in order to save our youth, passed federal legislation criminalizing sexual activity under the age of 18. So by their standards, something is amiss.

Secondly, this is an enormously big deal, but not because of the age or sexual orientation of the individuals. It exemplifies what "sexual harassment in the workplace" has always been about.

Had any of this conduct occurred outside of the work setting, the kid would have told the dude where to get off, and that would have been the end of it. But that's not how it occurred, it happened in the workplace among disparate levels of authority that did not allow the kid to tell the dude what he really thought. Instead, he had to report it to his seniors, who then, federal law nothwithstanding, concealed those facts from everyone in a Grand Silence of Oppressive Sexual Harassment.

Again, the ages and the sexual orientation are entirely irrelevant (except sociologically). The workplace is all that counts, and it should have counted far more than the Republican leadership gave it any thought at all. Those in authority who extort sexual interest and favors are abusing that authority. That's what this story is all about!

The Gay Species · October 3, 2006 03:10 PM

Wait a minute, as far as I have gathered, the boy in question was a former page, who was already back home in Louisiana. So how is this workplace harrassment?

He was over the age of consent, so he was not a minor. He wasn't working for Foley. So what exactly did Foley do wrong? I'm straining to see any impropriety here, let alone anything illegal.

Milhouse · October 3, 2006 04:52 PM