Streaking = Sex Offender for Life

Sadly, it seems government officials have once again overreached and it turns out jogging naked or streaking will get you labeled as a sex offender for life.

Wannabe Vigilantes need not fear too much, as sex offenders are classified in three levels, so a nudist won't get in the same level as a rapist, but this great punishment of someone will drag their whole life down.

http://lodinews.com/articles/2007/08...ked_070823.txt

Quote:

---

[The Streaker] has no adult record and played on the golf team at Lodi High. But if prosecutors charge him with indecent exposure and he is convicted, he would be required to register for life as a sex offender.

---

:no:

CR

Hah!

Hey he was lucky , if a good 'ol gun bearing citizen found a naked man in his backyard in he could shoot him and get included in the self defense shooting figures .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Flashing has been a sex offense for years. Running naked infront of children makes one a childmolester, so what's the point?
I mean, a person doesn't even have to have intent in California to be labeled a sex offender - all they have to do is move towards someone (female) and for them to feel threatened. A chidmolester, if a child feels threatened.


So, wtf? The guy is a perve. It may have been acceptable to streak the Oscars in the 70's, or a baseball game (WS), or football (SB) back in the day - today a costume malfunction drives the neocons nuts, so you expect what?
:balloon2:

Well, this is quite a different response to the one that was received after I posted in the Weird News topic about topless women being legal now.

While I can see the point of this and the idea behind it, it sucks a lot...

So, running naked in front of a child is abuse, yet children seem to survive perfectly well on nudist beaches...

~:smoking:

itt, nudity is sex.

Quote:

---

nudity is sex.

---

So Clinton didn't have sex with that fat intern after all .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

nudity is sex.

---

In this case I apparently frequently have group sex when going to the sauna :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

In this case I apparently frequently have group sex when going to the sauna :sweatdrop:

---

it´s always the quiet ones :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, running naked in front of a child is abuse, yet children seem to survive perfectly well on nudist beaches...

~:smoking:

---

I assume it was the parents that took their kiddies to the nude beach? As opposed to someone simply removing their clothes in public in front of them?

Might be a slight difference there. Think?:yes:

I see no shame in the human body (aside from my own - people run screaming in the street after seeing Kafir's bumm), but, time and place seem an appropriate measure for just about everything. Nudity included.
:curtain:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

I assume it was the parents that took their kiddies to the nude beach? As opposed to someone simply removing their clothes in public in front of them?

Might be a slight difference there. Think?:yes:

I see no shame in the human body (aside from my own - people run screaming in the street after seeing Kafir's bumm), but, time and place seem an appropriate measure for just about everything. Nudity included.
:curtain:

---

Yeah, but come on, we have streakers at our home-coming football game pretty much every year and yet our school isn't in bad shape. It's not like the streakers have in some way effected any of us, it's really no big deal.

That being said it's definitely in bad taste and you really shouldn't streak, but making a person a sex offender of any sort and doing anything other than punish them with a fine is a bit extreme in my opinion. Then again why should we stop convincing the rest of the world that we're backward and prudish?

I love being European sometimes.

Though Austria seems to like nudists just a little too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Yeah, but come on, we have streakers at our home-coming football game pretty much every year and yet our school isn't in bad shape. It's not like the streakers have in some way effected any of us, it's really no big deal.

---

Your poor sad fellow. You can't even see the damage that has been foisted on you -- a poor unsuspecting student just trying to eke out an education.

CLEARLY, you need to contact an attorney now. This abuse calls for a massive personal injury suit levied againt the school system and the locality for failing to stop the repeated sex abuse you have had to suffer.

Oh the humanity.




-- Brought to you by America's Trial Lawyers.

"Leaving no stone unturned in getting you the money you deserve."*


*normal 40% fee applies in most cases. 50% or more charged only when the case is particularly lucrative.

Am I glad I don't live in America... otherwise I'd be a sex offender? ~:wacko:

Bloody republicans! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Bloody republicans!

---

It isn't just the GOP, not by a long shot. Any hysteric who can scream "Think of the children!" can get a law passed in this country. Recent terrifying example:

"But her profile said she was 18" = jail cell, judge rules

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: August 29, 2007 - 11:44PM CT

Be careful when hooking up with other "adults" online—even if they say they're 18, you'll be the one in hot water if they turn out to be 14 instead. That's the opinion of a federal judge in Ohio, who dismissed a suit last week against SexSearch.com, a web site that hosts personals ads by people who are looking for sex. The plaintiff, who went by John Doe due to the very personal nature of the suit, accused the site and its owners of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of warranty, but Judge Jack Zouhary ruled that the site and its alleged transgressions were protected under the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

It all goes back to 2005, when Doe became a paying member of SexSearch.com in order to find... well, you know. He eventually met another paying member on the site, a woman who is named in the court documents as Jane Roe. Roe had completed her profile on the site with a recent and authentic picture, a birth date that indicated that she was over 18, and a statement that she was looking for someone "who could last for a long time." The two eventually decided to meet, with Doe going over to Roe's abode in November of 2005 to engage in... well, you know.

Things were all well and good, and the two had even lost contact after a short period of time. Until one night a month later, that is, when Doe found his house surrounded by police—it turned out that Roe was merely 14. Doe was arrested and charged with three separate accounts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and he currently faces up to 15 years in prison as well as a lifetime registration as a sexual offender. Doe was publicly named for engaging in sexual relations with a minor, which he said ruined his reputation as a law-abiding citizen and caused him to lose his job. All in all, Doe's case sounds like the worst nightmare of almost anyone who has searched for a "casual" relationship with someone online.

Doe's complaint places blame for the entire series of events on the shoulders of SexSearch.com, which he says misrepresented itself by displaying the phrase "all persons within this site are 18+." Since SexSearch.com also reserved the right to modify member profiles that it believed to be misleading or underage, Doe said that it was negligent and deceptive since it allowed Roe's profile and photo to remain on the site. Basically, if the site had discovered Roe's real age and subsequently prevented her from posting on the site, none of this would have ever happened.

While that may be true, Judge Zouhary didn't feel that that Doe should have placed that much trust in the site. In his 29-page ruling, the judge wrote that there was nothing deceptive about the site's warning language stating that all persons were over 18. "Plaintiff was not an unsuspecting customer," wrote Zouhary in his opinion. "He was aware the SexSearch membership registration process did not include an age-verification procedure. As noted above, Plaintiff specifically agreed to Terms and Conditions which stated that SexSearch did not guarantee or verify any information provided by users of the website, and nothing outside of the Terms and Conditions creates warranties."

Ultimately, Zouhary said, SexSearch.com was protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "interactive computer services" cannot be held responsible for publishing information provided to them by members. Judge Zouhary also cited a 2007 lawsuit involving MySpace, which asserted that MySpace should be held responsible for minors participating in communications with adults—another case dismissed as a result of section 230. Since Doe never attempted to argue that the site had modified Roe's profile, Zouhary said that the service was otherwise protected by section 230.

Zouhary ruled that even without the section 230 protections, Doe's case was not a strong one. He wrote that Doe had plenty of opportunity to verify Roe's age when he met her in person at what we all presume to be her parents' house, but failed to do so. "Plaintiff employed a double-barreled shotgun approach to this case, but failed to hit a claim upon which relief may be granted," reads the opinion. Unfortunately for John Doe, it looks like 14 will get him 15 in the slammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It isn't just the GOP, not by a long shot. Any hysteric who can scream "Think of the children!" can get a law passed in this country. Recent terrifying example:

"But her profile said she was 18" = jail cell, judge rules

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: August 29, 2007 - 11:44PM CT

Be careful when hooking up with other "adults" online—even if they say they're 18, you'll be the one in hot water if they turn out to be 14 instead. That's the opinion of a federal judge in Ohio, who dismissed a suit last week against SexSearch.com, a web site that hosts personals ads by people who are looking for sex. The plaintiff, who went by John Doe due to the very personal nature of the suit, accused the site and its owners of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of warranty, but Judge Jack Zouhary ruled that the site and its alleged transgressions were protected under the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

It all goes back to 2005, when Doe became a paying member of SexSearch.com in order to find... well, you know. He eventually met another paying member on the site, a woman who is named in the court documents as Jane Roe. Roe had completed her profile on the site with a recent and authentic picture, a birth date that indicated that she was over 18, and a statement that she was looking for someone "who could last for a long time." The two eventually decided to meet, with Doe going over to Roe's abode in November of 2005 to engage in... well, you know.

Things were all well and good, and the two had even lost contact after a short period of time. Until one night a month later, that is, when Doe found his house surrounded by police—it turned out that Roe was merely 14. Doe was arrested and charged with three separate accounts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and he currently faces up to 15 years in prison as well as a lifetime registration as a sexual offender. Doe was publicly named for engaging in sexual relations with a minor, which he said ruined his reputation as a law-abiding citizen and caused him to lose his job. All in all, Doe's case sounds like the worst nightmare of almost anyone who has searched for a "casual" relationship with someone online.

Doe's complaint places blame for the entire series of events on the shoulders of SexSearch.com, which he says misrepresented itself by displaying the phrase "all persons within this site are 18+." Since SexSearch.com also reserved the right to modify member profiles that it believed to be misleading or underage, Doe said that it was negligent and deceptive since it allowed Roe's profile and photo to remain on the site. Basically, if the site had discovered Roe's real age and subsequently prevented her from posting on the site, none of this would have ever happened.

While that may be true, Judge Zouhary didn't feel that that Doe should have placed that much trust in the site. In his 29-page ruling, the judge wrote that there was nothing deceptive about the site's warning language stating that all persons were over 18. "Plaintiff was not an unsuspecting customer," wrote Zouhary in his opinion. "He was aware the SexSearch membership registration process did not include an age-verification procedure. As noted above, Plaintiff specifically agreed to Terms and Conditions which stated that SexSearch did not guarantee or verify any information provided by users of the website, and nothing outside of the Terms and Conditions creates warranties."

Ultimately, Zouhary said, SexSearch.com was protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "interactive computer services" cannot be held responsible for publishing information provided to them by members. Judge Zouhary also cited a 2007 lawsuit involving MySpace, which asserted that MySpace should be held responsible for minors participating in communications with adults—another case dismissed as a result of section 230. Since Doe never attempted to argue that the site had modified Roe's profile, Zouhary said that the service was otherwise protected by section 230.

Zouhary ruled that even without the section 230 protections, Doe's case was not a strong one. He wrote that Doe had plenty of opportunity to verify Roe's age when he met her in person at what we all presume to be her parents' house, but failed to do so. "Plaintiff employed a double-barreled shotgun approach to this case, but failed to hit a claim upon which relief may be granted," reads the opinion. Unfortunately for John Doe, it looks like 14 will get him 15 in the slammer.

---

In that case:
Bloody Americans! :sweatdrop: