General Discussion

haele

(15,420 posts)

3. What was also in the bill that would be objectionable?

Thu Jul 13, 2023, 04:17 PM

Jul 2023

I'm curious as to what would induce no votes?

It seems as if it would be a no brainier. Unless it was not encompassing enough, or there was something in the bill that was outside of the trafficking of minors that might catch people who they felt shouldn't be charged.

Sort of like how some anti- porn/prostitution advocates say that viewing anime sex (with very childlike cartoon characters) the same as viewing child pornography.

Haele

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Oh won't someone please think of the child sex traffickers! [View all] ripcord Jul 2023 OP

Thankfully our Governor and the Assembly Speaker stepped in ripcord Jul 2023 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author Initech Jul 2023 #2

So....the committee was right to kill the bill? Showbizkid Jul 2023 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author Initech Jul 2023 #7

Why? Showbizkid Jul 2023 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author Initech Jul 2023 #9

So Newsome is pushing a Q-anon bill? Showbizkid Jul 2023 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author Initech Jul 2023 #11

What specifically in this bill Zeitghost Jul 2023 #12

I realize my comment may have stepped in it and I'd like to back out quietly now. Initech Jul 2023 #13

What was also in the bill that would be objectionable? haele Jul 2023 #3

They didn't want to increase the penalties ripcord Jul 2023 #4

Ah, the three strikes law strikes again. haele Jul 2023 #6