This message was self-deleted by its author

[sir pball]

302. What source do you have?

The youngest I've heard is 14 from the CNN link and the only confirmed contact was with the 16-year old (the other "young male" was unidentified).

I caught myself on .55 (sexual abuse 3) and edited to update. But what are you talking about with 235.21.3? The text I'm getting from FindLaw is "3. Knowing the character and content of the communication which, in whole or in part, depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he intentionally uses any computer communication system allowing the input, output, examination or transfer, of computer data or computer programs from one computer to another, to initiate or engage in such communication with a person who is a minor." No monetary consideration no, but where was a "computer communication system" used to "initiate or engage in such communication", e.g. when were lewd materials sent over the internet? Facebook?

I don't agree on 263.05 and 130.52 (forcible touching), I just said I think those along with .55 if the dancers were old enough are the only cases that can even be made and 263.05 is an incredibly long shot that depends on simply having other people in the room qualify as a "perfomance."

Do you really believe that these boys were psychologically damaged so much that the most severe legal penalties that could possibly be applied should be applied? Should the court also order that all of them be placed into therapy? This seems like an appropriate response for a parent who hosts a party with alcohol and kids die in a DUI, but not for giving some kids what was quite honestly the time of their lives.