There was an article in Wednesday's Ann Arbor News about some more proposed
"Internet predator" legislation in Michigan.  If I read the article correctly,
it would make it illegal for an adult talking to a minor online to arrange
to meet that minor.  From the article's discription of the law, it didn't seem
to say anything about the intent in arranging the meeting, although their 
quotes from the law's sponsor indicated pretty clearly that he "intended" to
go after "Internet sex predators" with it.  As far as I know, using the   
Internet to arrange to meet a minor for sex is already illegal, so perhaps
this proposal has to be far more broad or it will be harder to score political
points with it?

The article also said the law has a provision where anybody found guilty of
violating it would be required to pay for the cost of the prosecution.  Is
that legal?  Presumably that would mean that somebody who thought there was
a good chance they would be found guilty would be given a choice between  
pleading guilty and giving up their right to trial, or pleading innocent and
ending up with a larger prosecution bill the better the defense they put on.

Does anybody know more about this?  If the proposed law is written as the 
article seems to say, it would sure put a damper on a lot of Grex social  
activities a lot of us have taken for granted over the last several years.

48 responses total.

<otter zips off to find the exact wording of the proposed legislation>

So, as written, great-grandma could serve time for trying to seduce 
(with money and cookies, no less!!!) her HS-football-team great-
grandson into coming over to shovel her out after a big snowstorm???

I believe that our state government is stupid enough to get it that
wrong, but i believe the same about the Ann Arbor Snooze.

        "The right of the people to peacably assemble ...", eh?

Hey, scg! Couldja please find the article and give us the bill number 
and/or the sponsor so's we can find the silly thing?
<otter is dizzy from surfing legislative proposals and news archives>

Ugh I'm glad I have moved to Oregon.

This item now linked to cyberpunk your conf of the social implications
of networked society.  This has been a great month for Agora to cyberpunk
items. :-)

(I second otter's emotion. I haven't been able to find anything about
it, and I need to know how much time I'm going to have to serve.)  :)

Yikes.  This would be a VeryBadThing (tm)  If I understand #0, the 
GrexWalk, Grex Night Outs, and GrexVolleyball (coming soon) would all be 
in violation if a minor happened to attend them.

Depends on how specific it is.  We'd have to look at the wording.  Pre-
existing events are probably not too big of a problem, but these people 
are stupid to begin with.  A lot of activities we've done would 
certainly be out with this new legislation, though.  Are there any 
exceptions, or will it be illegal for my mom to email my sister telling 
her where we're going to meet before a choir concert?

The article didn't give the bill number.  The sponsor is State Senator Mike
Rodgers.  The article was on page C6 of Wednesday's Ann Arbor News, with the
headline "Legislation targets Internet predators."  It was an Associated Press
sotry, written by Malcolm Johnson.  I couldn't find anything about it on the
websites of either of the major Detroit newspapers, or the Ann Arbor News's
website.  I'll try to type in the text of the article if I have some time in
the next day or two.

As I said, the article was very vague on the wording of the legislation, and
it's not at all clear whether the State Senator doesn't know the difference
between arranging on the Internet to meet for sex or arranging to meet for
some other reason, or whether the author of the article didn't know the
difference.

Or whether it's a hoax...

Legislation targets Internet Predators

- Proposal would make arrangements to meet child online a crime.

By Malcolm Johnson, The Associated Press

LANSING -- Michigan needs tougher laws to go after sexual predators who use
the Internet to snare children, a state senator said Tuesday.

"We have seen there is real danger on the Internet," said Sen. Mike Rogers,
R-Brighton, as he unveiled legislation to beef up state laws to crack down
on sexual predators.

His proposals, which he plans to introduce soon, would make it a crime to make
arrangements online to meet someone believed to be a child, even if the
intended victim turns out tobe an adult, Rogers said.

The bills also call for the forfeiture of computer equipment and vehicles used
in the crime, and make a convicted felon in such cases liable for the cost
of prosecution.

"It's overwhelming the catastrophic damage that abuse does," said Rogers, an
unannounced candidate for Congress in teh 8th District.  He was joined at a
news conference by Wayne County Prosecutor Robert Ficano, who maintains an
Internet crime bureau to go after such violators.

David Faverman, spokesman for Rogers' probable Democratic opponent, state Sen.
Dianne Byrum of Onondaga, declined to comment on Rogers' bills.

During the news conference, one of Ficano's deputy sheriffs demonstrated how
easy it is for sexual predators to locate potential victims.

Ficano said there's no substitute for parents keeping tabs on their children's
computeruse and being aware if their children are chatting with strangers
about questionable acts.

"The real key is education and parents taking responsibility for what their
children are doing," Ficano said.

Rogers said the familiarity of a home computer can lend a false sense of
security.

"Just because it's in your living room and you're a few feet away doesn't mean
there are no bandits going after your kids," he said.

He said the children should be taught that some adults may pose as kids and
to notify an adult if somebody online makes them uncomfortable or asks to meet
them.  Children should never share personal information online, he said.

He added that parents hsould monitor children's computer time.

So its a 'proposed' legislation (details later for sure) from a guy from
Brighton (not exactly a hotbed of 'moral behaviour').  Yawn.

(it sounds [to me] as something similar to so-called "hate crime" 
legislation, i.e., a way to tack on extra punishment to an existing
crime. I didn't gather that he's seeking to make meeting people from
the Internet a crime, but rather a crime to use the Internet to pick
up children for immortal porpoises.)

 Immortal porpoises? Are simply long living porqupines okay?

        I ASSUME you mean immoral purposes...

Heh.  Nothing remotely resembling details on what exactly it proposes to
outlaw, doesn't sounds like the paper has heard any details, and Sen.
Windbag may not have bothered to write anything on paper yet, anyway.
This should have been given less press coverage than "Free mixed-breed
kittens to good home".

what about "Free Cross-Dressing Kittens Need Good Home"?

If you have kittens that can dress themselves, I'll take em.

        I'd rather have "toilet-trained" kittens... Although, thankfully
        *any* kitten is smarter than a puppy, let alone a dog.

re #15: (it's an old joke.)  ;)

(That you can probably find in the 'embattled humour' item, either here or
in Summer Agora.)

So it would be OK to use the telephone to arrange to meet a neigbhorhood kid
to act as a babysitter, but heinously illegal to do it in text online?

Scott, Scott, Scott, there you go again expecting logic from politicians.

  time for Helen Lovejoy to pop out of the woodwork and wail
  "Won't somebody *please* think of the children?"

  (it's a long-running gag that occasionally surfaces in 'the
  Simpsons' whenever they start making fun of stuff like the
  pending legislation described in #0..)

so if a 19 year old Grexer arranges on grex to meet a 17 year old Grexer
at the grexwalk to walk around the park, the 19 year old would be risking
jail time because the 17 year old is underage?

Sheesh!  Grexwalks would have to be adults-only restricted, or else Grex
would be accused of facilitating meetings of minors and non-minors.

It doesnts sound like this law would be constitutional.  

(but think of the time I'd have to serve!)

  OK, I think we're all officially appalled at the interpretation of
  the proposed legislation that's presented in #0..

  Before we go much further with this, however, has anyone found the
  text of the actual bill?

Aw man....don'tcha just hate it when a realist shows up and spoils a really
good gripe?

Much as I'd like to keep making up scenarios (church youth group organizer
sentenced to life in prison), I think at this point we're all on the same
page.  

Probably this is just hot air from a local rep who needs a little boost from
the tech-fearing family values populace.

Here is SB0007, as cut and pasted from 
http://www.michiganlegislature.org 


SENATE BILL NO. 7

   January 13, 1999, Introduced by Senator ROGERS and referred to 
        the Committee on Judiciary.


        A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled

   "The Michigan penal code,"

   (MCL 750.1 to 750.568) by adding section 145d.

               THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 1         SEC. 145D.  (1) A PERSON SHALL NOT USE THE INTERNET TO COM-

 2    MUNICATE WITH ANY PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING ANY OF THE

 3    FOLLOWING:

 4         (A) COMMITTING, ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT, CONSPIRING TO COMMIT,

 5    OR SOLICITING ANOTHER PERSON TO COMMIT CONDUCT PROSCRIBED UNDER

 6    SECTION 145C, 349, 411H, 411I, 520B, 520C, 520D, 520E, OR 520G IN

 7    WHICH THE VICTIM OR INTENDED VICTIM IS A MINOR.

 8         (B) COMMITTING, ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT, CONSPIRING TO COMMIT,

 9    OR SOLICITING ANOTHER PERSON TO COMMIT CONDUCT PROSCRIBED UNDER

10    SECTION 145A, 157C, 350, OR 350A.


   00005'99                                                 JOJ

           
                                   2

 1         (2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) IS GUILTY OF A

 2    FELONY PUNISHABLE AS FOLLOWS:

 3         (A) FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 2

 4    YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $2,000.00, OR BOTH.

 5         (B) FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, BY IMPRISONMENT FOR

 6    NOT MORE THAN 5 YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00, OR

 7    BOTH.

 8         (3) THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM BEING

 9    CHARGED WITH, CONVICTED OF, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY OTHER VIOLATION

10    OF LAW COMMITTED BY THAT PERSON WHILE VIOLATING THIS SECTION,

11    INCLUDING THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE.

12         (4) A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE

13    SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO AND PRECEDING ANY TERM OF IMPRISONMENT

14    IMPOSED FOR CONVICTION OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE.

15         (5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:

16         (A) "INTERNET" MEANS AN INTERCONNECTION OF INDIVIDUAL COM-

17    PUTERS AND COMPUTER NETWORKS AND THE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

18    USED TO ACCESS THOSE INTERCONNECTED NETWORKS.

19         (B) "MINOR" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS LESS THAN 18 YEARS OF

20    AGE.

   00005'99          Final page.                            JOJ

You kind of have to go to and read the Michigan Penal Code to get the 
specifics, eh?

But assuming Section 350A doesn't end up being a law against Conspiracy To
Organize Potlucks, the actual wording sounds pretty innocuous.  Unnecessary,
maybe, but innocuous.

Hmm... I'm under the impression that legislation doing exactly that was
already enacted last year, but maybe it's slightly different code sections.

Huh huh hhhuh. You said "penal".

So, its OK to do 145C, 349, 411H, 411I, 520B, 520C, 520D, 520E, OR 520G by
letter? People have been for millennia.

stupid question: isn't age of conesnt in MI 16?
sif so, that means, roughly "we can have sex, but not arrange to do so"????
I seem to remember something seeming this silly in regards to age of majority
/ age of consent when I was that age...

Remember, there is a seduction law in Michigan that says a parent can charge
someone for seducing their daughter (Note: not son, only daughter) until she
turns 18. I'll post the law here if anyone is interested.

I remember hearing about some sort of two-tier age of consent law in
Michigan....one cutoff at 16 and another at 18.  I never really understood
how it works, though.  Maybe that's it....

re # 37 Last I knew adultery and male homosexuality were crimes in 
Michigan as well. We all know that you can't curse at a canoe in this 
state as well.(if anybody cares, I can post the statute)

re# 38 Michigan's age of consent is 16. CSC laws make no provision for 
the ages between 16 and 18. (again, if anybody cares I can post the 
statute)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss