By no means am I complaining, but 16 is the limit for stories (of non-premier members I assume). Why 16? Weird number, I could understand 15, but I'm no website owner.
By no means am I complaining, but 16 is the limit for stories (of non-premier members I assume). Why 16? Weird number, I could understand 15, but I'm no website owner.
It may have been chosen at random, but I think it may be to do with binary language since decimal 16 is binary 1 0 0 0 which is half a byte, and easier for a computer to handle.
I recall it being 10 at some point.
I can't remember that far back, since I've had a premium account for so long.
decimal 16 is binary 1 0 0 0
Um, 16 decimal = 10000 binary : you missed a '0'
(= 0x10 hexadecimal - base 16, 14 duodecimal - base 12, 020 octal, or Linefeed in ASCII etc. etc.)
Confession time.
16 is the result of an error in the first PHP code for the site in 2000.
It was supposed to be 15 but I fucked up the code. I had put in < = 15 instead of < 15 which didn't become false until the counter reached 16.
And here we are, 16 years later wondering why...
16 is the result of an error in the first PHP code for the site in 2000.
Damn, you just cost me a wet keyboard and a mouthful of coke I was drinking. I know how meticulous you are with your code, and to learn that oddity was an error had me laughing so fast, it wasn't funny - I couldn't laugh and swallow at the same time.
Damn, you just cost me a wet keyboard and a mouthful of coke I was drinking. I know how meticulous you are with your code, and to learn that oddity was an error had me laughing so fast, it wasn't funny - I couldn't laugh and swallow at the same time.
You're welcome and my apologies to your keyboard!
16 works well: 24hr day, 8hr sleep, one story/hour for the other 16...
Unless you're a fan of Jack Spratt's "Jokes and Giggles", which throws the calculation off a bit.
Be grateful it's not 18 in the USA, 12 in Spain etc.
AJ
Funnily enough SOL is based in Canada. The age of consent there is ... 16.
Funnily enough SOL is based in Canada. The age of consent there is ... 16.
There isn't a national age of consent in the US. Currently the US splits three groups at 16(32 states), 17(8) and 18 (10).
Mexico also varies by state with one where the age of consent is puberty.
There isn't a national age of consent in the US. Currently the US splits three groups at 16(32 states), 17(8) and 18 (10).
That's age of consent (to actually have sex).
There is a national age for porn. It's 18. So, for example, you can't put a novel on Amazon where characters under 18 have sex.
There is a national age for porn. It's 18. So, for example, you can't put a novel on Amazon where characters under 18 have sex.
It's hardly a national standard. According to the stipulation concerning porn in Canada, the age was 16, not 18. In the U.S., where anti-censorship and the principal of Free Speech hold sway, you can say virtually anything--though you may still pay a price for it. That's also why Americans are free to post whatever they want to ASSTR.
Amazon, like others corporate figures, are a special group, as those are corporate dictates. When you submit work to Amazon, you inherently 'accept' their restrictions on content—in short, you either play ball or go elsewhere to play—even though they own the main ballpark in the area.
Amazon's policies in this regard aren't just based on puritanican beliefs, but also on their ability to sell goods to specific countries, notably Arabic and other highly restrictive countries. Selling underaged porn could threaten Amazon's ability to sell their wares in those countries, so they limit anything they regard as 'potentially offensive'.
When you submit work to Amazon, you inherently 'accept' their restrictions on content—in short, you either play ball or go elsewhere to play—even though they own the main ballpark in the area.
If you aren't a fan of baseball or have no idea what it is, use "their way or the high way."
There is a national age for porn. It's 18. So, for example, you can't put a novel on Amazon where characters under 18 have sex.
Not true. That's a minimum age for actors/actresses for live action porn films. Child porn laws in the US do not apply to virtual porn. The US Supreme Court only allowed a 1A exemption for child porn due to the harm done to the children used to make the films.
Congress tried to ban virtual child porn (books, cartoons) but it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Child porn laws in the US do not apply to virtual porn.
They do when the story is deemed obscene (which doesn't have a standard definition and is defined by local mores). Just ask the author of Red Rose and that guy who wrote stories that abused children. If the characters are 18 there's less chance a prosecutor will come after you.
@Crumbly Writer
It's hardly a national standard. According to the stipulation concerning porn in Canada
I was talking U.S. when I said "national." And the First Amendment doesn't allow for obscenity. You story has to pass the Miller Test for it not to be seen as obscene.
And the First Amendment doesn't allow for obscenity.
The First Amendment doesn't say a thing about obscenity.
You story has to pass the Miller Test for it not to be seen as obscene.
So, anything that is considered 'obscene' is because of someone's opinion which resulted in the Miller Test. (IMO - If the test were to be applied to the music industry's output these days, much of it would probably fail)
So, anything that is considered 'obscene' is because of someone's opinion which resulted in the Miller Test. (IMO - If the test were to be applied to the music industry's output these days, much of it would probably fail)
No disagreement from me about that. But the music industry and Hollywood can get away with things us normal folks cannot.
And, yes, the Miller test is subjective.
They do when the story is deemed obscene (which doesn't have a standard definition and is defined by local mores). Just ask the author of Red Rose and that guy who wrote stories that abused children. If the characters are 18 there's less chance a prosecutor will come after you.
Sorry, you are wrong. The Red Rose case was a straight obscenity case.
Obscenity and Child porn are separate laws, Child porn need not be obscene to be criminal and age is not a factor in obscenity cases.
They do when the story is deemed obscene (which doesn't have a standard definition and is defined by local mores). Just ask the author of Red Rose and that guy who wrote stories that abused children. If the characters are 18 there's less chance a prosecutor will come after you.
As far as U.S. federal laws are concerned, the under 18 restrictions only apply to actual persons under the age of 18 being involved.
Local laws may vary, and a county/state prosecutor could try to "get you" under a non-Federal law however. Local obscenity laws are the ones most frequently invoked. So in this respect it is a legal grey area within the United States as to works of fiction involving fictional characters engaging in "pornographic activites."
Last I heard, no SCotUS case has been heard to decide the matter. For the matter, no such case has made it to a circuit court. The people who have been subjected to prosecution on that matter have almost universally failed to appeal, usually due to lack of financial means to do so, and a lack of desire to draw further attention to themselves.
The people who have been subjected to prosecution on that matter have almost universally failed to appeal, usually due to lack of financial means to do so, and a lack of desire to draw further attention to themselves.
...to add to this: Or the person being tried was also in possession of pornographic material involving persons under the age of 18, which rendered most of the issue moot with regards to them. That also makes them a rather poor test case for trying to "test" the specific issue of fictional acts involving fictional persons, as they need only point to actual material he did have to indicate "fictional" may not be so fictional in their case.
Or the person being tried was also in possession of pornographic material involving persons under the age of 18, which rendered most of the issue moot with regards to them. That also makes them a rather poor test case for trying to "test" the specific issue of fictional acts involving fictional persons, as they need only point to actual material he did have to indicate "fictional" may not be so fictional in their case.
What makes it a 'poor test', is that virtually anyone who collects porn from the web will, sooner or later, inadvertantly download something they don't even realize contains an underaged minor. Thus it's an easy target for law enforcement. By capturing one, two or three 'suspect' images, no matter whether they've ever been referenced or not, is sufficient to confiscate the users computers, hard drive, label them a sex offender, and limit their computer access for the rest of their lives--which in itself is, for most of us, the worse than being found guilty of obscenity.
Local obscenity laws are the ones most frequently invoked.
Frequently being a relative term. From the articles I've read on the Red Rose case, obscenity prosecutions are rare, because they are generally difficult to win at trial.
A lot of obscenity cases also end in guilty pleas, which makes appeals difficult.
Red Rose case
From what little I saw of it the case for obscenity never went to court, they settled by her pleading guilty to a lesser charge due to her health issues kept delaying the case.
The case against Frank revolved around an image on a site he had a link to, more than the his written works. last I heard it was still being delayed due to judges not wanting to get involved in it.
The case against Frank revolved around an image on a site he had a link to, more than the his written works.
Frank who?
Frank McCoy ?
Maybe, but that case doesn't exactly fit Earnests description. He was convicted (over 18 stories) and ran out of appeals last year.
Frank who?
Can't remember, because I always got it mixed up with another author of a similar name. I can't go checking the relevant websites at the moment. He's a US author who wrote a lot of stories about kids and adults got hit in the same way as Red Rose did.
That sounds like Frank McCoy. However, the Frank McCoy case doesn't match your original description.
He was convicted in a bench trial in 2013 over 18 of his stories.
There were no images involved, at least not images he was charged for.
He appealed the conviction. The appellate court upheld his conviction last year.
Here is an update on the case: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-stories-website-and-transportation.html
Here's how the appellate court described his stories
The record reflects that, although the district court focused on 18 specific stories, all of the stories were introduced into evidence. And our review of the 276 stories demonstrates that they focus on one or two standard plots and describe in graphic and explicit detail the sexual abuse, rape, murder, and torture of young children. McCoy himself described the stories as mostly involving incest, pedophilia, and pregnancy.
Based on other quotes from various court decisions in that article, the children in the stories were prepubescent, as young as 4 years old.
There were no images involved, at least not images he was charged for.
The original warrant that was posted was about the image triggering the issue of the warrant. However, the last update on the case I saw it was still awaiting trial because two judges had been playing pattie cake with it.
It probably was McCoy because I remember it was stories I never bothered reading. However the treatment by the police was attrocious, dragging him across another state without his wallet etc, then kicking him free without taking him back home while over a hundred miles from home.
However the treatment by the police was attrocious, dragging him across another state without his wallet etc, then kicking him free without taking him back home while over a hundred miles from home.
That would have been the FBI, it was a federal case from start to end.
That would have been the FBI,
then why didn't they take him into his local FBI office, but haul him to another state? Ah, forget it, whoever did it were rectums.
then why didn't they take him into his local FBI office, but haul him to another state? Ah, forget it, whoever did it were rectums.
Because they can, because their jurisdiction is national.
Local/State police can only transport prisoners across state lines under fairly limited circumstances. Generally, when that needs to happen the destination jurisdiction will send officers to the custodial jurisdiction to pick the prisoner up.
ETA: Being a rectum would be a step up for a lot of FBI agents. :)
then why didn't they take him into his local FBI office, but haul him to another state? Ah, forget it, whoever did it were rectums.
I remember the same case, and am pretty sure it was Frank McCoy too. As I recall it, they dragged him to another state so they could employ the local state definition of "obscenity", and then charged him with a Federal crime for the "shipping of pornographic works (or 'contraband materials') across state lines". In short, it was a case of entrapment, pure and simple. The prosecutors in one state, wrote and asked him to send them a copy of his story, which he emailed, and then (I forget the details) convinced him to travel to the other state (court order?) so they could arrest him.
So the case resolved around BOTH local State and Federal laws.
Based on other quotes from various court decisions in that article, the children in the stories were prepubescent, as young as 4 years old.
Yes, to me it seems to be as much or even more about the pre-pubescent children being involved and/or killed. Never having seen the stories I can't comment further, although the judges seemed convinced the stories focus was on creating those circumstances, rather than using the circumstances to tell a larger story. (Hence their comment about the plot being tenuous at best)
While leary of the idea of judges playing literary critics. It still generally stands that so long as you aren't writing, or collecting "stroke stories" involving underage characters, in particular characters not even on puberty's doorstep, you should be safe enough in the U.S. as you can then pull your own proverbial Stephen King card out.
And it also seems that from what I'm seeing here, what triggered it was his works/website being found on the computer of a bona fide pedophile. So it comes back to those guys again.
Yes, to me it seems to be as much or even more about the pre-pubescent children being involved and/or killed.
In the U.S., at the current time, at least, it's difficult to get a conviction over content, thus I'm pretty sure the case was decided on other factors (the photos). When a judge mentions a plot being "tenuous", he means they don't consider it much of a story (i.e. not worth consideration as the author is no literary genius and the story itself has no "socially redeeming qualities", however, that's purely a judgement call, and would never hold up on appeal as there's no legal basis to it.
If prosecutors could be convicted based on descriptions of childhood sexual abuse, ASSTR would no longer exist (I believe the site is located in the U.S., and most of the authors are American (other countries doesn't have the same restrictions on censorship).
I'm pretty sure the case was decided on other factors (the photos).
From what I have read, he wasn't even charged for any photos. He was charged and convicted over 18 stories.
And the stories were all that were at issue in the appeals.
When a judge mentions a plot being "tenuous", he means they don't consider it much of a story (i.e. not worth consideration as the author is no literary genius and the story itself has no "socially redeeming qualities", however, that's purely a judgement call, and would never hold up on appeal as there's no legal basis to it.
Actually, it was held up on appeal and as far as the no "socially redeeming qualities", that is part of the legal standard for obscenity as established by the US Supreme court.
In the U.S., at the current time, at least, it's difficult to get a conviction over content
Difficult, but not impossible. As a result, occasionally ambitious prosecutors will try.
In the U.S., at the current time, at least, it's difficult to get a conviction over content, thus I'm pretty sure the case was decided on other factors (the photos). When a judge mentions a plot being "tenuous", he means they don't consider it much of a story (i.e. not worth consideration as the author is no literary genius and the story itself has no "socially redeeming qualities", however, that's purely a judgement call, and would never hold up on appeal as there's no legal basis to it.
Which takes us back to Miller vs California(1973).
Of course, we then have these additional rulings as relevant:
New York v. Ferber(1982) Which carved out "child pornography" as not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Which is then off-set by:
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition(2002)
Which was in response to a 1996 piece of Legislation that the Canadians themselves only bothered to implement in the last few years. SCotUS struck it down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
Before 1996, Congress defined child pornography with reference to the Ferber standard. In passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996(CPPA), Congress added the two categories of speech challenged in this case to its definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means." The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," and imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a "stark example of speech suppression." At the same time, sexual abuse of children "is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people." "Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has." The great difficulty with the two provisions of the CPPA at issue in this case was that they included categories of speech other than obscenity and child pornography, and thus were overbroad.
The Court concluded that the "CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a "fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages." Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann; and the Academy Award winning movies Traffic and American Beauty. "If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene."
Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA "records no crime and creates no victims by its production." Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.
Which would support the earlier comment about Frank McCoy still stands, SCotUS made a carve out for "virtual child porn" but they still set up curbs around it, it isn't unlimited and unrestricted. There is still at least a pretense of there needing to be a "redeeming quality" about the work as a whole. So if you're writing "stroke" involving children, SCotUS isn't likely to save you.
If you're writing a story that is exploring a number of other things as well, and just happens to contain a fair bit of explicit pornography along the way that is involving underage persons, SCotUS is probably going to give you a pass.
So for the prosecutor in Frank's case, the focus was the image, the "virtual porn" was just an extra throw-in, and based on the judicial pan at least 18 of those works received on appeal, it seems the prosecutor was reasonably certain that SCotUS, should it ever go that far, would be inclined to rule on their side.
(Begin edit to add:)
One other thing to note as I look at this again, the SCotUS explicitly mentioned teenagers as well. They made no mention of the pre-pubescent, which a child aged between 4 and 6 years of age would be. So in this respect, SCotUS has, as of yet, remained silent on the issue with no precedent having been set.(/end edit)
Of course, the majority SCotUS opinion muddied things a bit more with this, which tends to support Frank regardless:
Although the CPPA's objective was to prohibit illegal conduct, it went well beyond that goal by restricting speech available to law-abiding adults. And if the goal was to eliminate the market for all child pornography, the Court ruled that the government could not accomplish that goal by eliminating lawful speech in the process. The burden should not, however, fall on the speaker to prove that his speech is lawful, instead of on the government to prove that it is not. Furthermore, such an affirmative defense is "incomplete on its own terms" because it "allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can prove children were not exploited in the production."
Although looking forward a little but further, it seems we will likely be looking at a second President(-elect) Clinton in another month, and on these topics, Judicial Nominees appointed by Democratic Presidents tend to be far more tolerant on this subject matter in general. With a very real prospect of a clear "Liberal Majority" happening on the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, it's possible a lot of the "morality laws" may be in for a lot of trouble for the next decade or more.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an unedited version of Game of Thrones, or something comparable, ultimately finding its way to legal broadcast television syndication within 10 years should Hillary indeed secure the nomination.
The Frank McCoy case was a straight obscenity case. He was never charged with child pornography. Therefore the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition(2002) is not relevant to his case.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition(2002) did nothing to overturn long standing obscenity law that applies regardless of the ages of the characters involved.
The Frank McCoy case was a straight obscenity case. He was never charged with child pornography. Therefore the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition(2002) is not relevant to his case.
Which then takes it to the level of don't write "stroke" material period, as age wouldn't matter. Except it would, as I doubt the courts would have done much if the stories depicted a 20-something having those things happen to them. Most prosecutors, and many LEOs wouldn't even be bothered to build a case to start with. The judges, and officers of the court remain human at this time. It just isn't pleasant for those who get caught in the crosshairs.
Although I think the 2002 case is relevant all the same, as SCotUS would be likely to use a comparable basis for reviewing Frank's case if they heard it today. But as that evidently isn't a directly relevant precedent in case law at present, you're likely correct.
Edit to add: And as the whole "of redeeming value" still remains part of the test in 2002 as well. Frank still runs into trouble, as it seems several of his stories were "stroke" in nature, regardless of age.
Except it would, as I doubt the courts would have done much if the stories depicted a 20-something having those things happen to them.
I think the violent rape and murder were as big a factor as the ages.
Most prosecutors, and many LEOs wouldn't even be bothered to build a case to start with.
You are quite right. Most obscenity cases are brought by mid level prosecutors with political ambitions. A win in such a case can be a career maker.
Very likely the reason that they hauled him across state lines for the trial was to get a more prudish jury as the legal test for obscenity is very subjective. Though in the end he waved the right to a jury trial and opted for a bench trial with the judge as the fact finder.
Frank still runs into trouble, as it seems several of his stories were "stroke" in nature, regardless of age.
The snuff aspect to the stories noted by the Court of Appeals wouldn't have done him any favors either. Throw in prepubescent victims and he didn't have a chance.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an unedited version of Game of Thrones, or something comparable, ultimately finding its way to legal broadcast television syndication within 10 years should Hillary indeed secure the nomination.
I seriously doubt a single Clinton nomination will have much effect in this reguard, as the movement towards more explicit content (aided by their claim that they occur on a "private membership network") is already well-established without any new legal precedent. It's not as if some new judge will suddenly have the entire Supreme Court ruling in favor of child pornography!
I suspect you're waving the 'eroding personal freedoms' flag a little too broadly here.
I seriously doubt a single Clinton nomination will have much effect in this reguard, as the movement towards more explicit content (aided by their claim that they occur on a "private membership network") is already well-established without any new legal precedent. It's not as if some new judge will suddenly have the entire Supreme Court ruling in favor of child pornography!
Game of Thrones(as presented by HBO) is kiddy porn?
The last SCotUS ruling on the FCC in regards to broadcast standards and nudity actually seemed to hinge on one thing entirely, and it was completely retarded. It wasn't even over the "right" to use public airwaves. It was decided over people having a "safe space option" in regards to television programming that they can watch--because Cable and Satellite TV providers evidently can't be bothered to provide "Family Friendly programming" even though they have entire networks dedicated to exactly that, because well.. The FCC can't regulate those in the same way. The FCC can fine the living hell out of ABC for broadcasting a full frontal titty show on its regular affiliates at 9PM at night, but can't do much of anything about the same thing happening on ABC Family, Disney XD, or TBN at 4PM in the afternoon.
It also was, IIRC, decided basically along party lines, Conservatives in favor of the FCC, Liberals against. If that case had been heard by a Liberal majority court(which will likely exist by the end of next year), the FCC would have likely lost that case, and you would probably already be seeing nudity on a semi-regular basis on Prime-time TV as broadcast by ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox.
The FCC can fine the living hell out of ABC for broadcasting a full frontal titty show on its regular affiliates at 9PM at night
I always found it surreal how tightly americans regulate the nipple and keep extreme violence a free-for-all affair.
I always found it surreal how tightly americans regulate the nipple and keep extreme violence a free-for-all affair.
Yeah, it boggles the mind. I'd just as soon them pack their programming with graphic and steamy sex scenes instead of more graphically violent and realistic explosions, bodily dismemberments, and other violent acts perpetuated against other humans.
But the fear of the nipple is overpoweringly strong as of yet in the upper reaches of American Bureaucracy as of yet. One can hope that as the Millennials start to take control some degree of sanity will start to take hold. Although I'm almost afraid we'll instead end up with graphically violent graphic sex scenes should that day ever come.
instead of more graphically violent and realistic explosions
Movie/TV explosions aren't very realistic. First off, almost no standard explosives produce any kind of visible fireball. They have to pack jugs of gasoline around the actual explosives to get the fireball using practical effects.
Movie/TV explosions aren't very realistic. First off, almost no standard explosives produce any kind of visible fireball. They have to pack jugs of gasoline around the actual explosives to get the fireball using practical effects.
Ok, point taken. In Hollywood speak "more realistic explosion" means "larger explosions, because they're more dramatic."
In Hollywood speak "more realistic explosion" means "larger explosions, because they're more dramatic."
In Hollywood, the explosions need to be more dramatic because the movies have no dramatic tension.
I always found it surreal how tightly americans regulate the nipple and keep extreme violence a free-for-all affair.
Plenty of Americans find it equally surreal.
I always found it surreal how tightly americans regulate the nipple and keep extreme violence a free-for-all affair.
I agree. Public television in Europe freely allows various bits of nudity on a largely casual basis, with little danger of their culture collapsing as a result (Brexit notwithstanding).
Despite the term originating in the U.S., in Europe sex sells, while in the U.S. it still provokes outrage while extreme violence is commonplace.
On the other hand, some of the most insipid television I've ever seen were 'news shows' describing all the sexual injuries someone might possibly encounter.
I was talking U.S. when I said "national." And the First Amendment doesn't allow for obscenity. You story has to pass the Miller Test for it not to be seen as obscene.
The Miller Test is hardly a firm standard. Chances are, given the years since it was issued, it would never stand up to a Supreme Court review, regardless of which court ruled on it.
Yes, there are always corrupt politicians that try to gin up support by filing outrageous charges against people for political reasons, but they're the exception, they're hardly the rule. The number of 'obscenity' cases filed in the U.S. is ridiculously small, given the airplay they generate. That's also why the prosecutors typically settle out of court, leaving the plaintiff bankrupt and coping a guilty plea to avoid prison time--because they realize they'd never get a conviction. Life is certainly not fair, and the law takes humongous sums of money and incredible amounts of time, but the wheels of justice keep turning, and they're generally moving in the right direction.
The police, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter.
There isn't a national age of consent in the US. Currently the US splits three groups at 16(32 states), 17(8) and 18 (10).
Mexico also varies by state with one where the age of consent is puberty
In Eire it used to be 14 for girls - I don't know if Brussels has forced them to change that
In Eire it used to be 14 for girls - I don't know if Brussels has forced them to change that
It's 17, based on a quick search.
Funnily enough SOL is based in Canada. The age of consent there is ... 16.
Unless we're talking about any depictions or portrayals of sexual activity, in which case you're allowed as young as "looks like/(seems to be) a 14 year old."
"looks like/(seems to be) a 14 year old."
When I was 18 and in the AF, my friend and I met a lady in a diner, and ended up in a conversation. We swore she was close to our age, and wouldn't believe it until she showed us her drive's license. She was 35.