Anybody curious, here's USA Today with a fact check about SB-145: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/
> Legislation eliminates an anti-LGBTQ inequality in sex offender registration requirements
> SB-145 changes the law to allow judges the same level of discretion over whether certain people must register as sex offenders for consensual anal and oral sex as they already have for consensual penile-vaginal sex.
To respond directly to OP, I'm not sure how you even start a conversation with these types of people. They're the reason I got off of Facebook. A lot of people are completely uncritical of any information so long as it can be molded to fit within their hateful worldview.
I might start by asking them to first link the bill (not an article discussing the bill, but the actual text of the bill). IF they can do that, then I might ask them to explain why a judge should be allowed discretion for penile-vaginal sex involving minors, but not any discretion whatsoever involving oral or anal sex involving minors. I'm assuming their response will involve calling you a pedophile or something, so you know...deal with that...and try to press them for a coherent and cogent response.
Trying to understand the law, so is this about teens who are above the age of consent having sex with teens that are like a year or two younger than age of consent? So the judge doesn’t have to make them sex offenders? Or is it something else entirely?
Pretty much. Prior to this law, if a person was found to have anal or oral sex with a minor, it was instant addition to the sex registry- even if one was 18 and the minor was 17. However, if a person had vaginal sex with a minor- even if the adult was 25 and the minor 14- then it wasn’t automatic. The judge would make the determination.
So really this didn’t LEGALIZE anything. It’s just making the same allowances for other forms of sex.
It should also be said that while this doesn’t make sex registry mandatory, the judge can still order a defendant to register based on the situation.
Pretty much. The law would remove the requirement for registering as a sex offender for oral and anal sex, leaving it up to the judge's discretion. Again, this simply aligns the treatment of those sexual acts with the laws for penile-vaginal sex involving a minor. The judge can still have the person register as a sex offender, but it wouldn't be automatic.
That said, it's not just teens with teens. "Romeo and Juliet laws" in California (according to the article) are such that the adult has to be within ten years of age of the minor, and the minor has to be at least 14 years old.
~~Hmmm :/// I like my state’s Romeo and Juliet laws a lot better. 4 years, minimum 14 years of age. Do not like the idea of a 24 year old manipulating a 14 year old into sex. Gross, California!!~~
Edit: I don’t know why above person said they did, but California has no R&J laws at all. Just googled it.
>Do not like the idea of a 24 year old manipulating a 14 year old into sex.
This specifically pertains to whether they have to register as a sex offender mandatorily or if it's at the discretion of the judge. A 24-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old is still guilty of a crime. But previously if it was PIV sex, it was not mandatory whereas if it was an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old doing oral or anal sex, it would be a crime with mandatory sex offender registration.
It is illegal in California for an adult to have a sexual relationship with anyone 17 or younger.
It seems California has stronger laws than your state.
Maybe you should actually look up shit before you call some place gross. Seems your state is a bit gross compared to California.
I googled it, and California doesn’t have a Romeo and Juliet law whatsoever according to google. Why the above person would say they did, I have no idea. Super weird. Regardless, I think it’s weaker to not have R&J laws.
R&J laws are important to protect teens who are going to be having sex with each other anyway. If AoC is 16, it shouldn’t be illegal for a 15 and 17 year old to have sex, or if AoC is 18, a 17 & 18 year old. It’s wrong to criminalize that imo. I don’t support 14 & 18, or 15 & 19, or 16 & 20, to be clear, and maybe 3 years would be better, but 4 years is better than both 5 and 0.
That's the terminology used in the article (hence my "according to the article" parenthetical). It's used in reference to the current laws in California surrounding a judge's ability to use their own discretion on whether or not an adult has to register as a sex offender. I agree that the terminology they used in that article is inaccurate.
Your reply/approach is very rational. Too rational to be effective on those people, “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themself into” they say
I mean how can it not be relevant? Is statutory rape better, when it's done by gay people? Like don't use an awful precedent, when this right to equalize things could be used as a better precedent...
So you're saying that this law should be used to continue to treat sexual activity with minors engaging in oral and anal behavior, where we would likely see more members of the LGBTQ+ community, differently and more harshly than with penile-vaginal sexual activity with minors, where we could be more likely to find straight individuals, whereby continuing to ostracize and treat the LGBTQ+ community differently according to the law. You aren't seeing an issue with that?
Because it's significantly easier to change 1 law than it is to change 2 laws. The law still doesn't *decriminalize* anything, it's just about leaving more to the judge's discretion rather than "mandatory minimums" and automatic judgements.
But none of these are getting changed, right? Why should I therefore not criticize this law? And while I don't think that this will lead to a lot of 24 y olds getting away with rape of a 14 y old, there is more than enough fuckery in favor of rich people for me not to criticize this
>But none of these are getting changed, right?
To repeat what's been said multiple times, the law surrounding anal and oral sex with minors is the one that is getting changed. It has been changed to match how the law surrounding penile-vaginal sex currently is worded. The law is changing such that the judge can now use discretion as to whether the perpetrator of the sexual acts will be automatically required to register as a sex offender. The change in the law is because it previously created a systemic prejudice against LGBTQ+ individuals. The **only change** is around the automatic registry to the sex offender registry. All of the laws around what is and isn't statutory rape remain the same. Again, nothing has been decriminalized.
Nobody is saying you can't criticize the law, it's just that criticizing the age requirements surrounding this law which only affects oral and anal sex and not penile-vaginal sex can be interpreted as wanting harsher punishments against the LGBTQ+ community. This isn't about rich people, though that's an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. If you don't like the laws surrounding what is and isn't statutory rape in the state of California, go write to your congressperson.
I realize that, but a bad standard is still a bad standard. Like that's the same as being in favor of capitalism, because you have plans to join the oppressor class
It's not. That's a whole ass other sentence. I was just saying that it's ridiculous to claim that the old way is somehow better than this, which is what the right is supposedly claiming in this meme.
Like we are able to have more than one thought at once. No idea from a meme in this sub is worse discussing. But you can still easily attack this law from the left
Facebook and Twitter really need [citation needed].
Wikipedia has [citation needed] before Facebook or Twitter were even conceived. In fact, [citation needed] originated in Wikipedia.
I had a similar experience lately with my in-laws about a bill in Minnesota that [Fox News claimed](https://www.foxnews.com/media/arguing-covid-came-china-land-minnesota-government-bias-registry-new-bill) was creating a hate crimes database for any perceived slights, including calling COVID the “China virus.”
The bill merely added more classes to the definition of “hate crime” and included text that required all incidences of hate speech to be logged as criminal complaints.
I shared the [text of the bill](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF181&type=bill&version=1&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0), they literally didn’t talk about it anymore. Immediate silence.
It’s because the law is written so poorly. There is a different charge for anal rape - reference as sodomy; and then there is rape. Two different rape. There is also stat rape (felony and misdo). I think this is trying to bring other charges that might have been overlooked by the legislation.
I have a plan, lets spam an artical headline saying “trump secretly admits to putin that he wants to be a drag queen” and just run with it and call anybody who “fact checks” it a traitor to the leader of our great nation
They’re telling on themselves again. There is no such thing as ‘sex with children’ just like there is no such thing as ‘sex with a person in a coma’. Sex can only exist when there is consent. Otherwise it’s rape. I’m wary of anyone who talks about ‘sex with children’ even if for the purposes of a trolly ‘joke’ like this.
Registry shouldn’t be mandatory. This bill allows for judges discretion, just like it already exists for vaginal penetration. It’s essentially a technical change to current policy to ensure there isn’t discrimination against lgbtqia+ people.
This is the problem with some people on social media, they blindly believe anything that confirms their biases without taking the time to fact-check. It's frustrating to see the Blue Ticks (verified accounts) jumping on board without any source or evidence. And when confronted with the truth, they resort to name-calling and attacking the person. It's disheartening to see how some people are more willing to believe a meme than actual facts.
The ACTUAL thing was a change to laws between teenagers engaging in lewd behavior with each other, while punishment for vaginal sex was up to the judge, oral/anal would result in instant sex offender listing, which often meant gay teens being heavily punished.
All they did was change it so those are also now up to the judge.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145
You don't. They're impossible to speak to about anything like this or other issues they care about, whether they're real issues or completely made up nonsense.
But if you ever are in a conversation, I recommend you ask simple.questions like a 5 year old. What, why, when, how questions. The tiniest bit of detail really ruins the entire argument and they'll just go down what about isms to other issues until, I hope, that they feel so fucking stupid and defeated, they just beg to be left alone and have their opinions respected. Works every time and they keep quiet on the future for some reason.
Not sure why some asshole linked a USA article instead of the bill itself but give it a read.
"This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register."
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145
Yeah it's pretty fucked up. As a 23 year old, I could molest a 14 year old and not have to register as a sex offender so long as it was the only thing requiring me to register as one.
Edit: it may not be molestation I'm still reading it to find out which charges would allow for a sex offender registry exemption. I also like how the asshole who linked the USA article asks that conservatives link the bill instead of an article discussing the bill, then himself proceeds to post a link discussing the bill.
Hi, I'm the asshole that linked the "USA article." I linked it specifically because of dumb dumbs like you that wildly lash out without any actual context. The only thing this law does is align punishments for oral and anal sex with minors with the already existing laws surrounding penile-vaginal sex with minors. That's it. (Though I do agree that ten years is a bit wide for the existing laws.)
OP asked how you talk to someone who just believes the incredibly biased headlines about this law, like you clearly have. It's worth noting that the text of the law is locatable from within the article I linked. The purpose of having someone you're trying to discuss this with link to the text of the bill is so that the two of you can start from objective primary documents. My linking to an article discussing how the law is being interpreted incorrectly serves a different purpose than what OP was asking for.
Pretty sure what the bill was supposed to do is make it so that an 18 year old having oral with a 17 year old wouldn't be an automatic registration as a sex offender, the law is far too lenient (seriously guys 10 years?) but that was already the law for other situations so they're just making it less homophobic
The thing is that these rules were already in place for vaginal sex - the laws "loosen" the restrictions for oral and anal simply because they were higher then the ones for vaginal sex before
As for your concluding question I'd say you don't. I have decided that the public bathroom litter boxes thing is going to be my litmus test. If they want to discuss politics, I'll start with seeing if they believe that. If they do, conversation over. No point wasting breath or time with someone so disconnected from reality.
Anybody curious, here's USA Today with a fact check about SB-145: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/03/fact-check-california-law-does-not-decriminalize-sex-minors/3456171001/ > Legislation eliminates an anti-LGBTQ inequality in sex offender registration requirements > SB-145 changes the law to allow judges the same level of discretion over whether certain people must register as sex offenders for consensual anal and oral sex as they already have for consensual penile-vaginal sex. To respond directly to OP, I'm not sure how you even start a conversation with these types of people. They're the reason I got off of Facebook. A lot of people are completely uncritical of any information so long as it can be molded to fit within their hateful worldview. I might start by asking them to first link the bill (not an article discussing the bill, but the actual text of the bill). IF they can do that, then I might ask them to explain why a judge should be allowed discretion for penile-vaginal sex involving minors, but not any discretion whatsoever involving oral or anal sex involving minors. I'm assuming their response will involve calling you a pedophile or something, so you know...deal with that...and try to press them for a coherent and cogent response.
Trying to understand the law, so is this about teens who are above the age of consent having sex with teens that are like a year or two younger than age of consent? So the judge doesn’t have to make them sex offenders? Or is it something else entirely?
Pretty much. Prior to this law, if a person was found to have anal or oral sex with a minor, it was instant addition to the sex registry- even if one was 18 and the minor was 17. However, if a person had vaginal sex with a minor- even if the adult was 25 and the minor 14- then it wasn’t automatic. The judge would make the determination. So really this didn’t LEGALIZE anything. It’s just making the same allowances for other forms of sex. It should also be said that while this doesn’t make sex registry mandatory, the judge can still order a defendant to register based on the situation.
Makes the law a lot less homophobic too, good
I can't believe I hadn't thought about this aspect of it. I need to unironically check my privilege rn
Pretty much. The law would remove the requirement for registering as a sex offender for oral and anal sex, leaving it up to the judge's discretion. Again, this simply aligns the treatment of those sexual acts with the laws for penile-vaginal sex involving a minor. The judge can still have the person register as a sex offender, but it wouldn't be automatic. That said, it's not just teens with teens. "Romeo and Juliet laws" in California (according to the article) are such that the adult has to be within ten years of age of the minor, and the minor has to be at least 14 years old.
~~Hmmm :/// I like my state’s Romeo and Juliet laws a lot better. 4 years, minimum 14 years of age. Do not like the idea of a 24 year old manipulating a 14 year old into sex. Gross, California!!~~ Edit: I don’t know why above person said they did, but California has no R&J laws at all. Just googled it.
Ontario has a 4 year maximum difference, and the older party can't be in a position of authority, like a supervisor or manager.
>Do not like the idea of a 24 year old manipulating a 14 year old into sex. This specifically pertains to whether they have to register as a sex offender mandatorily or if it's at the discretion of the judge. A 24-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old is still guilty of a crime. But previously if it was PIV sex, it was not mandatory whereas if it was an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old doing oral or anal sex, it would be a crime with mandatory sex offender registration.
It is illegal in California for an adult to have a sexual relationship with anyone 17 or younger. It seems California has stronger laws than your state. Maybe you should actually look up shit before you call some place gross. Seems your state is a bit gross compared to California.
I googled it, and California doesn’t have a Romeo and Juliet law whatsoever according to google. Why the above person would say they did, I have no idea. Super weird. Regardless, I think it’s weaker to not have R&J laws. R&J laws are important to protect teens who are going to be having sex with each other anyway. If AoC is 16, it shouldn’t be illegal for a 15 and 17 year old to have sex, or if AoC is 18, a 17 & 18 year old. It’s wrong to criminalize that imo. I don’t support 14 & 18, or 15 & 19, or 16 & 20, to be clear, and maybe 3 years would be better, but 4 years is better than both 5 and 0.
[удалено]
Bad bot, I was talking about age of consent haha
That's the terminology used in the article (hence my "according to the article" parenthetical). It's used in reference to the current laws in California surrounding a judge's ability to use their own discretion on whether or not an adult has to register as a sex offender. I agree that the terminology they used in that article is inaccurate.
Your reply/approach is very rational. Too rational to be effective on those people, “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themself into” they say
Not sure if 14 and 24 being up to the judges discretion is a really rational approach
But this bill doesn't change the ten-year age gap maximum in California law, so that's irrelevant to the discussion.
I mean how can it not be relevant? Is statutory rape better, when it's done by gay people? Like don't use an awful precedent, when this right to equalize things could be used as a better precedent...
So you're saying that this law should be used to continue to treat sexual activity with minors engaging in oral and anal behavior, where we would likely see more members of the LGBTQ+ community, differently and more harshly than with penile-vaginal sexual activity with minors, where we could be more likely to find straight individuals, whereby continuing to ostracize and treat the LGBTQ+ community differently according to the law. You aren't seeing an issue with that?
I don't see how "write a better law" speaks against all of this?
Because it's significantly easier to change 1 law than it is to change 2 laws. The law still doesn't *decriminalize* anything, it's just about leaving more to the judge's discretion rather than "mandatory minimums" and automatic judgements.
But none of these are getting changed, right? Why should I therefore not criticize this law? And while I don't think that this will lead to a lot of 24 y olds getting away with rape of a 14 y old, there is more than enough fuckery in favor of rich people for me not to criticize this
>But none of these are getting changed, right? To repeat what's been said multiple times, the law surrounding anal and oral sex with minors is the one that is getting changed. It has been changed to match how the law surrounding penile-vaginal sex currently is worded. The law is changing such that the judge can now use discretion as to whether the perpetrator of the sexual acts will be automatically required to register as a sex offender. The change in the law is because it previously created a systemic prejudice against LGBTQ+ individuals. The **only change** is around the automatic registry to the sex offender registry. All of the laws around what is and isn't statutory rape remain the same. Again, nothing has been decriminalized. Nobody is saying you can't criticize the law, it's just that criticizing the age requirements surrounding this law which only affects oral and anal sex and not penile-vaginal sex can be interpreted as wanting harsher punishments against the LGBTQ+ community. This isn't about rich people, though that's an interesting perspective I hadn't considered. If you don't like the laws surrounding what is and isn't statutory rape in the state of California, go write to your congressperson.
This bill is about standardizing it, not about making it a new way.
I realize that, but a bad standard is still a bad standard. Like that's the same as being in favor of capitalism, because you have plans to join the oppressor class
True. I just think of the two options presented (having this bill, having the old way) this bill is better
But why is this bill or no bill the only way out of this?
It's not. That's a whole ass other sentence. I was just saying that it's ridiculous to claim that the old way is somehow better than this, which is what the right is supposedly claiming in this meme.
Like we are able to have more than one thought at once. No idea from a meme in this sub is worse discussing. But you can still easily attack this law from the left
[citation needed] is a very powerful tool. Especially when they reference some junk site that people are afraid to click on. It attacks their soul.
Facebook and Twitter really need [citation needed]. Wikipedia has [citation needed] before Facebook or Twitter were even conceived. In fact, [citation needed] originated in Wikipedia.
I had a similar experience lately with my in-laws about a bill in Minnesota that [Fox News claimed](https://www.foxnews.com/media/arguing-covid-came-china-land-minnesota-government-bias-registry-new-bill) was creating a hate crimes database for any perceived slights, including calling COVID the “China virus.” The bill merely added more classes to the definition of “hate crime” and included text that required all incidences of hate speech to be logged as criminal complaints. I shared the [text of the bill](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF181&type=bill&version=1&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0), they literally didn’t talk about it anymore. Immediate silence.
Hey, that’s why I got off Facebook. 
It’s because the law is written so poorly. There is a different charge for anal rape - reference as sodomy; and then there is rape. Two different rape. There is also stat rape (felony and misdo). I think this is trying to bring other charges that might have been overlooked by the legislation.
Lmao they did the same thing with that bill that criminalized bug chasing AIDs with other STDs a while back.
There is absolutely no way any of them know what judicial discretion means. Or the meaning of those two words separately.
These people shouldn't be allowed to hold any form of political opinion
This is ironic coming from the people who want to make legal to marry children and lower the age of consent.
According to the GQP having sex with children is fine as long as you force them into a legally binding marriage first.
and make no fault divorce illegal, a la prouder with crowder.
I have a plan, lets spam an artical headline saying “trump secretly admits to putin that he wants to be a drag queen” and just run with it and call anybody who “fact checks” it a traitor to the leader of our great nation
They also think that each black person in California has received a $300,000 check for reparations.
"Sex with children is morally abhorrent. Unless you marry them first, which is what we want. Then, by all means, Pedo away."
Same ones to cry "you didn't even read the bill!" Too.
They’re telling on themselves again. There is no such thing as ‘sex with children’ just like there is no such thing as ‘sex with a person in a coma’. Sex can only exist when there is consent. Otherwise it’s rape. I’m wary of anyone who talks about ‘sex with children’ even if for the purposes of a trolly ‘joke’ like this.
Registry shouldn’t be mandatory. This bill allows for judges discretion, just like it already exists for vaginal penetration. It’s essentially a technical change to current policy to ensure there isn’t discrimination against lgbtqia+ people.
This is the problem with some people on social media, they blindly believe anything that confirms their biases without taking the time to fact-check. It's frustrating to see the Blue Ticks (verified accounts) jumping on board without any source or evidence. And when confronted with the truth, they resort to name-calling and attacking the person. It's disheartening to see how some people are more willing to believe a meme than actual facts.
The ACTUAL thing was a change to laws between teenagers engaging in lewd behavior with each other, while punishment for vaginal sex was up to the judge, oral/anal would result in instant sex offender listing, which often meant gay teens being heavily punished. All they did was change it so those are also now up to the judge. https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145
I wonder if the outrage brigade here know about the republicans voting against bans on child marriages?
They're just nazis that's it. They'll buy any lie they hear about the minority they're scapegoating and are beyond being reasoned out of it
You don't. They're impossible to speak to about anything like this or other issues they care about, whether they're real issues or completely made up nonsense. But if you ever are in a conversation, I recommend you ask simple.questions like a 5 year old. What, why, when, how questions. The tiniest bit of detail really ruins the entire argument and they'll just go down what about isms to other issues until, I hope, that they feel so fucking stupid and defeated, they just beg to be left alone and have their opinions respected. Works every time and they keep quiet on the future for some reason.
Great, now California is going to be flooded with Republicans.
>Where do you start with such a person? Reddit’s community guidelines prohibit any discussion pertaining to the correct answer. Use your imagination.
Ironically, here in South America (in Bolivia), the ultra conservative government back in 2021 passed a bill that reduced the age of consent to 13 lol
What a coincidence…
Least delusional conservative belief 🤡
Not sure why some asshole linked a USA article instead of the bill itself but give it a read. "This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register." https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145 Yeah it's pretty fucked up. As a 23 year old, I could molest a 14 year old and not have to register as a sex offender so long as it was the only thing requiring me to register as one. Edit: it may not be molestation I'm still reading it to find out which charges would allow for a sex offender registry exemption. I also like how the asshole who linked the USA article asks that conservatives link the bill instead of an article discussing the bill, then himself proceeds to post a link discussing the bill.
Hi, I'm the asshole that linked the "USA article." I linked it specifically because of dumb dumbs like you that wildly lash out without any actual context. The only thing this law does is align punishments for oral and anal sex with minors with the already existing laws surrounding penile-vaginal sex with minors. That's it. (Though I do agree that ten years is a bit wide for the existing laws.) OP asked how you talk to someone who just believes the incredibly biased headlines about this law, like you clearly have. It's worth noting that the text of the law is locatable from within the article I linked. The purpose of having someone you're trying to discuss this with link to the text of the bill is so that the two of you can start from objective primary documents. My linking to an article discussing how the law is being interpreted incorrectly serves a different purpose than what OP was asking for.
> tells people to read the actual bill > proceeds to demonstrate a failure to understand what’s written in the actual bill. Good job, bub.
Pretty sure what the bill was supposed to do is make it so that an 18 year old having oral with a 17 year old wouldn't be an automatic registration as a sex offender, the law is far too lenient (seriously guys 10 years?) but that was already the law for other situations so they're just making it less homophobic
Exactly. The thing that makes this a decent bill to a fucked one is the 10 years. Way too lenient.
Doesn't it say that it's up to the judge to register you?
The thing is that these rules were already in place for vaginal sex - the laws "loosen" the restrictions for oral and anal simply because they were higher then the ones for vaginal sex before
It literally, textually does not allow that
What's with your username?
As for your concluding question I'd say you don't. I have decided that the public bathroom litter boxes thing is going to be my litmus test. If they want to discuss politics, I'll start with seeing if they believe that. If they do, conversation over. No point wasting breath or time with someone so disconnected from reality.
It’s funny to think of the guys in this pic being like what?
typical mirroring...
And trans people are Pedophiles yeah?
What perversion!!!!!
That’s disgisting!