Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

[GeckoGeek]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

GeckoGeek: I don't know for sure, of course, but I would think the law would not apply to someone who says "I am under 14" if both parties *know* that the person is in fact an adult.

While it's unlikely to be charged, the way I read it, it is illegal.

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Actually, upon rereading the statute, I don't think roleplaying would fall under this law. There are three components necessary for this crime: The first part being intentionally or knowingly communicating with someone who is underage or who represents themselves to be under age that the second part being agreeing to meet the person with the intent to promote or faciliate the commission of a felony and the third being actually going to the meeting place at the meeting time. So, while someone may have sexual conversations with someone else with both parties pretending that one party is underage, if they met without the intent to commit a felony (eg - underage sex), there's no crime.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Now the state GOP party is getting into the act, attacking (quite rightfully, IMHO) Rep. Bertram for his unenlightened and asinine comments re: sexual predators.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...AKING/90408050

Bertram seems to be on his own on this one, as far as damage control is concerned. Not surprisingly, no one from the Democratic Party is sticking up for him. Bertram is a laughing stock if he thinks that saying, "I was speaking strictly on my own behalf and not representing myself in any other sense or way," is going to make everything okay for him. How in the world does he think that anyone will buy the idea that a politician can say outrageous things on his own behalf, but not in his capacity as a lawmaker? He's nuts. And if doesn't come up with up with an apology very soon, his tenure in the legislature is coming to an end at the next election. This kind of gaffe is not something that voters will forget about in a year. He's an embarrassment to his party and his district.

[StinkyTheGrump]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Wow! How can this guy be an elected official? I'm not so surprised about his initial asinine comment (many politicians say things this dumb or dumber, sadly). I just can't believe that he would then continue to dig his hole further with something this idiotic - ""As citizens of these United States, nobody gives up the right to speak their mind and their own personal opinion, no matter what the job is," Bertram added."
Sure buddy, you are well within your *rights* to say whatever the hell you want as an American. But as an elected official you will be held accountable. Good riddance, hope your friend has a job waiting for you.

[Adri]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....b-d8a0bad06aa0

The Hawaii GOP is apparently (I haven't seen it) running an ad about Bertram.

[Amati]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....b-d8a0bad06aa0

The Hawaii GOP is apparently (I haven't seen it) running an ad about Bertram.

The article gives this YouTube link to see the TV ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDAYH0f3FI

Hopefully the voters of Maui watch TV.

[TuNnL]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

If you talk about having sex in a chat room and/or send explicit photos to a law-enforcement official posing as a minor, you have already committed a crime and could be in a world of trouble at that point.

I want to dispel this myth right off the bat. You would have to either send the photos or do both in order to “be in a world of trouble at that point.” Simply “talking about having sex in a chat room” is not a crime unless there is actual solicitation with intent going on, and like the law that Adri has now quoted, under that scenario, you’d have to agree to a place and time and actually show up for that meeting.

You have missed the point of my DUI comparison, which is this: Our govt. has passed laws which have criminalized the mere act of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Why? Because it is a misuse of a tool and could lead to dangerous consequences for other people.

And I think you are missing Scriv’s point that your comparison is not a fair one since medical professionals can quantify the average blood-alcohol content that will likely result in impaired driving. You don’t have to care about intent with DUI law. It’s cut and dried. Either the person drank alcohol and operated a motor vehicle or he/she didn’t. There is no “gray area.” In contrast, with the electronic enticement law, all it says is that the alleged perpetrator had “intent to promote or facilitate commission of a felony.” Intent?! Okay, maybe you have laid out some scenarios where law enforcement can obtain evidence that may prove intent, but the bottom line is: we’re legislating into a “gray area.” It’s the law itself that is treading on thin ground. That, I think, is Scriv’s point.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I want to dispel this myth right off the bat. You would have to either send the photos or do both in order to “be in a world of trouble at that point.” Simply “talking about having sex in a chat room” is not a crime unless there is actual solicitation with intent going on, and like the law that Adri has now quoted, under that scenario, you’d have to agree to a place and time and actually show up for that meeting.

And that's what I meant. I wasn't talking about someone merely discussing sex in a chat room, but someone actively planning and arranging to engage in an actual sex act with a minor over the net. I think that most people reading the entire thread (rather than selectively picking out a sentence) would have understood that clearly.

If you want to trumpet that as a "dispelling of a myth," whatever. You're just taking one sentence of a long discussion I had with Scriv out of context.

And I think you are missing Scriv’s point that your comparison is not a fair one since medical professionals can quantify the average blood-alcohol content that will likely result in impaired driving. You don’t have to care about intent with DUI law. It’s cut and dried. Either the person drank alcohol and operated a motor vehicle or he/she didn’t. There is no “gray area.” In contrast, with the electronic enticement law, all it says is that the alleged perpetrator had “intent to promote or facilitate commission of a felony.” Intent?! Okay, maybe you have laid out some scenarios where law enforcement can obtain evidence that may prove intent, but the bottom line is: we’re legislating into a “gray area.” It’s the law itself that is treading on thin ground. That, I think, is Scriv’s point.

If you are a lawyer and can actually use that defense to get your client off the hook after getting caught in a chat room predator sting, then I'll take you seriously. If not, then this is just a whole lot of empty rhetoric that has no legal applicability in the real world and hence,... not worth my time arguing.

[Jewlipino]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

The article gives this YouTube link to see the TV ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDAYH0f3FI

Hopefully the voters of Maui watch TV.

I think that ad makes some borderline slanderous accusations.

[Amati]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I think that ad makes some borderline slanderous accusations.

Yes, it seems almost unbelievable that a legislator would have that performance record. But, the definition of slander:

A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civill wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

I rewatched the video. There are specific statments made. If the statements are true, then there is no libel. The accusations made in the video could be easily proven or disproven, as truthful or untruthful. Broadcasting something "bad" about someone is not libelous if it is true.

It is a rather pathetic thought that the video is a commentary on an elected official who is entrusted to protect the community through their legislative powers.

[Jewlipino]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

Ah but some of them are less than true. I won't speak for the comments Rep. Bertram made, but the bit about him hiring a convicted sex-offender is more than a little bit in the gray area that Frankie and Tunnl have been going on about. The staffer in question has caught a lot of crap over the years, and I don't think he deserves to be singled out in a GOP smear campaign like this. Don't believe everything you see on tv Amati. Or teh interwebs in this case.

The world is a lot more complicated than you think. Try not to get spoon-fed.

[timkona]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

The Truth is an absolute defense for libel or slander. So you can say anything you want about anybody's behavior, as long as it's truthful.

[Jewlipino]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I'll concede that the staffer in question was convicted. However it was in the Philippines and has all the marks of a set-up including recanted testimony, the notoriously corrupt and anti-gay judicial system in the Philippines, and solicitation of bribes. So did he do it? I don't think so, and neither did the Senators who advocated on his behalf, or the human rights orgs (including the UN) either. So, convicted sex offender, yes. Guilty, probably not. It's really easy to make black and white distinctions about this sort of thing until you or one of your friends winds up on the wrong side of a questionable prosecution. While the GOP didn't lie, it didn't tell the whole truth either. Of course the complexities of that case don't fit easily into a one minute commercial.

Enjoy your sound-bites

[Amati]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I think that ad makes some borderline slanderous accusations.

The accusations made in the video could be easily proven or disproven, as truthful or untruthful. Broadcasting something "bad" about someone is not libelous if it is true.

I'll concede that the staffer in question was convicted.

Plain and simple, if the statements made in the advertisement are true, then there is no libel.

[Jewlipino]

Re: Rep. Bertram’s Outrageous Comments

I said borderline. Didn't say it was. My point is that dragging staffers into this is wrong unless the staffer in question did something wrong while working for Rep. Bertram. Politicians, by dint of their public position, can and should be called out on their various hypocrisies, but I believe that the level of privacy that should be granted to staff members should be higher as for the most part they are not public personalities. Most of them aren't wannabe politicians, just people trying to make a living and possibly make a difference.