special_k said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I heard that any position other than missionary is illegal in... Ohio? Someplace anyways. Not that it is enforced (can you imagine the FBI jumping out from under your bed to bust you ROFL!!!!!). But still, point is that IF these people are tried... They get their names on the public register do they not?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually, there have been cases of people charged on these kinds of crimes. Including the one I gave as an example, although it was a few years ago. In that guy's case, it was in court while he was being tried for rape against his wife. He was found not guilty of that, but both he and his wife admitted to the consensual oral sex, and he was put in jail for it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Sure, I think that freedom of speech is important to, but I also think that there are limits. Hate speech is unacceptable IMO and thus there can often be a conflict. There can be a conflict between slander and liabel and freedom of speech as well... There can also be a conflict between privacy and freedome of speech. What to do when values conflict? Maybe one needs to weigh the benefits and the harms to decide what should be done...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I believe in freedom of speech, including "hate speech." I welcome people to tell me who they hate and why. I want to know who people really are. Stifling the truth gives power to those people, and makes them careful and crafty. But I also find hate speech laws and opinions are very discriminatory. It's wrong to hate this group or those people, but it's ok to hate those people and these groups. I believe even the most offensive speech is free to be spoken or expressed verbally. Everyone is offended by something, and no one has the right to say, "You can't say that!" Slander and libel are against the law. You can't say something that isn't true about someone that hurts their reputation and their income.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
A 16 year old (in NZ) who slept with a 15 year old (in NZ) would probably count as a pedophile.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

No. A hebephile or ephebophile is the correct term for a person attracted to teens, but I think it only applies to adults attracted to teens/post-pubescent children. A pedophile is an adult attracted to pre-pubescent children. I'm not sure what the term, if there is one, would be.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
So you think once an offender always an offender?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

That isn't what I said at all. I meant that, if you restrict a pedophile or predator (one who is going to do his or crimes again, given the chance) to the point they have nowhere to live, they will get better at hiding and finding ways to keep from getting caught.