Reported in many places, ‘Cybersex’ man given two years and while I’ve no time at all for men like this, such a punishment for what happened seems odd.
It’s not what he did (like we don’t know what a “lewd act” really is”) or that we don’t know what he would have done had he met the girl (we do), it’s the very simple issue that he was not actually there and that despite anything he said, he cannot have made the girl do things she was not comfortable with anyway. And this case aside, it’s not what has been done to this person, it’s the legal precedent that has been set – lawyers love them, but so does the Government.
You know those phrases we sometimes use in a throwaway manner ? Things like “I could kill him for this !” Effectively, with this law, haven’t the Govt just made YOU arrestable should you agree with someone who says that over the net and then does it ? Even though it was “just a saying” and “meant in jest” ? That’s how it seems to me.
It’s very easy to start by using such laws on the pondlife of our society as no-one will kick up a stink – in fact we may all be quite pleased that the pervy little bastard was caught, but it just isn’t such a great leap to using that law more widely, and using it quite selectively