Year of passage of Massachusetts age of consent law Massachusetts has an idiosyncratic age of consent law, which states that it is illegal to have sex with "any person under 18 years of age of chaste life": https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section4 I was discussing with some friends the supposition that this law sounded fairly archaic. I'd like to find out when this law was passed, but some googling did not turn up a result. How do I find out when the law was passed.
The phrase "of chaste life" appears in a bill passed on June 25, 1886: Whoever induces any person under the age of eighteen years of chaste life and conversation to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, common jail, or house of correction not exceeding three years or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by both fine and imprisonment in the jail or house of correction. Note that this language is substantially similar to the language that is currently in effect; the main changes are that the penalty was changed a little, and that the phrase "chaste life and conversation"1 was replaced with "chaste life". Combined with the 1836 law found by user6726, this narrows it down to a range of about 50 years. 1 "Conversation" in the above context appears to be an archaic sense of the word meaning one's "manner of conducting oneself in the world or in society; behaviour, mode or course of life."
I was initially going to vote to close this as a political rather than a legal question, however, I think there is scope for separating out the two dimensions. Our society makes a distinction between children and adults by giving them different legal rights, obligations and protections. If you think about it, there are a lot of things beyond sexual activity where the law does this: voting, drinking, military service, compulsory schooling, legal culpability etc. What things are subject to legal restriction is a political distinction. Now, there is no reason politically why these laws could not have been drafted to say "children can do this, adults can do that" and leave it to the courts to decide who is a "child" and who is an "adult". Biologically and emotionally people reach maturity at different ages so this is perfectly sensible. It might even be more just. However, justice is only one thing that we require of our legal system. Among the others are certainty and efficiency. Providing a bright line based on birth date gives certainty. Not requiring the court to deal with this on a case-by-case basis increases efficiency - justice is not free. This is why jurisdictions use age as a proxy for adulthood. As to why they choose any particular age, that is a political question.
Many The UK is not a unified jurisdiction. While the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexuality in England and Wales, it was still a crime in Scotland until 1980 and Northern Ireland until 1982. However, even after 1967, an estimated 15,000-plus gay men were convicted of homosexual acts that still remained criminal. While homosexuality was decimalised; it was only legal if it took place in total privacy: at home, behind closed doors and curtains with no one else in the dwelling. The age of consent was 21, compared to 16 for heterosexual sex. It was a crime if there were more than 2 people involved or if they were filmed or photographed. In 1966, the year before decriminalisation, there were 420 convictions for homosexuality; in 1974, there were 1,711 convictions for still criminal activities around homosexuality. Perversely, decriminalisation led to a more zealous police force targeting gays for what had not been decriminalized about their lifestyle. It was still a crime for members of the armed services and for merchant seaman, decriminalised in 1994. It was still legal to sack civilian sailors for homosexuality until 2017. Notwithstanding, even where there was no criminality, there was no protection against discrimination until various laws were introduced between 2003-2007. Socially, there was enormous prejudice against homosexuals through the 1970s, 1980s and continuing to today in some communities. I can remember the nasty jokes, abuse and, in some cases, physical violence and murders directed against gays when I was at school and university. The categorisation of AIDS as the &quot;gay disease&quot; did nothing to alleviate this prejudice. For a spy to be openly homosexual? Not a chance it hell. It would be seen as a weakness that could be exploited by the enemy.
He has to follow the law of the country he is in and those of which he is a citizen. A citizen is subject to their country's jurisdiction wherever they are, however, some laws are only enforced within a nation's boundaries and some have extra-territorial application. 18 U.S. Code § 2423 - Transportation of minors covers the US law (I don't speak Hungarian or Polish so I leave that up to you). It says: (c) Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places.— Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce or resides, either temporarily or permanently, in a foreign country, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. 18 U.S. Code § 2243 - Sexual abuse of a minor or ward gives the age of a minor as anyone under 12 years old and anyone under 16 unless the perpetrator is not more than 4 years older. For your 21+ year old this would be anyone under 16.
There was no actual child who was caused to view the material, so there was no offense under that provision. By contrast, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity is an inchoate offense, so it is not necessary for any harm to an actual victim to have occurred. Note that the relevant section of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 concerns "causing or inciting," and that the charge was "inciting." The section concerning watching a sexual act, by contrast, only inludes "causing."
It's called police and prosecutorial discretion to discern when to arrest and prosecute; and that situation in particular is also the result of a decision of the jury of the court of public opinion. Permits are required to sell on the street in Oakland. But not everyone who sells has a permit, and not everyone who is confronted about not having a permit is arrested and prosecuted. There are simply too many potential cases to prosecute. And, the police officer has the discretion to ticket or not. When you get pulled over while driving or riding a bike, you don't always get a ticket, since the officer has the option of discretion. When the officer responded and found an eight year-old selling water, he obviously was aware of the fact that it was a violation. But he was also aware of the court of public opinion. What is it going to look like if he arrests an eight year old and their parent? Allison Ettel was right, in a purely legal sense, to make the report. And technically, the child (and adult) needed a permit. And could have been ticketed and prosecuted. But it was Ettel was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, and she lost her case. Happens a lot.
Invasion of privacy and false light torts would probably not be applicable here. Very few states have adopted the false light tort because of its conflict with First Amendment principles and there was no agreement or even request to keep the text private. The copyright issue is trickier. First all, the TOS may provide that the copyright belongs to the text service provider or that there is a license. But, even in the absence of an express license, sending someone a message which is equivalent to sending them a letter, probably gives rise to an implied license that the person to whom it is sent can use the message that arises merely from the act of sending it without restriction or qualification. Implied license and fair use also heavily overlap. Publishing the text exactly as it was sent to you protects you from defamation liability because it is true. On the whole it would be extremely unlikely for there to be any legal liability for publishing a text from someone that they sent to you. Of course, one can imagine exceptions. If the person receiving the text was in an attorney-client relationship, or priest-parishioner making confession relationship, or was communicating regarding classified national security matters, or there was a non-disclosure agreement in place, among other possibilities, an evidentiary privilege and duty of confidentiality could apply and disclosing the material without the permission of the privilege holder could breach a duty of confidentiality and give rise to liability. If the picture was a nude picture of a minor, there could be a criminal and/or civil liability issue, and some states have also made posting "revenge porn" a criminal offense and/or a basis for civil liability. If the disclosure was effectively a way to facilitate insider trading that could be a problem. If the contents of the text were accurately transmitted but known to be false and were disseminated without disclosure of its falsity for the purpose of defrauding a third party, that could be a problem. But, no facts that obviously flag any exception are identified in the question. The mere fact that the posting may be embarrassing, or hurt someone's reputation, or was made without someone's express consent, in general, would not be a basis for liability.
In Texas, sex offenses are defined in Texas Penal Code § 21.01, et seq., and rape and kindred offenses are defined as sexual assault § 22.011 and aggravated sexual assault § 22.021. None of those laws prohibit the conduct described (assuming adults who are not in a teacher-student relationship with full mental capacity), nor do they prohibit the video as long as there is no intent or threat to disclose it. Of course, not recognizing that it is the same person both times in an in person meeting when they have sex is highly implausible.