Congressman Foley Resigns

[shinerbock]

Of course ABC isn't gonna mention that they screwed up, or that the kid may have been of legal age. Drudge shows it, because Drudge doesn't care whether the Democrats win back congress or not...ABC on the other hand...

Not to say getting to the bottom of this isn't important, I just think its telling how ABC and CNN will paste "HASTERT KNEW!!! HE SHOULD RESIGN" when the facts aren't out. I haven't heard anyone from CNN or ABC mention that the emails and such reported to Hastert were only the katrina and picture ones. I mean, if Hastert did know and took no/poor action, then sure, but at least tell both sides, gee. I don't really like Hastert as speaker, but its just annoying to flip on CNN and hear a "journalist" talk about how the GOP should lose the house because of their inaction on the Foley thing.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I just think its telling how ABC and CNN will paste "HASTERT KNEW!!! HE SHOULD RESIGN" when the facts aren't out.

The folks I've heard or read about saying Hastert should resign are politicians -- Republicans and Democrats, not news organizations. The latter quotes what the former said.

[JonoBN41]

I fail to see how "age of consent" or "legal age" has any bearing on conversations, whether by IM, PM, e-mail, or in person. Last I knew, freedom of speech is not restricted by age.

There may be minimum ages for driving, buying alcohol, and HAVING sex, but talking about it?

Whereas most boys begin masturbating between the ages of 11 and 13, will there now be a law prohibiting them from discussing it with any adult, by any means, until they are 18? It would certainly cast us back to the age of puritanism, fear, and guilt.

Will there be no more sex education, or would it have to be taught by a minor???

I read the IMs and it's obvious the kid was having fun talking freely about his techniques and even fetishes. It was guy talk.

I see this whole thing as nothing more than a witch hunt promulgated by those with sexual hang-ups, political agendas, and the media who are happy to blow anything "shocking" out of proportion.

[AlphaFrog]

Freedom of speech does not apply to sexual harassment of a minor that is under your supervision.

If a 30 year old guy IMs his 27 year old secretary and asks her what she's wearing, it's sexual harassment, regardless of age of consent, etc.

[James]

Well . . . only if it bothers her.

Sexual harrassment is more a crime of perception than anything else.

Oddly enough, if a 30 year old woman IMs her 27 year old male secretary its generally not regarded the same.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Freedom of speech does not apply to sexual harassment of a minor that is under your supervision.

If a 30 year old guy IMs his 27 year old secretary and asks her what she's wearing, it's sexual harassment, regardless of age of consent, etc.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Freedom of speech does not apply to sexual harassment

You are absolutely right, but the IMs I read were not about harassment.

The easy manner in which the youngster wrote, and the length of time he stayed online, indicate he appreciated the (possibly rare) occasion to talk openly with an adult male about sexual topics. He could have logged off at any time.

He was not under the supervision of the Congressman; rather he was worried his mom might see the conversation.

[alum]

Nevertheless, it is inappropriate for any Congressman (male or female) to be talking to any Page (past or present, male or female) in any slightly suggestive manner.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The folks I've heard or read about saying Hastert should resign are politicians -- Republicans and Democrats, not news organizations. The latter quotes what the former said.

The Washington Times, not exactly a liberal rag, called for Hastert to resign in an editorial.

Here is the link.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The Washington Times, not exactly a liberal rag, called for Hastert to resign in an editorial.

Here is the link.

That's a newspaper. They don't have to worry about the FCC and equal opportunity. They can be editorialize all they want.

And, there's a huge difference between a report and an editorial.

[jon1856]

Updates from the Newspapers Editorial/Op-Ed pages Cartoons:
http://cagle.com/news/FoleyFoibles/main.asp

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

That's a newspaper. They don't have to worry about the FCC and equal opportunity. They can be editorialize all they want.

And, there's a huge difference between a report and an editorial.

True, but what you had said was: The folks I've heard or read about saying Hastert should resign are politicians -- Republicans and Democrats, not news organizations. While The Washington Times can indeed editorialize all it wants, and while the game rules are different for print news and broadcast news, it is still a news organization, not a politician. Thus, The Washington Time is a news organization that has called for Hastert's resignation.

[RU OX Alum]

why are the rules different for TV versus print?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

why are the rules different for TV versus print?

Because the airwaves are considered public property that TV and radio stations are given a license by the federal government to use in the public interest. This being the case, broadcast news outlets are not supposed to "take sides," but are supposed to allow equal time to various positions. Unlike print news outlets, they are regulated by the FCC.

The rules are also somewhat different for broadcase news outlets like local news shows or ABC, CBS or NBC that do use the public airwaves as compared to purely cable or satellite news outlets like CNN and Fox, which don't use the public airwaves and which viewers pay to receive.