Reader comments
Supreme Court considers whether Internet chat alone can be a crime

"She added if a man walked up to a 13-year-old on the street and solicited sex, what would be the difference?"

The difference would be that the man propositioned an actual under-age girl, and was not a victim of police entrapment. Morally, police do not have any right to trap someone into any illegal activity they would not have been committing otherwise.

Why don't these people just go after people of legal age? Perhaps of prostitution were legal, the motivation for these types of crimes would be reduced. What harm does prostitution if regulated do anyway? Isn't it worth a try?

I've got to side with James on this one. Freedom of speech was one of the fundamental rights that America was founded upon. And that includes freedom of speech everywhere, especially the internet. That he set up a meeting and drove by is a far cry from committing a crime. What's next? The thought police?... oh, if forgot, that is the "evidence" in this case. But what to do for a safer society? Maybe we should just have everyone implanted with microchips so the government can monitor the ages of those chatting online. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, after all it is just another small sacrifice of security for some increased safety.

If the cops lose this case then hopefully they will get serious and nail the perve with evidence that can't be disputed. How about a real 13yo girl taking a guy into a house that has several cops and video waiting to take the perv down.

Whether it's on the street or online, if you solicit a minor for sex you're committing a crime. End of story.

Nevermind morally, its against the law to coerce or trick someone into committing a crime they normally would not otherwise. This, however, can not be a case of entrapment. This man, when he determined that this person he was talking with was a minor, continued to conversate with this person and went so far as to go to the meeting place at the pre-arranged time. He had no idea law enforcement was involved AND admitted to having done this before...therefore he clearly was pre-disposed to committing this crime.

Discussing sex without the permission of a parent in and of its-self is sufficiently harmful to be considered a crime. I don't believe that the charges should be the same if a minor is approached face-to-face vs. on cyber space, but there definatelty needs to be action taken on adults who are reckless enough to start up sexual conversations with minors in the cyber world. No good can come from it. Grow up you gross people, and leave our children alone!

Thought crime. AG office would have to double, and that would make Nancy Grace happy. Actually people like Nancy Grace will never be happy.

Anon is wrong. It's called intent. You sound bitter like you actually got caught in a sting once. A person has the 'intent' to do something with a 13 yr old girl, acts on that intent, and makes the necessary decisions to go through with it = crime. It's called protecting children who cannot protect themselves. Biblical prophets had it right when they spoke of a weight and something about drowning in the depths of the sea.

Your rational is like saying that it's wrong for undercover cops to set up a buy for drugs to catch a dealer.

Just keep catching the sickos through meetings. That is the best way to do it.

I wonder if there aren't enough real crimes around that we have to create fake ones to keep our police force busy?

What we actually need is a more proactive technological approach to this growing problem. Start with parents watching more closely what their children are doing on the internet.

Next, make laws requiring companies that feature internet chat for minors provide a quick abuse link that can be clicked alerting a moderator and saving a complete chat log that includes the IP address of the potential abuser. When a pattern of abuse comes from a certain IP a profile of that individual and what they are after should be apparent. That is when a sting should be set up, with plenty of evidence, clear intent and hopefully an increased prison sentence because there wouldn't be any doubt that the person was using electronics means to ensnare minors.

It should only take the same IP address coming up two or three times before a pattern is evident. I just hope that the authorities do these stings in a way that none of the people caught could use the entrapment defense as they very well could now.

Joe read the article real good.

Freedom of speech
The man never saw a 13 year old girl and did nothing
The other end was a setup
This is illegal to start with
The cyber cop said she was 13 and inticed the man
It does remain a problem
The cyber cop needs a year in jail as well

I love Dateline and their prep busts. I am somewhat concerned about entrapment. Not as it applies to the subjects in question but where it can lead. Part of me does not want to go down that slop. There is no reason you can't keep things over 18. Unless you are a perp. Words with out actions it a touchy subject. Many people say they are going to kill someone but never really would. Could words be considered assault or even attempted murder. Can someone die from embarrassment and the person that caused it be charged with a crime. That would give P.C New Meaning. That could get into general conversation and even thought control. Can you be charged with a Stare, Glare, or Dirty look. Or even a perceived thought because of the way you looked. That is leap. However so isn�t Costco being able to tell me how much Rice I bought in 2006. Amex and Gas and Food Refunds sure because we get that 1% to 3% and over a Year that adds up. The point is do you see how controlled we are becoming. The Beast is upon us Repent!

agreed while chatting online, to a time and location to meet a minor. What if that supposively the minor wasn't an Internet Crime Task Force Agent? What would happen to the real minor during these agreed meetings? Enticing a minor over the Internet is a crime in my book...

They (Adults), "agreed while chatting online, to a time and location to meet a minor. What if that supposively the minor wasn't an Internet Crime Task Force Agent? What would happen to the real minor during these agreed meetings? Enticing a minor over the Internet is a crime in my book..."

If it wasn't an Task Force agent then it would have been a crime but it was a Task Force agent and the man may have acted inappropriately but he didn't have sex with a minor or follow through on his internet chat.

We must bear in mind that the Task Force agent was also culpable and played a major part in getting this man to cross the line between having an online chat to talking about sex with a minor and then setting up a meeting with them. What would have happened had the man not shown up that time but had instead chosen not to do so because he still had some boundaries he wouldn't cross but later went online and started a conversation with a real minor but the agent had broken down the barriers. That agent would be responsible for a child being molested.

Constitution, "The man never saw a 13 year old girl and did nothing The other end was a setup This is illegal to start with The cyber cop said she was 13 and inticed the man It does remain a problem The cyber cop needs a year in jail as well."

I agree that the Agents actions were reprehensible and could have resulted in an online chat turning into something far more serious. Had this man said no this time and not acted upon anything he would be far more likely to do so the next time because of the actions of the Agent. Look at what the agent was able to accomplish. She got him to drive to the school and almost met with her. What would have happened had he driven half-way but decided to turn around. He wouldn't have committed a crime but now he is one step closer to doing so because of the agent's actions.

So I agree that the agent needs to be held culpable since this type of behavior could lead to someone saying no this time but end up saying yes when it is my or your child. Shame on the agent!

What a joke. get a protective order and the other person has to kill you before the police act. Talk online and you have intent.. intent to what?? Talk. No action. No crime.. Dateline knows how to do it right.. Utah just messes it up.. Go Texas!!!

Question. Would the man have done what he did anwyay if he hadn't met the cyber cop? Answer that and you have your answer as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. I believe that is the standard here. A pretty high bar in my estimation.

Here's my take. I would never get entrapped on a sex crime particularly with a minor. Those entrapped are likely bad news already. If I found out my 10 year old daughter were talking to someone online... even someone she thought she knew, she wouldn't have computer access from my home anymore. The same goes if she was 12, 14, or 16. We used to have to put our finger in the phone and dial to talk to our friends. She'll have a phone. That's enough. If I found out someone was trying to "SEDUCE" my daugher at any age she was in my care. I would be the one committing the next crime. Watch out punk!