Reader comments
Supreme Court debates Internet enticement law

Free speech is a right regardless of content of speech. Not every thing said is real and should not be construed as intent. This is why we have the right of free speech. What will the next campaign of infringement of free speech cover? Internet chating is not public speaking and is a private conversation with words and intent known only to those talking. The interpretation of speech is too often taken out of context and meaning by prosecution and law enforcement. Free speech should not be used against us nor considered fact, and they already know this. The purpose of law enforcement is to be on the streets looking out for citizens and protecting us from the illegals and their gangs. They see laws broken but turn their heads and scoff at it, at the request of government officials, business, and the catch and release justice system. The justice system is more of an inconvience to illegals and many other major offenders. Yet we get more abuse, as americans, about what we say than actual crimes committed. Conversation is a protected right that should not be infringed upon, at least for the american citizens.

Speech alone can often be criminal.

If I lie on the stand I can be convicted of perjury.

If I threaten the life of the President I will get a visit from the Secret Service.

If I negotiate a hit with a hired killer I have conspired to murder.

If I slander someone.

If I falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theatre etc etc.

The law is a good one, let it stand!

This is certainly not a free speech case. This is speech made by a mature man offering to have sex with an underage girl, setting a time and place, and then being there. That's what the Utah court will find. Just wait.

This has only to do with speech in the fact that he said something and arranged something. THe real fact that he showed at the meeting place showes intended action. ALl the rest is semantics. Curiosity my foot. (Oh wait I did not intend that saying that way)

I agree with most here. The big hinge here is that he showed up for a meeting expecting to meet an underage girl. I could see an argument for free speech if he never showed up, but he did so that shows intent IMO.

His intentions don't matter, what he meant to say what he didn't mean to say, but what if he had met some 13y old girl, and they talked and never had sex, did he break the law. No! They are so busy convicting people of crimes they didn't commit, now if he had met a 13 year old girl and they had sex then he commited a crime, but you would have to prove it.
I don't think it's right to talk to a 13y girl in a sexual manner, but it's not illegal until something physical happens.

This is a tricky case. Of course soliciting a minor to commit a sex act ought to be illegal, but if the law says the state has to prove that the person thought the person he was chatting with was a minor, how can they do that if he says he thought he was a gay guy? In this case showing up doesn't prove anything, as the guy said he thought he was being solicited by a gay person. All in all very tricky. The first amendment has to be upheld, but at the same time law enforcement ought to be able to go after child predators.

an adult sees that a chatter online is a minor whether he or she lies or not, that should be the end of the chat. Click the mouse to exit the chatroom immediately. But when an adult who knows that, and so stupid to still chat and then started sexually explicit chat or participated in such a chat even if the minor or a Law Enforcement Agent initiated the chat and then proceeded on to agreeing to meet up someplace, deserves to be arrested. Thank goodness for the Internet Crime Task Force Team.