The Kaitlyn Hunt Affair: Upon Further Review…

This may not have been Juliet and Juliet after all...

This may not have been Juliet and Juliet after all…

As happens all too often with these viral ethics stories, the facts in the Kaitlyn Hunt case as represented in the first accounts appear to be wrong. Kaitlyn did not first become involved with her girlfriend when both were minors. According to an arrest affidavit , Kaitlyn and her girlfriend began dating in November 2012 when the younger girl was 14 and Kaitlyn was already 18.

Sorry, but that changes everything. Unless one is ready to assert as fact that lesbian relationships in which an adult, however young, becomes involved with a child are less dangerous and potentially damaging than heterosexual ones, Kaitlyn broke a law that is legitimate and sensible as it applies to her, and that law should be enforced. A 14- year old is not capable of meaningful or legal consent, and the opportunity for older, more experienced teens to exploit their inexperience, innocence and deference to older peers is significant and a genuine source of parental—and legal, and societal— concern. If the law permitted an 18/14 year-old sexual relationship between female teens, it would be difficult to explain why 18/12  year-old sexual relationships were materially different, and that being so, legal prohibition on 18-year-old young men seducing 12-year-old girls would be difficult to maintain.

Are there good arguments that a relationship like Kaitlyn’s should be treated differently? Well, there are arguments. Prof. Volokh gives us a few:

“ can actually make a rational argument for treating lesbian relationships less severely than opposite-sex relationships. Lesbian relationships can’t lead to unwanted pregnancy, and, to my knowledge, are much less likely to spread the most serious sexually transmitted diseases. And while they can involve lies, lead to heartbreak, leave one or both members with a sense that one has been emotionally mistreated and taken advantage of, and so on, one can imagine a parent who can reasonably think “Phew, better that my daughter is having sex with a woman than with a man.” One can even imagine legal rules that draw this distinction, and constitutional rules that uphold such a distinction. Michael M. v. Superior Court (1980) upheld a sex-specific statutory rape law, which punished only males and not females, on the grounds that the law reflects real sex differences, including differential susceptibility to pregnancy. That argument would be even stronger as to a distinction between women-women relationships and other relationships, even given that sex classifications are subjected to heightened constitutional scrutiny (see Michael M. itself), and even if sexual orientation classifications come to be subjected to heightened constitutional scrutiny as well.”

In the end, however, Volokh comes to the same conclusion I do:

“But such an approach, while not irrational, is certainly not the law in Florida, and it’s far from clear that it is correct. The risk of emotional harm to 15-year-olds — harm that they may be even less prepared to deal with than older people are, and harm that they can’t reasonably be seen as consenting to, given their immaturity — remains in lesbian relationships even if the risk of pregnancy is removed and the risk of disease is very low.”

I wonder, therefore, what the A.C.L.U. thinks it is doing entering the debate, as it did today with a press release. Unless it thinks Kaitlyn is being targeted purely because of the same-sex nature of the relationship, and that isn’t apparent to me, its arguments seem weak at best:

  • “The facts as we understand them suggest that the state is prosecuting Kaitlyn for engaging in behavior that is both fairly innocuous and extremely common.” Well, that’s none of the A.C.L.U.’s business. The parents of the younger girl and the law have priority over an ideological advocacy group in deciding what is “innocuous.”
  • “Such behavior occurs every day in tens of thousands of high schools across the country….”  This is “everybody does it,” and nothing more.
  • “…yet those other students are not facing felony convictions…Maybe they should be, if in fact the relationship was not truly consensual.
  • “…and, in Florida, the lifetime consequences of a felony conviction) and potential lifelong branding as sex offenders. This is a life sentence for behavior by teenagers that is all too common, whether they are male or female, gay or straight. High-school relationships may be fleeting, but felony convictions are not.”  This appears to be an argument against ever punishing teens for anything.
  • “While effective laws are certainly needed to protect Florida’s children from sexual predators, one cannot seriously maintain that Kaitlyn’s behavior was predatory.” Really? I don’t know whether or not it was predatory. Is the A.C.L.U. seriously arguing that an 18-year-old is incapable of predatory behavior toward a 14, 13, 12-year old child?

Better standards and laws are needed, but it looks as if, the A.C.L.U. notwithstanding, the prosecution of Kaitlyn is ethically and legally justifiable.


Sources: CBS, ACLU

Graphic: theHarker

129 thoughts on “The Kaitlyn Hunt Affair: Upon Further Review…

  1. What appeared to have started at 17-15 became 18-14 and that is too much. However I have sadly seem parents who approved of 40-15 because it was hetero and the 15 demanded it. Would the parents have approved of a lesbian relationship that was closer in age, or was it the age? If there is some context that says it was the lesbian and not the age, perhaps their involvement is relevant. I’m hoping that can be determined.

      • It is against the law as the 14 year old can’t consent. The rest doesn’t matter. Even if the parents were wholly against gays it still would not change it, short of them abusing their child it is their decision.

  2. I’m confused. The Huffington Post link that you provided in your previous post did not support the claim that Kaitlyn was already eighteen at the start of the relationship. It just said that the relationship started at the beginning of the school year. Now that you’ve withdrawn the original statement, you’ve actually linked to a report that supports it.

    I can only suppose you’re basing your revised comments on this poorly-written paragraph:

    According to an arrest affidavit obtained by WTSP, Kaitlyn and her girlfriend began dating in November 2012. The victim reportedly told police they began a sexual relationship and according to the report, the victim was 14 and Kaitlyn was 18.

    It’s not clear to me what the relationship is between those two sentences. Does the arrest report refer to their ages when the romantic relationship began, or is that a separate fact? Could the arrest report instead be referring to the point at which the relationship became sexual, or their ages when the suspect was charged?

    I don’t know which is the case, but I am struck by this remark from the CBSNews article: The case began in February after the younger girl’s parents notified authorities when Hunt turned 18. That certainly seems to indicate that the older girl was seventeen when the relationship began. Furthermore, it indicates to me that even if it’s right to reverse the ethical judgment of Kaitlyn, there’s no reason to reverse the judgment of the other girl’s parents. The hazy picture that I have of the case still suggests that they were being utterly vindictive. This new report doesn’t contradict the Hunt’s claims that the other parents never privately expressed concern about the relationship. It still seems that they waited patiently for the girl to turn eighteen, then ran straight to the police and began a campaign to get the girl expelled from school – a campaign which was successful with the school board only after the school’s administration and a judge had both ruled that Kaitlyn could stay.

    On the larger question, even though the case may be materially different from how you initially presented it, I find there’s still something not right when a relatively minor change can move this situation from “completely okay” territory to “a potential fifteen-year prison sentence.” I don’t see why the slippery slope argument applies in this post but didn’t apply in the previous one.

    If the law permitted an 18/14 year-old sexual relationship between female teens, it would be difficult to explain why 18/12 year-old sexual relationships were materially different

    Sure, but by the same token, if the law permitted a 17/14 year-old sexual relationship, it would be difficult to explain why a 17/12 year-old sexual relationship was materially different. For that matter, if 17/15 is okay, it’s tough to explain why 18/14 is unacceptable. At least the difference between 18/14 and 18/12 can seen in the fact that in the former case, if both are in high school then both are at least occupying the same social milieu and general stage of life.

    I don’t know what to do about laws that have to set an arbitrary cut-off point. The ethics involved are not clear cut, insofar as they vary from case to case. The above excerpt from Volokh even implies such individual variability when it says that fifteen year-olds “may be” less prepared to handle the emotional harm of a relationship. It’s not a necessary truth. For what it’s worth, when I was a freshman in high school I briefly dated a senior. Sure, there was a difference in level of maturity, but I still don’t see it as being different from the difference one might find between two romantically involved adults.

    So I’d say that when dealing with two high school students, it’s difficult to make a firm ethical judgment without intimate knowledge of the people involved. But as far as the law is concerned – well, allow two British puppets to explain it in song:

      • Edward from what I read it was illegal at 17 and the same was true at 18. The change is from a misdemeanor to a felony. Do you have a firm source for when the parents found out and then reported it? I have not found anything on that.

      • I just noticed that my video embedded itself. I wasn’t even trying. All I did was copy and paste the youtube URL directly into my comment. I figured people would have to click on it, or even copy and paste the link, but it is showing up embedded.

    • Kaitlyn was born on August 14, 1994.

      Therefore, she turned 18 on August 14, 2012. School started on August 20:

      In every version of the story I’ve seen from both sides, it is said that the girls met during Kaitlyn’s senior year, and that this year was Kaitlyn’s senior year. Her senior year started 6 days after she turned 18. It would therefore be impossible that they met before she turned 18. The parents could not have been lying in wait to press charges against someone their daughter had not even met yet.

      The younger girl is stated to be 14 at the time of the acts Kaitlyn is being charged for in the arrest affidavit. I’ve heard she has since turned 15 in either March, April, or May, but by then there was a restraining order as a condition of bail.

      I think an age gap of four years at that stage of life is just too big for the average 14 and 18 year old to be on the same level, so I think the sex should be illegal – especially to give parents more legal recourse to stop such a relationship. I’m not convinced that the sex offender registry for life is appropriate for this situation – I would have to see stats on whether these types of offenders are any more likely to reoffend than a random person is to commit a sex crime for the first time. It seems the state of Florida does allow a person found guilty of this particular crime (non-forced sex with an age gap of only a few years) to petition to be removed from the registry after completing their sentence and some of these requests have been granted.

      • One more thing I found a bit interesting – under Florida law Kaitlyn could be considered “old” for her grade. Since 1979, the cutoff to start school was September 1 – so, she either was held back at some point, or her parents delayed her starting school. Because legally, she could have graduated last year and should have been in college or out working or whatever her adult life plan was. If it was her parents who decided to wait until she was 6 to send her to kindergarten, well, that’s legal, but it’s also a growing trend in many parts of the country – holding developmentally normal children back an entire year from starting school. Much focus is on the “unfair age gaps” this creates in the early grades, but it seems it could also cause a problem at the other end – more legal adults in high school.

      • Very helpful information, Rebecca. In that case, the CBSNews article was simply wrong when it said the parents reported the relationship to the police after the girl turned eighteen.

        Certainly I agree that a four year difference at that stage is too big for the average fourteen and eighteen year old, but the trouble is that it’s hard to know whether any particular pair of teens is average. The law is appropriate, but I would be reserved with personal judgments, and I would hope that the persons responsible for prosecution and sentencing would start from that standpoint, too.

        • That would usually be something taken into account for sentencing though, I would think. The law pretty much deals in averages. There’s a firm line to vote, to drink, to have sex, to join the army, etc, because it’s possible to individually analyze each person. Plus I’d say it’s reasonable a person should know whether a relationship would be legal or illegal before starting said relationship.

          I think the plea bargain offered was completely fair and reasonable: two years community monitoring (She could still work or go to college), an additional year of probation, a restraining order until the younger girl turns 18, and she wouldn’t have to be on the sex offender registry if she completed her sentence without further violations of the law. It seems she and her parents would rather try the case in the media over taking a reasonable plea bargain.

    • 1. I can only suppose you’re basing your revised comments on this poorly-written paragraph: No, I’m basing it on the statement of a journalist familiar with the case who also sent me several links.

      2. “there’s no reason to reverse the judgment of the other girl’s parents. The hazy picture that I have of the case still suggests that they were being utterly vindictive.” The post didn’t mention the parents at all, Ed, which I would think would be fairly taken to mean that my position on that score hadn’t necessarily changed.

      3.”Sure, but by the same token, if the law permitted a 17/14 year-old sexual relationship, it would be difficult to explain why a 17/12 year-old sexual relationship was materially different.” No, it would be easy. One is three years when bother are teens, the other is five years when one is a late teen and the other is undeniably a child. The point with 18-14 is that it already crosses the warning line, with early teen and early adult.

      4. “I don’t know what to do about laws that have to set an arbitrary cut-off point.” I dunno…Obey them? All laws with cut-offs will have anomolies, like the big, hairy, deep voiced 12 year old seducing the immature 18 year old who looks 11. That where prosecutorial discretion SHOULD come in, but usually doesn’t.

      • 1. Good. I don’t have access to that resource and the reports that I’ve read have been a little contradictory. I thought the facts of the case were still a little up in the air. Now that everything’s been better explained and Rebecca has provided a link to the actual affidavit, I see that the updated version is indeed more accurate.

        2. I know your second post didn’t mention the parents. That’s why I did. I didn’t assume that you’d changed your view, but I didn’t assume that you hadn’t either. You said that the updated facts “change everything,” but we hadn’t yet explored how far that remarks extends.

        3. Aren’t “early teen” and “early adult” still somewhat subjective terms? 18/14 crosses one warning line, but there has to be a somewhat arbitrary choice of which warning line is the limit of legality. Vagueness paradox.

        4. I believe that was my point. Interpersonal ethics can change according to the specifics of a situation. The letter of the law can’t. Prosecutorial discretion can and should step in to mediate between the two, but it seems loath to do so because we tend to view these things in absolute terms, as if the passage of a birthday really is enough to turn a person from just another child into an out-and-out victimizer.

  3. If you look at Kate’s mothers statement on the freekate site, The mother states that kate turned 18 in August of 2012. The younger girl was 14. The girls began dating in September 2012. First sexual encounter happened in a bathroom at the girls school in November 2012. There was a Second encounter in the bathroom at the school and then Once encounter at Kates home in December 2012. The ages were 18/14, Charges came in Feb 2013. Younger girl turned 15 last month April 2013. I have a feeling the parents thought the girls were just friends until Feb. when they found out they pressed charges. Just my opinion.

    • And having sex in a public bathroom and exposing other minors to her perversion. I have no sympathy for this girl or her family from the arrest affidavit is is clear that Kate was the instigator.

  4. Yes, that is confirmed in the affidavit I linked below. Technically, the 18 year old could have even been in college. Her birthday was before the school year started so she was 18 her entire senior year – a lot of parents hold back summer birthday kids so maybe that’s what happened (I suppose this is another possible consequence of the trend towards holding kids back – a bigger high school age range). The younger girl was 14 when they met and must have been a freshman since she didn’t turn 15 until sometime after January or February. Personally I agree with the law in this case, 4 years is a big age gap, the relationship was illegal from the start as they met at 14 and 18, and the older girl was old enough to have been in college.

  5. To say that she “may face 15 years imprisonment” isn’t quite the whole truth.

    It’s 15 years mandatory minimum. 50 years is what she could face.

    The law provides the possibility to vary that minimum if the relationship was consensual – but that’s a matter of judicial discretion.

    The law also provides the possibility that she not be classed for life as a “serious sex offender” as the age difference is 4 years, under the two felonies she’s charged with. Again a matter of judicial discretion.

    As the relationship would be considered “un-natural” and “sodomite” by at least some Florida judges… judicial discretion here is a crap-shoot.

    The two girls shared classes – the younger one is rather taller and more physically developed. If you saw the two together, the younger one apparently looks much older – however, that is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

    I’m under the impression that the contents of the wiretap conversation are crucial, and whether it should be excluded from evidence if obtained in an irregular manner.

    • Depends on if she pleas her way down to a lesser charge – FL may not want to be seen to be persecuting a homosexual girl (even though they wouldn’t be and she kinda does deserve to have the book thrown at her).

      I will leave out my opinion on sex offender registration laws…

  6. Looking at the arrest warrant – the 18th birthday is set as 14rh August 2012, the complaint February 2013, so at least some of my information is inaccurate.

    I’ll refrain from commenting further till I find more reliable sources. Unfortunately, that excludes pretty much all of MSM.

  7. I will say this, if this had been an 18 year old boy and a 14 year old girl I don’t think as many people would be rushing to the 18 year olds defense. We would be seeing the same hypocrisy that we see with female sex offenders versus male sex offenders.

    • If this had been an 18yo boy and a 14yo girl, the prosecution would probably be against the girl’s father for assault or attempted murder, and 90% of the commenters and posters would be cheering on the father for jumping to the defense of his daughter’s honor.

  8. According to the mother’s statement in the very beginning before everything blew up on social media and according to the police reports Kaitlyn was 18 in August 2012 sometime. We start school in August in Florida. All included stated the girls became friends /met in September of 2012. Started a relationship November 2012. First sexual encounter took place in the schools bathroom in November 2012 making the ages of the girls 18/14. There was a second encounter in the school bathroom and then there was the December 2012 encounter when the young girl ran away and spent the night at Kaitlyns house. Still both girls were 18/14. Parents of the younger girl filed charges in Feb 2013. (Ages 18/14). Younger girl turned 15 in April 2013. I think that makes a difference.

  9. According to both Kaitlyns mother and the police report she turned 18 in August 2012. Florida started school on August 8th 2012. The other girl was 14. They became friends in September 2012. Began dating November 2012 (ages 18/14) The first sexual encounter happened in the school bathroom (ages 18/14) in November 2012. There was a second bathroom encounter (ages unknown). There was then the December 2012 incident where the younger girl ran away and stayed the night with Kaitlyn. (Ages 18/14) This is the 3rd sexual encounter or second depending on which order the bathroom one happened. Charges were filed in February of 2013 (ages 18/14) Younger girl turned 15 in April 2013. Current ages are now 18 and 15.

  10. Even if they were able to somehow claim that Florida law is irrelevant in regards to the “rape” claim when the law is so clear on its own definition, Kaitlyn still admitted to lewd public conduct. Which means, she still committed a misdemeanor. So she is still a criminal. I can’t begin to tell you though, how many others who have gotten away with lewd public conduct have started harassing me on Facebook because I dared to point that out.

    Some of Kaitlyn’s defenders are men who actively call for violence against all Christians. Others are pedophiles openly bragging about their crimes. And then there’s the gals who insist that they see “nothing wrong” with 26-year-old men seducing 13-year-old girls. They are totally beyond being reasoned with, and have threatened to have me banned from Facebook because my refusal to take their side is “offensive” to them.

    Homofascists and pedophilia sympathizers are exploiting this case to argue for the repeal of all age of consent laws. I read a post by one who claims she’s been lobbying for 20 years towards that very end. Sad, sick world we live in. Politics now seem to trump children’s safety.

  11. The most upsetting part of all of this is twofold:

    1) Kaitlyn Hunt’s parents are not only convinced their daughter is 100% innocent, they also believe the younger girl’s parents are doing this because Kaitlyn is a lesbian. Kaitlyn’s mother has specifically referred to them as “bigoted, religious zeolites (sic–zealots).” They have even gone so far as to use word “hate” and printed t-shirts featuring that hijacked rainbow.

    2) There are far too many people who have completely disregarded exactly what is going on here. To them, this is all about love, not about a minor child and parents who are using what legal means they have at hand to keep a legal adult away from that minor child. So I have posed the question: Do you think age of consent laws should not apply to same-sex couples? And they won’t answer it.

    • They might be bigots, but their interest in prosecuting this case hardly proves it. I think the same sex aspect is irrelevant, and should be ignored by both sides. There are a lot of female hetero teaching sexual predators out there who are rooting for Kaitlyn.

      • No the same sex aspect is *NOT* irrelevant because homosex is a perversion of normal sex. That being said I would almost as outraged if this was a young man having public sex in the high school

        • “Almost as outraged’?

          Then you have some serious problems if you cant seperate what was done from the gender of those doing it to the point where an 18 year old male having sex with an 14 year old female is some how more acceptable.

          • Public sex, especially in a bathroom where other minors could be present, is never acceptable. That fingering was the means by which it was done, to a minor, should be cause for even more outrage. That it was a woman preying on another woman makes it even more deviant. But even if you can ignore the same-sex angle and the unnatural fingering aspect, the sex-with-a-minor element cannot be excused under Florida law. And public bathroom sex is indecent exposure anywhere in the country.

            If a man can be locked out of the bathroom, have an accident in public by wetting his pants, and be branded a sex offender for it, then it is by no means logical that a young adult woman can go far beyond that with a minor and get completely off the hook.

        • homosex is a perversion of normal sex

          Why? Are they sticking things in ears, then?

          Please detail EXACTLY what is “normal sex”. Is it only missionary (with the lights off)? Is doggy-style okay? Is oral sex verboten? How about reverse cowgirl? Anal?

          What, precisely, is “normal”?

      • The same-sex aspect is absolutely relevant because Kaitlyn Hunt’s parents made it relevant. Did you read what I actually wrote? Did you go to the link I provided? It’s about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face.

        • Did you read what I actually wrote? I didn’t disagree with you at all. The same-sex question is still not relevant to either of my posts, except to the side issue of how the story is being exploited and covered. But that wasn’t the topic I chose to write about.

          • Bottom line: Kaitlyn Hunt’s parents are saying this is all because Kaitlyn is a lesbian. No, it is because she engaged in sexual activity with a minor and the parents of the minor want it stopped, which is their right. Period.

              • Part of the problem is The whole story of they arrested her after she turned 18 statement got blown out of the water. She turned 18 the arrest didn’t come until Feb. That leads me to believe the parents thought the girls were friends or casually dating even but Not having SEX. Figure the “big” incident happend in December where there daughter ran away and spent the night with Kate. Feb she was arrested. So between the end of December and Feb charges are filed. That isn’t long. You have to go down and file the paper work. They have do discovery etc. Gather evidence. Get the information. Arrest Kate in Feb. So two months isn’t a lot of time.
                The second part of the problem is if you ask too many questions to clarify any of this on the site you get swarmed by hate mongers. I understand it is a support site for her but goodness as soon as you touch on the truth or get a little close watch out.
                Then you have the whole fact of what is good for one should be good for another. Your right if it was a 18 year old boy would you be good with a 14 year old girl. Or how about a 19 year old and a 15 year old or heck why not a 16 and a 12 year old. That’s the four year difference we are talking. Cause I don’t like the 16/12 idea. Plus there have been plenty of boys/guys prosecuted for the same thing. Where are there organizations to help them. Oh that’s right there are none.

  12. Awww…widdle Davy Stiefel came here to cry about how persecuted he is. He conveniently forgets to mention that *he* ran a *hate* page and that Facebook had it yanked.

    Somehow I can see little Davy playing Self-Appointed Moral Guardian and shining a flashlight into cars parked at night in my high school’s parking lot like the good little fascist that he is.

    Good thing that little Davy wasn’t at college with me in ’89 when this then 32-year old upperclassman met a incoming 17 year old female freshman. We’ve been together for almost 24 years and yes if Davy started up with us there would’ve been violence. But not from me 😉

    “Homofascist”…I see you’ve been channeling Bryan Fischer. In your case the term “Christofascist” fits you perfectly. You certainly are an example as to why people aren’t too disposed towards Christians these days.

      • @JackMarshall:

        “IvanRider” is this sub-human named David Stiefel who set up a hate page on Facebook against Kaitlyn. It was reported and removed and Mr. Stiefel is all in tears because of it.

        Funny, but a few of his friends were on the support page for Kaitlyn and THEY were booted for bullying on that page.

        You Talibaptists are a hoot.

        • Because you are incapable of making the simplest distinctions between legitimate social and legal policy and make knee-jerk determinations led by your ideological agenda does not justify or excuse you calling those who disagree with you “Talibaptists.” David Stiefel’s comment was more appropriate and civil than yours was, nor is he incorrect about the motives of many, not all, who have chosen to make this questionable case a cause.

          Nothing in my posts justify the Talibaptist smear, so you can either tone it down, apologize, argue using substance rather than insults, or go to Hell. Your choice.

          • Wow…a TALIBAPTIST is pissed at me.

            Stiefel launched a hate page on Facebook. It was reported and yanked. He was whining about on his page. Guess he didn’t like that his bigotry was caught, did he.

            This case is hardly questionable. It’s bigotry on the part of the young girl’s parents. They waited until Kate’s 18th birthday to file charges..that’s vindictiveness.

            You KKKhristian fucktards are losing again. 50 years ago you lost when the Civil Rights Act was passed and although you gained back some of your backwards norms when St. Ronzo (and then Bushitler) was in charge, you’re losing them again.

            Tell me to “tone it down”? Only two people ever had the right to say that to me…and they have since passed on.

            You Christo-fascists are really something.

            • 1. I have every right to tell you to tone it down—jerk—because you are misbehaving in my cyber-house.

              2. I have no idea if the Facebook page was a “hate page” or not—Facebook’s record isn’t very impressive. What a poster here does on Facebook is none of my concern. Facebook polices Facebook, and I police the hateful brain-dead, like you, when they slime on over here.

              3. Whether the girl’s parents are bigoted against gays or not is beside the issue of whether she broke the law. Racists can think or say all the bigoted stuff they want while reporting a black mugger, but the mugger still deserves to be prosecuted, and the complaint is still valid. Are you really that dense? (Never mind, I know the answer).

              4. Congratulations! “You KKKhristian fucktards are losing again. 50 years ago you lost when the Civil Rights Act was passed and although you gained back some of your backwards norms when St. Ronzo (and then Bushitler) was in charge, you’re losing them again.” is the best example of silly, self-indicting, arrogant idiocy that has been posted here since that cocker spaniel got on a keyboard back in 2011. Are there really a coterie of people like you gathering together and cheering each other’s tunnel-visioned, hateful, self-congratulatory juvenile nonsense on? Sad, frightening…but kind of funny when one pictures it mentally!

              Normally I would have banned you for this drivel, but I am feeling generous, and you amused me, for some reason. Next one gets spammed.

            • So Kate’s birthday isn’t in August as her mother stated it is now in Feb. when charges were filed. That is good to know.

            • Hilariously enough, if you had actually bothered to read some of the other posts here, you’d find out pretty quickly that Jack is non-religious.

            • You really dont have a clue. Her parents did not wait for kate to turm 18, their 14 yr old minor daughter met kate as an 18 yr old.

          • Jack, I recommend that you add as a regular feature to your blog, the “Ethics Alarms (Uncivil) Comment of the Day.” Sure, you’ll be preaching to a big choir. But, you might also succeed in gently influencing a few “lost, but winnable souls” to sing different tunes. I’ll wait for my detractors’ labeling of me as “ethicscum,” “civillain” or somesuch.

            • Ooh, “civillain” is actually quite clever.

              Unfortunately, it seems like an uncivil comment feature would be rather flush with content, which is a shame. I don’t know if I just started reading in a particularly fair-weather season, but I used to feel that this blog was a sanctuary from all the Khruschevian discourse filling the rest of the internet. If all the incivility I’ve been seeing from commenters on both side of the political aisle had been present when I started reading, I probably wouldn’t still be here.

    • Ah the homo-bullies have shown up. No people on the face of the planet are more intolerant or filled with hatred for those who disagree with them than homosexual activists and their fellow travelers. They are bullies. They feel entitled to be bullies.

      • And ironically, they claim to be against bullying, yet their advocate, Dan Savage, is the biggest hate-spewer in the world, second only to slightly-less-profane Ted Rall and the lying Michael Moore.

        • “Homo-bullies”

          I’m straight and I’ve never been bullied by anybody who is gay.

          Haven’t forgiven Dan Savage for coining a great meaning for the word “Santorum,” have you…

          Oh, the laundry called. Your white sheets are ready.

          • Actually Jack did a whole post about the association of the former Senator with a disgusting byproduct of anal sex and pronounced it funny, but wrong, so you’re on the wrong board for cheering that stuff on. Vote-fraudster/doorknob-licker/wisher the Republicans were all fucking dead (his words not mine) Savage lost me the minute he delivered a collective “eff you” to all believers for one person suggesting that maybe he might want to take the vicious profanity and vitriol he was spewing, after Tyler Clementi did himself in after he was outed by a spying roommate, down a notch. He is a hateful, vicious, disgusting person spewing hateful, profane, ugly rhetoric that would absolutely not be tolerated if he were an advocate of any other cause, yet because he is a gay-rights activist he gets a pass. There is simply no defending his behavior, much less implying that those who despise him, as I do, are heirs to the KKK.

          • What the hell do you think you’re accomplishing with this? Does it just make you feel empowered to stoke the fires of your political opponents’ vicious assumptions? You’re not helping. If you want to change people’s minds, argue substance. If all you want to do is call names and broadcast a sense of superiority, LEAVE. Did you know that there are many sites on the internet which offer free pornography? You don’t have to come to an ethics blog to masturbate.

    • You know nothing at all, SDL1.

      First off, I ran a page condemning Scott Rose’s remarks. Kaitlyn Hunt is guilty of ephebophilia and lewd public conduct. Even if the former charge is dropped, she confessed to the latter.

      My page was about Scott Rose calling for the other girls parents to be “punished” by thugs. I was saying that this kind of rhetoric is unacceptable, period. I state OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that this was what “Protect the Victims of Kaitlyn Hunt” was about. I was calling you out dirtbags like you for being the REAL bullies! As I have done at Wilinski Forest for almost a full year.

      Second, I took the page down myself, because I was busy running a comic book website and didn’t have the energy to be running two operations at once.

      Third, your bragging that “there would have been violence” is a blatant threat.

      Fourth, you started addressing me before I even knew you were here. Attacking me on another website, when I never addressed you personally, SDL1, until now. You just made it personal.

      Fifth, you are engaging in cyberstalking. Cut it out.

      Sixth, when I had to deal with real bullying in grade school, it was by kids who took your positions, not mine. They spoke like you, not like me. And they were always the first to get physical.

      You are a hypocrite and a degenerate.

      Seventh, I was following common sense, medicine, and the laws of the State of Florida in regards to my guides on what to say. YOU are the one to bring religion into it directly, not me. Which betrays your real motive is your hatred of Christians.

      Eighth, I am not a Baptist.

      Ninth, I know many Baptists who would be mortified by your speech at even remotely suggesting they can be compared to the Taliban.

      It is intellectually insulting to assume that a denomination that has led so many to rediscovery of the love of God and redemption from themselves through generous outreach with Law and Gospel, through counseling no different than what you’d give someone battling depression or drug addiction; as being the same as the barbarians in Afghanistan that hack homosexuals to pieces.

      Only a warped mind concludes that.

      Tenth, my friends weren’t “booted” from that page. A few trolls too many got in, and I deleted the group.


      You are the kind of dangerous degenerate that can’t be bothered to get his facts straight before launching a character assassination campaign.

      Kaitlyn admitted to what she did. And the law of Florida speaks for itself on the matter. And my page was about Scott Rose threatening the victim’s family, which should be reprehensible of him to do REGARDLESS of what your beef with that family is.

      You based your allegations about me purely on what you wanted them to be. You subjectivized objective concerns.

  13. I get it that what Kaitlin did was wrong.
    I just don’t think her life should be destroyed at the young age of 18.

    Also, what happened to the days when what your parents said is what you did?
    I did not date at all until I was 16 and then it was very limited.
    If they would have told me I was not allowed to see someone then I wouldn’t have.

    • I am with you here. Train wreck that the situation is notwithstanding, I can’t stop hoping that both of the young women involved would somehow be able to rise above it and receive even more publicity for their own, original (uncoerced, un-coached, and un-scripted), ethical, ethics-conscious, and ethics-promoting statements that specifically address their erotic behaviors which are at the root of the controversy, than they have received as a result of so many “stakeholders” bringing the situation to its current state of publicity.

  14. My estimation is that the rarity, perhaps unique nature, of the situation makes it newsworthy. Its a figurative “man bites dog” scenario. Its not necessarily “better” or “worse” than a hetero statutory situation, its just not something that happens all that often. When was the last time anyone heard about a lesbian statutory rape case, either in the press or within your social circles?

    Most common, least newsworthy: Older man, younger girl.
    Less common, somewhat newsworthy: Older woman, younger boy. Older man, younger boy.
    Least common, most newsworthy: Older woman, younger girl.

    • I should probably add that I agree that the 18 y/o in this case was in the wrong. I believe that a 1-2 year “buffer” should be worked into statutory rape law, and I believe this is the case in many jurisdictions… i.e. 17/18 is OK, 17/40 is not, etc…

      • Like they have in Florida, statutory rape is not a crime when an 18-23 y.o has sex with a 16-17 y.o.? Or like the law have in Florida where consensual sex is permitted between under 18 y.o.s with those as young as 13y.o.? Perhaps you are thinking of a law like the “Romeo and Juliette Law” in Florida, which in the case of a 4 year or less age difference consensual relationship that falls outside any buffer, allows the criminal to petition to not have to register as a sex-offender. Where does this case come from again?

  15. Okay. The law nees to be applied on its face regardless of the same sex gender of the case. And I can’t see a perfect law ever being drafted on this issue — there has to be a bright line re legal consent. Just because the minor “legally” doesn’t have the ability to consent though doesn’t mean that she isn’t more mature than the average 14 year-old and/or that the 18 year-old isn’t less mature than the average 18 year-old. So, I think the real question is whether the parents should have notified the authorities at all. There are some red flags with these facts — were there really multiple sex acts in the school bathroom? How could there have been more than one that was known about? Shouldn’t the school and the parents been able to prevent episodes 2, 3, and 4? And while the public bathroom aspect is disgusting, we’d all be fooling ourselves if we thought that sex wasn’t happening every day on our high school campuses. This doesn’t make it right — but it also doesn’t mean that the kids should go to prison if they are discovered. I hope that neither of my daughters ever have sex this young — especially with someone that much older, but if they do, I would not call the police if I thought they were mature enough to know what they were doing. If I thought they were as immature as the average 14 year-old and were coerced, I would most definitely call the police. But BEFORE I did that, I would have long conversations with the parents of the other child. (And although she is 18 in this case, Kaitlyn is still a child in the sense that she hasn’t graduated high school yet and she thinks sex in bathrooms is fun and appropriate.) Because as wrong as this was, it arguably would be even worse to forever ruin this child’s life as a sex offender if the parents didn’t do their due diligence first. I’m hoping that’s what happened here. Now that it’s in the hands of the authorities though — the law has to be applied the same as it always has in Florida.

  16. Justifiable does not mean JUST. Prosecutors have complete discretion to decide whether to bring charges or not and to determine what crime to charge. This prosecutor tossed the brick on the head of a teenager. Florida is disgusting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.