ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


IN: Indiana Supreme Court – Sex with minors is OK, but it’s illegal to sext them

In Indiana, it’s legal for adults to have consensual sex with minors aged 16 and 17. But it’s illegal to sext those same minors, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled this week. The decision reinstated sexting charges against an adult who texted nude images of himself to a girl he knew was 16. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Harry

    Lawmakers have become immature as 5 year olds and their thinking processes are totally not working.

    • Bill

      Its hard for me not to laugh at the logic behind this, but I have met some 5 yo with more horse sence than some adults I have known.

    • Nichael

      It’s what happens when politicians pile on. They are too busy trying to appear tough on crime that they don’t consider existing laws and/or how they might conflict with each other.

  2. C

    So, physical sex with 16 years olds ok, but sending them a photo of genetalia, which they can effortlessly obtain on their own, is illegal. Check.

    The government is a cesspool of contradictory, non-sensical laws. Here’s a favorite example: To over throw the government is illegal, however, in case you need to, your right to own a gun is protected, unless, of course, the government screws you out of that right. Then you’re eff’d.

    • Timmmy

      Quote from the article, “”The Dissemination Statute clearly protects minors under the age of 18 from the dissemination of matter harmful to them,” Justice Mark S. Massa wrote”

      It seems his attorney incorrectly pick the wrong argument. Clearly, if consensual sex with them is not harmful, then sending images of the same thing they can seen in person is not. Maybe he should have argued it was Unconstitutionally vague since a person person has a right to know exactly what is considered prohibited activity..

      • Nichael

        The defendant could argue the constitutionality of the law in federal court. As far as IN is concerned, the law, ignorant as it may be, is clear and does reference child pornography and obscene materials.

  3. It doesn’t work

    Bureaucracy and Stupidity. How nice. Now, I am not for 16 year olds and 40 year olds having any type of sexual relations, but this government is a LAUGHING STOCK 😂!!!

    • It doesn’t work

      AJ, it’s another one of those slippery slope laws. And this is how it works. A parent talks about sex with their child, the child is out with friends and in a dangerous situation (pressured for sex), child & patent exchange texts, parent is arrested and prosecuted because he/she didn’t use the proper language. On the flip side, Politician or cop etc has a full on sexual relationship with a minor which includes sexting, said politician / cop etc pleads down to a single count of this charge.

      • AJ

        “On the flip side, Politician or cop etc has a full on sexual relationship with a minor which includes sexting, said politician / cop etc pleads down to a single count of this charge.”
        Wait, are you saying who you know is more important than objective justice? When did this happen…?!??

    • CR

      It seems like a strong first amendment case on the part of the petitioner. I think orders for Friday’s conference will be out next Tuesday. Most cert petitions seem to be relisted at least once before being granted or denied, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a relist. I’m guessing they will grant cert eventually to address the split.

    • CR

      SCOTUS denied certiorari in 17-209 MUCCIO, KRISTA A. V. MINNESOTA that AJ mentioned above.

      I guess they didn’t think the Minnesota ruling conflicted with the Texas or 9th Circuit rulings.

  4. Alfred DeLeo

    This ruling is bizzaro! Not one single State Supreme Court Justice ruled correctly, or event noticed that these laws (sexting and consensual sex) are actually conflicting laws. This one is worth watching if this guy’s attorneys will move the case on appeal up the ladder.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *