I work with kids quite frequently and it is good to remember that there is absolutely age-appropriate sexual exploration that is not concerning and there are things that cross the line. I find this guide very helpful in explaining that distinction to people who just don’t know:

Uh, FMLA covers both mothers and fathers equally allowing for 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of a child as well as to be a caregiver.

From one of the articles, “I’m extremely frustrated with this decision,” he said. “It’s upsetting to say the least.” You can call BS all you want, but you're just flat out wrong.

I just had such a problem with that Pete Davidson sketch. I really hate the double standard we have when boys are preyed upon by teachers vs. girls in the same situation. Regardless of sex, they are children and children cannot consent. Period.

I agree for the most part. Watched the cold open about 20 times so far - so good. Felt like they could have gone farther with most of the sketches. Really wanted to like the GoT sketch, but it fell flat. Real let down after last weekend with Michael Keaton. I did like Billy Crystal, though. That was a bright spot in…

Disrupted adoptions happen more than one would expect. Anecdotally, I have dealt with numerous families that have adopted children, determined they couldn't handle the behaviors or didn't want them anymore and did an independent adoption with a clueless and desperate family. The state would not be involved in the…

Encouraging child sex abuse is the Oregon child porn law. The child was not nude, so no child porn.

No. She wasn't nude.

The encouraging a minor statute, which could beers producing child porn, requires nudity. There was no nudity.

Not in Oregon, because she has underwear on.

under the current state of the law, the child needs to be nude. The child in this case was wearing underwear so no creation, possession or distributing child pornography.

Encouraging child sex abuse is the equivalent of possessing child porn in Oregon.

The law already has a specific intent requirement. The prosecution charged him with attempt because the girl had underwear on. If she didn't have underwear on then they would have charged the full crime, not just attempt. However, because the requirement of nudity is an essential element of the crime and, I'm…

Encouraging child sexual abuse is the Oregon statute that is the equivalent of producing or possessing child pornography. Ergo he was charged for "child porn."

That law requires that the child be nude. She was wearing underwear.

The Target was in Washington County ergo venue for the case was in Washington County.

Is it not important to you to have judges that follow the law rather than make up something?

I don't understand your point. A judge cannot create laws, a judge can only interpret them. The laws in this case were not written with the advent of easy digital photography in mind. The law lags behind technology and this case is evidence of that which is why the legislature will fix it.

There is no written opinion because this was at the trial level, not the appellate level. Paul Maloney, the DDA, conceded that the lack of nudity was a problem with their case but still felt that it was important to charge the guy.

Oregonlive has more details on what happened and why Judge Butterfield's hands were tied.