California rolling back penalties for Pedos

[PaleoEuropean]

https://www.infowars.com/california-...-judge-agrees/

[TheOldNorth]

I’m not surprised, they’re also rolling back the laws preventing ethnic or sex based discrimination in hiring as well...

[Dr_Maul]

[PaleoEuropean]

From what I seen in the videos apparently because the laws were meant to target gay guys lmao. They have some piss poor excuses.

[Incal]

Not surprised, California is Hollywood's (aka Pedo Central) HQs.

[Hulu]

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...ilia-bill.html

[PaleoEuropean]

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...ilia-bill.html

It's not a hoax, you can look at it two ways that the law is reversing discrimination against gays and blocking pedos private information from being public or that it's normalizing sex crimes against minors and subverting the sex offender registry for people who judges think aren't that bad just because the age gap isn't beyond 10 years. That means an 18 year old could in theory violate an 8 year old and not have to register as a sex offender even if they are convicted.

[Hulu]

It's not a hoax, you can look at it two ways that the law is reversing discrimination against gays and blocking pedos private information from being public or that it's normalizing sex crimes against minors and subverting the sex offender registry for people who judges think aren't that bad just because the age gap isn't beyond 10 years. That means an 18 year old could in theory violate an 8 year old and not have to register as a sex offender even if they are convicted.

It's about the type of sex, if it was vaginal it was up to the judge, while oral and anal was compulsory. Now they are all up to the judge. But it still a felony, this is just for being registered as sex offender.

This law is for teens 14-17 who are in a consensual relationship with someone 18 and older, with 10 years of their age. If their case is taken to court and the person is found guilty of having non-forced sexual relations with a minor who is between 14-17, if they have vaginal sex the judge can consider not placing the offender on the sex offender registry. If the sex is anal or oral the judge was not allowed to consider NOT placing the offender on the sex offender registry, it was mandatory that they were placed on the list. This bill changed that law, allowing the judge to consider not placing the person on the sex offender registry list if the sex was anal or oral

[Epirus DNA]

It's not a hoax, you can look at it two ways that the law is reversing discrimination against gays and blocking pedos private information from being public or that it's normalizing sex crimes against minors and subverting the sex offender registry for people who judges think aren't that bad just because the age gap isn't beyond 10 years. That means an 18 year old could in theory violate an 8 year old and not have to register as a sex offender even if they are convicted.

[PaleoEuropean]

It's about the type of sex, if it was vaginal it was up to the judge, while oral and anal was compulsory. Now they are all up to the judge.

Well it's not really up to a judge in any case as far as I know in California regarding abuse of minors except in adjusting sentencing. The D.A is the person who files charges to begin with so they have the most discretion in any case.