Former Exec. Director of Los Angeles County GOP arrested.

[eleganz]

This guy was a turd, he hated us and attempted to get rid of us by smearing our reputation. Now he is in jail for going "Weiner" on a 16 year old girl.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/breakingnews/ci_23785741/former-la-county-republican-party-head-arrested


LOS ANGELES—A former executive director of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County was arrested Friday for allegedly sending sexually explicit messages to a 16-year-old girl.
Scott Hounsell, 30, was booked on two misdemeanor counts of sending harmful matter to a child, Los Angeles police Lt. Andrea Grossman said. The girl told detectives Hounsell sent her sexually explicit chat messages on a social media website. Hounsell is being held on $40,000 bail.

According to his LinkedIn page, Hounsell has been a field representative and internship coordinator for California state Assemblyman Cameron Smyth.

Jonathan Wilcox, a spokesman for the county's official Republican organization, said Hounsell resigned June 15. Wilcox said the organization didn't know about the case until contacted by the LAPD on Friday.

"We take this issue very seriously and will fully cooperate with law enforcement any way we can," Wilcox said.

The arrest was made by the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force—one of 61 local and federal taskforces nationwide that focuses on online child victimization.

Calls to Hounsell and his family were not immediately returned.



Read more: http://www.dailybulletin.com/breakingnews/ci_23785741/former-la-county-republican-party-head-arrested#ixzz2arFS2aK3

[torchbearer]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121205194059/simpsons/images/e/e9/Nelson_Ha-Ha.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

For sending messages? No, that's not OK.

We need to oppose this, no matter how much we hate this guy, this is an assault on freedom of speech.

[CaseyJones]

For sending messages? No, that's not OK.

We need to oppose this, no matter how much we hate this guy, this is an assault on freedom of speech.

freedom of speech does not mean you can talk dirty to little girls nor does the first amendment protect that

[PSYOP]

Hope the piece of shit gets some gang love in jail.

[eleganz]

For sending messages? No, that's not OK.

We need to oppose this, no matter how much we hate this guy, this is an assault on freedom of speech.

What are you smoking!?

[Cleaner44]

For sending messages? No, that's not OK.

We need to oppose this, no matter how much we hate this guy, this is an assault on freedom of speech.

Is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater acceptable free speech or unacceptable free speech to you?

To me they would be much the same. If we allow for exceptions to free speech, this could fit the same category as yelling FIRE.

[thoughtomator]

As much as my inherent bias is to throw this guy under the bus, there isn't enough information in that story to convict him of anything. From experience I am quite leery of vague government descriptions such as "sexually explicit", given that people are on the sex offender list for life for the not terribly grievous crime of public urination.

If what is implied is true, then karma is a bitch. But we should know better than to convict someone based on a newspaper article that omits key details. Such as, what message exactly did he transmit, did he know the recipient, did he know or have any reason to believe the recipient was underage, was the venue appropriate, etc. I can fully believe that the govt would do things like send an underage girl to an explicitly adult website and charge people based on her interactions there.

[pcosmar]

Oh goody....another pedophilia supporter on RPFs.

Hitting on a 16 year old does not equal pedophilia. It does suggest a lack of morals, and common sense, and integrity.
but it does not make him a Pedophile. Just a fool. (but that was already known it seems)

[angelatc]

For sending messages? No, that's not OK.

We need to oppose this, no matter how much we hate this guy, this is an assault on freedom of speech.

No, we don't need to oppose this. If you really feel that this is a violation of his first amendment rights, then file it quietly away for battles to be fought later.

[angelatc]

Hitting on a 16 year old does not equal pedophilia. It does suggest a lack of morals, and common sense, and integrity.
but it does not make him a Pedophile. Just a fool. (but that was already known it seems)


I have to agree. Pedophilia, in my mind, pertains to prepubescent children. This is just dirty old man being dirty old man.

[Occam's Banana]

Is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater acceptable free speech or unacceptable free speech to you?

To me they would be much the same. If we allow for exceptions to free speech, this could fit the same category as yelling FIRE.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has absolutely nothing to do with "speech" (free or otherwise).

It is in exactly the same category as pulling the lever on a fire alarm in a crowded theater without ever saying a word.

IIRC, we have Oliver Wendell Holmes to thank for this particular obfuscation of "free speech" issues ...

[PatriotOne]

Hitting on a 16 year old does not equal pedophilia. It does suggest a lack of morals, and common sense, and integrity.
but it does not make him a Pedophile. Just a fool. (but that was already known it seems)

I understand except FF argued it from a "freedom of speech" angle. In other words he thinks the guy should be able to say nasty stuff to whoever he wants regardless of age and be protected by "freedom of speech". I see this immature "understanding" of the 1st amendment all the time here.

[thoughtomator]

I have to agree. Pedophilia, in my mind, pertains to prepubescent children. This is just dirty old man being dirty old man.

Actually the guy is 30, so he isn't all too old - according to the creepiness formula younger person's age < ((older person's age/2)+7) she's 8 years too young for him. Still, what he's being accused of doesn't appear to be all that far outside normal natural behavior, and at 16 she'd be legal in most states, so this is something peculiar to his particular state. It's in the somewhat creepy category but nowhere near the pedophile creepy category.

Age of consent in North America:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America

In no fewer than 27 states what he's accused of here is not a crime.

[kathy88]

Hope it was an RP supporter and she set his ass up!

[Carson]

A real minor? Or an old lier?



P.S. I'm thinking legitimate questions for any juror.

[PatriotOne]

Where's pervo? He's the resident expert around here on this type of thing.

[PaleoPaul]

Good.

I hope all of these party leaders go down. It's time for us to play dirty just like they have.

[Christian Liberty]

freedom of speech does not mean you can talk dirty to little girls nor does the first amendment protect that


Is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater acceptable free speech or unacceptable free speech to you?

To me they would be much the same. If we allow for exceptions to free speech, this could fit the same category as yelling FIRE.


Oh goody....another pedophilia supporter on RPFs.

OK...

Regarding "Fire" in a crowded theater, you should really look up the history of that exception, it was used to justify one of the grossest violations of free speech in our countries history. Specifically, during WWI.

Now, a private property owner has a right to restrict such speech on his property. The government does not.

Now, as for this particular case...

She's 16, so it could be argued that she should be able to consent at 16. That, however, is not the essential aspect of this case. I wouldn't really complain if the age of consent was 18. The bottom line is, he merely spoke. Speech should not be a crime, unless its a threat. Period.

This is not the same thing as actually having sex.



Good.

I hope all of these party leaders go down. It's time for us to play dirty just like they have.

We're better than them, though.

[Christian Liberty]

I understand except FF argued it from a "freedom of speech" angle. In other words he thinks the guy should be able to say nasty stuff to whoever he wants regardless of age and be protected by "freedom of speech". I see this immature "understanding" of the 1st amendment all the time here.

Its not even so much the 1st amendment. The states can restrict any speech they want under the 1st, theoretically speaking. I'm more arguing from the NAP.

[Brett85]

Oh goody....another pedophilia supporter on RPFs.

There are quite a few of those on these forums, but I don't really think that he's one of them. Some members here have basically said that all age of consent laws should be abolished, and it should be completely legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 10 year old girl. Freedom Fanatic at least supports laws against adults having sex with children.

This case also seems to be a little bit different than a case in which an adult actually has sex with an underage kid. The latter is obviously far worse. I guess I would have to know more about the details of this case and how "sexually explicit" is actually defined. I think it's clear that there are some limits to what people are allowed to say. For example, if you walk up to someone and threaten to kill them, that is a crime. So not all speech is protected by the 1st amendment. You can also make the case that sending sexually explicit messages to anyone, regardless of age, could be considered to be a form of sexual harrasment if the person receiving the messages didn't consent to have that kind of conversation. But, ultimately I suppose I would have to look at the details of the case, and look at the law in his state to determine whether the law is appropriate and whether Hounsell broke the law.

[Christian Liberty]

There are quite a few of those on these forums, but I don't really think that he's one of them.

I'd also barely qualify as an adult myself.


Some members here have basically said that all age of consent laws should be abolished, and it should be completely legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 10 year old girl. Freedom Fanatic at least supports laws against adults having sex with children.

This case also seems to be a little bit different than a case in which an adult actually has sex with an underage kid. The latter is obviously far worse. I guess I would have to know more about the details of this case and how "sexually explicit" is actually defined. I think it's clear that there are some limits to what people are allowed to say. For example, if you walk up to someone and threaten to kill them, that is a crime. So not all speech is protected by the 1st amendment. You can also make the case that sending sexually explicit messages to anyone, regardless of age, could be considered to be a form of sexual harrasment if the person receiving the messages didn't consent to have that kind of conversation. But, ultimately I suppose I would have to look at the details of the case, and look at the law in his state to determine whether the law is appropriate and whether Hounsell broke the law.

If it were repetative, I could possibly see this point actually. Although I'm not quite sure how it should work in a libertarian, NAP centered framework. I think its partially different on the phone than face to face, because someone texting a phone can relatively easily be ignored, as opposed to flat out following someone around on the street, which I am not suggesting be legalized.

So yeah, you could convince me with some particular condemning details, but simply sending sexually explicit messages to a 16 year old, while disgusting, shouldn't be a crime in and of itself.

And yeah, if anything I'm motivated by freedom of speech here, not anything to do with sex.

[PatriotOne]

There are quite a few of those on these forums, but I don't really think that he's one of them. Some members here have basically said that all age of consent laws should be abolished, and it should be completely legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 10 year old girl. Freedom Fanatic at least supports laws against adults having sex with children.

This case also seems to be a little bit different than a case in which an adult actually has sex with an underage kid. The latter is obviously far worse. I guess I would have to know more about the details of this case and how "sexually explicit" is actually defined. I think it's clear that there are some limits to what people are allowed to say. For example, if you walk up to someone and threaten to kill them, that is a crime. So not all speech is protected by the 1st amendment. You can also make the case that sending sexually explicit messages to anyone, regardless of age, could be considered to be a form of sexual harrasment if the person receiving the messages didn't consent to have that kind of conversation. But, ultimately I suppose I would have to look at the details of the case, and look at the law in his state to determine whether the law is appropriate and whether Hounsell broke the law.

Maybe splitting hairs here but one doesn't have to of had sex with a child to be a pedophile. Just have an interest in them sexually. Take FF's statements to the logical conclusion and he doesn't think it should be a crime to have sexually explicit conversations or send sexually explicit pictures of sex acts to a child. Only if they threaten them when they do it. So in essence he does support pedophiles.

[PatriotOne]

OK...

The bottom line is, he merely spoke. Speech should not be a crime, unless its a threat. Period.

This is not the same thing as actually having sex.



So you okay with someone sending a picture of a 10 yr old boy giving a man a bj to a child and telling them "it's normal" and he should try it sometime and stuff like that? That should be legal?

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe splitting hairs here but one doesn't have to of had sex with a child to be a pedophile. Just have an interest in them sexually. Take FF's statements to the logical conclusion and he doesn't think it should be a crime to have sexually explicit conversations or send sexually explicit pictures of sex acts to a child. Only if they threaten them when they do it. So in essence he does support pedophiles.

First of all, I'd put pictures in a different category as mere speech.

Second of all, I think calling a 16 year old a "Child" is at least a little iffy.


So you okay with someone sending a picture of a 10 yr old boy giving a man a bj to a child and telling them "it's normal" and he should try it sometime and stuff like that? That should be legal?

No, because child porn is a form of child rape. Making money off of rape shouldn't be legal. I actually sort of disagree with Ron ideologically on the matter of viewing child porn, I think its absolutely appropriate to charge someone for viewing it deliberately even if they only viewed it, because they're helping child rapists to make money: although I get that it would be nearly impossible to enforce in reality without getting people who accidentally followed a link there or from a computer virus or something.

[PatriotOne]

[QUOTE]First of all, I'd put pictures in a different category as mere speech.

It's not a different category. You REALLY need to do some research on freedom of speech if you are going to go around using it to justify things.

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".



No, because child porn is a form of child rape. Making money off of rape shouldn't be legal. I actually sort of disagree with Ron ideologically on the matter of viewing child porn, I think its absolutely appropriate to charge someone for viewing it deliberately even if they only viewed it, because they're helping child rapists to make money: although I get that it would be nearly impossible to enforce in reality without getting people who accidentally followed a link there or from a computer virus or something.

What? lol What exactly do you think Ron's views of child pornography is?

[Christian Liberty]

What? lol What exactly do you think Ron's views of child pornography is?





I read the relevant section of liberty defined. His viewpoint is, while obviously those who produce child pornography can be charged with a crime, merely viewing it does not actually have a victim and therefore should not be a crime. I disagree with him, because I view deliberately viewing that stuff as encouraging its creation, and victimizing the victimized child even further. That said, I respect the basis of his position.

[PatriotOne]

I read the relevant section of liberty defined. His viewpoint is, while obviously those who produce child pornography can be charged with a crime, merely viewing it does not actually have a victim and therefore should not be a crime. I disagree with him, because I view deliberately viewing that stuff as encouraging its creation, and victimizing the victimized child even further. That said, I respect the basis of his position.

If that is an accurate portrayal of Ron's position, I would have to agree with you also.

[sailingaway]

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121205194059/simpsons/images/e/e9/Nelson_Ha-Ha.jpg

all the people who hate us are like that.

(kidding)