Talk:Age of consent in the United States

Texas age of consent: references for section 43.25

In a recent revert, @User Yo uheman221q2w3e4r5t: defends a revert, stating "secondary sources take priority by wiki standards and since all of them say 43.25 is for performance then it should be left alone." However, "secondary source" does not imply a highly reliable source, and "primary source" does not imply a less reliable source.

• Per Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header, a high standard of verification is called for, and references to statutes, case law, and other authorities are specifically encouraged.
• "Case law" has been cited in the Texas age of consent section, e.g. the judicial opinion of the Dornbusch case.
• The statute itself constitutes the primary source of what the law is; a judicial opinion which provides an interpretation of statutory law is thus a secondary source insofar as the meaning of that law is concerned.
• Pages from lawyers' websites are not legal briefs; they are designed to attract customers by providing general information about the law are thus of lower quality; they are not considered legal advice. and they provide only general information. More to the point, lawyers do not purport that they are providing a comprehensive analysis of the laws about which they provide information.
  • In at least one instance, a lawyer's website which is cited includes the text of the statute in question (43.25) without the phrase in contention, i.e. the statue is presented in its pre-1985 form, further supporting my contention that such websites are not reliable sources for the current interpretation of the law.
• A judicial opinion from a relevant appellate court which addresses the interpretation of a statute is the highest possible quality reference for the meaning of a statute, providing the ruling has not been overturned; this is true even if there is widespread consensus that the ruling is wrong, because lower courts are bound to abide by the appellate court ruling.
  • The appellate court opinions cited (e.g. Dornbusch) are referenced in yet other (necessarily more recent) appellate court opinions, giving additional weight to the validity and currency of the cited opinion.
  • Citations of the Dornbusch case in other judicial opinions often present an interpretation in clear, unambigous language, stating in one case (as an example): "The statute, however, 'criminalizes the inducement of a child's sexual conduct regardless of whether it amounts to a sexual performance.' Dornbusch v. State." This eliminates any concern that specialized knowledge would be needed to understand the judicial opinions involved.

The only way to reach a determination that's contrary to Dornbusch (aside from a legislative change to the statute) is a subsequent ruling overturning Dornbusch by an appellate or higher court. Fabrickator (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The application of Texas Penal Code 43.25 does not cover consensual sex with a 17 year old except for the very narrow case of sex in the presence of another person as a key element of the statute requires an "Audience", and one can not be audience to their own actions requiring a third person be present, which is why the judge stated several times that the application of 43.25 is extremely narrow, and the Dornbusch case mentioned involved an incident with a man and two girls, of which he performed a sexual act with while the other was clearly present, making the second girl the "audience" to the sexual conduct and thus making it a sexual performance.

The Fujisaka case is similarly a narrow instence as even though we do not know the outcome of the case except there was 4 counts and assumptively he was convicted as he was sentenced to prison, his case centered around video chats in which the 17 year old masturbated for him on webcam which would make him audience to a unlawful sexual performance as I'm sure live streaming video of a minor engaging in sexual acts is still considered distribution of child pornography thus creating an unlawful act as the courts ruled the online solicitation statute was unconstitutional because it criminalized discussing sex with a minor without intent to commit a unlawful act. Thegunkid (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@User Thegunkid:: Here's the TL;DR version: The claim in the above post that 43.25 does not cover consensual sex with a 17 year old (except in the presence of an "audience") is just wishful thinking. In fact, the claim is unsupported. To put it more bluntly, the claim is false and should be ignored.

Admittedly, there is the additional requirement of inducement, but this is an exceedingly unsafe shield to hide behind. Inducement doesn't require some form of payment or other benefit, consent seems to be almost enough to prove inducement. Both Summers v. State ("a person commits an offense if [he] induces a child younger than 17 years of age to engage in sexual conduct ...") and Dornbusch (the statute "criminalizes the inducement of a child's sexual conduct regardless of whether it amounts to a sexual performance") make clear that an audience is not required if there is inducement. To your credit, you haven't tried to make a claim that you have determined the law to be unconstitutionally vague, or some other legal theory by which you assert a legal defense. I am certainly not claiming that there isn't the possibility of such a defense being successful, but I would suggest that arguing the point of what behavior is within the law, based on the possible success of such a defense, is inadvisable. So I will ask that you cease and desist from making the sort of unsupported statements that you have made here. Fabrickator (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok you know what, since apparently Inducement is the key lets actually go into what the court actually stated about inducement in Dornbusch.

"To decide Dornbusch s constitutional challenge, we must determine whether, in common understanding, Dornbusch s alleged conduct brought about V.V. s sexual conduct through persuasion or influence. See Markovich, 77 S.W.3d at 280; Brennman, 45 S.W.3d at 732. It is uncontested that Dornbusch was substantially older than V.V. Also, as an educator at her high school, Dornbusch was in a position of authority over V.V. According to the State s evidence, appellant requested that V.V. and J.R. accompany him on errands away from campus; provided the girls with alcohol, even though they were both minors; drove them to an out-of-town motel on his own initiative; urged them to undress and enter the hot tub with him; and made unsolicited sexual advances in the hot tub and on the motel room bed. In sum, Dornbusch constructed a situation in which V.V. was unlikely to have the ability to refuse his advances: she was miles away from school (where she was supposed to be) and her only alternative to acquiescing to Dornbusch s advances was to call someone to pick her up from an out-of-town motel, after she had consumed alcohol in the middle of a school day. We conclude that a scenario such as this, where a person of authority creates a situation in which a teenager would find it almost impossible to deny a sexual advance, can be fairly considered to constitute inducement in the common understanding of the term. See Markovich, 77 S.W.3d at 280.

We hold that the statute was not impermissibly vague as applied to Dornbusch s conduct. The statute forbids inducement of sexual conduct by a child under eighteen years of age, and according to the State s evidence, Dornbusch did exactly that: he induced (he used persuasion and influence to bring about) V.V. s sexual conduct. See 43.25(b)"

Later on the court reiterated this in denying another point. "We disagree. The proof of guilt is not outweighed by the exonerative evidence cited by Dornbusch. Regardless of whether V.V. consented to the sexual conduct or if Dornbusch never promised her anything in return for sex, the evidence still shows that Dornbusch induced V.V. s sexual conduct by using his position of authority to create a situation in which V.V. was afraid or unable to refuse his sexual advances. Dornbusch seems to read the word induce as meaning force, but we do not equate the terms."

The Dornbusch court also does not foreclose 43.25 being inapplicable for the purposes of sexual conduct if the seventeen year old in question propositioned the adult for sex, simply stating they couldn't rule on it as it was not relevant to the case.

"Dornbusch argues that when considered together, sections 21.11 and 43.25(b) would allow an adult to have legal sex with a seventeen-year-old if the minor initiates the sexual conduct, while an adult who asks a seventeen-year-old for sex could be prosecuted for inducement. See 21.11, 43.25(b). Dornbusch asserts that it is absurd for him to be convicted based on which party initially requested the sexual contact as long as both parties consented.

As a preliminary matter, the evidence does not indicate that Dornbusch was propositioned for sex. To the contrary, the evidence strongly indicates that Dornbusch initiated and induced the sexual conduct. Thus, the instant case does not require this Court to determine whether a criminal offense occurs if a minor initiates sexual contact with an adult."

Remember Dornbusch is a 2005 ruling, Ex Parte Fujisaka was decided in 2015, where the court did explicitly state Seventeen is the age of consent and that 43.25 only criminalizes the act of "inducement".

"Because seventeen years is the age of consent to sexual relations in Texas, and thus speech incidental to such relations would not be categorically excluded from protection under the First Amendment, we agree with appellant that application of section 43.25(b) to the authorization or inducement of seventeen-year-old children to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual performance is the most problematic application of the statute. However, the set of applications where the regulation is problematic is narrowed drastically by the removal of cases involving only conduct as inducement, cases where the speech seeks to induce a criminal act, the statute's scienter requirement that the inducement occur "knowing the character and content thereof," and the affirmative defenses incorporated into the statute. We conclude for the vast majority of its potential applications, section 43.25(b) does not raise issues of constitutional dimension. "

Therefore read together the only act that is unlawful at the very most is an adult inducing a seventeen year old to have sex, which in the facts of the Dornbusch case, the inducement in question was his undue influence. Thegunkid (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@User Thegunkid:: It's a few years since the above comment was added, but leaving things in this form is really quite perplexing, to say the least. The gist of that comment is that an older person using "undue influence" to induce a 17-year-old to have sex is unlawful. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever about "undue influence"... if the speech resulted in consenting to sex, that is the evidence of inducement. The statement in the opinion that 43.25(b) doesn't raise constitutional issues "for the vast majority of its applications" is saying that most of the time, enforcement of 43.25(b) is not going to be blocked on the grounds that the alleged speech is protected. If the sex was all the 17-year-old's idea, that's certainly a good defense, just hope the 17-year-old's testimony is consistent with that.

We should be very cautious about leaving readers with the idea that they're safe from prosecution because they didn't offer to pay. Just say "we could have some fun", that's sufficient to meet the scienter requirement. Fabrickator (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Watch carefully this claim from above:

Therefore read together the only act that is unlawful at the very most is an adult inducing a seventeen year old to have sex, which in the facts of the Dornbusch case, the inducement in question was his undue influence.

That was a conclusion, not of the court, but of the Wikipedia editor. That is, there is no requirement for something other than ordinary speech to induce. The court was addressing the notion that "freedom of speech" was unconstitutionally infringed by the statute... but it did not actually rule on this issue... rather, it found sufficient grounds for guilt even if the speech was protected. It's a serious error to confuse a court's failure to rule on some detail of a case with a determination that the issue not ruled upon was in fact unable to be used as a basis for determination of guilt. This is an example of the court choosing to use the most compelling facts available in the case, not an admission that less compelling facts would have been insufficient to find him guilty. Fabrickator (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Inasmuch as this discussion is based on "Ex Parte Fujisaka", I am providing this archive link to the referenced opinion. Fabrickator (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Washington

The table gives 21 as the unrestricted age of consent, but this is contradicted elsewhere in the article. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This contradiction still exists as of November 2024. I'm a passerby (i.e., not even vaguely versed in how to edit Wikipedia), but the discrepancy is explicit. How can this be fixed? 98.232.105.86 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Creating a truth table from law.The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Subanark (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC) (subsection title added to allow links to work following correction of section name)

The part with: "Washington State will not prosecute [people] based on age if [they] have sex with" is language from https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/sexual-and-reproductive-health/state-laws which is no longer active (and was only active for about 1/2 a year). Since this page appears to be authoritative, its removal may indicate that it has retracted its position. Subanark (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Subanark: Oh, this is kind of awesome, so to speak. Prior to the recent change in the law (January 1, 2023?), young (very young) persons could legally have sex with each other as long as they were sufficiently close-in-age. Under the new law, they say that the age of consent is 16, but if I've understood this correctly (and I don't guarantee that I have), if the person is under age 18, there is actually a 5-year close-in-age restriction.

To the best of my knowledge, this makes Washington the only state (in the U.S.) that expresses age of consent in this manner, i.e. declaring that the fact that you've reached the age of consent doesn't means that it's lawful for any older person to have consensual sex with you. Every place else, they would say that the age of consent is 18, with a close-in-age exception (of up to 5 years) if you're at least 16 years old. It only took one person in some kind of "legislative affairs" office to come up with this "brilliant idea". Fabrickator (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I sent out an email yesterday to the Department of Health asking to clarify the removal of the page. Their turnaround time is quite long though (up to 2 weeks). It could be really bad if someone incorrectly relied on these details. Subanark (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Subanark: As I look into this issue about the 5-year limit on age difference for sex involving someone who is at least 16 but less than 18, I almost always see that the requirement that they be within 5 years of age applies to "significant relationships". In this context, they're referring to a situation where one person has some sort of authority over another person, such as being a teacher (even if not necessarily their teacher). However, Vindicate Law's page "Age of Consent Laws in Washington" is pretty clearly claiming that consensual sex between someone under age 18 and someone who's at least 5 years older is illegal. It does seem clear that any sex between someone under age 16 and someone age 16 or over is illegal, in spite of earlier versions of the law that allowed this. I'm not sure how it's treated if both persons are under age 16. Fabrickator (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, for those under 16, both would be guilty. Also the "significant relationships" are you referring to: "A person is guilty of sexual misconduct... the person is a school employee ... [has] sexual intercourse with an enrolled student of the school who is at least sixteen years old and not more than twenty-one years old, if the employee is at least sixty months older than the student" (https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.093) Subanark (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Subanark: While the "both parties are under-age" scenario is certainly of interest, as is more generally "what's legal and what isn't", my concern was actually about terminology We quickly and easily talk about "age of consent", as if that were a term with a consistent meaning. As meaning, if your putative partner has rached this age, then your age isn't relevant, for instance, there would not be a "close-in-age" issue. So if it were claimed that a particular state had an age of consent of 16, then a 75-year-old would be able to legally have sex with them if there were mutual consent. Now we have a case in which it is claimed that even though the age of consent is 16, a 75-year-old would be violating the law in these circumstances even though there was mutual consent, because they were not within 5 years of age. This problem is somewhat exacerbated by the fact of the actually incomprehensible table of ages of consent in the article. But now it seems that (according to at least one source), the state of Washington is using the phrase "age of consent" to mean something different (i.e. more restricted) than the way it's been used throughout this article, and the point being, quite frankly, is that it should not be assumed that the state of Washinton's use of this term will be accepted for this article, though we need to call out this variance in how the term may be used. Fabrickator (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty reading the laws... but I think the law is saying that the age of consent is 16, except in a few special circumstances in which it is 18/21 and requires the perpetrator to be more than 5 years older. The other cases of the age gap only applies when the child lies about their age. The 2 year age gap would only apply if both kids were between 12-14, but lied to each other about their age being 16 or older. I don't see where it would extend past 18. Subanark (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Subanark: Your source is based on the old law. You can find a description of the new law at Introducing Washington State Laws, which has a creation date of November 2020. Under this law, there is an absolute prohibition on sex for anybody under age 16. The 5-year limit on age difference applies for someone who's age 16 or 17 and with anybody who's under age 16. As far as the age of your partner, for someone who's age 16 or 17, there's a limit of 5-years on how much older your partner can be, which would presumably be based on the actual dates of birth.

There are some other sites that will say that the 5-year age restriction only applies to those who are in a "special relationship" (e.g. having a teacher-student relationship), but my impression is that this is a provision from the old law that has been misconstrued to apply under the new law.

In the past, I have suggested that we should post a big disclaimer about the risks of relying on Wikipedia's age of consent laws (I believe I actually added it to the article), but I was shouted down, on the grounds that Wikipedia already has a generic disclaimer. I will tell you which side I will vote on if I'm on the jury... If you run a website and describe how you base content on reliable sources, you offer "legal information" on this site which specifically applies to young persons, and they wind up being charged with a serious crime.

This is a foreseeable problem, and I'm not letting Wikipedia hide behind this generic disclaimer. I'm obviously not in charge, but I'm not making these edits either. Fabrickator (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

My source is based on the current actual law. However, as I am not experienced in understanding the law my interpretation may be incorrect. From my understanding the age difference exceptions only apply in rare cases where it would seem unfair to prosecute in those circumstances.

In any case, I think it would be better just to remove the age range exception section, but leave in the special cases for 16+. Maybe leave a comment note in the edit view to be careful before adding notes about this section of the law. Subanark (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, before we get around to considering the omission of pertinent parts of the applicable law, pray tell how you have determined which is the "current actual law". Please be certain to include your explanation as to how you have ascertained this fact. Fabrickator (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure even a lawyer could determine the full extent of the law. This is why I would say that Wikipedia remain vague on the topic. If there isn't certainty on the facts, it should be omitted. I am still awaiting a response from the department of health.

The fact of the matter is that section is not based on the law, but rather a removed page from the Department of Health. Subanark (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

As a point of information, secondary sources are preferred for Wikipedia articles. I have absolutely no idea about your claim that the source is "not based on the law, but rather a removed page from the Department of Health". If you are suggesting that other parts of the document you're referring to provide further elaboration on the relevant law (perhaps further refining some of the law's provisions), then please point us at the source!

Nevertheless, I can point to Age of consent laws in Washington (Vindicate Criminal Law Group). This was evidently prepared quite recently (January 2023), so hopefully reflects the current law. This appears to me to be completely consistent with the "removed page" you object to. Admittedly, I'm cautious when considering an explanation of the law that's provided by a legal firm's website, but it says a lot that they've provided a dated analysis, and it says even more that it's consistent with the document produced by a state agency that's charged with communicating on this topic to the state's citizens.

Now if there's one option that I would find highly objectionable, that would be to waver on a substantial and material aspect of the law. If we're purporting to provide information about the "age of consent", which tends to be of special significance to adolescents (as well as young adults), and we can't figure that out from the sources we have, then we should just admit we don't really know, rather than just leaving them with information that's vague and ambiguous.

If we could get accurate citations of the relevant statutes, that would of course improve our confidence. I tried to figure this out from the state legislature's website, but since neither of these two sources provide any specific information aout the statute (such as a statute number, or even a title), it's hard to tell. However, if the consensus is that we cannot deduce what the law actually is, then we should just admit that as fact and say "Shame on those folks in Olympia!" Fabrickator (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The important section from the removed page in the department of health is: "Age and consent" and the line "Washington State will not prosecute you based on age if you have sex with:" indicates that while it is still illegal, it is not enforced under certain cases. The section we are debating on has only one reference: the department of health, and it is contrary to the legal site. If the page from the legal firm is correct, then the correct move would be to remove that section, as based on the law alone, the sex acts that would normally fall under a Romeo and Juliet exception are instead presented as a less severe felony. I don't think this fact is particularly noteworthy.

Still waiting on that response email from DoH. Subanark (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Subanark: I would describe your explanation as "wishful thinking". The texts of these different sections is available at:

RCW 9A.44.079 (partner aged 14-15)

RCW 9A.44.076 (partner aged 12-13)

RCW 9A.44.073 (partner under age 12)

Notwithstanding the above, you seem to be ignoring the indications that this set of statutes has been superseded, based on the fact that more recent explanations of the law state that sex with anybody under age 16 is a violation of the law.

My personal opinion about this matter is that the lack of suitable controls on Wikipedia make it unsuitable for publication, i.e. Wikipedia and any editors specifically involved may be exposing themselves to civil damages if the information is inaccurate and damages occur as a result. Fabrickator (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me, I stated that those laws do not decriminalize the acts, they serve to reduce the severity of it in some cases. As previously stated, I agree that the section should be removed although for somewhat different reasons. Subanark (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to remove the affected paragraphs from the main article since we do not disagree that it should be removed. Subanark (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Subanark: I'm going to go back to this line of yours:

... the line "Washington State will not prosecute you based on age if you have sex with:" indicates that while it is still illegal, it is not enforced under certain cases.

So maybe we should review the concept of what's legal and what's illegal, with respect to any given statute. It sounds like you're starting with the premise that the age of consent was 16, therefore, sex with a partner under age 16 would necessarily be illegal. But your view on this is that there is a particular "age of consent", and therefore, any sex which involves at least one person who's under the age of consent, then there's at least one person who's violating the law.

As it happens, the state legislatures are not constrained to this simple model. They can use arbitrary combinations of facts to specify whether any of the parties involved are subject to prosecution. They can even define certain terms in the law but apply those terms in counter-intuitive ways.

However, the fact is that under the laws that I linked to, they defined specific statutes for the different age ranges (actually, these statutes defined age gaps depending on the age range of the younger party). Even if the law stated that 16 was the "general age of consent", that only makes sex with someone under age 16 illegal if it includes verbiage to the effect that such sex is illegal.

What the law actually says (in part) is that if the younger party is under age 12, then the sex is illegal only if the other party is at least 2 years older. So (if I am recalling correctly) sex between an 8-year-old and a 9-year-old would have been legal since a person age 9 years and 11 month is less than 2 years older than someone who's just reached the age of 8 years. On the other hand, sex between an 8-year-old and an 11-year-old is illegal because the age difference is at least 2 years.

Under each of the 3 laws listed, there's a permissible age gap that depends on the age of the younger person. Sex between parties in two different age ranges is legal or illegal depending on the age difference. This is not some kind of discretionary determination not to prosecute even though it's illegal, it's specifically not illegal because of the permissible age difference.

I don't think this should be a difficult concept to grasp, but it greatly concerns me that you are offering your interpretations when you don't get this fairly straightforward concept. Fabrickator (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, you might be right, every time I read this I come up with a different conclusion. Maybe it is better to go off of the analysis of the bill which is a bit easier to read (https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/5177%20HBA%20PS%2021.pdf?q=20240517061704). In any case, I will hold off making an informed decision as there is conflicting articles from law firms which have been dated after the changes to this law went into effect. Subanark (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this table look correct? The ? is "Permissible when the younger person's birth day and month is before the older person's"

table showing ages of permissible sexual contact
Age 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ 9 Y Y ? N N N N N N N N N 10 Y Y Y ? N N N N N N N N 11 ? Y Y Y ? N N N N N N N 12 N ? Y Y Y Y ? N N N N N 13 N N ? Y Y Y Y ? N N N N 14 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y ? N N 15 N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y Y ? N 16 N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 N N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 N N N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Y 20+ N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y

Subanark (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! I was just going to point you at SB 5177 as passed, which includes the wording of each pertinent statute. Then I see that you have posted your table, which purports to evaluate each combination of facts and give us a yes/no/maybe result as to its legality. While I understand your desire and intention with creating this this table, I'm going to assert that it is impermissible for use on Wikipedia as WP:OR.

The texts of the statutes are going to be the basis of any analysis performed by all agencies involved in enforcement, including law enforcement, lawyers attempting to defend their clients, and judges. I'm concerned that the legislature may have painted itself into a corner with badly drafted legislation that defies analysis. But I could be wrong. If I had my "druthers", I'd characterize this as something akin to "The emperor has no clothes." In other words, it appears that there are some well-defined statutes by which we can establish, for each set of factual conditions, whether that is legal or illegal, and if it's illegal, what are the allowable penalties, but the reality is otherwise. Yes, you have attempted to figure out just what the law means (absent the specific range of penalties), but we have no reasonable way to ascertain that your analysis is correct and/or that court rulings will be consistent with your analysis.

As a Wikipedia editor, I would want to have none of it, and if anybody cared about my opinion, I would extricate myself from the situation (i.e. revert any edits I might have made which were based upon these latest changes to the law. If I` were the "king" of Wikipedia, I would remove all content which purported to interpret the current state of the law, with an appropriate "banner" to the effect of the uncertainty of the law as most recently drafted by the state legislature.

As to the table you've included in this discussion, it's an interesting "artifact", but I would ask that you figure out how to make it "clickable" (e.g. so the reader must click on something for the table to be displayed), allowing people to admire your efforts into putting it together, while lessening the extent of its distraction from the text of this discussion. Fabrickator (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now made the table collapsible. It is collapsed by default. Fabrickator (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Previous link for "Introducing Washington State Laws" was broken; replaced with an archived version. Fabrickator (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

Change the Tennessee “By Age” from 13 to 18 2605:59C8:24B7:8910:4D21:E4A6:A166:19B9 (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course the OP is correct in the implication that the general age of consent in Tennessee is 18.

Once upon a time, it was agreed that the "general" age of consent that would be published on the Age of consent pages was the unfettered age of consent (this was before states started to change their laws to establish a higher age of consent for teachers and other persons in positions of authority, so that there were not additional conditions for a higher age of consent than the "ordinary" age of consent to apply).

The risk we have is that someone is going to offer as a defense that they relied upon the age of consent published by Wikipedia. They'll freely admit that they knew the victim was 17 and they were 23, but somebody will show them Tennessee statute 39-13-506, demonstrating that they have admitted to violating the law. (There are similar statutes in a significant fraction of the states.)

By rights, they ought to be able to sue Wikipedia for the millions of dollars worth of damages they will suffer, because Wikipedia was negligent in allowing this erroneous content to remain. Those persons who had been delegated with the responsibility of managing Wikipedia content knew or should have known that this was false, and furthermore, that people would have had a reasonable expectation that if this was false, it would have gotten removed. If I'm on that jury, I will not have any compunctions in voting for holding WMF legally liable. Fabrickator (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet too hard on that theory, as it has already been rejected by at least one court: [1]. PianoDan (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In the first place, every case is different, but if there's a case that's even on point, I'll notice that you didn't name it. I perused Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation, and of the several cases there, I didn't find a relevant case. If you know of a case where WMF was sued based on detrimental reliance of Wikipedia content pertaining to criminal matters, then please point it out.

In any case, every case is different. However, I don't wish for such a lawsuit to occur, I wish for Wikipedia to face up to certain issues where erroneous content can be harmful to users of Wikipedia.

We used to have this issue with "age of consent" under pretty reasonable control, in which there was a separate section for each state which provided a description of the applicable law in that state. Now we have this table, the columns of which are not self-explanatory, and as evidenced by the #Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024, misunderstanding of this content is highly likely.

That request, and the response to that request demonstrate the problem. First, the person making the request demonstrates that the information in the table is likely to be misinterpreted. Second, the response to the request demonstrates indifference to this matter. WP could have had a defense of ignorance, as in "We didn't realize the content of these tables was being misconstrued." But now that's readily apparent, and the effort to get this corrected is dismissed. Although it's not a WMF employee who did it, WMF effectively appoints every editor with the power to be dismissive of such complaints, my point being that WMF cannot hide behind their claim that the response to this issue is not WMF's responsibility, but that it is no different than if an actual WMF employee had done it.

That said, I'm really not here to argue fine legal points, I'm here to concur with the person who posted the request and to make the further point that the content of these age of consent tables is highly misleading. The fact that they've been allowed to stay in this form demonstrates a serious flaw in how things work on WP. Fabrickator (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Try clicking on the [1] next to the word "court" in my post. The little arrow in a box symbol indicates it's a link. The case is "Pallisades Collection vs. Graubard." Here's a link to the decision itself: [2]. PianoDan (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That case is not even remotely on point. In that case, the court would not accept statements made on Wikipedia as evidence of the facts claimed. In other words, the statements made about the "age of consent" could not be used by parties in the case as an offer of proof of the actual age of consent.

Here, the point is that ordinary persons will have a reasonable basis for believing that the statements made about the law are accurate. This would be a civil lawsuit by an injured party (i.e. the person who detrimentally relied on the false statements on Wikipedia pertaining to the age of consent) and who, as a result of this detrimental reliance, finds themselves convicted of the crime which is claimed on Wikipedia as not being a crime. To put it in other words, the judge in one case said you can't present this in court as evidence of the facts claimed. That doesn't prohibit from presenting the fact that those claims were made as statements of fact.

To state this another way, the court can apply its own judgement to reject statements made on Wikipedia as some sort of evidence. This doesn't mean that persons making statements on Wikipedia are immune from any damage resulting from making such statements, or that Wikipedia has no duty to correct errors that could cause harm to third parties. Fabrickator (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Here a working link to the item referenced above: Wikipedia Too Malleable to Be Reliable Evidence, claiming that a court has rejected the position that Wikipedia may be relied on for citation in a legal case. Fabrickator (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)