Despite our statewide commitment to a superspreader tourist event where sex trafficking thrives, South Dakota Republicans continue to pose as great protectors of women and girls against sexual exploitation. Their latest pious soapbox is House Bill 1217, in which prime sponsor Representative Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) and his fellow theocrats pretend to care about keeping women and children safe from predators. HB 1217 adds production or pornography and sexual exploitation to the list of crimes constituting human trafficking.
HB 1217 also creates a new crime: grooming. Let’s read Section 4 of HB 1217:
A person is guilty of grooming if the person knowingly:
- Contacts or attempts to contact a minor with the intent to gain the trust of the minor or establish a relationship for the purpose of making it more likely that the minor can later be enticed, induced, or encouraged into conduct amount [sic] to sexual exploitation as defined under § 22-22-24.3;
- Develops a relationship or initiates communications with a minor for the purpose of having the minor engage in conduct amounting to sexual exploitation as defined under § 22-22-24.3; or
- Exposes a minor to sexually explicit language or visual imagery for the purpose of encouraging or making it more likely that the minor will engage in conduct amounting to sexual exploitation as defined under § 22-22-24.3.
A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony [2022 HB 1217, section 4, introduced 2022.01.27].
The cited statute, SDCL 22-22-24.3, says sexual exploitation of a minor occurs if a person “causes or knowingly permits a minor to engage in an activity or the simulation of an activity that: (1) is harmful to minors; (2) involves nudity; or (3) is obscene.”
Now far be it from me to defend skeezy behavior. But before legislators pass HB 1217 to feel good about busting perverts, they might want to consider clarifying the definition of sexual exploitation. The three criteria for sexual exploitation are separated by semicolons and connected with an “or”, meaning it only takes one of those conditions to qualify an action as sexual exploitation. Are the kids doing something obscene? Yes, sexual exploitation. Are the kids doing something naked? Yes… but does that include Coach telling the team to hit the showers after practice or change into their uniforms before game? Are the kids doing something harmful to minors? Yes, and we don’t want any harm… but does that mean buying kids alcohol or cigarettes is sexual exploitation? Does that mean flying Trump flags and promoting racism in ways that spark bullying in school is sexual exploitation? Sure, this definition appears in a chapter titled “Sex Offenses”, but “harmful to minors” is far broader than sex. Before we start building more felony penalties into code, we might want to tighten the definition that will trigger those felonies.
Even if legislators clarify the definition of sexual exploitation to focus on actual sexual exploitation, they may not need HB 1217 to outlaw the behavior they are targeting. We already have SDCL 22-24A-5 to prohibit soliciting minors to engage in prohibited sexual acts, which would include the production of child pornography. Does the Legislature really want to slide out further onto the legal ice and felonize actions that make certain crimes “more likely”? All sorts of behavior could make sexual exploitation “more likely”: objectification of women in advertising, misogynistic and dehumanizing language from legislators, giant motorcycle rallies….
I understand the Republican zeal to cover their misogyny, patriarchy, and policy failures by making lots of noise about sex trafficking. But House Bill 1217 exposes some of the sloppy policy-writing that can result from their moral crusades and the hesitance of legislators to express opposition to seemingly unassailable moral positions on semantic technicalities. Let’s hope House Judiciary can put aside the emotion fueling this bill and take a serious look at the meaning and effect of the bill’s words and the existing statutory language to which it refers.
Representative Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) is a piece of work.
Definition of piece of work: a complicated, difficult, or eccentric person
First Known Use of “piece of work” – 1713, in the meaning defined above
– Mirriam Webster
Mugshot galleries in newspapers create criminals to sell copy. It looks like this stuff is drafted by the interdiction industry to give cops more excuses to plug the accused into the machine that extracts the cash that turns the gears.
Laws against sexual activity with minors must not be a deterrent enough so they have proposed this attempt to make me think they are actually working. Try this, remove the statute of limitations for sexual activity with a minor or however the best way to word it should be. This may be a deterrent, plus it could open a window to prosecute some past offenders.
It could open a window to prosecute some past offenders?
Lee Schoenbeck and other RCC lawyers get paid more than the President to make sure “past offenders” stay just that.
IN THE PAST …
Well their isn’t alot of nudity in the art galleries. Harvey Dunn has one up in Brookings but he was better with horses and cows. Although……
I don’t have a problem with the intent of the bill, but it seems it actually makes things worse. Point 3 in that proposed language particularly is a jumbled mess. Way, way too broad and undefined. Showing a picture of Noem with her fake pornstar lips could qualify as visual imagery that could drive a minor into some sort of sex act. Noem could be up on a sex charge.
Donald–forget the lips, what about the Daisy Dukes crotch shot on the motorcycle?
Is there a blue link to this crotch shot on a motorcycle? Asking for my good friend Lar.
Forcing kids to strip down at school and get in a shower together is definitely skeezy.
Full on skeez.
But this legislation has its heart in the right place. 18 year old females are drugged, conned, and abused.
I’m not sure a law will help as much as tar and feathering or other more traditional Black Hills means of burying a turd.
And it’s not just the girls.
Boys are also caught up in this .. using skeezy literature, they are given a false sense of sexuality, and a diminished amount of respect for the physically weaker gender. One might argue that the free love movement coupled with violent pornography creates a lot of pain on Earth for men and women.
Let’s contemplate the issue, shall we?
Hard core pornography is being used to educate young people about sex.
It’s controversial, but would more loving encounters between consensual man/women have a good outcome in this pedagogic context? Can learning by doing only get a person so far? Is it good to have people models to maximize the potential for good of sex?
Sex is one of the most amazing things that humans participate in together, especially when it is to make a family together in the context of a lifelong commitment to take care of the resulting offspring. It’s most fulfilling that way.
But pervs who try to create environments conducive to incest, rape, and other perversions of what might be considered normal sexuality through the weaponization of literature and drugs should be *ahem* mitigated.
Root cause of abuse of literature, drugs, and a bad educational model for young people to follow (I’ve seen animals at the zoo exhibit more tenderness toward a mate than is demonstrated in some pornography).
Yes. I have looked a nudie books and whatnot, though I don’t typically seek out that material these days. When I was younger, though, I was curious and wanted to know more about this exciting thing we call making-love. What I found was skeezy, and had to potential to indoctrinate me into a lifestyle that was not conducive to my own long-term happiness.
So, it’s a problem, yes. I’m not sure that it can be solved outside the free market for good (sexual) ideas, however.
So, I guess I’m an authority.
Like Barry White.
In a way.
We gotta keep it together, baby.
Bom bom bom .. bom bom.
“is abuse of literature”