671
Justin Roiland used his ‘Rick and Morty’ fame to pursue young fans, text messages show
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
671 points (95.5% liked)
News
23670 readers
4479 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, this story needs way more precision than it has.
"Were 16 when they started texting him". Ok, well how old were they written the allegations occurred, and what is he alleged to have done?
The imprecision is by design. Modern journalism is trash.
Not to defend it, but in situations like this I think they have to be vague for legal reasons. There's a fine line between reporting the news and defamation (regardless of how true it is).
It's bullshit, and people will use defamation and lawyers to attack people accusing them. But I can see why you'd want to be extra careful how you worded the title.
Eeeeeexactly
Seems like he waited until they were 18 before meeting them, although he would send sexually-charged texts to women as young as 16.
So did he actually groom them? Because the way this is written it sounds like he asked them their age, and then waited for them to be legal, which is creepy, but I wouldn't call it grooming.
Lmao age of consent laws don't mean it isn't statutory rape.
They totally do. By definition. What do you think the "statute" in "statutory" is referring to?
Tshh it's when you rape a statue silly.
I think it's Betrayal at House on the Hill where you lay out all the tiles to build the house, and one of them has permanently become the Statutory Corridor according to our house rules (because we've misread it so many times).
I think you're missing the double negative I used. Lol I'm saying that even if someone is above the age of consent, statutory rape is still an applicable charge.
By definition, it isn't
That's the whole point of the law
Take it up with Virginia; age of consent there is 15. Intercourse with a minor above 15 as an adult can still give you statutory rape charges, as referenced here: "The age of consent for intercourse is 15 years old in Virginia; however, there are other sex acts that set the age at 18. These acts include cunnilingus, fellatio, and anal intercourse, which means that minors cannot legally consent to certain sexual activity. Additionally, if you are an adult and have sex with a person under 18 years of age, you may be prosecuted for statutory rape. Statutory rape is generally charged as a Class 4 Felony, but the exact charge and penalties will depend on all the factors and ages involved."
Pulled from https://www.roanokecriminalattorney.com/how-does-virginia-define-consent/
It isn't always the case, generally age of consent precludes it, but not always. Age of consent isn't a get out of jail free card. Additionally, it doesn't specify about relations between people in positions of power.
It's all moot anyway, Roiland lives in CA, and he was inviting a 17 year old to his house in Los Angeles. Age of consent there is 18. Did he assault her? No, but what 36 year old man is inviting a 17 year old to his house? Multiple other reports of girls at 18, still in high school, also receiving advances from him.
If there are exceptions then "age of consent" in Virginia doesn't mean the same thing as it does in other states, so all this shows is that they're re-defining the term.
I don't think that tracks; I've always been under the impression that age of consent was just when you could consent to sexual activity. It didn't account for age differences, power dynamics, or other factors that push it towards statutory rape. It was "at this age, they are able to consent to activity", and then you would have the limiting factors of age difference, power imbalance, family, etc applied through other statutes.
I very well could be wrong or just applying knowledge of my own local area to places that don't operate that way, so I'll bow out on that. I do know that age of consent isn't just a blanket shield against statutory rape in some locales or situations, though. The "statutory" part of statutory rape isn't limited to only age of consent.
"Statutory rape" just means rape by law, not necessarily by any kind of consent (since legally they can't).
These are anti-gay laws btw. That's the entire purpose of these specific exceptions.
No, it isn't.
There is further conversation with another user below this, but that isn't the case in some places, namely Virginia.
Additionally, statutory rape isn't just bound to age of consent. There are myriad other statutes it can apply through, namely family, age difference, and positions of power over minors above the age of consent.
The statutes (and therefore the term statutory) define the age of consent. Sometimes the age of consent can vary and isn't as simple as one number.