Court TV Host: Were Mark Foley's alleged Internet communications with congressional pages illegal? Discuss the case with Internet privacy and security lawyer Parry Aftab.

Court TV Host: Parry Aftab is joining us online right now... She was on Court TV discussing the case at the end of last week...and she's here to answer your questions about it now. Welcome, Ms. Aftab, thank you for being our guest online today.

Court TV Host: Anything you'd like to say before we start taking questions?

Parry Aftab: I appreciate being asked to conduct a chat. I've been receiving several hundred emails a day asking questions about this case. More than anything else, they're angry, confused and disappointed. Everyone seems to be surprised that the laws are not more clear. If an adult they knew walked up to our 16-year-olds on the street or at work and asked them the size of their genitals, they would be arrested. Why doesn't this apply online?

Question from kiara: What legal consequences does Foley face for using computer resources to flirt with the pages?

Parry Aftab: Foley might have used congressional computers or an ISP or communication technology service that prohibits this kind of communication. It might also violate employment harassment laws (although Congress might be exempt from such laws). In addition, depending on whether he sent or asked for sexually explicit images from the page, there could be charges of enticement to produce child pornography or sending obscene materials to a minor. Finally, if it can be proven that his words were more than words, and were indications of his intention to entice criminal sexual activities, he could be charged under various state and federal statutes. There may also be civil claims that the pages could make for harassment, perhaps.

Question from magnolia: Is Foley communicating in a sexual manner with the pages enough to be considered a criminal act, or did he have to make an actual effort to meet the children with sexual intent for it to be a criminal act?

Parry Aftab: Under the U.S. federal laws, it takes more than mere words to prove a case of enticement. You have to demonstrate an intent to act. That doesn't mean that you have to meet the minor, just anything that can demonstrate intention to do more than talk. Some state statutes, such as New York's, criminalize communications between an adult and minor, and might cover Foley's communications if NY law would apply. I have no reason to believe that it would, however.

Court TV Host: What about the specific ages here - we keep hearing about "underage" individuals - and at the same time we hear that the pages were 16 or older. If they're 16 or older, is Foley out of legal hot water?

Parry Aftab: The federal laws cover anyone under 18. The various state laws set the ages, sometimes, lower - as low as 16 or 17. In New York, it's 17. It would depend on his location, the location of the page, any meetings location and which law he could be charged under. The safer position is to state that anyone under 18 is off-limits to someone as old as Foley. (Some laws look at the age difference, to avoid criminalizing behaviors consensually between a teen and someone a year or two older.)

Question from magnolia: The legal age of consent in Washington D.C. is 16 for boys and girls. Shouldn't federal statutes override the state statute age limitations?

Parry Aftab: They may, but not as a preemption (a legal trump card) but because they might better apply. That's why I said it depends on which law he is charged under...generally, if the minor is under 18 you can find a law to charge the adult under.

Question from dandmb50: Is it the age of the person who receives the internet communication and the state they live in that matters, or the laws where the communication comes from and their laws?

Parry Aftab: The laws are not very clear here. Internet jurisdiction is very complicated. But for certain, the laws where the adult and the minor were present at that time would come into play. Others may as well.

Question from hammy: Parry, it is alleged that these emails the young men received were "unwanted." However, if they participated in ongoing communications with Foley and are over age 16, is that illegal or just inappropriate, tawdry, and abhorrent given his position?

Parry Aftab: The laws generally state that a minor (depending on the state age for the purposes of this law) cannot consent to any sexual activity with an adult. They are premised on minors not having the legal capacity to consent, even if they want to. This is similar to a minor not being able to enter into a contract, etc. You should understand that sexual predators use one of nine sexual predator ploys in trying to seduce a minor. Authority and promises or rewards are two.

Question from Lasher: Is Foley safe because he did not act on his e-mail? Is it a crime to fantasize? Or does the law not distinguish between the two?

Parry Aftab: Foley didn't have to act on his e-mail, as long as he intended to act on it. The laws require that the adult intend to induce, entice or promote the minor into engaging in a sexual activity which would be illegal. Talk, except in some limited cases, is not criminal. So, the challenge is finding intent in all those words. In many cases, the adult claims that they were just "fantasizing" and either knew the other person was an adult posing as a minor or had no intention of doing more than talk. It has been more successful in many cases than IMHO it should be. I suspect we will se more proposals to codify criminal grooming behavior, including cybersex.

Question from dandmb59: How does anyone know the age of the person they are talking to online

Parry Aftab: In Foley's case, through his counsel, he has admitted to these communications and knew that the pages, young men he knew in real life, were underage. In one case the page said repeatedly that he was under 18 and wouldn't be 18 until February 23rd. In other cases, just as in the laws that protect minors from claims that the adult thought they were of age, the adult takes the risks. In the UK we have helped put these laws on the books. With careful crafting it can work and still protect the adults' rights.

Question from magnolia: If the communications crossed state lines then would that make it more likely that the federal statutes would be the guidelines used?

Parry Aftab: Federal laws apply whether or not the communications cross state boundaries, since an interstate device (the Internet) is involved. In itself, it triggers jurisdiction. This also applies for phones and postal activities.

Question from Guyin50s: A 21 year old ex-page says that he has had homosexual relations with Foley. Could that be used to demonstrate that Foley was "grooming" pages and then waiting until they became legal? And if so, can Foley be prosecuted for "grooming"?

Parry Aftab: This factor can help or hurt Foley, it's not clear which. It may help prove that he has no intentions of acting on his words until the pages are of legal age, which helps his case. Or it could be proof that he intends to do more than just talk, but it isn't yet clear if he would do that with a minor too.

Question from hammy: Isn't it true that if any of us had conducted ourselves as did Foley, that we would be sitting in jail trying to come up with bail $? Is there a different standard for those in positions of power as it relates to the legal system?

Parry Aftab: Sadly, too often adults who engage in similar communications are never charged. It's a problem we have to fix. I suspect that if possible, prosecutors will try and charge Foley to set an example. Far too often the predators online are professional while upper middle-class, educated men. Foley is not out of the norm. All tend to have money for a defense and power. It might be time we draw the line and say: "Enough!" Parents are very angry. Are any of you? Has it changed your attitudes or what you are doing to protect your kids online? Do you see this as an abuse of power issue or internet safety one?

Question from steph: I see it as abuse of power.

Question from magnolia: Looks like a combination to me .. Foley was just using the tools at his disposal to abuse his power. I think that is typical...most see it as an abuse of power.

Question from daleeff: Abuse of power

Question from hammy: Abuse of power

Question from tribe: Both. And I am JUST as angry that being a politician seems to give you a get-out-of-jail free card.

Question from kiara: Foley intersected both...

Question from Trisha: This is a definite abuse of power...he's in a position of power, and these kids want to do the politically correct thing, probably thinking they could handle it.

Parry Aftab: Should we strengthen the laws to criminal cyber-sexual discussions with minors or those you believe to be a minor?

Question from hammy: absolutely > the laws have to be concise, clear and not open to interpretation. It should be a national law.

Question from daleeff: He's probably done more than what we know, in person.

Question from Trisha: And Foley is a total hypocrite....preaching about protecting our children....praising Dateline....makes me SICK

Parry Aftab: I suspect the prosecutors and investigators will be looking for more than just chat. Does it make it worse that he preached child protection, do you think?

Question from Trisha: Yes it does

Question from DeliaFangz: Definitely abuse of power.... A parent would not be suspicious of emails from Congressmen if their child was in the page program...although I'm sure they will be now.

Parry Aftab: This is exactly what I am hearing in hundreds of e-mails a day at wiredsafety.org. Do you even see this as an internet issue?

Question from kate_oregon: Frankly, I am glad for anyone's work to protect kids...but it is incredibly hypocritical for him personally and more egregious to me.

Parry Aftab: Or is it the same as if he had called them and done this on the phone?

Question from steph: I haven't run into a problem with my daughter using the internet. I monitor all she does online, but then, she's young yet. Parents too, need to be more involved in knowing what kids are doing online.

Question from daleeff: Pedophiles often talk against child molesters to throw people off.

Question from Trisha: A perv is a perv...but that was just covering for himself IMO and to lay blame everywhere ...being molested, being gay, being alcoholic...pffft...sorry excuses or bad behavior.

Question from kiara: Foley is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Parry Aftab: Pedophiles (which may not include Foley, even if he were interested in older teens, since it is a medical diagnosis) often put themselves into positions working with young people.

Question from Trisha: I'm a parent, and I'm disgusted.

Question from magnolia: His position of power and the fact he was involved in child internet protection makes it even scarier because he was the one privy to the inner workings of the law and the ways to work around them.

Parry Aftab: Trisha, lots of moms, especially, are disgusted. We just created a new group called wiredmoms to get them mobilized. Drop by www.wiredsafety.org  and send me an e-mail.

Question from JERRY: Parry: Those in power covering up for Foley are almost as bad as what Foley did. I hope they catch all of those liars and put them in jail

Parry Aftab: Sorry, lost my connection...those net gremlins :-) I have no way of knowing who knew or knows what or when...But I am sure that action will be taken against them when it is discovered.

Question from Trisha: Tom Reynolds is our Congressman. He is in a tight race...he is back-peddling here locally now. He is gonna go down...and I, for one, won't vote for him.

Parry Aftab: This will have serious political ramifications either way. That's a shame. Since it is possible that this is now breaking, at this time close to the elections, for special purposes, just as possibly that it was being swept under the rug. It is highly unusual for anyone to store an IM communication. But many were stored. Some communications also sounded almost coached. When you are trying to prove that someone is a cyber-predator of a minor you repeatedly clarify the purported age of the minor. One page did this repeatedly...saying I am under 18 more than it would have come up. I suspect in the end the truth will all come out. But when it comes to protecting kids, politics should have no role.

Question from NicNYC: Can the current and past pages that were victims of Foley bring a civil suit?

Parry Aftab: Whether they pages can bring a civil suit and succeed in their suit will depend on state law and whether or not discrimination laws and harassment laws apply to Congress. I am not an expert in those laws, but recall that they do not. So, the lawyerly answer is: "Maybe." I suspect we will see for sure soon.

Question from DeliaFangz: All of these different pages did not work directly for Foley...Is it known yet how he acquired their contact information? If he obtained this information from the Congressional Page Board, what is their liability? Isn't it a violation of privacy?

Parry Aftab: There hasn't been any claim that he got this information without the consent or knowledge of the pages. I suspect any page would be delighted to communicate with a powerful Congressman. I also don't know what addresses they used or how they were acquired. Sorry.

Question from hammy: Did this Foley issue assist in exposing society and the Congress to the profound problems associated with sexual predators and will it have any ultimate effect on upcoming legislation to deal with it?

Question from HalLawWeen: Generally speaking, as Internet law rapidly evolves, do you expect it to impact chatrooms similar to this one [courttv] in terms of tighter controls, which are filled with mostly adults, and the occasional child?

Parry Aftab: I suspect that we will see stronger laws against cyber grooming. But more people (as those here have indicated) see this not as a cyber-predator issue, but as an abuse of power. Also, cyberlaw already covers all cyber-communications, chat, IM, etc. - if you use these digital technologies, it is usually covered under a broad law covering all.

Court TV Host: Any closing thoughts?

Parry Aftab: I have devoted the last ten years to making the technologies safer for everyone. This requires a community of law enforcement, laws, parents, schools and the technology companies, as well as the kids themselves. When something like this hits, it reminds us how far we still have to go. No teen (or anyone for that matter) should have to put up with this kind of thing. It's time we are all angry and do something about it. Something that matters. I'm angry, offended and motivated to do even more. Get active on this. Get involved. We could use the help. Wrong is wrong, in cyberspace or in RL. It shouldn't make a difference. Thanks for asking me to join you here today. Court TV is a great resource, and I appreciate your help, Paul.

Court TV Host: Thank you, for being our guest online today. Please come back soon.

Parry Aftab: If anyone wants to keep up on this and my thoughts, they can visit www.parryaftab.blogspot.com, my blog and podcast. Bye...and stay safe!