Lawmakers react with ire to removal of 16- and 17-year-old victims from sex trafficking bill
The Assembly Public Safety Committee removed these older teens from AB 379.
'AB 379 faced the same fate as SB 1414: Take out the felony charges for those who purchase 16- and 17-year-old kids for sex, or the bill is dead. This isn't keeping a 'deal,' it's an ultimatum from legislators failing to protect older teens from sex buyers, and it's unacceptable," Grove said in a statement.
"I'm glad AB 379 is advancing, but the Assembly Public Safety Committee should have kept the original language," she continued. "We must keep fighting to protect ALL children and hold exploiters accountable."
Assemblywoman Dr. Jasmeet Bains, D-Delano, also commented on AB 379, which proposed to make it a felony to purchase 16- and 17-year-old children for sex.
'We have to stop being the party of meaningless gestures and radical policies. Somehow — as the president tanks our economy and deports innocent children, the American people still don't trust Democrats," Bains said in a statement. "Any sane person knows that purchasing a 16-year-old girl for sex should be a felony. How is this a debate?'
Meanwhile, Republican Assemblywoman Alexandra M. Macedo, who represents parts of Tulare, Fresno and Kings counties, said Democrats introduced "intent" language that has no prosecutorial or legal standing in the courts, creating "smoke and mirrors" in the pretense to protect 16- and 17-year-olds from sex trafficking.
'If a 16- and a 17-year-old child cannot give consent in the eyes of the law, then why in God's name are they not protected under the same law? How many more children will go through the trauma of being purchased by pedophiles before actual action is being taken?" Macedo asked in a written statement. 'Intent does not carry any weight in the courtroom or bring victims of these heinous acts justice."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Asked for a yes or no on nonprofit transparency, top Maryland Democrats don't answer
BALTIMORE — It should be an easy yes-or-no answer, according to taxpayer advocate David Williams. But when Spotlight on Maryland asked the state's top three Democrats whether they would ensure transparency and accountability as tax dollars flow through nonprofits, none offered a yes or no response. The Baltimore Sun reported last month that neither state budget officials nor individual agencies can say exactly how much state money is flowing to nonprofits each year. That disclosure has led some state officials to call for more oversight. In response, Spotlight on Maryland — a partnership of The Sun, WBFF FOX45 in Baltimore and WJLA in Washington, D.C. — has launched an investigation into how much taxpayer money is allocated to Maryland nonprofits and how those dollars are spent. As part of that reporting, Spotlight on Maryland asked Gov. Wes Moore, House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones and Senate President Bill Ferguson, if they would ensure full transparency and accountability around nonprofit funding. After receiving no response from Ferguson and Jones, Spotlight on Maryland sent a follow-up question to all three, asking if they would assist the investigation in the public interest as journalists follow the money through Maryland nonprofits. Moore, Jones and Ferguson did not respond to the follow-up question. 'This is crazy. It's an easy answer,' said Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. 'They should all say yes.' Moore, for his part, gave an answer on camera to a Spotlight on Maryland reporter at an unrelated news event in Salisbury last week. 'I think people know and realize that our administration believes in full transparency, that we understand that the things that we are going to support are things that are both sustainable and effective. And when you're looking at the entire budget for the state of Maryland, we are, we are very wise and smart stewards of taxpayer dollars to make sure that the right capital is going to the right usages,' the governor said. When The Sun asked last month whether Ferguson believes taxpayers should have access to a full accounting of how their money is spent and how much of it flows to nonprofits in Maryland, he said: 'All public dollars should be spent wisely and with the utmost care, whether a public agency or a nonprofit uses them. To that end, nonprofits are an important bridge between the state government and the communities they serve. That's why we have a robust audit division of the Department of Legislative Services that has been doing this important oversight work for decades.' As part of its July reporting, The Sun sent inquiries to individual state departments and agencies, asking them to provide the amount of money they allocate to nonprofits. A few offered specific dollar amounts. 'Many nonprofits receive funds directly from agency grant programs, and we don't track that centrally,' said Raquel Coombs, chief of staff for the Department of Budget and Management, in a July email. This lack of oversight raises concern, especially for a state that needed to make cuts and raise taxes to resolve a $3.3 billion budget deficit earlier this year. Nonprofit spending 'increases the size of government,' Williams said. The more that government spends — on nonprofits and other line items — the more taxpayer money that is needed to fund the government, he said. One political analyst said the state's top Democrats appear 'overly cautious' in not answering Spotlight on Maryland's follow-up questions on nonprofit spending. 'It seems like a no-brainer,' said Flavio Hickel, a political science professor at Washington College. 'You'd think they would say, 'I will do everything in my power to ensure good governance with taxpayer money.'' Why aren't they saying that? 'There are good nonprofits, but they're probably being cautious in case one bad actor fell through the cracks on their watch,' Hickel said. 'They're probably being overly cautious to prevent campaign ads down the line.' Even as the state's top leaders declined to answer Spotlight on Maryland's follow-up, the governor was quoted in a news release about his chief of staff, Fagan Harris, leaving for the top spot at the Abell Foundation, one of the state's biggest and most influential nonprofits with more than $300 million in assets. 'While he will be deeply missed personally and professionally, I look forward to working closely with him as he leads the Abell Foundation for years to come,' Moore said. Top officials in government administrations moving to nonprofits is similar to Pentagon officials going to work for defense contractors, Williams said. 'We need more checks and balances to stop the revolving door,' he said. 'The government and nonprofits are way too cozy. There needs to be a firewall.' Hickel said he couldn't comment on the specifics of Harris moving to a nonprofit and noted that it could be 'perfectly coincidental and benign.' But, he added, 'it does raise questions' about the relationship between the governor's office and influential nonprofits that shape life in Maryland. 'It's not uncommon at all, though, to see someone in a high government role going to work at a nonprofit,' Hickel said. 'We advise students to do that. We tell them to do legislative work for a few years, meet people, then go to a nonprofit.' --------------- Solve the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
20 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
This conversation is being recorded: Trump's hot mic moment is the latest in a long global list
LONDON (AP) — Behold the power of the humble hot mic. The magnifier of sound, a descendant of 150-year-old technology, on Monday added to its long history of cutting through the most scripted political spectacles when it captured more than two minutes of U.S. President Donald Trump and eight European leaders chit-chatting around a White House news conference on their talks to end Russia's war in Ukraine. The standout quote came from Trump himself to French President Emmanuel Macron even before anyone sat down. The American president, reflecting his comments after meeting in Alaska with Russian President Vladimir Putin: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me, you understand, as crazy as it sounds.' How politics and diplomacy sound when the principals think no one is listening can reveal much about the character, humor and humanity of our leaders — for better and sometimes for worse. As public figures, they've long known what the rest of us are increasingly learning in the age of CCTV, Coldplay kiss cams and social media: In public, no one can realistically expect privacy. 'Whenever I hear about a hot mic moment, my first reaction is that this is what they really think, that it's not gone through the external communications filter,' said Bill McGowan, founder and CEO of Clarity Media Group in New York. 'That's why people love it so much: There is nothing more authentic than what people say on a hot mic.' Always assume the microphone — or camera — is turned on Hot mics, often leavened with video, have bedeviled aspiring and actual leaders long before social media. During a sound check for his weekly radio address in 1984, U.S. President Ronald Reagan famously joked about attacking the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. 'My fellow Americans," Reagan quipped, not realizing the practice run was being recorded. "I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.' The Soviet Union didn't find it funny and condemned it given the consequential subject at hand. Putin, too, has fallen prey to the perils of a live mic. In 2006, he was quoted in Russian media joking about Israel's president, who had been charged with and later was convicted of rape. The Kremlin said Putin was not joking about rape and his meaning had been lost in translation. Sometimes a hot mic moment involves no words at all. Presidential candidate Al Gore was widely parodied for issuing exasperated and very audible sighs during his debate with George W. Bush in 2000. In others, the words uttered for all to hear are profane. Bush was caught telling running mate Dick Cheney that a reporter for The New York Times was a 'major-league a--hole.' 'This is a big f———- deal,' then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden famously said, loudly enough to be picked up on a microphone, as President Barack Obama prepared to sign his signature Affordable Care Act in 2010. Obama was caught on camera in South Korea telling Dmitri Medvedev, then the Russian president, that he'll have 'more flexibility' to resolve sensitive issues — 'particularly with missile defense' — after the 2012 presidential election, his last. Republican Mitt Romney, Obama's rival that year, called the exchange 'bowing to the Kremlin.' 'Sometimes it's the unguarded moments that are the most revealing of all,' Romney said in a statement, dubbing the incident 'hot mic diplomacy.' Live mics have picked up name-calling and gossip aplenty even in the most mannerly circles. In 2022, Jacinda Ardern, then New Zealand's prime minister, known for her skill at debating and calm, measured responses, was caught on a hot mic tossing an aside in which she referred to a rival politician as 'such an arrogant pr—-' during Parliament Question Time. In 2005, Jacques Chirac, then president of France, was recorded airing his distaste for British food during a visit to Russia. Speaking to Putin and Gerhard Schroder, he was heard saying that worse food could only be found in Finland, according to widely reported accounts. Britain's King Charles III chose to deal with his hot mic moment with humor. In 2022, shortly after his coronation, Charles lost his patience with a leaky pen while signing a document on a live feed. He can be heard grousing: "Oh, God, I hate this!' and muttering, 'I can't bear this bloody thing … every stinking time.' It wasn't the first pen that had troubled him. The British ability to poke fun at oneself, he said in a speech the next year, is well known: 'Just as well, you may say, given some of the vicissitudes I have faced with frustratingly failing fountain pens this past year.' Trump owns perhaps the ultimate hot mic moment The American president is famously uncontrolled in public with a penchant for 'saying it like it is,' sometimes with profanity. That makes him popular among some supporters. But even he had trouble putting a lid on comments he made before he was a candidate to "Access Hollywood' in tapes that jeopardized his campaign in the final stretch of the 2016 presidential race. Trump did not appear to know the microphone was recording. Trump bragged about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women who were not his wife on recordings obtained by The Washington Post and NBC News and aired just two days before his debate with Hillary Clinton. The celebrity businessman boasted 'when you're a star, they let you do it,' in a conversation with Billy Bush, then a host of the television show. On Monday, though, the chatter on both ends of the East Room press conference gave observers a glimpse of the diplomatic game. Dismissed unceremoniously from the White House in March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy now sat at the table with Trump and seven of his European peers: Macron, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finland's President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump complimented Macron's tan. He said Stubb is a good golfer. He asked if anyone wanted to ask the press questions when the White House pool was admitted to the room — before it galloped inside. The European leaders smiled at the shouting and shuffling. Stubb asked Trump if he's 'been through this every day?' 'He loves it. He loves it, eh?" she said.
New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
China restricts AI across the country to prevent kids cheating, America could learn from it
China now turns off AI for the whole country during exam weeks. That's because the Chinese Communist Party knows their youth learn less when they use artificial intelligence. Surely, President Xi Jinping is reveling in this leg up over American students, who are using AI as a crutch and missing out on valuable learning experiences as a result. It's just one of the ways China protects their youth, while we feed ours into the jaws of Big Tech in the name of progress. Advertisement When Chinese students sat for gaokao exams — intense four day college placement tests — in June, AI companies Alibaba, ByteDance, Tencent, and Moonshot all shut off useful features for would-be cheaters, including a photo-upload function that solves exam questions for you. 6 Chinese students sit for intense four day gaokao exams to determine what colleges they will attend. Getty Images 'China is a generally techno-optimist country,' Scott Singer, a tech scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for National Peace, told The Post Advertisement 'That said, the government will clamp down when it thinks technology will cause societal harm and when certain uses run counter to the country's interests. And China's government has shown it's not afraid to clamp down on its tech companies when it believes the circumstances require it.' All Chinese users who attempted to use the feature during exam days received an error message, according to Bloomberg. None of the companies that modified services made any public statement about the freeze in service, and none responded to request for comment from The Post. Moonshot could not be reached for comment. 6 Tristan Harris discussed China's regulation of artificial intelligence on Real Time with Bill Maher. Real Time with Bill Maher Advertisement Center for Humane Technology co-founder Tristan Harris said on Real Time with Bill Maher earlier this month that the move is 'actually really smart, because what it means is that students during the year can't just rely on AI to do all their homework.' Harris, a former design ethicist at Google turned Big Tech whistleblower, says that American kids, by contrast, are suffering learning losses from AI: 'We are seeing kids who are in a race. If the other kids in their class are cheating… they're gonna start cheating and using AI to outsource their thinking.' The science backs this up. A June MIT study suggests that AI degrades critical thinking skills. Researchers found that people who wrote essays with AI had less brain activity while doing work, retained less of the content, and outsourced more and more of their workload to AI over time. 6 High school teacher Murphy Kenefick says AI is a 'fight every assignment' in his classroom. Courtest of Murphy Kenefick Advertisement 'It's a fight every assignment,' Murphy Kenefick, a Nashville high school literature teacher, told The Post. 'I've caught it about 40 times, and who knows how many other times they've gotten away with it.' AI optimists often argue that, if we pump the breaks on AI, China will just surpass us. But Harris argues that whatever country learns to better regulate the new tech will be the real victor — because they'll have smarter citizens. 'What's guiding this is the race between the US and China — if we don't build it, we're just gonna lose to the country that will,' he explained. 'But this is a mistake, because [the winner is] actually who's better at governing the technology.' He added, 'We beat China to social media. Did that make us stronger or did that make us weaker?' 6 People who use AI for assignments have less brain activity while completing work, according to a recent MIT study. Alina – Harris is right. The US might have been cutting edge on rolling out platforms like Instagram and YouTube, but we were also cutting edge in hooking our kids and turning them into doom-scrolling zombies. China ultimately came out with the heroin of social media: TikTok. But, unlike us, they've always taken great care to protect their populace from harm. The CCP exported TikTok — with its twerking trends and dangerous challenges, while giving their own citizens a modified, less addictive, and more pro-social version. Advertisement 6 The CCP has heavily regulated youth access to technology under Xi Jinping. REUTERS Douyin, the Chinese iteration, has voice reminders and interruptions for users who scroll for too long. Teens under 14 are limited to only 40 minutes a day and are shown inspirational content, like science experiments, patriotic videos, and educational content, according to Harris. Douyin also censors information deemed counter to national interests, including content from economists who were critical of the Chinese economy, according to the New York Times. TikTok declined to comment on this matter. Advertisement Unlike the American government, the CCP wields authoritarian control over their populace and their tech companies. America shouldn't copy them wholesale. 6 Chinese citizens only have access to the Douyin app instead of TikTok. Mojahid Mottakin – But China is cunning, clever, and forward-looking. If they've decided that endless scrolling on TikTok and homework help from AI is bad for their kids, it's probably bad for ours too. 'China is correct to take the risks of AI seriously, not just for education but for society as a whole,' Anthony Aguirre, co-Founder and Executive Director of the Future of Life Institute, told The Post. Advertisement 'The United States will have very different ways of addressing this, but the answer can't be to do nothing. Lawmakers must step up now with clear safeguards to protect children and society from repeating the same mistakes we did with social media.' As we unleash AI — which has the potential to be the most transformative modern technology ever invented — onto the world, we must take great care to do so cautiously, especially when it comes to our youth. If we fail to, the next generation in China may leave their tech-addled counterparts in America in the dust. Perhaps the real arms race is the long game.
