Read this story carefully:
"Anyone who had knowledge of these instant messages should have turned them over to authorities immediately, so that kids could be protected," he said earlier...The leader of the House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, has said Republican leaders "admitted to knowing about Mr Foley's abhorrent behaviour for six months to a year, and failed to protect the children in their trust."
They're talking as if this bloke has basically been sexually abusing children, yes? Yet as far as I can make out - and I hope I'm not just reading this wrong - the bloke was exchanging instant messages (i.e. a mutually agreeable exchange) with "young men on his staff". (i.e. they were employed adults). So could you say that his was a wholesale abuse of children, on that basis?
What he did isn't right, by any means, but surely he could be said to have, at best, behaved in a wholly inappropriate and unprofessional manner? If the "messages" were unsolicited, then his is a case of sexual harrassment in the workplace. Though you wouldn't want it on your CV, it isn't really in the same ballpark as child abuse.
The American propensity for piety never ceases to fascinate me.
Remind me, at what age and at what stage in life is it acceptable to become a sexual being in the US?
When you're over 21, married, Christian and straight?
I do like the litany of Mel Gibson stylee "excuses" he's seen fit to disclose, mind. Abused as a teenager? Check. Alcoholic? Check. Gay? Oh go on then, it's not like I'm getting my job back.