A.G. Gancarski
The House has agreed to Senate changes on a bill enhancing penalties for online child exploitation, passing Republican Rep. Jessica Baker’s amended bill (HB 1545).
The legislation would, if it becomes law, increase the points that prosecutors and Judges use in the offense severity ranking chart (OSRC) formula to determine penalties for a variety of heinous crimes involving “possession, promotion, and production of child sexual abuse material.” It seeks to remedy Florida’s relative leniency on online child exploitation as compared to other states and the federal government.
These include prohibiting a person from using a child in a sexual performance, prohibiting a person from promoting a sexual performance by a child, prohibiting a person from possessing child pornography with the intent to promote, and prohibiting a person from possessing or intentionally viewing child pornography.
Baker moved to concur with the amended bill, which incorporates GOP Sen. Jonathan Martin’s amendment targeting what Martin dubbed “grooming language,” called “harmful communication to a minor” in the bill rather than using the word “grooming” itself as it did in previous versions of the language.
This stipulates that an “adult who engages in a pattern of communication to a minor that includes explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual activity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement and that is harmful to minors commits a felony of the third degree.”
Baker, in dialogue with Democrats, said there was “no grooming language in the bill,” however.
The new language also says a “person’s ignorance of a minor’s age, a minor’s misrepresentation of his or her age, a bona fide belief of a minor’s age, or a minor’s consent may not be raised as a defense in a prosecution for a violation of this section,” removing a potential for victim blaming from the bill language.
Democrats pressed Baker on the bill’s meaning, including on this passage.
“We’re talking about an adult having sexual conversations with a minor,” Baker said when asked about whether “intent” mattered in these scenarios. She noted that there is no “carve-out” in the bill to protect adults as young as 18 having such conversations.
