this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025

67 points (95.9% liked)

news

263 readers

567 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
No link shorteners
No entire article in the post body

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

dude@lemmings.world

Megyn Kelly slammed for questioning if Jeffrey Epstein was really a pedophile: ‘He was into the barely legal type’ (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 6 days ago by dude@lemmings.world to c/news@lemmings.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] coyootje@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The gross part is that she apparently considers 15 "the barely legal type". I don't know what the rules in the US are but 15? Are you for real?

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 14 points 6 days ago

“Barely Legal” is a porn term for girls who just turned 18 (or look young enough to pass as 18)

So no, Megyn Kelly is a gross pedo supporter. 15 is “still illegal” not “barely legal”

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It varies by state.

Surprisingly, Florida is one of the stricter states where the main age of consent is 18, but if the older person is 23 or younger then the younger person can be as young as 16 and still be legal. Which is still creepy imo, and would not apply to Trump, Epstein, or any other alleged Epstein associates that I'm aware of.

Of course trafficking and sexual assault is still illegal and terrible when the victims are adults too.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

At one time in Florida it was legal to own slaves, and illegal to participate in the Underground Railroad to free them.

Don't confuse legality with morality. Sometimes the former takes time to catch up with the latter.

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I specifically said I still find it creepy even though it's legal.

And I do agree with the principal of those relative-age laws, I just disagree with the numbers.

[+] Rooster326@programming.dev 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No, the alternative to that "creepy" range is to just change the numbers. The reason I included "imo" is because it's subjective, and should likely change over time as society changes. But I think right now a 23 year old and a 16 year old seems like too far of a stretch.

1/2 Age + 7 is a common heuristic, and it's one I agree with. With that logic, an 18 year old can be with a 16 year old and a 20 year old can be with a 17 year old. You could argue either way on rounding- should the limit for a 17 year old be 15 or 16? Should a 19 year old be 16 or 17? Or do we get more ganular- down to the age in months or even days? Maybe it's something best left for judges to decide case by case?

I think there's also room for some difference between what is commonly acceptable and what is legal. An 18 year old with an 80 year old is undoubtedly creepy but perfectly legal, and I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean it should never exist, but if I were friends with someone on either end of such a pairing I would feel obliged as a friend to have a good talk with them about that.

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

You know what. I agree, let's allow judges do case-by-case. Why not make all law case-by-case? It always ends well.

I mean it is going so well for our democracy already.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

that's effectively what common law is anyway.

claim to be judging objectively via "precedent", but really all your doing is looking for the tinniest shred of past legitimacy to bullshit whatever answer you really want. common law just being a bastardization of roman law, designed by a bunch of inbred english aristocrats to hold onto their waning power

if you want actual objective law you need to switch to civic law

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

That's how the US justice system, and most justice systems in the world, have worked for centuries. Judges and juries making judgements.

If you look at criminal codes, the guidelines for fines, jail time, and other sentences have an incredibly wide range of possibilities. It's not just a black-and-white "either you fall within the legal age range and you're consequence-free or if you're one minute off you're spending life in jail!".

Beyond that, you need to consider how these cases would even end up in a court. If sex happens between a 20 year old and a 16 year old and they have a successful and happy relationship for years, no one cares. If the 16 year old's parents complain, you can argue that the 16 year old is not capable of consenting, but... It's kind of weird if a 16 year old is deemed mature enough to make their own decision to have sex with an 18 year old but not mature enough to have sex with a 20 year old, isn't it? And if the 16 year old takes the stand in favor of their 20 year old lover, it's kind of silly to lock that 20 year old up.

The world is a complicated place, and justice systems need the flexibility to account for what is impossible to legislate.

[–] LordMayor@piefed.social 28 points 6 days ago

And what? She think middle age men trafficking 18-21 to old women is ok?

Fucking creeps.

We know there were children there. She’s a gaslighting ghoul.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

He was into the under age type like the most of the gop leaders

[–] moobythegoldensock 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Guys, I think we should hear her out. Tell us more about how you think it’s fine to rape 15 year old children.

Gotta get those defenses in early for when it comes out that Trump definitely participated.

[–] Gerudo@lemmy.zip 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Just a reminder that this pile of trash has a 15 year old daughter, too. Might want to check up on her.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Her daughter was born in 2011, so she’s most likely 14, maybe still turning 14 later this year, just fyi. Your point stands, because she’s turning 15 next year and that’s still creepy as fuck.

[–] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

What they're arguing for is exploiting and consuming the children of the permanent underclass they're creating, not their own children, silly.

[–] TheAsianDonKnots@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 days ago

It’s crazy to see their open distain for the law. Dude was a CONVICTED sex pest and sent to prison and you’re going to write an op-Ed about maybe he was a good dude who just liked em young. Fucking gross.

[–] radio@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago

Is this the new talking point they are going with? Yeah, Epstein and his best bud Trump did some illegal, disgusting shit, but it wasn't technically pedophilia guys! Stop saying that word! Please?

They sound like reddit incels.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

And by “barely legal type” she means actually underage, but could pass for above the age of consent.

[–] meisterah@ttrpg.network 5 points 6 days ago

Of course she tries to downplay it after trump has more evidence against him.

[–] 58008@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

"Why is blackface offensive?"
"Jeffrey wasn't technically a paedophile"

What's next for this wretched cunt? "Drilling holes into your baby's knees and threading through guitar strings might actually be a good idea, contrary to what the woke left might tell you".