http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/child.groom.ap/index.html

Lisa Lynnette Clark, 37, was also forbidden to have any contact with her teenage husband -- the alleged father of her 1-month-old son -- until at least his 17th birthday. After her release, she will be on probation until 2010.

Clark will also not be allowed to have contact with any children other than her own, and will be required to register as a sex offender, prosecutor Lee Darragh said.

If she violates any of the conditions, a judge could sentence her to 20 years in jail.

Clark was arrested in November on charges of statutory rape, child molestation and enticing a minor. A few days before her arrest, she married the boy under a 1962 Georgia law that allows children of any age to get married if the bride-to-be is pregnant. Clark gave birth on February 11.

The wedding prompted Georgia lawmakers to revisit the state's marriage laws, and last month the House voted to bar teens under 16 from marrying without juvenile court permission. The Senate has not taken up the bill.

The boy's grandmother, Judy Hayles, has said her grandson will seek a divorce and undergo intense counseling.

Clark's attorney, Daniel Sammons, said the boy wants to continue the marriage: "He loves Lisa Clark and wishes to have a life together and raise their child."

After Clark's arrest, the boy bolted from a detention center in Georgia and was found in Cleveland. Investigators said Clark contacted him while he was gone.

Ah, that poor 'child', getting 'raped' by a 37-year old woman. She must have threatened him with death or severe bodily harm in order to succeed in 'raping' him! Oh, wow. [sarcasm]

A 15-year old getting married? What's the big deal? Heck, in Israel, they'd probably wonder why the old bachelor waited around so long. [somewhat kidding]

I say, let 'em have each other IF they're in love and can demonstrate they're willing & able to provide good care for their baby. Have a social worker make frequent-enough surprise visits to check on conditions in the home, etc.

I dont see why this is at all relivent to this site.

a 18yr old girl did me when i was 9yr old, should i report her or go back for more ?

You don't see the relevence to the site ?

"A woman who married a 15 year old pleaded guilty to statutory rape and was sentenced to 9 months in jail. (The RIAA had no comment, since they could find no piracy, but would not rule out suing the 15 year old for statutory damages.- ed)"

Do you have some humour disorder? Do you get pissed everytime the New York Times publishes a story about India?

lol.

That is a bit of a stretch leflaw (...not to say that there isn't some "stretching" in the article by our friend William Brown below. But William seems actually to BELIEVE the tie-in he attempts to make.)

Was that the point you were making?

Much better humor than my "Spice Girls" thread from last week.

Obviously this illicit relationship is due to the influence of pirated mashups.

thats sort of sweet i suppose

still kind way off topic of what this site is about anyway

Maybe if the 15 yr old played the guitar or was a gangsta-rapper... It would seem more relevant.

I have decided that the people at this site are too narrow minded and need more education. What part of the concept of GESTALT don't you all understand?

nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'

I don't know what this has to do with the RIAA either.

Don't quit your day job leflaw, comedy or whatever you were trying to do with this post isn't your forte.

For most, this war against the RIAA is serious business. Sad to see that the owner to this web page seems to take his responsibilities here so lightly.

Lighten up BusterPigMan I thought it was an interesting article!!! "Sad to see that the owner to this web page seems to take his responsibilities here so lightly". Dude Leflaw pays the bills around here and at Dmusic and I'm sure that those bills aren't Lite!!!!!!!! Leflaw I would hate to see what your bandwith costs are each month!!!!!

See this is what happened:
The poor boy was walking home drunk in the middle of the night, unfortunately, he had left his I-POD full of pirated music over at his friend's where they found the I POD and Illegally extracted every copyrighted song on it. The lady, who had just happened to drive by in her stolen car listening to backup CDRs on her car sterio, saw the boy and offered him a ride, he accepted. The lady, who had just happened to have heard a pirated version of NIN's 'Closer' was horny as hell... and the boy, having just heard a pirated version of 'Pop that pussy' was horney too. So he ended up taking him home and after listening to a pirated version of 'Let's get it on' they did the nasty!
...Jeez people, you're so blind to the obvious!

I'm going to cast my vote in favor of an occasional diversion. Comic relief, it might be called.
A little human interest story now and then is just fine, folks. Lighten up.

Go Gestalt.
Go eclectic.

"What part of the concept of GESTALT don't you all understand?"

How a whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
(Just kidding, Larry!)

Wow, talk about the humoursly challenged around here..sheesh..lighten up guys...life isn't all about the riaa....as much as they'd like you to keep believing that...

Why is this posted here........? Is someone writing a musical comedy/drama about this? Is there some RIAA sub-plot I missed....? This is more CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC oriented crap…….. It is certainly not Dmusic worthy….

this is great, ppl arguing about how off topic this is... yall just have a life fully scripted and cant take change.

on the other hand, if they want to be together so be it.. let them move to israel geez! Baha i dunno i think its wrong because of the publics reations to it, and its not allowed, but damn tey should still be able to see each other.

!levi!

Yeah, you guys need to calm down, who care's if it's off topic. Does it really matter? if the future of DMusic and all that it has built up possibly doomed because of this? nah! Besides, it was funny, what loser chick gets pregnent by someone a third of her age? (sorry mom)

indeed! Baha oh god DMUSIC IS IN MAJOR PERIL!

Better be careful. You may just piss off leflaw and he's going to give us his Wyatt Earp impersonation again.

Wouldn't worry about it much though, after all the guys name is LAWRENCE.

Man that has geek written all over it.

Tell that to Lawrence of Arabia, putz.

Baha this is great.. i learn so mmuch from this damn website! VOTE LAURA AND I FOR DM COUPLE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!

"Makes you wonder whats really in the guys mind when he posts perverted crap like this instead of riaa related news."

Yeah sure prolly makes you wonder, but not most because we have more time spent on otheer things then on whats inside "the guys" head. like i said yall cant handle change and a little mix up. let it go, mabye he just wanted to let us know about it.

!levi

i thought i commented on this early, but on the real, who cares if its not related to music, its something we need to address... is it really the end of teh world if its not related to music.. gosh... leflaw nice article... i wish i was raped as a 15 year old , by a girl... by a girl... that wasnt too big...

In a way, I think this article actually is on topic. I mean, how messed up is the law that says it's ok for her to marry this 'child', yet even though she is legally married to him she gets thrown in jail for having sex with him. I mean isn't that what married couples do, have sex??? Yes, I realize that they had sex before they were married but doesn't it seem a little hypocritical that the law says "you can legally get married if..." but then says that the "if" part of that is illegal? Now, apply that to the topic of this site, think about it folks, it's legal for me to make a copy of a CD I buy if that copy is for my own personal use, but if the CD is copy protected, the DMCA says it's not legal for me to break the copy protection. Same kind of thing, it's legal to do THIS, but not legal to perform the action neccessary to get to THIS. I think it's also important to see that it's not just the laws surrounding the music industry and the like that this site focuses on that are getting out of whack. Laws in every aspect of our lives are getting out of whack and we need to see all of them or else what happens when we're looking at 'this' and they mess with 'that'?

Wow, way to go, leflaw! Kudos for deleting that twerp's personally offensive message about you (it was right after k3vin's post, of course). I say, let that be a lesson to those who think they can get away with just saying any kind of gross crap they feel like to a member, admin, or owner.


Regarding what furrball316 wrote: Yes, agreed. Good post.

^^

who was that guy??? a hater-rater spy from thr RIAA obviously!

He went too far with a post that's no longer showing, and I'm glad it got deleted.

i saw him.. i posted a comment about his comment! oh frrball i like the way you approached that!

BTW, what he/she wrote (a villifying post) without including his/her real name is a violation of a new federal law.

If you're talking about that bill forcing online identification, which by the way is pending, BollWeevil, Gadfly, whatever may want to check out Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Long story short, this enhances free speech by making it unnecessary for ISPs and other service providers to unduly restrict customers' actions for fear of being found legally liable for customers' conduct. It provides complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their systems.

Funny though how the so-called advocates of free speech here (yeah right) would back something like the Biondi Bill, which in itself is chilling.

If I was some people on this website I'd be more worried about his threats of killing fellow members and calling for the murder of a sitting Vice President.

All of which "are" violations of federal law!

BollWeevil you're sitting pretty, the bill stalled read about it here.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181503705&subSection=Columns

As for your privacy right you may want to check out Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

http://www.privacyrights.org/index.htm

Good luck gad.

"Funny though how the so-called advocates of free speech here (yeah right) would back something like the Biondi Bill, which in itself is chilling."

People here at this website are backing something like the Biondi Bill? (That's news to me.)

I only mentioned an online identification requirement (which I really thought had already passed into law) as a warning to the likes of those who have posted, or may yet post, grossly vile or even threatening messages toward someone. Doesn't equate to being against free speech as constituted by the first amendment.
As I've said elsewhere on different threads, a person can't just say anything anywhere anytime with impunity. There are some limits. The record on jurisprudence, as well as common sense, bears it out.

"grossly vile or even threatening messages toward someone"

I did see this and it didn't come from BollWeevil\Gadfly.

If I was Gadfly, I'd have a good case for at the very lest, public threats of manslaughter by the alleged abuser. Assuming that Gad has saved all the threads. Which I'm sure he has! Not to mention anti-government posting which you may find on any Nazi message board, but even they're not stupid enough to call for the "gutting of the Vice Prez"

Man this guy Gad is going to own this site before long.

"If I was some people on this website I'd be more worried about his threats of killing fellow members and calling for the murder of a sitting Vice President."

Part of what you're referring to goes back to Boycott-RIAA article 14814 on November 3, 2004. "Sweetie"/"Gadfly"/(whatever chameleon username it is at the moment)... a person harboring vindictiveness and bitterness can ultimately get affected adversely by such emotions over an extended period of time.

"Assuming that Gad has saved all the threads. Which I'm sure he has!"

I'm also confident Gad has saved them. But you, yourself, are in the very best position to know that, aren't you?

"Man, this guy Gad is going to own this site before long."

That and vengeance is your main focus.

Part of the vengeance aspect has taken the form of disparaging remarks about the website and some of its members.

Ignorance or ill tempered are no excuse for breaking the law.

Gad, I'm lawyer if you ever want me to take a case let me know.

You're either Gad or someone speaking for him/her.

But you are not an attorney.

god i miss all the fun, and what do u mean right after my post, does this hint im may have a link

K3vin:

Following your 1:42 A.M. message, someone posted a vile comment about the owner (leflaw), and then it got deleted. A few people, including myself, read it before it got removed.

That poster spoke of Lawrence of Arabia as having been sexually molested by some Arabs, and then made a very inappropriate reference to Lawrence (Larry) Feldman whose username is leflaw.

BTW, I wish administrators (and even a few select members) could red-flag as "PT" (Probable Troll) a poster whose messages fit the troll definition.
Of course, when a post approaches the villifying level, it often deserves to be deleted.

It got took care of OldCodger. (Maybe not as quickly as would have/should have been...) But I, leflaw, and ALSO a number of other Dmusic admin DO try to pay attention to anything that is said in these threads & articles that we post at Dmusic and Boycott-Riaa.

(We do NOT just stick things up and then ignore them ...especially anything that is still on the front pages.)

=============
Folks, it is ok to disagree and argue with the admin of Dmusic and Boycott-Riaa over any particular topic so long as you do NOT cross the line by continually calling us (or especially, other visitors/users) vile names.

You can disagree with us and/or each other about things if you want, but the RULE we are "laying down" is that you have got to be respectful of each other.

Being a disruptive "troll" and/or deliberate side-tracking of the thread, making threats of harm, spam, child-porn advocacy, hate speech, etc. are NOT the kind of things we will tolerate.

Sheesh, it's NOT that hard to figure out.

Just be REASONABLE when participating in Dmusic and Boycott-Riaa forums.

(File all this under "Troll Troubles" that most popular/known online forums must deal with.)

lol

independentmusician:"...but the RULE we are 'laying down' is that you have got to be respectful of each other."

Leflaw: "I have decided that the people at this site are too narrow minded and need more education."

... Way to go, team.

You mean, you DON'T want administrators (for example) to put a flag/label of "PT", as I had suggested, adjacent to those who post demeaning or repulsive messages . . . and NOT delete the worst?
Do you feel the site should just let people post ANYthing at all? If so, do you think that would help our team get more "education"?

Sorry; it's not in the cards.

I meant Boycott-Riaa.

The issues are not free Cds and beer.

And tell dragnet that practicing law without a license can get you into trouble.

"I meant Boycott-RIAA.

The issues are not free CDs and beer."

LOL!

"And tell dragnet that practicing law without a license can get you into trouble."

Oh, that's SUPER, leflaw!!!

ok i was on top of things yesterday but now who is dragnetdrag, and who is gad? i saw the post about leflaw (which was idiotic), but now im lost! i read over everything twice... lol