>>362248204
>If the accused thought he or she was communicating with a minor, this is enough evidence for a conviction

those laws only apply if you genuinely believe the person was underage. if a minor tells you they are 20, then you cant be convicted. I already covered this here >>362245671

thats why the FBI sting dudes always say "im 14 tee hee do you still want to continue?"

>>362248547
the janitor is deleting all posts about this and i cant blame him, this is awful and i cant stop replying