Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Strictly speaking", in Minnesota where I am currently located, oral sex is prohibited, and is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine. Would you seriously defend an article that discusses this as "factually accurate"? Honestly, people keep going through incredible mental acrobatics to justify Aaron Swartz's actions.
>Would you seriously defend an article that discusses this as "factually accurate"? Is it not factually accurate? Could local law enforcement not arrest you for doing it and subject you to a trial or try to coerce you into a plea bargain, if they didn't mind the response from the public or the courts? Moreover, would you not oppose an effort to remove such a law from the books? How do you imagine anyone would lobby…
In Minnesota, oral sex is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine.
Factually accurate:
In Minnesota, by law, oral sex is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine. However, that law is never enforced and your chances of getting prosecuted are 0.
Factually accurate does not mean you can cherry pick your facts and pretend you are telling the whole truth just because each individual fact is accurate.