Now, the annoying double standards thing about this is, there was a story here in the UK a few years back (I’ll see if I can find it in a while) about a man who had sex with a girl who he thought was above the age of consent because she lied about her age
Edit: Took another look at the story. It didn’t take place in a Bar or adult only setting that would otherwise keep under 18s from entering. She invited a bunch of random people into her house without checking IDs WTF… Also it’s not clear that she even looked at his facebook page. And even if she did, a facebook page could easily include a false birthdate. So it shouldn’t be enough to be a defense of reasonable mistaken age. But the law says knowingly. So British law should probably update it with “knowingly or recklessly”. She may not have been knowingly which is why she was not convicted. But she definitely fucking behaved recklessly. Which still makes her culpable morally. I don’t fault the jury, but I fault the law for being too narrow. It doesn’t seem that she behaved reasonably even if she genuinely thought he was older. In Sydney, where I live, she would have been convicted. Reasonable mistaken of age requires a lot and it’s something the accused must prove.
Kids are known for not caring one bit about terms of service and eula related stuff so they fake ages. Regardless, the existence of an affirmed defense is still important, since someone a year below the age of consent can bring in fake IDs or sneak into adult venues by fraud, claim they were really in their 20s but were actually a year shy of the age of consent. But the reasonable test is important, and the affirmed defense must always be something the accused prove. This is to protect the children. subhuman pederasts abusers should never be allowed to claim that they did not know when they raped the 8 year old girl.