Amos Yee is what happens when you argue about laws without doing the legal reseach.

So I've broken down Amos Yee's advocacy of child molestation, but there was another point I touched on where he clearly had no grasp of the legal concept of consent and the foundation that the concept is based upon.

He goes on and one about "consent", well here's the thing with consent. Consent can be invalid. If the consent is given under duress, then the consent can be invalid. If the consent is not "informed" then it can be invalid. If the person giving the consent does not have capacity to consent, then the consent is invalid. You threaten someone to obtain consent? Invalid. You withhold critical, need to know information from someone to obtain their consent? Invalid. You get someone drunk and have them sign a contract? Invalid.You exert an undue influence on another to obtain consent? Invalid.

Which brings us to the main point that goes completely over Amos's head. The main thing that his argument completely fails to address. Capacity. He goes on to argue that children are able to give consent. He gives examples and says if a child gives consent to a sexual act, then it is ok. Well there are several reasons why he is wrong.

• Children lack capacity. Children lack the capacity to give consent to sexual activity. So even if consent was obtained from the child, the consent is invalid anyway. This is the biggest hole in his argument that he either ignored, or is simply ignorant of the concept. If it is indeed a case of ignorance, then this is one of the most glaring examples of what happens when a layperson tries to make an argument related to law. The miss key legal concepts like this and their argument completely disintegrates.  
• The pedophile may have exerted undue influence on the child to obtain consent. Ok let say that children do have capacity to give consent. The next sword that Amos's argument falls upon is the concept of undue influence. You know how we tell kids not to take candy from strangers? Well we tell them that because it isn't hard to influence a child to do something. So if a peodophile induces a child to consent to sexual acts with promises of candy or pizza, even without and acts of or threats of violence, that would be an undue influence exerted on the child and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Related to the above, is the lack of informed consent. Most if not all children do not understand what sexual activity is. The result of that is that because of that lack of understanding, a child cannot give informed consent, and therefore the consent would be invalid. 
• Then of course there's duress. There are multiple instances seen on The Steve Wilkos Show involving child predators, where the predator hasn't made an overt acts of violence (other than the actual act of molestation) but has obtained "consent" from the child in the form of verbal threats. Consent in this case? Yup, invalid.

Amos insists that his advocacy is non-violent. That is irrelevant and a non-factor because violence isn't the crux of the issue here, in-fact, consent isn't even the real issue here. The actual issue here is the ability to consent. 

Again Amos might just be trolling, but the fact of the matter is, he might not mean it, but someone out there might his argument and take it seriously. So even if this was entirely a massive troll by a 19 year old kid with a big mouth, writing this isn't an entire waste of time. He presents himself has having built a logical argument to advocate his points, while the structure of his argument is solid where he fails and fails hard is his complete lack of understanding of the legal terms and concepts. Knowing these terms and concepts is key because he's essentially arguing a change in the laws. He presents this advocacy with a complete lack of understanding of why the current laws are the way they are.

You might ask me, does it matter that Amos doesn't understand these concepts? Yes it does. It would be analogous to going into the design room of Boeing or Northrop-Grumman and telling the engineers that a particular modification should be made to a design, while having no knowledge of aeronautical engineering.


Now to start wrapping things up.

"America, land of the free?! Suck my oblong dick!"

Look sugar cookie, no one made you come here, and no one is making you stay here. This isn't some communist country, you're free to leave when ever you want if you don't like it here. There might be some other country in Europe that would be happy to host a child molestation advocate such as yourself. Don't expect to come to a country exposing views that run contrary to the prevailing social values and not expect backlash. Apparently you learned nothing from your troubles in your home country.

The reason you got support for your anti-government views was because you weren't harming anyone with your views, and yet the government cracked down on you anyway. The reason people don't have your back on decriminalizing child molestation because what you advocate harms children. Sure you provide a few isolated anecdotes and examples from non-western cultures, but you hardly prove that your examples are the norm.

The reason why I won't support Amos Yee on this is because the stance he advocates will cause harm to people. Even if he's just trolling, trolling is a fun and good when it stays on the internet, but what he's arguing for has real world implications.