Ho Ho Hold Up—Is That a Felony? St. Nick, Grey Areas, and the Legislature’s Summer Storm

Arts by Dylan is your place for Christmas in July

When James Cameron released The Terminator in 1984, I doubt even he imagined a future (our present) where artificial intelligence would be used to generate images of the former Governor of California—Arnold Schwarzenegger—as Santa Claus. And yet, here we are.

In a twist that feels more science fiction than reality, Schwarzenegger has already filmed a holiday movie, The Man with the Bag, in which he plays Santa. It’s not heading to theaters but will instead premiere on a platform that didn’t exist in 1984: the internet—specifically, Amazon, this October.

To make this even more surreal, this announcement comes via email—another innovation that had only just been invented in 1971 and wasn’t widely used when The Terminator first hit screens. The World Wide Web itself was still five years away.

But in 2025, somehow, all of this makes perfect sense. Welcome to the future.

Below is an A.I. generated table to help make sense of the current CA Legislature's debate.

My Thoughts on the Current Debate in the CA Legislature

I am just assuming they are confused like everyone else when it comes to sex in 2025.

For the record I consider the policy being debated to be already a felony, and one that easily could be charged as a felony under the statutory rape provisions.

But I guess if there was a "grey area" that needs debate, it would be some kind of situation in which a 19 or 20 year old kid/adult pays for sex from a 17 year old. And in the digital age where there are websites like Onlyfans and apps like snapchat in which money exchanges hands for nude images, a version of online sex work/prostitution, which is increasingly becoming normalized, should it really be a felony for a 18,19,20 year old to solicit sexual content in an online relationship with a 17 year old?

and where are the lines in all this, and is this just how modern dating works?

These are the kinds of questions and grey areas that CA and other legislatures will have to wrestle with in the coming years.

Having sex with minors as an adult is a crime and possible felony.

Under current law that falls within the misdemeanor wobbler kind of situation.

I don't think some 19 or 20 year old kid/adult who does that should be charged with a felony and have it on their record for the rest of their life. I don't agree with Senator Scott Weiner that much, but he recently tweeted this hypothetical. I do not think it is unreasonable for there to be some kind of "horny teenagers will be horny teenagers and that's not a felony" clause/provision/carve out within this law.

But I think the current law being debated is targeting older, creepy, disturbed and mentally ill people who go out searching for minors to have sex with.

And that situation is already a felony under the statutory rape provisions, but the law would make the solicitation a felony as well. Which is an easy decision to make.

I also think no matter what the final outcome is, horny teenagers will find some way around it. For example if a compromise comes in which the wobbler provisions remain in place, but the prostitution part becomes a a felony, this would may the act of paying for sex between a 19 and 17 year old a felony but the sex itself a misdemeanor. So they would probably just get creative and make it so the transaction was for a photo or literally anything else that wasn’t sex, and then the sex becomes just two teenagers fooling around close enough in age where it’s not a felony.

California’s Legal Crossroads: Protecting Teens, and the Surprising Patron Saint Who Already Tried

In Sacramento, a heated debate is unfolding over how California should treat the crime of soliciting sex from older teens — specifically, 16- and 17-year-olds. Under current law, purchasing sex from a child under 16 is a felony, while doing so with a 16- or 17-year-old is typically a misdemeanor. A recent Republican-backed proposal aimed to close that gap by making all sex purchases involving minors — no matter their age — a felony. Though supported by some moderate Democrats, the proposal was blocked in committee, prompting accusations that California is failing its most vulnerable teens.

The issue has sparked passionate arguments on both sides. Supporters of the proposed change say it’s a matter of moral clarity: no minor can consent to sex work, and the law should reflect that unequivocally. Critics worry the law might be used selectively — for example, by disapproving parents in the case of interracial or LGBTQ+ teen relationships. Governor Gavin Newsom, normally reluctant to weigh in on pending legislation, released a strong statement:

“The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same — as a felony, regardless of the intended victim’s age. Full stop.”

It’s a familiar moral tug-of-war — how best to protect, and how not to overreach. But surprisingly, it’s a dilemma that echoes back centuries — to St. Nicholas, a name more commonly associated with reindeer and sleigh bells than with law and justice.

The Patron Saint of Children — and Prostitutes?

Long before he became Santa Claus, St. Nicholas of Myra was a 4th-century bishop in what is now Turkey. While his reputation as the bringer of Christmas gifts is well known, fewer know that he is also the patron saint of sex workers — a title earned not through condemnation, but compassion.

According to one legend, Nicholas learned of a desperate father with three daughters. Unable to afford dowries, the man planned to sell his daughters into prostitution. Moved by their plight, Nicholas secretly dropped bags of gold through the family’s window — enough for each girl to marry and escape that fate. It was an act of quiet rescue, not judgment — one that framed him as a protector not just of innocence, but of dignity in the face of exploitation.

That dual legacy — protector of both children and women trapped by circumstance — feels particularly relevant as California lawmakers consider how the legal system should treat older teens in sex work. Are they rebellious young adults? Or children still in need of protection from predatory adults?

The law currently sees a distinction: under 16, you’re a victim of a felony crime; at 16 or 17, it’s a misdemeanor.Critics say that legal line ignores the real dynamics of coercion, poverty, grooming, and power that draw minors into sex work — regardless of whether they're 13 or 17. Supporters of the existing structure say changing the law might have unintended consequences, like being used to criminalize consensual, though illegal, relationships between close-in-age partners.

Assemblymember Maggy Krell, a Democrat and former prosecutor who has worked on trafficking cases, attempted to bridge the divide. Her original bill included the felony provision, but under political pressure, the protection for 16- and 17-year-olds was stripped out. She stood by the original intent:

“I don't care whether my name is on the bill, but I'm happy to support it if it includes protection for 16- and 17-year-olds.”

The Legal Loophole: A Modern Window Without Gold

In many ways, California’s legal loophole is the modern-day version of that window in the legend of St. Nicholas — but this time, there’s no one throwing in gold. Instead, 16- and 17-year-olds — still legally children, unable to vote or sign contracts — are exposed to a legal system that treats their exploitation as less severe than that of a 15-year-old.

Sex trafficking experts argue that predators know this. It shapes how they target teens. If you’re a buyer, the legal risk is much lower when the girl is 16 — even if she was groomed since 13. Closing that gap, supporters say, wouldn’t just be symbolic. It would realign California’s legal code with its ethical stance: that no minor should be for sale.

Where the Law Goes Next

Following the controversy, Assembly Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz said the bill could return for reconsideration with more discussion in coming weeks. Meanwhile, Republicans and some Democrats continue to frame the issue in stark moral terms.

“Do 16- and 17-year-olds deserve the same protection as all other minors when it comes to child prostitution?” asked Republican leader James Gallagher. “This body needs a moral compass.”

Perhaps that compass already exists — in the unlikely figure of St. Nicholas. A man who didn’t wait for a vote to do what was right. Who saw exploited children not as criminals, but as people in need of rescue.

As California lawmakers debate justice in modern terms — statutes, penalties, enforcement tools — it may be worth remembering that compassion, when backed by courage, has always been the foundation of real protection.

Two hypotheticals one more likely then the other.

As far as this policy being debated goes there have been reports of some members changing their opinion after thinking about their children and daughters. This is a good Santa Claus kind of thing.

But also let’s assume that no child of any member of the CA Legislature is at risk of being sex trafficked into prostitution. The likelihood of that is 0%. So this scenario as an assumption is unlikely to happen, but the political rhetoric around this debate is intense, so it’s not illogical or wrong to have an emotional reaction and switch positions on this policy.

But here’s another hypothetical scenario that is probably more likely but equally problematic. Hypothetically let’s say a member’s 16 or 17 year old daughter meets a 18 or 19 year old boy at church or through some friends or something. The guy by all accounts is nice, respectful, decent, comes from a good family, has ambition, basically the kind of guy a father wouldn’t mind their daughter dating after some time of coming around to the idea of being okay with their daughter dating in the first place.

In this scenario imagine the boy telling a member’s daughter something like.

“I would like to date you, but I can’t because a few years ago CA passed a law that would make us going out and being in a relationship a felony. Under the letter of the law I could become a felon if we were to have sex because of a law your father voted for a few years ago.”

This scenario would be a reason to keep things as status quo.

Also contemplating the ramifications and domestic bliss problems that potentially might arise by changing the law, is also being a good Santa Clause in the sense of thinking about your kids and being a good parent.

California Law on Nude Images ("Revenge Porn" & Related Offenses)

✅ What Constitutes a Nude or Sexual Image

Under California law, a "nude image" typically refers to:

• Photographs, videos, or digital images showing uncovered genitals, buttocks, or female breasts, or sexually explicit conduct.

This includes photos, videos, screenshots, or digitally altered content, as long as it depicts identifiable individuals in a sexual or nude context.

---

✅ What Constitutes Consent

Consent means that the person freely and knowingly agreed to:

• Create or take the image,
• And/or share or distribute the image.

If a person consented to a nude photo being taken but did not consent to it being shared, then distribution is illegal.

---

🚫 Illegal Acts Under California Law

1. Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images ("Revenge Porn")

• Penal Code §647(j)(4): It is illegal to intentionally distribute an image of someone’s intimate body parts or sexual conduct without their consent, and with the intent to cause emotional distress.
• Misdemeanor offense: Punishable by up to 6 months in jail, fines, and possible civil lawsuits.

2. Invasion of Privacy

• Secretly recording or photographing someone in a private setting (e.g., bathroom, bedroom) without consent is a crime, even if the person is partially or fully clothed.

---

🤖 What About AI-Generated Nudes?

This is a rapidly evolving legal area, but here’s how it currently stands in California:

🔹 AI-Generated Images ("Deepfakes")

• If an AI-generated nude image depicts a real person, even if it was never an actual photo, it may be illegal under California's "deepfake" and defamation laws.

🔹 Relevant Laws:

• Civil Code §1708.85: Allows victims to sue for damages if someone distributes a sexually explicit deepfake of them without consent.
• Penal Code §647(j)(4) may apply if the AI image is used to harass, intimidate, or humiliate a person and causes emotional distress.

✅ Key point: If the AI image looks like a real person, especially a celebrity, classmate, or ex-partner, and is shared without consent, it can be treated legally as a non-consensual nude image — even if it’s entirely synthetic.

---

📌 Summary

The image above is artificially generated and falls within the boundaries of artistic expression and free speech because it is not a deep fake or an artificially intelligent nude image depicting an ex girlfriend or any real life person.