It doesn't apply to anyone under the age of 14, so the "11 year old" bit is a complete lie.
If someone in their 20s screws a teenager that is within 10 years of them, and it is not forcible, judges are no longer required to put them on the sex offender's registry, the judge gets to decide; the judge could already decide except in the case of blowjobs and buttseks and now the judge can decide for those, too. It's still a felony unless you are within two years of age, and it still gets you sent to prison, just if you screw a girl and knock her up and were within ten years of her age, it was possible to avoid the sex offender registry, but *not* if she blew you. Mandatory minimum sentencing has been a disaster anyway.
And if I have to answer for things done by a San Francisco dipshit that I voted against, I've got some things to say about everyone else's leaders.
@djsumdog@dcc@pernia@p >10 years seems like a lot though My grandfather was 12 years older than my grandmother, I don't consider it bad but sexual intercourse under 14yo is not ok imo.
> but sexual intercourse under 14yo is not ok imo.
As noted, it doesn't apply under 14, and it doesn't make it legal, it just removes one mandatory part: you still do time, just if they are over 14 and you are less than 10 years, you don't have to be on the sex offender registry for the rest of your life.
@mangeurdenuage@dcc@djsumdog@pernia So the question "Why do people hate California?" is apparently related to "Because people on the internet lie about California."