The correspondence began on July 4, 2020, through the Grindr application, regarding which the plaintiff testified that its use is intended for adults only. After establishing the initial contact through the application, the plaintiff’s interlocutor asked him to switch to the WhatsApp application and send messages to 055-9531685. The correspondence continued through the WhatsApp application; in this way, the plaintiff’s phone number, name, and other personal details were revealed. I want to point out that the correspondence includes discourse of a sexual nature, which I did not find written down explicitly but by implication.  As stated above, the transcript of the post was not submitted as part of an opinion, and it is impossible to learn from it the details of the numbers from which the messages were sent. The call was also not shown through the plaintiff’s mobile device.  

1.  In any case, the correspondence shows that already on July 5, 2020, the plaintiff asked the age of his interlocutor, saying that it was vital for him to make sure that he was an adult (p. 11 of the correspondence, minute 9:50 and minute 9:53). In the absence

of an explicit answer, the plaintiff wrote: ” Are you young, like?” However, he answered with an evasive answer. Then, he replied that he would answer the following question and noted: “Whatever you want is just not revealed.”  This evasion did not prevent the plaintiff from adding and corresponding with his interlocutor, asking him about his sexual tendencies, experience, and sexual preferences 

2.  The correspondence between the parties was resumed on July 18, 2020, at the plaintiff’s initiative. Even if the interlocutor’s age was not explicitly stated in the previous post, plaintiff’s interlocutor said, “I am 14 years old.”  Even after stating this age, the post continued for about an hour, during which the Plaintiff again asked the minor about his sexual orientation and experience. Then, He requested that he delete the call and phone number). The call ended at the Plaintiff’s initiative about ten minutes later.

 3.  The next day, the correspondence was resumed at the initiative of the plaintiff’s interlocutor, and a short conversation occurred. A few days later, the post was renewed by the minor. During the conversation, which continued intermittently for about five hours, it came up again that the interlocutor’s age is 14 )  As part of that conversation, the subject of the plaintiff’s sexual orientation and experience, as well as that of his interlocutor, came up. In the course of the conversation, the plaintiff asked The interlocutor what is his purpose in the relationship that was created: “Do you want sexual things from me? Or do you want me to advise you? Or are you just interested in getting to know each other as friends?” When the interlocutor replied that he wanted to know everything, the prosecutor replied: think of something you want to know, and you think I can help with it… I’m ready to help and teach you,” and even explicitly stated his fear that “there is no lack of those who tempt people and then destroy their lives.”  

 As part of the conversation, voice conversations were held; the parties exchanged pictures while Guy Viles asked the boy to delete them. As it appears from the correspondence, doubts arose regarding the age of the plaintiff’s interlocutor at the beginning of the relationship (as early as 7/5/2020). These doubts did not prevent the plaintiff from continuing to correspond with the minor, asking him about his sexual tendencies, experience, and sexual preferences. After this conversation, the correspondence was terminated and resumed approximately two weeks later, on July 18, 2020, when Plaintiff was told explicitly that he was talking to a 14-year-old boy. Even at that time, this fact did not lead Plaintiff to stop. Instead, it continued for several hours, and the conversation also tended to topics of a sexual nature. 

 The plaintiff claims that he suspected that his interlocutor was an impostor. This suspicion grew stronger during several correspondences and led him to the decision to stop the mail. But then he feared that maybe he was wrong and it was a confused teenager, so he continued the conversation.

 These explanations of the plaintiff did not inspire confidence, nor were they consistent with the language of the correspondence. As is evident from the post, the plaintiff corresponded with his interlocutor and was aware of his alleged age. Although he knew his age, he continued to correspond with him, a correspondence which sometimes carried a sexual nature. Even when it became clear that he was an impostor, in terms of the plaintiff’s mindset, as reflected in the correspondence, he did correspond with a minor. It was expected of the plaintiff, especially considering his hand and the work of children, to exercise extra caution and stop the correspondence as soon as he learned the age of his interlocutor.

At the same time, we have before us only correspondence, while the first publication used the plural language. Also, the wording of the third publication implies that this is common with the plaintiff and the existence of additional correspondence. There is no indication of additional similar posts by the plaintiff.  The same goes for the second publication. The second publication attributed a criminal offense to the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was not charged with anything and was acquitted of a similar crime—the implied assertion arising from the publication. The conversation resumed briefly the next day, also at the initiative of the plaintiff’s interlocutor. It continued with breaks for over a month, during which the age of the plaintiff’s interlocutor was brought up more than once. During the conversation on August 2, 2020, the plaintiff requested that his interlocutor send him a recent photo.  When his interlocutor replied that he understood that the plaintiff did not want to meet with him, the plaintiff replied, “Whatever you decide, I did not say that.”  Later in the conversation, the plaintiff admitted that his interlocutor was confusing him and that, on the one hand, he wanted to get to know him but was afraid because of his age. I believe that the plaintiff was wrong in his conduct (since he should have stopped the correspondence where there was only concern about the existence of a minor)