No, this is entirely factually incorrect: <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68486.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68486.html</a> and <a href="http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/crime/crime11152011.wvx" rel="nofollow">http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/wmedia/judiciary/crime/crime11...</a><p><i>“The DoJ is in no way interested in bringing cases against people who lie about their age on dating sites, or anything of the sort. We don’t have the time or resources to do that,” Downing said during testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee.</i><p>I think this is about as explicit and straightforward a refutation as anyone could possibly want.<p><i>George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, who also testified before the House subcommittee, said he is not sure that DOJ is going to keep its word, and is confused as to what exactly the current Justice Department position is.</i><p>I'll bet he is. It might jeopardize his nice sideline in misinformational op-eds of boogeyman stories for libertarians.