  Version 8.2 |
|
|
|
|
<-- WNest 2.1|
|
Wren's Wrants
& Wramblings
|
Features... News Links Who Is Wren W Nest Logos |
Go to the... |
| Witchvox Chapter: Wren's Nest News | Chapter Page Views: 54,881,327 |
 Texas Law On Children's Seeing Porn Being Challenged Author: The Associated Press Source: First Amendment Center Title: TEXAS LAW ON CHILDREN'S SEEING PORN BEING CHALLENGED A 1970s-era Texas law that allows parents to show "harmful material" to their children has come under fire after a prosecutor said he couldn't file charges against a man accused of forcing his 8- and 9-year-old daughters to watch hardcore online pornography. Randall County District Attorney James Farren has asked the Texas attorney general's office to review his decision not to pursue charges in the case, which has prompted at least one lawmaker to vow to change the state's public-indecency law. The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who wanted to teach children about sex education, but it states clearly that parents can't be prosecuted for showing "harmful material" to their children. | |
| Community Thoughts: There are 12 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Details May Not Be What They Seem | Nov 4th. at 2:56:14 am EST |
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me Note that this article is from Associated Press, and not the First Amendment Center itself, which generally does more factually precise legal reporting than this story. An inspection of the actual Texas law apparently at issue here shows a few details that don't exactly match facts as represented in this article, as well as likely applications that go a bit beyond the range of situations this article represents the law to mean: [Web LINK] Sec. 43.24. Sale, Distribution, or Display of Harmful Material to Minor. (a) For purposes of this section: (1) "Minor" means an individual younger than 18 years. (2) "Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole: (A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor, in sex, nudity, or excretion; (B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and (C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors. (b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that the material is harmful: (1) and knowing the person is a minor, he sells, distributes, exhibits, or possesses for sale, distribution, or exhibition to a minor harmful material; (2) he displays harmful material and is reckless about whether a minor is present who will be offended or alarmed by the display; or (c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was by a person having scientific, educational, governmental, or other similar justification; or (2) the sale, distribution, or exhibition was to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, guardian, or spouse. ====== OK, so the adult in (c) (2) has to be custodial, and "adult" was wrongfully substituted for "guardian" in the article. Otherwise, a South Park scene where grade schoolers toss the local wino $10 would qualify, as would an 18 year old clerk at the local porn theater. This type of law, given the prejudices present in many parts of Texas, is likely necessary to protect parents not just for discussing sex ed with kids, but for watching late evening network and some daytime TV at home, or taking age 17 kids to the theater to see mainstream R rated love stories with soft sex scenes. This and another similar section of Texas law have been used to threaten and persecute family nudists and some pagans whose religious beliefs and practices are viewed by rabid fundies as if "harmful to minors", even though in reality they're quite healthy for kids. The entire framing of this law around the concept of "harmful material", inconsistently in or not in quotes, is a serious problem of rabid fundie attitudes and poor legal construction. It blurs the lines between practices that are in fact likely to harm minors, and bigotry and prejudice of lynch mob bigots who "just know" what their alleged god says is harmful. Even professional social work standards for "harm to minors" are often a fraud, as they fail to distinguish harm from reactions due to indoctrination of common but twisted dehumanizing prejudices about sex, versus anything related to sex itself as a natural animal function. Notably too, these same Texas statutes flat out define homosexuality as criminal, as well as specific practices the US Supreme Court years ago ruled unConstitutional to restrict. Add to that rabid fundie indoctrination of bible thumpers to consider lots of things that are in fact not "hard core" to be such, and the "facts" stated in this article are suspect. There is a need for law protecting parents from pathological religion of neighbors, including amount those with obligations to not act on prejudice and bigotry, like elected prosecutors or employee social workers. Don't count on that in Texas. We might also be very careful with terms like "pornography" and "indecency", noting the Supreme Court in 1964 refused efforts by rabid fundie predecessor groups to those found today trying to force legal definition and restrictions of whatever that is. Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v Ohio became the brunt of jokes for years, that "porn is whatever gives the judge (or Justice Stewart) a hard on". He explained why that concept is so subjective and arbitrary as to be "void for vagueness" by legal standards. The later "Miller" obscenity standard based on community values is defective, unless one accepts the flawed notion that our civil rights are subject to variable protections if we move around the country. This type of Texas law, even if poorly written as to merging definitions of material harmful to minors versus just considered such by anti-sexual bigots, at least offers a small amount of much needed protection against potentially severe civil rights railroading. As to whether this father is in fact a bit twisted and not suitable for parenting, or whether the mother and public officials are grandstanding and distorting facts, there's far from enough detail in this article to tell. This might be a case where the kids saw material less explicit than victims of some pagan or nudist persecutions, where ex-spouses went in opposite religious directions and used that to motivate an ongoing family feud where kids are caught in the middle of a values conflict, and each parent is trying to push and pull the kids to have conflicts with the other ex-spouse. While it's obvious Texas law and society are screwed up, the facts of this case aren't nearly so clear. Why use a bogus "harmful material" statutory definition for material that may be normal and healthy for kids raised in a positive home environment, and that is age-appropriate for many (especially teen) "minors"? I'd say that entire hypocritical societal mess in Texas is "harmful to minors", and that absent a rapid social and legal revolution there, it's nearly impossible to subject kids to that conflicted environment without it in many ways being harmful to them. |
| Sick, Sick Man | Nov 3rd. at 9:12:37 am EST |
|
Laura C. (Weston, Florida) - Email Me The phrase "hardcore online pornography" in the article really made me cringe. Playboy is one thing, but there's some seriously nasty stuff online. If a child wants to know where babies come from, tell them in as much detail as they're ready for. If a child accidentally stumbles upon some porn, talk to them about gender roles, fantasy vs. reality, and the like. But if you are forcing your children to watch any kind of porn, you are a horrible disgusting person. If this wasn't a pedophilia grooming attempt, then I'm the queen of England. |
| Agree, "Harmful" Needs To Be Defined. | Nov 3rd. at 12:16:12 am EST |
|
Roy Linford Adams (Buxton, Maine) - Email Me I for one am not someone who will care if my kids see something like Janet Jackson's boob... or boobs all together. As for porn, if they happen to see it beyond my control (and given the odds for little boys, they will) , as long as it's non-violent, I'm not going ballistic. I'll definitely talk to them about it and make sure they are clear about what they saw but I believe one of the worst things our society does is make too big a deal out of sex for our kids sake. Showing them the hardcore porn is definitely going to do something negative though. There's way too much slapping and verbal abuse which is just going to give the kids the idea that this stuff is the way it's supposed to be done. And now we have the whole chocking, gagging and a whole plethora of harmful acts that in no way should be viewed by anyone who hasn’t been out in the real world enough to have the ability to separate the fiction from the reality. I think a judgment call on this one has to be held until we know what they mean by “hardcore”. That’s actually a loose term (no pun intended) . I know people who think Misty Mundae films are “hardcore porn” when her films are just straight forward simulated-sex. Compared to what I consider hardcore porn, her films are not much more than cable-tv spoof films with extended sex scenes. In some ways I can totally see why the law is ridiculous. But when my kids ask me where babies come from or what this on their body is for, I don’t want child protective services coming into my home and taking my kids away just because I give them honest answers. I believe when they are old enough to ask, they are old enough to get a truthful answer. |
| Wisdom | Nov 2nd. at 8:22:29 pm EST |
|
Hadriana (Rome, Georgia) - Email Me Sometimes when we legislate everything to death, we kill the ability of the individual to exercise ritual. That said, sounds like someone needs to konk that idiot on the head and swear he fell down. |
| There Is A Difference... | Nov 2nd. at 5:54:49 pm EST |
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me between material that is used and is appropriate for sex education and rank pornography. I believe that parents should be able to teach kids sex education, but having young children view hard core pornography is considered in some places a criminal act, even when parents do it as many pedophiles choose to induct their targets in such a way. Pornography is not education as it is a blatant act filmed for puerile entertainment, and contains no information concerning those details that need to be known, such as condom use or STDs even though it may show sex in all it's dubious glory. However, everything naked is not always porn and there, a distinction needs to be drawn. |
| Oops! Should Have Read Define "Harmful" | Nov 2nd. at 3:49:41 pm EST |
|
karrie9 (Kenosha, Wisconsin) - Email Me - Web sorry |
| Deinfe "Harmful" | Nov 2nd. at 3:47:12 pm EST |
|
karrie9 (Kenosha, Wisconsin) - Email Me - Web Caution. It all starts with definitions and where lines should be drawn and personally, as an incest survivor, laws should be the **least restrictive possible** while still enabling prosecution of actual abuses. Educational charts and text to teach children body parts and basic reproduction are more than okay, they're necessary for a sound education. Not everyone agrees with that though. Porn is the depiction/performance of explicit sexual acts. Porn is porn. But that's the distinction I make and not everyone agrees with that either. We have to consider that way too many Americans harmfully imbibe in habitually sexualizing **everything sensual, naked, or even remotely sexy,** categorizing them as pornographic or harmful. They'll dress naked stone statues, seek to criminalize even your everyday little-ones-in-the-tub photos, deem any manner of breastfeeding in public criminally indecent, abhor that anybody's children see any depictions of the naked human body for any reason in any contests, and they'll welcome extreme (as extreme as they can get them) modest dressing trends. So, with the still lingering trend of kowtowing to the most prudish and fundamentalist Americans, as far as censoring or deeming something "harmful" goes, new laws, should they fail to ever so carefully define "harmful" and/or "pornographic," could quite easily tread into the territories of thinly disguised religious prejudice and the religiously imbued criminalization of alternate views of what is harmful or pornographic. |
| I See Unintended Consequences | Nov 2nd. at 2:25:12 pm EST |
|
booley (Saint Louis, Missouri) - Email Me Yes, small children should not be made to see porn. And I am certainly not against reforming laws in principle. But.. (you knew there had to be a but...) This may not be a good case for that. For one thing, there are plenty of people who would happily prosecute parents for appropriate even if explicit sex ed. Also, is this really wide spread enough to warrant changing the law? Or is this one idiot who popped up and it's a big deal because it's so over the top? Remember, even if they do change the law, this guy still won't be prosecuted for this. Not to mention, this is a case where the parents are separated. Which means wouldn't it be better to go to court and deny the father visitation rights rather then rewriting a law that could have unintended consequences? Again, I have no problem reforming laws. But we can't do it for every idiot that does something horrible. We can't outlaw stupidity. It only encourages stupidity from the other direction. |
| Good Lord | Nov 2nd. at 2:12:16 pm EST |
|
R. Cicero (Seattle, Washington) - Email Me Well, the best thing is that the father has been exposed by the mother, people know his name, where he lives, his phone number, and he's being supervised. He will not quickly overcome the waves of negativity resulting from his grossly stupid and inappropriate actions. The law is so inexpertly applied that the threat of legal consequences and exposure is perhaps the best you can hope for. I personally suspect he was trying to groom his own children for truly nefarious purposes, but I could be wrong. It's impossible to believe any parent might think hardcore porn delivers a sane sex education. But what can I say? The world is full of crazy, stupid ***s. Having said that, I am generally A-OK with the over-18 crowd enjoying porn from a generally reputable source. There is a severe problem with loose regulation, and if left up to the 'industry' there is virtually no regulation, but in THEORY you are free to enjoy a legal, constitutionally-protected eyeful at your own discretion--once you reach 18, of course. |
| Harmful Materials? | Nov 2nd. at 1:47:28 pm EST |
|
Ahr-Ohn (Bridgeport, Connecticut) - Email Me If both parents attend sky clad rituals, with their children, the law might protect this, but if one parent wants to attend Sky Clad, while the other wants to attend ritual celebrations of Torture, err... How do we distinguish a nudist camp from a Group Orgy? How do we distinguish a good parent from a bad one? The rightness of this law, is that laws are stupid, and can't make distinctions very well. What ever remedy for this is cast in stone, is going to cause a worse injustice. Some kids might even think that Biodebridement looks cool. That's where the patient is eaten by squishy-wiggly Maggots, and isn't supposed to eat them. Public School is an alternative form of Child Abuse, but so it Puberty. Laws need an alternative to Enforcement, if you're going to enact them against Nature. Stay At Home Mom, with no children under seven, sounds like she needs a job, or something. She also needs some counselling for her marriage counsellor, as some people can't get anything right. Arawn Graalrd |
| "Harmful Content" | Nov 2nd. at 1:39:36 pm EST |
|
Rowanwolf (Calgary, Alberta) - Email Me OK, so they are looking at changing the law. That stops this guy from showing any more porn to his kids after they change it. After it is changed though, what happens when a judge feels that you being pagan and/or discussing paganism or anything but good ole "insert denomination here" christianity with your kids is "Harmful Content"? How about if your ex will not consent to sex education for your kids in school and you try to discuss it? What about abortion, homosexualtiy, or politics? Absurd you say? It might be, now. Just like legislation written to protect parents rights to give sex education to their kids being used to protect a possible pedophile would sound absolutely absurd in the 70's. Hopefully they simply amend it to allow for intent and clearly define "harmful content", otherwise expect someone to use it as a weapon, if it is not worded to be a weapon in the first place. |
| Sick, Um...so Called Father | Nov 2nd. at 12:47:23 pm EST |
|
Silverdolphin (Maylene, Alabama) - Email Me Omg, that is a sick man! Seeing that at such a young age, not to mention being forced to watch, can have serious effects on those kids, now even as adults. (Wonder what else he has on his mind about his kids, that is just gross, he has problems) Makes my stomache turn & my heart goes out to those kids & to their mom. I do agree that it shoud be up to parents to discuss & teach sex education...but porn is NOT sex education. (Porn shouldn't be forced on anyone, especially children, who don't understand why they are seeing/doing certain stuff.) I know that different parents/families are more open about sex than others & if done in a positive way, raises arewareness & sex-positive young adults so I get why the law was made back when. (Hell, we are a sex-postive household, but I would NOT let my children watch porn. When they are grown, that's their decision, not mine.) I think the man needs to talk to someone & see what's messed up in his head. For now, it seems like a good idea about the visits he gets with them. As a mom, my mother bear claws would be out, teeth ready & eyes watching. I can imagine what she is going through. May her & the kids be safe & get through this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.