As reported in the Dallas Morning News, a Dallas parent is challenging a Texas Law that protects parents from criminal prosecution when they provide pornography to their children. She alleges that her ex-husband showed their children pornographic images depicting a threesome.
According to the Morning News report, the Dallas-area woman said her three grade-school-age daughters were living with their father earlier this year when he started drinking, woke two of them late at night and showed them porn on his computer. They later told a counselor, who alerted authorities.
If true, while this may be a crime if it was a non-parent, the father would be protected from prosecution under Texas Law. The Randall Country District Attorney declined to prosecute the father stating that his hands were tied under the law that is currently in place.
“Texas law currently prohibits people from providing children “harmful material” if it “appeals to the prurient interest” and is “utterly without redeeming social value for minors.” The law however includes a defense to prosecution for parents and guardians.”
Should the government enter our homes and tell us what we can and can not show our children even it it would be criminal outside the parent-child relationship? Is there a compelling government interest to regulate this type of activity? Does it become any less harmful because its done in the home? The slope becomes slippery.
What about sex education? Should the government be interfering with the educational values practiced within the home and telling parents what materials they can and can not use for sexual education. What if the parents were using child pornography to teach their children? That would not be protected.
From a Constitutional standpoint it will be very difficult to draft a statute that enters the home and does run afoul of the 14th Amendment. This Amendment has routinely been cited to strike to down government attempts to regulate activity child-rearing activities within the home which might otherwise be criminal.
While emotions run high on these issue I do not think it is possible to craft a statute that will criminalize a parent showing what some may consider pornographic images to his/her child and also pass constitutional muster without coming up with an objective standard. IMHO “a legitimate educational purpose” a standard proposed by some is too subjective and will fail constitutional scrutiny.
What do you think? Is it ok to be a “Porno-Parent”?
Three Florida high school students who are members of the Dove World Outreach Center were sent home from schools this week after showing up in shirts with “Islam is of the Devil,” written on them. School officials stated that the shirts containing the slogan violated the district’s dress codes. The School District Staff Attorney stated:
“Students have a right of free speech, and we have allowed students to come to school wearing clothes with messages,” …. but this message is a divisive message that is likely to offend students….
This is not a close call. There is no 1st amendment protection for the slogan. Bong Hits For Jesus” (Morse v. Frederic) makes it clear speech is not protected if school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school” Propagating hatred towards a religion and by using incendiary(no pun intended) language to attack the core beliefs of those those who practice it would seem to fit that bill. The slogan is not protected benign religious expression. It is an expression of hatred. One need look no further than the Dove Outreach Web Site for evidence of this:
“…..To expose Islam for what it is. It is a violent and oppressive religion that is trying to mascarade itself as a religion of peace, seeking to deceive our society.”
Dove World Outreach is a hate group, nothing more. Of course they also have their own Facebook page. Another indication that the worlds new “4th largest country” is not doing enough to curb the unchecked escalation of hatred towards Jews,Muslims and other protected classes within its borders.
The beat of hatred rolls on. Not quite what Sonny and Cher envisioned.
Enjoy this piece? Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant
White supremacist talk show ranter and blogger Hal Turner has had a tough month.
The James Von Brunn heir apparent, known for espousing “Turner Diaries” type viewpoints on his blog and currently off the air radio show was arrested earlier this month after officials spotted an entry on his blog that called for residents “take up arms” against Connecticut lawmakers. .
The statements referred to legislation that would affect which group members of the Roman Catholic churches have control over parish finances. In addition to his call to arms he threatened to publish the addresses of lawmakers who sided against church officials. In addition, his blog(no longer online) reportedly contained the following statement:
“These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die. If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they’re going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too.”"
Turner was charged with “inciting injury to three state officials, a felony. Turner claims he was exercising his right to free speech.
Not long after the above arrest, he was arrested again by the FBI on charges he threatened to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago. As in the Connecticut matter he posted the addresses and this time included photos of the judges along with his rant. The federal criminal complaint(pdf) reads:
“the defendant threatened to assault and murder three United States Judges with intent to retaliate against such judges on account of official duties in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 115(a)(1)(b)”
As you can see fromthe actual language in the complaint there is some pretty strong languagee. Does it rise to the level of a threat to kill a federal judge or is it 1st Amendment protected speech?
My thoughts.
In the Connecticut case there is no 1st Amendment protection for his statements taken as a whole. If he would have left it as a call to arms he would have been fine. He would have been ok with the addresses as well.
In my opinion however, the statements “obey the Constitution or die“ and ” I suspect we have enough bullets….“ taken together are present ability threats of violence and have no protection.
In the Chicago case, the language that is clearly inflammatory and inciting. Does it rise to the level of personal threats as defined by the statute?
The statement “It appears another lesson is needed” go a long ways towards hanging him(figuratively) on that charge as it puts it in the present and makes him part of the threat, bringing him within the statute.
Protected free speech or criminal incitement and threats? Where do ideas end and criminal instruction begin? They don’t end with Hal Turner. This is not an issue of the Constitutionally protected debate of ideas. He is instructing people to commit crimes. He is threatening federal judges with violence and with a present ability to carry it out.
It appears that Turner — who in the past has advocated spitting on Jews and carrying out “good old vigilante justice” against “Negroes” will have to adjust his rant to suit his prison audience who may be inclined to take up arms of their own. The difference is that theirs may have shivs in them. As despicable as Mr. Turner is, I am not asking for a call to arms. I do think everyone who reads this should send him a copy of American History X COD.
On January 19, 2009 University of California-Santa Barbara sociology professor William I. Robinson sent out an email message to his “Sociology of Globalization” students equating Israel with Nazi Germany and Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto. The email entitled:“Parallel images of Nazis and Israelis,“ read in part as follows:
“I am forwarding some horrific, parallel images of Nazi atrocities against the Jews and Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. Perhaps the most frightening are not those providing a graphic depiction of the carnage but that which shows Israeli children writing “with love” on a bomb that will tear apart Palestinian children.
Gaza is Israel’s Warsaw – a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians, subjecting them to the slow death of malnutrition, disease and despair, nearly two years before their subjection to the quick death of Israeli bombs. We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide (Websters: “the systematic killing of, or a program of action intended to destroy, a whole national or ethnic group”), a process whose objective is not so much to physically eliminate each and every Palestinian than to eliminate the Palestinians as a people in any meaningful sense of the notion of people-hood.”
The e-mail also contained more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of the Nazis, including those of dead children juxtaposed with similar images from the Gaza Strip.
Two students who received the email dropped the class They reportedly also sought advice from the Simon Wiesenthal Center and were allegedly advised to file formal grievances with the university. They grievances were filed accusing the professor of intimidation and “violating the campus’ faculty code of conduct by disseminating personal, political material unrelated to his course.”
Professor Robinson defended the email stating that it was designed to prompt open discussion and debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the school was violating his 1st amendment rights and right of Academic Freedom. He also alleged he was being retaliated against for his anti-Israel statements.
An investigation ensued under a firestorm of controversy including the way the inquiry was conducted. Professor Robinson alleged he was denied due process . During the course of the 5 month investigation professor Robinson was called out with harsh criticism by the Anti Defamation League.(ADL)
Professor Robinson, who is Jewish, was cleared of any wrongdoing. He is now demanding an apology from the University. Is he owed one?
There are 1st Amendment/Free Speech and academic freedom considerations here. UC-Santa Barbara is a state school. Professor Robinson does have 1st Amendment protection for certain types of speech. Compare this to a private company such as Facebook where there is no 1st Amendment protection for posted content. An end-users free-speech rights in that realm are controlled entirely by Facebook Terms Of Service.(TOS) Compare also to a private university where there would generally be no 1st amendment protection. A professors speech rights would generally be controlled by whatever rules and regulations regulating speech the university has in place.(California in fact grants greater free speech rights at private universities)
Like Facebook, UC-Santa Barbara has its own version of TOS. It has it’s of Faculty Conduct. That code says that a professor may not use university resources to disseminate personal, political materials unrelated to his course.”
There is no question here that the email and photos sent out by professor Robinson were political. The issue becomes whether it was course related or a personal rant. Whether there is enough relation to what he is teaching to trigger his “right of academic freedom“. This right allows him to teach his course without undue interference from the University.
Was the email germane to the course he was teaching and advancing a legitimate educational objective? I was able to locate a copy of the syllabus for the course Sociology of Globalization(130SG) taught by professor Robinson. I may have missed something but I did not see anything even remotely connected to the content of the email.
Is Professor Robinson Anti-Semitic as some claim? He may or may not be but as long as he does not bring it into the classroom it is irrelevant. Is the email itself Anti-Semitic? It is certainly not Anti-Semitic to simply criticize Israeli policy. As we all know however, semantics and form over substance are often involved in these issues. Holocaust Denial is a perfect example. While the mere fact of “Denying The Holocaust” may not carry words of hate in it, there are those, including myself who feel that Holocaust Denial is nothing more than an Anti-Semitic pretext for bringing those together who hate Jews.
The Robinson analogy does by implication portray Israelis as genocidal mass murderers and in that context could be viewed as Anti-Semitic. I also view the email as historically insensitive as well as bizarre and buffoonish in its analogies. It certainly damages Professor Robinson’s credibility as a scholar. I would not be taking any comparative history course from him. The 1st Amendment and right of academic freedom however allows Professor Robinson to be a buffoon and historical idiot.
What the email did do is procedurally violate university policy. Using university resources, Professor Robinson sent a personal, inflammatory, political email that could have no other intent than to influence his students. His subjective ,after-the-fact statement of intent does not change the real time context of the email when it was it sent.If a professor could always justify a potentially university policy violative exchange of content with a subjective after the fact intent statement, nothing with ever violate a Code Of Conduct. There simply was no context. The course syllabus has no relation whatsoever to the content of the email.
What if he had simply read the contents of the email in class, putting the pictures up on a big screen as he read the email?
While I can not speak to the alleged lack of due process, in my mind the email clearly violated the Faculty Code Of Conduct. Professor Robinson should have been disciplined. An apology is owed but not by the University…
Here is Professor Robinson’s side of the story in a April 29, 2009 interview given to Counterpunch.
As reported in the Dallas Morning News, a Dallas parent is challenging a Texas Law that protects parents from criminal prosecution when they provide pornography to their children. She alleges that her ex-husband showed their children pornographic images depicting a threesome.
