Author Topic: Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Por (Read 14659 times)

Chris_ · « **on:** October 30, 2009, 11:31:47 AM »

Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Porn'

AP story at LINK

That's some seriously fouled up law there, and the

"dad" needs to be smacked with bag of nickels....repeatedly....in the crotch.

IassaFTots · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2009, 11:34:28 AM »

Quote from: lug-nut on October 30, 2009, 11:31:47 AM

Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Porn'

AP story at LINK

That's some seriously fouled up law there, and the "dad" needs to be smacked with bag of nickels....repeatedly....in the crotch.

I heard about that on the radio. Effed up for sure.

thundley4 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2009, 11:50:59 AM »

It may not be illegal, but the mom should try to get full custody or at least supervised visitation. I have to wonder what other sorts of porn he has on his computer.

DixieBelle · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2009, 01:20:46 PM »

WTH????

Thor · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2009, 01:40:19 PM »

Texas Laws grant a LOT of power to the parents. I'm sorry, while this isn't quite right in my opinion, the law is there to protect parental rights. We have ONE man that might have abused the law. Are we going to change a good law just over what ONE person has done?? I hope not.

Chump · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2009, 01:49:26 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 01:40:19 PM

Texas Laws grant a LOT of power to the parents. I'm sorry, while this isn't quite right in my opinion, the law is there to protect parental rights. We have ONE man that might have abused the law. Are we going to change a good law just over what ONE person has done?? I hope not.

We don't have to. As thundley pointed out, while he may not be able to be convicted of a crime, surely this should affect his visitation rights, no?

I'd like to see him hung by his nuts, but barring that outcome, I'll settle with his not being able to further abuse his daughters.

Thor · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2009, 01:56:03 PM »

Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.

Quote

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.

Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.

Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"

jinxmchue · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:00:40 PM »

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't all he did to them.

EDIT: "isn't"

Chump · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:03:58 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 01:56:03 PM

Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.

Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.

Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"

There are plenty of things that affect parental visitation rights yet are completely legal.

DixieBelle · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:35:23 PM »

Quote from: jinxmchue on October 30, 2009, 02:00:40 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if this is all he did to them.

I am having a REALLY hard time putting this into a context that makes it okay regardless of what the damn law says. I cannot think of ANY circumstance where forcing young children to watch hardcore p0rn is educational or beneficial.

Now, I will say that if these accusations are false or a ploy by the ex-wife/mother, then she should suffer severe consequences.

Based on the facts presented so far, this situation does not look good for the father. I hope for the girls' sake that it really didn't happen though.

Daisy · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:38:11 PM »

If it's true that the father did this, he should be dragged to a dark alley and have the s##t beaten out of him and his you know what cut off.

(Some people in this world are not human, and should not be treated as such.)

Chris_ · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:52:51 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 01:56:03 PM

Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.

Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.

Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"

Ok, Who's the doofus that made such a vague law? IMO, anything produced by Mikey Moore is harmful. Shouldn't be too hard to amend it for something like this.

Chris_ · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:53:08 PM »

This man needs to be buried under his local jail

Chris_ · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2009, 02:53:44 PM »

Quote from: newbeer on October 30, 2009, 02:53:08 PM

This man needs to be buried under his local jail

...with his n*ts under a building a few blocks away.

Splashdown · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2009, 03:02:31 PM »

Quote from: Chump on October 30, 2009, 02:03:58 PM

There are plenty of things that affect parental visitation rights yet are completely legal.

Awesome point. ^5

jinxmchue · « **Reply #15 on:** October 30, 2009, 05:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 01:56:03 PM

Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.

WTF??? When did this become DU?

Quote

Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.

Oh, blow it out your exhaust pipe. This is about HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY, which anyone with a frickin' brain knows YOU DON'T SHOW TO MINORS.

Quote

Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"

Hey, let's give them drugs and alcohol, too, and see what they think of it. FFS!!!

Chris_ · « **Reply #16 on:** October 30, 2009, 05:11:47 PM »

Quote from: lug-nut on October 30, 2009, 02:53:44 PM

...with his n*ts under a building a few blocks away.

Or fed to some hungry pit bulls

Thor · « **Reply #17 on:** October 30, 2009, 06:41:38 PM »

Quote from: jinxmchue on October 30, 2009, 05:09:41 PM

WTF??? When did this become DU?

Oh, blow it out your exhaust pipe. This is about HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY, which anyone with a frickin' brain knows YOU DON'T SHOW TO MINORS.

Hey, let's give them drugs and alcohol, too, and see what they think of it. FFS!!!

Censorship is still censorship. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and get away from being a Nanny Statist!!

Common sense suggests one doesn't show pornography to kids HOWEVER, who the **** are YOU to say what is lawful and what isn't?? Fact IS: Texas Law says it IS lawful.

Who's to say what's harmful and what's not?? That's all a matter of opinion. Again, I don't condone what this man has allegedly done, BUT..... if we're to allow our kids to watch MTV, VH1, Spike TV, War Movies, play violent video games, etc, then where do we draw the line?? Even some commercials are borderline and children shouldn't be watching them, IMO. I know of SEVERAL popular music videos that are rife with profanity, vulgarities and sexual innuendo. My morals shouldn't apply to YOUR house, nor should YOUR morals apply to someone else's house.

As far as those that would have this man jailed, buried, nuts cut off, or otherwise harmed, y'all really need to look at yourselves very closely. Your statements make you little different than the average criminal. You can't judge what's happened unless you know ALL of the facts and at this point, they're NOT divulged. Y'all are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. You've all convicted this man based on few facts. I'd like to see BOTH sides of this story. I'm certain that there's much that's not being told.

As far as his visitation/ custody rights, I think that if there's anything there, the mother should be able to gain full custody.

Celtic Rose · « **Reply #18 on:** October 30, 2009, 06:49:47 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 01:56:03 PM

Y'all need to tread this ground VERY carefully.

Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"?? Do war movies, violent cartoons, and similar things constitute "harmful material"?? Exactly WHO makes that decision?? The man DIDN'T break the law and yet y'all are calling for his rights being stripped away or worse. Was he morally right to do this?? Probably not. Was he within the law?? Apparently.

Also, what seems to be missing out of the story is the question, "what did the daughters think of this?"

Regarding the bolded part, it obviously bothered one of the daughters enough that she spoke to a school counselor about it, saying that "her father made them watch adults having group sex and various other acts". That indicates that she was probably pretty uncomfortable with it.

Somehow I thought that it was illegal to watch that of thing if you were under 18 anyways, which would suggest that some sort of wrongdoing was definitely committed.

rich_t · « **Reply #19 on:** October 30, 2009, 07:06:48 PM »

Quote

Who's to determine WHAT constitutes "harmful material"??

Exactly. Such determinations are far too subjective to easily codify in a way that makes sence.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.] â€
â€” Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964),

vesta111 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2009, 07:24:49 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 06:41:38 PM

Censorship is still censorship. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and get away from being a Nanny Statist!!

Common sense suggests one doesn't show pornography to kids HOWEVER, who the **** are YOU to say what is lawful and what isn't?? Fact IS: Texas Law says it IS lawful.

Who's to say what's harmful and what's not?? That's all a matter of opinion. Again, I don't condone what this man has allegedly done, BUT..... if we're to allow our kids to watch MTV, VH1, Spike TV, War Movies, play violent video games, etc, then where do we draw the line?? Even some commercials are borderline and children shouldn't be watching them, IMO. I know of SEVERAL popular music videos that are rife with profanity, vulgarities and sexual innuendo. My morals shouldn't apply to YOUR house, nor should YOUR morals apply to someone else's house.

As far as those that would have this man jailed, buried, nuts cut off, or otherwise harmed, y'all really need to look at yourselves very closely. Your statements make you little different than the average criminal. You can't judge what's happened unless you know ALL of the facts and at this point, they're NOT divulged. Y'all are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. You've all convicted this man based on few facts. I'd like to see BOTH sides of this story. I'm certain that there's much that's not being told.

As far as his visitation/ custody rights, I think that if there's anything there, the mother should be able to gain full custody.

Thor has a point here. I know parents that encourage their kids to watch slasher movies blood and guts with them.

I had bad nightmares from a 1960 movie about Dracula and every one kept their clothes on.

Few years a go I rented Little shop of horrors for the grand kids 5-6 who were visiting my Mom. She threw a fit and accused me of being demented to allow kids that age to watch that film.

Then she turned the news on that showed repeatedly a plane crash with real people aboard that died. Then scenes of people being shot in the street and riots. That was ok for the kids to watch real death and distruction but a man eating plant was off limits.

This case disturbs me, what father of young girls will make them watch group sex unless he is desensitising the girls to such conduct. Children should be protected and keep their innocence in tact as long as possible.

How could any father that is not a molester and grooming his girls for future sex with him do such a thing.?

It simply takes my breath away to think of my reaction had I come home early and found the father of my little girls making them watch a sex film. I do not think that any jury would have sent me to jail for shooting the creep.

No way around it that man was getting ready to molest his children, a good thing one of his daughters spoke out.

So when was he planning to teach them about Pot or hard licker, good old Jim Bean

Say Honey while you were at work I got the 5 year old drunk and she wanted to reenact this here movie I showed her. She has a lot to learn but her sister really likes the Pot and caught on to the sex part faster then the little one.

Say why do you have a gun, I am just exercising my parental right to teach my children about life.-------

bkg · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2009, 07:37:11 PM »

Soft core on nighttime TV - deemed okay by the statists. Sex ed @ 5-years old w/ a focus on homosexual relationships deamed okay by the statists...

I'm just saying.

I think Thor is spot on with this one. Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same.

Chris_ · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2009, 08:14:32 PM »

Quote from: Thor on October 30, 2009, 06:41:38 PM

Censorship is still censorship. YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and get away from being a Nanny Statist!!

That's bullshit, and you know it. There's NOTHING "nanny statist" about keeping HARD CORE PORN away from minors.

Quote

Common sense suggests one doesn't show pornography to kids HOWEVER, who the **** are YOU to say what is lawful and what isn't?? Fact IS: Texas Law says it IS lawful.

Then Texas screwed up. That's the whole point. Now we have unintended consequences because some idiot wasn't paying attention when the law was written.

Quote

Who's to say what's harmful and what's not?? That's all a matter of opinion. Again, I don't condone what this man has allegedly done, BUT..... if we're to allow our kids to watch MTV, VH1, Spike TV, War Movies, play violent video games, etc, then where do we draw the line?? Even some commercials are borderline and children shouldn't be watching them, IMO. I know of SEVERAL popular music videos that are rife with profanity, vulgarities and sexual innuendo. My morals shouldn't apply to YOUR house, nor should YOUR morals apply to someone else's house.

This isn't about determining different shades of gray here. Are you saying you'd be okay with someone else's morals that say it's okay to show children HARD CORE PORN??? Your morals don't apply outside your own household??? WTH??? My morals say it's not okay to steal. If someone else's say it's okay, then it's okay???

Quote

As far as those that would have this man jailed, buried, nuts cut off, or otherwise harmed, y'all really need to look at yourselves very closely. Your statements make you little different than the average criminal. You can't judge what's happened unless you know ALL of the facts and at this point, they're NOT divulged. Y'all are acting like a bunch of vigilantes. You've all convicted this man based on few facts. I'd like to see BOTH sides of this story. I'm certain that there's much that's not being told.

Opinions are based on the facts provided. When more facts are available, opinions may or may not changed depending on what those facts reveal.

Quote

As far as his visitation/ custody rights, I think that if there's anything there, the mother should be able to gain full custody.

DixieBelle · « **Reply #23 on:** October 30, 2009, 08:19:03 PM »

I did say I'd like to see all of the facts.

And I think the take away here is not that this about endorsing nanny statism but rather correcting a HORRIBLY written law!!!

IassaFTots · « **Reply #24 on:** October 30, 2009, 08:23:43 PM »

Quote from: bkg on October 30, 2009, 07:37:11 PM

I think Thor is spot on with this one. Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same.

I was going to type the same thing, but you just typed it. So I shall just say "Agreed."

News:

Author Topic: Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Por (Read 14659 times)