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

[Chump]

Bouncing Buddha on a stick!  It's frickin' DU here.  Sell porn to minors = bad, illegal.  Show porn to minors = good, free speech.  **** y'all.  It's because of that damned "Short bus" forum, isn't it?

I haven't seen a single person here, myself included, claim that what this man did was anywhere within the realm of being "good."  And, to be technical, selling porn to minors isn't illegal in Texas if they are accompanied by an adult.  Texas seems to be making the case that because minors don't have a whole lot of rights in the eyes of the courts, parental rights are paramount.  I agree.  This case throws a wrench in the works for two reasons.  1.) The man could possibly have forced the girls to watch against their will, becoming something more than simple consent: sexual abuse.  2.)  The mother clearly objected, throwing the question to the family courts.  Family courts will invariably rule against the man in a case like this, and he will lose most, if not all, visitation rights.  In the event of 1.), the man should be imprisoned.

[rich_t]

Relevant Texas Penal Code:

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

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

(3)  he hires, employs, or uses a minor to do or accomplish or assist in doing or accomplishing any of the acts prohibited in Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2).

(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.

[rich_t]

So, the rights of the father to subject his children to pornography supercede the rights of the mother from Texas Penal Code Sec. 151.001. Sub. Sec. A. Articles 1-2. ?  

I don't see anything in there where her rights superceed his either:

§ 151.001. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT.  (a) A parent of a
child has the following rights and duties:
      (1)  the right to have physical possession, to direct
the moral and religious training, and to designate the residence of
the child;
      (2)  the duty of care, control, protection, and
reasonable discipline of the child;
      (3)  the duty to support the child, including providing
the child with clothing, food, shelter, medical and dental care,
and education;
      (4)  the duty, except when a guardian of the child's
estate has been appointed, to manage the estate of the child,
including the right as an agent of the child to act in relation to
the child's estate if the child's action is required by a state, the
United States, or a foreign government;
      (5)  except as provided by Section 264.0111, the right
to the services and earnings of the child;
      (6)  the right to consent to the child's marriage,
enlistment in the armed forces of the United States, medical and
dental care, and psychiatric, psychological, and surgical
treatment;
      (7)  the right to represent the child in legal action
and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance
concerning the child;
      (8)  the right to receive and give receipt for payments
for the support of the child and to hold or disburse funds for the
benefit of the child;
      (9)  the right to inherit from and through the child;                         
      (10)  the right to make decisions concerning the
child's education;  and   
      (11)  any other right or duty existing between a parent
and child by virtue of law.
   (b)  The duty of a parent to support his or her child exists
while the child is an unemancipated minor and continues as long as
the child is fully enrolled in an accredited secondary school in a
program leading toward a high school diploma until the end of the
school year in which the child graduates.
   (c)  A parent who fails to discharge the duty of support is
liable to a person who provides necessaries to those to whom support
is owed.
   (d)  The rights and duties of a parent are subject to:                         
      (1)  a court order affecting the rights and duties;                           
      (2)  an affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights; 
and               
      (3)  an affidavit by the parent designating another
person or agency to act as managing conservator.
   (e)  Only the following persons may use corporal punishment
for the reasonable discipline of a child:
      (1)  a parent or grandparent of the child;                                   
      (2)  a stepparent of the child who has the duty of
control and reasonable discipline of the child;  and
      (3)  an individual who is a guardian of the child and
who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of the child.

[Thor]

I don't know how many of y'all are old enough to remember or paid attention to the various child molestation charges being brought on individuals and couples that ran daycares during the early 90s. It caught my attention because I had a daughter in pre-school at the time. Most of those charged were exonerated because the children fabricated lies with the facilitation of certain psychologists. Some were even pardoned afterwards because it was proved that the children were manipulated. That said, how do we know that something similar isn't going on here??

And again, some of y'all have convicted this man and are ready to "string him up" based on an article that's missing a LOT of info.


Ohh, and Jinx, GFY...... you can stick your DU references up you ass and rotate on them. There are people here that stand by the laws and the Constitution. Perhaps you ARE in the right state, Minnesota, a Nanny State that likes to run people's lives. Where do YOU draw the ****ing line at the First Amendment, Parental rights, etc?? Seems to me that you'd prefer the Government do that for you. Perhaps you need to change your associated Party to "Obama-ite"??

All in all, I'd like to see the Mother take it to court and have her attempt to gain full custody, perhaps supervised custody of the dad IF there is ANY merit to the allegations.

[Odin's Hand]

I don't see anything in there where her rights superceed his either:

Nor should they, but, should the social contract not account for her judgement in his willfull exhibition of the pornography display?

[rich_t]

Bouncing Buddha on a stick!  It's frickin' DU here.  Sell porn to minors = bad, illegal.  Show porn to minors = good, free speech.  **** y'all.  It's because of that damned "Short bus" forum, isn't it?

**** y'all?

Grow up and realize that not everybody, even conservatives, always agree on everything.

This is an issue that obviously is rather emotional to some.

[rich_t]

Nor should they, but, should the social contract not account for her judgement in his willfull exhibition of the pornography display?

That is something that "family courts" deal with everyday when it comes to divorced parents.

Sadly, far too many parents lose the ability to act like adults and the courts have to intercede.

Do I think this guy was wrong?  Hell yes I do.

But that has nothing to do with the basis of my previous posts on the topic.

[jinxmchue]

Ohh, and Jinx, GFY...... you can stick your DU references up you ass and rotate on them.

I'd tell you to do something similar, but it appears your head is already in the way.

There are people here that stand by the laws and the Constitution.

And showing porn to minors, too, apparently.  Whatever floats your boat, pervert.  Laws can be wrong (e.g. slavery) and can be changed.  You idiots who are crying "Constitution!!!!" should keep in mind that liberals used the same "reasoning" to justify slaughtering unborn babies.

Perhaps you ARE in the right state, Minnesota, a Nanny State that likes to run people's lives.

Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.

Where do YOU draw the ****ing line at the First Amendment, Parental rights, etc?? Seems to me that you'd prefer the Government do that for you.

Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line."  DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe.  This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY.  Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.

Perhaps you need to change your associated Party to "Obama-ite"??

Take your own advice.  Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.

All in all, I'd like to see the Mother take it to court and have her attempt to gain full custody, perhaps supervised custody of the dad IF there is ANY merit to the allegations.

Where do you draw the line?  Where do you draw the line?  Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes.  Where do you draw the line?  Where, huh?  Where?

[rich_t]

I don't know how many of y'all are old enough to remember or paid attention to the various child molestation charges being brought on individuals and couples that ran daycares during the early 90s. It caught my attention because I had a daughter in pre-school at the time. Most of those charged were exonerated because the children fabricated lies with the facilitation of certain psychologists. Some were even pardoned afterwards because it was proved that the children were manipulated. That said, how do we know that something similar isn't going on here??

And again, some of y'all have convicted this man and are ready to "string him up" based on an article that's missing a LOT of info.


Ohh, and Jinx, GFY...... you can stick your DU references up you ass and rotate on them. There are people here that stand by the laws and the Constitution. Perhaps you ARE in the right state, Minnesota, a Nanny State that likes to run people's lives. Where do YOU draw the ****ing line at the First Amendment, Parental rights, etc?? Seems to me that you'd prefer the Government do that for you. Perhaps you need to change your associated Party to "Obama-ite"??

All in all, I'd like to see the Mother take it to court and have her attempt to gain full custody, perhaps supervised custody of the dad IF there is ANY merit to the allegations.

I recall them well Thor.  I recall responding like some here have on this thread.  "Hang them" was my opinion at the time.  I learned to be less judgemental about things that I didn't have the full facts on.

[rich_t]

I'd tell you to do something similar, but it appears your head is already in the way.

And showing porn to minors, too, apparently.  Whatever floats your boat, pervert.  Laws can be wrong (e.g. slavery) and can be changed.  You idiots who are crying "Constitution!!!!" should keep in mind that liberals used the same "reasoning" to justify slaughtering unborn babies.

Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.

Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line."  DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe.  This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY.  Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.

Take your own advice.  Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.

Where do you draw the line?  Where do you draw the line?  Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes.  Where do you draw the line?  Where, huh?  Where?

Getting a tad emotional aren't you?  Just like a DUer.

[Thor]

I'd tell you to do something similar, but it appears your head is already in the way.

And showing porn to minors, too, apparently.  Whatever floats your boat, pervert.  Laws can be wrong (e.g. slavery) and can be changed.  You idiots who are crying "Constitution!!!!" should keep in mind that liberals used the same "reasoning" to justify slaughtering unborn babies.

Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.

Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line."  DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe.  This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY.  Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.

Take your own advice.  Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.

Where do you draw the line?  Where do you draw the line?  Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes.  Where do you draw the line?  Where, huh?  Where?

I lived in that ****ing Nanny state for a total of 18 years, four years while on active duty and 14 years post retirement. I saw that state for what it is. Except for their gun laws, it's a ****ing nanny state. You can't convince me otherwise.

Show me one place where I said I thought the guy was RIGHT for showing his children pornography, **** nuts!!! I've stated a few times where I didn't condone his actions. You seem to be putting words in my mouth like the DUmbass Liberals would do. It's Constitution usurping ****tards like YOU that have driven this country into Governmental Control and Nanny Statism. I view the Constitution as sacrosanct.  I doubt that YOU do.

As far as the Mom gaining custody, that's a battle she's going to have to be willing to fight. I'm non-judgmental about that. If the guy is guilty of this and it's not some ploy by his children or by a pissed off divorcee, then I'd be willing to support her actions. However, the news article is mute on that part of the report. AGAIN, you need to pull your head out of your ass and then, perhaps, you can see the BIG picture instead of the microcosm you're obviously seeing.

Funny how you're the one acting like the typical DUmmy, shouting, and bolding crap in red.

And, for the record, this isn't about just one subject, but that appears to be lost on many. The subjects are: a state law that's been in effect for some FOUR+ DECADES, Parental Rights AND the non-interference of the Government in a parent's rights. Go ahead and let the state raise your children for you, like any liberal would. I've raised my child and I didn't need any help from the state.

[jinxmchue]

Whatever, shit for brains.  Why have any laws, then?  Any and every law could be considered "nanny state" material.  Pull your head out of your ass for once and let go of your beloved porn.  It does wonders.  I know.

We unfortunately live in a world where common sense is not common, as you yourself have proved so well. 

"Oh, we don't need laws against showing porn to minors!  Just let the dad lose his parental rights in some retarded, lengthy, torturous court proceeding and make sure the girls get dragged through all the shit of it, too.  Next time someone else does something so obviously and stupidly wrong, well, again, why bother with a law to punish them?  After all, such a law would only be promoting a 'nanny state.'  Dur-hur!"

[Chump]

Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line."  DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe.  This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY.  Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.

You have to consider the slippery slope.  What constitutes hardcore pornography?  We all have the common sense to define it for ourselves, but is that good enough?  Can we just say, "any material which is both sexually explicit and obscene?"  Consider the Bible: Solomon's descriptions of his lover's breasts and Lot's incestual relations with both of his daughters.  Do you want to leave the door open for someone to claim that you reading the Bible to your children amounts to an infringement of the law?  If you don't consider all possible logical outcomes of legislation, you end up with bad legislation.

No one here is arguing that people should show their children porn, so stop making that the basis of your attacks.

[Splashdown]

When I was a kid, I saw my way older brother's--he is 11 years older than I am--porn mag stash. I was 10 or 11. Should my brother have gone to jail for corrupting a minor? Should my parents have? It was pretty well hidden, btw. I went looking where I shouldn't.

Jinx, I don't think anybody's saying what the guy did, if he did it like the story said, is morally repugnant and reprehensible.

Should a law be changed because one guy is an asshole? Someone will always be stupid enough to do something to get around whatever the law is. Until we outlaw stupid, or until "asshole" becomes an offense punishable by law, we're stuck with an imperfect--but still pretty good--system.

[bkg]

Well, what the ****, guys.  If I had kids, I guess I'd teach them to murder in cold blood.

After all, as bkg says, "Morals and laws are not always, nor should they be, the same."

Lemme just swing my ****in fist around and screw your nose if it gets in the way, right?

Using moral relativism isn't going to help your position. Last I checked, MURDER is illegal, so your argument is horrible.

You're confusing acknoweledgement of the law with endorsement of the behavior.

[bkg]

She is quite correct.  Or do you want Muslim morals to be codified into our law?

HEY! WHOA! HEY!!!! SHE??????   

[bkg]

Apparently you're thinking of another Minnesota.

You're not really trying to say that MN is NOT a Nanny state, are you? Seriously? 

Oh, **** you and your ****ing "line."  DO NOT try to blur the issue by introducing unrelated, meaningless tripe.  This issue is about one thing and ONE THING ONLY.  Trying to bring up other nonsense and talking about "lines" is slippery slope bullshit.

You're WAY off here. First amendment is the issue.

Take your own advice.  Liberals are the ones who don't have a problem with minors viewing pornography, jackass.

Not true.

Where do you draw the line?  Where do you draw the line?  Maybe moms should attempt to gain full custody over dads buying their kids the wrong clothes.  Where do you draw the line?  Where, huh?  Where?

Where do you draw the line at determining what is harmful? McDonalds? Coke? XBox?
[/quote]

[NHSparky]

Using moral relativism isn't going to help your position. Last I checked, MURDER is illegal, so your argument is horrible.

You're confusing acknoweledgement of the law with endorsement of the behavior.

So is showing porn to minors.  Difference in severity, yes, but illegal neverthless.

[IassaFTots]

The full responsibility for defending children falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us."

 Dee Snyder, 1985.

I see this strictly as a parental rights issue.  I consider myself fortunate that my parents had the right to parent me as they saw fit.  I do not want to see more restrictive laws instituted as they revolve around parental rights.  With all of the crap going on right now, I think it is an imperative to insure that parents retain their rights to be parents.  

[bkg]

So is showing porn to minors.  Difference in severity, yes, but illegal neverthless.

It's not illegal, though. Isn't that the crux of the entire issue here?

BTW - whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty" in this country?

[Odin's Hand]

It's not illegal, though. Isn't that the crux of the entire issue here?

BTW - whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty" in this country?

The crux of matter is that ALL parents with custody rights to the children weren't in consensus with the actions of the father. Somehow, this code condones him making a solitary judgement on the display of pornography to their children without her consent. A provision that is not codified in the current statute and infringes upon her parental rights within the Texas Penal Code that I addressed earlier.

[bkg]

The crux of matter is that ALL parents with custody rights to the children weren't in consensus with the actions of the father. Somehow, this code condones him making a solitary judgement on the display of pornography to their children without her consent. A provision that is not codified in the current statute and infringes upon her parental rights within the Texas Penal Code that I addressed earlier.

So he broke the law when he didn't get the mother's permission... not when he showed them the porn?

How many parents would be in jail over a diagreement about their kids? My dad took me to a movie once after my mother grounded me. She was pissed. Did he break the law (under the TX statute)??

Slope isn't slippery - it's got a the worlds largest slip-n-slide firmly attached to it...

[Odin's Hand]

So he broke the law when he didn't get the mother's permission... not when he showed them the porn?

How many parents would be in jail over a diagreement about their kids? My dad took me to a movie once after my mother grounded me. She was pissed. Did he break the law (under the TX statute)??

Slope isn't slippery - it's got a the worlds largest slip-n-slide firmly attached to it...

According to how it is written, he didn't break the law. The law in itself is contrary to the others' language written before it. Which begs the matter, which portion of the law supersedes the other? The right for the mother to "protect" her children from these displays, as spelled out in the penal code, or the right of the father to display pornography to his children without her approval? I know which camp I am in.

[NHSparky]

It's not illegal, though. Isn't that the crux of the entire issue here?

BTW - whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty" in this country?

Are you arguing that it SHOULD be legal?  And yeah, there should be fairly clear guidelines on what qualifies as "hard core" and what does not.

Nekkid bewbs?  Not hardcore.  Showing actual penetration?  Hardcore.  Junior finding daddy's PENTHOUSE stash?  Not hardcore.  Forcing (forcing!) kids to watch sexual acts?  Hardcore.

See how simple it is?

Again, legal and moral don't always coincide.

[jinxmchue]

We changed the laws because one idiot drank and drove.  (Actually, after several idiots did that.)  I guess that was just "nanny state" stuff, too.