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

[Thor]

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.

And that's WHY she should have his ass in court. And, yes, the girls MAY have to be dragged through there.The other option, while somewhat more distasteful, IMO, is for HER to get Child Protective Services involved, investigate the situation and go from there.

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

It is NOT illegal in the State of Texas IF the parent is the one that shows them the porn. That's the whole POINT!!



Ohh, Sparky, if your fist meets my nose for some reason, that's called assault. That's illegal. I'm ashamed of a fellow Sailor, ESPECIALLY a Nuke, using a statement like that, far out of context and completely wrong. (For the rest out there, Navy Nuke school is one of the academically toughest schools in the US out of ALL schools in the US)

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

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

Not true. Where do you draw the line at determining what is harmful? McDonalds? Coke? XBox?

A real quick example of MN's Nanny Statism is the FACT that children are being taught to call 9-1-1 if they get spanked by their parents. My daughter threatened me with that when she was in 3rd grade. She learned that from public school in Hastings, MN.

bkg, and yes, where do we draw the line at?? It's as if some of these people would invoke Sharia law or the moral equivalent. The bigger problem in this country is that morals have hit the gutter. Mild porn is apparently acceptable on TV now, along with extreme violence. I remember quite well when the news wouldn't show some pictures of the Viet Nam war because they might be disturbing. That changed sometime around 1970. Now, if something's disturbing, all a broadcaster needs to do is throw up some caveat stating that the article "MIGHT be disturbing to some people". Want examples?? Just watch VH-1, MTV, or one of the many sit coms.

...
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.

Part of the point I was attempting to make.

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.

Actually, nekkid bewbs ARE pornographic, maybe not hardcore, but still fall into the pornography category. Penthouse is STILL "pornography"

I still have a problem with this allegation that the father "forced" those girls to watch hardcore porn. I just don't understand how a person could "Force" another (of ANY age) to sit and watch something that they didn't want to watch short of taping their eyes open and tying them to a chair in front of the TV. Something in the story stinks.

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.

Yeah, it is. I know of many people that CAN drink and drive and NOT hurt or kill anybody else. We can thank MADD for that law. They lobbied the various states to get the laws passed. It used to be legal in Texas to have an open container in one's vehicle, literally drinking and driving. It wasn't a problem in the laws eyes until someone became too intoxicated.

What about seat belts?? I don't believe that there should be a law regarding seat belts, but there is. Again, the Nanny State in action, attempting to legislate what should be common sense. Honestly, I like the military's sentiments and rules regarding seat belts; if one gets hurt because they weren't wearing a seat belts (or helmets), they will probably have to pay for their own medical expenses.(it's NOT a "law", but a regulation imposed on those who choose to serve) In addition, I see any state, that includes MN AND Texas, that have seat belt laws and NOT helmet laws as hypocrites, too.

[DixieBelle]

I have a request - please keep this discussion civil and if you can't, go to the Fight Club.

Like someone said upthread, like many issues, we will disagree even if we all call ourselves Conservatives. I'm seeing a lot of people digging in their heels and that's fine. But keep in mind that a lot of the arguments being made are based on theoretical situations and not just the case at hand. I believe that a cornerstone of Conservatisim is the recognition of the law of Unintended Consequences. That is the undercurrent in the arguments I'm seeing in this thread. Focus on that. This is also a case we know precious little about. I hope everyone can keep an open mind as we discover more details.

Heated debate is a wonderful thing. You cannot hone your viewpoint unless you sharpen it against many others. That being said, let's not lose our heads and remember that impassioned arguments are just that; spoken in the heat of the moment and not indicative of our overall shared values.

Now, carry on and keep the debate going.

[NHSparky]

Maybe so, Thor.  We all know reporters are notoriously bad for screwing up even a story about a wet dream, and this is likely no exception.

That being said, if the law doesn't protect the innocent, then it's pretty friggin useless.  The father showed incredibly poor judgement even allowing his daughters to VIEW porn, forcibly or not.  Should the law allow discretion as to what is age-appropriate?  Yes.  

If in fact that's the case, then mom has a right to haul his ass in front of a judge and get his visitation cut.  Jail, no--but even you can't defend this guy's scumbag actions.

This is probably the main issue I've had with the libertarian "do as you please" types.  Actions DO have consequences, sometimes far beyond that which the act intends, and far beyond what an individual may have allowed for prior to taking that action.  So while the "swinging fist" analogy might be overly simplistic, one DOES have to show a modicum of self-restraint insofar as they do not understand the impact their actions would have on others.

There, is that a little more "Nuke School" in line for ya?  It's not that he broke the law--we all know he didn't.  It's the fact that 1--he should have known better, 2--he did it anyway, 3--what's to stop him from doing it again, or worse?

[bkg]

Maybe so, Thor.  We all know reporters are notoriously bad for screwing up even a story about a wet dream, and this is likely no exception.

That being said, if the law doesn't protect the innocent, then it's pretty friggin useless.  The father showed incredibly poor judgement even allowing his daughters to VIEW porn, forcibly or not.  Should the law allow discretion as to what is age-appropriate?  Yes.  

Incorrect. Laws are not to protect the "innocent," despit how much we each (emotionally/spiritually) want them to. Laws protect RIGHTS. Rather, they are supposed to protect rights. We've gon well beyond that, as we all know, in the last few decades.

There, is that a little more "Nuke School" in line for ya?  It's not that he broke the law--we all know he didn't.  It's the fact that 1--he should have known better, 2--he did it anyway, 3--what's to stop him from doing it again, or worse?

When do laws ever stop intelligent people from doing stupid things? Never have, never will. Laws are not supposed to dictate intelligence. And in fact, have no abilitity to do so.

[Thor]

Maybe so, Thor.  We all know reporters are notoriously bad for screwing up even a story about a wet dream, and this is likely no exception.

That being said, if the law doesn't protect the innocent, then it's pretty friggin useless.  The father showed incredibly poor judgement even allowing his daughters to VIEW porn, forcibly or not.  Should the law allow discretion as to what is age-appropriate?  Yes.  

If in fact that's the case, then mom has a right to haul his ass in front of a judge and get his visitation cut.  Jail, no--but even you can't defend this guy's scumbag actions.

This is probably the main issue I've had with the libertarian "do as you please" types.  Actions DO have consequences, sometimes far beyond that which the act intends, and far beyond what an individual may have allowed for prior to taking that action.  So while the "swinging fist" analogy might be overly simplistic, one DOES have to show a modicum of self-restraint insofar as they do not understand the impact their actions would have on others.

There, is that a little more "Nuke School" in line for ya?  It's not that he broke the law--we all know he didn't.  It's the fact that 1--he should have known better, 2--he did it anyway, 3--what's to stop him from doing it again, or worse?

I don't believe that I've actually defended this guy's actions. I find the thought of it reprehensible, at best. I WILL defend the law. Like Splashdown stated, are we to change the law, all because of ONE idiot??  I'm pretty sure that you're well aware of the 10% rule.

It's also permissible in Texas for parent(s) to serve their children alcohol. I'm all for parental rights, even if they do get abused once in a while.

It's too bad that this story will probably never be followed up on. I, for one, would like to see what the outcome was, if the guy actually did this and what the consequences of his actions might be. Unfortunately, since there will be no more sensationalism, I doubt there will be any follow-up.

[bkg]

It is NOT illegal in the State of Texas IF the parent is the one that shows them the porn. That's the whole POINT!!

I concur. Still think it's disgusting... IF IT'S TRUE. SAdly, many people are already convicting this person w/o knowing the truth. Hasn't been PROVEN guilty yet.

A real quick example of MN's Nanny Statism is the FACT that children are being taught to call 9-1-1 if they get spanked by their parents. My daughter threatened me with that when she was in 3rd grade. She learned that from public school in Hastings, MN.

The fact that one of my moronic Senators wants to change laws for laptops in cocpits is evidence of the fact that we build laws around the minority, not the majority. One stupid decision and we have a new law. Completely, utterly stupid, and the fastest way to lose our rights.

bkg, and yes, where do we draw the line at?? It's as if some of these people would invoke Sharia law or the moral equivalent.

That's the problem - who decides? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? You? Me? The Church? The school administrators? OR PARENTS? You have people everywhere, including here, who want to apply their morals to the law... unfortunately, when someone else does the same, people get PO'd because someone is infringing on their rights.  That's why "morals" should have no part of laws.

[bkg]

It's also permissible in Texas for parent(s) to serve their children alcohol. I'm all for parental rights, even if they do get abused once in a while.

What's that quote again? "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither?" or something like that?

[NHSparky]

What's that quote again? "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither?" or something like that?

Try this one on for size:

"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” -Ronald Reagan

I can't argue with that statement, and yes, sometimes parents do go beyond what would be considered reasonable limits.  That's why we have child abuse laws, etc.  Where the government has gone too far is to make parents afraid to discipline their children precisely because they're teaching them to call 911.

It's a fine line, and one which lies in different places for different people.

[bkg]

It's a fine line, and one which lies in different places for different people.

Which I would argue is the core of this discussion.

[jinxmchue]

What's that quote again? "He who gives up liberty for security gets neither?" or something like that?

If you're including being able to show underaged children hardcore porn under the header of "liberty," then I weep for you.

[bkg]

If you're including being able to show underaged children hardcore porn under the header of "liberty," then I weep for you.

Yeah.. .that's EXACTLY what I meant.   

[Thor]

And yet again, Jinx misses the entire concept of this discussion. It appears to me that Jinx would impose Sharia law on us all.

[bkg]

And yet again, Jinx misses the entire concept of this discussion. It appears to me that Jinx would impose "Jinx's version of" Sharia law on us all.

I think this is likely more accurate. Not pinking on Jinx, but this is exactly what people really want: laws to reflect only their personal wants.

[Thor]

I think this is likely more accurate. Not pinking on Jinx, but this is exactly what people really want: laws to reflect only their personal wants.

this entire conversation makes me wonder what laws that people would choose to ignore and what laws they would impose on us all?? Since Jinx seems to want to have it only his way, I would ask of him which laws has he broken/ ignored in the past?? I'm no angel, so I won't throw stones, but ask this in a more rhetorical sense.

[rich_t]

HEY! WHOA! HEY!!!! SHE??????   

Ooops....  Sorry for the typo.

[vesta111]

  Not all laws are written in stone, some are unspoken laws, most laws vary from State to State and the penalty for breaking the law can be different from town to town with in each state.

There are 3 bridges that connect Maine and New Hampshire. One foot over the line into either State could mean the difference between life or death.  If one were to decide to kill someone by throwing them off any of those 3 bridges one had best do so on the Maine side as Maine has no death Penalty.  New Hampshire does in fact still have the death penalty but has not been used since 1930 something. " Just one foot over the line sweet Jesus, one foot over the line."

The very reason we have LAWYERS is to find a way to get around laws and protect ourselves from them. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse we are told but what about ignorance from a non existing law that can cause us to be fined or jailed.?

Example,  Newington NH,  For years people had been hauled into court for violating the open container for a passenger in an auto or truck.

In the 1990 era some up and coming kid taking Criminal Justice at the Community College was asked by a family member to research the law as they had been a passenger in a car drinking a beer in the back seat when the driver was pulled and they were facing a heavy fine also for allowing the passenger to drink.

The Lawyers of both men told them to just pay the fine and don't do that again.

SO, the student spent weeks trying to find the law that in the town of Newington this was illegal.  When he/she could not find the law his/her instructor made that a class project for about 25 students.

The upshot was that there was no law in that town against open container by a passenger and had never been one.  Even the Governor got involved as the Judges had been fining people for years for a non existent law.

The law can be tricky, some times laws are repealed and Judges and police are not aware of the fact and fine people using outdated laws that are no longer valid.

This may be off topic but just for a moment.

My EX-father-in law is an insurance adjuster. He told me that if in an accident one of the most important people you will be talking to in the insurance field is the very first person who comes out to view the damage to you and your car.  This person can make or break you. They can give you a break or set the stage so you get little.

The police are just like that, when one is advised by the police that they MAY have broken local laws, it is at their description to haul you in or advise you of the law and go on their way.

In Texas it may be lawfull for a man to show his 13 year old stepdaughter Hard core sex movies, in the Bible belt I am sure that is a NO-NO.

In some areas of Nevada prostitution is legal but not in Los Vegas.

This debate is not about Morals it is about LAW. 

What about yourself personally, do you not have rules and regulations in your home, have you never had to lay down the law to outsiders or family.?

In my home all males must remove their hats when they enter my house and that goes for any male over the age of 2.

No male eats at my table wearing no shirt or shoes and no sleeveless T. shirts.

No one sleeps on my sofa unless spending the night, if one is tired then go to bed.

Everyone must scuff their feet outside, no tracking in Mud ice or snow.

Few people visit unannounced-- just by phone call or mail, it is at MY convenience I receive them and I don't want to get caught Naked making coffee in the kitchen.

These are my personal laws, never hurt my kids growing up, they all do otherwise with their family but that is their choice.

Laws change as do morals to reflect the times, and the comunity.  Because Morals that are self imposed are flying out the window, the Law is for good or bad the only thing that  can be challenged and satisfy the needs of a diverse comunity.

[Daisy]

If you ponder briefly, you gotta wonder what takes place in that house during it, and when the hardcore porn movie stops.

[Chris_]

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.

I noticed Thor never answered this question.

[vesta111]

If you ponder briefly, you gotta wonder what takes place in that house during it, and when the hardcore porn movie stops.

I am sure after the movie father and daughters sat down to a  fun game Of Scrabble. called out for Pizza and  then watched the Disney Chanel.

[Celtic Rose]

I noticed Thor never answered this question.

You know what, I cannot think of any innocent explanation for a father forcing daughters that young to watch hardcore pornography.  To me, it could very well be a form of sexual abuse, and I think it is definitely something to be seriously concerned about if the impression we are getting from this article is accurate.  If this article is accurate, I hope that the mother manages to either get full custody, or supervised visitation only for the father. 

[Chris_]

You know what, I cannot think of any innocent explanation for a father forcing daughters that young to watch hardcore pornography.  To me, it could very well be a form of sexual abuse, and I think it is definitely something to be seriously concerned about if the impression we are getting from this article is accurate.  If this article is accurate, I hope that the mother manages to either get full custody, or supervised visitation only for the father. 

I can't even think of any excuse for a parent to allow them to watch, much less force them to do so.

[Chris_]

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.

Looks liike he's not going to answer.   

[Thor]

Knock it off, lug-nut. If you could read, you would have noticed that I have already answered this question several times. Fact is, the LAW says it is. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant. 

[Chris_]

Knock it off, lug-nut. If you could read, you would have noticed that I have already answered this question several times. Fact is, the LAW says it is. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant. 

Nope.  Not answered yet.  I didn't ask what the law says it is, so once again, do YOU think it should be legal to show hard core porn to minors?
A simple yes or no is all it needs.

[Thor]

Nope.  Not answered yet.  I didn't ask what the law says it is, so once again, do YOU think it should be legal to show hard core porn to minors?
A simple yes or no is all it needs.

I've stated my opinion several times. You're apparently too dense to be able to grasp my ideology. I know........ let's ban the reading of the bible by minors because it contains pornographic writing. Or perhaps, we should ban computers, video games, TV shows, movies, music, concerts, books and the like because they contain pornographic images/ concepts/ ideas. Or perhaps, we could write the law where it allows the minor's parent(s) to decide?? People make bad decisions from time to time. Do we need a "LAW" to prevent that?? Hardly.

Hell, look at what's happening because of the two NWA pilots that overflew their destination. (An obvious "bad decision" to be on their laptops while piloting a commercial aircraft.)  Not ONLY were they fired, lost their licenses to pilot aircraft, but NOW we have people trying to construct a law to prevent future incidents. Two pilots screw up out of how many ?? 10,000, 20,000 ?? I think that the airlines & FAA are perfectly capable of handling the screw up. Look at the 20,000 some odd gun laws. Do they work?? Mostly, but still there are criminals with guns, aren't there??