• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Texas Law protects Parents to show porn

MsSage

Well-known member
OMGAWD I cant believe this.......
Texas Law Protecting Parental Sex Education Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch Porn


DALLAS — 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.

"Our hands are tied. It's not our fault. I have to follow the law," Farren said Thursday. "The mother of the victims in this case was less than happy with this decision, which I understand. We were less than happy with the statute."

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.

Farren said police reported the incident to his office after one of the girls told a counselor in June that her father made them watch adults having group sex and various other acts at his home in Amarillo. The parents of the girls, and their 7-year-old sister, are divorced and share custody.
The girls' mother, Crystal Buckner, wants her ex-husband to be jailed. She said she was stunned to hear from prosecutors and police that nothing can be done.

"I said, 'Are you kidding me?' There's no way. This can't be right," said Buckner, a 30-year-old stay-at-home mother.

The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case. She has printed out copies of the penal code, which she hands out to everyone she meets.

"I want people to know about this. I want parents to be mad and say, 'No!"' she said. "I understand in the '70s everybody wanted the government to stay out of their homes. I don't want to stop parents from having that right to teach sex education, but there's a big difference and there's a line you should not cross when teaching."

The case caught the attention of state Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville who said he's planning to push for a change in the law in the next legislative session in 2011.

The Texas attorney general's office said Thursday that it would be months before an opinion's issued and declined further comment.

Farren said he thinks the law is clear and that the attorney general will agree.

"I don't think that's what the legislators intended, but it's the result," he said. "If our interpretation is wrong, that'd be great. It's fine, we'd love to go ahead and prosecute."

Farren noted that the law does not mention intent. According to the Texas penal code passage, "harmful material" such as pornography is considered defensible from prosecution if "the sale, distribution, or exhibition to a minor who was accompanied by a consenting parent, adult, or spouse."

"It just says it's a defense. Period," said Farren, who also hopes the case will force the Legislature to revisit the issue.

As for the girls, they still go to their father's house once a month, but those visits now must be supervised.

A call placed to the home of the girls' father, who is not charged with a crime, was not immediately returned Thursday.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
From one extreme to another.


Story from the UK:
Last updated at 7:18 PM on 28th October 2009

Parents are being banned from playing with their children in council recreation areas because they have not been vetted by police.

Mothers and fathers are being forced to watch their children from outside perimeter fences because of fears they could be paedophiles.

Watford Council was branded a 'disgrace' yesterday after excluding parents from two fenced-off adventure playgrounds unless they first undergo criminal record checks.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223528/Parents-banned-supervising-children-playgrounds--case-paedophiles.html#ixzz0VNkg2nkF
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
The filth on the televisin these days could not be seen back in the early 70's. Not only that there was no cable, HBO etc. You were lucky to get three channels. Hee Haw was king.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
The filth on the televisin these days could not be seen back in the early 70's. Not only that there was no cable, HBO etc. You were lucky to get three channels. Hee Haw was king.

Seems every single sitcom show is based around sex, every episode is jokes about and sexual in content. I can not count how many times I have to change the channel because of stupid sexual content and do not want to watch it with my 13 year old daughter and 12 year old son.
 

Einstein

Well-known member
let me see:

background checks on all parents with underage children

or

no background checks for all parents with underage children




we could have background checks on all minorities


we could have background checks on all non-minorities




better yet:


handcuff everyone under 50 from when their children come home from school
 

MsSage

Well-known member
einstien so you agree the father should be allowed to "Force" his daughters to watch porn. Do you know how child molestation starts?
I have no problem with parents teaching sex ed BUT this was not that.
Not allowing parents in with thier children in a playground is also extreme.
What has happened to common sense? What has happened to morals?
 

Einstein

Well-known member
MsSage said:
einstien so you agree the father should be allowed to "Force" his daughters to watch porn. Do you know how child molestation starts?
I have no problem with parents teaching sex ed BUT this was not that.
Not allowing parents in with thier children in a playground is also extreme.
What has happened to common sense? What has happened to morals?

the article uses the term "accused". the accused could be completely innocent and the wife could be the culprit for all we know. the wife could be upset because the husband didn't wash dishes the previous night.

your child molestation question is unanswerable for noone knows how child molestation starts.

we could allow officers of the court to search all homes containing children and force them and their children to answer questions to see if their children complain about being molested. polygraphs can wait a year or two after the trial studies are over. so next time a child asks a parent for anything, the parent better give it to the child, because the child is now the parent via role reversals.

that sounds fair right?

you see, i believe the wife COULD want total custody of the children and is framing the father, for all we know. we would be better off as a country to remove the constitution from all courts. then we can remove all the perverts, you know, to protect our children.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
backhoeboogie said:
The filth on the televisin these days could not be seen back in the early 70's. Not only that there was no cable, HBO etc. You were lucky to get three channels. Hee Haw was king.

Seems every single sitcom show is based around sex, every episode is jokes about and sexual in content. I can not count how many times I have to change the channel because of stupid sexual content and do not want to watch it with my 13 year old daughter and 12 year old son.

Aplus you are to be commended. Far to many parents just use the excuse oh well its everywhere. All the while letting their children be programmed with warped hollywood sadistic values.
 

Einstein

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
The filth on the televisin these days could not be seen back in the early 70's. Not only that there was no cable, HBO etc. You were lucky to get three channels. Hee Haw was king.

Hee Haw was the start of it. the only reason i watched it was to see the breasts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Einstein said:
backhoeboogie said:
The filth on the televisin these days could not be seen back in the early 70's. Not only that there was no cable, HBO etc. You were lucky to get three channels. Hee Haw was king.

Hee Haw was the start of it. the only reason i watched it was to see the breasts.

You dirty dog its no wonder you own cows. Now you can look at a field full of teets. :shock: :oops: :lol:
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Pig Farmer said:
Einstein said:
backhoeboogie said:
The filth on the televisin these days could not be seen back in the early 70's. Not only that there was no cable, HBO etc. You were lucky to get three channels. Hee Haw was king.

Hee Haw was the start of it. the only reason i watched it was to see the breasts.

You dirty dog its no wonder you own cows. Now you can look at a field full of teets. :shock: :oops: :lol:

if that was the case, i would be a pig farmer (no pun intended), because more teets per square inch. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Einstein said:
Pig Farmer said:
Einstein said:
Hee Haw was the start of it. the only reason i watched it was to see the breasts.

You dirty dog its no wonder you own cows. Now you can look at a field full of teets. :shock: :oops: :lol:

if that was the case, i would be a pig farmer (no pun intended), because more teets per square inch. :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Dang you I am busted. :oops: :oops: :oops:
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Pig Farmer said:
Dang you I am busted. :oops: :oops: :oops:

skin sells. money is needed to live.

capitalism is the most efficient mechanism to regulate supply and demand.

if you want to counter the system, one way would be to remove all TVs from the house.

we could just pass another law and add it to the new stacks. from now on, anyone watching channels 44 through 98, 144, 233, or 298, now has to have a background check.
 
Top