• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Court: Alleged sexting between teacher, minor is free speech"

Skwim

Veteran Member
"The case against a junior high school teacher accused of sexting a 13-year-old girl has been dropped, but not for lack of evidence.

It was dropped because courts and prosecutors say the Texas law banning adults from sex chat with minors violates the right to free speech.

An appeals court ruled that a teacher can participate in a certain level of sexting with a student, and it's not against the law."
source


Thoughts?
 

dust1n

Zindīq
I suspect laws regarding the matter will be further solidified regarding such a matter. Needless to say, the guy didn't get to keep his job or anything.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I vaguely recall a case in which an adult was successfully prosecuted for some kind of sex crime with a minor after he gave the minor fact based information about sex over the internet. He wasn't propositioning her. He was just giving her advice that she had solicited from him, but the prosecutor fobbed it off as lewd and indecent. At any rate, he had to register as a sex offender.
 

McBell

Unbound
"The case against a junior high school teacher accused of sexting a 13-year-old girl has been dropped, but not for lack of evidence.

It was dropped because courts and prosecutors say the Texas law banning adults from sex chat with minors violates the right to free speech.

An appeals court ruled that a teacher can participate in a certain level of sexting with a student, and it's not against the law."
source


Thoughts?

Texas.
Enough said.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
By that logic death threats should also be protected as free speech.
There's a good deal of difference between sex chat and death threats.

Chat is merely informal conversation; "talking about" X. X in this case being sex.

A threat is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. It instills fear, which violates one of the broadly recognized human rights: Freedom of Fear, the others being Freedom of want, Freedom of worship, and Freedom of speech.
"Laws against verbal threats are in effect in all 50 states. Threatening a person with immediate or pending harm is an arrestable offense. Forcing someone to do something under verbal threat is likewise an arrestable offense. For example, a disgruntled customer may tell a cashier at a store, "I hate this store. I'm going to come back here with a gun and then we'll see if I get my refund!"
source

Now, if you can establish that harm (injury or damage) results from "sex chat" you may have a point. If not, then this "logic" you see doesn't hold up.
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
Wait...maybe I'm being biased and generalizing, but it seems to me that this judge who ruled this way would have been conservative, am I correct in this?
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
Wait...maybe I'm being biased and generalizing, but it seems to me that this judge who ruled this way would have been conservative, am I correct in this?

The article doesn't seem to address the political leaning of the appeals court judge, either way.

It seems there was no actual judge in this particular case, but that the DA chose to drop the charges -- based upon the ruling of an appeals court judge in another, separate, case.

Courthouse News Service

I don't really see it as an issue that shows an obvious leaning -- either toward conservatism or liberalism. I think someone from either end of the spectrum could see it the same way, but for different reasons.

As a mother, I would be furious if a teacher were texting my daughter of that age in such a manner.

However, according to the OP article, it seems that since there was no attempt to meet, or take any sexual action, it was interpreted that the conversations did not fit the definition that would make them fall with an interpretation of criminal action -- according to state law as written. That is my understanding of why the DA dropped the charges.

There might still be civil issues involved.

edit: After looking a bit further, it is my understanding that Appeals Court decision was made by a panel of judges, rather than by a single judge; although the opinion was written by a single person, Judge Cathy Cochran. According to Judgepedia (don't know how much weight I give this source) she is a Republican and was scored as having a liberal leaning ideology: http://judgepedia.org/Cathy_Cochran .
 
Last edited:

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
"The case against a junior high school teacher accused of sexting a 13-year-old girl has been dropped, but not for lack of evidence.

It was dropped because courts and prosecutors say the Texas law banning adults from sex chat with minors violates the right to free speech.

An appeals court ruled that a teacher can participate in a certain level of sexting with a student, and it's not against the law."
source


Thoughts?

Part of the reason why none of our kids had cell phones until they turned 16 and had a job. Our youngest is 15 and still doesn't have a cell phone. And in our family, they've only complained a few times (typically after hanging out with their friends). But they know us and know that we value them earning those privileges themselves.

That "certain level of sexting" phrase is what has opened up the can of worms. What qualifies as sexting in their eyes? Is the conversation titillating or informative?

Tbh, there is a huge grey area here. Especially if a student is asking a teacher for advice on how to handle sexual situations, feelings, and fantasies if the student feels he or she can't go to the parents.

Myself, I personally draw a line. Found out the hard way, too, since at 19 I was fired from a dance studio when parents found out I described what a blowjob was to a 14 year old. I was blacklisted for a couple of years in a local group of studios, though I still worked in other cities. So, since then, I had kept myself as distanced as possible when it comes to any sort of fraternization. It's allowed me to keep my jobs and has only helped my reputation as a teacher of students of all ages.

I guess since there was no solicitation, the judge ruled that no law had been broken.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
You're a mean mom!

No I'm not. I let them out of their cages every now and then when I want them to run to the kitchen to get me a plate of food. Plus, they learn not to use wire hangers in their closets after I'm done with them.

I'd say that qualifies me as a good mother. :slap:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No I'm not. I let them out of their cages every now and then when I want them to run to the kitchen to get me a plate of food. Plus, they learn not to use wire hangers in their closets after I'm done with them.
I'd say that qualifies me as a good mother. :slap:
I was wrong.
You're an indulgent mom!
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
"The case against a junior high school teacher accused of sexting a 13-year-old girl has been dropped, but not for lack of evidence.

It was dropped because courts and prosecutors say the Texas law banning adults from sex chat with minors violates the right to free speech.

An appeals court ruled that a teacher can participate in a certain level of sexting with a student, and it's not against the law."
source


Thoughts?

If I read through right they just exchanged pictures, her in a bra and him bear chested and he claims it was from a magazine. There was no propositioning exchanged.

I believe if he had propositioned her or Sexual organs were displayed they would have been able to get him on Child pornography charges. He didn't so were does free speech take over. I'll side with the judges on this one.
 
Top