Texas law: minors can view pornography if accompanied by parent or guardian

[Skwim]

Dallas Mom Fights To Change Texas Porn Law

Texas law says minors can view pornography if they're accompanied by a parent or guardian. It was originally designed to allow for sex education.

Crystal Buckner calls herself a "mom on a mission."

"I want to protect other kids, so this doesn't happen to anybody else's kids," she said.

Last year, Crystal said her ex-husband showed pornography on a home computer to their two girls, who were eight and nine years old at the time.

"No child should know what my children know right now," she said.


source
​

I find it surprising that Texas, one of our more uptight--straitlaced states, feels that viewing pornography is an acceptable part of sex education. I'm also curious as to exactly what harm befalls a child who "knows" what pornography is.

Anyone?

 

[kai]

Theres a difference between what sex is and what pornography portrays it to be,I am all for sex education along the lines of awareness but This---- is crazy

 

[Tiapan]

Sounds safer than browsing gun adverts

Cheers

 

[Smoke]

I'm not sure it's a bad law, considering that the U.S. is so hysterical about pornography that if you take a picture of your own naked baby lying on a rug they'll haul you off to jail. It's not at all hard to believe that certain groups would consider perfectly legitimate sex education materials as "pornographic."

On the other hand, if we're talking about actual pornography, there's something very creepy and wrong about viewing it with children.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Let us be clear about it, children despite the law and the protection available, do watch pornography.

I can not believe that watching it with a parent gives any of the right messages. It suggests some perverted motive on the part of the parent.

The importance we give to nakedness and Sex is in itself perverted.

The romans displayed pictures of the sexual act on their walls for all to see. It was not thought immoral. you could hardy regard sex as smutty if it was not a hidden activity.

Perhaps it is time for us to reassess these things.

 

[Kathryn]

Here's the law itself:

§ 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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
unless it is committed under Subsection (b)(3) in which event it is
a felony of the third degree.


Here's an excellent NPR update on the case in question:
Dad, Daughters And Porn Make For Tricky Legal Case : NPR


The wording is obviously ridiculous in the current penal law. Though the intent of the law was to protect parents' rights to teach their children about sex without being prosecuted, it would seem that any politician drafting or reviewing the wording of the law before passage should have been able to see that the wording was, well, STUPID.

Yet another example of incompetence by our elected officials.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Well, as long as it isn't gay porn, I guess officials in Texas are just fine with it.

 

[Skwim]

The wording is obviously ridiculous in the current penal law. Though the intent of the law was to protect parents' rights to teach their children about sex without being prosecuted, it would seem that any politician drafting or reviewing the wording of the law before passage should have been able to see that the wording was, well, STUPID.

I didn't see any mention of what the intent of the law was. Do you have another source?



From the link:

"Farren [Randall County District Attorney] is unhappy with the language in the Texas penal code. So he has charged the father with a different crime — child endangerment, a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. To get a conviction, Farren will have to prove the father put his daughters in "imminent danger of mental impairment" by showing them pornography. It may be a long shot, the D.A. says, but he's going to try."
​

Lot's of luck Farren. You'll need it. On second thought, Texas is known for playing fast and loose with the law, so who knows what will be decided.

 

[Kathryn]

I didn't see any mention of what the intent of the law was. Do you have another source?



From the link:

"Farren [Randall County District Attorney] is unhappy with the language in the Texas penal code. So he has charged the father with a different crime — child endangerment, a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. To get a conviction, Farren will have to prove the father put his daughters in "imminent danger of mental impairment" by showing them pornography. It may be a long shot, the D.A. says, but he's going to try."
​

Lot's of luck Farren. You'll need it. On second thought, Texas is known for playing fast and loose with the law, so who knows what will be decided.

I googled the history of the case and that section of the penal code and several legal sources stated the context as being in order to protect parents' rights to teach sex education to their children without being charged with showing children "indecent" things.

firstamendmentcenter.org: news

FOXNews.com - Texas Law Challenged After Man Allegedly Forces Daughters to Watch 'Hardcore Porn'

Dallas Mom Fighting Law Allowing Kids To See Porn - cbs11tv.com

By the way, I'm not defending the law as it is written. Though the original intent may have been to protect the rights of parents to responsibly educate their children on the topic of sex (which SHOULD be a parent's right), it's obviously written very poorly - and is a terrible reflection on the incompetency of politicians in general (so what else is new?). It should be re-evaluated and re written. And - it IS being re-evaluated.

As for your allegation that "Texas is known for playing fast and loose with the law," - sources, please.

 

[Skwim]

I googled the history of the case and that section of the penal code and several legal sources stated the context as being in order to protect parents' rights to teach sex education to their children without being charged with showing children "indecent" things.

It would be nice to see such sources. So far all we have is . . .

"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."
​

. . .from your first link, which doesn't make the assertion, only a supposition: "apparently."

As for your allegation that "Texas is known for playing fast and loose with the law," - sources, please.

Well it's known as such among those in my circle. Here are a few pieces on Texas conduct that speaks to our perception.

"The [Texas] commission’s review comes much too late to save Willingham, but there are significant lessons to learn from the case to help prevent future wrongful convictions. For playing fast and loose with the death penalty and then stifling the investigation, Governor Perry’s firing of his forensic science commissioner is one of the worst policies of 2009."
source


Texas lawmakers play fast and loose with votes . . . Texas state lawmakers manipulating the voting system by casting multiple votes at once.
source


Sharon Keller, the embattled presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, vowed Friday to appeal what her attorney called an excessive fine for failing to disclose more than $2.8 million in personal holdings.

Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, said Friday he was gratified by the ethics commission's decision, which he said sends a strong message.

"We're hoping because the fine was substantial that it will serve as a deterrent to other politicians who tend to play fast and loose with the disclosure laws," he said.
source


"Chrysler Group Puts Texas Lawyers on Trial

Austin, TX, Jul 09, 2003
Lawsuit shows attempted bribery, evidence tampering and fraud
Automaker says lawyers should not be allowed to practice law
Case highlights abuses in American civil justice system
DaimlerChrysler contacts:

"This is an appalling example of the how the perverse incentives of the American civil justice system can tempt lawyers to play fast and loose with evidence in an effort to hit the litigation lottery," said Steve Hantler, Chrysler Group Assistant General Counsel.
source


It's especially amusing to see former House majority leader [US House Rep. from Texas] Tom DeLay complain about the politicization of justice. The man who spoke of the Clinton impeachment as "a debate about relativism versus absolute truth" now insists that the Democratic prosecutor in Texas who indicted him on charges of violating campaign finance law is engaged in a partisan war. That's precisely what Clinton's defenders accused DeLay of championing in the impeachment battle seven years ago.

DeLay's supporters say charges that he transferred corporate money illegally to local Texas campaigns should be discounted because "everybody does it" when it comes to playing fast and loose with political cash.
source
​

 

[Kathryn]

Well it's known as such among those in my circle.

Oh, so it's a catch phrase among your friends. I get it.

E.J. Dionne - liberal commentator.

Drum Major Institute blog - self acclaimed "progressive" (aka liberal) organization

Steve Hantler - lawyer for Chrysler involved in a lawsuit in Texas

Craig McDonald - another person involved in a lawsuit

Hardly objective or diverse sources. But at least you're transparent.

 

[Skwim]

Oh, so it's a catch phrase among your friends. I get it.

Of course it is!! In fact, it's a very common expression.

Definitions of "play fast and loose":

● "To ignore proper behavior or social conventions, especially when it suits ones purpose; To be recklessly inaccurate, inappropriate, or otherwise ignoring guidelines and conventions"
Source: wiktionary

● "to act irresponsibly or recklessly without regard to facts or others' feelings."
Source: encarta
​

Did you think it was a literal description?

And how about those "several legal sources [that] stated the context as being in order to protect parents' rights to teach sex education to their children without being charged with showing children 'indecent' things." Still waiting. Or is this something you simply made up?

 

[ZooGirl02]

Yeah... like a teenager is going to view pornography with their mother or father standing over their shoulders!

 

[McBell]

Dallas Mom Fights To Change Texas Porn Law

Texas law says minors can view pornography if they're accompanied by a parent or guardian. It was originally designed to allow for sex education.

Crystal Buckner calls herself a "mom on a mission."

"I want to protect other kids, so this doesn't happen to anybody else's kids," she said.

Last year, Crystal said her ex-husband showed pornography on a home computer to their two girls, who were eight and nine years old at the time.

"No child should know what my children know right now," she said.


source
​

I find it surprising that Texas, one of our more uptight--straitlaced states, feels that viewing pornography is an acceptable part of sex education. I'm also curious as to exactly what harm befalls a child who "knows" what pornography is.

Anyone?

First things first...
How does the law define "pornography"?

I mean, I remember a magazine (Parenting Magazine if memory serves) that got blasted with accusations of 'pornography' because they had a picture of child breast feeding.

 

[Kathryn]

First things first...
How does the law define "pornography"?

I mean, I remember a magazine (Parenting Magazine if memory serves) that got blasted with accusations of 'pornography' because they had a picture of child breast feeding.

Mestemia, you're so smart.

This is the very crux of the issue and the reason for this (poorly written) law - the law was originally put into place to protect the rights of parents to teach their children sex education outside the classroom, without having to fear prosecution for showing them "indecent" material.

The terms just need to be more clearly defined with this law.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sounds safer than browsing gun adverts

Cheers

Your obsessive and emotional hangups are adorable.

 

[Punnchy]

Oh wow, that's not the age to be teaching your kids about the birds and the bee's, no way no how.

 

[McBell]

Oh wow, that's not the age to be teaching your kids about the birds and the bee's, no way no how.

Depends entirely upon when they start asking the questions.
I know that some schools hate it when your child knows more about the birds and the bees then they are comfortable teaching.

But again, define pornography.
My wife and I was accused of showing our daughters pornography because we used a biology textbook diagram to help us explain the birds and the bees.

 

[Punnchy]

Depends entirely upon when they start asking the questions.
I know that some schools hate it when your child knows more about the birds and the bees then they are comfortable teaching.

But again, define pornography.
My wife and I was accused of showing our daughters pornography because we used a biology textbook diagram to help us explain the birds and the bees.

Pornography is a sexually explicit act in my book.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure it's a bad law, considering that the U.S. is so hysterical about pornography that if you take a picture of your own naked baby lying on a rug they'll haul you off to jail. It's not at all hard to believe that certain groups would consider perfectly legitimate sex education materials as "pornographic."

On the other hand, if we're talking about actual pornography, there's something very creepy and wrong about viewing it with children.

What he said.