One Case Showing the Problems of Criminal Law in America

Edgar Coker was 15 when he had consensual sex with a girl one year younger than himself. The girl, however, terrified of her father, decided to claim she was raped. Edgar was arrested. And he was offered a deal. If he pled guilty his sentence would be much easier, but if he insisted on his innocence, even though he was innocent, he would be tried an adult. Prosecutors love to force people to pled guilty by holding threats over their heads—and whether they really are guilty or not matters none to these petty bureaucrats wanting to become major bureaucrats.

Edgar and his family thought his only chance of surviving the justice system was a guilty plea otherwise the prosecutor would make his life a living hell. Worse, the defense attorney knew the girl had made such claims previously and then, when the judge ordered Edgar be put on the disgusting "sex offenders registry" she did nothing to protest the move—which amounts to a life sentence of harassment.

Then the girl admits she lied. The girls mother joins those defending Edgar and demanding justice. With some effort they got him released from juvenile detention—it's nice to know that they don't incarcerate innocent people for too long after they were proven innocent.

So, everything's good, except for that sex offender registry, but is that such a big deal?

"The family has moved several times, twice because of complaints from neighbors who learned that Edgar Coker Jr. was on the registry. Once, a neighborhood girl made a false sexual allegation against one of his brothers, and someone else left this note on their door when they lived in Stafford County: "We don't want a rapist living in our neighborhood."

As for Edgar he had to receive special permission to go to high school. But he couldn't take that. Seeking a job requires him to reveal he is a "sex offender" even though he isn't. So he doesn't look for work. He sits at home, afraid. What they are finding is that his innocence isn't enough to get Edgar removed from the sex offender registry. They have all sorts of methods and excuses to put people on the list, but apparently no one is sure how to remove someone. Once damned always damned. Edgar's mother says she doesn't believe "that anyone can undo the damage that has been done to him." And, remember, he is innocent of any crime.

People have to realize the Sex Offender Registries have become a sick joke. People are listed on them for the most inane things. Stopping to take a piss at the side of the road is now a "sex" offense. A kid can streak a school event and suddenly find he's a sex offender. The Puritans in America have criminalized virtually everything having to do with sex and nudity so things which before were considered normal are now sex offenses. Kids running around a playground slapping one another's butts were arrested as sex offenders. A woman who gave a blow job to another student when in high school has been on the sex registry for decades and continually loses her home over it, because of the cruel zoning laws that apply to sex offenders only.

We had one case where a man was arrested as a sex offender because he hired a stripper. The prosecutor said he used a stolen credit card and therefore committed a crime for sexual purposes. The theft of a credit card put the man on the sex offenders registry for life. A teenage boy was with a friend who robbed a Dairy Queen, for that he is on the sex offenders list. Apparently a customer was under 18 years of age and the robber made him stay in the store during the robbery. In Georgia forceable detention of a minor is a sex crime—unless I'm sure, if the schools do it. So you can be a sex offender without doing anything sexual.

The registries are a major reason that many sex offenders just choose to disappear now. The registries actually make it more difficult for released offenders from returning to a normal life and increases the risk of reoffending. The registries also tie up police resources because they have to visit all offenders periodically, even those who haven't reoffended and are doing well. It doesn't allow police to prioritize which ones to keep track of. So, in fact, police have made cursory visits to serious offenders and missed things like women being held captive in the back yard. With only a few minutes to spend at each location the visits are more routine than investigatory now. It didn't used to be that way, but the registry makes it so.

And, we have had individuals use registries to gain information on individuals and murder them. One case was a young man who had sex with his girlfriend who was slightly under the state age of consent. It wasn't rape, but that didn't matter. He was executed when he opened his door to a stranger, his mother witnessed the murder. In other cases these registries are so out of date that addresses that haven't been in use for decades are still listed. People who have done nothing but move into a new house have found themselves harassed as sex offenders because of someone who lived in the house some years before. The registries have been a disaster and need to go. At the very least they should be accessible to law enforcement only, and not to any moron with a gun and half a brain.

Prosecutor Tries to RailRoad Boy 6, Gags Parents

Back in May we reported on the vile actions of one district attorney, some bungling female Republican named Lisa Riniker, who, if there is a just God, will be sterile and never allowed near children. Riniker learned that a 5-year-old girl, her brother, and 6-year-old boy had been found playing doctor. Children playing doctor is normal and all but the religiously infested tend to see it that way. Riniker, however, is a Republican, which means she has to cater to the most fanatical elements of the American Taliban and sometimes that means you destroy a few kids along the way. After all, God loves it when one’s only born is sacrificed. Of course, Rinker prefers to sacrafice the only born of other people otherwise she would have to do the horizontal mambo and god doesn’t like it when Republicans, his chosen people, do that.

In this woman’s sick mind the children involved are evil sexual offenders who pose a threat to virginity, Jesus and the Republican Party. The boy in particular, is clearly dangerous due to, wel,l he is male, what more do you need? But Riniker was also out there looking to cover her big political ass. There were three children involved in the playing doctor game, but the girl and her brother are the children of a “well known political figure” in the county. They get listed as victims in this mutually consenting activitiy. The other boy, his parents are nobodies in policits, so all the charges are laid against him. Good move Lisa, you can further your political career while sucking up to the parents of the other kids, while destroying the life of a little boy! Bet, you say you believe in "limited" government and "family values" as well, don't you?

Riniker has been going all out to destroy the lives of this family and their son. She has gone so far as to threaten to have him taken from their custody. The parents are fighting back. Between Riniker and the cop she had constantly interrogating the child the boy now suffers from anxiety, depression, vomiting, crying, and can’t sleep. Dare anyone point out that Rinker is a child abuser. See, this is one of those things about child abuse. When government does it, it’s okay. When other people do it they crack down. So, let a pernicious prosecutor torment a child for the sake of Jesus, hysteria and the Republican Party, and everything is fine and dandy—just the way God wants it to be. Or let some TSA official run their hands through the genitals of Americans and it is not molestations. But three little kids getting curious, that's a major felony that needs attention.

Riniker has tried to force the parents of her victim to acquiesce to her jihad by telling them that she will have their child taken from their custody. It gets even more horrible when you realized the parents were told they were tampering with a witness when they invoked the right to have an attorney present while their child was being grilled.

The parents finally had enough of the harassment and attempts to intimidate them into allowing their six-year-old to register for life as a so-called sex offender—and what sex doesn’t offend Republicans? So they filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor. Up until this point Riniker had been the one whoring herself to the media and getting her bizarre accusations out to the public. The very idea that the parents would dare defend their little boy terrifies control freaks like Riniker, they need to control the dialogue so that only one side, her side, is made public. How else will she be able to protect society from the scourge of little children playing doctor.

So Riniker used her contacts in the court system to get a gag order issued against the parents. The last thing she needs is some sympathetic parents discussing how a sexually frigid political-whore used her position to destroy the life of a young boy. Riniker had a judge strip them of their right to freedom of speech.

The boy’s attorneys say the child is traumatized by the bullying tactics of Riniker and fears he will go to jail. As part of her intimidation Riniker didn’t have a summons sent to the child’s parents but mailed directly to the boy—as if a young child can understand what this means. According to Riniker the small amount of touching the children were doing is a crime because “the Legislature could have put an age restricting in the statue… the legislature did no such thing.” Apparently she would be fine in prosecuting a 9-month-old-child since the legislature didn't draw a line, that most people draw using common sense. Riniker doesn’t want just prosecution, she wants the boy put on a sex offenders list for the rest of life. It is Riniker and her ilk who have so flooded the SRO list with cases like this that any truly dangerous individuals are buried in a flood of cases that never should be there. If the SRO list is meant to protect children, then flooding the list with the names of children who clearly are not a threat to anyone, only destroys what little value the list may have had.

Two Kids Kiss, School Brings in the Cops

This blog has tried to warn about how "sex offender" laws have gotten entirely out of control. While no one seriously wishes to allow children to be raped, the laws have completely left common sense behind.

In this case two children 12-years-old had a playground kiss. The school immediately called the police and reported the miscreants. Thankfully the police had more common sense in this case than the school officials did.

But laws to protect kids have become themselves threats to the same kids. One of the signs of government overreaching is when the solutions are more harmful than the problems they were meant to solve.

Outrage on Michelangelo's David

In most the Western world Michelangelo's David is considered one of the greatest pieces of art ever chiseled from stone by the hand of man. In Abilene, Texas it is considered offensive and causing a neighborhood to take up arms.

A new family moved to the neighborhood and they brought with them a knock-off of David with them, which they placed in front of their home. And now the good people of Abilene are having the vapors, fanning themselves with a fury to avoid fainting, and considering how to make these people remove the offending statue.

One woman was complaining because, "It's there. It's right there." Another told reporters that art belongs in museums, not someplace where people will have to look at it.

One horrified matron of decency says the statue caused her child to ask "Mom, what is that, uh...what can you tell a child if you haven't talked about sex yet?" I should point out that this mother apparently has an incredibly stupid child, in the next sentence she referred to the child as "him." Apparently her son doesn't know what a penis is, which, no doubt, make urination something of a challenge. I guess the poor boy spends hours pointing his ears at the urinal, or perhaps bending over the toilet with his mouth open.

I should also note the mentality of these people in that they automatically equate nudity to sex. Clue: most people are not having sex while nude and one can have sex without being nude. Though I suspect such things would be illegal in the Theorcratic Republic of Texas.

Even the comment about leaving art in museums is disingenuous in Texas. Ms. Sydney McGee had been teaching art for 28 years. She organized a trip to the Dallas Museum of Art for students. In all 89 students, 5 teachers, 12 parents and one lecturer from the museum accompanied the children. Guess what? One of the poor, pure, little darlings saw a nude statue and was corrupted for eternity, gave their soul over to Satan and rushed out to rape illegal immigrants of the same sex, while marrying 32 wives and fornicating with sheep. Okay, maybe he just saw the statue and told his hysterical, brain-dead parents.

The next day Ms. McGee was verbally bashed by the principal. A few days later the school board suspended her. And then they sent out a notice to the lynch mob, I mean the parents, saying that she would not be allowed to transfer to any other school, nor would her contract be renewed, in addition a new art teacher will be hired, presumably one that will not allow the children to actually see art. School officials won't reveal who complained or which piece of art got their heart beating so violently. After the sacking became news school officials started retroactively finding reasons for termination that were unrelated to the "statue" incident.

In Lubbock, Texas police arrested eight members of the Chippendales dancers. Police attended their performance and waited until a dance routine included a "pelvic thrust," which was then described as "simulating sex."

In Texas a clerk who sells a dildo and actually calls the item a dildo can be tried, and if convicted, forced to register as a sex offender. However, if they sell the same item and call it a "safe sex demonstration device" then it is legal. Really! Do we want a sex offender's list that includes dildo clerks as people that appear on flyers warning the neighbors to protect their kids. For some of the antics that comes out of a fundamentalist controlled state view the excerpt below. Oh, and by the way, I saw two news stations in Texas cover the store about the David statues. Both felt it necessary to have the groin of the statues blocked from view.

To illustrate how the fundamentalist Christian thinks, or doesn't, let me turn to well-known fundamentalist writer Tim LaHaye and his poison pen book The Battle for the Mind, which allegedly exposes the humanist conspiracy to turn Americans into perverts and communists. LaHaye wrote about Michelangelo's David. I quote him:

The giant replica of Michelangelo's magnificent David stands nude, overlook that beautiful city. Quite naturally, this contradicts the wisdom of God, for early in Genesis, the Creator follow man's folly by giving him animal skins to cover his nakedness... The Renaissance obsession with nude 'art form' was the forerunner of the modern humanist's demand for pornography in the name of freedom. Both resulted in the self-destructive lowering of moral standards.

I guess that is where I part company the most with the moralistic pricks in Christian fundamentalism. For them "moral standards" are defined by things like nudity and what people do with their genitals in private. For me moral standards are defined by who you treat others, whether you respect their rights to their own lives, liberty and property. So I don't get upset by statues of David, even cheap concrete knock-offs but I do get upset when people hurt one another. Fundamentalists don't mind hurting people, its sexual pleasure that offends them. I wish they would crawl back into the caves from which they emerged, and take their theology and petty, tyrannical, mythological Jehovah with them.

Have they no decency? No, they don't!

I have often felt as if I'm bashing my head against the wall when it comes to our sex panic and how it is harming the very children it pretends to protect. Here is how the Wisconsin State Journal describes this horrific legal case.

Grant County authorities have accused a 6-year-old boy of first-degree sexual assault of a child for allegedly playing “doctor” with a 5-year-old girl in September.

The case, which is plowing new legal ground in Wisconsin, calls into question when a child’s act can be considered criminal — particularly when it involves behavior some experts say is normal for children that age — and who makes that determination.

District Attorney Lisa Riniker is the one who is prosecuting the six-year-old claiming that she alone determined he is criminally responsible for playing doctor—something that sex researchers simply do not define as assault. Dr. Lucy Berliner, who works with victims of sexual assault said this sort of prosecution is "very unusual" and that: "Sexual exploration, curiosity and play among children is common." Apparently these prosecutors have even "raised the prospect that the boy be evaluated as a potential sexual predator and suggested he not be allowed to have any unsupervised contact with children." Riniker is, of course, one of those Republicans who is so sure about the moral panic that she is willing to literally destroy a little boy's life to further her political agenda. Shame on her. Shame on the Republicans, again.

This is outrageous on so many levels.

Bogus study panics public, parents and politicians—again.

This one story is an illustration of American politics writ large. And the Village Voice deserves credit for exposing it. The unfortunate thing is that they don’t seem to understand that the story is repeated over and over under the guise of dozens and dozens of other “urgent” issues.

The “crisis” begins with an advocacy group, the Women’s Funding Network, and similar local groups, such as the Atlanta’s Women’s Foundation. These groups were convinced, based on what remains unclear, that there was a crisis of child prostitutes. And they wanted government funding to address the crisis they discovered.

The Atlanta group had approached the state of Georgia with their begging bowl out. They only got 20% of the funds they wanted. Kaffie McCullough, from the group, admitted: “We had no research, no nothing.” Apparently with nothing to back up their assertions they still managed to get one-fifth of the funds they wanted. Now they approached an organization named the Schapiro Group to produce a study that would find the crisis they were looking to solve.

Deborah Richardson, from the WNF, announced the results: “An independent tracking study heard released today by the Women’s Funding Network shows that over the past six months, the number of underage girls trafficked online has rise exponentially in three diverse states.” They had dramatic numbers, as you knew they would. In Michigan they claimed it increased by 39.2%, up 20.7% in New York, and up 64.7% in Minnesota.

The media spread the story, and the result, according to USA Today was a “growing movement of women’s groups, celebrities, human rights activists ad state officials.” Of course the politicians, like vultures looking for rotten bodies, come swooping in to show they are concerned, to buy votes from identifiable political interest groups, and to scare taxpayers in funding some new project “to save the children.” Congresswoman Jackie Speier, D-CA, told Congress that these children “need specialized resources.” Richardson bragged, “We have more data and more momentum.”

And they had a new bogeyman—Craigslist and other on-line sites where individuals looking to “hook-up” with others would advertise. Loud-mouthed politicians like Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General for Connecticut, called these sites “online brothels” and began attacks to remove all adult ads.

As for the political interest groups, PIGs, promoting the “study,” they got oodles of cash taken from taxpayers, many of whom are having a hard time making ends meet. The Atlanta group was thrilled. They went to the legislature with the new "study" and came away with a bucket-load of greenbacks. McCullough said: “The research costs money, but we’ve been able to broker—I don’t know what it is now, I think it’s over $1.3, $1.6 million in funding that we never would have gotten.”

It wouldn’t be the first time, nor will it be the last, that a PIG has produced a bogus study in order to create a scare campaign in order to access millions of dollars in funding. Remember that the funds McCullough bragged about are only for her one group in Atlanta. It doesn’t reflect funding other groups got in other states using the same study.

The Schapiro Group came up with a unique method for determining the number of juvenile prostitutes, and it didn’t have anything to do with hard numbers, like arrests. Instead they looked at photos posted online of women who were seeking sexual partners. They then “guessed” the age of the women in the photos and noted that number, as if it were factual. This is the basis of the so-called study that set off a media sex frenzy, got Craigslist censored, had two-bit politicians fuming at the mouths and no doubt inspired many a sermon on the revival circuit.

To confirm their study, the Group did a back up “study.” Here is how Village Voice describes it:

Before conducting its full study, the Schapiro Group tested the accuracy of its method in a sample of 100 observers. At one point, the 100 observers are described as a "random sample." Elsewhere, they are described as "balanced by race and gender."

These 100 adults were shown pictures of teenagers and young adults whose ages were known, and were asked to guess whether they were younger than 18.

"The study showed that any given 'young' looking girl who is selling sex has a 38 percent likelihood of being under age 18," reads a crucial passage in the explanation of methodology. "Put another way, for every 100 'young' looking girls selling sex, 38 are under 18 years of age. We would compute this by assigning a value of .38 to each of the 100 'young' girls we encounter, then summing the values together to achieve a reliable count."

This is dense gibberish posing as statistical analysis.

When the team went on to conduct its full statewide study, it simply treated this 38 percent success rate as a constant. Six new observers were then turned loose to count "young-looking" sex ads on online classifieds sites like Craigslist and Backpage.

That total count was then multiplied by .38 to come up with a guesstimate of how many children were being trafficked.

None of the “investigators” that Schapiro Group used were experts in research. None had ever studied the issue of prostitution in general, or juvenile prostitution in particular. And no one bothered to verify if the guesses corresponded with reality, or if the photos they viewed were either current, or actually the woman running the ad. Of course no prostitute would try to use an old photo in order to attract customers. And you would never get one who would run a completely unrelated photograph in order to solicit business.

The methodology used actually indicates that there were no real children involved in these ads. That the hired guns for the Group had to "guess" if the person was above or below the magic line of 18 years of age indicates that very few, perhaps none. of the advertising women were clearly below the age of 18. You might have a 16-year-old who passes as 19, or vice versa, but it is much less likely that you would have an 11-year-old who looks 19. The methodology used indicates that all of the participants appeared to be over 18 years of ago, who proves that none of them appeared to be under the age of 18.

Then Schapiro Group would come back later and run the same bogus study a second time proving that the number of child prostitutes had escalated. Thus the crisis was proven, funding flowed and greedy PIGs increased their take to solve a crisis that no one can show actually exists. And no one connected to the study can verify how the photos were found, how they knew the ages of the test samples, or whether any of the photos of “prostitutes” actually represented the women advertising services.

McCullough defends the study saying “it is the same scientific methodology that science has been using for a long time to measure endangered species.” Calling something “science” twice, just two words apart, doesn’t actually make it science. And, if the same sort of bogus methodology is used by other PIGs for their causes, it doesn’t prove the methodology is scientific, or correct, just that it is politically expedient.

Actual arrest statistics do not exactly bolster the fear campaign that the PIGs need to rip off the taxpayer. According to the FBI about 75% of all jurisdictions report their arrests. The number of arrests per 100,000 juveniles—defined as between 10 and 17 years of age—was 5. The FBI says that arrests of juveniles for prostitution and “commercialized vice,” in 2007, amounted to 1,500 cases.

Not every juvenile prostitute is arrested, but then some are arrested multiple times. We don't have hard numbers but there is no indication that we are talking about some significant percentage of teens, let along actual children. Ask yourself if you are worried about teenage “forgery” rings or counterfeiters. Perhaps you should be since a teen is twice as likely to be arrested for that as for prostitution. They are four times more likely to be arsonists. No one thinks those crimes “are out of control” among teens yet they are far more likely for teens than prostitution but they don't get millions in funding to solve the crisis. But then it doesn't include something as racy as sex, to attract attention.

The other thing to keep in mind is that most of the arrests are not 12-year-olds in mesh stockings. Most are teens above the age of 16. And most these teens are legally allowed to consent to sex, just not for cash.

How does this compare to adult prostitution? In 2007 there were 76,100 adults arrested for the same offense. Teenaged prostitutes were 1,500. I believe that translates in less than 2% of all prostitutes arrested are under the age of 18 at the time of the arrest. And even then most of them are legally above the age of consent and not actually children.

PIGs use children constantly to stir up emotions. When the Left wanted to create a gun crisis they talked about the number of children killed by guns. They didn’t tell people that “children” included 17-year-old gang members killed in turf wars over drug sales. They wanted the public to think of wide-eyed tykes playing with their puppies who accidental stumble across a gun and kill themselves, along with the poor little puppy as well.

Some years ago I first came across this sort of bogus fear campaign about “child” prostitution when another PIG member claimed that millions of children were regularly being prostituted at truck stops and street corners around the country. I tried to find how this number was generated. The piece I wrote on the matter has been lost, but I will reconstruct what I can remember.

The woman who manufactured the factoid was a feminist ideologue convinced that girls were being terribly exploited. She found a rabid Los Angeles police officer who was equally convinced that it was boys being prostituted by homosexuals. He had a gut hunch that some 100,000 boys were involved in this massive trade that he was intent on exposing. The feminist in question then took the “hunch” of the police officer and concluded that if that were the case of boys being prostituted, then the number of girls in the same boat had to be at least twice as large. So she doubled the number and added it to the original hunch.

But she wasn’t finished. She then claimed that if this new number was the number of child prostitute “we know about” then there were at least ten times as many out that we didn’t know about. That lead to 3 million child prostitutes being used as the figure of the day.

At the time this claim was made there were around 29 million children 10-17 years old in the country. Apparently one out of ten of them was out there prostituting for a living. Absurd!

At about this time there was a national panic about “stranger danger” and child abductions. The papers spoke of 2.5 million missing children per year. They didn’t tell people that the term was so widely defined that any kid who was away from home for a few hours, without the parents knowing his or her location was “missing.” They left out that over 90% of actual “abductions” were custody disputes with one parent taking the child with them against the consent of the other parent. In the end the actual number of stranger abductions was miniscule.

There was also a bogus panic about satanic child-molesting day care centers. Thousands of people were arrested across the country and hundreds of people were prosecuted and convicted using very dubious “interviewing” methods created by PIGs to promote their agenda.

Out of these panics came entire government departments such as the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Hundreds of millions of dollars were redistributed to the PIGs for their use to discover new problems and lobby for new laws. Out of those panics we also got the various sex offender registries and the laws to protect teens, laws that are now putting tens of thousands of teens on the offender registries for normal adolescent sexuality. We passed laws, based almost entirely on manufactured panics, which today are classifying teens, who take naughty pictures of themselves, as child pornographers.

Politics today relies upon manufactured panics. Take a problem, no matter how small, blow it out of proportion. Try to drag “children” into it anyway you can and then scream about protecting the children. Bolster your case with a bogus study, using dubious methods, and the media will beat a path to your door breathlessly telling paranoid parents of the newest threat to their children. Politicians will promise to solve the crisis provided they get more power and taxes are increased. The PIGs line up with their hands out, millions are doled out. In the end the PIGs are at the through happy and full, for the time being. The politicians are more powerful than ever. The parents feel parent, even though their children are no safer than before. Taxpayers have less money in their pockets and everyone is just a little less free than before the panic was created.

Secret Sex Offender Lists: Is Your Kid on It?

James is a single man who just never found a woman he wanted to marry. But he did decide to adopt. A few years ago he was introduced to a boy who have been horrible abused his whole life.

The boy was twelve at the time. His history showed that from the ages of 4 to 9 his mother was a drug addict and his stepfather beat him and abused him sexually. When it was discovered what was being done to the boy he was sent to live his biological father. Watching television one day the then 10-year-old touched his younger stepbrother. When his father learned of these he beat the boy and sent him to hospital because of the injuries. The father was charged with a crime and was trying to defend himself—could it be he made up an excuse he hoped they would swallow?

What no one knew is that based on the father's claim, used to justify the beating, the 10-year-old boy was put on a secret, non-public government database as a sex offender. He was never charged with a crime. He never appeared in court. He never had a chance to defend himself. He was never convicted of anything. He was 10-years-old.

Neither the young boy, nor the adopting father, knew this list existed, let alone knew that the boy was on it.

The father had been approved to adopt two children. And he wanted a brother for his son. So he began the process of adoption over again only to be told he could not adopt as his son was a sex offender. A social worker wrote that they had "reason to believe" the boy, when 10-years-old, had touched another child. "Reason to believe," is not evidence. It is not judicially determined. There is no trial, or courtroom, or rules of evidence, or judge, or defending attorney, or right to defend one's self. All there is is one petty bureaucrat making a decision entirely without any protections for the accused. In this case the accused didn't even know he was being accused.

Since adoption the boy has grown into a 15-year-old young man. He is described as "an affable teenager who has achieved academic success and adores karate and art. The father and son are active in their church and in the Boy Scouts."

James has been trying to appeal the accusations made against his son but is running into the typical, uncaring bureaucratic red tape that makes life a living hell for anyone caught up in the "child protective services" net.

"He appealed to the protective services department, but it ruled that the findings against his son would stand. He asked for a hearing from the State Office of Administrative Hearings, which issues decisions on appeals of agency findings, and said he was told that he should expect to wait two years to have his case evaluated."

He even had the boy go through a professional psychological evaluation which said there was very little chance he would sexually abuse anyone. But James was told his license allowing him to adopt was revoked and he that his son would never be allowed to have a brother.

What irks me most is the bullshit the social workers involved in the case are saying. According to them they protecting "innocent" children from getting adopted into a home with a sex offender—this in spite of the fact, already noted, that the boy was never charged with any crime. He was a victim.

But there are two potent myths that are floating around regarding this matter. One is that a child who has been "sexually abused" will grow up to be a sex offender. This is a lie. While this lie has been repeated and is now seen as common wisdom there is no real evidence to back this up. This myth started because of studies of children who were beaten, or suffered violent abuse at home. There was a correlation showing that kids who were beaten by their parents tended to become adults who beat their children. The study was not about sex, but about violence. But since the word "abuse" is used in both cases it was quite easy to find multiple quotes saying children "who were abused as children grow up to be abusers."

The second myth is that kids, or adults for that matter, who sexually "offend" (widely defined these days to include peeing on the side of the road, streaking, of having sex with someone you own age, etc) are mostly incapable of avoiding reoffending. For people who are actually convicted of a real offense, the re-offending rate is one of the lowest of all people convicted of crimes.

There is a related myth, though not one as important: it is the idea that sexual interest by children is a sign they are being abused. Kids are naturally curious and while they may not know that what they are expressing is "sexual" they still have a natural curiosity about the bodies of others. In addition, contrary to wide-spread perceptions they do feel a sexual attraction to others, even if it is not driven by adolescent hormones. A very high percentage of children play doctor at one time or another, but under current US law they are all sex offenders.

The Handbook of Human Sexuality notes:

Many children "experiment" with one another sexually. Approximately half of the mothers in the Sears study (1957) reported some activity that could be identified as sex play. Some play was between brothers and sisters, some with neighbor children, some with children of the same sex, and some with the opposite sex.

The expert authors of this work warn against saying "that a preadolescent or adolescent is 'molesting' a younger child is neither a fair nor precise definition in many cases."

But, if these truths came out the justification for this sex offender lists would vanish. What we are doing to kids today is astoundingly barbaric. This boy should not have been put on a sex offender list, even a secret one hidden from public view. He and his father have now been punished, by limiting the right to adopt, because some bureaucrat thought it "reasonable" to conclude the boy was a risk as a sex offender. It is not reasonable to conclude that at all. And it is unjust to do that, in a setting with legal ramifications, such as this one, without any sort of open hearing with rules of evidence and a defense.

This list, being kept by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is used by various government agencies for different purposes. If the young boy later wished to work as a teacher, even if his record was spotless, without even a hint of scandal, hiring schools would run his name through the data base and would turn him down for a position. He may never even know why he is being turned down.

I can easily see these lists being used to investigate alleged sex crimes so that the boy later finds himself frequently questioned by the police. Given that various government agents have access to the files it would be easy for the boy's status to become public which often leads to harassment, and in some cases into physical assault or murder. In addition, every time politicians want to appear tough on crime, for their own political ends, they change the laws and make them even worse. It could well be that this secret list would one day be put on the Internet as are other sex offender lists. And while the other lists now routinely list crimes as "sex offenses" which clearly are not, such a teenagers who take erotic photos of themselves, this list is even more vague.

Other sex offender lists, as horrific and unjustified as they may be, at least wait until someone is convicted of a crime, even if the law itself is ludicrous. But this list requires no conviction, only a faceless bureaucrat who thinks their conclusion is "reasonable." With the other sex offender lists one has a chance, even when being railroaded, to offer up some sort of a defense, to demand evidence and to be heard with an impartial judge or jury. The secret list gives no such protections.

Paranoid Priests Perjure Possible "Pervs"

This blog has reported on the various sex panics that pervade Christian, mainly Protestant, cultures such as the US and the UK. The result is a plethora of laws meant to "protect" the population from the ever expanding category of people deemed to be "sex offenders." Never mind that the laws are now so broadly defined as to be entirely worthless. Sorry, I misspeak, the laws are not worthless, which implies they have no net value at all. They are worse than worthless, they impede the ability of police to actually protect people by mandating that they waste mountains of time keeping track of the people on the list: which can include someone who pissed at the side of the road because they couldn't wait to get to a toilet, teens who have consensual sex with one another, or a high school boy who shows a Playboy magazine to another boy.

The UK may be near Europe but it is infected more with American-style paranoia than the more traditional European laissez faire attitude. That paranoia bubbled over at Gloucester Cathedral and the victims of this panic were a dangerous group of potential perverts—the Flower Guild, a group of mainly elderly ladies who arrange flowers in this monument to superstition. I guess if you can buy into virgin births and resurrections you can buy the claim that a group of old ladies are potential sex offenders out to molest little boys. Absurd? Of course, but absurdity and Anglicanism go hand in hand.

Yes, the Cathedral dreads that these dangerous old women might be out to molest boys—certainly that privilege is reserved to the priests. Or is that Catholicism? Sorry, I get them all confused. The Cathedral is demanding that all the old women have police checks run on them. Why? The London Telegraph gives the answer:

"At issue seems to have been a bizarre fear that because the women shared a toilet with choirboys, there was a risk that paedophiles could infiltrate the flower guild. A vetting system that was set up to protect children and vulnerable adults thus appears to have mow down a cohort of mostly retired women, average age 70, who represent the backbone of Britain's voluntary movement."

These loving Christians who run the Cathedral are a suspicious lot and demanded that all members of this criminal gang, known as the Flower Guild, be subjected to a police check. When several of them refused the Cathedral threw them out on their ears, a reward for loyal service to the Church. Five of the 60 volunteers have been dismissed to teach this dangerous gaggle of grannies not to mess with the Church.

The chairwoman of the Flower Guild, also know in police parlance as the "gang leader," is Mrs. Annabel Hayter. She adamantly refused to go through police checks and was fired. Five of the other "gang" members resigned in protest and the Telegraph reports others are sure to follow. Another possible sex fiend, Nancy Selwyn, 75, said: "I've had enough. I've told the canon to take me off the list. These checks are absolute rubbish." Potential criminal Marjorie Corley, worked as a flower arranger at the Cathedral for 7 years and 12 years leading tours. She points out: "What makes this all the more absurd is that the choirboys are at school when we are working at the cathedral so even if we did pose a threat we would never see them."

Even if one of the grannies wanted to play Humbert to a choirboy's Lolita it just isn't going to happen. They aren't in the Cathedral at the same time using the same toilet. Given that elderly woman, even when given the opportunity, are not likely to molest choirboys the whole panic is misplaced. But such is the nature of panics.

The local minister, with an extremely pretentious rank, the Very Reverend Nick Bury, told the women they needed to be vetted by the police lest they try to get into the pants of young boys. Hayter was fighting the absurd requirement quietly but when she finally went public the canon of the church said she could no longer be trusted. Apparently the church doesn't trust its own congregation even when they are obediently silent since it is requiring police checks.

The Very Moronic Nick Bury "retired" in September and the sect's bureaucracy is still working on his replacement, perhaps a trained baboon would do. But the Cathedral can be emailed here: fiona@gloucestercathedral.org.uk. Note this is the secretary of the Cathedral Dean and she is not responsibility for asinine church policies, so if you protest (as you should) remember she is not responsible and keep it polite.

Before my American readers get too uppity about the absurdity of British overreaction remember that millions of Americans are being sexually fondled by TSA thugs because of "terrorists." In politics "terrorists" and "pedophiles" serve similar roles: scare the ignorant and get them to obey authoritarian over-reaching bureaucrats in the name of "protecting" everyone and everything, except individual rights and liberty, of course.

And while the morons at the Cathedral were worried about flower ladies diddling choir boys the New York City police were arresting men for fondling their bishops. And, no, that isn't a euphemism. The NYPD sent in a team of cops in bulletproof vests to arrest a group of elderly men playing chess in a city park.

The park has "chess tables" set out for the public to use, but that was in the olden days before fear dominated American politics. Now the panic-mongers are worried that the chess tables are close to the playground and that means close to children and that means potential molesters could hang out, and that means, why, that means, well.... it's just too horrible to contemplate. Cue scary music!

It sure is a good thing the park doesn't have a Flower Guild, the chess-players are scary enough. The chess tables were built in an area that is now "reserved" for children and where all adults are banned unless accompanied by a child under the age of 12. (I am unsure of why they assume that kids are safer if the "molester" is accompanied by a child—I thought that was what they were trying to prevent.) But, according to the New York Post, "Police said the rule protects kids from pedophiles or others who might want to harm them."

Let's be clear about something, "stranger danger" is mainly a myth. The typical molester of a child is not some man in a raincoat with a pocket full of sweets but a male relative of the child, usually a father, step-father, or the mother's live-in boyfriend. They tend to act in isolation, not in gangs of men with chess boards. And they usually only molest children when there are actually children around—oh, I forgot to mention that the men were in the park during school hours and that NO children were present!

Not only do both these cases represent fear-driven overreaction to protect kids from mostly "imaginary monsters" but in both cases they are protecting imaginary kids. The choirboys were in school away from the Flower Guild and similarly the men playing chess were in an empty park!

The New York police responded with the typical lament of the fear-driven bureaucrat: "It's the broken windows theory... small things can turn into bigger things. Some citizens may see it as police harassment, but God forbid something happens to a child, people would be complaining., Why didn't the police enforce these rules? That's what they would be griping about." Truly this cop doesn't need a lobotomy—it would be redundant.

Remember there were NO kids present when the men were playing chess. Remember that "child predators" really don't travel in gangs. And none of the men have any criminal record for diddling with kids. One had a criminal record (which given the over-reaching nature of the law, doesn't mean much). He was previously charged with drug possession (which could be marijuana), reckless endangerment and larceny. But NONE of them pose a threat to children. And if he were accompanied by his own child he would be allowed in the park no questions asked.

These assaults on liberty are often overlooked because the imbeciles implementing them invoke "the children" as the excuse for the policy. But they all ignore the real threats to kids in order to concentrate on imaginary monsters that, while not protecting kids, do enhance the power of the idiocracy and the idiocrats that are now regulating every inch of America life.

Yes, there are real threats to kids. But the reality is that the threats are far more likely to be at home than on the playground. Yes, some people sexually fondle children. But the reality is that it is more likely to be done by the priests at the Cathedral than by the flower ladies. Yes, there are terrorists who will blow up planes, but fondling old ladies and children is not the way to stop them.

The political classes use fear to intimidate the voters in giving away freedom and rights. And as long as the Boobus Publicus respond in some Pavlovian fashion the politicians and bureaucrats will continue to exaggerate threats in order to enhance their own powers. And this is precisely why I don't laud the Tea Party Movement. The typical member of that group is fear-driven, not rights-driven. You can stampede the Tea Party types into the Big Government corral by waving the red flags of immigrants and gay marriage at them. If you do there will be the thudding sound of millions of metal walkers hitting the ground as the Tea Party types demand Big Brother to save them.

FDR was not my favorite president, though he looks better with each election. But he was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear-driven politics is used to stampede us toward the omnipotent State. Be if terrorists, pedophiles, or global warming, fear pushes us into making irrational decisions. We overreact, pass stupid and counterproductive laws, and regulate ourselves into oblivion, all in the name of seeking that illusionary goal of perfect safety.

Sex hysteria and inflating words

Three of the performers from Glee did a photo spread for GQ magazine that has the sex hysterics panting, breathing deeply, and ready to explode in a fit of verbal diarrhea.

The Gleeks who modeled in the spread were Corey Monteith, Dianna Agron and Lea Michele. Now, for the record let us notice that these three actors are all adults. To be precise Cory is going to be 29 on his next birthday while Dianna and Lea are both going on 25. Second, we should note that GQ photo shoot is not sexually explicit, does not include nudity and is merely suggestive at worst, if you consider such things bad—which I do not.

None of this has any impact on the hysterics at the Parents Television Council. Contrary to its name this is not a collection of parents per se. It is a Right-wing political organization founded by L. Brent Bozell, a far right activists and relative of William F. Buckley. Its whole purpose is to promote censorship, either voluntary or coercive if need be.

The slightly racy, but not sexual photos, however got PTC president Timothy Winters in a dither. He released a statement of monumental stupidity. He claimed that the photo shoot "borders on pedophilia." What the fuck?

How does a photo shoot of young adults in their mid to late 20s border on pedophilia?

Apparently the idiotic Winters assumes that since they play teenagers in a television show then this "borders on pedophilia." Apparently if one of them was in a movie where their character was killed then this would qualify as necrophilia as well.

Note that the way these loons use the word "pedophilia" that they are stripping it of any definition. We should be clear as to what this is.

Pedophilia is a persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV also says the adult partner must be at least 16 years of age and at least 5 years older than the child. Non-sexual photos of adults, even of adults who play teenagers on television, is not even on the borderline of pedophilia.

In fact, by definition, even if the photo shoot were of actual teenagers this would not be pedophilia. Notice what pedophilia is NOT. It is not the violation of age of consent laws. Age of consent is a legal definition for a status crime, it is not something that falls under the clinical definition of pedophilia.

Nor is pedophilia a sexual relationship with significant age differences, unless one of the individuals is a prepubescent child. A man of 50 who dates an 18 year old is not a pedophile since the 18 year old is not a prepubescent child.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to sexually immature children.

The PTC is trying to take advantage of a political trend that has been going on far too long. They know, like many lobby groups do, that a very large percentage of people are disturbed by sexual activity between adults and prepubescent children. The reality is that most people don't like pedophiles.

Since that is the case, political lobbying groups attempt to redefine pedophilia to include things which clearly are not included. The reason for doing so is to encourage the same sort of fear response from people that they display toward pedophiles. In other words, since people fear actual pedophiles, let's take non-pedophiles, redefine them as such, in order to get the same fear response people exhibit toward the real thing. And the reason to expand the fear is quite simply in order to achieve political goals that actually have nothing to do with pedophilia.

The PTC knows that this is not borderline pedophilia. But they don't care. What they want is to promote censorship. They are inherently anti-sexual and want to wipe out all such images.

The Glee stars didn't even do this modeling on television. And, I should note, that the outfits worn in the QC spread could be worn on almost any television show without fear of falling afoul of federal censorship laws.

Pedophilia is intentionally being inflated so as to mean what it does not mean, in order to accomplish other agendas by those doing the inflating.

What may be the PTC agenda here? Consider that Glee is one of the more pro-gay television shows on the air as one possibility. I also happen to think it one of the more moral shows, if we use morality in the real sense of the word. Morality, to me, is more how you treat others and less about whether you have orgasms and with whom. Right-wing moralists are obsessed with hating orgasms and sex, but have no problem with mistreating others or being intentionally cruel to others.

They would love to remove this show from television entirely, not because the show itself is portraying anything unacceptable in the realm of sexuality, but merely because it cuts against the anti-gay, moralistic campaigns of the Religious Right.

So they pretend that a magazine photo shoot is really about television. They also pretend that this is about pedophilia even though all the actors are sexually mature adults. They call it borderline pedophilia and a "near pornographic display" in order to justify their conclusion that it is "only masquerading as family show" (sic). The goal is to attack Glee, and since they couldn't do it on the the actual content of the show they looked for other reasons to attack.

They actually hate Glee quite a bit and warn that is totally unsuitable for anyone under the age of 16. They give it a "red light" warning because it is supposedly includes "gratuitous sex, explicit dialogue, violent content, or obscene language." That, quite simply, is bullshit, something that they would consider obscene language. But it is still bullshit.

All in all the show is rather sexually tame but PTC does mention one thing, which I suspect bother's them a lot: "One boy has recently come out of the closet..." That would be the character of Kurt Hummel, one of the characters who actually adds a great deal of pathos and damn good storey-telling to the series.

One of the worst trends in politics is how both Left and Right attempt to drag "the children" into every situation in order to panic parents into pushing for some other agenda, which in truth, is totally unrelated to children.

Photo: This is one of the "near" pornographic photos that the loons at PTC says is borderline pedophilia. They are not borderline assholes, they are clearly over the border.

The perfect storm: Bernie Baran

Here is the trailer from the film Freeing Bernie Baran along with a short excerpt. I recommend seeing this film if you are able to do so.

Baran was just a teenager when he started working at a day care center in Massachusetts. When a set of very low-class parents, with dubious parental skills themselves, discovered Baran was gay they started making accusations against the boy. It was the era of the day care witchhunts where the media, government agencies, and feminist-oriented therapists, created a hysteria that swept the nation. People became convinced that organized rings of Satanic pedophiles had infilitrated hundreds of day care centers. Police and prosecuters had a field day.

Literally hundreds of innocent people were rounded up across America, thousands of children were psychologically tortured by the child abuse industry and taken from their parents. To this day many of the victims of the hysteria still sit in jail. It was 25 years before Baran finally had justice and was released.

For those with short memories, or who are too young to remember, it was this bogus hysteria that inspired short-sighted politicians—as if they are any other kind—to pass hundreds of new laws to "protect" young people from sex. The result of that hysteria is that today teens are routinely arrested and charged as child molesters for normal adolescent sexuality. A teen, exploring their sexuality, takes a photo of themself standing naked in front of a mirror, discovers they are a child pornographer. Two young people have sex when their parents aren't around only to find they are now guilty of mutual molestation. Personally I'm surprised that some moronic politician hasn't introduced legislation to define masturbation as self-molestation. Worse yet the politically-induce "sex offender" panic, the resulting legislation, means these kids will be legally tormented for the rest of their natural life.

Bernie Baran was the victim of the perfect hysteria. He was gay and accused of child molestation. Combine anti-gay bigotry with a sexual panic of this kind and you know something ugly will happen. It is the kind of campaign that only the most despicable amoral scum would knowingly initiate, but many of the instigators were just terrified parents believing the breathless stories fed them by the media.

When fear inspires "urgent" political action you can bet the farm that the action taken will almost always be the wrong action. Political campaigns that rely on fear, something that Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of, are attempts to stampede the public into supporting precisely the wrong sort of legislation. Be it child abuse, drugs, the war on terror, gay marriage, illegal immigration, global warming or whatever the panic d'jour may be, fear campaigns intentionally shut down the critical reasoning faculties of the human mind. The results are always wrong, always ugly and victims are created.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

HL Mencken.

Stossel goes where most fear to tread.

John Stossel, the libertarian reporter at Fox, tackles sex and the law—that one area where faux "limited government" types become raving banshees for Big Brother. In this first clip he discusses the case of Ricky, who I have discussed on this blog several time. Appearing with Ricky is his mother Mary Duval, who has commented here several times.



Similarly this blog has regularly challenged the absurd and counter-productive sex registry laws. Radley Balko, from Reason, tackles the hysteria. People on the Left, who worry about these sorts of absurd laws, should be applauding Stossel for doing this.

The results of the sex hysteria.

This woman did wrong. She is alleged to have forced a 13-year=old boy to touch her breasts while she was drunk. But, that said, is this an offense worthy of life imprisonment? Absurd.



Here is a 14-year-old girl who is charged with child pornography and face 17 years in jail and life as a "sex offender." Her victim: herself. She took her own photos.

Exhonerated but still devestated.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Two years ago Tonya Craft had her life turned upside-down. It all started when two little girls were found playing doctor. Such sexual exploration among children is widely known to be normal. But ever since the sex hysterial of the mid 1980s the American legal system has taken a completely different view. Children who engage in such things, although widespread and common throughout human history, are deemed to be either victims of sexual abuse or sex offenders themselves. Absurd as it is, that is how the American legal system now views things.

So when these two little girls were caught the hysteria of adults over the issue took control. The girls thus had every reason to try to defend themselves from hysterical parents and said that their kindergarten teacher, Ms. Craft, was responsible. Craft was arrested, lost her job, and had her children taken from her. She had to raise over $500,000 to defend herself, while prosecutors helped themselves to copious amounts of tax money in order to prosecute her. She had to refinance her home, spend her parent's inheritance and pawn her wedding ring.

This is a classic case of something Ayn Rand emphasized: check your premises. As you will see in the above video one woman starts with the premise that "children wouldn't make something like this up or lie about it." Of course they would, especially if they are facing hysterical, angry adults who catch them touching each other. Children are capable of inventing stories, very capable. The very idea that this is the one area they would not do this is ludicrous and just false. But the hysterics make this claim constantly. The result is that if people believe it then false accusations are encouraged and flourish and innocent people suffer.

This is why it is important to expose the lies—to protect the innocent. Of course, this means anyone doing so is subject to false accusations themselves. Such is the price for defending people in the face of hysteria.

In this interview Ms. Craft mentions the documentary Witch Hunt. I again emphasize that this is a very worth DVD to own and to share with others. Over the years people have lamented the state of affairs about this issue. Comments have regularly been posted where people say they wish they could do something about the hysteria. They can! You can! Even something as simply as buying the DVD helps as it encourages more such documentaries. But don't just buy it, watch it and share it with others. The more people who understand that these things happen, and why they happen, the less likely it is that they will happen again. Get the DVD here.

DA threatens to arrest anyone who teaches teens how to use contraception.

Once politicians get hold of an issue they have a tendency to take it to its authoritarian conclusion. That is they always look for ways to impose their wills on others. Even when they wish to “help” someone it always comes at the price of the freedom of choice of the individual being helped. The incentives in politics are such that measures become more authoritarian as time goes by. Policies that appear justified in one area are quickly expanded and applied to very different areas where the connection is far more nebulous.

Consider the desire to protect “children” from sexual exploitation. There is no question that such a motive is a good one. It does not, however, follow that the policies meant to achieve this goal are themselves laudable or good. The expanded categories tended to take over and move into fields where state action is almost always destructive and harmful, especially to those they are claiming to “protect.”

One problem was that the politicians immediately expanded what the term “child” means and what the term “exploitation” means. Now a child is anyone under the age of 18, in many circumstances. And sexual exploitation means any consensual sexual activity between teens of same or similar ages.

This became clear when a Right-wing Christian, who unfortunately is the District Attorney for Juneau County, Wisconsin, warned teachers that they could be arrested for teaching students about how to use contraceptives in sex education courses. The DA, who has the annoying tendency of using all of his names, Scott Harold Southworth, is part of the so-called “Christian Life” movement, which believes that fetus has rights right up until the moment it is born—then rights are severely limited in the name of morality.

Southworth is upset because new legislation regulating sex ed courses in Wisconsin requires “schools to provide instruction on how to utilize contraception.” Telling teens how to use contraceptives, according to this conservative’s logic, “encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender.” Are you getting what he is saying? He doesn’t see any other options. Teens who have sex are either victims or offenders; no other possibilities seem to exist.



This is not trying to prevent teens from being exploited sexually. This is trying to prevent teens from being sexual—much the way praying can stop the tide from coming in. When we exposed how the state is locking up teens as “sex offenders” it got a lot of attention from people who seemed oblivious to the fact that this was happening. But it is happening precisely because of the sort of twisted logic of people like Southworth: for them any teen who has any sexual activity with another teen is some sort of criminal pervert. As much as this sounds anti-youth this attitude is more anti-sexual than anything else.

After Southworthy lays down his premise that all teen sex is a criminal violation he then goes after those nasty condoms. He says that giving teens information on how to use contraceptives encourages them to be either “victims” or “offenders.” He then warns: “Anyone who intentionally encourages or contributes to the delinquent (criminal) act of a child can be charged under this statue.” This means that anyone who tells a teen how to use a condom and knows or suspects the teen may be sexually active “can be charged under this statute.”

All this was in a letter he sent to local school districts warning them that sex education classes may result in him arresting the teachers. He warns that the “teacher need not be deliberately encourage [sic, his exact wording] the illegal behavior, he or she only need be aware that his or her instruction is ‘practically certain’ to cause the child to engage in the illegal act. Moreover, the teacher could be charged even if the child does not actually engage in the criminal behavior.

Got that? He is warning teachers that he may arrest them for telling teens about contraception even if the teens in questions are do “not actually engage in the criminal behavior (sex).”

Under the sex education regulations in Wisconsin teachers are supposed to tell students how to use contraceptives. But South worthy is saying that merely instructing teens on condom use is something he considers to be criminal and he may, as he see fits, arrest the teachers on “either misdemeanor or felony charges with maximum punishments ranging from 9 months of jail to up to six years in prison.”

This outrageous letter from Southworth has received a good deal of attention in some circles. But all the articles I’ve seen have missed something important. There is no exception for parents. According to Southworth, “anyone” who distributes this information “can be charged under this statute.” Southworth says all sexually active teens are either “victims” or “offenders” and instructing them on how to use contraception is encouraging them to be delinquents. It wouldn’t matter, under this interpretation, whether the adults doing the instruction are teachers or parents.

A careful reading of Southworth’s letter makes it clear that he would also have to conclude that parents can be arrested for telling their teens how to use contraceptives. Realistically, when the state takes charge of the lives of children, it must push parents out of the way. Every state intrusion into the lives of children is one that substitutes political control for parental control.

There are times when such intrusion may be necessary, such as when parents are abusing their own children, but this sort of intrusion is always dangerous and must be used sparingly and carefully. Moralistic campaigns tend to be quite the opposite: they are all encompassing and emotionally driven, not thoughtful. Those kinds of campaigns tend get out of control easily and do a great deal of damage.

I just have to wonder what the voters of Juneau County would think if they understood that all of Southworth’s logic applies to parents as well as to teachers. The idea that telling sexually active teens how to avoid pregnancy could be considered a crime is itself an indication of how unreasonable the Religious Right can be.