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

Friday, October 30, 2009

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

Well, libertarians?

Lets give up our guns too because a small minority kills people with them.



and our freedom of speech because a few people spout hate crimes.



 

You're right, what we need are more laws!

You can abuse kids by exposing them to such material- potentially more so than if you abused them physically.

Hopefully, they're so young that they don't understand what they're seeing.

Well what?

I think he's poking at the grossly amoral folks who would agree with this law (excepting forced porn-watching from being considered child abuse)......





 

I think the family law court is the place to handle this.  No need for a new law.  Restrict Dad's custody rights.

so it was illegal before there was any law against it and they had to pass a law to allow you to do so?


At any rate, I prefer this problem to the alternative.

this is like hate crime legislation

there's already a law for assault so there's no need for an extra law


there's already a law for child abuse so just repeal this statute

I agree whole-heartedly.  I meant restrict in the generic sense.  No unsupervised access until a reliable head-shrink says he isn't a threat (if ever).

Seriously, no CPS involvement? Or you could just fall back on the good old fashioned ass kicking. Maybe these kids have some uncles who can take care of business.

Read...



Before you post...



The law we are talking about exempts forced porn watching from being prosecuted under the child abuse laws...
 

you are half right.  



I don't think that you fix kiddie-diddlers.  I am sure that a tragic boating accident would cure 'daddy'.  



sick, sick garbage.



 

you are half right.  



I don't think that you fix kiddie-diddlers.  I am sure that a tragic boating accident would cure 'daddy'.  



sick, sick garbage.



 

They aren't asking for a 'new law' with new penalties, they are asking for a repeal of the old law that exempted this stuff from prosecution as child abuse...



'Dad' should go to prison and LOSE custody for this stunt....



 

Bullshit.  File charges and make your best argument. Was this really the intent behind the law? Look at the legislative history. If the legislature changes this law, you cant charge him because its an ex-post facto law.

[personal attack removed - Paul]

No shit. At least it didn't go further. They are still going to have issues though.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1.

I don't condone what "daddy" did, nor do I know why...   But I don't think there should be a change in the law.  Adding a law specifically for this?  How's that going to be worded?  I think parent should be able to parent their children as they see fit.  There are existing things that could be done under the current laws to go after this guy, IMHO.  



I don't see any benefit to society to make a specific law that covers this.  Any law is going to be open to some interpretation, meaning government intrusion and others deciding if they "liked" what you did and/or why.

Well, people that don't fucking matter?

winnah

winnah

"I understand in the '70s everybody wanted the government to stay out of their homes."



Are they trying to imply that this has changed?

I don't think my little sister (who is about that age BTW) should be watching that kind of thing,

but it isn't up to anyone but the parents what is shown to their kids.

bah, he was just homeschooling them. wait til they get their homework assignment and have to turn it in at midnight.  

FYI, here is the law in question.

We're not seriously going to start arguing over the semantics of "passing a new law" versus "repealing an old law" are we?

What, you didn't realize that people like dave tend to have almost debilitating OCD?

...and no quotes from the father or his attorney. Nothing.

Anyone elses' spidey sense tingling?

My kids are 7 & 8, and you can guarangoddamntee that if someone had done this to them, there would be no trial because that motherfucker would be carried by 6, not judged by 12..

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." - George Washington

Do with that what you will.

I don't agree with what the guy did at all, but you have to be careful what you wish for when you are clamoring for legislation to deal with the tiny minority of people out there who abuse their liberty.  You shouldn't need a lesson in unintended consequences by this point so I'll leave it at that.

You act like it would be anything new to the boy

It won't matter to him.  Lancair is an aussie kid that is convinced he knows better than us what works in our country. He should shut his mouth, pop  his zits, and go back to popping the collars on his pink polo shirts.

They would have to work real hard to find a jury that wouldn't convict that asshole.



Failing that, give the mother an AR and some brief handling instructions...

I doubt you could find a fully informed jury willing to convict.

He just walked in the one time..  

Yes Aussie?



 

WTF. What a wierdo.

Well what?




 

Don't get mad at the kid in the pink polo shirt with the popped collar. He's special

There seems to be an impression on this thread that the 'problem' is a supposed 'need for actions to be criminalized', when in reality, the problem is that the 'new law' was passed a while back, and should not have been...



The actions here WERE criminal and SHOULD STILL BE criminal -not under some 'new, unique' law, but as child abuse...



As they would be if this stupid, idiotic 'porn is not child abuse' law were not in place....



 

I'm not arguing for an ex-post-facto law...



I'm saying that what SHOULD happen cannot happen, because some idiot passed a 'parental porn exemption'....



 

Considering the history Texas has with going after adults with simple possession of pornography, I'm not surprised that this exemption was passed. It's probably due to some overzealous DA filing charges against some parent who dared teach their teens about the use of a condom, or some other evil act.

You want the state deciding what is best for children, instead of their parents?  Freedom means "you are not prevented by force from fucking up."


Still doesn't make what he did conscionable.

your...

comprehension skills...

are severly lacking

So, no investigation, no actual facts, just accusations of a stay at home mother who is now campaigning to get the government some more access to the behavior of private citizens in their homes.

Now we just have to have an accusation that sounds horribly disgusting in order to get massive support for legislative change?

I agree, if the guy did that, it is disgusting.  Then again, I think it is absolutely heinous that some parents are raising their children "vegan."  I'm not going to crusade for a law against it.

I still don't actually know that the guy did it, so it's hard to give a crap if nobody is really willing to put this into a court and try it.

+1 on that.

I can take Dave_A's shit because he is an American who has served in the military who happens to feel differently about some issues than I do.  In the end I believe he loves this country as much as I do.

Lancair comes off as a smug foreigner stirring up shit in threads about American politics, yet he has most likely never stepped foot on American soil, or fired a gun.  He is now my first 'ignore'.  Even assjizm never made it on that list.