Parent Alleges Harassment for Exposing 'Fistgate'

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/06/03 | Lawrence Morahan

[Right Wing Professor]

First of all, drop the MJ inferences... I don't have a taste for red herring.

MJ, like you, denies sexual activity was present in a very fishy situation. If the shoe fits...

Sexual "activity" with underage children is illegal... period. Answering questions is NOT "sexual activity."

Uh huh. So you dial a phone sex line, and two minutes into the conversation, someone asks you "what are you wearing now?" And you answer....

The point is, verbal communication sometimes is sexual activity. And a frank conversation between an older, non-parent and a young teen, about some fairly extreme paraphilic sexual material, sure as heck could be.

And you think you can dictate how parents choose to tell their kids the "fact of life?"

These weren't parents. What was that about red herrings?

I am a resident of Massachusetts. This was a crime against me.

So if I'm a resident of Texas and you commit sodomy in that state, is that a crime against me?

[Right Wing Professor]

You mean like the "banana and condom" exercise? Something like that?

No, I mean fisting, something like that. A frank discussion of sexual activity between adults and youing teens, between whom the actual potential for sex exists, is something that needs to be very carefully monitored. There is no way such activity should be conducted out of the public eye. The potential for abuse (i.e. recruitment, solicitation, and even coercion) is too great.

Parental proxy... MOST American parents (AND students) WANT sex education in schools; and MOST American parents (AND students) want the so-called "controversial" topics covered.

This wasn't in a school. More red herrings.

As an educator, I'm also in loco parentis. But you can be damn sure if I use my authority to ask female freshman students whether they're wearing underwear, I will be (and should be) hauled before a court of law.

Parents do not have carte blanche to hand their kids over to others.

(Incidentally, Camenker wants an "opt-IN" for sex ed... he's not satisfied with an opt-OUT.)

Makes sense to me.

We're off the real issue here; which is the use of the justice system to punish individuals whose only crime is to let the public know what was going on in a sex-ed. workshop. In any other circumstances, the liberal establishment would be fully in Camenker's corner.

[EdReform]

My schedule today won't permit me the time necessary to thoroughly read and reply, but I'd thought I'd stop by for a minute and throw you a bone:

EdReform: "The fact that the presenters and sponsors admit that they acted as private individuals and as a private organization, at a private conference and not as a "bona fide school, museum or library, or acting in the course of his employment as an employee of such organization," would imply that they have no defense under sections 28 and 29."

Madg: "I have already pointed out that the material would not be considered “harmful” under the definitions in section 31; therefore there was no violation, therefore the presenters do not need a “defense.”

In reply 104, you stated:

"*- (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors. Obviously, there was a great deal of scientific value to the presentation. Therefore, the material was not “harmful” under the law."

Do you actually believe that instructing kids on how to properly shape a fist for insertion into an anus has scientific value?

[Right Wing Professor]

And what do you mean “in the public eye?” Cameras in sex ed classes?

Open doors, freedom for anyone to record the proceedings. What are you afraid of?

There were three adult presenters and 20-30 other individuals in that room, all of whom were there voluntarily and with parental permission when required. That’s plenty of supervision.

I'm sorry; three chickenhawks and 30 chickens is not my idea of supervision.

Camenker’s CRIME was wiretapping.

An entirely justifiable act, given the circumstances.

When I deal with students, as an educator, I do so with the doors open, and I don't care if the proceedings are taped overtly or covertly. But then, I have nothing to hide.

[EdReform]

"GLSEN: We don’t know. Folks register for the conference, not for individual workshops. If you want to attend a specific workshop, just walk into the room at the appropriate time… (assuming that there’s room available)… we don’t take names."

Is this statement based in fact, or something you just made up?

[EdReform]

"Now you KNOW that the presentation, as a whole, was about MUCH more than that."

Yes. I listened to the recording of the Fistgate workshop on line. "Fisting" was just the beginning.

"But how to insert one’s hand into another’s orifice… yeah, that’s a scientific matter… specifically “medical.”"

"Fisting" is a "medical technique"?! So now you're claiming that they were teaching the kids about "medical techniques"? That's not what the workshop presenters said. Maybe you ought to listen to what they actually said - just click on the link above to listen to the Fistgate tape.

"It’s clear that most of sections 28-30 pertain to pornographic MATERIALS and live ENTERTAINMENT."

No, what's clear in sections 28 and 29 is that the law refers to ANY MATTER that is obscene and harmful to minors (as defined in section 31):

Section 28. Whoever disseminates to a minor any matter harmful to minors, as defined in section thirty-one,...

Section 29. Whoever disseminates any matter which is obscene...

"And none of this really matters since GLSEN is not charged with any crimes..."

The content of the workshop material met the criteria of being obscene and harmful to minors per section 31 of Chapter 272 of Mass General Law. In the expert opinion of Commissioner of Education Driscoll, "the workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational". But the politically correct DA still chooses to ignore the facts.

[Bryan]

Are you trying to have it both ways?

If this was a public event, Camenker is scot free.

But if it was a private event, the presenters are criminals for disseminating obscene materials to minors.

It seems to me that you want Camenker held liable under the unlawful surveillance statute, but you want the presenters to avoid criminal liability under the obscenity statute.

I prefer to believe that this was a public event. But at least I'm not clamoring for the presenters to be sent to prison.

[Bryan]

Two of the presenters of the two workshops mentioned in the article are employees of the Massachusetts Department of Education AIDS/HIV Program, which is not funded by Massachusetts taxpayers, but by the CDC.

CenterRight has hit the nail on the head. If the public is providing money in any way, shape or form to support the event, it's a public event. Whether the money comes from the state government or the federal government is immaterial.

[Porterville]

F-ed uped people right there. I don't know what to say to someone who teaches children about this stuff. Is it Michael Jackson teaching these seminars or R Kelly??