Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Middle School Teacher 'Sexting' Student Protected by Free Speech--Texas

  1. #1
    Member Cabal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Shadow Gallery
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Middle School Teacher 'Sexting' Student Protected by Free Speech--Texas

    Court: Alleged sexting between teacher, minor is free speech

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

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

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

    "They dropped the ball," said defense attorney Jim Shaw. "They dropped the ball."

    Shaw says although Texas legislators tried to write a law that would stop sexually explicit texts messages from an adult to a child, they didn't get it right.

    "It doesn't sufficiently define the law," said Shaw.

    But it worked in favor of his client, 31-year-old Sean Williams, an Everman ISD middle school teacher arrested in 2012 after admitting to sending sexually-related texts to one of his 13-year-old students.

    In October 2013, the Tarrant County District Attorney's office dropped the charge of improper relationship between an educator and student.

    The reason is because that same month, a Texas appeals court ruled in a similar case that texts between a teacher and a student are protected under the First Amendment.

    The texts were considered free speech.

    "It's morally wrong," said Shaw. "It's improper; it's gonna be subject to someone being terminated. I guess they could be sued conceivably in a civil action, but as far as it being against the law, at that time, it was not."

    According to the arrest warrant affidavit, the texts discussed "if either of them walked around naked in their homes... descriptions of their sexual preferences and fantasies."

    The affidavit mentioned pictures that the two sent each other, saying, "The victim wearing a bra and no shirt," and one the suspect sent her "of his chest with no shirt…"

    However, Williams claimed the photo was a picture from a fitness magazine.

    With the precedent set by the appeals court opinion, and because Williams was never accused of asking to meet the girl somewhere, or asking her to have sex with him, he didn't technically break the law.

    "You can talk trash, you can talk disgusting things, but if you're not soliciting someone to meet you or engage in an act, then it's protected by the First Amendment," said Shaw.

    The D.A.'s office says now it has to go back and reexamine a handful of cases and, if possible, re-indict them under a different penal code that deals with online solicitation of a minor.

    In Williams' case, that wasn't an option.

    If the law is changed in the future, the district attorney said that due to too many variables, he couldn't answer whether or not the case, and others like it, could be prosecuted.

    There are provisions in the law that say if you pass a new law, you can't go back and prosecute someone for something they did if it wasn't a crime at the time.

    Since the case was dismissed, Williams can teach again if someone hired him.

    The Texas Education Agency shows Williams' teaching certificate to be valid through 2017.

    However, it also shows that it is under review by the TEA.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    So if a student tells the teacher to F off, will their free speech also be protected?
    There is no spoon.

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Purcellville, Virginia
    Posts
    15,513
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    So Cabal, what's your stance on this? Do you agree with the court? Why or why not?

  5. #4
    Member Cabal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Shadow Gallery
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    So Cabal, what's your stance on this? Do you agree with the court? Why or why not?
    My stance is that the dude is pretty clearly a child predator, and ought to be regarded and treated as such.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  6. #5

    Default

    Why not. They (teachers) are already pretty explicit in sex ed classes.
    Last edited by Danke; 02-25-2014 at 11:25 AM.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  7. #6

    Default

    In before dannno.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Fuck sakes, if you shoved a lump of coal up AmeriKa's collective ass, it would shit out a diamond.
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Now stop calling each other a racist and embrace a black person dying of ebola cos you are a hypocrite if you refuse to do it





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •