Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15

"There surely are things" ...

The people of MA need to practice Fistgatus Interruptus.

DA's are not infallible.

Particularly the Mass. DA. Scott Harshbarger, when he was DA, virtually built a career on the Fells Acres day care prosecution, which turned out to be based on the induced testimonies of toddlers. Notwithstanding this, Gerald Amirault is now in the 14h or 15th year of a sentence for a crime most independent observers think was never committed.

I'm thankful I no longer live in the Commonwealth; on a politically charged issue, you'd be better off facing trial in Iraq.

"Is that the "anarchy is okay so long as I agree with it" defense?

Go read a dictionary. It's not anarchy, it's vigilantism.

And I wholeheartedly agree with it. If the "state" won't act, then it's time for the citizens to put a stop to this. The 'law' be damned.

"Like I said, there is no evidence that NAMBLA exists as a viable organization any longer."

These are the kind of weasel words "there is no evidence" that boy clinton used when he wished to deflect an argument. I can use your logic to not pay my electricity bill: "I haven't seen it, so why should I pay for it?"

"If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?"

If you have never slept with a dead body in a coffin, how do you know that you wouldn't prefer that?

Save us from these stupid people!!!

"Schools should not be teaching anything about gay sex to children"

Agree. And when they are required to mention it, they should be referred to as homosexuals, not gays. We need to reclaim the word gay from the homo crowd, lest future generations believe Fred and Barney were an item.

"Secret" recording of a conversation one is an obvious party to is an unsettled are aof the law. Most states allow it. It is NOT at all clear whether an sustained and assertive contest of such laws in states that ban it -- states that require consent of all parties to a converstaion -- would find the Supreme Court upholding such laws. A person with a demonstarted photographic memory (or phonograhpic in this case) -- and there are such people -- how is his memory different than a fidelic sound recording. They are of the same level of testable fidelity, imho.

Who owns the discussion heard at one's ear?

Perhaps copyright claims be made -- why then fair use would break them in this case, for the commentary and context of the discussion of such recording is political.

"that we simply would never hear about, at all, from any news source"

Certainly not the Boston Globe, whose writing staff is riddled with homosexual activists.

You have to be kidding... What stopped them from leaving was the "fact" that it was a mandated assembly. Faculty members were there. These kids TRUSTED their teachers and those who chose to have this "former stripper" perform for them. The students had no warning and attendance was not OPTIONAL. How many HS students would have gotten up and walked out? NONE, it appears. They thought this was a chance to learn how to keep yourself safe from AIDS which was still rather new on the scene at that time. They trusted their teachers. In addition to the "base/crude" content of the PERFORMANCE it was filled with untruth. Condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS.

As to the family being EXPOSED to the content of Mass News...No harm there. The truth can be dealt with. It defends itself.

"Mass Legislature was told that they could not discuss the matter either, at a time when the funding of the program was to be debated.

That's a fundamental balance of powers issue -- I'd think no court could limit the speech within a state legislature chamber. Can you expound on that issue?"

Sure. Unfortunately I must rely on the despicable Massnews, since I can't find it in the Globe archives. Would one of the activists who dislike Massnews see if you can find Judge van Gestel's gag order and how Janet Barios interpreted it to the legislature? Thanks in advance.

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/10_Oct/1000fist5.htm

"Part of the tape was played on Boston talk-radio station WTKK-FM by the host, Jeanine Graf, whom
I've known for years as a vigorous advocate for free speech. The Parents Rights Coalition made the tape
available to others, and GLSEN sued to have it and any transcripts suppressed. On May 17, Suffolk
County Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel, who moonlights as a lecturer at Harvard Law School,
issued one of the most far-ranging prior-restraint orders in American judicial history. It included not only
the Parents Rights Coalition but anyone, including lawyers, who tried "to disclose or use such tape in any
forum" or its contents. That included the press, electronic and print. Moreover, Jarret Barrios, a
Massachusetts state representative, sent a message to all House aides and representatives in the
Legislature. He warned that because there was a question of whether the students' privacy rights had been violated, the Legislature was also under the gag order. And it agreed. "

So it was not the court who gagged the legislature- it was strongly hinted by a member, and the rest agreed to be "gagged" and not bring up the topic of graphic sex instruction at state-funded conferences where minors were bussed in to attend, in school district schoolbusses.

This dodged the issue, and nobody had to go on record supporting it or denouncing it. Everybody won, and the Safe Schools funding was passed for another year.

"It appears that the DA's office disagrees with you.
"

That would not be the first DA's office to disagree, and certainly not the last to lose against me. Anyone talking publicly about how to molest a child with the intent of doing so doesn't want me to hear it.

Would that there be one bold state legislator willing to bear up and play that tape on the floor!

"I'm no expert but my own reading of the pertinent laws shows me why the DA would choose to NOT press "corruption" charges. Quite simply, the context of the exercise was not prurient in nature. The content may have been presented in a manner that many would find offensive, but that by itself does not mean that there was any harm (as defined in the law)."

You still don't get it. The highest ranking educational official in the state of Massachusetts, Education Commissioner Driscol, was quoted in the article State condemns 'gay' sex discussion, saying:

"Faced with the irrefutable evidence of his employees' actions, David Driscoll, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education, admitted Tuesday:

"The participation of our staff in conversations with students about explicit issues of sexuality outside the realm of AIDS/HIV prevention was wrong. The workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational, and what we heard suggests that the discussion contributed absolutely nothing to the students' understanding of how to avoid AIDS and HIV." "

SECTION 31 of the GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS DEFINES matter that is OBSCENE and HARMFUL to MINORS:

"Harmful to minors'', matter is harmful to minors if it is obscene or, if taken as a whole, it (1) describes or represents nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors; (2) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors; and (3)lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
"Obscene'', matter is obscene if taken as a whole it (1) appeals to the prurient interest of the average person applying the contemporary standards of the county where the offense was committed; (2) depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value...

The following definitions are from "Webster's Desk Dictionary of the English Language," 1990 edition:

prurient - (2) causing lasciviousness or lust.
lasciviousness - (2) arousing sexual desire.
describe - (1) to depict in words.
depict - (2) to represent in words.

Education Commissioner Driscoll determined that the material being DESCRIBED and DEPICTED to MINORS by the workshop presenters was (1) sexually explicit; (2) of prurient nature; (3) not educational; and (4) wrong.

The DA's failure to acknowledge and publicly respond to Scott Whiteman's complaint has been discussed here and here. A qualified, professional opinion is available to the DA and the DA has chosen to ignore it. Why the DA or AG doesn't even bother to acknowledge Scott Whiteman's complaint and evidence is obviously a question of politics. The homosexual community has procured both the DA's and the AG's silence on the complaint.

The District Attorney, as a public official, has a duty to respond to the complaint and the tax-paying public has a right to know the official ruling on the complaint. This continued silence by the DA is unacceptable. The citizens of Massachusetts should demand that the DA make an official ruling on the complaint. The complaint should be filed every ten days until the DA publicly responds.

"Schools should not be teaching anything about gay sex to children."

"It was a private conference, not a school... "

These were public school kids who were at the conference (and the conference did take place on public property). Are you claiming that once the homosexual community has kids in a private setting such as this conference, that the law no longer applies and they can do as they wish with them?

Thanks, this may prove to be a helpful resource.