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.