The point being made is, does evidence exist to charge the workshop presenters and sponsors under sections 28 and 29 of Chapter 272 of M.G.L.? Driscoll's statement that "the workshops were of prurient nature, and not educational" confirms that the workshop material met the criteria of being obscene and harmful to minors as defined in section 31. 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.
Dricoll's opinion is not a legal one, but neither is it simply a personal one. As the highest ranking state education official, his is an expert opinion and that makes him qualified to judge the nature of the material and whether it was educational or not .
The DA had a complaint, including documentation, and a qualified, expert opinion to back up that complaint, and yet chose to ignore it. Why?
"When a complaint is filed with the DA, and the DA does not press charges, most reasonable people would presume that the allegations are without merit… "
If this weren't Massachusetts, I might agree with you.
(Sorry, but I have to leave for meetings - back late this afternoon or this evening)