The ATTORNEY GENERAL is NOT an "expert" on education. The DISTRICT ATTORNEY is NOT an "expert" on education... and neither are you.
EDUCATION Commissioner Driscoll IS an "expert" on educational methods and content, and he clearly said that the workshop's content was not educational. EDUCATION Commissioner Driscoll does NOT claim to be an "expert" on the General Laws of Massachusettes.
Because of the DISTRICT ATTORNEY's lack of expertise on educational matters, The DA should have sought an expert opinion.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY chose not to consider an expert opinion and, to our knowledge, has NEVER officially dismissed Whiteman's 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. Can you produce a verifiable public record that clearly shows that the DA has officially dismissed Scott Whiteman's complaint?
"so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors..."
"It was a Question and Answer exercise, a TEXTBOOK example of an educational exercise."
And your credentials as an education expert are? We have the highest ranking educational official in the state of Massachusetts stating that he listened to what the workshop presenters actually discussed with minor children and, in his professional judgement, the discussion (Q&A as you call it) was "not educational" and "contributed absolutely nothing to the students' understanding" (meaning it had no educational value).
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. Specifically, he said:
"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."
All this is relevant because Camenker and Whiteman had a civic duty to expose the harmful and obscene material being discussed with minors in GLSEN's workshops. The audio tape substantiated Camenker's and Whiteman's claims. And the tape revealed that discussions with similar (and even worse) obscene and harmful content are being introduced in the public school curriculum by teachers who bring in homosexual "guest speakers" to their classes.
You are certainly entitled to express your (unqualified) opinion on whether or not the workshop was educational. However, no matter how many times you post the same nonsense, it will not connote validity.
I will respond to the remainder of your reply diatribe later.