Actually, YOU were the one who interpreted sections 28, 29, and 31 as being some sort of "pornography/adult entertainment" statute ( reply 209 ).
"It’s clear that most of sections 28-30 pertain to pornographic MATERIALS and live ENTERTAINMENT. It would take a lot of twisting and stretching to find these sections applicable to the serious educational environment."
It's NOT clear that sections 28, 29, and 31 pertain exclusively to "pornography/adult entertainment." Certainly, a prudent person could see that the definitions do pertain to the workshop in question. Let's look at the definitions again:
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.
In reply 209, you claimed that the workshop was a "serious educational environment." That's not the case. 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."
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 the one trying to second-guess the legal experts..."
No. I believe that a reasonably prudent person can see from the definitions above that sections 28, 29, and 31 could apply to the workshop in question. Why the DA or AG doesn't even bother to acknowledge Scott Whiteman's complaint and evidence is obviously a question of politics.
"the folks whose JOB it is to prosecute things like that."
If they were doing their job, they'd resolve this issue by making an official, public ruling on the matter. The DA, 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. If the DA or the AG dismisses the complaint, then they are obligated to state why the complaint does not meet the criteria of sections 28, 29, and 31 of Chapter 272 of M.G.L.
"They have NOT prosecuted... there have been NO arrests. There have been NO announcements of any investigation of any kind."
Absolutely! Not even an acknowledgement on a serious complaint that was backed by evidence. Just Silence!
"Who should I believe... the experts... or you?"
You've already made clear what you believe. The homosexual community has obviously procured the DA's and the AG's silence on the complaint.
"Why should the DA consult "an expert opinion" on public matters when this was a private matter?"
Why? Because you and GLAD both claim that the workshop was an educational matter. Children from PUBLIC SCHOOLS were present. GLSEN and the workshop presenters all maintained a presense in the public schools. Whether in a public school classroom or in a "private" conference (at a publicly owned facility), the discussion that took place with minor children was, in the expert opinion of the Education Commissioner, not educational and was of a prurient nature. And therefore subject to sections 28 and 29.
Here's what GLAD is most concerned about in the suit against Camenker and Whiteman ( reply 268 ):
"GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people."
Once again - The workshops were of prurient nature and not educational....
"It doesn't matter what he thinks, the DA's office makes the determination."
Actually, in this case, the DA made no determination at all. Even with an eye witness and evidence recorded on tape, they've chosen to remain silent and not issue an official, public ruling on the complaint. The DA, as a public official, doesn't have the luxury of simply ignoring a complaint with such serious charges. Again, the DA and/or the AG can clear this up by making an official, public ruling.
"Are you suggesting that Driscoll could come into YOUR house and make a LEGAL determination that you are not teaching YOUR kids properly? That's what you are suggesting he's doing here. You're saying he can intrude upon a private environment and make LEGAL determinations."
That's absurd, madg, and you know it. No matter how hard you try to misdirect and twist this, the fact is Driscoll is not making a legal determination, nor is anyone claiming that he is. The DA certainly should seek out a qualified opinion. These were public school kids that 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 laws no longer apply and they can do as they wish with them?
"Furthermore, it's the DA that has to prove the case in court. That's their job. That's what they do. Surely they can determine the probability of winning a court case better than you."
If the DA and the AG are simply silent and refuse to issue any public ruling on the complaint, then, NO, neither the DA nor the AG are doing their jobs as public servants. If the DA or AG feels that Scott Whiteman's complaint is without merit, let them officially dismiss it and offer a public explanation of why the complaint does not meet the criteria of sections 28,29, and 31. Why are you so adverse to a request to have the DA (or AG) officially and publicly rule on the complaint?
"As far as I know, the DA never even ACKNOWLEDGED Whiteman's complaint, much less responded to it. "
That's the point. Given the seriousness of the complaint (minor public school children being exposed to obscene and harmful material), and having an eye witness with proof on tape, the DA doesn't even ACKNOWLEDGE the complaint?
"I was accepting Whiteman's word that he had filed a complaint at all. Maybe he didn't file... that wouldn't change this matter very much."
Madg, that's ludicrous! YOU were the one who originally posted the link to Whiteman's complaint in reply 104
"Here is Whiteman’s complaint to the AG: (WARNING: Potentially offensive language and subject matter). We KNOW that no charges have been filed against GLSEN, therefore the complaint was without merit.
"We still know that there has not been any public complaints about that workshop, neither from attendees nor their parents (if applicable), aside from the one guy that attended with a hidden recorder and an agenda."
Uh huh. Because parents watched Whiteman and Camenker being vilified by the homosexual legal group GLAD, GLSEN, the pro-homosexual press, and public officials. And then they saw that Whiteman's complaint fell on deaf ears in the DA's office. Yeah, they'd be real motivated to file a complaint.
And if a parent decided to file a complaint, what's the first thing that would be shoved in their face? That little general permission slip for a "Safe Schools" conference that was so connivingly designed. Remeber, you told us, based on your experience of attending a GLSEN conference, that there was no sign in for any of the specific workshops. That means that there was no pre-registration and therefore no parental permission required for students to attend specific workshops, as I pointed out in reply 228.
Again, let's look at what GLAD said about the pending case on their web site:
"GLAD is putting the right-wing on notice that they cannot use intimidation tactics to try to stop vitally important sex education information from getting to young people."
Sounds pretty threatening to me. If a parent filed a complaint, it's highly likely that the complaint would be ignored by the DA's office, and then the parent would be vilified by the homosexual community. We can see the method in the homosexual agenda madness.