Your OS+browser combo only supports outdated crytography (TLS 1.0). Please upgrade before January 1, 2018.

Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers
    Smartest (7)   Funniest (155)  
  • The Massachusetts Supreme Court hinted that it would rule sex offender status for woman-on-boy statutory rape unconstitutional. (http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/477/4​77mass499.html) Your move, Alabama.
  • Mr. Coffee Nerves: The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers


    That made me laugh far more than it should have.
  • On one hand, I can see the point.  Why charge the teacher due to an action that would be legal for damn near everybody else?  As long as the teacher was not now or had never been involved with the teen at school or school functions.

    On the other hand.  If a teacher doesn't know to keep their hands off anyone under the age of 18 by now.  Should they be educating anyong?
  • BizarreMan: Should they be educating anyong?


    Well, they are educating in a certain sense.

    \*shudders*
  • BizarreMan: On one hand, I can see the point.  Why charge the teacher due to an action that would be legal for damn near everybody else?

    For most states, the basis of these laws is that teachers hold positions of power over their students that make these sorts of relationships extremely suspect. See also "command rape."

    IOW, they are not "damn near everybody else."

    And, of course, ask yourself what your opinion would be if the genders were reversed, the teacher older and/or uglier, etc.
  • BizarreMan: On one hand, I can see the point.  Why charge the teacher due to an action that would be legal for damn near everybody else?  As long as the teacher was not now or had never been involved with the teen at school or school functions.

    On the other hand.  If a teacher doesn't know to keep their hands off anyone under the age of 18 by now.  Should they be educating anyong?


    19818-presscdn-pagely.netdna-ssl.comView Full Size
  • In point of fact, they did not. The critical word in the headline is __your__.  The unconstitutional part was the arbitrary assertion that no person of consenting age could ever consent if the other party were a teacher. Not said consenting person's teacher, but any teacher, at any school.

    It is telling the legislature that such a law is too broad to presume an inability to consent in such a sweeping manner. It leave open the possibility to refine the law so that it would be illegal if it were a teacher at a school you attended, or a teacher of one of your classes, or in some specific way a person with presumptive power or authority over otherwise potentially consenting person.

    And they are right.
  • "A teacher" submitter not "your teacher".
  • J Noble Daggett: In point of fact, they did not. The critical word in the headline is __your__.  The unconstitutional part was the arbitrary assertion that no person of consenting age could ever consent if the other party were a teacher. Not said consenting person's teacher, but any teacher, at any school.

    It is telling the legislature that such a law is too broad to presume an inability to consent in such a sweeping manner. It leave open the possibility to refine the law so that it would be illegal if it were a teacher at a school you attended, or a teacher of one of your classes, or in some specific way a person with presumptive power or authority over otherwise potentially consenting person.

    And they are right.


    Hey, look, someone who actually read the f*cking article.
  • dv-ous: BizarreMan: On one hand, I can see the point.  Why charge the teacher due to an action that would be legal for damn near everybody else?

    For most states, the basis of these laws is that teachers hold positions of power over their students that make these sorts of relationships extremely suspect. See also "command rape."

    IOW, they are not "damn near everybody else."

    And, of course, ask yourself what your opinion would be if the genders were reversed, the teacher older and/or uglier, etc.


    Genders reversed from what?  There wee 2 cases against a female teacher and one case against a male teacher.  Guessing you didn't red the article.
  • J Noble Daggett: It is telling the legislature that such a law is too broad to presume an inability to consent in such a sweeping manner. It leave open the possibility to refine the law so that it would be illegal if it were a teacher at a school you attended, or a teacher of one of your classes, or in some specific way a person with presumptive power or authority over otherwise potentially consenting person.


    Very true!  If you remove the power/authority factor from the equation, then there really isn't any legal argument left for protesters to stand on.

    The old system was akin to saying that if you were a manager at McDonalds then you couldn't have sex with an employee at Burger King.
  • kronicfeld: Hey, look, someone who actually read the f*cking article.


    More and more, I grow to appreciate the distinction between reading a thing and understanding it.
  • ZAZ: The Massachusetts Supreme Court hinted that it would rule sex offender status for woman-on-boy statutory rape unconstitutional. (http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/477/47​7mass499.html) Your move, Alabama.


    i.gr-assets.comView Full Size
  • By the very nature of the relationship between a Teacher and Student, there is a quid pro quo situation which creates pressure for one partner to consent to the other. Unlike with a similar aged student, there is no true level of free consent in sexual behavior - one side is always fearful of the consequences of saying no.

    If you don't want to make this illegal, at the very least it should be seen as unethical and a violation of the trust we place in those in authority over minors.
  • NephilimNexus: The old system was akin to saying that if you were a manager at McDonalds then you couldn't have sex with an employee at Burger King.


    That sounds like a health code violation. They should get a motel room.
  • But only if you are related.
  • That's pretty gross
  • What about beauty pageant owners and underage contestents?

    Asking for a fiend.
  • hardinparamedic: By the very nature of the relationship between a Teacher and Student, there is a quid pro quo situation which creates pressure for one partner to consent to the other. Unlike with a similar aged student, there is no true level of free consent in sexual behavior - one side is always fearful of the consequences of saying no.

    If you don't want to make this illegal, at the very least it should be seen as unethical and a violation of the trust we place in those in authority over minors.


    That's the way it was where I grew up a Teacher was banging a 17 year old, he was caught, fired barred from teaching in the state and became a truck driver
  • Tom_Slick: hardinparamedic: By the very nature of the relationship between a Teacher and Student, there is a quid pro quo situation which creates pressure for one partner to consent to the other. Unlike with a similar aged student, there is no true level of free consent in sexual behavior - one side is always fearful of the consequences of saying no.

    If you don't want to make this illegal, at the very least it should be seen as unethical and a violation of the trust we place in those in authority over minors.

    That's the way it was where I grew up a Teacher was banging a 17 year old, he was caught, fired barred from teaching in the state and became a truck driver


    The high school I went to in Rural Tennessee had a younger athletic teacher get caught banging one of his students. Rather than face charges, they ended up getting married. He kept his job because of that.

    Creeps me out to this day.
  • hardinparamedic: By the very nature of the relationship between a Teacher and Student, there is a quid pro quo situation which creates pressure for one partner to consent to the other. Unlike with a similar aged student, there is no true level of free consent in sexual behavior - one side is always fearful of the consequences of saying no.

    If you don't want to make this illegal, at the very least it should be seen as unethical and a violation of the trust we place in those in authority over minors.


    You didn't read the article either, did you?
  • WWJD?*
    *Who Would Jesus Do?
  • Does a county judge even have the authority to determine the Constitutionality of a law?  I thought only Federal Judges and the Supreme Court had that authority.
  • dv-ous: BizarreMan: On one hand, I can see the point.  Why charge the teacher due to an action that would be legal for damn near everybody else?

    For most states, the basis of these laws is that teachers hold positions of power over their students that make these sorts of relationships extremely suspect. See also "command rape."

    IOW, they are not "damn near everybody else."

    And, of course, ask yourself what your opinion would be if the genders were reversed, the teacher older and/or uglier, etc.


    Yeah, but there's other positions with power dynamics where sex isn't criminal. A lawyer has power over his clients (especially criminal clients), but if they had sex with their clients it would be treated as an ethical rather than a criminal complaint. In the working world, bosses have powers over their subordinates, but it isn't automatically rape if they have sex with their employees. Bottom line, if the concern is rape, we already have laws that cover that. If a teacher has sex with an of-age student, they should definitely be censured or fired and the action should be investigated to see if it was rape through wrongful coercion. But it shouldn't be a de facto rape.
  • Load 25 of 98 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.