The upside of this proposal is this proposed law is a replacement for an existing one whereby current "sexters" can be charged with child porn charges and possibly long prison sentences and sex offender registry requirements. So I applaud the effort to get real with regard to this behavior, but why are parents to be held responsible for this?
Is there much chance many parents would condone such things as "sexting?" Isn't more likely the teens in question are doing these things in private? How are parents going to practically monitor such actions? Short of taking the kid's phone, which is fine by me, how would any parent monitor such behavior?
As the world's technology advances and more and more people, minors especially, have access to it, is the answer to such issues to blame parents who I'm pretty sure are not in favor of sexting? One of the proposed law's provisions would be for the parent of the teenage offender to attend "an education program on sexting's long term harmful consequences." Ya think parents are the ones who need the classes? Oh yeah, the kids go to the classes too, but why are the parents treated as if they are poor parents if their idiot kid sexts with other idiot kids? Is it too much to hope that the guilty, teenagers though they may be, be the individuals who "pay" for their acts?
This issue is demonstrative of so many wrong things in our society as we rush headlong toward political correctness and making sure to not hold the dumbassed kids who do this responsible for it. It is the world turned upside down. It's progressive thought is what it is. It's insanity.
As our nation slips into the abyss of total moral decay we can expect more of these type brainstorms to appear on our collective radar. Sure, if a kid breaks a window and financial restitution need be made then fine, the parents need to pony up some cash - fair is fair, but to extend a "punishment" to the parents is overkill in the extreme. It's more group think whereby we to look at every act through some sort of social prism.
What we need is less government parenting our kids for us; less First Lady's going on and on railing against what kids eat or where; less dogooders minding someone's business other than their own. Believe me, if I caught my minor child sexting they'd pray for the Texas penalty. I do not need anyone, especially government bureaucrats, telling me right from wrong or how to make my kid grasp reality. What I need is for government to mind their own business and let me mind mine.
SOURCES: hyperlinks
Published by Snidely Whiplash
Nuthin' of note. View profile
Iowa State Senator Quirmbach Endorses Senator Joe Biden "Joe Biden received the endorsement of Iowa State Senator Herman C. Quirmbach. Senator Quirmbach becomes the twelfth Iowa State Legislator to endorse Senator Biden."
The Nanny State Has Arrived at the Local Social Security OfficeI needed a simple Work History form from the Social Security Office. Going by my very unpleasant trek to the local Social Security office, I am forced to conclude that the Nanny...
OK State Senator Johnnie Crutchfield Gives $5K to Wilson Boys & Girls ClubSenator Crutchfield donates $5,000 to upgrade Wilson, Oklahoma Boys & Girls Club computer workstations with ten new PCs.
Pennsylvania State Senator Jane Orie Speaks Out Against Budget ImpasseSenator Orie tells AC that "the Governor is holding the PA WORKERS HOSTAGE FOR HIS PERSONAL AGENDA!"
- The Best Online Government Sites for Kids
- Texas State Senator Proposes Paying Women to Not Have Abortions
- Roland Burris to Replace Barack Obama as Illinois State Senator
- State Senator Robert Brown Calls Town Hall Meeting in Downtown Macon to Address Ni...
- North Royal Oak Helps Re-elect John Pappageorge for State Senator
- The Nanny State
- Republican California State Senator Roy Ashburn: 'I'm Gay'





5 Comments
Post a Commentwe don't need our government taking over our kids lives and spanking their parents, we need parents to be parents. wait a second, if the government spanks parents, can they be arrested for abuse of parents?
Isn't that comment a non-sequitur, in its own right? Because it does not respond to the piece.
@David: "The measure, introduced by State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin), would make sexting a Class C misdemeanor requiring a court appearance for the teenaged violator, and blah blah blah..."
But you say "No doubt that each and every political party has people whose parenting notions leave at least a tad to be desired!... Identifying this one as a Democrat is, I think, a non sequit(u)r." How does it "not follow" that Jim identified the bill's sponsor as a Democrat, when the bill's sponsor does? I'm confused.
I identified the party for a reason and not to merely defame the opposition. I was addressing the nanny state mentality of removing personal responsibility and used the source article for that demonstration. When it comes to folks playing nanny state and telling everyone else what is good or them is almost exclusively the bailiwick of the left headed. When I saw the source article headline and saw "Texas" I thought it was a wrong headed Republican UNTIL I read the story. Believe me, if it had been a Republican making the proposal my eviscerating of the errant fool would have made this article look like a love poem. I am not shy about taking my own peeps to task. My history and catalog prove I will take a Rep. to task as well, and with more vigor. I mean, isn't it known I hate RINO's? I thought I'd made that clear.
No doubt that each and every political party has people whose parenting notions leave at least a tad to be desired!... Identifying this one as a Democrat is, I think, a non sequitor.