That's so ridiculous, do they really expect that no teenagers have oral sex? I can't beleive they prosecuted that guy in the first place. wth.
Didn't read the whole article as the second paragraph was enough of a thesis for me. How about jail him for being too old to have sex? Same logic.
Can I have a link to the original article please? Edit: nevermind, this is pretty much the same thing: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-13-teen-sex-tape_N.htm
Okay. Reading in between the lines, you'll realize the law is supposedly to "protect the children depicted in such images from the ongoing victimization of having their sexual activity viewed by others." Meanwhile, it is now released. Also, I don't see the justification for the prosecution for engaging in sex--then, if it wasn't filmed, there would be no case?
I'm sorry, but 10 years!? What the ****? You can murder someone and get less that that. (Is that the hyperbole police come to lock me up in exaggerationcatraz?) I just hope it was good.
It wasn't so long ago (up until 1927) that (with parental consent) a 12 year old girl could get married. How times have changed.
Last I heard the age of consent in Texas was stioll 14. In most states it's 16. There was a case here a couple years back where a 16 year old student and her teacher ran off together. They were eventually tried for stealing a car, but the law didn't allow him to be charged with child abuse because it was consensual and she was over 16. On the other hand, this is the south we're talking about and they would ban sex all together if they could figure out how.
So why did the prosecutor do this: The answer is right here: Seems to me that Mr McDade is doing his best to prejudice the public in anticipation of an appeal. Isn't that kind of, well, underhand and illegal? Naughty McDade. But fundamentalist principles justify any means...
Let's all agree that those teens f**ked better than that judge ever could. Yeah, they stole his mojo for the rest of that year.
