Subj: A(nother) Texas "criminal" statute struck down
(and for good reason)
8 November A.D. 2013
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-invalidates-texas-law-on-sexual-communicatio/nbcdx/
Posted:
11:04 a.m. Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013http://www.statesman.com/news/news/court-invalidates-texas-law-on-sexual-communicatio/nbcdx/
Court invalidates Texas law on sexual
communication with minors
_____________________________________________________________________
In general, the Court of Criminal Appeals is saying that this statute is overbroad, that it cuts way too wide a swipe, such that it interferes with First Amendment doctrine rights. This doesn't "validate" conduct already considered criminal. It just "invalidates" this statute, which was (way) too broad in scope. Thus, it "invalidates" charges based on this statute.
Depending on the timing, the defendant in this particular case, Lo, may or may not be charged under some other provision for sending sexually explicit information to a party he expected was a minor. That'll be a decision to be made by the prosecutors and the Grand Jury.
(The right-to-lifers won't like the analogy, but this is the very same type of analysis applied to the statute that "invalidated" a horrible statute that allowed charging doctors as criminals but not also the actual principals of the crime, namely the would-be mothers. The fact that the statute was bad didn't "validate" the conduct to be criminalized; the marketing that says that "invalidating" the statute "authorized," or "created a right" to do, that which the horrible statute intended to prevent is just that -- marketing. The ruling simply "invalidated" that statute, and for extremely good reason -- that statute allowed charging the conspirators while treating the principals in the crime(s) as victims. That 1973 ruling also "invalidated" third-trimester (late term) abortion. So, why there's all this recent flurry of activity regarding late-term abortion is totally unknown. If those who hate the Roe v. Wade decision would read it (again), they'd find that the ruling already addresses that, thunderously.)
As for this recent TEXAS statute, and its being struck, this is just one more item of proof that rights are very much alive and well in this police-state-wanna-be nation. The concept of rights pre-exists any concept of "constitution." Thus, we have rights despite having no "constitutions."
The most important "right" going right now is the "right (not) to 'contract.'" The "right (not) to enter into agreements." Whether one has rights or not depends on whether one has asserted them or waived them (typically via some "gotcha agreement" or other). Where the system would be considerably more limited in its exercise of authority if it were formed from fabric that had "rights" as part of the threads running through that fabric, it's still our present reality that this present system has all the limits that each individual chooses to place on it. It's the individual who agrees, or not, to the "gotcha agreements," which mechanism is made to appear as of there's an actual tyrant who can compel people to do this or that. No one in office can compel anyone into any "gotcha agreement." On that same hand, no one in office can get someone out of such "gotcha agreement," once it's entered into, either. Both ends of that are 100% within the hands of each one of us. It's the individual who agrees, for example, to be a "taxpayer," by which decision one now also obligates oneself to the obama-death/health scare (Oh so sorry that you listened to me while I was lying through my teeth to you) programme.
The courts are always listening. What they need to hear is that we're talking the present status of the law. This defendant, clearly a pervert, was charged under a statute that might make a discussion of Shakespeare a criminal offense, and it's a bold Court and set of Justices to put an end to such horrible statutes (by police-state-wanna-be, bought-and-paid-for (or, "We're really just too stupid to know the difference -- see 'dumbing down' really does work") legislators). The use of such a statute, in such cases that would seem to validate the statute, are purely and carefully, politically selected so as to make the statute appear "good," where the reality is that it's a banana peel into the "police state."
Between the defense bar and the courts, rights are still being preserved for those who assert them.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
In general, the Court of Criminal Appeals is saying that this statute is overbroad, that it cuts way too wide a swipe, such that it interferes with First Amendment doctrine rights. This doesn't "validate" conduct already considered criminal. It just "invalidates" this statute, which was (way) too broad in scope. Thus, it "invalidates" charges based on this statute.
Depending on the timing, the defendant in this particular case, Lo, may or may not be charged under some other provision for sending sexually explicit information to a party he expected was a minor. That'll be a decision to be made by the prosecutors and the Grand Jury.
(The right-to-lifers won't like the analogy, but this is the very same type of analysis applied to the statute that "invalidated" a horrible statute that allowed charging doctors as criminals but not also the actual principals of the crime, namely the would-be mothers. The fact that the statute was bad didn't "validate" the conduct to be criminalized; the marketing that says that "invalidating" the statute "authorized," or "created a right" to do, that which the horrible statute intended to prevent is just that -- marketing. The ruling simply "invalidated" that statute, and for extremely good reason -- that statute allowed charging the conspirators while treating the principals in the crime(s) as victims. That 1973 ruling also "invalidated" third-trimester (late term) abortion. So, why there's all this recent flurry of activity regarding late-term abortion is totally unknown. If those who hate the Roe v. Wade decision would read it (again), they'd find that the ruling already addresses that, thunderously.)
As for this recent TEXAS statute, and its being struck, this is just one more item of proof that rights are very much alive and well in this police-state-wanna-be nation. The concept of rights pre-exists any concept of "constitution." Thus, we have rights despite having no "constitutions."
The most important "right" going right now is the "right (not) to 'contract.'" The "right (not) to enter into agreements." Whether one has rights or not depends on whether one has asserted them or waived them (typically via some "gotcha agreement" or other). Where the system would be considerably more limited in its exercise of authority if it were formed from fabric that had "rights" as part of the threads running through that fabric, it's still our present reality that this present system has all the limits that each individual chooses to place on it. It's the individual who agrees, or not, to the "gotcha agreements," which mechanism is made to appear as of there's an actual tyrant who can compel people to do this or that. No one in office can compel anyone into any "gotcha agreement." On that same hand, no one in office can get someone out of such "gotcha agreement," once it's entered into, either. Both ends of that are 100% within the hands of each one of us. It's the individual who agrees, for example, to be a "taxpayer," by which decision one now also obligates oneself to the obama-death/health scare (Oh so sorry that you listened to me while I was lying through my teeth to you) programme.
The courts are always listening. What they need to hear is that we're talking the present status of the law. This defendant, clearly a pervert, was charged under a statute that might make a discussion of Shakespeare a criminal offense, and it's a bold Court and set of Justices to put an end to such horrible statutes (by police-state-wanna-be, bought-and-paid-for (or, "We're really just too stupid to know the difference -- see 'dumbing down' really does work") legislators). The use of such a statute, in such cases that would seem to validate the statute, are purely and carefully, politically selected so as to make the statute appear "good," where the reality is that it's a banana peel into the "police state."
Between the defense bar and the courts, rights are still being preserved for those who assert them.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
No comments:
Post a Comment