I'm probably as much of a defender of civil liberties as there is, but I struggle to see this as a First Amendment issue.

 

The article omitted almost every relevant detail, but I wonder if the ruling struck down an overly broad law that criminalizes certain types of communication rather than, say, defended a "teacher's right" to sext their students.

Filet knife in the trunk student gets 10 days suspension and pending legal charges...sexting with 12 year old girl and the teacher is the poster boy for the 1st Amendment...:ohbrother:

Welcome to the wonderful world we live in.

The article omitted almost every relevant detail

 

And how...

 

What is "sexually-related"? What counts as a "sext"? What are the Texas standards for solicitation of a minor? What other Texas laws are on the books (or not on the books) for the protection of minors?

 

Keeping in mind of course that First Amendment protection is not the same as free from consequences. He'll still have to answer to the school district.

And how...

 

What is "sexually-related"? What counts as a "sext"? What are the Texas standards for solicitation of a minor? What other Texas laws are on the books (or not on the books) for the protection of minors?

 

Keeping in mind of course that First Amendment protection is not the same as free from consequences. He'll still have to answer to the school district.

 

Agreed. There's a league's difference between a ruling that says a teacher can't be fired or disciplined for sexting a student and a ruling that finds a problem with a law that outlaws suggestive text messages (and could thus be rewritten more carefully).

 

I'm inclined to belief the purpose of the article is to stoke outrage over free speech and its supporters.

Agreed. There's a league's difference between a ruling that says a teacher can't be fired or disciplined for sexting a student and a ruling that finds a problem with a law that outlaws suggestive text messages (and could thus be rewritten more carefully).

 

I'm inclined to belief the purpose of the article is to stoke outrage over free speech and its supporters.

 

Maybe Fox has an agenda (in this case) but I still think it is very newsworthy. Plus, they want us engaging in the video and beyond which is why they tease us with crumbs. I am sure a google search would turn up more. Would you be willing to look at it a little?

Maybe Fox has an agenda (in this case) but I still think it is very newsworthy. Plus, they want us engaging in the video and beyond which is why they tease us with crumbs. I am sure a google search would turn up more. Would you be willing to look at it a little?

 

I plan to but I'm browsing on my phone now so I'll have to wait.

Maybe Fox has an agenda (in this case) but I still think it is very newsworthy. Plus, they want us engaging in the video and beyond which is why they tease us with crumbs. I am sure a google search would turn up more. Would you be willing to look at it a little?

 

After looking into it more it appears that the DA dropped the charges against this guy because the law making it a felony to communicate "in a sexually explicit manner" with a minor had been ruled unconstitutional last October in a separate case. The appeals court ruled in this other case that the law in question was too broad and would make everything from books assigned to high schoolers to music videos that minors could watch a felony. The Texas legislature will re-write the law to fix those problems.

 

In the meantime, the DA said they were re-charging most people who had been charged with the "sexually explicit" felony with a similar "online solicitation of minors" charge, but since this guy didn't "solicit" anything, they wouldn't charge him with that.

 

He will still likely have his teaching certificate revoked and that doesn't raise any First Amendment questions.

 

So, the notion that a teacher sexting a student was considered protected speech in Texas is extremely misleading if not blatantly incorrect.

So where is the SCOTUS ruling that backs the lawyers statement? Where is precedent case that has been ruled by SCOTUS - the only court that address Constitutional issues?

 

I seriously doubt there are any SCOTUS cases 'protecting' direct lewd conduct, interactions and actions between an adult and minor. If there are it would be interesting see them.

^ All courts address constitutional issues. Not having read anything, that law could have been ruled unconstitutional in any of several courts.

^ All courts address constitutional issues. Not having read anything, that law could have been ruled unconstitutional in any of several courts.

 

I should say its not settled law until it passes through SCOTUS. It seems nothing is above the appeals level in Texas as of now.

After looking into it more it appears that the DA dropped the charges against this guy because the law making it a felony to communicate "in a sexually explicit manner" with a minor had been ruled unconstitutional last October in a separate case. The appeals court ruled in this other case that the law in question was too broad and would make everything from books assigned to high schoolers to music videos that minors could watch a felony. The Texas legislature will re-write the law to fix those problems.

 

In the meantime, the DA said they were re-charging most people who had been charged with the "sexually explicit" felony with a similar "online solicitation of minors" charge, but since this guy didn't "solicit" anything, they wouldn't charge him with that.

 

He will still likely have his teaching certificate revoked and that doesn't raise any First Amendment questions.

 

So, the notion that a teacher sexting a student was considered protected speech in Texas is extremely misleading if not blatantly incorrect.

 

Thanks for researching it.

 

And not that you are pointing the finger at me but I re-used the Fox headline for this thread.

Thanks for researching it.

 

And not that you are pointing the finger at me but I re-used the Fox headline for this thread.

 

Oh I know, just backing up my earlier comment that I thought the article was deliberately misleading.