Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Alabama judge affirms constitutional right to have sex with your teachers because Alabama   ( cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Human sexual behavior, Sexual intercourse, 44-year-old Carrie Witt, Decatur Metropolitan Area, Rape, Judge Glenn Thompson, Decatur High School, Education  
•       •       •

7722 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Aug 2017 at 10:25 AM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-08-12 08:24:22 AM  
The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2017-08-12 08:35:28 AM  
The Massachusetts Supreme Court hinted that it would rule sex offender status for woman-on-boy statutory rape unconstitutional. (http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/477/477mass499.html) Your move, Alabama.
 
2017-08-12 08:40:48 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers


That made me laugh far more than it should have.
 
2017-08-12 08:58:27 AM  
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?
 
2017-08-12 09:16:21 AM  

BizarreMan: Should they be educating anyong?


Well, they are educating in a certain sense.

\*shudders*
 
2017-08-12 09:32:35 AM  
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.
 
2017-08-12 09:39:34 AM  

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
 
2017-08-12 10:01:15 AM  
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.
 
2017-08-12 10:05:27 AM  
"A teacher" submitter not "your teacher".
 
2017-08-12 10:08:47 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:29:34 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:31:01 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:32:11 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:32:32 AM  

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/477/477mass499.html) Your move, Alabama.


i.gr-assets.comView Full Size
 
2017-08-12 10:33:49 AM  
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.
 
2017-08-12 10:34:05 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:35:04 AM  
But only if you are related.
 
2017-08-12 10:39:56 AM  
That's pretty gross
 
2017-08-12 10:41:28 AM  
What about beauty pageant owners and underage contestents?

Asking for a fiend.
 
2017-08-12 10:41:32 AM  

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
 
2017-08-12 10:43:00 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:47:29 AM  

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?
 
2017-08-12 10:49:30 AM  
WWJD?*
*Who Would Jesus Do?
 
2017-08-12 10:49:38 AM  
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.
 
2017-08-12 10:52:06 AM  

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.
 
2017-08-12 10:52:09 AM  

Mock26: 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.


It would be the state constitution as it was a state charge
 
2017-08-12 10:52:48 AM  

kronicfeld: 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.


BURN HIM!!!
 
2017-08-12 10:56:37 AM  
Nawww man, you don't wanna fark with teacher.  She knows karate.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-12 10:58:02 AM  

Ocean_Pimp: Mock26: 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.

It would be the state constitution as it was a state charge


Thank you.
 
2017-08-12 10:58:36 AM  
I'm surprised that I find myself agreeing with an Alabama judge. These are strange days, indeed.
 
2017-08-12 11:00:06 AM  
"We the Rednecks of the State of Alabama, in Order to fark more of the Teachers' Union, establish Justice, insure scholastic Sexuality, provide for the tight Yoga Pants, promote the general Naughtiness, and secure the Blessings of Puberty to ourselves and our Pornography, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Alabama."
 
2017-08-12 11:00:08 AM  

Mock26: Ocean_Pimp: Mock26: 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.

It would be the state constitution as it was a state charge

Thank you.


I'd assume it would still have to go up the chain to the state supreme court

But its Alabama so slavery is still in their state constitution
 
2017-08-12 11:02:30 AM  

The Pope of Manwich Village: "We the Rednecks of the State of Alabama, in Order to fark more of the Teachers' Union, establish Justice, insure scholastic Sexuality, provide for the tight Yoga Pants, promote the general Naughtiness, and secure the Blessings of Puberty to ourselves and our Pornography, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Alabama."


WE DONT TEACH HUMAN SEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS BUT WE CANT FIGURE OUT WHY OUR TEEN PREGNANCY RATE IS SO HIGH
 
2017-08-12 11:02:44 AM  
Also, this was tacked on as the new State Song, for those who didnt read the article.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-12 11:02:55 AM  

debug: 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.


The speeling sucks in this thred
 
2017-08-12 11:03:30 AM  
From a purely legal framework, the ruling does actually make sense.  Alabama's biggest problem is that they set the age of consent at 16, instead of "eighteen, but you can sleep with a seventeen or sixteen year old if there is less than a five year age gap."

It's really sleazy since these were teenage high school students, but if they were 18 year old college students and their professors, it kind of makes sense, since all the judge is saying is that the state has to prove that the teachers used their position of authority to get sex, and that a simple inequality of power is not enough to justify a statutory rape charge, which would technically mean that every person who ever had an affair with their secretary was guilty of rape.
 
2017-08-12 11:05:20 AM  

J Noble Daggett: 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.


Probably easier to get busy in a Burger King bathroom.
 
2017-08-12 11:13:59 AM  
An Alabama judge ruled Thursday that a law barring teachers from having sexual relationships with students old enough to consent is unconstitutional.

Personally i see no problem with this.
 
2017-08-12 11:14:11 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Macron's wife was his highschool teacher. Twenty years older
 
2017-08-12 11:16:24 AM  

winedrinkingman: From a purely legal framework, the ruling does actually make sense.  Alabama's biggest problem is that they set the age of consent at 16, instead of "eighteen, but you can sleep with a seventeen or sixteen year old if there is less than a five year age gap."

It's really sleazy since these were teenage high school students, but if they were 18 year old college students and their professors, it kind of makes sense, since all the judge is saying is that the state has to prove that the teachers used their position of authority to get sex, and that a simple inequality of power is not enough to justify a statutory rape charge, which would technically mean that every person who ever had an affair with their secretary was guilty of rape.


16 is the legal age of consent in most states... and also the EU and most of the world (if not younger).   The 18 number came originally from consenting to sign contracts to do pornography, then the feds made it a crime to travel across state lines to have sex with someone under 18.   Now everyone thinks 16 y olds are children even though they used to be able to work, drive, smoke, drink, fly a plane, get emancipated, get married, sign contracts, go to jail for life for murder, etc.   It's so strange since in the EU, you're an adult at 16 and can vote.  Now I hear people referring to 21 and 23 year olds as "babies" and talk of raising the legal age of everything to 21 -- many states have already started raising the smoking age to 21.  The age of drinking used to be 16, then 18, and then finally 21 because of the feds.   What's next?   Infantalizing 30 year olds?  Obamacare let "college kids" stay on their parents' healthcare plans until their mid 20s, so I expect that's next.

Seriously, though... this ruling makes sense in context.   The law was written to protect people from being coerced into sex from a person that has authority over them.   Many states have similar laws, but it's crazy to throw out the intent of the law and stick to just the letter...  like... just because someone is a teacher and another is a student doesn't mean that one is in a position of authority over the other -- even if they are both at the same high school.   Why would a biology teacher have authority over a student that never has and never will take their bio class and hasn't had that teacher for homeroom, etc?  It's nonsensical.
 
2017-08-12 11:17:53 AM  
Mr. Coffee Nerves
The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers
I think quite the opposite as incest may still be illegal.  If anything, this ruling could lead to a decline in homeschooling or at least a decline in kids wanting to be homeschooled.
 
2017-08-12 11:18:36 AM  
If you are going to underpay your teachers then the job has to have some perks.
 
2017-08-12 11:19:35 AM  

KingRamze: Now I hear people referring to 21 and 23 year olds as "babies"


Raise them like snowflakes, they get treated as snowflakes.
 
2017-08-12 11:23:35 AM  

KingRamze: winedrinkingman: From a purely legal framework, the ruling does actually make sense.  Alabama's biggest problem is that they set the age of consent at 16, instead of "eighteen, but you can sleep with a seventeen or sixteen year old if there is less than a five year age gap."

It's really sleazy since these were teenage high school students, but if they were 18 year old college students and their professors, it kind of makes sense, since all the judge is saying is that the state has to prove that the teachers used their position of authority to get sex, and that a simple inequality of power is not enough to justify a statutory rape charge, which would technically mean that every person who ever had an affair with their secretary was guilty of rape.

16 is the legal age of consent in most states... and also the EU and most of the world (if not younger).   The 18 number came originally from consenting to sign contracts to do pornography, then the feds made it a crime to travel across state lines to have sex with someone under 18.   Now everyone thinks 16 y olds are children even though they used to be able to work, drive, smoke, drink, fly a plane, get emancipated, get married, sign contracts, go to jail for life for murder, etc.   It's so strange since in the EU, you're an adult at 16 and can vote.  Now I hear people referring to 21 and 23 year olds as "babies" and talk of raising the legal age of everything to 21 -- many states have already started raising the smoking age to 21.  The age of drinking used to be 16, then 18, and then finally 21 because of the feds.   What's next?   Infantalizing 30 year olds?  Obamacare let "college kids" stay on their parents' healthcare plans until their mid 20s, so I expect that's next.

Seriously, though... this ruling makes sense in context.   The law was written to protect people from being coerced into sex from a person that has authority over them.   Many states have similar laws, but it's crazy to throw out the intent of the l ...


If not illegal, It should be a matter of employment policy at the school.  Teachers hitting on kids would create a tense environment that would not be conducive to learning.

/but I'll say, the best way to learn a foreign language is in bed.
 
2017-08-12 11:25:19 AM  
You see, a teacher's love with a student is very different from that of a square.
 
2017-08-12 11:27:01 AM  

basemetal: KingRamze: Now I hear people referring to 21 and 23 year olds as "babies"

Raise them like snowflakes, they get treated as snowflakes.


True, but snowflakes melt eventually.
 
2017-08-12 11:27:26 AM  

basemetal: KingRamze: Now I hear people referring to 21 and 23 year olds as "babies"

Raise them like snowflakes, they get treated as snowflakes.


Yeah, I agree.  They're development is taking longer as they are being protected from the ramifications of their actions until later in life.  You rarely hear farkers talk about taking responsibility. They're always trying to pass the buck, it's someone else's fault, don't blame the victim, daddy government will take care of me and you, too.

/reformed snowflake
 
2017-08-12 11:27:26 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers


enjoy your limelight in next week's funniest comments list.  that is well-earned.

/bravo
 
2017-08-12 11:31:29 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The lawsuit was filed by homeschoolers


I looked at the article and didn't see any reference to homeschoolers and then realized, "Wow, I am farking slow today."

So feel free to point at me and laugh.
 
2017-08-12 11:32:36 AM  
Makes sense to me. If the age of consent is 16, then it's 16.

If people want to argue about whether that consent is legitimate due to a perceived difference in power/authority, they should be required to show exactly how that came into play regarding the consent in whatever specific instance is being called into question.

It's ridiculous to have a blanket-ban that just says "Person A's job gives them some measure of perceived authority over Person B, so any sex between them is automatically illegal".
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report