‘Mom Seeks Law…’ Is Your Warning That Stupidity Follows

Nine times out of 10. Why? Because, God and Darwin love ‘em, moms are irrational and fierce protectors of their children who will do anything for their kids.

Which on one hand is good, but on the other is exactly why when you see “Mom Seeks Law…” in a headline, it’s going to be a bad idea and go way too far.

Which brings me to today’s little venture into Big Mother politics.

Dallas-area mother challenges Texas law allowing parents to show children pornography

Texas’ devotion to protecting parental rights allows moms and dads to provide pornography to their children.

Now a Dallas-area mother is trying to change that, saying that her ex-husband faces no punishment for showing their young daughters online images of three-way adult encounters.

She’s getting support from a variety of sources, including a Panhandle prosecutor who wanted to charge the man but concluded he had no way to win a case.

No, I don’t support showing porn to kids, but yes, how I teach my kid about sex education is not your business or the state’s business and blah blah blah. But this isn’t a political argument.

For starters, the sloppy writing suggests it’s an established fact that the dad in question did what the sentence says. It is not. It’s an allegation. And when we read further into the story, we learn it’s an allegation from a mother who did not have custody of her own kids.

This is big red flag No. 1. Divorces are nasty, and child custody fights even more so. Otherwise honest mothers will tell you they will do anything to keep their kids, and that includes lying. Especially if they’re lying about ex-husbands.

Red flag No. 2 — she didn’t have custody. When a mother doesn’t get primary custody or joint custody of kids, almost invariably there’s something really ugly going on with her.

Red flag No. 3 — the scenario described further down in the story doesn’t pass the smell test:

The Dallas-area woman said her three grade-school-age daughters were living with their father earlier this year when he started drinking, woke two of them late at night and showed them porn on his computer. They later told a counselor, who alerted authorities. Amarillo police investigated, found the girls believable and sought advice from Farren’s office before proceeding.

This doesn’t add up. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s improbable. As described in this admittedly poorly reported and badly written story, it doesn’t fit the profile.

It does, however, fit the script of someone trying to get back custody of their kids.

As for “Amarillo police investigated, found the girls believable and sought advice from Farren’s office before proceeding” need I remind you that Fort Collins police thought the Balloon Boy’s family was credible until the kid admitted on morning television it was a hoax?

So given all that we’ve been presented by the paper, I call BS on this woman.

Do kids need to be protected? Of course.

But regardless of whether this lady is lying, do we need the kind of laws that result from crusading moms? Absolutely not.


  1. Bethany says:

    When I read it, I thought it sounded like a custody battle gone greatly awry, which makes me extremely wary of imposing a law just to satisfy someone’s possible jones for vengeance.

  2. Isn’t almost certain that somehow someway the father of these children drove drunk at some point in doing this?

  3. Michael, you get it.

    Bethany, you too.

  4. Dallasite says:

    But it’s for the chiiiiildren!!!

    It will be proposed in the next Legislature and passed overwhelmingly. No politician ever wants to be labeled as a person who supports showing porn to children.

    Sanity doesn’t stand a chance when up against a media searching for a sound bite.

  5. Anonymous says:

    “[D]o we need the kind of laws that result from crusading moms? Absolutely not.”

    So what are your recommendations? Should the 19th Amendment be repealed? Are you calling for a return to the good old days when mom got a shiner from dad when she got uppity?

    What should be done?

  6. Why should something be done at all?

  7. Anonymous says:

    From your perspective, isn’t MADD the quintessential Big Mother organization?

    If so, what’s your position on drunk driving?

    Let me guess: no checkpoints, no breathalyzers, no drawing blood, no field sobriety tests? In fact, you probably think drunk driving shouldn’t even be a crime. Am I right?

  8. MADD’s initial mission of education and sane laws was good, but it’s morphed so far into a prohibitionist group that its founder, Candy Lightner, quit in disgust because the goal was no longer to reduce drunk driving, but to virtually prohibit all alcohol consumption.

    “Candy Lightner, MADD’s founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction.

    “It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned,” said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. “I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”


    .08 BAC is far too draconian and represents a crusade against all social drinking. It doesn’t target those who are dangerous but those who had two drinks with dinner.

    Checkpoints violate the fourth amendment and are ineffective.

    Forcible blood draws are barbaric.

    Laws against parents allowing their own older teenagers to have a glass of wine at home have no place in a free society.

  9. Bethany says:

    Having covered a ton of drunk driving fatalities, I can say that I do think that there should be laws against it, yes.

    But one guy’s .08 is completely different from another’s .08. BAC doesn’t take into a account body size, tolerance, etc.

    But there’s a difference between drunk driving and drinking as an adult, with a designated driver, or in your home. Drunk driving impinges on the rights of other drivers to have a safe roadway. It’s not your right to drive drunk. It’s your right to drive.

    So comparing drunk driving laws with what is happening here is like comparing apples to big snot balls. Not even in the same universe.

    This woman didn’t have custody, for whatever reason. The courts felt the father was the more suitable parent. I’ve also covered a whole lot of alleged child abuse cases that had their genesis in a custody battle between the parents, where the child or children were coached on what to say.

    I just think some more digging into the situation is needed before legislators go knee-jerk into making yet another unnecessary law.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Let me paint you a picture of your libertarian paradise, and you can comment.

    It’s after midnight. Larry Libertarian stumbles out of the bar after hours of binge drinking, walks into a lamp-post and says, “Excuush me shhhhhir.”

    He meanders into the parking lot, but he’s so wasted he can’t even identify his own car. He trips and falls, dropping his keys. While he’s crawling on the ground, a parking lot attendant says, “Oh sir, let me help you to your car.”

    Larry gets behind the wheel, and blacks out. A few minutes later, he comes to, stewing in his own urine because he pissed himself. Larry starts his car. He’s not even sure where the parking lot exit is, let alone how to find his way home. He steps on the gas, launching his vehicle onto the sidewalk, striking and killing 3 nuns. “Jeeeeshush, did I hhit shhhhomething?” says Larry.

    Larry drives off, in the oncoming traffic lane.

    Maybe Larry makes it home, maybe he doesn’t.

    Nothing Larry did is illegal, in a libertarian paradise.

    That’s basically how it works, right?

  11. Bethany says:

    So basically, you’re saying Libertarians are raging alcoholics who regularly commit vehicular manslaughter?

    What other gems do you have to pluck from the Stereotype Much tree?

  12. And he’s a poor painter.

  13. Bethany says:

    Especially when you consider that you and I basically agree on this, and I’m not a Libertarian.

  14. Frank R says:

    Larry struck and KILLED three nuns yet he did not do anything illegal? Anonymous, I’ll give you the advice I gave the other day: “If you can’t say anything intelligent, don’t say anything at all.”

    As I understood the premise of this post, the issue is essentially about the sloppy reporting. As tragic as this is, it has become the norm. Few reporters check their facts or dig deeper than the surface, regardless of the issue. More importantly, they consistently fail to do so if the superficialities are juicy and make for an exciting read. How more lascivious does it get than to state that a debauched father is showing his own daughter adult/child three ways?

  15. Dallasite says:

    “That’s basically how it works, right?”

    Yes, and hopefully the strawman that you’re throwing out there gets killed along with the fictional nuns.

  16. Anonymous says:

    In a libertarian paradise, laws codifying traffic rules represent unacceptable government coercion of the private individual. Freedom means freedom to drive on the sidewalk.

    Regarding the nuns in a libertarian paradise, wearing a habit in public view represents a forceful, coercive attempt to impose religion on the private individual. Use of lethal force in self-defense is justified.

    Do I have that right?

  17. Bethany says:

    No. You don’t. So please just shush, or identify yourself. It’s poor form to throw such idiocy out there and not identify yourself.

    Unless even you don’t believe the shiite you’re sharing.

  18. Frank R says:

    Anon, the fact that you are allowed to post on this blog is evidence of the host’s libertarian integrity. This is especially true given your oft ignorant, sometimes profane or scatological posts.

  19. Doubts says:

    Good point Frank, but Anon is the type of entitlement lib that would think Trey removing any of his posts would constitute cencorship.

  20. Phillip J Hubbell says:

    He has the right to remain anonymous…he represents the millions of total idiots from the political left who infest this country.

  21. Bethany says:

    *coughs, bats eyes* Left? Infest?

  22. Tim Lebsack says:

    Anonymous -

    Most of the planet is unfamiliar with liberty. While some view the idea positively as a political ideal, economic benchmark, societal standard, or personal philosophy, others see freedom negatively, as unrestrained hedonism or violent anarchy. A very small number even fear liberty because it would deny them the opportunity to rule others.

    A non-libertarian meeting libertarians for the first time is like a Christian visiting a synagogue, a traveler in a foreign country, or a newly recovering alcoholic at that first AA meeting. Each one of us would look around, talk to people, and be pleasantly surprised to discover that others in the room are “just like me” – good people with no less a standard of ethics than the nomads of north Africa, the farmers of the Black Sea or the industrialists of our own Mississippi Valley.

    From these good people have come contemporary libertarians such as Thomas Sowell, Clint Eastwood and John Mackey and also historical libertarians such as Lao Tzu, Booker T. Washington, and Leo Tolstoy.

    A most revealing discovery is that many people are libertarian and don’t even realize it. The word is just a way to provide us the comfort of a label. What really matters is how we live our lives with our fellow man – disrespecting their needs and desires or allowing them to be individuals ?

    Perhaps you should meet some of us. Join us at an event we have planned. Details are here -

    You’ll get a chance to talk with husband, father and LP Texas Executive Director Robert Butler along with Lago Vista City Council Member and LP Texas Chair Pat Dixon.
    You’ll see that most of us will drive to the meeting without raising the ire of the highway patrol. I’ll probably ride my bicycle like the libertarians in China.

    Tim Lebsack
    Treasurer, LP Dallas County

  23. Bethany says:

    Tim: But you’ll be dining on small children and pissing on yourselves, right? Hitting nuns? Yes?

  24. Vines N Cattle says:

    Actually in Libertopia, there wouldn’t be any eminent domain thus there wouldn’t be any roads. As such, necessity would’ve demanded innovation.

    That’s right, Libertopia would have flying cars.

  25. Bethany says:

    And hovercraft? A souped-up DeLorean with a Mr. Fusion? Awe. Some.

    But seriously, when do we get to pee ourselves and hit nuns?

  26. keith johnson says:

    Pornography is viewed through the lens of “community standards.”
    What is considered “pornography” in a Tarrant Couinty case might be viewed as “art” in Dallas County.
    The chances are, if a parent’s showing their child pornography for sexual gratification they’re committing some other offense already on the books.
    I’d hate to go to jail because my kid saw an Abercrombie & Fitch ad on my computer screen.

  27. Bulls-eye, Keith.

  28. I think we can all appreciate Anon, his posts give us an opportunity to spread our message, regardless of how inane his post. They keep the conversation going and help us to gain perspective from others. Like Tims excellent post about the Libertarian BBQ at my house that everyone is invited to on November 14th.

    I realize this was covered, but Anon, at what point did we say we didn’t punish people for vehicle manslaughter?

    If you drive drunk and harm someone you pay the price. That price should be severe.
    Also sidewalks are normally the property and responsibility of the home or property owners (in most cities). Therefore driving on them would constitute a violation of that persons rights, and result in punishment.
    Or reimbursement for damages.

    Wearing a habit in public is a matter of personal choice, in a Libertarian society you could choose what you wanted to wear. Hopefully the ladies would opt for the bikini.

    If we didn’t have eminent domain, we may have the nicest infrastructure for roads in the world, especially now, where we would pay much lower prices for gas, because we wouldn’t have ridiculous taxes. I am not really an all roads private guy, but right now, it seems like we are only building toll roads, but still paying ridiculous taxes, now that’s horrible.

    There is a lot of truth in that necessity breeds invention argument, and the it’s opposite, government intervention stifles creativity and kills competition.

    I could go on, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  29. Vines N Cattle says:

    Peeing ourselves and hitting nuns? Man that really puts me in the holiday spirit. Good times…

  30. Bethany says:

    If you promise we get to do both, I’ll go to your barbecue.

  31. You just pick your BBQ’d animal Bethany, we’ll soon be featuring cattle, lamb, pigs, chickens and even prawns.

    Speaking of which I need to do an update…

  32. Daniel says:

    Wow, Anonymous — cool! Show me where to sign up! What about actually raping nuns. Because that’s my civil right every bit as much as hitting one.

    As for all you other ignoramuses, I can’t believe you would impugn the impassioned words of a woman clearly in the wake of a bitter divorce. Oh, yeah, almost forgot — in your Libertarian Paradise, laws won”t be made according to passion, right? Right?


  33. Anonymous says:

    Of course you’re right, Daniel.

    In Libertopia, laws are made by a committee of omniscient, incorruptible solons, impervious to anti-libertarian (whatever that means) influences.

    It’ll just work, darn it, and if you have any doubts whatsoever, you need to smoke another joint and reread Atlas Shrugged.

  34. Daniel says:

    O Mighty Libertarian Solon! Whose attributes are unmentionable! Whose name is unpronounceable!

    Seriously, anon, one of the Ten Commandments (had I written them, that is) — it comes right after “Thou shalt not get involved in a guy-girl dispute,” which is tangentially relevant here, and right before “Thou shalt not stone thy cat, nor thy dog, nor thy neighbor’s ox,” which has nothing to do with the case at hand, although I understand that in your estimate Libertarians would do well to take it to heart — is “In making laws, thou shalt discount the input of aggrieved mothers.”