Fox News tirelessly advanced false accusation that Jennings covered up "statutory rape"
Fox News and its websites Fox Nation and FoxNews.com repeatedly advanced the falsehood that Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, in the words of Fox News host Bill Hemmer, knew of a "statutory rape" and "never reported it." While pushing this attack on Jennings, Fox News ignored evidence that the student who told Jennings about his relationship with an older man was of legal age, and Media Matters for America has since confirmed that the student was of legal age and that Fox News' smears of Jennings were scurrilous and false.
Fox figures ran with false smear of Jennings
Sean Hannity: "As The Washington Times said, 'At the very least, statutory rape occurred,' and he didn't report it." On the September 30 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said: "We have the safe schools czar, a guy by the name of Kevin Jennings, OK? And he writes this book, and he gives information to a 15-year-old -- ABC News and Jake Tapper write about this tonight -- a 15-year-old sophomore, and his advice to him when he's having a gay relationship is, you know, 'Did you use a condom?' He knew it was an older adult. Now, as The Washington Times said, 'At the very least, statutory rape occurred,' and he didn't report it. Now he's saying that he made a mistake, only because it's been reported on. My question is, where's the vetting process? Why was he even put in this position?" Hannity went on to call for Jennings to be "fired."
Hannity: Jennings did not tell authorities about "statutory rape" of 15-year-old. From the "Great American Panel" segment of the October 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: All right. So we have, you know, another czar in trouble -- and many of them. All right, the latest one, this guy Kevin Jennings. You know, here's a guy -- you're a pastor -- and a 15-year-old kid goes into his office, seeks advice. He's having a relationship with an older -- with an adult, which, by the way, he said it was 15. That would be statutory rape.
And does he call the police, does he tell authorities, does he get in counseling? No, he asks him if he wore a condom.
Obenshain: Jennings is "a mandatory reporter as a teacher, and yet allowed this to happen without protecting the child." During the October 1 Hannity segment, panelist Kate Obenshain, vice president of Young America's Foundation, asserted, "But for the man who is supposed to be promoting safe schools -- he's a mandatory reporter as a teacher, and yet allowed this to happen without protecting the child."
Fox Nation: "Did 'Safe School Czar' Encourage Statutory Rape?" On September 28, the Fox Nation linked to the same Washington Times editorial that Hannity referenced, with the headline, "Did 'Safe School Czar' Encourage Statutory Rape?"
Fox Nation: Jennings "Cover[ed] Up Statutory Rape." The Fox Nation subsequently asserted as fact that Jennings covered up statutory rape in a September 30 headline:
Fox News contributor Malkin: Jennings failed to report "homosexual child predator." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin wrote a September 30 blog post titled, "Safe Schools czar now 'regrets' failure to report child predator," in which she referred to Jennings' purported "failure as a young gay teacher to protect a 15-year old student from a homosexual child predator."
Brian Kilmeade: "[Jennings] details a report on how he did not report an incident with an underage student who had sex with an older man." During a September 24 Fox & Friends segment, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that Jennings "details ... how he did not report an incident with an underage student who had sex with an older man."
Hemmer claimed as fact that Jennings knew of "statutory rape" case and "never reported it." During the October 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer stated, "[W]e are talking about a case that involves statutory rape, and Jennings never reported it. According to a book he wrote, had no regrets about how he handled it then."
Baier alleged Jennings failed to report "sexual abuse." During the October 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier claimed, "Education Secretary Arne Duncan is standing behind his so-called safe schools czar after revelations that Kevin Jennings did not report a case of sexual abuse he encountered as a schoolteacher."
FoxNews.com: Jennings "detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men." FoxNews.com reported in a September 23 article that Jennings "detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men."
Jennings' attorney stated in 2004 letter that student was 16, which is -- and was -- MA age of consent
Jennings' attorney: Conversation was "with a sixteen-year-old student"; "no factual basis" that Jennings was "aware of any sexual victimization of any student." In an August 3, 2004, letter, Constance M. Boland of the law firm Nixon Peabody -- which represented the organization that Jennings ran -- wrote that the "conversation" Jennings had was with "a sixteen-year-old student" and that there "is no factual basis whatsoever for" the "claim that Mr. Jennings engaged in unethical practices, or that he was aware of any sexual victimization of any student, or that he declined to report any sexual victimization at any time." [Boland letter, 8/3/04]
Massachusetts age of consent is -- and was at the time -- 16. According to a footnote in the 1982 Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Calvin D. Miller, chapter 265, section 23, of the General Laws of Massachusetts, as amended in 1974, at the time provided:
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years. [emphasis added]
According to the legislative history available in the Lexis database, the provision was not amended after 1982 until 1998. It was amended again in 2008 and now provides:
Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file. [emphasis added]
Media Matters has since confirmed that student was at least 16 at time of discussion with Jennings
Former student: "I was of legal consent at the time." The former student provided Media Matters with the following statement, which Media Matters published on October 2:
Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.
In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today.
- Brewster
Former student on Facebook: "I was 16 when Kevin gave me the advice he gave me." Further, Media Matters exclusively obtained the following Facebook exchange between FoxNews.com writer Maxim Lott and the student, which Media Matters also published on October 2:
Former student's driver's license also indicates he was at least 16 when he approached Jennings. Media Matters also exclusively obtained the Massachusetts driver's license of the student confirming that at the time of the incident he was at least 16 years of age. The following scanned image of the student's current driver's license, published on October 2, has been heavily redacted to protect his identity.
it's a scramble at "America's News Room" to bring down the next Obama associate, since they have already proven they can do it with the Van Jones debacle.
It wasn't about whether Fox has the right to slander and libel an individual.
I repeat myself.....he needs to resign or be fired, and conservatives must keep this story going until that happens.
There was no evidence that there was a crime. The kid told him that he had an interaction with a man he met in a bus station. The kid was 16. There was no evidence of sexual abuse. No crime. No appearance of a crime.
Repeating nonsense doesn't magically make it come true. FoxNews had repeatedly pushed a false accusation, and they failed to provide their viewers with the available contradictory evidence that the kid was actually 16.
Jennings said "15" one time. We don't know why, but it could easily be explained by a mistake on the part of Jennings or by his desire to remind his listeners, in general, how young sophomores are, without describing this kid in particular at all - and we know he wasn't describing this kid in particular since this kid started out his sophomore year as a 16 year old!
There was no statutory rape, but FoxNews repeated falsely asserted there was.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused
------------------------------------------------------
Who'd have thunk it.
I'm sure you are reasonable and would agree that the only reason you posted this was because you were proven wrong by me multiple times last week, wouldn't you?
Because the point I made above was how unlikely it is that Obama believed there were 57 states, and how there's no evidence that Jennings believed that the student was 15, only evidence that he said 15 at one point in time.
And I don't care if you'd want to know about it if it were your child, regardless of whether the kid was of legal consent age or not. We have laws in the USA, and the laws say that teachers (and lawyers and medical professionals and social workers) have an obligation to protect the privacy of people under 18 unless there is clear evidence of sexual activity under the age of 16 or abuse under the age of 18. The teacher here did the right thing by protecting the student's privacy. If you think that all parents should be told everything about their children, then you need to work with the system to change that law, but until you do (and you won't be able to, since the law is very reasonable) you need to respect the laws of the USA and individual states and stop demanding that private talks between your child and his/her teacher get divulged to you.
And yeah, we know that FoxNews has fixed the story. The problem being mentioned here is that they knew that there was contradictory information about the student's age yet they never told their listeners about that contradictory info until the student himself verified his age in the spring of 1988. They didn't properly inform their viewers that more reliable info indicated that the kid was 16 when this happened, and therefore no statutory rape likely happened and no sexual abuse was ever suspected.
It would seem that you exhibited the bad judgment to post on this topic as if you were going to educate us when in fact you don't really know what you're talking about at all.
He said "high school sophomore, 15 years old." That could easily be him describing to his audience that the typical sophomore is 15 years old when they start their sophomore year in school. It says nothing about how old he thought this particular student was. We don't know if he was describing a particular kid or not. The fact that he used the singular is only an indication that he was talking about one kid, not that he was talking about this kid. He could have easily been saying that A typical sophomore when they start their sophomore year is 15. Most sophomores are 16 by the time spring rolls around! - that's why we say that high school seniors are 18, because they are 16 two years earlier.
Again, we don't know what he thought. It's ridiculous to say that he thought that the kid was 15, just like it'd be ridiculous to suggest that Obama thought that we had 57 states! We don't know what Jennings thought just because he said "15".
THat argument doesn't hold water. It didn't hold water the first time I debunked it, and it still doesn't 10 allegations later!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
He should sue, and the FCC should issue an injunction upon the court's verdict.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this story was originally published, the former student referred to as "Brewster" has stepped forward to reveal that he was 16 years old, not 15, at the time of the incident described in this report.
Also they did this story about how the student "Defends Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar Against Allegations".
Better than nothing, and much better than previous stories by FoxNews. It's a pretty fair portrayal of the pluses and minuses of the story.
MMFA is focused on proving that the teen was of legal age, while virtually ignoring the fact that it doesn't even matter.
Actually the student is telling a different story than Jennings did, it appears. So who is telling the truth?
I have already said Jennings did nothing inappropriate and no crime was committed. I was simply commenting to Clams Casino who questioned whether there was an incident at all.
And the student says nothing about where they were after the bus arrived back in the town where the school is. I can believe there was no sexual contact between the two of them. Jennings thought that there easily could have been contact betweent the two of them and so he cautioned the kid to make sure when he did have sex that he knew to use a condom. You said that someone wasn't telling the truth. That's different than saying that Jennings made an assumption that turned out to not be accurate. That's not a lie nor a contradiction in their stories.
OMG, so you are also furthering that myth that MMfA debunked already, that Jennings urged him to use a condom? That is not at all what he said, he said he hoped he "used" a condom, not that he hopes he "uses" one.
You are just sticking your foot in your mouth now, better stop.
The above from an earlier MMfA thread where they debunk the Wash Times editorial, which says exactly what you did above. Oops!
When he did have sex, he should know to use a condom to protect himself - it was not a comment that encouraged the kid to HAVE sex. MMFA's objection to that was that they suggested his comment was in reference to the sex - it was in fact in reference to protecting the kid against STD's.
Here's the full statement by MMFA, in context, that blows your argument out of the water.
A Washington Times editorial accused "safe school czar" Kevin Jennings of "encourag[ing]" a relationship that amounted to "statutory rape," by suggesting that his only response to an underage student's revelation that he had sex with what the Times described as an "older man" was to "make sure 'to use a condom.' " In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom" to protect against STDs; moreover, the FoxNews.com article from which The Washington Times based this claim truncated Jennings' remarks to exclude his statement that he thought to say this because his "best friend had just died of AIDS the week before."
Huh? Are you suggesting that one get an STD without having sex? Do you know what an STD is?
When he did have sex, he should know to use a condom to protect himself - it was not a comment that encouraged the kid to HAVE sex. MMFA's objection to that was that they suggested his comment was in reference to the sex - it was in fact in reference to protecting the kid against STD's.
His comment was not an encouragement of the sex, but the Washington Times said that it was. His comment was encouragement to use protection if and when he did have sex. It didn't signify approval of the sex in any way. The newspaper claimed it did show approval.
The Times editorial said "In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship." The main piece of evidence they give that he encouraged the relationship is this - "On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure "to use a condom" when he was with the older man."
But the comment by Jennings was not encouragement to have the relationship. It was encouragement to use protection if and when he did have a sexual relationship.
This is similar to the argument that sex ed encourages kids to have sex. It doesn't.
You explicitly said that Jennings told the kid to use a condom when he had sex > "so he cautioned the kid to make sure when he did have sex that he knew to use a condom". That is not what Jennings said at all. You can't get out of what you said so you try and spout some nonsense. Sorry Sue, you failed.
Encouraging someone to use a condom is not what MMFA objected to. The Washintgon Times said that Jennings encouraged the kid to have sex and the evidence that they provided was his comment about condoms.
You can continue to lie about what MMFA objected to, but it will never make you correct.
A Washington Times editorial accused "safe school czar" Kevin Jennings of "encourag[ing]" a relationship that amounted to "statutory rape," by suggesting that his only response to an underage student's revelation that he had sex with what the Times described as an "older man" was to "make sure 'to use a condom.' " In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom" to protect against STDs.
It's too bad that you keep demonstrating that your reading comprehension isn't very good.
My god are you that pathetic. Jennings most certainly did NOT tell him to make sure he uses condoms in the future. If you think that is what he said then you completely disagree with MMfA, and the truth of the actual advice Jennings gave "Brewster".
Why don't you back and read the initial threads that MMfA put up where they explicitly take issue with your assertion above. If you want to believe the Wash Times and others who MMfA have debunked here then you are free to do it. But at least you could be honest about it instead of looking like a complete fool.
I don't completely disagree with MMFA in any way. It is your misreading of their posting with regard to the Washington Times editorial that has you flummoxed.
I have posted numerous times on every thread that MMFA has posted on this topic. For you to suggest that I need to re-read something when it's you who has proven that you don't understand what MMFA was saying about their objection to the Washington Times editorial, then you have a bigger problem than what I can help you with.
"I hope you knew to use a condom" is advice to the kid to use a condom when and if he has sex to avoid STD's. It's not encouragement or approval of the student having sex.
As I said, Jennings cautioned the kid to make sure when he did have sex that he knew to use a condom.
You can spin it anyway you'd like in typical Sue fashion but it doesn't change anything. You should have quit when you were nearly ahead, now you've really gone and done it.
A Washington Times editorial accused "safe school czar" Kevin Jennings of "encourag[ing]" a relationship that amounted to "statutory rape," by suggesting that his only response to an underage student's revelation that he had sex with what the Times described as an "older man" was to "make sure 'to use a condom.' " In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom" to protect against STDs; moreover, the FoxNews.com article from which The Washington Times based this claim truncated Jennings' remarks to exclude his statement that he thought to say this because his "best friend had just died of AIDS the week before."
They are saying that the Wasington Times used his comment (one they didn't accurately transcribe) to say that he was encouraging the sexual activity. He wasn't though. He was suggesting that the kid hopefully knew to use a condom if he had sex to encourage to kid to protect himself against STD's!
There's a difference between 'make sure you use a condom' and 'You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.' And my comment, 'he cautioned the kid to make sure when he did have sex that he knew to use a condom,', is equivalent to the second one, the comment the teacher made. The second two aren't encouraging sex. The Washington Times tried to use the first one to say that Jennings used that comment to encourage the sex! He did't.
You got yourself caught in a misinterpretation of something that MMFA posted. I have fought against the lies on this subject against many other posters, and this argument you're making is one of the weakest ones there's been.
And again, it's ridiculous to assert that Jennings caution to the kid was only intended to pertain to any sexual activity that had happened in the past, and that the teacher wasn't trying to also educate the student about protecting himself in the future! That's what I actually said, that his comments pertained to both previous and future actions. You are the one who tried to paint his caution as only pertaining to the past. I never said nore implied that it only pertained to the future.
"MMFA doesn't say that Jennings didn't encourage condom use."
Oh give it up Sue, for crying out loud. You are now making a fool of yourself. MMfA certainly does say Jennings did not encourage condom use because that is what The Wash Times is saying. And MMfA is correct, you and The Wash Times are not.
They say that his comment about condom use was not evidence that he encouraged the relationship!
The Washington Times did simply say that he encouraged condom use. They said that his encouragment of condom use was evidence that he encouraged the relationship! And his encouragement of condom use was not encouraging the relationship. It was encouragement of condom use to help prevent STD's, because of his friend who had died of AIDS!
MMFA didn't say that Jennings didn't encourage condom use - they just disputed that his encouragement of condom use means what the Washington Times says that it means!
I don't know how you figure out that The Washington Times and I are wrong but MMFA is right. All three of us agree that Jennings encouraged condom use. MMFA and I disagree that it's evidence that he encouraged the relationship! I can't help that you can't accurately dissect what MMFA posted to grasp the concept.
Show me where MMfA says in any of their text that Jennings encouraged condom use? You make the claim so it should be easy enough for you to copy and paste exactly where MMfA makes that assertion.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909280021
Jennings encouraged condom use by saying that he hoped the student knew to use a condom!
Or here's another one
In fact, there is no evidence that Jennings either "encouraged" or "facilitated" the relationship; indeed, Jennings has stated simply that he "listened, sympathized, and offered advice" to the student, who was struggling with his sexuality.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910010036
You know, advice like encouraging condom use!
Jennings later said he counseled on the use of condoms to prevent HIV. In a 2000 speech to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Jennings offered more detail as to the advice he gave to "Brewster." Jennings said after "Brewster" told him of the incident involving an older man, "I didn't know what to say, knew I should say something quickly. So I finally -- my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before -- I looked at Brewster and said, 'You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.' He said to me something I will never forget, He said 'Why should I, my life isn't worth saving anyway.' "
He was showing compassion by advising the kid to use a condom, and was not condoning the behavior, which is what the Washington Times claimed.
ahh..you hit the golden word. one of them was mistaken. not lying. thats what happens when you relate a story from a long time ago. small facts get confused. it does not mean the whole story is false just that their may be some errors in recollection.
If they did as Jennings described it then you can't possibly believe there was no sexual contact between them.
really? when i was younger i met a girl at a party. she was attracted to me and i to her. she ended up having to much to drink and i took her home. i got her into her bed and made sure she would be ok and i left. leaving a note that i would call her the next day. while there may have been some that did not believe that i took her home and nothing happened, so what? their BELIEFS were irrelevent to the facts. so it does not matter if you believe there was no sexual contact. you don't have the FACTS so you don't know.
Who cares? It is a non-story either way. It does not matter. Once again, the attempts by Fox News and Drudge and Limbaugh turn out to be nothing at all. It is time for these party over country crazies to move onto their next target. I am imagining an under-secretary of environmental affairs that once pled guilty to possession of marijuana. Perhaps we could attempt to link him to the Mexican drug cartel and blame the violence there now on him.
If someone told me that they went to a bar and stayed from 8 at night until 2 the next morning, I might easily say to them "I hope you didn't drive home", because I would want to caution them that driving home drunk would be wrong. It says nothing about whether or not that person was actually drunk or not.
You said that the student is telling a different story, and I don't see any proof that's true.
"In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay."
Meeting on the return home and meeting in the bus station bathroom during that return home trip are not mutually exclusive. I am not sure why you think they are. One is more detailed than the other - the student's description was pretty sparse and general.
Brewster doesn't say what he did between the time the bus got to the station and the time he returned to his dorm room, so we don't know that the two of them didn't return to this person's home to talk, and then the guy dropped him off at the dorm. Jennings never said that they had a sexual encounter, and the fact that he might have assumed that they did while they in fact did not doesn't make their two stories incompatible. And the issue was not that one of them was "mistaken", as you are now claiming - it's that you said one was lying. Your exact comment was "Actually the student is telling a different story than Jennings did, it appears. So who is telling the truth?"
You are making statements that the evidence just doesn't back up.
Either way, the two stories don't match up, no matter how you look at it.
Perhaps the student went home with this individual with the intention of doing something sexual, and then changed his mind. Maybe their interaction was limited to conversation and advice given about his sexuality in general. Perhaps they ate popcorn and watched Breakfast at Tiffany's or something. Point is, we don't know. And frankly, since this young man was of age, it isn't really any of our business. And if he says nothing sexual happened, then I think we ought to believe him.
Jennings and Brewster gave slightly different versions of the events...you wouldn't expect two people to give identical accounts of something that happened 20+ years ago.
Jennings was 24 years old, and a troubled student shared personal information with him. As a young teacher myself, I can completely understand how difficult of a position that can put you in. You want to be their for your students and want them to feel comfortable speaking to you, but you are also acutely aware of how limited a role you play. You are not a parent, a family member, or a licensed psychiatrist. And as soon as you do something that someone from the outside can interpret as you overstepping your boundaries, you can be in for a world of hurt, including potentially losing your job. It's a tough spot to be in, and I know there have been times where I've laid awake at night wondering if I should do something more.
But in a lot of cases (really, unless it's blatantly clear that a student's life or well-being is in danger), beyond offering an open ear, your hands are tied.
Do you think Brewster wouldn't care about saving his own life if all he done was eat popcorn and watch Breakfast at Tiffanys? Come on, if you are really a teacher then you can't be that naive.
Brewster was a young man, still in high school, struggling with his sexuality. I'm sure he had some intense ups and downs. I know I was moody and dramatic as all get out as a teenager, and I wasn't facing anywhere near the kind of obstacles this young man was.
Personally, I see Brewster as being more of the authority on what actually happened that night (since he was there). If he says there was no sexual contact (and he doesn't have much motive to lie, since he was of legal age), then I'm really not in much of a position to say that I know better.
I'm not willing to draw conclusions based on the recounted memories of a 20-year old conversation, and then say that my statements are closer to the truth than the statements of those actually involved. Just don't really want to do that.
And really, I don't feel like there's much point in trying to establish if there was sex or not. As far as I can tell, if no laws were broken, then it's really not my business. I'm just glad that things worked out okay for this young man. It seems to me like much ado about nothing.
So you are free to assume whatever you'd like. I prefer to assume what makes the most common sense.
That answer seems pretty obvious. And this isn't to say that there's anything wrong or illegal in play at all, of course. Society is not particularly accepting of homosexuality, which creates some level of shame in and of itself. If society was more accepting, then hardly anyone would feel a need to meet anyone in a bus station bathroom to begin with.
Whether or not they had sexual contact is not what is important. If they did, the kid was of legal age to consent to that contact. There was no reason for the teacher to think that statutory rape happened since the student was 16. Jennings did counsel the student to use a condom. I would counsel a child who told me that they met someone that they needed to practice safe sex if I believed that sexual contact could have happened, whether or not it actually did happen.
Agreed. But the media is automatically assuming that they did and presenting that as fact, which directly contradicts what "Brewster" is saying now. The lie that's being told over and over again is two-fold: He wasn't 15, and he claims his didn't have sex with the man. It's a non-"incident" all around.
It's entirely possible that the two stories are consistent, but from Jennings's description it seems like he thought there was sexual contact. If both accounts are true, either Brewster gave a very ambiguous and misleading description of the incident, or Jennings misinterpreted something very badly.
Also, MMfA is mentioned in this article as a 'left-wing' group.
Nice little gab at this site. I guess Fox can never help itself.
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
I would be curious what label, if any, you would give MMfA.
There's no evidence that MMFA behaves in that way. There's plenty of evidence that Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, et al behave that way. If the shoe fits....
They attack without regard for any sort of perspective--mercilessly, 24/7; whatever perceived weaknesses they can drum up...and when they can't do that, they make stuff up. All the time.
It's sick. It's inhumane.
Can anyone here read dates and times?
The problem is that there was known, readily available contradictory information that was more definitive about the student's age, that accurately portrayed him as a 16 yr old when this conversation happened, and yet FoxNews never mentioned that info in all the articles online or all the commentary on FoxNews cable network!
The confirmation came on 10-3, but there was lots of info before that which was not shared with FoxNews viewers.
They aren't "so-called" evil stories. Giving viewers only partial info, without telling them the whole story, when the partial story makes someone look like a person who didn't report statutory rape and the full story makes it very doubtful that he should have reported statutory rape since the kid was 16? That's horribly wrong, and is an evil story, and it isn't our imagination as you imply.
Did you not read the comments before you posted? I linked to the correction on FoxNews website and provided a link to that story you mention too.
So, I guess a better question than the one you asked is, can YOU read? This story has been going on for days, and yet you think that we've been uneducated all this time, but you don't do any research to see what we DO know before you make the accusation in public that we don't know what we're talking about? It's you who should be embarrassed that you posted this without first trying to determine what we knew and the positions we held before you had a knee-jerk reaction to it!!!!!
This should be considered a legit link (first completely indented paragraph). .
He incorrectly handled the situation and both are fortunate to be here and tell the story.
Jennings, one time apparently, was telling the story and in describing sophomores in high school, said "15". We don't know why he said "15". He could have thought the kid was 15, but later on, he thought the kid was 16, and the kid actually turned out to be 16, so it's not likely. What's more likely is that he misspoke, and meant to say 16, OR he was simply trying to set the stage for his listeners and was reminding his listeners how old a sophomore is at the beginning of the school year. A typical sophomore is 15 at the beginning of the year and 16 by the springtime, when this event happened. This student was atypical and was 16 when he started the school year, and turned 17 right after shortly after school got out.
There's no evidence he thought that the student was 15. Obama didn't ever, not once, think that there were 57 states in the USA, but he said it once.
The man who was the student has thanked Jennings for his help during a rough time in his life. Perhaps that isn't good enough for people far removed from his life, but they aren't doing anything constructive or helpful, are they?
The right wing attacks for no reason other than partisan gamemanship, and it would be refreshing to call them out for it and ask them to stop hurting America.
It's called an opinion. In the absence of definitive evidence as to whether Jennings thought the kid was 15 or 16, we ought to base our opinions on what we've read. I tend to believe Jennings "15" did not refer to sophomores in general, but to a specific kid. You disagree with me and it would be hard for one to change the other's mind.
In my state, laws say that children must be a certain weight in order to avoid having to sit in a booster seat in a car. One ounce too few, they have to sit there. They gain one ounce, they don't. We have all kinds of arbitrary rules in our nation. Is a person at .08 that much more drunk than someone at .07? Of course not, but that is where the line is drawn.
For statutory rape in Massachusetts, the line is drawn at age 16. Does that mean that some 15 yr olds wouldn't be as good as some 16 yr olds at determining and giving consent? Of course not. Does it mean that all 16 yr olds are great at determining it? Nope.
But it's the law. And people have been accusing this teacher of violating the law, and he didn't. It's really pretty straightforward.
If you think that the legal age of consent needs to be higher, move to Massachusetts and try to get it raised. You don't have a snowball's chance in heck of achieving that goal, because it is a reasonable age at which to give kids the right to control their own body and their own sexuality, and trying to enforce that law would be unmanageable. But feel free to go try. Until the law is changed, however, what the teacher did was wholly appropriate. He had an obligation to keep his conversation with the 16 yr old kid private unless he thought that there was reasonable suspicion of abuse, and he has stated that he didn't think there was. Teachers are held to a higher standard, and part of that higher standard is to have to keep private conversations private where appropriate.
Considering you still think MMfA believes Jennings encouraged this young man to use condoms for future sexual contact, when you have yet to prove your silly assertion, you have no business lecturing anyone on knee-jerk postings, or calling anyone a jerk.
For it is you who have no idea what you are talking about, you keep slapping other poster's hands, like you have done for years under numerous screen names prior to your yanked identities. Wise up, apologize, stop your nanny-like scoldings, grow up and act your age. And admit you belly-flopped all over this thread. You will never change, no matter what moniker you choose next.
Why not? Because the exact words didn't matter. The issue they had was that someone tried to use Jennings advice to this student as evidence that Jennings encouraged statutory rape, when in fact his words encouraged condom use because of the recent death of a friend from AIDS.
I did prove my assertion. It's you who failed, miserably. Jennings comment was "You know, I hope you knew to use a condom." It was your silly assertion that this comment only pertained to actions in the past, rather than it truly and clearly being related to actions in the past and a caution for the future too!
MMFA actually said that his comment about condom use was not about encouragement and was all about condom use. They said "In fact, Jennings stated that he hoped the student "knew to use a condom" to protect against STDs; moreover, the FoxNews.com article from which The Washington Times based this claim truncated Jennings' remarks to exclude his statement that he thought to say this because his "best friend had just died of AIDS the week before."
"...to protect against STD's." So, you are trying to claim that MMFA didn't think that Jennings wanted to protect the kid in the future by encouraging condom use as well as hoping that he protected himself in the past by using a condom? That's ridiculous, just like I said in my posts yesterday. They didn't say "to have protected him."
It's too bad that you have a bug up your butt about admitting you are wrong. Based upon thumbs up and comments, I think that most people have appreciated my debunking of the myths around this event.
Here's the quote from the most recent posting by MMFA about this.
"Jennings suggested wearing a condom."
But MMFA doesn't object to this comment that doesn't say anything about past behavior. They didn't correct it at all. That's because their previous correction wasn't about the exact words used there, although they did correct the words in the previous posting - they were concerned about the fact that Jennings caution about condom use that was quoted by the Washington Times left off the reason that Jennings recommended condom usage due to the recent death of his friend from an STD. It was the truncating of that part of Jennings comment that concerned them, and it was the usage of Jennings comment to assert that he supported statutory rape that they had an issue with!