Well Paul, it doesn't seem to constitute "abuse" within the statute either - as I only find three instances of the word "abuse" where it is used in the descriptions of the material prohibited - and not used to describe or define the act itself of disseminating such material to a minor. Also, the maximum term for violation of 16-15-345 is "not more than ten years" according to the statute at your link...where I find no entry for 16-15-346 (?)
I'm also puzzled by the Judgeships referral to the Freeh Report - which is clearly a work of fraud only meant to secure the NCAA $60 Million pay-out for false awareness fronts.
With regards to the "Due Process" claim: The Citadels President was responsible for reporting the allegations - but the accusers parents were not responsible? Could someone please explain how ones parents would know of such allegations - and not be responsible for reporting those allegations.
Is this the same accuser who claimed he was shown pornography while eating pizza in the dorms at the Citadel? Sorry, but watching a skin flick while eating pizza IS NOT abuse.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper