Releases Press from Order

May 25 - Judge Allan van Gestel continued his gag order against Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman of the Parents Rights Coalition this morning but said that the press is not bound by the Order.

He continued the Order against Camenker and Whiteman and "any persons in active concert or participation" with them. He apparently allows even them to talk about anything they remember from attending the Conference without referring to the tape recording.

Attorney Chester Darling who is representing Camenker and Whiteman told Massachusetts News that the judge is trampling on the Constitution.

The sweeping gag order was placed last week on the Parents Rights Coalition and countless others over the contents of a secretly recorded tape which revealed graphic sexual instruction given to teenagers by state employees at a Conference in March.

A hearing was held yesterday afternoon on the matter and the judge announced he would make a new decision this morning.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs, who are trying to stop the public from learning about what was said at the public Conference, startled the judge at the hearing yesterday when they asked him to revise his original Order, which they had written and he had signed, in order to exempt "the media."

But the judge responded to the plaintiffs that exempting the media would effectively defeat the purpose of the gag order.

Judge Allan van Gestel heard arguments yesterday from three attorneys at the hearing in Boston. Chester Darling represented defendants Camenker and Whiteman. An attorney from GLAD representing the two plaintiffs, one of whom was a Department of Education employee who was fired because of the explicit sexual workshop and a teenager who participated in it. Another attorney represented FOX News which filed a "Motion to Intervene," claiming the gag order was "unconstitutional prior restraint."

None of the media in Massachusetts protested the Order.

Chester Darling argued forcefully yesterday for the judge to remove all restraints from his clients on First Amendment grounds.

He said that, for the sake of argument, even if it were true that Whiteman did violate a wiretap law in recording the public conference, there is no provision in the law for issuing an injunction against speech, only for monetary damages.

"Scott Whiteman heard and saw the entire workshop. He has an unfettered First Amendment right to describe, talk about, or write down what he personally heard and saw. He did not ‘secretly hear’ what was going on at the workshop. He was there; he paid an admission fee; he witnessed it. He read materials and matter which were distributed there, disseminated to minors and available to him…It burdens too much speech."

Darling said that Whiteman recorded the public session, which was attended by school children from across the state, only so that people would believe him when he reported what happened at the event.

Darling argued, "The cat is out of the bag, publication is widespread." He added that radio stations, the legislature and many others have the tape and are affected by the court order.

GLAD agreed that it was okay if Whiteman uses his own memory of the workshop, but they want distribution of the tape to stop "because of risk of harm or injury to all the youth on the tape."

Darling reminded the judge that GLAD has "glossed over" the First Amendment before, specifically on a previous case which he finally won in the U.S. Supreme Court. He made the point that Whiteman was not believed by the Department of Education about what occurred at the workshop until he produced the taped evidence.

The judge asked Darling if this case was not about violating the wiretapping statute through possible illegal taping by Whiteman.

Darling answered it was about violating free speech. He said it was about embarrassment of the government and those who contract with the government. It was about no notice to parents. He said the Parents Rights Coalition stepped up to the plate and exposed what was happening. "We should clean out the barn, your honor."

The judge however appeared to object more to the secret taping than the graphic instruction of dangerous sex acts given to the children by state employees.

"It’s a very fine line. As a father of a 17 year-old daughter, I feel very strongly about someone secretly taping my daughter and selling it on the State House steps," said Judge van Gestel.

Darling countered that no tapes were sold, and the children’s voices were digitally changed on the tape to make identification impossible.

FOX asked the judge to limit the injunction to the named individuals. They said anything more was overbroad and invited confusion. "We are here to preserve the freedom of the press," said the FOX counsel.

The judge said the language of the wiretap law was very broad and could be understood to include the press. "You may have to go to the legislature to correct the language," he said to the FOX attorney. "That is the law they gave me to uphold."

The judge then returned to the secret taping. "I think it was disgusting behavior. I’m deeply offended by the taping."

Darling shot back, "I’m deeply offended by what was told to those children. It was a crime, it has to be revealed. Children submitted written questions at the workshop, they weren’t getting up asking questions." The judge answered by saying, "The ends rarely justify the means."

"The position of the gay advocates is so outrageous and so blatantly fraudulent, that it is hard to see how this judge can possibly rule in their favor. They don’t care about the kids. They are basically trying to cover up their own behavior toward children," said Brian Camenker to Massachusetts News at the Suffolk Superior Courthouse in Boston yesterday.

Later, after yesterday’s hearing, Scott Whiteman told Massachusetts News, "We do know that there were criminal activities occurring at the hands of GLSEN. We suspected this has been occurring for years and we have been reporting to the Department of Education since December. Our reports have been laughed at. In fact, I received two letters from a member of the Board of Education trivializing my complaints, basically saying that since nothing ever goes wrong and parents have no right to intervene."

Asked what kinds of laws were violated at the workshops, he answered, "Lewd and lascivious corruption of youth, inducing a minor for sexual intercourse, enticing a minor to commit sexual intercourse. It’s a nightmare, all the various statutes. There is a whole consortium of them."

After the contents of the tape were reported in Massachusetts News and the story was picked up by other news outlets nationwide, the increased publicity led to one of the DOE employees on the tape being fired and another resigning under pressure.