"Fellatiogate" revisited: Talk dirty to us.

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers,
looks around for a coffin.
-- H.L. Mencken

Earlier, NA Confidential considered the “only in Indiana, laughing stock of the nation” saga of Fellatiogate:

Straight up from the AP: Student paper's oral-sex article creates uproar.

Libertarian activist and former gubernatorial candidate Kenn Gividen, who was quoted by the Associated Press in the referenced article, subsequently posted the following clarification to NA Confidential:

The quotes in the AP story were derived from a story in The Republic (Columbus' daily), a publication that is notorious for misquoting and manipulation.

The "dirty" quote was in response to a question, "Teens are already talking about it, so why not publish it?"

My response: "And teens engage in a lot of dirty talk. They did when I was in high school. If everything teenagers talk about is published, the publication will be wholly pornographic."

Typically, The Republic failed to publish the context of my comments. And typical of most news consumers, the words of the media are believed as gospel truth.

My opinion: Along with liberty comes responsibility. Having a right to publish doesn't make it right to publish.

The North HS faculty had the opportunity to teach the kids the importance of appropriate content. They failed.

To be misquoted is to be wronged by the media; all can agree on that point.

But to what appreciable degree does Gividen’s duly corrected words alter his fundamental position in the matter, other than to mildly differentiate his interpretation from territory normally occupied by the O’Reilly Factor?

Does Gividen's correction appreciably alter the thrust of amplification spun by fellow Libertarians like the party’s state chairman, Mark Rutherford, who was quick to note, “Being a Libertarian is not the same as being a libertine?”

How does any of this prove that the Columbus North faculty "failed" to "teach the kids the importance of appropriate content?"

Is there a difference between pornographic chatter and the explication of issues pertaining to legitimate public health concerns?

Is providing such legitimate public health information another in a long line of abuses and usurpations of the institution government?

If so, and adults are held responsible for collecting their own health information, then what about the children? Can they be expected to do the same without supervision and assistance?

Isn't that the entire purpose of education, whether public, private or home-schooled?