Pritt was initially elected to the state House as a Democrat in 2022 but changed his political affiliation to Republican the year after. Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
State Republicans have filed numerous bills seeking to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender minors, ban trans student-athletes from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, and nullify cities’ non-discrimination ordinances.
In 2023, Pritt voted for a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. State Sen. Mike Azinger ® said that the bill was needed because gender is “self-evident” and that the bill was needed to stop doctors who want to “chop up a child,” even though gender affirming surgery is almost never performed on minors and the bill banned non-surgical interventions.
Why is it always the ones you most suspect?
“Having sex”? There’s no “having ses” with a middle schooler. Its rape. He allegedly raped a child in a classroom.
Why do reporters nearly always defend these men with their word choices?
Rape culture.
Same reason they constantly describe Epstein victims with the oxymoronic term “underage women.”
Rapists protecting rapists.
Same reason they don’t talk about climate change during periods of record heat, or mega wildfire’s, many people tune out
I’m gonna be devils advocate, and agree with them not using rape in their title wording. Instead it should have highlighted that he coerced and groomed her. I say this because it more accurately describes the situation, per the article this was the purpose of their meetings rather than him forcing himself upon her. It also highlights the danger kids are exposed to on platforms like Roblox and social media
The biggest issue here is that they used the word “sex” to describe what happened to a child.
The devil doesn’t need more advocates.
Removed by mod
They were meeting so the lawmaker could rape the student.
I’m not going to be passive about this. Children can’t have sex.
Defending this wording says way more about you than me.
Does “have sex” imply consent?
Yes.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults. It’s rape.
So “consensual sex” is a redundant phrase?
Yes, it would be considered a redundant phase. Sex without consent is rape.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults.
Removed by mod
I’m not the one defending describing rape of a child as sex.
Removed by mod
Well, well. Look at that. They did the responsible thing and updated the title.
Are you confused about how this guy abused this child now?
You want pedantry?
Statutory rape is rape. Full stop.
He allegedly raped a middle schooler who he groomed. Let’s normalize using that in headlines to stress the seriousness and awfulness of the act.
Rape is also a crime that someone must be convicted for. Imagine the worst case scenario where they call him out as a rapist, he’s found not guilty with all charges dropped. Now there’s a VERY solid case of libel and an endless stream of conservative lawyers ready to try and take down a website they already hate.
Like, it’s irritating but surely we all see how a news source would rather be safe than so-sorry-we’re-laying-everyone-off? Can we not see that journalists have to be very careful not open themselves up to litigation by people with way more money and power than them?
They used “allegedly having sex”. They can just as easily use “allegedly raped”.
Your argument has already fallen apart anyway. The site updated the title to “GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom”.
People spoke up and they changed it. How about we don’t try to quiet people down when we’re rightfuly calling for language to be updated to reflect reality?
Maliciousness is a major component of defamation. It would be easy to prove they published information before a verdict, but the motivation to publish would have to be malicious. Absent some statement by the publisher that they would do anything to destroy that person they despise, just covering a legitimate news story in a normal way wouldn’t be considered malicious.
If the say rape, the half of the country who voted for Trump immediately tune out. They cannot abide the cognitive dissonance. The rest of us already know the scale of the problem within the GOP. Journalists have to censor the word at this point so it fits within the overton window.
The article is from lgbtqnation, half the country already tuned it out just by seeing the source.
I don’t think they are catering to that other half with this title. But if they were, they really shouldn’t.
We’re all pissed off but moral purity is not going to dig us out of this quagmire. The journalists are choosing their words for a reason. Ask them why instead of declaring their motives from within an angry online mob.
I think it’s quite odd of you to imply journalists don’t make mistakes with wording.
“Allegedly raped” or “allegedly sexually assaulted” is right there.
When it comes to reporting, they always want to go with what is verifiable, and accurate. That is why they always use phrasing like “alleged”, “have sex”.
The legal definition of “rape” varies quite wildly from region to region, and many things the average person would obviously consider rape, may not be in the legal definition, opening up news media and/or the reporter directly to potential legal trouble. For instance in some areas, “rape” requires vaginal penetration by a penis… So legally, a man cannot be “raped”. So a report that a woman raped a man there, would technically be inaccurate and potentially defamatory.
It’s much easier to just use generic terms and allegations when reporting, especially if it’s not just a local media organization where differing laws for other regions are a factor. Even in situations where the laws aren’t likely to be different… sex with a middle schooler is almost surely statutory rape regardless of the area. But standardizing around general statements is the best option to avoid legal issues, even if those aren’t likely to be successful, they cost money to defend.
That is what the word allegedly is for. With a child it can never be alleged sex, only alleged rape or alleged sexual assault.
The child cannot consent. Not by legal definition. Therefore, more false and misleading reporting occurs. Under the implication that a child “had sex” with an adult.
It’s not verifiable or accurate that a child is having sex. It’s rape, statutory rape, or sexual assault.
If that’s their excuse it’s pretty lame, it isn’t hard to stick to what is verifiable and accurate without implying this 14 year old could consent.
The headline is a statement about what was alleged. It’s quick and easy to verify that the allegation included Pritt sticking his penis in her mouth (the full affidavit is here). I think that meets the common understanding of ‘rape,’ it does meet the federal uniform crime reporting definition of rape, and it would be 2nd degree felony sexual assault in WV law.
Even if the specifics were harder to verify and the reporter was looking for a broader term than ‘rape,’ something like ‘sexually abused’ would be much more accurate than ‘had sex with.’ And it’s important to be accurate with this because describing sexual violence as a type of sex instead of a type of violence makes it seem like a normal thing for people to want to do.