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?
FYI - A lot of the discussion here about the headline is now irrelevant that the source saw the light and corrected it:
“GOP lawmaker arrested after allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom”
OP - If you can update your headline to match, that would be great!
And, yes “having sex” in this context, is rape apology.
I’d gladly do so if you add an expressed permission in the rules to guaruntee that some other mod in the future doesn’t bjtch about making that sort of change (especially if this happens again to another article down the road). Add text to rule 1. Like add a rule 1a that says something like:
The original poster may update their Lemmy post’s titles to match an updated article title ONLY IF the origional source has updated the article’s title subsequent to the original posting on Lemmy.
Make that change, and I’ll happily update it. I just want to shield myself and future posters from arbitrary and capricious moderators.
We require submissions match the source headline.
The title in the original source changed, it’s on you to make sure your title stays updated.
If you’re in reading comments, you can double check and fix the title at the same time.
Not from the US, so checked and 8th Grade is 13-14 years old. This is statutory rape here in the UK, and hopefully in the US also.
It is unless you are rich. If you are, you get elected president.
Is being a pedo mandatory to join GOP?
That’s called rape and pedophilia. Coward ass journalists today.
“having sex with”
Nope, he raped a child.
Yeah, WTF?
There’s people unironically defending the use of the phrase “having sex with a middle schooler” in this very thread.
This shit is so common is nauseating.
At least they didn’t go with the newest “ugh” term - “underage woman”. If she’s underage, she’s not a woman
Yeah, change the title @[email protected] that’s wrong. The article says “allegedly sexually abusing a middle schooler in a classroom”.
Edit: just saw that was the original article title. Utter crap on the part of lgbtqnation, but i think you also should’ve done better.
Edit: just saw that was the original article title. Utter crap on the part of lgbtqnation, but i think you also should’ve done better.
Lemmy’s politics rules say to use the article title. When Lemmy scraped the website for a title, it was blank. So, I copy + pasted the title that was there at the time I made the post. I don’t want to fuck with it, especially since the title was as I origionally posted (not going to risk a rule violation). Also, since Lemmy didn’t scrape it, I figure it won’t automatically update to any new title.
Also also, I don’t remember every article that I’ve copy pasted because Lemmy couldn’t scrape the title. I am not going to take on the burden of following along and refreshing to see if the articles’ titles have changed. Not only is my memory not good enough to recall years of postings, but I also need to sleep.
It was good you followed the rules here. Enough people were able to reach out to the publication and get the title and story updated with better wording!
They also neglected to update the body of the article. It still describes this encounter as sex between the two.
Slutty middle schoolers tempting innocent MAGAs.
deleted by creator
They always do that!!! It’s got to be some legal thing like it’s alleged and not proven to be rape?
I don’t know.
PEDO PARTY
If Dems were good at messaging, which they aren’t, they’d blast this everywhere imaginable to make the name really stick.
If Republicans can make the public believe Haitian immigrants were cooking and eating people’s pets then Dems can make people believe something that’s pretty obvious at this point.
Dems are complicit controlled opposition
I used to think this was an exaggeration. I am no longer that naive.
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.”
So much to unpack here. Originally a Dem, but switched to Rep without realizing how far they are from the Republican party “our parents grew up with”? Or perhaps his pedophilia and instinct to project onto others made him realize the Republicans are a better fit for him?
"Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
Joins the Republican party and rapes kids.
“While every person is entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process under the law, charges involving the exploitation and abuse of children strike at the core of the public trust,” Holstein said. “The people of his district deserve representation that is beyond reproach, and these allegations make it impossible for him to effectively serve.”
Yes, he should resign from office for the good of the party. It’s very hard to bury this kind of thing while the rapist is still in office.
Also, yet another one for the pile:
Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, and Enablers Pt. 61 - 1500 and counting.
“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?
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.
Why do reporters nearly always defend these men with their word choices?
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
I’m gonna be devils advocate, and agree with them not using rape in their title wording.
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?
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.
I just sent this to their contact us page.
This article https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/07/gop-lawmaker-arrested-after-allegedly-having-with-middle-schooler-in-a-classroom/ Titled as “allegedly having sex with middle schooler” is trash rape culture wording. You cannot “have sex” with a child. That is rape. Period, Your readers expect better than to white wash crimes against children like this. Statutory rape is rape. Sex with a child is rape. There is no consent, and thus, no obligation for you to sugar coat article wording like this. Please do better.
They changed it to ‘allegedly sexually abusing.’
Good. Maybe the commenters in here arguing that it’s more accurate to describe this crime as consensual sex can shove it now.
Edit: ugh, they changed the title but kept “sex” in the body of the article.
I sent a message through their contact page as well. Thank you. I hope they respond appropriately.
I’m surprised they allowed this to be published as is considering the source.
Still not a trans person
Still not a drag queen
Still a Republican.
Still a MAGA.
There are no Republicans anymore, that was just their larval stage before they morphed into their final form - MAGA. They’re all MAGA now. Republicans should only be referred to in a historical, scholarly context.
Also still not an atheist?
raping* you cannot have consensual sex with a 13yo.
“Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
Not the glaze the Democrats, but I’m assuming this guy is Gen X or elder Millennial. All the Dems have done since the 80s/90s have done is move left on social services/regulation (slowly) and become more inclusive.
Today’s Dems are objectively better than the era his parents grew up with.
All the Dems have done since the 80s/90s have done is move left on social services/regulation (slowly) and become more inclusive.
Since Regan (compounded by Citizens United), Dems have been diet Republicans: still siding with Republicans when its something the donors want, but more inclusive on cultural issues. Doubt me? Why did Obama model the heath-insurance reforms after Romney-care (a long sitting Republican) instead of Bernie’s idea of Medicare For All? Why did the party go with Hillary instead of Sanders? Why did Harris spend the entire campaign reassuring the donors rather than getting the base to turn out? Money carries more weight that the plebiscite.
Basically, the culture stuff serves as a distraction while they loot and pillage the coffers.
GOP = Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Unless you want racism or pedophilia, I guess. Then the Dems have clearly moved in the wrong direction for this guy.
Oh would you look at that? Once again it’s not a trans person, gay person or a drag queen.
Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the [Republicans more aligned with his personal interests]
That’s cause GOP stands for Gathering of Pedophiles.
