TX: Where do we draw the line?
A new Texas law now allows grooming offenses, even in the absence of any physical sexual contact, to trigger mandatory registration as a sex offender. Under so-called “Audrii’s Law,” prosecutors may pursue a registration requirement based on patterns of behavior or relationship dynamics alone. (See KSAT, “More people will have to register as sex offenders after new Texas law goes into effect.”). Where do we draw the line?
The term “grooming” can be interpreted broadly — from gift-giving or attentive encouragement to more predatory planning. But stretching the law so far that no overt sexual act is required, and yet the individual is branded a registrant for life, risks sweeping in conduct that is ambiguous, subjective, and inherently reliant on motive-based inferences. How do we prevent overreach, false accusations, or hindsight judgments that criminalize relationships or mentorship? If mere suspicion of grooming-like behavior is enough, we risk converting ordinary human interactions into criminal stigma.
Texas’s law may be well-intentioned, but it also demands robust safeguards: clear statutory definitions, high proof standards, guarantees of fair notice, and protections against speculative application. In a free society, the boundary lines matter and we must insist they be drawn with precision, restraint, and respect for individual liberty.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The first thing that came to mind was about people who coach kids in sports, “Big Brothers” volunteers who work with usually troubled kids, boyscout or girlscout volunteers, tutors, music teachers, etc. Add your own groups. The bottom line is that every one of those people who are doing needed services are at risk of being targeted for “grooming” the children they work with. Talk about a really hazy line!
The Thought Police will become a real thing.
There is no line. Thats the pont IMO. The state will run out of control untill the supreme court stops them. Even when the state is told to stop like in MI with the ACLU cases they still dont stop.
When you can do whatever you want with no repercussions. This will continue.
I greatly appreciate what the FAC and do donate monthly. Its disheartening to see the constant tightening of the PFR noose.
Based on this, could a mother or father who shows favoritism towards one child over another be accused of grooming?
I’m sure a prosector would love to charge a case like that. They only care about the notches on their belt and rarely about justice.
This new law will be greatly weaponized by mothers who want sole custody and child support payments, among others.