It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents no longer have the right to evesdrop on their kids?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Whats up with this ruling in Washington? I was always under the understanding that children had absolutely no assumption of privacy when their parents were concerned in that parents had every right to search their rooms, listen to conversations, whatever it takes to know what they are doing. We all know that teenagers lie and try to sneak around to do things they know are wrong. But now they're suggesting that the mother in the case should be arrested?!? I was also under the understanding that parents had a legal obligation to protect their children. How are they supposed to do that when legally all their ability to do so is taken away. We also have laws being proposed that prevent parents from knowing when their child has an abortion (a dangerous procedure that can and does lead to health complications even if it is rather routine now) and one that would require kids to be tested and medicated as the government sees fit without parental consent. This is a concentrated effort to remove parental rights and authority and ultimately destroy the family.

Where is the ACLU and the activist judges going with this? Its my opinion that they're trying to make all children wards of the state with the ACLU's ultimate goal to turn America into a communist nation. They are already doing everything possible to get rid of our history (pledge of alliegence etc.), our patriotism, and anything resembling religion. That is how you create a communist state, you get rid of history, religion, and patriotism and people become sheep with nothing left to fight for. At the same time you create an education system on a national level that indoctrinates them on the party line of socialism and give them the same rights as their parents after destroying the family. We're heading down that road folks, one legal decision at a time.

Please respond, I'd love to think I'm completely off base on this and we're not losing our nation from the inside out




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I think I know of the case you're referring to, but just to make sure, why don't you post a link to the article?




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Its just the government trying to control our lives again.

Fight the power.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   
parents can be creepy and wierd when they pry too often into their childrens personal lives. like my parents and many of my friends parents growing up, that have absolutely no respect of privacy towards their children which is a result of their own unstable mind frame, and warped perception of how matters ought to be dealt with. i had a friend who whenever he would get a phone call his parents would listen to it on the other line. that is the creepiest thing i have ever heard of. it stems from a lack of communication and understanding that parents resort to these pathetically drastic messures to try and come to terms with what their child is doing. perhaps the cocain did a number on you old folks? i can not see why they would not trust a child to learn and experience life as an indivual rather then holding their genetals through the entire journey of growing up. see how messed up i am, i know when i have kids i will teach them everything they will have to know and tell them to ask me for advice when they have problems, let them deal with things and let them experience hardships all on their own because i know for fact that will turn them into a stronger person in the long run!

[edit on 11-12-2004 by sturod84]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I agree with you Sturod.

Although I think parents should maintain the right to do what they feel is necessary, I also think that snooping is a sign of poor communication with ones' child.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Its my opinion that they're trying to make all children wards of the state with the ACLU's ultimate goal to turn America into a communist nation. They are already doing everything possible to get rid of our history (pledge of alliegence etc.), our patriotism, and anything resembling religion. That is how you create a communist state, you get rid of history, religion, and patriotism and people become sheep with nothing left to fight for. At the same time you create an education system on a national level that indoctrinates them on the party line of socialism and give them the same rights as their parents after destroying the family. We're heading down that road folks, one legal decision at a time.

Please respond, I'd love to think I'm completely off base on this and we're not losing our nation from the inside out


As it so happens, you are completely off base!


I'm sure you're glad to hear that and are probably quite relieved. We are losing our nation from the inside out, but it aint the liberals doing it by a long stretch. The anti-American traitors you need to worry about are probably the ones that think a 16 or 17 year old adult that has the legal right to consent to sexual activity with another 16 or 17 year old, doesn't have the right to privacy when it comes to a legal medical procedure. These are the people stripping away what it means to be an American. Do you know anyone like that? I'd watch out for 'em. They are destroying our civil liberties. They also drop economic code words like communism and socialism at the drop of a hat even when they have no weight in a discusssion on civil liberties. Mainly to confuse people, or because they themselves are rabble rousing idealogues.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   


i know when i have kids i will teach them everything they will have to know and tell them to ask me for advice when they have problems, let them deal with things and let them experience hardships all on their own because i know for fact that will turn them into a stronger person in the long run!



Sturod84, the problem between adolescence and true adulthood is that kids think they know it all because they are naive and adults know it all because of experience. Rarely do the two groups understand each other completely. You are learning from how your parents treated you and then pass it on to your future children, however you have forgetting one thing; your children will have their own ideas. Many parents wish and voice to their kids to come to them for help and advice, but because they come to an age that they break away from their parents, they tend to follow themselves and ignore otherwise good advice. The only things I see in your statement that does make sense is to do what you said beginning at a very early age - consistently - and the parts about learning the hardships of life. As a parent, there is a conflict between letting go of your kids and letting them learn 'the hard way' and believe me they will. They will not always come to you to get advice, and if you give it, they may not always listen. When you have your own kids, you will also find out just how it is; (parenthood) isn't going to be what you envisioned it to be.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Rant, a couple of things. First of all a 16 or 17 year old is not an adult. In most states they can be tried as an adult, but they are still minors and their parents are legally responsible for them. For example at this age they have to be declared an emancipated minor to not be under their parents control. As for them having the RIGHT to have sex at this age, again I submit to you that their parents are legally responsible for them. If they get pregnant then the parent is reponsible for the new child as well. So tell me Rant, where are you coming from? I see a good rant going but I see very little in the way of fact in your post. As I have been requested to provide a link for my stuff, well here it is.

worldnetdaily.com...

As for parental responsibility, I submit this to you.

ojjdp.ncjrs.org...

So Rant, where is your argument? Tell me how protecting a child is destroying civil rights in this country. Explain to me how the people you contend are destroying civil liberties when it is the ACLU that is doing everything it can to destroy the civil liberties of anyone who does something it doesn't agree with. Liberty means freedom. Oh and before you say thats baseless too here's a link.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Oh and if my stuff on communism is so baseless and done because I have no argument, were you aware that the founders of the ACLU became members of the Communist Party?

www.etherzone.com...


All I saw you do was insult myself and my argument with baseless acusations and nothing to back them up with. However I realize that I didn't document as well as I should and for that I take responsiblity. However now I have so I submit this for your reading enjoyment and hope to get a more reasoned response.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by jukyu]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
thnx for the input ben, nice avatar by the way lol



They will not always come to you to get advice, and if you give it, they may not always listen.


that is why you must give them the best advice and guidance they will get. no one will have as much an impact on your child as you, and that is why you must drill the proper ideals into their heads from the get go. if you notice them portraying an improper attitude then rebutt them! at all cost! understand also that the world is drastically different then it was say 15 years ago. there are a lot of freaks out there, who will have a profound impact on your childs attitude.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Thats the scary thing, there's so many more ways for kids to get hurt now and so many are, to be honest, gullable. I mean if parents can't listen in on phone conversations then can they track their children's internet activities? Can they find out that their 14 year old daughter or even their 16 year old daughter is meeting some 30 year old guy off the internet? Can they see that their child is being tricked by a predator because their child is inexperienced and doesn't see a lie when it is apparent to someone that has been alive longer? Why is it wrong for parents to set standards for their children as far as sexual activity while they are living under their roof when there are so many negative consequences possible with sex and a lot of times the child involved may be 16 or 17 but isn't emotionally or mentally ready to handle the baggage that comes with having sex. Why don't we just turn children out into the world when they hit 16? Because they're not ready yet. So if they're not ready yet it makes sense that certain aspects of their lives should be restricted until they are ready for their protection. Once they're 18 and on their own, they can do whatever they want, its a free world. However, then they, and not the parents, are responsible for their actions and whatever consequences come from them.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
i think your too paranoid, you have given into the mass media delusional representation that is NOT reality, have a little faith why dont you. stop looking at the negative side of situations and take a positive outlook towards every possible choice they could be making, reinforce the proper ideals on a daily basis, and trust them to make the proper desicion. cuz when it boils down there is absolutely nothing you can do about the choices they make, and who they interact with, proper education is the key. its like not letting your kid go outside for fear they will be struck down by a bolt of lightning, there are just some things you can not control, so there is no point in worrying about them.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by sturod84]

[edit on 11-12-2004 by sturod84]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If you were referring to me I didn't mean to come across as negative or at least not negative to the point of like lets go buy a wildlife preserve and create a utopian society based on puritanism
. I love the internet and the new freedoms it gives. I mean its allowing us to have this conversation right now which otherwise probably wouldn't have been possible. However with the new freedom comes new responsibilities and new dangers so as parents and adults we have to make our children aware of them and then protect them when they screw up because besides death and taxes, thats about the only other constant in life lol. Kids make mistakes no matter how much positive reinforcement you give them so there's nothing wrong with being ahead of the game so that you can stop them before they go off the cliff. Not advocating taping everything they do or monitoring them every moment, just good common sense preventative parenting. Oh, and in this washington case it was based around a mother hearing about a robbery that occured and turning her daughters bf in with this information. So, in this a crime was prevented and if I'm not mistaken both of the individuals involved were minors. So, in itself the case backs up my argument because her daughter's bf was participating in illegal activities and she didn't have the maturity or common sense yet to ditch him and find a better guy. Now the one thing I would like to know is had the parent said nothing and it later came out that she knew what happened and didn't do her part to turn the guilty party in, how would she have been viewed by her community?



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
As I have been requested to provide a link for my stuff, well here it is.

worldnetdaily.com...

*snip*

So Rant, where is your argument?


Thanks for the link. Now I know this is bunk as opposed to just speculating it's bunk.


What worldnetdaily has done here (as they are famous for) is twist a very simple matter into the most contrived argument about liberals being anti-family I've ever heard. A conviction was overturned on a robbery committed by a boy based on testimony from a woman that was eavesdropping on her daughter. The testimony was illegal for any number of reason not having anything to do with a conspiracy to destroy the family.


How about upholding due process? The right to privacy? Illegal wire taps? Did this boy know another person was listening in? It wasn't even his mother! Just a woman that wanted to burn her daughter's boyfriend. :shk:

This is your basis for saying the left wants to make kids wards of the state?


And from this we move to parental notification. I love that one. Sounds good on the surface until you realize conservatives don't want to allow for extenuating circumstances (as if they want abortion rights at all). Did you ever think there may be a good reason a 16 year old girl may not want to tell her father she's pregnant? Like he may beat her or worse...be the Father? How about he may make her have the baby when she doesn't want to! It's her body, even at 16. Not his. As long as it's a legal medical procedure, you have a right to have it done in private. Your step dad doesn't need to know. Your job doesn't need to know. The newspaper doesn't need to know. And the government doesn't need to know. It's a slippery slope these civil liberties. You've got to draw the line somewhere.

And we're just talking about parental notification. Not parental consent. That's really what you'd like right? A 17 year old woman has to get permission from her Daddy to get an abortion. No thank you. You're free to believe that's "destroying the American family" but I disagree. It's protecting civil liberties on the front lines. When conservatives are mounting to outlaw reproductive sovereignty in it's entireity there's really no point in even arguing these nuances.

What's up with the rest of your theory? ACLU trying to destory our history? How exactly? You cite the Pledge of Allegience. That's seriously the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Did you know a socialist preacher named Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge in 1892 with no mention of God at all? It was later changed by the Knights of Columbus then made officially God fearing in 1954 by an act of Congress. So the "history" you're referring to being destoyed here by the 9th circuit court decision finding it unconstitutional is only changing the past 50 years back to the way it was intended. I swear it's like the 50's now with some people. Commies on every corner eh McCarthy?

Next. So the ACLU are commies?
Tell me, do you read anything but right wing propaganda? The right would probably think our founding fathers were radical leftist hippies too.

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   


Now the one thing I would like to know is had the parent said nothing and it later came out that she knew what happened and didn't do her part to turn the guilty party in, how would she have been viewed by her community?





posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
What worldnetdaily has done here (as they are famous for) is twist a very simple matter into the most contrived argument about liberals being anti-family I've ever heard. A conviction was overturned on a robbery committed by a boy based on testimony from a woman that was eavesdropping on her daughter. The testimony was illegal for any number of reason not having anything to do with a conspiracy to destroy the family.

What are the "any number of reasons", except for a harebrained state law that makes it illegal to eavesdrop on a private conversation. Does this include overhearing two people at the next table planning a murder? How about hearing the guy in the adjacent apartment telling his wife he is gonna kill her and then he follows through with it?


And from this we move to parental notification. I love that one. Sounds good on the surface until you realize conservatives don't want to allow for extenuating circumstances (as if they want abortion rights at all). Did you ever think there may be a good reason a 16 year old girl may not want to tell her father she's pregnant? Like he may beat her or worse...be the Father?

Bull. Your statement about conservatives not wanting to allow for extenuating circumstances is untrue and nothing more than a sweeping generalization. It is designed to foster the hatred that liberals have for conservatives in this country.

There are safeguards built into the system at every step of the way. Medical personnel are required by law to report abuse and rape.

How about he may make her have the baby when she doesn't want to! It's her body, even at 16. Not his. As long as it's a legal medical procedure, you have a right to have it done in private.

If you are an adult, that is.


And we're just talking about parental notification. Not parental consent. That's really what you'd like right? A 17 year old woman has to get permission from her Daddy to get an abortion. No thank you. You're free to believe that's "destroying the American family" but I disagree. It's protecting civil liberties on the front lines.

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. There is a responsibility of the parent to care for the child.


What's up with the rest of your theory? ACLU trying to destory our history? How exactly? You cite the Pledge of Allegience. That's seriously the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

They want to take all reference to Christianity out of our public eye. Why do they want to do that? You cannot describe the history of any nation without including references to their beliefs.


Next. So the ACLU are commies?
Tell me, do you read anything but right wing propaganda? The right would probably think our founding fathers were radical leftist hippies too.

What the ACLU did to the Boy Souts in San Diego was shameful. It was nothing more than the spiteful, ill-natured efforts of a joyless organization to take the smile off of someone's face.

The ACLU is not happy unless they ruin somebody's day or spoil a child's innocence.

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson

I bolded the part that communists would like to ignore.




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Tahnks for the post jsobecky, you summed up what I wanted to say very elegantly. You're getting one of my way above votes.

Just a couple of points, then I have to go run some errands. First of all the mother is not a government entity so this search warrant / illegal wire tap reasoning doesn't apply. She has knowledge that her daughter's boyfriend has commited a crime. Her daughter has knowledge and this makes her an accesory to the crime in many places if nothing is said since its not a husband / wife thing. If the mother does nothing she can be charged with contributing to the delinquincy of a minor. I'm very much against the government wire tapping and listening on on everyone's conversations, but when it comes to a citizen doing it in the normal process of parenting then yes I'm all for it.

As that being my argument for some wanting to make children the ward of the state, you convienently ignore the rest of my argument. I am saying its one part of taking away parental responsibilty for their children, something you seem to be in favor of. If the parents are responsible, the state is by default. I've given other examples such as the bill going through congress that could lead to government mandating of medication for children without parental consent, and let me just add to things a bit. Children are required to go to school which yes is a good thing as education is what they need. However, we have a federal department of education now which helps dictate curriculum through the use of standardized tests which decide what schools get federal money. If the schools don't teach the federal curriculum, they don't get the finances, and can even be taken over and shut down as part of no child left behind. You like to lay blanket accusations on me of being a conservative in which conservative has negative and sinister implications, well there's one aspect that I disagree with.

As to the creator of the pledge being socialist why does that have anything to do with anything? Socialism and Communism are different things, though the first can lead to the second. I'll take your word the socialist thing being a fact though when I have time I'll look it up. You're right though, these things were put in around that time to fight communism. Amazing now that they're being taken out by a group founded by communists, huh?

As for the notification thing, well yeah duh. Again you say a 16 year old women and that is misinformation as you are trying to make them an adult when they are in fact a minor. If the stepdad is responsible for them legally and financially then yes they have a RIGHT to be informed. You seem to want to ignore this whole relationship as it doesn't fit into your argument. As for this being some way to stop abortion, well if the parent knows and agrees with the decision then so be it. Again the parent is the one thats legally responsible. You keep saying 16-17 year olds, well what about 12 year olds or 13 year olds? They get pregnant too, so are you telling me a 12 year old should be able to get an abortion without her parents having the slightest idea?



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Did you know a socialist preacher named Francis Bellamy wrote the original pledge in 1892 with no mention of God at all?

This is true. Did you know that

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

The fact that he was a Christian Socialist is irrelevant. He was also a Baptist minister.
history.vineyard.net...




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This is rich....LOL

The people who want to say that ADULTS dont have a right to privicy from the government are saying CHILDREN has a right to privicy from their parents?


My kids are almost grown so this is not much of an issue in my house but while they were growing up they had NO right to privicy. I seldom meddled in their affairs but always had the right to. My childs safety was more important to me than their "rights". The few times I did I headed off problems before they started and dont care if the Government liked it or not.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Ya know what... I can't even believe someone would try to argue against you on this one jsobecky, and jukyu. The simple fact that someone is even trying to support this decision on this site, tells me a lot. The funny thing is, that since this Politics@ATS secction opened up, I've noticed there are a lot more sane people posting around here.

You still see a poster here and there rambling about skull & crosses or whatever and the NWO... whatever that insanse mumbo jumbo is. For the most part though, I've seen an increase in common sense posts.

Back to the subject at hand. I can't understand whats going on here... Nowadays parents are responsable for their kids actions (i.e. a kid murders someone, robs a convenience store, etc.) but now there saying they also can't evesdrop on there own kids? My mom whacked the hell out of me when I did something stupid growing up. I hated it then but now I'm glad she disciplined me in those early years. I was a brat of a child growing up.

When I have kids of my own one day, you can damg well believe I'll be evesdropping on my kids if I suspect them of doing something wrong!!! If my daughter is dating a criminal you can be darned sure I'll try and bust him one way or another!!!

Let me raise my frickin' kids!!!

-LostSailor

BTW... jsobecky... I gave you a way above vote as well.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
From what I understood of that decision was that it didn't make it illegal to snoop on your kids, it made it illegal to allow the fruits of that snooping to be used as evidence in a trial. I originally saw the story a couple nights ago and after reading the headline I was going to put it on ATSNN....but after examining the article the headline was quite misleading and more salacious then it really is.

I've seen this reported on a couple outlets as a side story and they misrepresent it too. Simply exaggerating a headline on the AP wire started all this.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join