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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I still contend that the mother pretty much had to turn the guy in. She had knowledge of a crime and if she hadn't she would have been contributing to the delinquincy of a minor, her daughter, beyond the fact that I'm sure her daughter is having a much tougher time now seeing her bf. I mean think of it this way, what if the mother had said nothing, the daughter was on the stand at an eventual trial for the guy, and her daughter said well my mother knew about it. How would she be seen? As someone that didn't use information because it was obtained unintentionally or someone that didn't care enough about their community to bring a criminal to justice?




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
You guys are really stretching things out of context.

I don't care if the woman makes a house rule about not dating that boy, spanks her daughter, grounds her, makes her study the bible, eat all her spinach, wash behind her ears, and I really don't care if she listens in to all her conversations. What I do care about are criminal charges of someone else based on her testimony that had nothing do with her and her daughter. She was eavesdropping on someone else confessing to a crime that believed they had a reasonable assumption of privacy. Trying to make this into some case about being anti-family, not having the right to punish your kids or any of that is bull. That boy was not her child.

If she wanted to give the police a heads up, that's fine I suppose, but not to be used in court. They can't use her testimony against another boy if he didn't know she was eavesdropping. She led them to evidence that they otherwise would not have found. I know the laws in this country can be troublesome
but I'd really prefer not to think about the alternative. Still though, that has nothing to do with her rights as a parent over her daughter and I'm baffled why anyone would press it that way except as disinformation for a political agenda. We're arguing apples and banannas here. Making this case into a discussion about stripping away parent's rights is not even oranges.

Then we get the rest of the fruit stand. Half a dozen things argued in various courts thrown in to weave some tapistry of a conspiracy against family. Never mind the fact were talking the law, and I take it everything that has you upset are legal rulings. Meaning you find the law to be offensive, unamerican, anti-family. Sigh. Where to begin?

The minor thing. Minor is one of those definitions that we change at the drop of a hat. Usually to suit conservatives. If they want to raise the drinking age, then "minor" becomes under 21. We like to think in other things it's 18 nationwide (like voting and dying in Iraq) but it's not that simple. State's have differring opinions about when a teen can legally drive, have sex, enter into marriage, get their ear pierced, get a tattoo. In my lifetime you could run to South Carolina to elope at 14. I know that's still the legal age of sexual consent there, not sure about marriage. But people do it all the time. In a free society they do alot of things other people don't like. At various ages to boot. It has something to do with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Irksome as that can be.

The only reason abortion comes up as a singularly offensive right of young "minors" is people don't like abortion. Understandable. I don't know what happens if a 12 year old wants one, but I'd assume there's no state that would do it without some parental intervention (and possibly that of child services as an illegal act got her that way at 12 no matter state you live in). And I'm not arguing to change that.
What I am arguing against are all these psuedo "conservatives" that insist on stripping away liberties granted by state's rights by making these nationwide big government federal laws like no gays can marry, no woman under 18 (or of any age for that matter) can have an abortion, etc.

I guess in this case enough people in this country still believe in the laws of liberty to give you resistance on this one. If you really want to outlaw 16 and 17 year old medical decisions, a place to start would be taking away their right to operate a motor vehicle, work a job, purchase contraception, and make sexual decisions. Then don't be so transparent about the abortion issue. Propose legislation about all medical procedures. Heck, they shouldn't be allowed to buy Tylenol in a store according to this logic, but whatever. I know that's not the tact, and the only deal here is really contolling abortion so why even bother with these baby steps of prohibition when the real agenda is banning them at any age? Once you make the argument that the decisions can't be made at 17 (implying it can at 18), you're going to have a real time convincing people it can't be made at 20 or 30. But that is the real agenda here.

Also the ever loverly God in schools mandates like all in the public education system must pray, or defer to God each morning via the 1954 Pledge, or stare at the 10 Commandments hung in class or what have you. What astonishes me about this increasingly clumsy "argument" about the desolation of family :shk: is one of the very arguments against government imposed religion is that it strips away PARENT'S RIGHTS! You don't have to submit to a federally approved, tax supported diety to enjoy a public education in this country. At least you shouldn't have to do so.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779.

Jsobecky and anyone else convinced their idea of Freedom of Religion is the right one, are invited to read the entire linked page of Jeffersonian Doctrine from Virginia.edu (which is pretty much the foundation of what you might call liberalism in America).

My point in all this? Nobody is trying to undermine anyone's family. Sounds like conservative scare tactics to me. If you don't like abortion, or you love Jesus, or you like being an authoritarian in your own house and wish you could in mine, then that's just super but I'm kicking and screaming all the way. If you want to change any of that for the rest of us, you've got alot of laws, liberties and rights to repeal first. Better get to work on that. All the argument's in the world that the sky is falling aren't going to make most of us accept the moral authoritarianism of another.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
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.


It's always my pleasure to applaud and agree with a conservative for cutting through the BS and stating the obvious. This entire drama has been totally taken out of context. It's a liberty issue alright, but not one having to do with family or parenting.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
What I do care about are criminal charges of someone else based on her testimony that had nothing do with her and her daughter. She was eavesdropping on someone else confessing to a crime that believed to have a reasonable assumption of privacy.


So what? He confessed to a crime and someone heard him doing it. That is evidence that should be used against him in court. I don't care if he thought he had a reasonable assumption of privacy. He's a criminal that confessed to a crime and he should be put in jail.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The mother was in kind of a spot there IMO. If she did not report it in a lot of places she could have been held as a accessory after the fact. Now as to whither the evidence should be used in court is another matter. But I don't see any reason why it could not to have been used to bring the boy in for questioning or Identification.

It sounds to me like the prosecutor was just lazy



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by RANT
What I do care about are criminal charges of someone else based on her testimony that had nothing do with her and her daughter. She was eavesdropping on someone else confessing to a crime that believed to have a reasonable assumption of privacy.


So what? He confessed to a crime and someone heard him doing it. That is evidence that should be used against him in court. I don't care if he thought he had a reasonable assumption of privacy. He's a criminal that confessed to a crime and he should be put in jail.


Let me guess? Prosecutor by trade?

"So what?"


I know you're probably one of those common sense people that think laws are stupid. We should just save the money of a trial and shoot people.


I see no reason to cite legal precedent or defend court rulings to a person who's argument against them is so what?


This thread isn't even about that. It's some trumped up argument based on the illegality of a "confession" being the basis for the eradication of family by the left. Like the laws and rights in this country are some huge liberal conspiracy. My God, the way some tell it that's almost the truth.

Thank God for the vast liberal conspiracy for liberty! When you need a defense attorney, be sure to get a liberal one. To hear conservatives lately everything's rigged against them.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

I see no reason to cite legal precedent or defend court rulings to a person who's argument against them is so what?


No the argument wasn't "so what?" It was "this evidence should be used against him in court. I don't care if he thought he had a reasonable assumption of privacy. He's a criminal that confessed to a crime and he should be put in jail."

That's "common sense."



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
This is an issue of parental rights.The article clearly states


In a decision hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled concerned parents cannot eavesdrop on their childrens' telephone conversations.

The high court determined a mother in the town of Friday Harbor, Wash., violated the state's Privacy Act when she listened by speakerphone to a conversation between her then-14-year-old daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, prompting the court to reverse the boyfriend's 2000 robbery conviction, the Seattle Times reported.

"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court."
:
Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the court's opinion, "The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now."


So, no, we're not taking things out of context, and not stretching anything. The judge actually said that the mother committed a crime here.

The remainder of your argument crumbles from that point on. There's no point debating it any more if you cannot accept what the judge said at face value.

I want to challenge you on one point, though:

I guess in this case enough people in this country still believe in the laws of liberty to give you resistance on this one.

I would bet you dollars to dimes that you are dead wrong on this one.




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Rant, you've been rather rude to me today and acted in a manner not very moderator like both in your communication with me and your responses on this thread. I will ask you one more time to please add productive discussion to this thread or find somewhere else where your services are needed on the board. I always thought the moderators here, while knowledgable and opinionated, at least attempted to facilitate discussion. I just wish you'd try to put forth an argument instead of calling us cooks and dismissing our point of view out of hand.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor

Originally posted by RANT

I see no reason to cite legal precedent or defend court rulings to a person who's argument against them is so what?


No the argument wasn't "so what?" It was "this evidence should be used against him in court. I don't care if he thought he had a reasonable assumption of privacy. He's a criminal that confessed to a crime and he should be put in jail."

That's "common sense."


Well guess what Counsellor?

Overruled.

"Common sense" is not a legal precedent for overruling the Privacy Act of Washington State as upheld by their Supreme Court. You don't like it, change the law. You have no legal basis to even criticize the decision apparently. "Common sense" is not a legal argument. The fact that you don't care he thought he had a reasonable assumption to privacy is colorful, but moot. The fact he did commit the crime is a shame, but moot. The prosecution has to prove it given a set of laws we have in this country designed to protect the innocent and liberties of all (even criminals). Some criminals get off on account of that. That sucks but the alternative is worse. I'm not glad he got off, but I'm glad they didn't make a ruling overturning the privacy act. That would screw everyone in the state more than just letting one guy off. The cops will just have to do a better job won't they?

You know alot of "common sense" punditry is really killing America. Blowhards like O'Reilly spew that crap all the time (when not having phone sex) citing things like opinion polls when making cases against constitutional rights. No, there's absolutley no "common sense" to an organiztion like the ACLU. It's an adversarial and ideological organization that defends civil liberties at every turn no matter how distasteful they may be to "common sense." They defended the Klan's right to free speech. They defended Limbaugh's right to medical privacy in his drug case (despite him making a career out of preaching "common sense" against them). And thankfully they enjoy some "uncommon" bipartisan support from people that "get it" and are able to swallow their personal disdain for advocacy against "common sense" for a greater good. Look into Republican Ron Paul's association with the ACLU for example.

I know conservative punditry is on a common sense binge right now, but there are much greater principles at play that make this country great.

It's "common sense" that man and woman hold a unique relationship. It's "common sense" that people of middle eastern ethicity are more likely to be terrorists than others. It's "common sense" that if you stop every car leaving a bar, you'll catch more DUI's. Or search everyone on the street you'll find more illegal drugs. Or if you tap all phones, you'll catch more criminals.

But we don't do things like that here. America is "uncommon" in that regard. Your very liberty one day may count on someone else not relying on mere "common sense."



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Rant, again you miss the point. If it had been the government doing it that would have been one thing. THE MOTHER WAS NOT A POLICE OFFICER ON DUTY OR A FEDERAL AGENT OUT TO FIND THIS GUY SHE WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. You're making all these statements like they wire tapped the guy's phone and invaded his privacy. Y ou're also absolutely ignoring anything that goes against your point of view such as the quotes from the actual case that provided some more insight into what we were talking about. All you're doing is taking any small point you can argue and arguing it while at the same time doing your best to insult the groups you don't agree with.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
This is an issue of parental rights.The article clearly states


In a decision hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled concerned parents cannot eavesdrop on their childrens' telephone conversations.

The high court determined a mother in the town of Friday Harbor, Wash., violated the state's Privacy Act when she listened by speakerphone to a conversation between her then-14-year-old daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, prompting the court to reverse the boyfriend's 2000 robbery conviction, the Seattle Times reported.

"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court."
:
Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the court's opinion, "The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now."


So, no, we're not taking things out of context, and not stretching anything. The judge actually said that the mother committed a crime here.

The remainder of your argument crumbles from that point on. There's no point debating it any more if you cannot accept what the judge said at face value.


I saw that, but also know that was a defense tactic that was merely used to extend the right of privacy to the boy. Do you really think this ruling would have even been necessary otherwise? How could it have possibly come up? No boy involved, the mother overhears her daughter confess to cheating on a test or something, then sues her mother? Never happen. If it does I'll probably be on your side assuming the case isn't dismissed outright. They do alot of tricky stuff in legal rulings that don't always meet the prima facia sniff test, but it doesn't mean the ruling is wrong in the case of the boy. Nor is this an outright assult on family. It's just one of those things until it comes up otherwise. When it does, then we'll do something about it.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Thank you Rant, this is the first post in this thread from you thats presented an argument and added to the discussion. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Rant, you've been rather rude to me today and acted in a manner not very moderator like both in your communication with me and your responses on this thread. I will ask you one more time to please add productive discussion to this thread or find somewhere else where your services are needed on the board. I always thought the moderators here, while knowledgable and opinionated, at least attempted to facilitate discussion. I just wish you'd try to put forth an argument instead of calling us cooks and dismissing our point of view out of hand.


What in that last rather lengthy response to you was either rude or not a pointed argument relevant to this case? Previous page starting "you guys are taking this out of context." I disagreed with all your points and stated why in some detail.

What about disagreement and discussion do you find unproductive? Try leaving me being a moderator out of it. That has nothing to do with my responses on this thread.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Thank You Pistol Pete

quote: Originally posted by PistolPete
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.

It's always my pleasure to applaud and agree with a conservative for cutting through the BS and stating the obvious. This entire drama has been totally taken out of context. It's a liberty issue alright, but not one having to do with family or parenting.

With all due respect to PistolPete and TrueAmerican, they are both wrong. The basis of the ruling was that parents have no right to eavesdrop on their kids. The fact that it was used by extension to have the evidence thrown out is moot.


What I do care about are criminal charges of someone else based on her testimony that had nothing do with her and her daughter. She was eavesdropping on someone else confessing to a crime that believed they had a reasonable assumption of privacy.

If I overhear two junkies in an alley getting ready to knock over a liquor store, and I call 911, should they be able to get off on the fact that their privacy was invaded? That is the basis of this case.

Still though, that has nothing to do with her rights as a parent over her daughter and I'm baffled why anyone would press it that way except as disinformation for a political agenda. We're arguing apples and banannas here. Making this case into a discussion about stripping away parent's rights is not even oranges.

Final time I'll say this: it is the topic of this thread, and it was the basis of the ruling.


Meaning you find the law to be offensive, unamerican, anti-family. Sigh. Where to begin?

The law is stupid and anti-family.


The minor thing. Minor is one of those definitions that we change at the drop of a hat.

Can your 14 year old walk into a dentist's office and have his eyeteeth extracted without parental consent? How about having a transgender operation? Any state in the union allow that? I know you think it sounds silly, but it is needed to make a point: should there be limits, and if so, who gets to define them for a minor?




Also the ever loverly God in schools mandates like all in the public education system must pray, or defer to God each morning via the 1954 Pledge, or stare at the 10 Commandments hung in class or what have you.
:
You don't have to submit to a federally approved, tax supported diety to enjoy a public education in this country. At least you shouldn't have to do so.

The beauty of it is that all religions are federally approved, or, to put it another way, "federally neutral". So believe in what you want. Or don't.


"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779.

The Mass Pike is a toll highway. The original law said that tolls would be collected until the construction was paid for. That happened decades ago. We're still paying tolls. I abhor paying that toll.


Jsobecky and anyone else convinced their idea of Freedom of Religion is the right one, are invited to read the entire linked page of Jeffersonian Doctrine from Virginia.edu (which is pretty much the foundation of what you might call liberalism in America).

I'd like to know where you came up with that distraction? If you're talking about the pledge, how about if I say "under God" and you don't? Who gets harmed? Now take the phrase out and tell me who gets harmed? Everyone who believes in God, that's who.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Jsobecky, on the court ruling and your example there are distinct differences in the expectations of privacy between a conversation overheard on the street and an active effort of eavesdropping on a private telephone conversation. I'm sure you've heard of such rulings regarding the difference. Just by nature of the lag in laws catching up with technology you actually have more privacy on the phone that you do on the internet. People can even video tape you without your consent where they can't record or listen in on your audio. Sorry you don't like it, but it's the law. Like I said. Change it. But it's not up to the courts to do so. That would be what you like to call activism.

As it stands the court made a fairly conservative ruling not to change anything and go by strict interpretation regarding the priviacy of the person that happened to be a child.


"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court."

Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the court's opinion, "The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now."


You don't like it, move to Washinton State, run for state legislature and propose a new law exempting the special relationship of parent and child from the privacy act. The you don't have to worry about "stupid" rulings upholding the current law, or not interpreting them as liberally as you'd like. Or maybe you can just help appoint more activist judges that interpret loosely and make precedent to your particular liking.

I just find it ironic as hell that presumably an anti-abortion conservative wants to consider a person under 18 NOT a full person availed of the same rights as everyone else, but you go right ahead and press that point all day long. You do know where it leads don't you?



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Rant, again you miss the point. If it had been the government doing it that would have been one thing. THE MOTHER WAS NOT A POLICE OFFICER ON DUTY OR A FEDERAL AGENT OUT TO FIND THIS GUY SHE WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. You're making all these statements like they wire tapped the guy's phone and invaded his privacy. Y ou're also absolutely ignoring anything that goes against your point of view such as the quotes from the actual case that provided some more insight into what we were talking about. All you're doing is taking any small point you can argue and arguing it while at the same time doing your best to insult the groups you don't agree with.


No I've just been ignoring the asinine. Even you SCREAMING IT AT ME this time still doesn't make it so. Neither I not the court considered the woman a police officer or federal agent in this case. Your right to privacy isn't just from governemnt officials. As the court ruling (which you claim I am the one ignoring) clearly states, any person has that right with no special exception on the books for parent/child.

You don't like it? Change it. It's not the courts job to make new law. They interpret and enforce existing law.

Those "small points" I'm taking and arguing are called the facts. If you feel insulted for some reason go back to your original post and see if you might be insulting large groups you disagree with as well. It's fine if you do. Just don't be so whiney about it when you get your pigtails pulled in response.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

With all due respect to PistolPete and TrueAmerican, they are both wrong. The basis of the ruling was that parents have no right to eavesdrop on their kids. The fact that it was used by extension to have the evidence thrown out is moot.


No, no I'm not.


This is an editorial from The Sentinel, it's just a small-town Central PA newspaper but it illustrates the overblown nature of this whole thing pretty well. It's short so I'll post it in full....


Some stories are just too good to be true, as you'll quickly learn if you visit any of the websites that specialize in debunking urban legends.

Then there are those stories that are true - but they are missing an essential element that changes their entire meaning.

Friday's Sentinel had an example of the latter story on its front page. Here's the headline: "Court: Mom can't snoop on troubled daughter." Right under that headline was this: "Her eavesdropping violates privacy law, the Washington State Supreme Court rules."

We can hear the radio talk shows now. Another intrusion into family relationships by an activist court. And in a (horrors) blue state!

Unfortunately, the vast majority of conversations regarding this story will be among people who have only read the headlines. Here's what actually happened.

About four years ago, in the town of Friday Harbor, Wash., two young men knocked down an elderly woman and stole her purse. The sheriff investigating the case suspected a particular 17-year-old resident of the town was involved, knew he was friends with a 14-year-old girl named Lacey Dixon and went to the girl's mother, Carmen Dixon, asking her to be alert for any possible evidence.

The mother didn't have to wait long. The suspect, 17-year-old Oliver Christiansen, called Lacey Dixon, who took the cordless phone into her bedroom and shut the door. Carmen Dixon went to the cordless phone's base unit, hit the "speakerphone" button and took notes on the conversation.

Turns out Christiansen knew where the stolen purse was. Carmen Dixon took her notes to police, who used them to arrest the youth and obtain a conviction on second-degree robbery.

But Washington state requires that all parties to a telephone conversation must be made aware if the conversation is being monitored or recorded. As a result, Mrs. Dixon's notes were ruled inadmissible on appeal and Christiansen will receive a new trial.

Notice what we are talking about here - a crime that did not directly involve either mother or daughter. What it did involve was the violation of one state's very strict wiretap law in the course of gathering evidence. If a non-relative visiting the house had picked up an extension phone and accidentally overheard the call, the same principle would have applied.

It's true the court's ruling could be read as a strict prohibition against a Washington state parent monitoring a child's phone call under any circumstances. But it's ridiculous to assume that a mother risks a court appearance every time she picks up the extension phone while there are teenagers in the house.

We know it's a lot more fun to talk about big bad judges telling parents how to raise their kids. But if you insist on drawing that conclusion from this story anyway, do yourself a favor: Don't tell the story while you're under oath.



This was a non-exciting court ruling in an unimportant criminal trial getting blown out of proportion by some AP hack that decided to juice up his headline a little bit. The problem is everyone else ran with it, then the pundits got a hold of it and started punditing. Pretty soon you have MTV telling kids its illegal for their parents to "spy" on them.

I feel bad for this judge. He made a sensible ruling in this case and is no doubt catching unwarranted flak from it.

[edit on (12/12/0404 by PistolPete]



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Whew!

Thank goodness I still have some rights as a parent. I will do whatever it takes to keep my child on the right path until she is an adult.

Rokgodes



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
No, no I'm not.


This is an editorial from The Sentinel, it's just a small-town Central PA newspaper but it illustrates the overblown nature of this whole thing pretty well. It's short so I'll post it in full....
It's true the court's ruling could be read as a strict prohibition against a Washington state parent monitoring a child's phone call under any circumstances. But it's ridiculous to assume that a mother risks a court appearance every time she picks up the extension phone while there are teenagers in the house.

We know it's a lot more fun to talk about big bad judges telling parents how to raise their kids. But if you insist on drawing that conclusion from this story anyway, do yourself a favor: Don't tell the story while you're under oath.




I feel bad for this judge. He made a sensible ruling in this case and is no doubt catching unwarranted flak from it.


Sensible is up to individual interpretation. He made a strict interpretation of the law. The law itself is not sensible.

Regardless, I was responding to your previous post:


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.

If you want to examine that paragraph by itself, you are right. It didn't make it illegal to snoop on your kids, it already was illegal to snoop on your kids.

I'll testify to this under oath: In the state of Washington, it is illegal for a parent to eavesdrop on the conversation of their children. It is a violation of the rights of the child.

Care to debate that? That is what my case is based upon. It doesn't matter whether the mother heard it on a phone, or read her daughter's diary without permission. The daughter's privacy was violated.

And then there is this:


It's true the court's ruling could be read as a strict prohibition against a Washington state parent monitoring a child's phone call under any circumstances. But it's ridiculous to assume that a mother risks a court appearance every time she picks up the extension phone while there are teenagers in the house.


Take the first sentence of that paragraph. That is my argument. That is the title of this thread. That is the truth, and the basis for this ruling. As for the second sentence:

Funny, that's the same reasoning that I hear from anyone who feels their rights have been eroded by the Patriot Act. "It's just the first step". "It's just a matter of time" are the responses I get when I ask if they, or anyone they know, has been affected by the Act.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join