It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 04:43 AM

Originally posted by RANT
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.

Really? Are those laws applied equally in all 50 states?

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 made a rather strict interpretation of the law. No courage exhibited here; he just said "The law is the law".

"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,

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?

You're damn right I don't like it. If it happens in my state, I'd work to have it changed.

You still want to extend the same rights to minors that you do to adults. You are in the minority in that opinion, RANT. Besides ignoring my previous examples about dentist/doctors visits, there are small issues like contractual law. Do you want to make it legal for a 14 year old to be able to sign a contract and be held to it's terms?

I'll tell you what. You want to let your 14 year old get pregnant and have abortions without your knowledge, that's fine with me. I don't happen to have the same outlook on life that you do. Notice that it doesn't have anything to do with my personal views on abortion. It has everything to do with the health and welfare of my child.

Usually - and I'm not saying it necessarily applies here - those adults who argue for kids being able to have abortions without their parents knowing, and all the rights associated with adulthood, are the ones who have underage girlfriends. Or, they are just sucking up to the younger crowd for whatever reason.

I just find it ironic as hell that presumably an anti-abortion conservative...

Good for you. You applied a label, now you can pigeon-hole jsobecky away in one of those red state cubbyholes. That's OK...I'll have plenty of company from pro-choice democrats in there, who, regardless of their personal views on abortion, feel that they should have control over their kids.

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 12:57 AM
Well, actually I knew someone who was listened on by her parents. She talked with her boyfriend supposedly privately, while her parents had the other line sitting on the kitchen table. They listened in while they were eating. Not only that, when she got off the phone, not ONLY did they BEAT her they STARVED her like an animal. Is it right for crazed parents, some who in their culture tend to BEAT and STARVE their children, to listen in and somewhat stalk their child? Is it not a promise in this country of freedom? I understand freedom is not free, but come on. Children get beat by their parents when they get out of line, is this true? Pretty much, only a luck percentage do not. Thank God I am in that percentage. How far canparents go in this country, the average good-to-do citizen can go home smack his daughter and throw his son off a roof for a mishap over the phone. Now I understand the whole idea of maybe they are pregnant or drugged up. But come on if they were drugged up you could tell and if they were pregnant their sttomach would get bigger, no? I believe that parents spying on their children is a violation of privacy.

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 05:51 AM
Yeah and there were those parents who took their kid to a therapist and he strangled her in some weird type of therapy. Does that mean that parents shouldn't take troubled children to specialists to get help? There's always going to be examples in anything where someone entrusted with a responsibility does the wrong thing.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:24 AM
How in the heck did a judge determine that a minor has any privacy while using a phone "owned" by their parents? Is the kid responsible for the phone bill? is it in the kids name? If the answer is no, then the person that does "own" the phone has the right to use, monitor, and if needed cancel the service....If it became a nation wide law that i couldnt monitor ANY conversations being used on my phone then guess what? my kids would NEVER get to use the phone.

If the kid was committing say fraud over my phone, who would be the first person the PD questions? the phones owner.
As a parent is legally responsible for their kids acts, the parent would also be guilty of the fraud.

This ruling makes NO sence. It makes it HARDER for parents to monitor and control their kids, yet offers parents no relief from the responsibillity FOR their kids should the kid get busted committing wire fraud with the family phone.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you dont.....well ill just be dammed then.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:50 AM
I found out one piece of information that sways my opinion a little in this case. The police came to the mother and asked her if she had any information about the guy since he was dating her daughter. Then the mother listened in and heard the evidence. While this doesn't change my opinion about a parent's right to find out what their child is up to, this is a little close to her beoming an agent of the government. I think she should have been able to listen and then tell her daughter she couldn't see the guy again and tell the police that she believed he committed the crime, but I'm not sure now that that should be used as evidence, it just depends I guess on whether she was working as a mother or on behalf of the police. I'm not backing down on my original premise about the privacy of minors, but I'm trying to be fair so I had to bring this up.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:47 PM
Uh, ACLU don't want to destroy history, the person who thinks that getting under god out of the Pledge knows nothing. The under god was added in the 50s, before that? No under god. SO they are trying to SAVE history. Also, no ACLU, the south/republicans would still have jim crow laws, segregation, blacks not allowed top vote, women slaves to husbands, kids property of the men, working at age 6 in the factory, jews/mauslim/hindu/buddist/witches hanged or burned or shot for not being brainwashed christians, so forth. ACLU helped the south get out of the 1500s.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:54 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Also, no ACLU, the south/republicans would still have jim crow laws, segregation, blacks not allowed top vote, women slaves to husbands, kids property of the men, working at age 6 in the factory, jews/mauslim/hindu/buddist/witches hanged or burned or shot for not being brainwashed christians, so forth. ACLU helped the south get out of the 1500s.

I have to at least partially disagree with this, most of those laws were overturned because WE demanded it. I can name several local churches that were in the fore front of equal rights and of all the Southners I know, and I know a lot of them, few are proud of our racist past, but we were no more racist in a lot of ways then the North.

Those laws would have died without the ACLU but I will admit that they helped bring them about

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:32 PM
I'm just out of my teen years and I have a snoopy mother. Sure parents like to know whats going on, but often the 'evidence' they find is bull# and they jump to assumptions about trivial things. The real stuff they should be looking for is usually never found, because the parents wouldnt know what to look for. E.G My mother found my bong and had no idea what is was so assumed it was a drinking bottle of some sort, but she found a pair of boxers with lips on then and assumed i was #ing my girl friend (i was, but on the evidence she had i wasnt admitting to #) because why else would i have boxers like that....

And why shouldnt teens have privacy, are they all 'sneaky'? If you dont give teens their privcacy, they wond understand the concept in their adult lives... Teenage years are where the child transitions into an adult, and they need to be treated like adults so they understand how to treato thers when they grow up

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:50 PM
This would be my response if I had kids and lived in Washington. All calls will be made in a common area on the speaker phone.

In reality, the law limits what can be done with information gained by snooping on the telephone, according to what I have heard and I think that comports with the constitution.

Many people already insist that their kids use the computer in a common area and the phone could be put on the same system.

[edit on 04/12/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:01 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Many people already insist that their kids use the computer in a common area and the phone be put on the same system.

The computer i agree with because of some of the things you can find online... the phone however should be kept private... if parents are snooping on their kids, the kids will lose trusts in their parents... and when a kid loses trust in their parents, who else can they trust.

If my folks had insited the phone be in a common area i would have flipped out... luckily my dad decided we needed a cordless phone so we could take private calls

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:06 PM

If it weren't for the Republicans Jim Crow laws would still be in effect? What kind of revisionist history is this? The Republicans were the ones that came together to help a democratic President pass the civil rights act when it was opposed by southern democrats.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:36 PM
My point is that if a parent is concerned enough about his child's behavior that he will eavesdrop, then do it up front. Tell the child that his behavior is suspect and that as a result phone conversations will be monitored and that he should inform others when the calls that he is on speaker phone.

The idea of this law is not that a parent doesn't have the right to monitor his chilld's activity, but that the parent doesn't have the right to monitor the activity of the other party.

You will note that when you call your ISP or your bank, they inform you that your phone call may be monitored. That gets them off the hook. If you don't want to be taped, then you can drive to the bank and speak privately with your banker. As for you ISP, I'm not sure what option you would have--email maybe.

[edit on 04/12/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:04 PM
Jukyu, sorry to tell you, but guess what? Know why more republicans then democrats voted for the civil rights bill? CAUSE THERE WERE MORE REPUBLICANS! Also, they would have been lynched if they had voted against. It would have been like the congressman who got whacked with a cane, except no cane, but plenty of rope and trees.

I like that, "republicans better cause more voted for it then democrats." Fine, I am going to pass a bill that gives every woman 50million dollars, and since more men voted for it then women, men are obviously better then women. Oh wait, more male senators then female. They all voted for it, but more men then women voted for it, so men are better. Also, republicans are conservative, their whole platform is to take the country back to the 1700s, when the country was "great" in their eyes.

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:05 PM
You're wrong, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 occured when Republicans were a minority in the House of Representatives. The Republlicans voted in favor of the bill 138 to 34. Democrats on the other hand were 152-96. So there were 172 Republicans and 248 Democrats. The Democrats had 76 more representatives at the time so that hardly makes for the Republican majority that you claim. In fact it is the opposite.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by jukyu]

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:11 PM
No matter how much I hated my mom for tapping the phones on me when I was a teenager, i'm glad she did now, god knows where I may be right now...

On a side note: I don't think it would of been that bad considering i'm a pretty logical street smart kind of girl... She did help straighten my ass out, in a compassionate caring kind of way, no tough love... I hated that...

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:26 AM
Jukyu says,

The Democrats had 76 more representatives at the time so that hardly makes for the Republican majority that you claim. In fact it is the opposite.

Lack of credible evidence often plauges some members arguments.
i hear self delusion runs rampant when you have a pancake growing from your skull.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in