Kids Given More Rights Than Adults

Washington Supreme Court Sucks!

Published on December 13, 2004 By JillUser In Current Events

You may have heard about the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling on banning parental telephone eavesdropping. If not, you should look into it and be afraid. What the hell are they thinking?!

A 17yr old kid assaults an old woman and steals her purse. Some parents have an idea of who did it so they are on the look out. A mom listens in on a conversation between this kid and her 14yr old daughter on her phone in her house which she pays for. The kid tells the daughter what he did and where he discarded the purse. The mom tells the authorities and they apprehend the kid. The kid gets a lawyer to convince the court to discard the case because the information was obtained through the mom listening to a private conversation. What the hell?!!

If the girl were in her own home talking on her own phone that she pays for, fine. Even then, she's a minor! It is her mother's responsibility to look out for her well being in any way she can. If this woman overheard the kid in question saying that he was going to suicide bomb the Washington Supreme Court, do you really think they would care that the information was gathered by a parent eavesdropping? I highly doubt it!!

We have seen the horrible things that can happen when teens aren't being watched closely enough (Columbine for instance). Why the hell would any court tie parents hands tighter? I just don't get it! I don't give a flying flop what courts say, my kids don't have the same rights as I do if they are living in my house without all of the responsibilities that warrant the rights. If they are going to use the phone lines I pay for, I have the right to listen in. If they use the computer, I have the right to monitor what they are doing. What is the difference? I am sure courts wouldn't want to discourage parents from monitoring what their teens are doing in chat rooms. How many sickos have tried to hook up with minors via the internet?

I am just totally outraged!

Comments (Page 5)

ParaTed2k

on Dec 17, 2004

I tell me kids the truth, I tell them that if they give me reason to suspect, then I will exercise my right as a parent to read their Email, listen in on their converstations, and even go to class with them to make sure they are going.

Anyone who tells my kids that I have no right to pry into their privacy (especially if my kids' actions give me cause to worry) is a liar and a complete waste of human flesh.

Is that plain truth enough for you? ;~D

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

About the only targets being the bullies, trust me you wouldn't be able to remember them all. Not when you have more than 20 people doing it, even bystanders that saw them being bullied are not innocent as they, could have done something to help but no they don't want to do that, to selfish and afraid.

The only innocent people are the ones who didn't know anything about it, and I don't care what the media has said about who was targeted there was no evidence to corroborate this information it is all circumstantial.

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

Part of the problem with kids these days is parents don't bother teaching them anything useful.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 17, 2004

mental note. Radonix has decided that murder is an appropriate response to being bullied.

I'll agree with you that parents don't bother teaching their kids.

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

Parated2k your a lier, I never stated that is appropriate response I have said both acts are wrong.

Even so, those who initiate aggravation upon others, will usually ahve it reflected back to them, don't you understand its a fucking defense mechanism.

A lot of you are playing down the bullying, this is wrong, a 5 year period of bullying, is a lot more than a murder in terms of time. When murder is commited by shooting someone in a fatal area, the death is quick and painless. 5 Years of pain or 60 seconds or more of pain. The relatives feelings towards the dead are irrelevant, to the actual situation. Any actions by them related to the situation could be relevant in some manner.

There is no after-life in death, thats is hogwash, i've also experienced near-death myself so I'm not lying, and I don't believe in lying there simply isn't much of a point to lying.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 17, 2004

Even so, those who initiate aggravation upon others, will usually ahve it reflected back to them, don't you understand its a fucking defense mechanism.

You say you never stated it was appropriate, but then you vomit this crap on me. If you are going to call me a liar, don't contradict yourself (and reinforce my point) with the very next sentence!! ;~D

Apparently your parents neglected to teach you that mass murder (as a response to someone pissing you off) is a little on the extreme side. Of course, I better not push you too far, apparently you are already on the edge.

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

A myth to dispell.

Not everything is relevant to one another.

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

And to the fool saying they own the phone, I say this do you own the landline that goes under your house and connects to the exchange in your local county? No you don't you. You may pay for the rental of said line, but the telco's have terms and conditions for using those lines as well.

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

Right saying it is a defense mechanism is not the same as saying it is appropriate to murder someone.

Go back to school you fool ParaTed2k. oh yeah another thing RTFM English Dictionary.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 17, 2004

"defense mechanism: noun: (psychiatry) an unconscious process that tries to reduce the anxiety associated with instinctive desires."

So, what you are trying to bore me with is the defense that mass murder should be considered "an unconscious process that tries to reduce the anxiety associated with instinctive desires." Got me there, I guess in your little world an appropriate way to reduce your anxiety is to just shoot somebody, or maybe (if your really anxious) offing a whole school just might do the trick.

Have a day! ;~D

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=defense+mechanism&typeofrhyme=def&org1=syl&org2=l

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

then again you try and be complex and go into details that were not even mentioned and i had no intention of implying.

Just give up parated2k your wrong.

This has nothing to do with psychiatry.

radonix

on Dec 17, 2004

ParaTed2k if actually read the words as they are instead of trying to read between the lines you'd figure out what the fuck I'm saying.

Independent1

on Dec 17, 2004

It is not "spying", the phone didn't belong to the kid, it belonged to the parents. If a kid gives his or her parents reason to suspect illegal activity, it is the parent's responsibility to find out what is going on.It is not "spying", the phone didn't belong to the kid, it belonged to the parents. If a kid gives his or her parents reason to suspect illegal activity, it is the parent's responsibility to find out what is going on.

It is invasion of privacy as per state law in Washington State. Read the court opinion or the law. The ownership of the phone has nothing to do with it. I would agree that parents should do something if they suspect their children are involved with or know about certain activities, but that does not give them the right to use illegal means. In most states parents do have the right to eavesdrop so its a non issue. In the rest it is somewhat questionable. Personally I'm glad I live in one the questionable states. Not because I don't think I should have the ability to eavesdrop on my children, but because there is an all party clause so I know my privacy is protected much better than those in states with single consent laws. The one thing I know is that trust is the most important factor in every relationship I''ve had. So I'm smart enough to know that eavesdropping is one of those last resort things if all else fails.

For the record, just so I know I am still conservative, I think they should change the law, through the legislature!

I don't know Dr. I suspect the Washington Supreme Court is Liberal so you might just be a liberal now

You simply can't pick and choose which laws you'd like to follow and which ones you'd like to ignore
Judges make that choice every day, they choose what evidence, what arguments and what "facts" can be presented by either side of the case.

But they are supposed to choose what evidence etc. should be admitted based on the law. That's why this case went to the Wash Supreme Court.....Because the initial judge allowed evidence to be presented that was illegally gathered and hence should not have been allowed.

If a parent eavesdrops on their kids, so be it. The state generally doesn't concern themselves with this even if it is not explicitly legal. It is the disclosure of such information in court cases or to the media that concerns them. The state is not prosecuting the mother. The case is about the illegal admission of the evidence stemming from the mother violating the privacy of the boy , not her daughter.

Dr Guy

on Dec 17, 2004

Trolling rampage, you just an arrogant adult, property does not give you the right to spy on other people, I don't care what the law says about that, its an infringement of human rights.

Wrong. You have no rights since you are a minor. So there is no infringement unless the state grants it to you, and they did in this case, but only in this case.

And your lame justification for Columbine? Excuse me millions of kids are bullied every year, and 99.9999% of them never resort to murder, so your causality lacks any justification in any type of scientific study.

Finally, dont call people older and wiser than you morons. They have forgotton more than you know,and know more than you can even comprehend at your age.

KarmaGirl

on Dec 17, 2004

I never said that read the reply again moron.

This will be your one and only warning- do *not* personally attack people or you will be banned from this site.

Trolling rampage, you just an arrogant adult, property does not give you the right to spy on other people, I don't care what the law says about that, its an infringement of human rights.

Obviously you are not understanding a simple fact- minors do not have the same rights as adults. The way I view it, if you say something to my under aged child, you are talking to me directly since my underaged child is *my* responsibility. So, listening to a phone conversation at the same time that your child is should be considered your parental right in keeping your child safe.

Here is my view on phone "privacy": the only people who complain about this are people who are doing something that is wrong. If you are living a clean life and not committing crimes, what would you be saying that would matter?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!