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 6)

Dr Guy

on Dec 17, 2004

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

Achhh!! Dog Germs! Dog Germs! I have kissed a dog! Accchhhh!

JillUser

on Dec 17, 2004

I will leave Radonix' comments since people responded to them but he goes bye-bye from my blog now. I don't tolerate hijacking and personal attacks on me in my own blog.

Independent1

on Dec 17, 2004

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?

There is NO truth to this. Take away electronic privacy laws and lets see what is possible. Remember phone privacy is incorporated in laws that include more than just phones.This would mean that anything someone said over the phone to someone else could be recorded and disclosed to the media and/or court system and/or businesses, etc. Recording isn't necessary however so you will often end up with people saying whatever they "feel" like saying. Look at how often the media and political parties take what someone says in public out of context to make totally untrue statements. DA's build cases around what is sometimes a small amount of facts. Many DA's (not all) practice law like a sports events. Its all about the number of convictions vs. losses not whether those who they convict are guilty or not. They often build cases on speculation. So they take the information that may support this speculation and will discard anything that may not. They take unrelated and out of context information to paint the accused as a bad person. Look at how many times prosecutors get caught withholding information from the defense. Look at how many times DNA evidence has taken someone out of jail and often off death row who was inappropriately convicted. If you have seen a lot of trials( and I don't mean through the media) you will realize that many cases are not "slam-dunk". So you have prosecutors trying to persuede a judge or jury that the hypothetical scenerio they are presenting is what happened. Yes, many times the defense is doing the same thing to get an aquittal for someone who is guilty, but often they are trying to get an aquittal for someone who is innocent. The laws are there to protect the innocent from prosecutors who will use information out of context or selectively . If they weren't there, this type of problem would be widespread. We are a society of equal rights and EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, so we cannot apply the laws selectively because we think (or even maybe know)someone is guilty because this allows others who wrongly think someone is guilty , or who seek revenge or power or a higher paying job to screw others to their own benefit.

If the privacy laws were not there the government would have unlimited power to screw people simply because they did not agree with what they were doing. Take a look at the governments propaganda machine. Take a look at both the Dem and Rep party's propaganda machines. Add to this unlimited wiretapping capability and they could selectivly use the recordings to destroy "anyone" who opposed them. We all say things on the phone that we don't mean literally. Look at how many things people say in these blogs that others take to mean something else simply because they don't personally know the other. They don't detect the sarcasm, or humor, or irony, or hyperbole, or context of a statement simply because they don't personally know the individual. Propaganda is directed at people who are not personally involved in a situation. Juries consist of people who do not personally know the defendent.

Privacy laws are also a CRITICAL component of democracy. Privacy enhances other rights such as free speech and freedom of association.
Take a look at the abuses to privacy that occured during the civil rights movement. Do a search on cases that involve businesses "eavesdropping" on other businesses. Does Watergate ring any bells? J. Edgar Hoover?

Privacy laws are there to protect the innocent . It is unfortunate that the guilty sometimes get off because of them but without these laws the innocent lose and more importantly democracy fails.

drmiler

on Dec 19, 2004

Reply #68 By: radonix - 12/17/2004 1:23:07 AM
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.

*He* pays for the privilege of having a phone, NOT the kids. Ergo whatever is aid on the phone is his business. You doubt that? Then doubt this. The parents have tthe right to remove *every* phone in the house. The child has no such rights.

radonix

on Dec 20, 2004

I will leave Radonix' comments since people responded to them but he goes bye-bye from my blog now. I don't tolerate hijacking and personal attacks on me in my own blog.

Hijacking and personal attacks?

This isn't personal that is a lie and you know it. Hijacking, I am merely discussing what you wrote this is not a hijack. You are saying that I am hijacking your thread because I am not agreeing with you. Well the fact is I have very logical reasons for this. The only thing that has been personally attack in this thread is me, people have accused me of saying murder is right. Indeed they would be wrong because as stated in my posts I do not think it is right.

KarmaGirl

on Dec 20, 2004

This isn't personal that is a lie and you know it.

Calling somebody a "moron" is personal no matter how you slice it. If you can't realize that, then you need to take some classes in social interaction.

There is NO truth to this. Take away electronic privacy laws and lets see what is possible.

No truth? I would say that is a bold statement. I didn't say that we shouldn't have privacy laws, what I said is that the people who complain about being recorded are the ones that were doing something wrong and got caught. Have you ever heard of somebody that was proven innocent by a recorded conversation complain?

Why would the information be admissible in court if it were directly spoken to somebody, or overheard at a party, but not admissible if it were overheard on the phone that you own in your own home?

JillUser

on Dec 20, 2004

I don't understand how this radonix kid was able to come back on here. I blacklisted him on the 17th. I checked, it says he is blacklisted from my blog. Better email support because I have had enough of this kid. He doesn't understand that he hijacked a blog about parental eavesdropping and made it about Columbine. Calling me a moron is definitely a personal attack but he is apparently to thick to understand so I am not upset by him I just don't welcome him on my blog.

Thanks to all others who added to an interesting discussion. I don't blacklist people for disagreeing. Matter of fact, I always hope people will comment with opposing views. I would never learn anything if people always just came on and said "I totally agree". How boring would that be?!

KarmaGirl

on Dec 20, 2004

I would never learn anything if people always just came on and said "I totally agree". How boring would that be?!

I totally agree! (oops.....)

Dr Guy

on Dec 20, 2004

This leads to another side issue that you reminded me of. I dont know how it is in Washington, but in the Old Dominion, your phone calls, emails and all documents are the property of your employer, I wonder how that would play out?

Independent1

on Dec 21, 2004

Did you say that or did you say:

In any case I didn't mean to infer that you didn't think we needed privacy laws . The majority of that post was in response to "what would you be saying that would matter?" since I am a person who is not committing crimes who believes that DA's, police, and judges should not be allowed to selectivly applies laws. That in itself is unconstitutional and allowing them to get away with it can lead to some truly bad abuse of power.

In regards to "recording "
There are numerous child custody cases where one of the parents recorded conversations in order to skew the case in their direction. When you are the one doing the taping you have a distinct advantage. You know exactly what to say, what to deny , and know from the start to use extreme care with what you say and how to express it while you are taping. This could lead to biasing a case to give custody to a parent who truly doesn't deserve it. In a State like Washington where this is illegal without all-party consent, allowing such information to be used in court could bias a case to give custody to a parent who was also breaking the law to get the evidence in the first place. My point being you could be the better parent who is not committing a crime and end up complaining about the use of recorded evidence simply because the mere thought of losing custody of your child caused you to react a certain way while unknowingly being taped. Cases like this are commonplace.

"Why would the information be admissible in court if it were directly spoken to somebody, or overheard at a party, but not admissible if it were overheard on the phone that you own in your own home?"

There is a big difference between being a party to a private conversation, casually overhearing something, and listening in on a phone call made to someone else who walks away with the phone into another room and closes the door. Ownership of the phone has nothing to do with it. You can deny its use to others or explicitly tell someone you will be monitoring their phone calls in which you are then covered because the person no longer has reason to believe there is any privacy involved whenever they use your phone. In any case there are a lot of references within court opinions concerning electronic privacy that explain things in repect to the laws and the criterior the courts use to make these types of distinctions.

Thanks to all others who added to an interesting discussion.

Equal thanks for bringing up the discussion. There are a lot of sides to this issue some more obvious than others, so its nice to get views from those whose situations are different.

grapevine

on Jan 05, 2005

I think we sometimes go too far in the protection of civil liberties etc etc

Government needs to find the correct balance between protecting the innocent and aprehending the criminal.

I agree that taping conversations, listening in on others is a violation of ones privacy but surely under certain circumstances where criminality is proven out of that listening in, then it should be permissable in court.

I believe that protecting the innocent stands before protecting the right to privacy!

dynamaso

on Jan 06, 2005

Jill, I too agree with you. Who gets the blame if children these days are caught doing wrong? Not the courts or the judges or the schools but the parents, of course. People whinge about how children behave these days then the authorities go and do something like this. Just doesn't make sense.

An interesting case here in Australia: a father punishes his 6 year old daughter by slapping her across the back. He was aiming for her backside but she squirmed and he hit her across the back instead. Now, this was in front of a number of witnesses who reported him to the police. The police arrested him and he was charged. When asked why he hit his daughter, he said he'd been repeatedly frustrated in his attempts to teach his daughter not to steal things off shelves in shops. At the time of the incident, he discovered some items in her pockets and 'just lost it'.

I don't advocate violence in any form, but I do remember being 'punished' a number of times by my parents for various transgressions. I am not damaged by these experiences. In fact, they helped shape me, in some ways, to become the good, law-abiding person I am today. Surely a reasonable line should be drawn somewhere. What do you think?

JillUser

on Jan 06, 2005

Thanks for some common sense.

Thank you Biz.

Government needs to find the correct balance between protecting the innocent and aprehending the criminal.

I couldn't agree more!

Surely a reasonable line should be drawn somewhere. What do you think?

I think you have it right. Parents aren't allowed to be parents these days. There is just too much meddling. I bet in your example the people who reported the guy never had to deal with kids of their own. Fear is a neccessary tool sometimes. Kids aren't just miniature adults. You can't just reason with a lot of little ones. I think parents tend to know how to deal with their own kids better than anyone else. I am of course not saying that people shouldn't be on the look out and report abuse.

LeapingLizard

on Jan 11, 2005

I love what we choose to be concerned about. Of all the things to have concern over that are going on, this comes up. And (this isn't meant to be an attack on your phrasing, Jill, because I hear it all the time) what it comes down to is that it is the moms phone and she pays for it. She pays for it. Jesus, people. Get a grip.

drmiler

on Jan 12, 2005

Reply #80 By: radonix - 12/20/2004 12:20:08 AM
I will leave Radonix' comments since people responded to them but he goes bye-bye from my blog now. I don't tolerate hijacking and personal attacks on me in my own blog.

Hijacking and personal attacks?

This isn't personal that is a lie and you know it.

Oh REALLY? Then just what do you call this?

Reply #60 By: radonix - 12/17/2004 12:40:54 AM
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.

if you think that being bullied is an excuse to go blow people away

I never said that read the reply again moron.

Or this?

Reply #68 By: radonix - 12/17/2004 1:23:07 AM
And to the fool saying they own the phone

Or this?

Reply #65 By: radonix - 12/17/2004 1:15:12 AM
Parated2k your a lier

(Can't even spell correctly)

Now go away troll!

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!