The court, with the help of an ACLU brief, 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.


In the October 2000 phone conversation, Christensen told Dixon's daughter authorities would never find a purse he snatched because he hid it "across a ditch in some stick bushes."

Dixon alerted police, and Christensen was arrested, convicted and served a nine-month sentence for the crime.

So now the courts say it was the mother who was the real criminal, not the robber, not the adult male victimizer of a female minor.

Do you get the picture?

Remember those old public service announcements that asked if parents knew where their children were and what they were doing? You can forget about those. You can forget about parental responsibility. At least in Washington state, it's against the law for parents to monitor their children's activities.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41943

If it were the daughter that did the crime, then yes, I could see your point. But the guy had NO idea he was being eavesdropped on, and there was certainly no warrant out for him. What happens to his rights, do they fly away conveniently?

Originally posted by old-reb
The court, with the help of an ACLU brief, 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.


In the October 2000 phone conversation, Christensen told Dixon's daughter authorities would never find a purse he snatched because he hid it "across a ditch in some stick bushes."

Dixon alerted police, and Christensen was arrested, convicted and served a nine-month sentence for the crime.

So now the courts say it was the mother who was the real criminal, not the robber, not the adult male victimizer of a female minor.

Do you get the picture?

Remember those old public service announcements that asked if parents knew where their children were and what they were doing? You can forget about those. You can forget about parental responsibility. At least in Washington state, it's against the law for parents to monitor their children's activities.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41943

Then, you are saying that the rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of the victim.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
Then, you are saying that the rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of the victim.

Not everyone affected by privacy laws are a criminal or a victim. And you can't adjust how you apply laws to get the result you want.

Well you could adjust the privacy laws not to cover a criminal act.
Then you have people trying to adjust the laws to say they are invading your privacy seeking criminal activities.

It is typical ALCU policy, Make the criminal the victim and charge the innocent.

simple but effective.

The guy went to jail because he stole the purse, not because someone ratted on him. The crime was the theft not the arrest of the theif.

old reb

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Not everyone affected by privacy laws are a criminal or a victim. And you can't adjust how you apply laws to get the result you want. So Lionel. Im ignorant of the law. Is it against the law to listen into your child's phone calls in your own house when he/she is using your phone lines to talk? Because that's what we are talking about in this instance, right?

Originally posted by HaVoK
So Lionel. Im ignorant of the law. Is it against the law to listen into your child's phone calls in your own house when he/she is using your phone lines to talk? Because that's what we are talking about in this instance, right?

OK, I actually went and read the article. Yes, it appears that you cannot listen in on your own kid's conversations in the state of Washington. I was making the assumption that the court was ruling that while it would be OK to listen in on your own kid, you couldn't use that against the third party they were talking to. Score one for the legislature for writing a stupid law.

Yet, if you work for a large company, they are required by law to read all email or interoffice corrospondence because they are liable for what their employees say. But in your own home you can't listen in to your children on the phone. Now that is nuts. But if it is the law, it is the law. I never listened in on my children but if they hung around with a seedy bunch I would not hesitate to listen in to protect them and keep them out of trouble. That law is just as bad as one that dictates what you can do in your bedroom with your mate.

Everything was ok until the ACLU entered into the picture to take away the crime of stealing a purse. Too many rights for criminals and not enough for victims.

old reb

i just went to an ACLU meeting because i was invited yo speak about my experience poll moiterring, and they are really crazy. like, completely nutty. one of them compared vermont seceding from the u.s. to the baltic states seceding from the soviety union.

Originally posted by old-reb
Yet, if you work for a large company, they are required by law to read all email or interoffice corrospondence because they are liable for what their employees say.

They're only liable if they don't do anything about it (generally speaking).

http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/aclu_warning.jpg