A comment by Jasan, in reply to my “News From a Blue State” post has prompted a reply that I would rather post here. Jasan basically pointed out that –“it doesn’t prevent the mother from calling the cops – it prevents the mother from using the evidence she heard listening in on the second phone line as evidence in court.” While technically this is true, in some jurisdictions calling the police with such a tip would actually be worse than not calling them; because any leads that occur based on illegally obtained evidence can invalidate the case. But that is really not the point.
It is a ridiculous proposition to believe that an individual has a right to privacy when talking to a minor. A parents job is to protect their child, to the best of their ability, from the kind of negative external influences that are possible in just this kind of circumstance. Its freggin hard enough to protect you child from the filth that is available through modern mass communications. Now to take away the only tool that parents have to bring legal action against those who would do harm to those same children.
For 200 years we have made the conscious decision to protect a child from harm, even when it sacrifices their rights in the short term. We do this to give them a chance to develop into adults who can make their own sound decisions. Then we let them succeed or fail based on those decisions… but to protect a child’s “privacy” at the expense of their safety; before they even have the experience or mental capabilities to intelligently use those rights; is the very definition of irresponsible. Following this same logic, we should let the children stay with the adults they want to live with. Even if a court has decided that their drugged up, abusive, sexually molesting parents are unfit. Hey, the kid has a right to freedom of association. Or if a 9 year old wants to screw a 55 year old, well then who are we to stop them. How about giving 4 year olds guns? The parents shouldn’t have any say in such things, right?
The rights I have listed above are actually directly protected constitutional rights; unlike the implied constitutional interpretation that the “right to privacy” is. Don’t get me wrong. I believe in implied constitutional rights and I even support the “right to privacy”, but if we are fundamentally able to restrict the rights of children that are expressly defined by the constitution then why in the world would we protect an implied right.
I remember the big hoopla that conservatives (blame the parents not the guns) and liberals (blame the parents not the kids) made about the Columbine Massacre because the parents did not pay attention to the actions of their kids. There have been a half a dozen cases where “Columbine” like attacks were thwarted by parents listening in to telephone conversations. If this ruling were in place in those circumstances then the police could be prepared to stop the kids, but they could not bring any “attempted” charges against them (i.e. They could charge them with possession of a weapon on school property but not for attempted murder) because the tip they used to identify the threat was obtained illegally. In fact in some jurisdictions ALL charges would have to be dropped because of how the evidence was obtained.
This same ruling has dramatic ramifications to other forms of communication. It effectively states that (although you can monitor the actions of your kids on the Internet) you cannot reasonable expect to get police protection if you discover that a pedophile has been talking about picking up your kid during school… and even if the police decide to watch your kid they CANNOT LEGALLY STOP the pedophile before he does anything illegal.
More than one person has already pointed out that it is generally totalitarian regimes that pursue the rights of children over the protection of children and the rights of parents. Things like the Hitler youth did this because its so easy to TAKE ADVANTAGE of children and exploit them to their own ends. No, this ruling is ridiculous in the extreme. It does huge amounts of damage to those that would work to help children; and in doing so creates a bastion of safety for pedophiles in the very homes of the children that this ruling is suppose to help.
Now see if you can do it without the Hitler reference…
If you\’d really prefer a breakdown of which liberal platforms and which conservative platforms are more like national socialism, I\’m game, but for godsakes, that\’s not a way to argue – it\’s an unnecessary crutch. More later.
Here\’s the other bit I have to say about this: I cannot believe that you are advocating for turning the responsibilities for parenting over to the state, which is basically what you\’re doing. Honestly, I would hope that I equipped my daughter, or son, with the tools to make informed, responsibile descisions about guns, who they date, etc., and if I suspected my daughter was dating some felon pedophile, I would sit down and talk to her about it rather than calling the pigs to come and intervene.
I gotta say, Bob, it seems out of character for you to show so much reliance on the tools of the Big Government like this… or is it just that it\’s from a \”Blue\” state where your friends happen to live? I don\’t stereotype \”Red\” states based on some of the horrific miscarriages of social justice occuring there.
Sorry \’bout the double-post.
One more thing. you said:
\”This same ruling has dramatic ramifications to other forms of communication. It effectively states that (although you can monitor the actions of your kids on the Internet) you cannot reasonable expect to get police protection if you discover that a pedophile has been talking about picking up your kid during school… and even if the police decide to watch your kid they CANNOT LEGALLY STOP the pedophile before he does anything illegal.\”
Guess what – you cannot legally stop domestic violence before a wife or child-beater does anything illegal, either. I am more than familiar with this from my time as a social worker in a BLUE state. You cannot arrest someone for the potential to commit a crime, and you sure as fuck cannot take a kid out of a house unless there is compelling evidence that child abuse has been committed – and you can thank the Family Values Republicans for that, who mandated that families must be kept together no matter the cost.
My suggestion, if you have a problem with this, instead of getting your panties in a wad about what Washington is doing, if you really feel that it\’s unjust for not prevent child abuse by locking up negligant and abusive parents, START AT HOME. Work for change right there in your Red state, because they need it – not only because there\’s a much higher per capita rate of child abuse there (and divorce, and teen pregnancy, and drug use – but hey, you guys are the moral fiber of America, right?), but because, if it really bothers you, put your money where your mouth is and do something to change it.
ARRGH… I will stop breaking your database in a moment, I swear: The above should read \”My time as a social worker in a RED state.\” As in, when I worked for the Oklahoma DHS for 2 years.
To start I should probably mention that this post was not really a direct response to you. Your comment sparked my reply but the post itself quickly diverged from a response to a general statement of issues. Non-the-less lets talk about the issue.
Comment #1: Well I could have said Young Pioneers or Mao’s Cultural Revolution, but I figured I would specify a movement that more people were familiar with. However from an logical standpoint you are correct; its not a good way to make a point. The point I was attempting to make was the free societies have generally strengthened the rights of families (and the legal options those families have; as pertains specifically to this discussion) while totalitarian societies have generally pursued the rights of children OVER the rights of their families (both socially and legislatively.)
Comment #2: I am ABSOLUTELY NOT “advocating for turning the responsibilities for parenting over to the stateâ€Â. Maybe you misunderstand what my problem with this ruling actually is. I am not advocating that police/law-enforcement be given the right to arbitrarily listen in on the phone conversation of minors. What I am saying is that the parents right to protect, teach, monitor, and enforce trumps the right to privacy of a minor. Once a child becomes a legal adult I would totally agree with this ruling; but if a parent has the right to violate their child’s privacy then it only makes sense that they have the right to use that information to protect their child (in a legal sense.)
As far as “equipping my child with the tools to make informed, responsible decisions  I whole-heartedly hope so; but the reality of the situation is that minors have a spectacular propensity to make bad decisions when it comes to matters of the heart (something that even Shakespeare would attest to.) Of course any good parent would sit down and talk to their kids about the situation, but when that doesn’t work (because they are in love) then what do you do? What is its the child’s life that is at stake? It should be the PARENTS decision on what level of responsibility should be given a child. The legal system should support that decision. It shouldn’t be the legal system that decides this for the parents and then gives them the responsibilities of carrying out that decision. This is NOT a tool of big government! This was a tool for parents. Its their home, their telephone, their kids, and it therefore only makes sense that it be their right to use any information obtained in such circumstances.
…There is a length limit to comments. So I will post more later.
Guess who\’s bored at work? 🙂
I have to call BS on your comment that totalitarian regimes tend to put the rights of children before the rights of the families. The Taliban executed orphans; I suggest watching the movie \”Osama\” to see what happened to a girl who refused to wear a birqua and stay in her house (she was sold, oddly enough, as a slave to an elderly Taliban pedophile). \”Osama\” was the first film to be made after the fall of the Taliban in that country, and is largely considered the truest portrait of life under the Taliban, because that regime didn\’t allow televisions: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368913/
In Iran, India, and China, girls are routinely left on the streets to die. In China, children are often pressed to work in factories at age ten or twelve, for hours a day at a despicable wage (I know this, because my company does research on factories in china for production of our figures).
In fact, family is often a concept used by totalitarian regimes to bolster their nationalism – Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Kim Il Sung, and Stalin were all famous for encouraging strong families. Browse through online propaganda posters for these regimes; China during the Cultural Revolution is most noteworthy for this, as was Hitler and his concept of the strong German Frau and her children.
To contrast, the United States and European democracies have the strictest laws regarding the rights of children, mainly dealing with labor. We could always go back to the days of Oliver Twist, if giving rights to children over families is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, but I would say that the facts stand starkly in contrast to your conclusion, and, in fact, allowing children to have rights is the hallmark of free societies.
That being said, I think you\’re being a little reactionary towards the implications of this ruling, not only because most of those things already exists in states both Red and Blue (see my previous post regarding child abuse), but because I firmly believe it\’s the parent\’s perrogative to raise their child appropriately. That being said, I agree with the essence of your original post about it being inappropriate to give minors a right of privacy from their parents, but some of the generalizations you made after that were a little extreme. 🙂
Comment #3: “Guess what – you cannot legally stop domestic violence before a wife or child-beater does anything illegal†I am well aware of this, but “cop stuff†can only be done legally when suspicion of danger is obtained legally. The ruling basically turns legal tips to law enforcement (from parents legally listening in to first party accounts of activity) into illegal information. That means cops are not allowed to do “cop stuff†based on such tips. I more than familiar with this in my time as a government worker for a law enforcement agency.
The point I am making is that your statement:
“So, she calls the cops, tells them what she’s heard. The cops can then do a little, well, copwork (investigating!), dig up some real admissible evidence, and there’s no problem, so long as the prosecution does not enter the eavesdropped phone conversation as evidence.â€Â
it false; because it is not legal to start doing copwork based on such a tip.
My “panties are in a wad†because I thought it was a bad ruling and I wished to point out why I thought it was. I have no desire to change the laws in Washington or impose on the judgment of a legally select member of the Judiciary. Its my guess that I have been a Federalist for longer than you, and as such have a strong desire to keep state issues just that, state issues. I resent the implication that I am somehow forwarding myself as the standard bearer of morality in this country and I hope that you have known me long enough to not lump me in with the social category implied by “you guys.†I also fail to see how you make the assumption that I don’t work locally to remedy these kind of problems. I strongly believe in the need to work locally to solve social problems as well as political issues and spend my time and monies as such.
That said, I probably aggravated the discussion by naming the post “News From a Blue State.†What really bothered me about this particular ruling is that this kind of bloc k-headed ruling clouds the legitimate discussion that many people are trying to bring up about privacy rights. I strongly believe in the right to privacy (its hard not too when you see government, business, and law-enforcement violating it so wantonly.) Its hard enough to be social liberal in strongly red (the Patriot Acts are good for us, dammit) state without getting blindsided by extremists that would push civil liberties to ends that make no sense (dogs, trees, and kids.) What’s more is that this kind of news pushes the conservative extremists to new levels of stupidity in an effort to insulate themselves from outside change. This usually manifests itself in the form of national movements because (as we already discussed) conservatives have seen how effective the left was in the 60’s and 70’s in changing the political landscape by focusing nationally instead of locally.
“To contrast, the United States and European democracies have the strictest laws regarding the rights of children, mainly dealing with labor.â€Â
But child labor laws are NOT child rights laws. Children are not free to decide if they want to work. In fact child labor laws remove the right of children to work anywhere, anytime, for as long as they see fit. Those laws are child protection laws (as I already pointed out “For 200 years we have made the conscious decision to protect a child from harm, even when it sacrifices their rights in the short term.â€Â) Those laws are GOOD laws. We protect children; even when doing so limits their civil rights.
In fact, opponents to child labor laws often cited invasion of civil rights as a defense against such laws. While you say that Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Kim Il Sung, and Stalin were famous for encouraging strong families; the truth is they were famous for encouraging strongly NATIONALISTIC families. If the families were not nationalistically ideal, children had right above and beyond the rights of the family unit. If a youth wanted to join the Hitler Youth and his parents would not allow it; that minor could report their parents and have them arrested on such grounds because the child had the right to join even if their parents didn’t want them to. Children were ENCOURAGED to reject their parents and even report them if their “revolutionary†tendencies were not acceptable during the “Cultural Revolution.†Stalin talked about freeing children from the oppression of their parents. Children were free to leave their parents (against their families wishes) to join the Red Army.
I will totally agree that the same statement is generally NOT true in totalitarian theocracies. You are also right to the extent that I made some generalizations that were unfounded. I was excessively frustrated. I know (for example) that the ruling does not prevent the parents from calling the cops; and I know that the ruling does not keep parents from listening in on conversations. What is interesting is that in most states adults don’t have an expectation of privacy when talking on someone else’s private phone.
…and ya, I am bored at work.