| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| rediculus court ruling | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 10 2004, 10:25 AM (63 Views) | |
| CV6 Enterprise | Dec 10 2004, 10:25 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Captain
|
This was also in my local paper. Mom's eavesdropping violates privacy law, says Washington court Isn't this rediculus? I think that if you are younger than 18 and live with your parents, than you should not have any privacy. Your still considered a minor. What's next? Parents can't search their kid's rooms? This is why so many of my generation have no disipline, I think. The mother was in the right. What say you? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 10 2004, 10:31 AM Post #2 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Agreed, more proof of our over liberal (purest sense of the word) society, and why I support change that will get rid of this crap. Edit: I read more of the article, It may not be as bad as the title and opening paragraphs make it out to be. Its more a case about admissible evidence in a court producing then parents not begging able to snoop on their kids. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Dec 10 2004, 11:12 AM Post #3 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
What is up with judges? You know any judge can throw out a case if he doesn't consider it justicable. As far as I understand it, minors don't get privacy rights. Schools can search your locker, book bag, and even your person if they even suspect you of something. Same with your parents. Hey judge, you might as well show him how to inhale while you're at it! :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 10 2004, 11:36 AM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
As Dan said the issue in the case is whether the evidence is admissable at court not whether parents are allowed to listen in on their child's phone conversations. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dr. Noah | Dec 10 2004, 11:40 AM Post #5 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Oh, I missed that. In that case, the judge could still throw it out.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Dec 10 2004, 03:24 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
This is absurd--but I expect this in today's society. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



What is up with judges? You know any judge can throw out a case if he doesn't consider it justicable. As far as I understand it, minors don't get privacy rights. Schools can search your locker, book bag, and even your person if they even suspect you of something. Same with your parents.
In that case, the judge could still throw it out.
3:18 AM Jul 11