ACLU strikes again

[CanadianChris 0]

Source: World Net Daily

 

In a decision hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled concerned parents cannot eavesdrop on their childrens' telephone conversations.

 

The high court 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, the Seattle Times reported.

 

Oliver Christensen, 22, of Friday Harbor, was convicted partly based on what the mother, Carmen Dixon, heard him tell her daughter Lacey.

 

"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court."

 

Carmen Dixon, 47, was incredulous, the Times reported.

 

"I just believe you have the right to know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with," she said. "We were having a hard time with her as a teenager. She was sort of out of control."

 

Dixon said monitoring her daughter's phone calls was "the way I could keep track of what she was up to."

 

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the primary issue was whether the use of an extension or speaker phone was considered eavesdropping.

 

Whether there was an exception in the case of parents and their children was a secondary issue, the ACLU insisted.

 

Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the court's opinion, "The Washington act, with its all-party consent requirement, contains no such parental exception and no Washington court has ever implied such an exception. We decline to do so now."

 

Attorneys for Washington state contended parents have an absolute right to monitor phone calls coming into the family home, the Times said, pointing to provisions in federal wiretap law allowing parents to tape and listen to their children's conversations.

 

San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney Randall Gaylord told the Seattle paper he has not decided whether to seek a new trial, because Christensen already has served a nine-month jail term for the robbery -- a purse snatching.

 

In the October 2000 phone conversation, Christensen told Dixon's daughter "they'll never find it" because he hid it "across a ditch in some stick bushes," according to Dixon's testimony.

 

Dixon said she took notes after activating the speakerphone.

 

Gaylord told the Times the court's position weakens the ability of parents to monitor their children's actions.

 

"I tell parents that they need to be involved in their children's lives, and I'm concerned that this will mean parents can't always do the right thing," Gaylord said. "I'm concerned that a 14-year-old's right to privacy now trumps the parent's right to be a parent."

Someone remind me again what good the ACLU does? This is disgusting. I'm all for laws that protect children, especially from abusive parents, but the principle has been carried way over the line (quite predictably, I might add).

 

I'm curious as to how the ACLU even got wind of this case, given that it's four years old. Do they have someone on salary whose job it is to just go through old court transcripts?

[Guest BDC]

Item one: who asked the ACLU to get involved?

 

Item two: What, exactly, is the need for this?

 

Item three: What kind of FUCKTARD idea is this? Parents can't monitor their kids' phone calls? If my kids were getting into things they didn't need to get into, well, that just sets precedent for me to be real damn nosy. What's next? They gonna file that parents can't go into childrens' rooms?

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Perhaps someone forget to mention to the ACLU that the daugher, aged 14 was dating a 22 YEAR OLD! What the hell? Last I checked (although I don't know for sure what the legal age of consent is in Washington) that's not right. If the mom is saying that "she was sort of out of control" then I would guess that the two were having sex... So the ACLU is in effect saying that the mother had no right to know if her underage daughter was having sex with a 22 year old? Yeah fuck that.

[CanadianChris 0]

I think the writer kind of fucked up...the guy was 17 at the time of the arrest, but they gave his present age in the story.

[Guest Loss]

This is majorly fucked up. I would agree that parents can take it too far in terms of snooping in the lives of their children, but this has nothing to do with that, and involving the courts in something like this is incredibly stupid.

[Guest Loss]

Hehe, I think I need new friends. This was what a friend of mine's response was.

 

Sorry, but a child DOES have a right to privacy, and this ruling simply cements that even further.

 

There are better ways to keep an eye on your child than by tapping their phone conversations. You can try, oh, talking to your kids on a regular basis. Developing a relationship with them, rather than simply being a disciplinarian or a breadwinner. Make sure they can trust you. Eavesdropping on your kid is a major violation of parental trust. Without that trust, the relationship crumbles.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

People need to get some common sense and realize kids have limited rights and right to privacy certainly isn't one of them.

[Precious Roy 0]

Hehe, I think I need new friends. This was what a friend of mine's response was.

 

Sorry, but a child DOES have a right to privacy, and this ruling simply cements that even further.

 

There are better ways to keep an eye on your child than by tapping their phone conversations. You can try, oh, talking to your kids on a regular basis. Developing a relationship with them, rather than simply being a disciplinarian or a breadwinner. Make sure they can trust you. Eavesdropping on your kid is a major violation of parental trust. Without that trust, the relationship crumbles.

your friend is correct

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

No, it's complete bullshit. There comes a point where a teenager is going to rebel and you can't have a relationship with them other than being a disciplinarian.

 

Anyone who thinks a kid has a complete right to privacy is an idiot.

[Guest Cerebus]

I've repeated this often but the quote just fits:

 

"The ACLU once protected your right to have a nativity scene on your lawn. Now it protects the right of a guy to get drunk, stumble on your lawn and have sex with the sheep." - Dennis Leary

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I've repeated this often but the quote just fits:

 

"The ACLU once protected your right to have a nativity scene on your lawn. Now it protects the right of a guy to get drunk, stumble on your lawn and have sex with the sheep." - Dennis Leary

Well then I'm glad to know there's someone watching out for my rights.

[Guest Cerebus]

I've repeated this often but the quote just fits:

 

"The ACLU once protected your right to have a nativity scene on your lawn. Now it protects the right of a guy to get drunk, stumble on your lawn and have sex with the sheep." - Dennis Leary

Well then I'm glad to know there's someone watching out for my rights.

Stumble on MY lawn and have sex with MY sheep and you'll get a bullet in the ass.

[Guest Loss]

Conservatives are some angry folk.

[Guest Cerebus]

Conservatives are some angry folk.

I am, but it has nothing to do with the fact I'm conservative. I may be in the minority however.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

In a decision hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Washington State

 

No need to continue.

[Precious Roy 0]

Hey, I'm angry too, but I'm a liberal, so I don't take it out on everyone else

[Guest BDC]

Hey, I'm angry too, but I'm a liberal, so I don't take it out on everyone else

Sure ya do.

 

Angry liberals are the ones that defend the rights of the guy to have drunken sex with the sheep.

 

Let me put this in perspective, okay? The ACLU offered free legal counsul to NAMBLA, okay? An organization whose very purpose is a disgusting, illegal and "I'll fucking kill you" worthy act.

 

Hi. My name's BDC. I'm an angry conservative. And I like guns.

[Precious Roy 0]

I like guns too, and I hate nambla. Has your head exploded yet?

[2GOLD 0]

We really need to remove Florida, Michigan and Washington from the USA. Trade them to Japan for the rights to Nintendo or something.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'm conservative and I hate guns.

 

We really need to remove Florida, Michigan and Washington from the USA. Trade them to Japan for the rights to Nintendo or something.

 

Don't forget California, Vermont and DC.

[Slayer 0]

Stumble on MY lawn and have sex with MY sheep and you'll get a bullet in the ass.

It's not MY fault the sheep was coming on to me.

 

Plus, I was just helping it over the fence

[Highland 0]

I have to do a Kerry on this issue: I'm a vehement supporter of privacy rights, but I also believe parents have the right and duty to know what their kids are up to. I also believe she's a lousy parent for letting it get this far.

[Special K 0]

So

 

A. Parents can be sued for acts their child committed because it's their fault for not parenting correctly.

 

B. The only way they can find out what their kid is up to is talking to them, but teenagers never, ever lie, so that's OK.

 

You know, I love living in WA, but shit like this sort of ruins it.

 

Plus, to all the people who enjoy the snuggly notion that all will be right if you just talk to your kids and build a foundation and mutual trust and blah blah blah. Which is a noble idea, and one parents should strive for.

Some kids are just BAD. I don't want to get into a nature v nurture argument, but don't you know kids who have the same great parents, one's great, the other's a complete shitstain? Not to mention many couples have to both work full time to make ends meet. My brother (who is a great kid) goes to school I believe 6 hours a day, 4 on Wednesdays. How can you know what the kid is up to in that extra time if your work overlaps it by 3 hours?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hey, I'm angry too, but I'm a liberal, so I don't take it out on everyone else

 

Angry liberals are the ones that defend the rights of the guy to have drunken sex with the sheep.

 

Let me put this in perspective, okay? The ACLU offered free legal counsul to NAMBLA, okay? An organization whose very purpose is a disgusting, illegal and "I'll fucking kill you" worthy act.

 

What does that have to do with being angry?

[NoCalMike 0]

Don't flame me just yet, but doesn't this ruling have more to do with the bigger picture concerning phone conversations with doctors & attourneys, and that this actual situation is one of the bad bi-products of such a ruling? This is why I keep harping to get rid of all these blanket laws, and treat each case by it's situation.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Stumble on MY lawn and have sex with MY sheep and you'll get a bullet in the ass.

It's not MY fault the sheep was coming on to me.

And then you were coming on the sheep. Ewe.

 

Sorry, but a child DOES have a right to privacy, and this ruling simply cements that even further.

 

Then the kid can go live on his (or her) own and have all the privacy they desire...

[Ravenbomb 0]

don't these kids have their own cell phones nowadays anyways?

[Slayer 0]

don't these kids have their own cell phones nowadays anyways?

"Dammit, we don't want your drug-running calls clogging up our phone line!"

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So conservatives are mad about this? Ok, then I'm for it. Whatever it is. I am a liberal and I love my assault rifles, even the illegal ones.

[Special K 0]

Are you drunk? And I think just about everyone thinks this is a bad deal.