Main > Everything Else
Land of the free?
daywane:
--- Quote from: 1hookedspacecadet on March 05, 2005, 10:29:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: daywane on March 05, 2005, 08:39:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: 1hookedspacecadet on March 05, 2005, 07:59:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: daywane on March 05, 2005, 09:09:51 am ---Bill orally fox news
spelling is off but you know who I am talking about
--- End quote ---
Now I'm very skeptical... ;)
Any links to the text of the news story would be appreciated.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
quarterback:
--- Quote from: 1hookedspacecadet on March 05, 2005, 10:40:44 pm ---Edit: Here is the case, reading it now...
--- End quote ---
RetroJames:
Ok, so the facts are that the mother was never arrested. Her testimony in lower courts against the 17yr old about the phone conversation was discounted by the Wash State Supreme court. This was done so because they found the daughter and the guy on the phone had the expectation of privacy.
The mother was not reprimanded or prosecuted at all, she is free to use the information in her parenting pursuits. It is just not admissable in court as testimony against the 17yr old as far as the Wash State Court is concerned.
Interesting note, the case mentions a federal privacy statute that does make exceptions for parents in that they may "consent" to the communications intercept vicariously for the minor. The WS Supreme court noted that, but opted not to utilize it in thier decision as there is no such precedent in Wash State Law.
If this case were pushed to the US Supreme Court, I think you might see the WS Supreme Court decision reversed.
Also interesting, the court noted that had the daughter thought that her Mom MIGHT be listening, i.e. if the expectation of privacy was removed, the testimony may have been admissable. So tonight before you tuck your kids in, have them sign an affadavit stating that they have been so informed and understand that you may intercept any and all communications and use them as desired until they turn 18. ;D
- I am by nature skeptical. I believe what I can prove. The facts of a case can almost NEVER be transmitted in a one line blurb. Nor can ANY news organization be trusted to get the facts right when commenting or reporting on a case. There is just not enough time in a 3-5 min segement to provide proper background and context as well as all of the relevant facts.
Interesting case though.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 10:37:09 pm ---
The case that's being discussed is NOT a case of a mom being arrested for invading a teen's privacy.
In fact, the case that's being discussed is not even analagous to the 'scenario' that Bill O'Reilly's is hypothesizing about. This is actually a good example of the truth-manipulation that O'Reilly likes to do.
--- End quote ---
You missed the gist of the transcript, and in the process, accused O'Reilly of manipulating the truth, which wasn't done. One could say the same of your words.
The reason for the "debate":
--- Quote ---Washington passed a law making it a crime for any person to intercept a private conversation. And a second provision saying that any evidence gathered shall not be admissible in court.
--- End quote ---
O'Reilly was speaking to the first part, addressing the idiocy of it being a CRIME for the mom to be listening to a conversation of her daughter.
directly after your quote, there was more, much more.
--- Quote ---TARIO: But Bill, in the 25 years I've been in this business, I've never seen a prosecutor prosecute someone for this. It just wouldn't happen.
O'REILLY: OK.
TARIO: The only time it happened
--- End quote ---
RetroJames:
--- Quote from: quarterback on March 05, 2005, 10:52:06 pm ---
And here is more about what Bill O'Reilly thinks about those pesky wiretap laws:
--- Quote ---If you suspect your child is dealing with a criminal, a dope dealer, a mugger, a molester, you can't eavesdrop on that child's conversations. That's now the law in Washington state, which has become a model for progressive activism.
Of course, the most dangerous organization in the country the ACLU, applauds the ruling"
--- End quote ---
[emphasis mine]
--- End quote ---
Just read it...LOL...some more sunshine from Bill, I think it speaks for itself;
--- Quote ---Now why is this happening? As with the Christmas controversy, which I explain in my column this week on billoreilly.com, there's much more to this than just a legal decision. If you study all [the] state dominated societies from the Soviet Union, to Nazi Germany, to Red China to Cuba, you will see those governments try to diminish parental power because it's easier to mold young minds when state-sanctioned values don't compete with traditional parenting.
Public schooling in America is now devoid of any moralizing or spiritual emphasis. The Pledge of Allegiance being the last holdout. So if the progressives can succeed in eroding parental influence at home, it becomes much easier to influence American children to embrace a secular point of view. That's what's going on here.
--- End quote ---