QUOTE(Rev_DelFuego @ Dec 10 2004, 01:32 AM)
From the Houston Chronicle:
Striking a blow for rebellious teenagers, the Washington Supreme Court ruled today that state law prohibits parents from eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations.
Question for debate:Do children have a right to total privacy or is it at their parents discretion?
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Dec 10 2004, 05:15 AM)
The ruling did not say that children have a right to total privacy, all it did was reinforce previous rulings that you can't "intercept or record conversations without the consent of all participants." That said, it's still absurd.
Just for clarification, this depends on what state you are in. Many states are "One Party Consent" states. Meaning that so long as one party in the conversation consents to it being recorded, the recording is legal.
For example, if you and I are talking on the phone and I choose to record the conversation, without informing you, then that would be perfectly legal so long as I was in a one party consent state.
This doesn't really apply to this case as it was the parents doing the listening / recording, and they were not in the conversation. However,
If you live with your parents and they're paying the mortgage, food costs, gas bills and everything else, then no, you don't have a right to privacy. You are living in their house.
Taking this good point into consideration, perhaps the legal approach to this should be that the owner of the phone is considered part of one of the parties and thus could listen / record legally. It's a stretch, but it is possible.
OK, so kids have rights to privacy now? OK fine. When my daughter is old enough to use the phone she will either sign a waiver of said rights or she simply will not be allowed to use the phone. They still make phones with key locks on them.
but it's wrong for the government to forcibly decide what should be a parent-controlled situation.
Good point. But then, this is part of the problem of the day. We continue to erode the rights of parents and then complain when the child are out of control.
Another legal point here. Children do not have the right to enter into a legal contract without parent consent. So, why can a parent not require a waiver of "privacy" before giving this consent?
Futhermore, why is it OK to search kids lockers without the consent of the child? This is because the lockers belong to the school and the school is responsible for the welfare of the children. Or so the legal decisions in some states go.
In some states, courts have ruled that a student’s locker is school property, so the school can search it. But in other states, school officials must have “reasonable suspicion” that you are hiding something illegal before they can search your locker. Your local ACLU can fill you in on your state laws. But here’s a word to the wise: don’t keep anything in your locker that you wouldn’t want other people to see source
The US Supreme Court has a long history of upholding parental rights to raise their children as they choose.
The U.S. Supreme Court cited a long history of their decisions upholding parental rights as fundamental.
The liberty interest at issue in this case--the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." 268 U.S. at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." 321 U.S. at 166.
In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 99 S. Ct. 2493 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982) (discussing "the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.
(emphasis mine) Source (much more great info here)
At issue here is the conflict of a childs right to privacy vs. a parents right to control the childs upbringing. I believe this case would be overturned by the US Supreme Court if it was brought to them and they chose to hear it.