elizabeth Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 I'm editing out the link, just in case. The trouble with the Snyder case, specifically, is that Phelps and clan were 1,000 feet away on public property. The family knew they were there but neither saw nor heard them at all. Buffer zone laws have been upheld by SCOTUS in such cases as Hill v. Colorado. eta: I am going to quote this bit again because I have a question for elizabeth: Just to clarify what is at stake-if Phelps is found to have defamed Snyder, then could certain tax protesters with signs regarding the president or congress be treated the same way? No the law is different on libel(spoken) and slander(written)depending on whether both the speaker and object of the speech is a public or private person. The level of scrutiny is different as well. Here is a link http://law.jrank.org/pages/8243/Libel-Slander.html. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 For those who want to read caselaw and the historical background of the law in this area here is a useful link with good information. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/topic.aspx?topic=libel_defamation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wy_kid_wrangler04 Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 :eek: So is this what happens with the"public school at home" I dont know if this is nation wide or what, but here there is public schools at home where they give you a computer and you do the public school curriculum online. That also gives them access to enter your house when ever they feel "needed" :eek: I am utterly speechless. Just can not comprehend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted April 19, 2010 Author Share Posted April 19, 2010 :eek: So is this what happens with the"public school at home" I dont know if this is nation wide or what, but here there is public schools at home where they give you a computer and you do the public school curriculum online. That also gives them access to enter your house when ever they feel "needed" :eek: I am utterly speechless. Just can not comprehend! No, this is not what that was. These were "in school" students who were loaned laptops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wy_kid_wrangler04 Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 No, this is not what that was. These were "in school" students who were loaned laptops. Thats good to know, I guess, still sickening and disturbing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 See, and I think that makes it a crime in my book. Child p*rn...it's illegal to view photos of n@ked children online, and isn't that what they were doing? How is this viewing any different from the security cameras that were in the dressing rooms at stores? or the holes drilled in the wall at the fitness center women's locker room? I can't quite buy the "we did it so we could see who stole it".....first if that's the case, why would TEACHERS be viewing the photos (of course, I guess actually first is since it wasn't stolen why is the camera on in the first place), but only admin or security folks should then be viewing to see if they can identify the thief. Not that I agree that is ok either, but if it's not stolen there shouldn't be any photos, and if it is stolen certainly it shouldn't be something that teachers see and share comments about. And yeah, sadly I agree with others, the teacher's union will find someway to either prevent firing, or drag it out for years and years of paid leave while it winds its way through the legal system. If it were MY kid, I'd have called the police first and asked for s*x charges against ANYONE who viewed the photos. Can someone please tell me why this is not a criminal case? I thought I heard on the news this weekend that the person in charge of the "voyerism department" will not turn in her computer even though she's under a court order to do so. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Can someone please tell me why this is not a criminal case? I thought I heard on the news this weekend that the person in charge of the "voyerism department" will not turn in her computer even though she's under a court order to do so. :confused: That is not a criminal case albeit contempt of court may have consequences that make her think about whether or not her act was a crime. Jail, fine etc all are acceptable consequences for contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 It actually crossed my mind that this whole outrageous incident could have been caused by sheer incompetence in regards to computer know how:001_huh: I sure hope so since that would be a better explanation than for the school to have done this willfully:glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caraway Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I find it interesting that the article states that the parents will be shown all pictures of their children, but that the privacy of the students will be protected. Um, not from their parents I guess. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I thought that too, Priscilla, about the incompetence but since this who thing got started when the asst. principal made a snide remark about drug use that they knew was going on (the kid was eating Mike and Ikes) I don't think so. There is also evidence that some of the staff had conversations about the pictures and how this was entertaining. I definitely think people should be fired and anyone who knew that pictures were being taken of teens undressing should be up on criminal charges if they did nothing to stop this. I am sorry but teens are getting charged in sexting cases yet adults who spy on kids including them getting undressed aren't charged. THis is insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 :iagree: with Tracy sick twisted mess I too think it is pure dumb that the parents didn't go straight to police and file sexual charges. Parent: Hello officer. I have reason to believe my neighbor secretly takes pictures of my kid in his bedroom. He might even share it with his coworkers. Officer: File your complaint and we'll investigate. Ma'am. We found photos and he admitted it. Normally we would bring criminal charges and they'd have to go jail or register as an offender. Parent: normally? Why aren't you doing that?! Officer: Oh ma'am, it's just a public school teacher. He meant to tell you about it. So now you know. Okay? So everything is fine now. Have a good day. Parent: Oh I'm so mad he didn't get my permission first! How rude! Continues to send kid to same school.... It just seems so surreal to contemplate why several people are not in jail or at least on bail and kids are still being sent to the school under the supervision of such untrustworthy people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Look at this! http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/education/041910-report-56,000-webcam-images-at-district "Philly.com says an attorney for the Lower Merion school district acknowledged at least 56,000 web-cam images were taken of students over a two-year period." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Look at this!http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/education/041910-report-56,000-webcam-images-at-district "Philly.com says an attorney for the Lower Merion school district acknowledged at least 56,000 web-cam images were taken of students over a two-year period." It makes you wonder if someone wasn't getting a kickback to funnel pictures to a child pornography ring. a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 This morning, my local news reported that the FBI was taking an interest in the case. Fingers crossed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomLovesClassics Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I would be beyond angry, and would not send my child back to school. It is one thing for parents to send their kids to school, it is quite another to be spyed on inside your own home. I keep wondering about public school at home, and the issued computers. I would be afraid to accept one even if I needed it. They should have been thrown under the jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excelsior! Academy Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 It makes you wonder if someone wasn't getting a kickback to funnel pictures to a child pornography ring. a :iagree: If I didn't homeschool already, I'm think'n this would be a tipping point!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excelsior! Academy Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I would be beyond angry, and would not send my child back to school. It is one thing for parents to send their kids to school, it is quite another to be spyed on inside your own home. I keep wondering about public school at home, and the issued computers. I would be afraid to accept one even if I needed it. They should have been thrown under the jail. I WILL NEVER use these. The creepyness factor is just too much. This violates too many rights! ETA: You never know if "they" will want to check up on the homeschoolers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grace'smom Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I thought that too, Priscilla, about the incompetence but since this who thing got started when the asst. principal made a snide remark about drug use that they knew was going on (the kid was eating Mike and Ikes) I don't think so. There is also evidence that some of the staff had conversations about the pictures and how this was entertaining. I definitely think people should be fired and anyone who knew that pictures were being taken of teens undressing should be up on criminal charges if they did nothing to stop this. I am sorry but teens are getting charged in sexting cases yet adults who spy on kids including them getting undressed aren't charged. THis is insanity. Did they really capture those types of photos? If they did get photos of children undressing why are they not being criminally charged? Isn't this somehow illegal? Is there no law that addresses this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5knights3maidens Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 My dh also would like to know where they got all the money to distribute over 2,000 laptops. That is alot of money. All those parents should have their kids out of that school...but in reality, it is not that easy for all. All those involved should be fired or in jail. (Read the article...one person has taken the 5th ammendment) Some of/or all of those kids must feel quite "weird" sitting in a classroom or even seeing any of the people who saw their pictures. That is cruel to make the kids sit there, in my opinion. I told my ds to make sure his webcam has a dime over it (like stated in an earlier post), when he's not using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 That is not a criminal case albeit contempt of court may have consequences that make her think about whether or not her act was a crime. Jail, fine etc all are acceptable consequences for contempt. Shouldn't the District Attourney be interested in looking at the pictures in question to see if any qualifies as child p-*rn? If that were the case then a crime has been committed. When crazy landlords have hidden cameras and taken pictures in bathrooms and things like that hasn't that been criminal and the people faced charges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.