<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Friday, December 10, 2004


Parents' Rights

They're being eroded every single day. While I think that this story implies some bad chronic parenting, there are fundamental issues here that I find quite bothersome. Here's some of the story:

SEATTLE - In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation.
The Supreme Court ruled that Dixon's testimony against a friend of her daughter should not have been admitted in court because it was based on the intercepted conversation. The justices unanimously ordered a new trial for Oliver Christensen, who had been convicted of second-degree robbery in part due to the mother's testimony.
Sheriff Bill Cumming asked Dixon, whose daughter was friends with Christensen, to be alert for any possible evidence. When Christensen called the Dixon house later, Lacey Dixon, then 14, took the cordless phone into her bedroom and shut the door. The mother hit the "speakerphone" button and took notes on the conversation — in which Christensen said he knew where the purloined purse was.

The ruling will likely not result in parents being prosecuted for snooping, Cumming said. But it forbids courts and law enforcement from using the fruits of such snooping.
So, the benevolent dictator has decreed that this mother will be let off the hook for listenting to her daughter's phone call in her own home. Oh, how kind. Where, might I ask, does anyone get the idea that the Government can tell me whether or not I can listen to my (future) child's phone conversation? Liberals complain all the time about 'Government in the bedroom'...but they apparently don't mind 'Government in the home.'

Finally, the last line in this story truly bothers me:

Dixon has a 15-year-old son still at home, whose phone conversations she sometimes secretly monitors. She said she'll stop that now.

"If it's illegal, I won't do it," she sighed.
First, my understanding here not that the mother's actions were illegal, but only that they were inadmissible in court (although I could be wrong).

Second, the idea that "If it's illegal, I won't do it," as an (apparently) absolute statement is truly troubling. I am not advocating anarchy, but the idea that an American would be prevented from doing something that is their right because it was ruled by a Court to be illegal is disturbing. Perhaps Ms. Dixon is unaware of these words from James Madison (Federalist 46):

...Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments...
Never forget who is in charge.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?