Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
No/Yes
Member
+14|5021|California, USA
Some News from Apex New Network:

A teenage girl has successfully sued her school in what legal experts are calling a landmark case for civil liberties.

She sued her school in north eastern Pennsylvania after she was suspended when teachers confiscated her cell phone and discovered pictures she had taken of herself naked.

The teenager, who was referred to in court as NN because she is only 17, had her cellphone confiscated by a teacher before lessons began last January. Cell phones were not banned in school but it seems that the teacher was annoyed that the girl was making a call as class was getting underway

The school’s principal then took it upon himself to scroll through all the text messages and general content on the phone. When he discovered the pictures he handed the girl an automatic three day suspension.

The pictures had been taken by the teen herself the night before , had never been sent anywhere and she says were intended for one set of eyes only other than her own – those of her longtime boyfriend.

The lawsuit charged the school’s officials in Tunkhannock Area School District with violating N.N.’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by searching her possessions without her express permission. In a statement N.N. said: ‘I was absolutely horrified and humiliated to learn that school officials, men in the DA’s office and police had seen naked pictures of me.’

In reaching the settlement last week the school admitted to no wrongdoing but agreed to pay N.N. $33,000 to settle the issue out of court.

In discussing the conclusion of the case American Civil Liberties Union’s legal director Witold Walczak told the press ‘School administrators have no more right to look through personal photographs stored on a student’s cell phone then they have the right to rummage through her purse, read her diary and mail, or view her family photo album.’
Source

Now teachers gonna have to be more careful about confiscating phones now.  But... seems like a nice way to make 33k.
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
slut
Sisco
grandmaster league revivalist
+493|5422

11 Bravo wrote:

slut
Welcome to the 21st century
https://www.abload.de/img/bf3-bf2ssig0250wvn.jpg
Ultrafunkula
Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...
+1,975|5552|6 6 4 oh, I forget

We really need that picture so we can review the situation.
VicktorVauhn
Member
+319|5471|Southern California

No/Yes wrote:

Now teachers gonna have to be more careful about confiscating phones now.  But... seems like a nice way to make 33k.
Meh, not really.

You kinda miss the point...

The school’s principal then took it upon himself to scroll through all the text messages and general content on the phone.
It is not really about them taking her stuff away, its them taking the liberty to dig through it for no reason.
Taking her phone away was apparently legitimate, but there was no legal reason to search it...They are in trouble for invasion of privacy, not for confiscating a students belongings.
KuSTaV
noice
+947|5590|Gold Coast
Its a valid point but havent there been cases in the past where people have gotten into trouble for taking photos of themselves when they're underage?
Shouldnt see why the case be nulled.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
charge her with child porn.  period.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4665

11 Bravo wrote:

slut
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
charge the teacher with possession of child porn

charge the phone company with aiding child porn
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio

Bevo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
charge the teacher with possession of child porn

charge the phone company with aiding child porn
teacher did not take nor search out the pics.  nor did he keep them.  try again.
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

Bevo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

charge her with child porn.  period.
charge the teacher with possession of child porn

charge the phone company with aiding child porn
3 of the above statements are stupid

try again
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
nope.  it has happened before.  there is precedence.  so try again.
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

nope.  it has happened before.  there is precedence.  so try again.
and this makes it any less stupid?

failing to see your point
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
is it not child porn by definition?
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

is it not child porn by definition?
see above

cp laws were not created in reaction to 17 year olds taking nudies of themselves
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
its still possession of underage porn
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

its still possession of underage porn
still failing to see your point

clearly i don't agree with the boundaries of this law so why you keep bringing up "it's technically child porn" is beyond me
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio
my point is it is against the law.  whether you like the law or not is a seperate issue.
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

my point is it is against the law.  whether you like the law or not is a seperate issue.
good thing they're not set in stone eh, you know, reviewed and all

clearly it's against the law. doesn't make it any less stupid
Buckles
Cheeky Keen
+329|5635|Kent, UK

11 Bravo wrote:

is it not child porn by definition?
I would say no because she wasn't intending to circulate it.
Ultrafunkula
Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...
+1,975|5552|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Why should she be charged with kiddieporn when she just has a picture of herself on the phone?
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio

Bevo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

my point is it is against the law.  whether you like the law or not is a seperate issue.
good thing they're not set in stone eh, you know, reviewed and all

clearly it's against the law. doesn't make it any less stupid
same with some little slut suing for money.

i would charge her with possession and settle for 33k.
Ultrafunkula
Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...
+1,975|5552|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Lol
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|4316|Cleveland, Ohio

Buckles wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

is it not child porn by definition?
I would say no because she wasn't intending to circulate it.
circulation is different from possession
Bevo
Nah
+718|5600|Austin, Texas

11 Bravo wrote:

Bevo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

my point is it is against the law.  whether you like the law or not is a seperate issue.
good thing they're not set in stone eh, you know, reviewed and all

clearly it's against the law. doesn't make it any less stupid
same with some little slut suing for money.

i would charge her with possession and settle for 33k.
this is one of the rare cases where a lawsuit actually makes some sense, violation of privacy and all. i'd rather the teacher fired

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard