This is hardly the best example in the world of a frivolous lawsuit, so I'm not sure why you guys are getting so annoyed about it. Her rights were violated.
The one thing I am annoyed is the court system really did not need to get involved. Between her parents and the principal they could of reached an agreement like sensible people. This would of been a private matter, no one, other than the parents, the principal, and BF would of known what she had in her phone. The parents and their slut daughter, knew they had a winnable case and exploited the situation.....the principal's error of judgement. On top of that, the whole school knows enough information about her, her phone, and who has seen it.
I am annoyed because all of this could of been avoidable and kept private, but $$$ prevails.
My Verdict: She is a SLUT
I am annoyed because all of this could of been avoidable and kept private, but $$$ prevails.
My Verdict: She is a SLUT
Last edited by loubot (2010-09-23 04:48:14)
Of course money prevails. Who wouldn't take money when they could, and should?
£ makes the world go round.
£ makes the world go round.
My 2nd Verdict: Jord is going to marry her for 33k
Damn right. All the naked pics I want and free money? Sounds ideal.
A slut for taking pictures of herself for her and her boyfriend? Hardly. This isn't the 1930's.loubot wrote:
The one thing I am annoyed is the court system really did not need to get involved. Between her parents and the principal they could of reached an agreement like sensible people. This would of been a private matter, no one, other than the parents, the principal, and BF would of known what she had in her phone. The parents and their slut daughter, knew they had a winnable case and exploited the situation.....the principal's error of judgement. On top of that, the whole school knows enough information about her, her phone, and who has seen it.
I am annoyed because all of this could of been avoidable and kept private, but $$$ prevails.
My Verdict: She is a SLUT
You guys are thinking with your peters. Do you think 90% of parents would approve their teen daughter sending nude pics to whomever? I don't think majority of parents would be so casual and care-free thinking as you gents.
So because her parents wouldn't approve that makes her a slut? I'm sure her parents don't approve of her having sex with her boyfriend, does that make her a slut?loubot wrote:
You guys are thinking with your peters. Do you think 90% of parents would approve their teen daughter sending nude pics to whomever? I don't think majority of parents would be so casual and care-free thinking as you gents.
her parents made money off of her, proof she is a slutghettoperson wrote:
So because her parents wouldn't approve that makes her a slut? I'm sure her parents don't approve of her having sex with her boyfriend, does that make her a slut?loubot wrote:
You guys are thinking with your peters. Do you think 90% of parents would approve their teen daughter sending nude pics to whomever? I don't think majority of parents would be so casual and care-free thinking as you gents.
You're thinking of 'whore'. Sluts don't charge.
30's lol...sluts took naked pics of themselves with polaroids in the 80's.ghettoperson wrote:
A slut for taking pictures of herself for her and her boyfriend? Hardly. This isn't the 1930's.loubot wrote:
The one thing I am annoyed is the court system really did not need to get involved. Between her parents and the principal they could of reached an agreement like sensible people. This would of been a private matter, no one, other than the parents, the principal, and BF would of known what she had in her phone. The parents and their slut daughter, knew they had a winnable case and exploited the situation.....the principal's error of judgement. On top of that, the whole school knows enough information about her, her phone, and who has seen it.
I am annoyed because all of this could of been avoidable and kept private, but $$$ prevails.
My Verdict: She is a SLUT
look i know your generation thinks you are original and doing something new but here is a news flash. sluts have always been sluts no matter the year. this girl is a slut.
she just made up she was going to send them to her bf. fuck you cannot buy that ghetto, can you?
Why would he not buy it? The odds are in favour of her sending them to her bf and not a load of random guys...
i wouldnt take that bet tbhjord wrote:
The odds are in favour of her sending them to her bf and not a load of random guys...
Child porn is only illegal because: for the porn to be produced there has to be a child being abused, and the person consuming the porn is creating an incentive to create more porn thus cause more abuse. So yes it was CP but it really doesn't fit the reason for banning CP in the first place. It doesn't make sense to charge her with CP.there's also that whole religion thing but I'll ignore that
That said, she and her family are stupid money grubbing diseases. She's stupid for not locking her phone and or media section since phones are great things to steal and by not locking it she puts herself at serious risk. She's also stupid for bringing a phone with CP into school and using it during class. If she wanted to take pictures of herself and send it all across the internet then fine by me but at least be smart about it. Zero compassion points awarded to the girl.
As for her parents- most parents would be pretty upset if their female child was having sex at 17 and sending out pictures of herself. It's not a smart thing to send out nude pictures of yourself. You would think the parents would be a bit more upset by this and just sue to get the suspension removed from her record which would have been fair since the suspension is bullshit. But instead they wanted some money to help the recovery process along and that makes them money grubbing cancers. The kid shouldn't have been rewarded for doing something she shouldn't have done in the first place. Be better parents.
On a sidenote, if you care so much about your privacy and what other people think of you don't create records of things. This includes: movies, pictures, messages, and diaries entries. Creating evidence of something in digital or physical form is inviting trouble.
tl;dr Fuck her and her family.
That said, she and her family are stupid money grubbing diseases. She's stupid for not locking her phone and or media section since phones are great things to steal and by not locking it she puts herself at serious risk. She's also stupid for bringing a phone with CP into school and using it during class. If she wanted to take pictures of herself and send it all across the internet then fine by me but at least be smart about it. Zero compassion points awarded to the girl.
As for her parents- most parents would be pretty upset if their female child was having sex at 17 and sending out pictures of herself. It's not a smart thing to send out nude pictures of yourself. You would think the parents would be a bit more upset by this and just sue to get the suspension removed from her record which would have been fair since the suspension is bullshit. But instead they wanted some money to help the recovery process along and that makes them money grubbing cancers. The kid shouldn't have been rewarded for doing something she shouldn't have done in the first place. Be better parents.
On a sidenote, if you care so much about your privacy and what other people think of you don't create records of things. This includes: movies, pictures, messages, and diaries entries. Creating evidence of something in digital or physical form is inviting trouble.
tl;dr Fuck her and her family.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-09-23 14:13:22)
Be better parents? Yeah because parents can control and know about everything their 17 year old child does, LOL.
Come on macbeth, who doesn't want money...
Come on macbeth, who doesn't want money...
Completely right, someone might see it through the telescreen.Macbeth wrote:
On a sidenote, if you care so much about your privacy and what other people think of you don't create records of things. This includes: movies, pictures, messages, and diaries entries. Creating evidence of something in digital or physical form is inviting trouble.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
There are ways to get money besides shooting off stupid lawsuits. Sorta like how there is a difference between a welfare check and paycheck.jord wrote:
Be better parents? Yeah because parents can control and know about everything their 17 year old child does, LOL.
Come on macbeth, who doesn't want money...
You know one's decent and and respectable and the other is something trash does.
It's hardly the most frivolous lawsuit to come outta the US...Macbeth wrote:
There are ways to get money besides shooting off stupid lawsuits. Sorta like how there is a difference between a welfare check and paycheck.jord wrote:
Be better parents? Yeah because parents can control and know about everything their 17 year old child does, LOL.
Come on macbeth, who doesn't want money...
You know one's decent and and respectable and the other is something trash does.
Unemployment money is a seperate issue.
$33k?
I wonder how that number was selected?
Boob - $10k
Muff - $13k
Boob - $10k
Being a media whore when you are a victim and actually a whore claiming not to be a whore - Priceless
I wonder how that number was selected?
Boob - $10k
Muff - $13k
Boob - $10k
Being a media whore when you are a victim and actually a whore claiming not to be a whore - Priceless
The U.S. meaning of welfare is different from the U.K. meaning. Welfare here means money you get paid because you don't make enough to support yourself and your children. Unemployment benefits are a whole separate thing and are okay in most peoples book, including mine.jord wrote:
It's hardly the most frivolous lawsuit to come outta the US...Macbeth wrote:
There are ways to get money besides shooting off stupid lawsuits. Sorta like how there is a difference between a welfare check and paycheck.jord wrote:
Be better parents? Yeah because parents can control and know about everything their 17 year old child does, LOL.
Come on macbeth, who doesn't want money...
You know one's decent and and respectable and the other is something trash does.
Unemployment money is a seperate issue.
Oh right ok.Macbeth wrote:
The U.S. meaning of welfare is different from the U.K. meaning. Welfare here means money you get paid because you don't make enough to support yourself and your children. Unemployment benefits are a whole separate thing and are okay in most peoples book, including mine.jord wrote:
It's hardly the most frivolous lawsuit to come outta the US...Macbeth wrote:
There are ways to get money besides shooting off stupid lawsuits. Sorta like how there is a difference between a welfare check and paycheck.
You know one's decent and and respectable and the other is something trash does.
Unemployment money is a seperate issue.
Just so you know I have a bias as I love her and her 33k.
You realize the large majority of phones dont actually have a "lock" option on them, right?Macbeth wrote:
That said, she and her family are stupid money grubbing diseases. She's stupid for not locking her phone and or media section since phones are great things to steal and by not locking it she puts herself at serious risk. She's also stupid for bringing a phone with CP into school and using it during class. If she wanted to take pictures of herself and send it all across the internet then fine by me but at least be smart about it. Zero compassion points awarded to the girl.
Also, anyone who actually knew any girls in high school could easily get or get sent pics of girls from class. Its not uncommon at all, meaning everyone should leave their phones at home since they technically have CP on it? And using it in class? lol... Everyone texts/BBMs in class.
If this happened to me or someone I know I would absolutely sue. He had zero right to do what he did and since he was acting on the authority of the school, they deserve to be sued. As for the money, its not really that significant of an amount when you take in a school board budget. At least it will show other principles and school officials that searching phones without cause is quite unacceptable.
$30k for a down-payment on a sports car or luxury suv and $3k for beauty schoolPug wrote:
$33k?
I wonder how that number was selected?
Boob - $10k
Muff - $13k
Boob - $10k
Being a media whore when you are a victim and actually a whore claiming not to be a whore - Priceless
Last edited by loubot (2010-09-23 15:23:21)
Almost all modern phones are designed with some sort of lock function. In the U.S. at least. I haven't seen a phone that wasn't from the early 2000's that didn't have a lock function.Winston_Churchill wrote:
You realize the large majority of phones dont actually have a "lock" option on them, right?Macbeth wrote:
That said, she and her family are stupid money grubbing diseases. She's stupid for not locking her phone and or media section since phones are great things to steal and by not locking it she puts herself at serious risk. She's also stupid for bringing a phone with CP into school and using it during class. If she wanted to take pictures of herself and send it all across the internet then fine by me but at least be smart about it. Zero compassion points awarded to the girl.
Also, anyone who actually knew any girls in high school could easily get or get sent pics of girls from class. Its not uncommon at all, meaning everyone should leave their phones at home since they technically have CP on it? And using it in class? lol... Everyone texts/BBMs in class.
If this happened to me or someone I know I would absolutely sue. He had zero right to do what he did and since he was acting on the authority of the school, they deserve to be sued. As for the money, its not really that significant of an amount when you take in a school board budget. At least it will show other principles and school officials that searching phones without cause is quite unacceptable.
This story is about a girl having pictures of herself not something she could just have sent to her in the middle of class. I always take circumstance into consideration...Also, anyone who actually knew any girls in high school could easily get or get sent pics of girls from class.
If you have a phone full of CP, you assume a certain level of risk when you take the phone out with you. Again, I have nil compassion for her since the whole situation was her own fault. She either should have never taken the pictures, or she should have locked her phone, or she should have not been texting.Its not uncommon at all, meaning everyone should leave their phones at home since they technically have CP on it?
The amount of money isn't the point. It's the principle of it, the fact that the child did something wrong and is getting a payday out of it and that her parents are cool with that.
As for the legality of cellphone searches- as of 09, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10140373-38.html
There have been cases that say searching a phone is perfectly legal and there have been cases that say it isn't. So the legality of all this is pretty inconclusive until SCOTUS decides.
Err, no. They dont. Since the 2000s? lol, they probably just introduced the function then. I bet I could go to the store right now and find at least half the phones dont have a password to unlock function.Macbeth wrote:
Almost all modern phones are designed with some sort of lock function. In the U.S. at least. I haven't seen a phone that wasn't from the early 2000's that didn't have a lock function.Winston_Churchill wrote:
You realize the large majority of phones dont actually have a "lock" option on them, right?Macbeth wrote:
That said, she and her family are stupid money grubbing diseases. She's stupid for not locking her phone and or media section since phones are great things to steal and by not locking it she puts herself at serious risk. She's also stupid for bringing a phone with CP into school and using it during class. If she wanted to take pictures of herself and send it all across the internet then fine by me but at least be smart about it. Zero compassion points awarded to the girl.
Also, anyone who actually knew any girls in high school could easily get or get sent pics of girls from class. Its not uncommon at all, meaning everyone should leave their phones at home since they technically have CP on it? And using it in class? lol... Everyone texts/BBMs in class.
If this happened to me or someone I know I would absolutely sue. He had zero right to do what he did and since he was acting on the authority of the school, they deserve to be sued. As for the money, its not really that significant of an amount when you take in a school board budget. At least it will show other principles and school officials that searching phones without cause is quite unacceptable.
Huh? People get sent pictures, keep them until they change phones. How is this different? Its pretty irrelevant that they were pictures of her.Macbeth wrote:
This story is about a girl having pictures of herself not something she could just have sent to her in the middle of class. I always take circumstance into consideration...Also, anyone who actually knew any girls in high school could easily get or get sent pics of girls from class.
You really didnt have any friends in high school did you?Macbeth wrote:
If you have a phone full of CP, you assume a certain level of risk when you take the phone out with you. Again, I have nil compassion for her since the whole situation was her own fault. She either should have never taken the pictures, or she should have locked her phone, or she should have not been texting.Its not uncommon at all, meaning everyone should leave their phones at home since they technically have CP on it?
Police != School. Fail comparison.Macbeth wrote:
The amount of money isn't the point. It's the principle of it, the fact that the child did something wrong and is getting a payday out of it and that her parents are cool with that.
As for the legality of cellphone searches- as of 09, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10140373-38.html
There have been cases that say searching a phone is perfectly legal and there have been cases that say it isn't. So the legality of all this is pretty inconclusive until SCOTUS decides.
And its not the girl that did something wrong. Its the principal that was in the wrong, clearly.