BF2S Forums Girl Wins $33,000 Settlement from Her School (Naked Pics In Her Phone)

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

You realize the large majority of phones dont actually have a "lock" option on them, right?

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.

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.

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:

Also, anyone who actually knew any girls in high school could easily get or get sent pics of girls from class.

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...

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:

Its not uncommon at all, meaning everyone should leave their phones at home since they technically have CP on it?

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.

You really didnt have any friends in high school did you?

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.

Police != School.  Fail comparison.

And its not the girl that did something wrong.  Its the principal that was in the wrong, clearly.

1. The vast majority of phones I've come across have a password function. Moot point can't be proven one way or the other.

2. We're talking about a girl having pictures of herself, you're trying to take this to some other level that it really doesn't belong or make sense to go to.

3. Look, without the comments about my personal life can you actually argue against the point? Tell me how she is innocent in anyway. She made the pictures, she kept them on her phone, she texted while in class when she shouldn't have. She had it coming, I don't feel bad for her.

4. Authority. School administrators have almost the same amount of authority as the police when a student is in the building. Probable cause to search things and restrain people is extended to school administration. So, the comparison is perfectly valid.

5. She was the one with the illegal pornography, she was also in the wrong. They are both wrong. Should he/she have been looking through the phone? No, but should she have been in possession of CP or have been texting in class with a phone full of CP, also no. She isn't at all innocent here. Get that through your head, if the there was a proper reason to go through the phone or if she was stopped by the police she damn well may be looking at CP charges.

RTHKI wrote:

ive never encountered a password one except one of my friends mom put on her phone. .

The option is there people just don't use it.

spam posts above removed -un13

a) there have been cases before so i didnt make it up
b) i wouldnt just charge them for it but since they want to be greedy fucks and sue for god knows what, and since there is precedence, and since this thing was the sluts fault to begin with, then why not?

Finray wrote:

It's not the girls fault, she took pictures of herself, so what. If the teacher hadn't invaded her privacy the school wouldn't be sued.

That's like saying if someone runs out infront of you while you're driving, it's your fault because you have a car.

no.  she was talking on her phone in class.  not sure about your country but here you cant do that.  so, it is her fault, she started the whole thing.  and kids dont have much privacy.  they are not adults.

Finray wrote:

She was talking on her phone, and that gives the teacher the right to look through it?

That's some serious fucking flawed logic there. Most the teacher has the right to do is take the phone from her and give her it back at the end of the class. Not look through it.

nowhere did i say it gave him the right.  fact is this whole thing was her fault since she started it.

i dont agree.  if she hadnt been talking on the phone in class like a entitled disrespectful little cunt then none of this would have happened.

Camm wrote:

Wow 11B is the first American I've heard going against the Constitution.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy


wow keep talking though

11 Bravo wrote:

if she hadnt been talking on the phone in class like a entitled disrespectful little cunt then none of this would have happened.

If Alexander Bell didnt invent the telephone then none of this would have happened.

11 Bravo wrote:

Camm wrote:

Wow 11B is the first American I've heard going against the Constitution.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy


wow keep talking though

Fine, whatever. But I mean this

No/Yes wrote:

N.N.’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by searching her possessions without her express permission

Camm wrote:

Wow 11B is the first American I've heard going against the Constitution. Fail american.

Although I disagree with usm I don't think going against the US constitution is such a bad thing, the way people fall back on it like its gospel handed down by Thor himself to be aheared to at all costs. The worst argument someone can use is "but the constitution says"...

11 Bravo wrote:

Finray wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i dont agree.  if she hadnt been talking on the phone in class like a entitled disrespectful little cunt then none of this would have happened.

If he hadn't looked through her phone then none of this would have happened.

Looking through phone without permission = worse than talking in class.

well excuse me but i always look for the root cause.

root cause is the principal/school officials/police violated her 4th amendment rights to illegal search and seizure.  Taking pictures of yourself is not illegal.  Taking naked pics of yourself is not illegal.  Confiscating someone's personal property and searching it is illegal.  That's the root cause you're looking for.

You're free to judge her character all you want, but don't get things twisted regarding 'root cause'.