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

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Finray wrote:

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'.

perfectly worded +1

1st amendment has nothing to do with searching anything

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

Lucien wrote:

I think there are much worse arguments to use than "it's a constitutional law"

It's still a poor argument.

Clinging to the constitution is hardly a poor argument.  It's the basis for the entire system of government here.

Everything should be questioned and logic always upheld.

Mutantbear wrote:

You don't have any rights in school... They can search your shit

Yeah but presumably with good reason.

Camm wrote:

Mutantbear wrote:

You don't have any rights in school... They can search your shit

Yeah but presumably with good reason.

I wonder if the principal kept the pictures

divine right to rule

jord wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

youre just jealous cus you have no constitution.  you should run for king jord

I'm not jealous, if I want to refer to an old piece of paper written by people that have long since passed for my arguments I'll refer to the magna carta, thanks.

Is the problem that the document was written by people who are dead?  The concept of fundamental freedoms being protected is not a dated one.

Mutantbear wrote:

Camm wrote:

Mutantbear wrote:

You don't have any rights in school... They can search your shit

Yeah but presumably with good reason.

I wonder if the principal kept the pictures

They can search your locker if it's school property (ie. on school grounds).  They could search a laptop they give out to students (as it's still school property).  They can't search any personal property without your permission.  Police can if they have a warrant or can demonstrate probable cause.

jord wrote:

No, there's no problem. I'm just yet to see the constitution questioned here yet, I find it odd when its raised in a debate its like some card that trumps all other cards...

People question it and it's interpretations here all the time.  Commerce clause anyone?

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

No, there's no problem. I'm just yet to see the constitution questioned here yet, I find it odd when its raised in a debate its like some card that trumps all other cards...

People question it and it's interpretations here all the time.  Commerce clause anyone?

They don't question it as a force though. Whenever the right to bear arms comes up you can guarantee rather than the subject being debated solely with logic, reason and facts someone will come in and start shouting "read the 2nd amendment fags" like it has any bearing on the discussion at hand... It pains me.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Finray wrote:

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'.

thats the root cause of the lawsuit, yes.  the root cause of the whole issue remains as i stated.

Lucien wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Lucien wrote:

too little, too late

you say i am trolling, yet what have you done in this thread?

I've pointed out that you are trolling

continue

how is speaking to the topic trolling?

which btw you are not doing.

jord wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

jord wrote:

No, there's no problem. I'm just yet to see the constitution questioned here yet, I find it odd when its raised in a debate its like some card that trumps all other cards...

People question it and it's interpretations here all the time.  Commerce clause anyone?

They don't question it as a force though. Whenever the right to bear arms comes up you can guarantee rather than the subject being debated solely with logic, reason and facts someone will come in and start shouting "read the 2nd amendment fags" like it has any bearing on the discussion at hand... It pains me.

See, here's the thing though--that right to bear arms and how it has been interpreted is the law of the land.  In order to change that, one would need to pass an amendment.  Until then, there isn't much to discuss other than 'how much is too much' for gun control.  Saying that the second amendment is outdated is certainly an argument, but it's a firmly entrenched freedom.

Besides, people do argue about the comma placement in the wording of the second amendment.  Most of us on BF2s aren't legal scholars though, so such minutae would be lost on us.