Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glatt
The grandparents, not the government, snooped in the diary.
|
Hey, if my son snatches his sister’s diary without her permission and reads it, that’s snooping. If he then shows the diary to his brother, then they’re BOTH snooping. No permission=snooping. Even an 18 year old in Kentucky has a right to be secure in his effects. 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glatt
They were motivated by something. We don't know what motivated them, but it's possible they knew this kid well, and knew that he might pull a Columbine. They were worried enough by what they found in the diary to call the police on their own flesh and blood. Most grandparents wouldn't get their grandkids in trouble with the law unless they absolutely had to.
|
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glatt
The police read what was in the diary and decided it was bad. The DA agreed. The boy is claiming he is innocent. Is that really a surprise? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
This is why we have trials. The jury can read the journal, listen to the kid, hear from the english teacher, read what the law says, and make a decision.
|
Again, reasonable on it’s face, but the serious crisis here is why we are even having this discussion! More and more instances like this, where we are presented with a “potential” crime, places our national standard of innocent until proven guilty UNDER SIEGE.
No bulwark can resist constant pounding without being eroded. If our ideals are important, they must be protected. This constant drumbeat of criminal, terrorist, fear, fear, fear creates what it shouts about—literally. I know there was a time in our past when is was not a felony to write
anything in a journal. But now, apparently those days are gone. Pound, pound, pound, that is the sound of your freedoms being ground away, in the name of preserving them. Where is the drumbeat in the name of civil liberties? Drowned out and shouted down, and we all are the poorer for it.
Get up, stand up,
Don’t give up the fight.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glatt
You are making a decision after only listening to the kid.
|
No, I am not. This is not true. I am making some decisions after listening to what was reported, and the kid has something to say in the story and so does the law. For example:
”Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony.”
Hel-lo. The nature of a story makes it a felony?! This is not what I signed up for—scandalous. It’s a felony to write about stuff in my journal?!
From 1984:
Thoughtcrime - see crimethink
crimethink - To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself.
Ingsoc - English Socialism. (feel free to substitute American Democracy in this thread)
Is this what we want to support? Striving to control thought in a doomed effort to control crime? Please clarify your position.