Is the ACLU nuts?

[Dave Schwartz]

This is a purely anecdotal story... I heard it last night on my local news channel (KOLO 8 - ABC).

There was a segment on protecting your kids from drugs. part of the segment was dedicated to home drug testing, centering around how easy it is these days to get an accurate home testing kit.

Some of the parents (as well as the kids with drug issues) said that the tests saved the lives of their kids. Note that these kids are all school age; mid-teens.

So, in steps an ACLU attorney who says that this is a violation of the children's privacy and is illegal.


My question to you is, "Are these guys nuts?"

Do they really want to take all parenting decisions and rights away from the parents?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Overlay]

It goes hand-in-hand with taking parents out of the loop on decisions about what to do when their under-18 daughter becomes pregnant.

[The Judge]

No lawyer would start out asking for the whole pie when a slice at a time will do nicely. Parents are beating their kidds! That goes to No spanking kidds or they will call in the child protective services and I ain't talkin hitting kidds I'm talking a butt spanking.

You can't spank them but if they act-up in the street and get arrested (the parents in some states have reimburse the cost of confinement ), killed by the cops then where is the government they won't even help with the cost of the funeral.

[OTM Al]

The ACLU is certainly a favorite whipping boy for many people on this board and many of the cases that they take up that make the news certainly make people say "huh?" However, I feel the work that they do is vital to the maintenace of the freedoms and personal liberties that are the very foundation of what makes this country great. Our constitution and system of laws are without a doubt in my mind one of the greatest human achievements in all of history and I believe what the ACLU does protects that heritage that has been given to us. Do they really side with the murders and child molesters they take up cases for? Of course not. They know these people are the most repulsive and vile people out there and the vast majority of these lawyers probably wouldn't shed a tear if these guys went away forever. What they do care about is the fact that we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. If the law protects these vile wastes of space, then it certainly protects me and you. The law either protects everyone or it protects no one.

Let's consider the two things that have been mentioned. First, there is the thread starter about parents forcing their childeren to take drug tests. The thought of this really boggles my mind. What the hell is going on that you feel it is necessary to give your kid a drug test?????? There are two possible outcomes here. The kid is on drugs or he isn't. If he isn't, then maybe the kid is needing a little help from somebody on the outside because there is some pretty wierd behavior going on in his home. If he is on drugs then what the hell good is giving a drug test anyway??? There's deeper problems there that the parent has already missed. These aren't even legal arguements about invasion of privacy issues which is the real point of providing protection to these kids if they want it. I have no problem with legal protection for these kids, especially when we're talking about the first case presented when the kid really isn't taking drugs.

How about abortion and parental consent. Again, in the ideal world, the kid should be able to come home and talk to her parents and all would be happily resolved. This just isn't often going to be the case. Yes, I realize that much of the time you are dealing with an embarassed and confused kid, who would get support and comfort from her parents. But what about the cases when if the kid speaks up she is either thrown out or physically abused, or even worse what if daddy or someone else very close to the family is daddy? What protection is in place there?

The law is not perfect. It is created by people, so never can be. It can never take care of all possible circumstances. It does have to be there though to protect those who need it. I for one am glad that there are people out there looking out for their fellow man, even if that entails having to represent some killer neo-Nazi bigot.

[chickenhead]

I knew a couple kids who were given fairly routine drug tests, mostly after they had been involved in some fairly reckless and highly illegal behavior. Generally it was with the understanding that if they stayed clean, ok, if not, get sent off to rehab (again) etc.

I don't see how this violates the childs rights, I've seen the state make drug tests manditory as a part of probation, can't see why parents don't have the same right -- considering the child is their ward.

[OTM Al]

In that case it would not because there was an agreement there. Same with someone on probation. You've committed prior bad acts that you have been caught for so here's the deal. Nothing wrong with that. In either case the person can submit to the test or say no and face the agreed on consequences. Even in the case with the kid, he should still have the right to say no, but in doing so, he should know the consequences and the parent has every right to kick his deadbeat ass out of the house.

What I'm talking about is the case when such things are forced on someone without consent. Imagine the case of a mentally unstable parent that has decided the kid is doing drugs. The kid hasn't been. Why should the kid be forced into further humiliation than he's probably already suffered? That's what the protection is for.

[sq764]

This is a purely anecdotal story... I heard it last night on my local news channel (KOLO 8 - ABC).

There was a segment on protecting your kids from drugs. part of the segment was dedicated to home drug testing, centering around how easy it is these days to get an accurate home testing kit.

Some of the parents (as well as the kids with drug issues) said that the tests saved the lives of their kids. Note that these kids are all school age; mid-teens.

So, in steps an ACLU attorney who says that this is a violation of the children's privacy and is illegal.


My question to you is, "Are these guys nuts?"

Do they really want to take all parenting decisions and rights away from the parents?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
The irony is that the ACLU actually went before Congress at one point and argued that child pornography was not illegal and was protected under the 1st Amendment.

[Dave Schwartz]

AL,

I don't want to get embroiled deeply here but to suggest that the parent has to have the consent of a minor-aged child (i.e. under 18) to search his room or demand a drug test is, IMHO, insane.

Parents, not the state, should have the right to reasonabile control over their children. To me, this includes whatever policies the parents feel it necessary to impose - obviously short of child abuse.

In our home, we told our children that we might, if given cause, search their rooms, computers, etc. but that it was not to be expected without some reasonable cause. What constituted reasonable casue was completely up to us. That is called "being in charge."

Reality is that we never felt the need to exercise those rights.


Dave

PS: SQ makes an excellent point as well. See? Insanity.

[sq764]

What I'm talking about is the case when such things are forced on someone without consent. Imagine the case of a mentally unstable parent that has decided the kid is doing drugs. The kid hasn't been. Why should the kid be forced into further humiliation than he's probably already suffered? That's what the protection is for.
What about a case of a mentally stable parent who suspects that their child is doing drugs, but cannot, by law, find out? Then the kid overdoses and dies, when all the while it could have been prevented?

Sometimes a parent's obligation to protect their child, even from themselves, overrides any so-called rights a child thinks they have or should have.

[OTM Al]

SQ makes an excellent point, except its not exactly true. Their arguement and position was the following:

In a 2002 letter, the ACLU stated that it "opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions," but that material "which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment."

Thay took the stand that distributing child porn, as defined by statute was not protected free speech. What is protected is the distribution of things that have no children in them and are not otherwise obscene. Were that not the case, that means you could be prosecuted for selling one of those baby pissing in the bowl fountains or for drawing a picture with a kid telling a dirty joke or for selling porn with of age models dressed up like kids. While the first 2 are tasteless and the last pretty perverted in my book, their point is that such things do not constitute violations of child pornography laws.

[OTM Al]

Dave,

From what you are saying, it sounds like you are a pretty damn good parent and you are doing all the stuff you can to make sure your kids grow up safe and well. If everyone behaved as you do, there would be no need for such arguements to be made. You clearly talk to your kids and are aware of what they are doing. To work in sq's point here, that is the communication that avoids the finality of his statement. What recourse do they have? They can talk to the child, the child's friends, friend's parents and teachers and find out what is going on. If they are not satisfied by the answers received they can have the kid turn out his stuff and have a look at what he may be hiding as Dave suggests. What I'm saying is wrong is simply going from I suspect to piss in a cup. It doesn't sound to me like the kind of parenting you are doing Dave, it in fact doesn't sound like parenting at all.

[Dave Schwartz]

From what you are saying, it sounds like you are a pretty damn good parent and you are doing all the stuff you can to make sure your kids grow up safe and well. If everyone behaved as you do, there would be no need for such arguements to be made.


Well, that's a good thought but I don't really believe it.

As a parent, you do the best you can do and it is rarely good enough. LOL - Seems all kids stub their toes on something - I know I did - and when all is said and done, they come forward and say, "If only my parents had taught/shown/given me..." and whatever you, personally, were lacking in turns out to be what they needed most.

So, you do what you can do and, even if you do most of it right, no matter how attentive you have been, it is still a crap shoot.


But all of this is off topic. The point is that if this super-parent you have described above chooses to should they be allowed to search?

And, obviously equality being such an issue, then the lesser parents should have the same rights?

If not, is there a parenting guide to follow that determines what one must do to be a super-parent?


Dave

[OTM Al]

Yeah, I know what you are saying. We all did stuff we shouldn't have. That's why they call it growing up I guess. And its not off topic at all but in reality the crux of the whole matter.

The distinction I see is this. I think all parents should have the right to search. It is your house. You supplied the money for the things the kid has and you are legally responsible if drugs or other illegal items are on your property. With the drug test though, I would consider it a privacy violation to force it because the one thing you do not own is the person of the kid himself. Its a very fine line, but I do understand where they are coming from on this and I do have to agree with them.

[The Judge]

Just not this time. It's true that they are a whipping boy by many but if they want to keep supporters they had to choose their fights a little better. What is the hot button about parents testing their childern for drugs? They don't take every good case that comes into the office they can't. Why this one?

That's what I don't understand.

It's like the boats sinking and they are buying paint for the mask.

[chickenhead]

What are you talking about when you say "force"...to me that is probably the important part.

I don't know what the case in question was about, but the kid almost always has some choice in the matter...they may just not like the consequences.

[sq764]

SQ makes an excellent point, except its not exactly true. Their arguement and position was the following:

In a 2002 letter, the ACLU stated that it "opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions," but that material "which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment."

Thay took the stand that distributing child porn, as defined by statute was not protected free speech. What is protected is the distribution of things that have no children in them and are not otherwise obscene. Were that not the case, that means you could be prosecuted for selling one of those baby pissing in the bowl fountains or for drawing a picture with a kid telling a dirty joke or for selling porn with of age models dressed up like kids. While the first 2 are tasteless and the last pretty perverted in my book, their point is that such things do not constitute violations of child pornography laws.
I think hey had a little different stance, which is the part that sickens me:

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0404.htm

"This man said, with a straight face, that it is the ACLU’s position that child pornography should not be produced, but once it is in existence, there should be no restriction on its sale and distribution. "

[OTM Al]

SQ, if that is what was said, then there is no defense, but I'm having a little trouble with your source. Here is the 2002 ACLU stance on the issue

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html


In this they clearly state that child porn is not protected.

[sq764]

SQ, if that is what was said, then there is no defense, but I'm having a little trouble with your source. Here is the 2002 ACLU stance on the issue

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html


In this they clearly state that child porn is not protected.
I believe the reference I found was from 1985.. So HOPEFULLY they wisened up and their stance changed..

[kenwoodallpromos]

In answer to your question, here is an excerpt from the ACLU website ****mine:
__________
"The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law ***equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted ****government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."
______________
According to their own agenda children are not included in their groups with rights.
They are either stupid or nuts, but in either case they pick and choose their fights on a discrimitory basis only helping non-white, non-christian, non "authoritative" clients if vs a "minority" group listed above.
They absolutely actively work against their own stated principal of providing "equal protection" for groups or invididuals they consider to be in the majority population, so on second thought, YES, THEY ARE NUTS! :bang:

[twindouble]

What no one mentions is, it's human nature for "normal" people to protect their children, ESP their space, be it your home, your car, unwelcome people being to close and so on. It's a territorial thing, like any other animal it's normal to react strongly when the ACLU, the government, your neighbor or any other entity that infringes on that space. "Who the hell are they to tell me how to raisemy kids?" Sound familiar? That's right, MY kids!! "Or our Kids"! That's if the kids are fortunate enough to have two parents home. We have a responsibly to nurture, protect, teach and set them free.Not the state. Like I said any normal parent will defend those rights.

The problem is, some parents, mainly men are to possessive thinking they own the wife and kids to do whatever they want with them. It's Sick, perverted, call it whatever you want. In my opinion, no one ownsanother human being not even your own kids. That's not to say some woman can't be just as bad. So where do we draw the line when it comes to protecting innocent children and preserve our right as parents? That's the big question and there's no easy answer to that.

T.D.

[JPinMaryland]

In my opinion, no one ownsanother human being not even your own kids.
T.D.

You are stating the obvious in order to make some pt. Not sure what exactly that is. It's sort of like a straw man argument. It's already established you cant own people, then you postulate that some people think they can and then where do you go from there?

[twindouble]

You are stating the obvious in order to make some pt. Not sure what exactly that is. It's sort of like a straw man argument. It's already established you cant own people, then you postulate that some people think they can and then where do you go from there?

Read and copy the whole paragraph, if you don't understand it then I'll explain it, won't be the first time I had to do that. To start with, I would hope to think you know the difference between "normal" verses "sick," and "perverted".


T.D

[Indulto]

... I think all parents should have the right to search. It is your house. You supplied the money for the things the kid has and you are legally responsible if drugs or other illegal items are on your property. With the drug test though, I would consider it a privacy violation to force it because the one thing you do not own is the person of the kid himself. Its a very fine line, but I do understand where they are coming from on this and I do have to agree with them.OA,
It's a pleasure to read your posts as you have few peers here in articulating reason. You and DS have provided the rare occurence of intelligent, substantive debate on an issue that deserves it.

I'm not clear, though, on how far the child's privacy should extend and where the parent's responsibility to the child ends. Your justification for the parent searching the room seems reasonable, but what about the child's clothing being worn? What about lockers/storage not on school property? What about the kid's car if he/she owns it and it's not parked on the parent's property?

And under what circumstances can a parent legally or morally deny a minor child shelter including institutional treatment, if necessary?

One possible way to protect the falsely-suspected child from parental drug testing might be to require identical testing of ALL family members whenever any one of them is the target of another.

[OTM Al]

Thank you Indulto. I appreciate the fact that you recognize my efforts for open and meaningful debate on issues rather than the name calling that so much of our world seems to have fallen into.

The questions you pose are all very good ones. As for searching the various things you mention, they are all tough calls. For me the yardstick would be ownership. For example, if the kid owns and bought the car in its entirety, pays upkeep and insurance and its not on parents property, and the parents have never been given keys, which would imply permission to enter, I would have to say its out of bounds. Lockers and storage would follow the same. The clothes one is difficult as that would get a bit invasive, though knowing kids it would be easy enough to find them laying about on the floor after a few hours.

Denial of shelter is a wholly different thing and really an extreme, though I've got to say I've seen it happen, though the parents are generally bigger dirtbags than the kids, at least at that point. There are agencies and groups that can help beyond just the law, but one also need respect the rights of the parents as well. Its just as possible for the parents to be good and decent people and the kid is the proverbial bad seed. I don't know what conclusion to draw on this one as we are talking about the difference between parental neglect and self preservation here. Proof of destruction and injury would be enough to have a restraining order for a non minor, but I would have to look into the implications of same before I could say anything about a minor child. Maybe someone else here knows the laws on this a little better as that is a good place to start for guidelines

[The Judge]

What the h-ll are you two talking about. I'm not talking about testing my kids I'm talking about the rights of a "parent" to do so in their house under their roof . My next door neighbor says to me as we have our normal talk out front. "I'm testing my kids for drugs" I say I think thats the wrong thing to do(for some of the reasons alread mention here) he says O.K I value your opinion I'll think about it or he says "mind your own business".

Next week we get into an arguement over the fence. I call the cops "hey the guy next door is testing his kids for drugs." Police show up and take his kids or give him a citation.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this. There are enough things to turn neighbor against neighbor need one more. If you don't want to test your kids don't do it, I'm not ,but don't make world march to that beat.

[Tom]

Well, parents do no town the kids, but the area responsible for them and as long as they are underage, I say they parents have the right to drug test them. To say it is an invasion of thier privacy asusmes they have already achieved maturity. How far do we go with privacy from your parents when you are a minor?

[Indulto]

... We have a responsibly to nurture, protect, teach and set them free.Not the state. Like I said any normal parent will defend those rights.

The problem is, some parents, mainly men are to possessive thinking they own the wife and kids to do whatever they want with them. It's Sick, perverted, call it whatever you want. In my opinion, no one ownsanother human being not even your own kids.
... but one also need respect the rights of the parents as well. Its just as possible for the parents to be good and decent people and the kid is the proverbial bad seed. I don't know what conclusion to draw on this one as we are talking about the difference between parental neglect and self preservation here.Parenting is a learned skill and the world changes too quickly for many parents to adapt. Even the relatively well-prepared frequently face circumstances unfamiliar to their generation and knowledge base.

Increased choices, financial pressures, self-realization for both sexes, and the prevailing "me-first" attitude (to use only a few potential contributing factors) leads to less supervision and symptom recognition. Too often the "bad seed" is really one not sufficiently tended.

Such children are not just the products of broken homes or youthful surprises, but of well-to-do, well-informed, and well-intentioned parents with flaws of their own. Before we rule on the rights of the parents vs. the rights of the child, perhaps we need to be sure the parents are thinking and behaving like adults.

To me, it all comes down to the issue of "right-to-life." If we choose to bring a child into the world for whatever reason or justification, the child is entitled to whatever resources are required of the parent (and the government if it denies abortion) to raise it to be a productive member of society, or if that is not possible, a properly cared for for one. Too many parents see the train-wreck coming, but can't or won't obtain the necessary help to prevent it.

In the absence of large families where kids learned how to parent by helping to raise their siblings, perhaps compulsory parental training in high school would be at least as important as sex education. It's worth considering as an alternative to burning out social workers.

[twindouble]

Well, parents do no town the kids, but the area responsible for them and as long as they are underage, I say they parents have the right to drug test them. To say it is an invasion of thier privacy asusmes they have already achieved maturity. How far do we go with privacy from your parents when you are a minor?

That's exactly right Tom, how far do we go in depleting the rights of parents? That's the big question, like I said! What hell that has to do with a being "straw man" is beyond me. Perverted, sick parents abusing their kids that have no clue how to raise them, then what? Where do you draw the line? What the heck is "normal" in today's society anyway, I even have doubts the professional people can define it. To me rewarding bad behavior don't work, consistent discipline does work. Empty your dam pockets, this is your "FATHER" speaking! When a kid in his teens doesn't respect that, you blew it from the beginning. Wanting to be your kids best friend, is far from being a good parent. Then there's the control freaks that want to control every aspect of the kids life's experience, that's just as destructive as the Sick ignorant people I mentioned.

I never disciplined my children when they did something they didn't know it was wrong to begin with. They will learn right from wrong by your demeanor or reactions. For example, what's a sharp object to a toddler? You can't spank him or her for having no clue but you can tend to the other that's hurt.

I don't want to get into the can of worms I mentioned in my first post, many different opinions exist when it comes to parental rights and discipline. Even when it comes to laws from state to state.

T.D.

[Dave Schwartz]

Wow! I had no idea this post would stir such debate.

I've stated my position (I think) clearly enough so I guess I'll be done.

Have a good time guys.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Wait! A link to the story (from another station).

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/parent-administers-lifesaving-drug-test