Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.

There's quite a leap here - that the student's right to privacy was violated. Using the same logic - the principal would not be permitted to tell the parents that the student in question had left a pipe-bomb in the bathroom, or had threatened to kill her science teacher. This is certainly what I would call "selective privacy." If the student had been disciplined for something else, this wouldn't be an issue.

Now, if the student hadn't been disciplined, I think she might have a little more of a case, but even still it would be questionable at best.

To be followed, photographed, recorded in public --- that starts to be on some very thin ice, and it would certainly depend who was doing the photographing/recording. To allow an agent of the state to engage in such activities is a very orwellian slippery slope.

Phone calls, too. I think there is at the very least an expectation of confidentiality in conversation. Especially with regard to the law. A conversation between A & B is hearsay and accordingly not admissable as evidence, unless it is recorded. The fact that the legal status of the conversation is altered by the presence of a recording device certainly raises some questions about the legitimacy of taping a party who is unaware.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments: