Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex
from the privacy-rights? dept
JMG alerts us to a bizarre lawsuit in which a former high school student in Kentucky, who was caught by her principal via surveillance camera having sex with another student, has now sued the (former) principal for violating her "privacy rights," by showing the video to a small group of other teachers, during which he apparently cracked some jokes. Now, there's no doubt that what the principal did sounds creepy and of highly questionable taste and ethics (and from the sound of the article, his actions may have resulted in him no longer working at the school). But it appears that the two students chose to have sex in the school where surveillance cameras were taping them... so I'm at a bit of a loss as to where a privacy right comes in. As JMG notes, the principle's actions sound pretty disgusting, but it's not clear there's a legal issue here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: privacy rights, surveillance video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expectation of privacy
There is the question of whether she had an expectation of privacy. Most adults would say no. It was a public location.
There have been rare instances in recorded history, and it is a well known fact, that on occasion, teens sometimes don't make the best decisions. :-) A teen might have had an expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your question breaks up in the middle with line noise and is unclear, but does not end with NO CARRIER.
The part about sound depends on whether the surveillance cameras record sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd first sentence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd first sentence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legally it sounds dubious, but then again, this is in Kentucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child porn?
Given how some overzealous prosecutors have gone nuts over prosecuting teenage girls for possession of topless pictures they took of themselves, it would be really ironic for prosecute rs to ignore the possession of an actual sex tape by a high school principal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child porn?
Funny thing, no matter which way it goes it will be "for the children".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Child porn?
As creepy as he sounds I hope that doesn't happen. What he did was wrong, but not at the "destroy the guy's life" level which is what a child porn charge would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CP Producer
I would however bet that this is the schools security video system, thereby giving them ownership and copyright to any video produced with their cameras. My question is: did the principal pay the necessary licensing fee to show this video? If not, he is in for a world of hurt when the MPAA sues him for the unauthorized public showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
I can't honestly see how distribution could be applied, but then again, I am not a lawyer, so someone else may have to verify.
Seems more like "public performance" may fit better then distribution, unless the principal made copies and handed them out, or uploaded to the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
You apparently have missed the points that question CP.
Simple fact: We don't know. Or was every single senior in your school under the age of 17?
No one said that copyright is more important that watching underage students in sexual congress. That issue has been brought up more then enough.
What the entire article is talking about has nothing to do with CP. It has to do with "Privacy Rights".
So, is it "probably child porn"? Statistically, yes.
Is it true that it is "child porn"? I don't know, and unless you are more familiar with the case then we see here, neither do you.
Now when you find the case labeled "for principal facing criminal charges of watching and publicly showing child porn", we can discuss that issue.
Until then, leave on the horse you rode in on, or go put the response in a thread in this very discussion that is dealing with that topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
One of the pains of internet communication, where facial expressions, body expression, tone of voice, etc. is missing.
It could also be I am overly sensitive to CP. My cousin was a victim while she was living in Germany, and I have two beautiful teenage daughters that a pedobear would probably love...
Coupled by the fact that I now live is Asia, where there is a real problem of "compensated dating", where high school girls basically prostitute themselves so they can get that new smart phone, or LV bag, or whatever. They even go around and stick their phone number on scooters so strange people can call them up for a "date".
I just take a more realistic view, and realize that over-protecting is just another way to silence people on other issues. After all, if the "plague of CP" was as prevalent as it is sometimes sold to us by those pushing their agendas, wouldn't that mean that we would see naked kids everywhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
if the plaintiff is 18 today ... the incident happened in 2009 ... the plaintiff was 16 ... legal to have sex(in KY) ... not legal to be filmed (Federal statue!)
At the very least he was guilty of possession of child porn. He should have destroyed it(no crime was committed by the participants - thus no need to turn it over to law enforcement) as soon as he understood what he was looking at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
An 18-year-old Male High School graduate has filed a lawsuit against her former principal, claiming he invited other staff members to watch a surveillance tape of the teen and another student having sex in the school cafeteria in 2009.
So, since when is 18 years old Child Porn?
So I guess we are left with, leave on the horse you rode in on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
18- 2 = 16
Therefore comes under Indecent Images (CP). Oh and Doesn't matter if published, distributed or filmed. All that matters is possession of CP that a reasonable person (and a teacher and principal would absolutely know what is and isn't) would know to be CP.
Whether the child at the time had an expectation of privacy in the area where said sexual act took place, and whether they knew of the camera's (hidden security camera's do exist) is what this case will be all about.
Though I am still intrigued why the Feds have not been all over this for the Indecent Imaging aspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
I looked it over, and got the impression that she was 18 at the time of the indecent. Had to read it a couple times, so either my English is deteriorating here in Taiwan, or they did not make it very clear.
After reading it over again, it seems that it may in fact be saying she is 18 now, which would make you correct.
Either way, my issue is not over her age, I think we can all agree that watching an minor engaging in sex is both immoral and illegal.
The issue I take, and what upsets me, is how DandonTRJ is insinuating we do not care about child porn, and care more about if it violates copyright.
I doubt if anyone here will argue that child porn is bad. But comments like his just remind me of all the ways in which people are trying to hide behind child porn in ways to take away our other freedoms. It ticks me off when someone is discussing a specific issue, and is followed up by the comment:
you know, aside from the fact that it's probably child porn. But that's obviously a less important issue than the copyright one
making it look like anyone actually discussing the applied topic (privacy rights) means that we do not care about other issues...especially when they are already addressed in several other threads in this various topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
Also, when a prosecution is having trouble getting one charge to stick they will often hunt around for other possible violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
The truth of that statement can be clearly demonstrated by the case of Al Capone, who after all the major criminal activity he was involved in, was only convicted of tax evasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
One of the funnier typos I've seen; if it's not a typo, it's still funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CP Producer
You realize you can be guilty of more then one crime, and be tried civilly on more then one issue, right?
In fact, if this is CP (Which seems to be the facts as of this point), he will probably receive different levels of sentences depending on what all he can be charged with.
In fact, you can look at many different levels of crime here:
Possession
Public display
Distribution
Creation (Although it was an automated system, please keep in mind from the case review, it appears he recorded it on a system outside the main surveillance storage, on his office, so this might be able to be argued)
Don't mitigate by saying "This is the biggest crime, so all others don't matter".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CP Producer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an Arguable Case, at Least
It'll be an open question based on the specific location and time whether it was a public place. If it was a public place or semi-public place, that doesn't necessarily mean that everything that can happen there is fair game for taping and replaying for an audience that doesn't have a legitimate interest in seeing the footage.
Surveillance cameras are meant to secure school grounds and students, which could imply a limitation on the use of the footage to such purposes. Indeed, the principal had at least an ethical obligation to protect the students, including from each other (and their mutually irresponsible actions), which he did not do. Instead, he used the surveillance camera footage to exploit these young people's ardor for the entertainment of himself and others.
This is not something what would be laughed out of court, and the principal's behavior is so bad relative to his official position and responsibilities that this case has a pretty good chance of success on the merits if the plaintiff's version of events is substantially true.
This seems like a privacy case, much more real than "who is tracking me so they can advertise to me based on my interest in golf."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an Arguable Case, at Least
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Court
That said, to prove almost any civil case of this nature, the girl must show damages. She must show how this somehow cost her something. Even if it's only emotional trauma, she has to prove that in some way she deserves money.
So...how did the principal showing this to his co-workers damage the girl? It's embarrassing, sure, but embarrassment isn't a reason to sue unless it lead to medical bills from seeing a psychologist or some other documented expense. Under what legal theory is this girl seeking relief?
Seems to me #8 and #9 inadvertently hit the nail on the head here. There's a very credible criminal child porn case. I would say not for production, since the surveillance system is obviously automated. However, most certainly both for possession and distribution. Nevertheless, unless there's something we haven't been told, this girl has no civil case.
She should drop the lawsuit ASAP and go to the cops, and get him prosecuted criminally. That has a vastly greater chance of resulting in the desirable outcome, i.e. punishing the guy.
Also, not to denigrate the victim here, but this sounds suspiciously like a shakedown. Yes, the guy is a creep, but if she was genuinely harmed, she should handle this criminally for the reasons above. Of course, even though it's more likely to work, it won't result in any money for the girl. The fact that she waited (at least?) a year and is suing him in civil court now speaks volumes to me. Sounds like someone who is trying to turn this around and profit from what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Court
Damages are an issue, but I can see a high-schooler being mortified and deeply affected in the quality of her life and relationships by this kind of exposure. The law of the state dictates whether some kind of physical manifestation of mental or emotional injury is required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Court
Having story published on a tech blog? Newspaper? that she is suing a former Principal who saw her fornicating via a security camera?
I never heard of this before, would I have heard about it if she wasn't making a case?
Not likely.
16 yrs old. Responsible enough to drive, but not enough to know when and where to remove clothing and fornicate?
You people and your precious snowflakes.
If I have a daughter, I hope I instill a little more class in her than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Court
If instead he's criminally prosecuted, the courts are engaged and (ideally) he's incarcerated. Who's going to pay for that? Not the perp, it'll be the taxpayers.
Again, so what if it's a shakedown, it's a justified one that will directly benefit the victim and save taxpayers uncounted dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Court
Whether or not it's justified is a matter of opinion. In my opinion there is no victim here, as the girl performed the act in a public location with no expectation of privacy, in view of mounted cameras. Now that suing the principal isn't a valid option as he may of incurred damages beyond that she would have sustained had someone simply walked in on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Court
Debatable, what if the supposed victim is being deprived of the natural incentives to not be dumb in the future? What if society is being deprived of needed examples of things that could go wrong?
Psychological damage or Psychological incentive?
They guy was creepy, but the girl was stupid and equally creepy, what kind of person have sex in open public spaces?
If it was and adult doing that would people care about the feeling of that person?
Will she grow up to let her curtains open when she changes her clothes and accuse others of invading her privacy when she failed to secure it properly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Court
The principle showed the movie for free! And there were multiple people in the room, so it was also a public performance! By **AA rules, she can claim triple the gross national product of Uganda in damages!
Oh, and while I'm at it: Won't you think of the children???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think 'child porn'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However morally questionable his actions may have been doesn't necessarily mean they're illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If someone were to secretly videotape you and your spouse having sex in your home, would you call that pornographic? The fact it was in the privacy of your residence is where the legality lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the USA, like most countries nowadays, a minor is legally defined as any person under the age of 18 years.
The age of consent has absolutely nothing to do with Indecent images.
You might like to read the whole of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (a) to learn all about how the Principal, and maybe the teachers, and sadly even maybe the students themselves (if they knew of the cameras..Stupidity I know) could be charged with distribution, possession, and publication of CP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That would be one hell of a backfire for the students. I hope the students realize that anything they say in civil court can be used to convict them in a criminal case of "producing" child porn.
She may or may not get her "privacy was violated" money in civil court, but end up as a registered sex offender for the rest of her life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Principal might be a dick but there's a possibility he didn't do anything criminal or tortfeasant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They did it in the school cafeteria, a large, open room. Even though it was after school, they'd have to be pretty stupid to think that such a location was private. While students and faculty might not normally go in there after school, there are still janitors cleaning and emptying garbage cans, security personnel, and maybe other students still hanging around, like they were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How can you expect an open room in a public school to be private? As for stopping what you're doing if someone walks in, how do two people in the middle of having sex, jump up and fix their clothes without the other person seeing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would not expect anyone to see whatever I was doing alone in the street after dark when I can see no-one looking at me.
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy rights in a public spot?
The kids are mortified? They had sex in school, in front of a camera. The principal was out of line, sure. But they should have seen this coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
Do others believe that school property is open to visitation by anyone regardless of purpose? I doubt it, considering what it would that do to the functioning of the school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
I've never seen anyone booted off of school property for say, practicing golf, after school hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
The public does not get free access to school grounds, even if they have students enrolled in the school or are intending to enroll them. There are signs on every external door proclaiming this: "All visitors must report directly to the office". This means you must go to the office and get permission to be at the school. Without that permission, you're trespassing, regardless of things like if you have kids enrolled in the school.
Schools are not a public space in the sense that shopping malls or public parks are. They are restricted spaces open only to those who have express permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
Former students used to drop into our classes unannounced to say hi to teachers. I'm talking students who had graduated a decade earlier.
We certainly didn't call in the swat team. Nor were they told to GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
It sure as heck is and in many cases, it's a waiver of your right to life as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
Depends on what you call assault.
If I ask you to leave my property and you do not leave, I will put my hands on you, steering you in the right direction off of my property. If you resist, I will use more force.
I would make a citizens arrest and call the police before I thought of shooting you though. Although I have also asked people to leave while holding a rifle in my hands(I don't like having to call police). They left. In case it isn't obvious, was not in a city/town.
So yes, if touching you is assault, then I may assault you if you do not leave after being asked to do so. You may go call police after if you like. Tell them you refused to leave my property and I pushed you off of it and you want me charged with assault. Go ahead. Make my day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
Perhaps not a "waiver" per se, but there is a principle called "clean hands". It basically means that if you're riding dirty, don't come to court expecting them to help you out. If you're pot deal goes south, you can't sue about it in court. If you're trespassing, perhaps you can't sue about damage to your privacy rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, having sex at a public school in a public facility is PUBLIC. The students are complete idiots if they think having sex in the school cafeteria won't result in the possibility of them being seen.
The security camera did precisely what it was meant to do by recording any unwarranted conduct. It caught two students acting inappropriately and being an automated system the retention of the video could probably only be accessed by approved individuals.
The actions of the principle seem to be completely out-of-line and should most certainly be brought before a court of law both criminal and civil. Any disciplinary action should have been taken immediately by detaining the students and contacting their parents if they were under the age of 16 (legal age of consent in Kentucky). If they were 16 or older, then the parents wouldn't necessarily have to be contacted, though I see no reason why they shouldn't have been anyway.
Furthermore, there is no child pornography grounds if the students were of legal age and no privacy rights violations for being in a public place.
The biggest problem I see (other than the dirtbag principle) is why didn't any of the other faculty members stop or confront the principle the second they realized what the content of the video entailed? If they were truly "offended" they should have said something or contacted the authorities immediately - I would hope none of them are still employed with anything having to do with the supervision of children.
In any case, it's the students own fault for doing a stupid thing in a public place and should have to deal with the consequence of a poor decision. The girl suing likely has no grounds for a civil suit of privacy rights violation, as it was in a public place. The principle in all reality may or may not be in violation of any actual law, that would mostly be left up to the litigation surrounding the Department of Education and what type of action is allowed for such circumstances as those surrounding this incident.
If the same thing were to happen on a college campus, I doubt there would be as much fuss about this as everyone is making. Would it be illegal for the chief administrator to distribute a video of a consenting couple of legal age having intercourse in a public place? Most likely no, but it would certainly call the character of the individual into question and whether or not they are fit for the position depending on the moral grounds set forth by the governing body of the institution.
The fact that it took place in a government facility is probably the only thing that can have any legal standing, anything else involved in the case probably will be dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I dismissed the claim that just because the act of having sex was recorded that it's a privacy violation, the fact remains it was in a public facility and on that basis alone it may not have sufficient standing for a privacy rights violation.
However, the position of the principal entails a certain level of guardianship and more importantly to the scrutiny of personally sensitive material. Disseminating the addresses and social security numbers of students to people who do not have administrative access to that kind of information is a violation of privacy rights. If the school had similar privacy protections relating to the footage captured by their surveillance systems, and the principle violated those protections by releasing the information to unauthorized parties then the student has sufficient grounds to seek a civil suit against him.
Perhaps it is you who might wish to take Mark Twain's advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He lost his job, that is a negative consequence for him.
His reputation is tarnish in that community that is a negative consequence for him.
You want more bad consequences? why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
The comments were inapproprate for sure, but I don't know if he should lose his job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
The principle DID watch the video himself, and instead of stopping the students whilst in the act he continued to observe them and THEN decided to intervene. He then showed the video to other faculty members for what appears to be only for his own amusement, as the article reports no disciplinary action was taken by the school.
Doctors are not REQUIRED to have anyone else in the room with them while doing clinical examinations, in this day in age of sexual harassment sue-happy individuals it just makes sense - mostly it's just to provide the patient with an extra sense of security or comfort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
Regardless of the general notions of security, the cameras in a school are not intended to stop particular instances of wrongdoing, but to provide evidence of wrongdoing after the fact. At my old high school, for instance, there were 37 functioning surveillance cameras and 12 dummies (mostly directly outside the bathrooms). Those numbers may have changes by now, but there was rarely anyone monitoring those in real-time, and of the 37 feeds, only 8 were ever monitored for any length of time at all.
The point of the cameras was for footage to be reviewed later to identify any troublemakers after they caused the trouble. If this Kentucky school is anything like mine, then the principal likely found the footage while reviewing the footage after the fact, and it would be far more creepy for him not to share the footage.
Anyway, your suggestion that he should have stopped the act in progress is laughable at best, and he probably had no reason to believe that a routine review of security tape would contain anything questionable beyond relatively standard high school hijinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
Scene: Hallway - After school hours
A mild mannered principal is making his rounds making sure that students have finally left campus after any after school sports and/or tutoring sessions. Noticing a male and female student still in the cafeteria, he confronts them, takes their names down and escorts them of the premises.
Having ensured that they have left, he heads to the security office and begins to review the tape of the cafeteria to determine what had occurred. To his shock, horror, and then bemusement, he finds that they were having sexual intercourse. He has already sent the two students home and will deal with the disciplinary issues the next day. Being an idiot (hey, he is a high school principal), he decides to show the footage to some faculty members the next day.
End Scene
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inappropriate? Creepy? Maybe.
No. If he decided that disciplining the students was necessary, he should have told the other people in charge of handling such cases and shown them the video so they could see for themselves. It was completely unnecessary and inappropriate to show a bunch of random teachers.
"If a doctor is examining a patient of the opposite sex, I believe they are required to have another person present (such as a nurse)."
My doctor is of the opposite sex and she examines me without a male nurse present. I know several women who go to male doctors who examine them without a female nurse present. What kind of doctor do you go to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sounds like dissemination of child porn to me.
It's not that the children were caught on tape and then subjugated to an administrative school process as a result, but that this school principal then went on to show the child porn video to others.
I would think that the privacy issue would come from the non administrative exposition of the child porn video itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So are you suggesting there wouldn't be a privacy issue if they were of legal age? (By the way it's 16 in Kentucky)
The privacy issue only lies in whether or not the video was taken in a public or private setting, seeing as they were filmed in the school cafeteria it was most certainly a public setting.
Should anyone be having sex in a school? No.
Should any faculty of a school be showing sexually explicit material in a school? Most certainly not.
Both parties were in the wrong, but it's possible the only illegal act was the students having sex in a public place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've become a nation of oversensitive babies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
So there was obvious wrong-doing, and ARE obvious damages, and to hell with legalistic weenies who say there aren't.
And by the way, Mike and others: don't use "principle" when you mean "principal". Mike, as usual wishy-washy, used BOTH: "... principal ... principal ... principle's"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
The only damages to reputation are because of the actions of the individual who CHOSE to have sex in their own school. If they were that concerned with their reputation they shouldn't have done such a thing in such a place.
What about the princpal? How about his reputation? Why does he have to face the consequence of his action and have his name plastered all over the headlines while the students do not?
I don't think anyone was doing anything they should have been. Wrong-doing was enacted by all parties and any recourse for those actions should have to be faced, especially if they violate any law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
There may be some instances where it may be inappropriate to spread that, but for the most part society takes care of that problem by its own self mechanism, the law should not be involved at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
I would not be surprised if the only thing the girl will end up with after the lawsuit is "modeling fees".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should have turned the video over to law enforcement, that was his legal responsibility. Since he allowed other adults to watch it, he's guilty of child porn because he went over the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The legal age of consent in the state in which this incident happened is 16. Most likely these kids were at least 16 or older. The only reason law enforcement personnel should become involved is if a crime took place - having sex in a public facility most likely was illegal and the principle should have mad the appropriate decision to report the incident, allegedly he chose not to and only made the situation worse. Otherwise, it's under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education and what type of disciplinary action should be taken against students violating school rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> happened is 16. Most likely these kids were at least 16 or older.
Interestingly, a state's legal age of consent laws are irrelevant when it comes to video depictions of sex. Federal law requires a person to be 18 or older before they can legally appear on camera performing sex acts. So even though 16-year-olds can legally have sex with each other, they legally be filmed doing it, nor can others view/distribute those videos if they exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead this shit? pff. Just another corporate blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh noes, we're going to lose an anonymous coward's invaluable input?
In the immortal words of Mötley Crue: Don't go away mad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy
And I don't know that it was necessarily established that the teens knew their choice of sex venue was under surveillance at the time they did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I at first wanted to call you an idiot, but then decided not to call you an idiot, so that you would realize I am not attacking you, just personally thinking your logic makes me feel your an idiot.
He was reporting the issue, and while yes, normally we see some sort of feelings come out on articles, you realize he may not view all articles the same way.
Maybe he has not yet formed his opinion, so that is left out? I don't know, I am guessing, same as you.
I also saw no defense coming in, of anyone, nor any allegations.
It seems more to me there was neutrality (Other then the fact we know Mike views it as "creepy").
As for those who are claiming child porn issues, while my knee-jerk reaction was the same, after I thought about it, I came to realize that, not all people in high school are underage.
In fact, a good many of the seniors are 18 years old, so without more information, we cannot automatically cry "Child Porn!"
As for the morality, yes, I think most of us will rationally think of it as morally wrong. After all, I think most people view that when something is for purpose a (security), and people use it for purpose b (entertainment), there is an conflict of interest.
While I think it is fair to say that this could potentially go either way (After all, no matter what laws are on the books, this is civil and we have no guarantee on how a judge will view the situation, not like judges have not twisted various laws and rulings to fit their ideas in the past).
I think it is also fair to say that the students involved made a bad choice, and that the principal also made a bad choice.
Although I do wonder, would we apply the same criteria if the principal walked into the cafeteria and recorded it on his phone? Or if the security guard was looking at the tape? What about if it got "leaked" to the internet? Makes me wonder about other situations like this (And all those internet videos that are "leaked" private videos, or people secretly recording).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm, that matters because? You seem to forget you live in a "sue now ask questions later" world. Anywhere else it would matter... not in the almighty US of Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Has the school Administration(teachers, principal and staff) made it known that surveillance equipment is active on the school grounds?
- If it was known, then the kids were trying to get caught and there is no expectation of privacy.
2) How old are these high school kids?
- If the kids were not 18, the teachers and principal should be thankful the State isn't coming after them for watching kiddie porn and the principal should be thankful the State isn't coming after him for distributing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]