Son Sues Mother Over Facebook Posts

Most kids hate having their parents join in on a discussion on Facebook, but one 16-year-old in Arkansas hates it so much he has filed suit against his mother, charging her with harassment. From the article: "An Arkadelphia mother is charged with harassment for making entries on her son's Facebook page. Denise New's 16-year-old son filed charges against her last month and requested a no-contact order after he claims she posted slanderous entries about him on the social networking site. New says she was just trying to monitor what he was posting." Seems like he could just unfriend her.

Comments

The real question

[ari_j]

The real question I have is how someone from Arkadelphia learned to get on Facebook in the first place, much less two of them.

Re:The real question

[wykell]

Or how they managed to do so when there isn't even new-fangled 'lectricity there yet.

Re:The real question

[orsty3001]

That's not nice...

Re:The real question

[Anarki2004]

have you ever visited the south?

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

Where the hell does an accusation of racism come from? The flamebait mod from a moderator who did not appreciate the joke is understandable, but racism?

Re:The real question

[Dishevel]

I failed to see mention of race in the post. Perhaps the racism resides within you.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

"Southern" is not a race.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

How exactly does that qualify as racism?

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a race to the bottom

Re:The real question

[c6gunner]

have you ever visited the south?

Ah, so because some members of a group fit into a stereotype, that means it's ok to use it as a generalization. I'm sure you'd, likewise, have no problem with me saying that all blacks are criminals, and the French are smelly wine-guzzling cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Re:The real question

[WCguru42]

The place I see "racism" is in the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically

First, that assumption would be correct. Second, the word you're looking for is douche-baggery, not racism.

Re:The real question

[Locke2005]

I spent a decade in Arkansas one summer... trust me, any disparaging remarks you can heap on those people are well deserved.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

It's not so much Arkansas as a state, but the ridiculously silly name that they gave to the city of Arkadelphia, the "city of brotherly boats."

Re:The real question

[The Clockwork Troll]

From Wikipedia entry for Arkadelphia:

"The racial makeup of the city was 68.98% White, 26.51% Black or African American, 0.53% Native American, 1.29% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 1.35% from other races, and 1.28% from two or more races. 2.59% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race."

So, what race of this variegated city is being prejudged here?

Re:The real question

[The Clockwork Troll]

Yeah, and why is the son so Arkannoyed?

Re:The real question

[Anarki2004]

Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule, but seriously, go hang out in Alabama for a couple weeks and see for yourself.

Re:The real question

[c6gunner]

Obviously there will be exceptions to the rule, but seriously, go hang out in Paris for a couple weeks and see for yourself.

FTFY

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still trying to figure out how this mother can successfully type a password. (Check the comments on the article, a sample is quoted below.)

The son apparently left his Facebook account logged in at the mother's house, so she changed his password and started impersonating him. Computer crime aside, I can definitely see why the son was appalled at having this type of comment associated with his name.

!st of all...even tho she has legal cust...that has never mattered b4. I hired an atty for him when he was hit by a DD...I signed all the paper work not his grandmother...they had no prob with me not being his guardian when he got busted with pot....I delt with his atty for that and the same prosecutor that has filed this. It didnt matter that I wasnt his legal guardian when he was skipping school...I was the the school called. They cannot pick n choose when i should be in his life and when I shouldnt. My son has had a long list of behaviorial problem for awhile now. He not only endangers himself but other kids as well. Furthermore I didnt HACK into anything...he left his FB loggied in ON MY COMPUTER....and me having his password was a given if he wanted to use my computer. I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MONITOR HIM.....just b/c i dont have custody doesnt mean i dont care...and maybe if grandmother was doing her JOB I WOULDNT HAVE TO!

Re:The real question

[Runaway1956]

Try Google Earth. Arkadelphia is actually a college town. It isn't far from Little Rock.

Oh - wait - you think that everyone in Arkansas is an inbred illiterate, right? And, where are you from?

For your information, I moved to Arkansas 22 years ago to donate my DNA toward the prevention of inbreeding. Tens of thousands of other men and women have done the same. Inbreeding isn't a problem here any more.

Again, where are you from? I'm sure that other responsible people will be willing to inject some good DNA into the women in your part of the world.

Re:The real question

[skarphace]

'Southern' is not a race, holmes.

Re:The real question

[ThurstonMoore]

Couldn't be any worse than hanging out with you.

Re:The real question

[ThurstonMoore]

You should have used prejudice instead of racist, but I understand the point you were making. Seems like their are a lot of double standards in prejudice, some hate is accepted by society. I'm not even sure if I have ever met a person that doesn't have some sort of prejudice.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

You owe me a new keyboard, asshole!

Re:The real question

[Anarki2004]

Clearly my comment is pissing off a bunch of people, so let me put it like this: the character Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel was not created because every southerner is an upstanding intelligent member of society. Those of you that modded me troll need to calm down a bit with your ZOMG HE IS RACIST!!1!one

Re:The real question

[MaskedSlacker]

Oh - wait - you think that everyone in Arkansas is an inbred illiterate, right? And, where are you from?

Yes, and Los Angeles, where everyone is a movie star. Like, duh.

Re:The real question

[darth dickinson]

If it were not for the south man would not have walked on the moon.

Rocket engines? Developed and tested at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
Apollo Rockets? Built in New Orleans, LA (among other places)
Cape Canaveral? Southern Florida
Mission Control? Houston, TX

Besides, you never hear of anyone retiring and moving *north*.

Re:The real question

[darth dickinson]

Ignorant rednecks can be found all over the country...they are not limited to the sunbelt.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically

First, that assumption would be correct.

This is bigotry. ALL forms of bigotry are the same. There is literally no difference between you and a Klansman. And no, you weren't joking, and yes, that is the excuse you were about to try.

Re:The real question

[Anarki2004]

yes, they can be found just about anywhere, there just happens to be a high concentration in the south. I find this conversation quite silly as I am from the south and can quite readily attest to this fact. Yes, lots of great things have come from the south, Mark Twain for one, but let us not forget the south also gave us Larry The Cable Guy.

Re:The real question

[yeshuawatso]

Hey, I have to live here in Arkansas you insensitive clod!

Re:The real question

[shutdown -p now]

Ah, so because some members of a group fit into a stereotype, that means it's ok to use it as a generalization. I'm sure you'd, likewise, have no problem with me saying that all blacks are criminals, and the French are smelly wine-guzzling cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

If you say it jokingly, it's absolutely fine. Jokes about racial/ethnic/religious/whatever stereotypes are the funniest ever, along with most other jokes where the setting and/or punchline is deeply politically incorrect.

Re:The real question

[c6gunner]

Clearly my comment is pissing off a bunch of people, so let me put it like this: the character Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel was not created because every southerner is an upstanding intelligent member of society.

Wow, you're just a complete cretin, aren't you? While trying to make things better, you manage to make them 10 times worse.

Hey, you know, the Disney cartoon character called "Thursday" wasn't created because every black person is a civilized, intelligent, well mannered, productive member of society!

Twit.

Re:The real question

[c6gunner]

If you say it jokingly, it's absolutely fine

I tend to agree, although not everyone would. Problem is, he wasn't joking. Hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry.

Re:The real question

[shutdown -p now]

I tend to agree, although not everyone would. Problem is, he wasn't joking.

I think you're too quick to judge, but, frankly, does it matter what he meant when he wrote it? His post is now modded up as Funny (60% Funny, 20% Troll, 10% Flamebait, to be precise), so /. collective consciousness clearly took it as a non-PC joke. I suggest leaving it at that.

In fact, if anything, it seems that the only people that took it seriously are those who modded it Flamebait/Troll, since there's not a single Insightful or Informative mod (which are often used around here to moderate "funny-but-true" kinds of jokes).

Re:The real question

[Anarki2004]

Holy crap is this getting drawn out. Stereotypes don't exist because some jerk thought he would make up false ideas about people; they are generally earned. To say that stereotypes hold no truth would be a lie. Also, the name calling is uncalled for and quite childish, but then again this whole conversation borders on ridiculousness. I'm throwing in the towel here, because you are clearly my moral superior and I should be so lucky to have your comment grace my message inbox, oh exalted one.

Re:The real question

[davester666]

Um, other than security guards and secretaries, how many of the people from the local area actually developed this stuff. I'll bet that when NASA had their bingo lottery to determine which rocket part was built in each state, there was a collective groan from all the rocket engine engineers when Alabama was selected with a group "but I don't want to move to Alabama".

None of the things you mentioned appear to due to the people living in the area. Two are congressional largess. Cape Canaveral is an accident of weather and terrain. If anything, at least some of them are IN SPITE of the locals.

Re:The real question

[c6gunner]

His post is now modded up as Funny (60% Funny, 20% Troll, 10% Flamebait, to be precise), so /. collective consciousness clearly took it as a non-PC joke. I suggest leaving it at that.

As I said, hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry. If he had said the same thing about someone from a predominantly black area, he would have gotten modded down into Tartarus. So no, I won't leave it alone. I can't believe that you'd try to justify bigotry by saying "hey, it's ok, everyone thinks it's funny!". I suppose if we were hanging a "redneck" from a tree, you'd say "hey, it's ok, everyone is doing it!".

Popular opinion has never been a good guide for morality, and it certainly isn't in this case.

Re:The real question

[linzeal]

I've visited throughout the south on trips out to see family over the years and have actually been through this town. I believe there are some hippies in that town and even a commune nearby. Arkansas is really not that bad, it is not like South Carolina or Mississippi at least when it comes to education.

Re:The real question

[russ1337]

and maybe if grandmother was doing her JOB I WOULDNT HAVE TO!

Exactly. Oh wait....

Re:The real question

[shutdown -p now]

As I said, hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry. If he had said the same thing about someone from a predominantly black area, he would have gotten modded down into Tartarus.

Not necessarily - I've seen plenty upmodded racial jokes on /.

I can't believe that you'd try to justify bigotry by saying "hey, it's ok, everyone thinks it's funny!".

The best way to defeat bigotry is to not be offended by it. Turning it into a joke helps.

I suppose if we were hanging a "redneck" from a tree, you'd say "hey, it's ok, everyone is doing it!".

Wow. There is a world of difference between cracking a joke, and physically abusing someone. In a similar vein, I do find a lot of jokes about Black racial stereotypes very funny, but that doesn't mean that I would enjoy a company of a white supremacist, or cheer to a KKK lynch mob.

Re:The real question

[c6gunner]

Fair enough. Maybe I'm over-reacting a bit. Just getting rather tired of the smug bigotry displayed by many towards Americans in general, and "hicks" in particular.

Re:The real question

[Norwell Bob]

Wow, modded up to +5 Informative for a post that suggests that "the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically" is "correct"?!

Seriously people? Somebody care to let stupid me in on why? Is it because Family Guy says so, or what?

I'm up in the Boston area, by the way, so I have no real stake in defending the South... I just think double standards suck. And, FWIW, the last couple times I was in the South on business (Alabama and Texas), I met some of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure of speaking with. An accent and dialect doesn't make one less intelligent, any more than the color of one's skin.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist much?

Racist against whites? Is that what you mean? Because Arkadelphia is 70% white.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

You're not alone in your reaction, whether it qualifies as overreacting or not. It was a joke, as I pointed out in the earliest response I posted to it (oddly, that one is currently modded down to 0 points for being offtopic). I also wasn't nearly as general in the telling of it as the people who are offended by it seem to think. It was a joke about, as I also have joked in this thread, "the city of brotherly boats" - and nothing else.

It is the nature of jokes that virtually all of them can be taken in an offensive way. It is the nature of people that a few of them are virtually guaranteed to take every joke in an offensive way. I do not bow to political correctness (which I consider to be a form of laziness and dishonesty - changing how you refer to something to pretend that problems associated with that thing no longer exist) and I do not generally conform my jokes to the ideals of a few.

Joking is also squarely outside the definition of bigotry, which is an absolute hatred and intolerance of members of a group or at least intolerant devotion to your own prejudices or opinions. The simple fact is that I am an American in general and a "hick" in particular. You may be missing some of the humor because you are neither, but there's a reason that Jeff Foxworthy is so famous for his "You might be a redneck if..." joke meme and Larry the Cable Guy is so popular as portraying a stereotype of Southern hicks - and it's not simply prejudice against hicks by other Americans. It's because drawing out and making caricatures of stereotypes that are at least partially true about hicks is funny to every hick in the audience, and most of us in the USA have at least a little hick in us.

But, again, hicks and Southerners are not the target of my joke. The most interesting part of this entire thread has been watching it draw out the prejudices of others in how they interpret what I said. One guy thought it was racist, for instance. You thought it was anti-hick. I'm sure that someone, somewhere will read it and think it's offensive to autistic children. We all read things through the lens of our own biases.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

By your logic, there is literally no difference between you and a person who has had a frontal lobotomy. Your use of an ad hominem argument is indistinguishable from the complete inability to think rationally.

Your inability to appreciate a joke does not make the joke unfunny to others and does not mean that the joke-teller is responsible for lynching members of a minority out of pure bigotry and hatred. By the way, he was joking. Most jokes have an element of truth and an element of exaggeration. George Carlin knew this and discussed it when explaining why it's okay to joke about rape, to the tune of a laughing audience and millions of dollars. Your inability to take it as a joke almost certainly comes from your own biases, not from those of the person who told it. The same applies to the guy who claimed that my original joke about Arkadelphians using Facebook, which started this whole thread, was racist.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

Please find the hatred in my original joke. I'd love to know where it is hidden. The more interesting thing here is how people's reactions to this thread demonstrate their own subtle prejudices.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

I'm from a place where people tell jokes, some people laugh at them, and some other people get offended by them because they heard the joke through the lens of their own prejudices and intolerance. Same as where you're from and same as where you live now.

I suppose you also get offended whenever Jeff Foxworthy starts a joke with "You may be a redneck if..." or when Larry the Cable Guy portrays a caricatured stereotype of a Southern hick. You may want to inform their millions of fans in Arkansas that they should stop laughing because these jokes aren't funny and their laughter demonstrates a lack of good genetics on their part.

Incidentally, I do notice that you said inbreeding isn't a problem anymore, but nothing about the illiteracy. I suppose it would take two generations of you and other outsiders before that one goes away? I honestly wish I could mod your comment +1 Funny because it is either a subtle, well-played joke or just plain stupid, and I'm optimistic enough to think the former. Simply put, the stereotype that you suggest I'm not allowed to joke about is reinforced by nearly your entire comment.

Re:The real question

[LanMan04]

Ahem:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/

An entire school full of bigots. Teachers and students and administration. You can't get shit like this outside of the South. My wife lived in Mobile, AL for most of her highschool years (she's originally from Kansas). Says it was like living on another planter, and not a fun one.

Re:The real question

[LanMan04]

*planet, not planter.

Damn you fingers!

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the topic of this thread I saw "Damm you niggers!" lol

Re:The real question

[darth dickinson]

A lot of missile defense work is *still* going on in Huntsville. While there are a fair number of imports, I can attest that there are locals (well, at least "locals" from Alabama and surrounding states) that work there.

Re:The real question

[Mr. Slippery]

Hatred of "rednecks" is the last socially-acceptable kind of bigotry.

Depends on how you define "redneck". If by "redneck" you mean a poor rural white Southerner, then hating on them is bigotry. If by "redneck" you mean "bigoted, loutish and opposed to modern ways", then despising rednecks is the duty of all sensible people.

Natural language is ambiguous. So it goes.

Re:The real question

[Mr. Slippery]

Joking is also squarely outside the definition of bigotry, which is an absolute hatred and intolerance of members of a group or at least intolerant devotion to your own prejudices or opinions.

Nonsense. Telling jokes about members of a group that derive their humor from acceptance of stereotypes is one way that bigotry spreads.

On the other hand, telling jokes in which the point of the joke is the idiocy of those who accept stereotypes, is healthy and counters bigotry.

As Carlin said, anything can be funny, it depends on where the emphasis is.

Re:The real question

[ari_j]

If a comment is truly bigoted, then it's not really a very good joke in my book. If it pokes humor at the bigotry, then it is. However, consider a joke about lynching blacks in the South. Is that bigoted toward blacks, a joke about Southern stereotypes, or bigoted toward the South? Or does it depend on the audience?

I don't think that my joke derives its humor from accepting stereotypes about Arkadelphia or its ten thousand or so fine residents. I don't personally hold on to any such stereotypes, so for me at least the humor comes from its having a silly name. For those who found a stereotype in it and then took offense to that stereotype, the prejudices involved are in their own minds and not in mine. And that is funny.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they were because of northerners WORKING in the south.

Re:The real question

[Phoghat]

Hyuck Hyuck. Squeal like a pig

Re:The real question

[Phoghat]

I tend to hate political correctness. I'm Polish and laugh at Polish jokes, also Italian jokes, Spanish jokes etc. I think everyone should just take a pill and relax.

Re:The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/

An entire school full of bigots. Teachers and students and administration. You can't get shit like this outside of the South. My wife lived in Mobile, AL for most of her highschool years (she's originally from Kansas). Says it was like living on another planter, and not a fun one.

Just to add, my girlfriend lived (and I suppose brag about being on slashdot AND having a girlfriend, if I could only get out of the this basement....) in Richmond. She got called racial slurs, got nasty notes, keyed car, etc.. Worst place she ever lived as far as racism goes, which includes, California, New York, several European countries, an African country, a South American Country and an East Asian country.

So yeah, I'd agree, the South is pretty racist.

Re:The real question

[virtualXTC]

Despite what they tell you, patriotism just makes you appear and act stupid. You might as well have said you were proud to be Purto Rican because they have a larger satellite dish than anywhere in the united states.

If it were not for the south man would not have walked on the moon.

Rocket engines? Developed and tested at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL

- by Robbet Goddard, born and raised in Worcester, MA (not a place the North should be proud of either)

Apollo Rockets? Built in New Orleans, LA (among other places)

- which also killed 3 astronauts on the first try... hardly something to be "proud of"

Cape Canaveral? Southern Florida

Pennsylvania (aka Pennsyltucky) is more of a southern state than FL; there are far more Yankees in FL than Confederates.

Mission Control? Houston, TX

This choice has nothing to do with personnel; where else are you going to find a city with plenty of flat land nothing else around it then in a desert? - perfect for an airport.

Besides, you never hear of anyone retiring and moving *north*.

1) Sure I have, but I was in Australia...
2) once again, FL is not a southern (confederate) state
3) I hear just as many comments about Arizona, and Maine, and Costa Rica.

I'm not saying that the north deserves to be proud, they voted for Bush too; I'm just saying the south currently, and historically has even less to boost about and more to be ashamed of.

16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Kenja]

Parents have total power of attorney till the kid is eighteen or emancipated last I checked. He wants to sue, I would think he would have to first file to be an emancipated minor. At which point the parents are no longer responsable for his health or wellbeing.

Course I could be totally wrong. Its happened once before.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[quantumplacet]

RTFA, his grandparents have custodial rights, not his mother.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Kenja]

Bah, missed that part. Stupid job, distracting me from what's important.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[ClioCJS]

You really should read the articles before posting comments. The mother didn't have custody. If she hacked, that's not just a tort, that's a crime. Possibly federal, if they are in different states.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[plague3106]

Except that the grandmother has legal custody in this case, so you're point is moot.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

not true. i sued my parents when i was 16. didn't need to be emancipated.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[j00r0m4nc3r]

so you're point is moot.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."

Because prisonplanet and infowars are news websites of great repute. Oh wait...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[cayenne8]

But I was thinking the other day with reference to this in general.

Do parents "really" have any power over their kids today? I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them. Heck, if kid really wants to fsck their parents, just claim something sexual....and the parent is then pretty much branded for life, even if they did nothing wrong but try to discipline their child.

A child that realizes this power and is willing to wield it....what could a parent really do?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have time to write an opinion but no time to actually read the facts?

Seems somewhat selective distraction to me...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them.

That doesn't mean child services will do anything about it. It's legal here in New York State (hardly a bastion of cultural conservatism) to hit your kids:

35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Kenja]

Yup, thats the danger of working from home. Have to double check that I have pants on before I go out to lunch.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

South Park did an episode on this. It was pretty good.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Skye16]

I think you underestimate how much you have to beat a kid to get child services on you. Not even after my mother had my 12 year old brother drive her home from the bar (because she was drunk), then beat him so badly he was in the hospital for 3 days would the courts award my father custody. It took all of that plus a few failed drug tests before she finally gave up custody of him. Who knows what the courts would have decided, but it takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you. A whole hell of a lot.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Gates82]

I totally agree with this sentiment. I work with a youth group at my church, mainly the teenage boys, and some are forced to attend by their parents, and they are impossible to control. Growing up I attended the same group and participated as I wished but did not actively cause problems at risk of punishment that may be doled out even though my parents could not really do anything (I just didn't really realize it). The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything. A very dangerous line has been crossed in the American Society. Just my thoughts

--
Who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."

Citation?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[bhamlin]

And look at you now. You don't even have a name...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a high school student (16y.o.) and am reading this book (1984) during the silent reading time students are given, I think it should be a required book. The similarities one can draw between the book and reality as of now are appalling.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything.

So hit the little bastards until they realize who the boss is. Contrary to popular belief, it's still legal in all 50 states to use corporal punishment on your kids. Of course disciplining your kids would require being around them and why would you do a silly thing like that when you can rely on the Wii and TV to raise them?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[commodore64_love]

Well if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et cetera are censoring the news by ignoring these stories, then you have to turn to alternate sources. For example, notice how they described the "hate speech" coming from Tea Party protestors, but completely ignored the anti-war riots happening in Berkeley just one week earlier. Or how they reported on the "Obama is a Nazi" posters, but completely ignored the "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is a chimp" posters in 2008.

Or the black man that Obama supporters beat to a pulp last month. These TV news organizations have sold-out to Democrats and only present the news that favors Democrats, while ignoring news that does not. And why not? Democrats have pledged to work with RIAA and MPAA to protect the TV/movie industry's productions.

Hence the nickname - DNC-NBC. Links to child custody case:
(read the CPS report at the bottom of the page)
http://trueslant.com/stephenwebster/2010/03/30/tx-county-teaching-kids-government-is-out-to-harm-them-makes-parents-unsuitable/
(google) http://www.google.com/search?q=seize+Child+distrusting+Government

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Rich0]

What can a parent do? Two words:

Eviction notice.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this what's wrong with America.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

His citation is infowars or prisonplanet or numerous other sites parroting those sites.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Well if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et cetera are censoring the news by ignoring these stories, then you have to turn to alternate sources.

Do you have any proof that the story you referred to is being censored by those news outlets? Do you have any citation to any public records to show that this incident actually happened? I've read the story both on infowars and prisonplanet and neither of them have any details. They make vague claims about a "couple in texas" that had their kid taken away. Considering these websites long track record of posting bullshit and phoney stories, you'd have to be a nutjob to believe it.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

Umm, left out the part about the illegal drugs being found in their residence and the fact that their anti-government views were but ONE of the claims levied against them.

Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[uberjack]

If a child's willing to go that far, it's probably a safe bet that their family's already pretty fucked up.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.

Yeah, but leaving such a detail in would undermine his entire argument.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[gandhi_2]

I dunno, these guys did ok.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Democrats have pledged to work with RIAA and MPAA to protect the TV/movie industry's productions.

I hate to break it to you but the RIAA and MPAA also have republicans on their side. You remember that little law called the DMCA? Do you know from which party came the congressman who introduced the bill? The republican party. Do you know the current political affiliation of the current RIAA president? Republican again. If you think the Republicans aren't just as much in the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA you're even more dumb then you come across now.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[bmo]

You didn't read the article.

You're totally wrong.

She has no rights. Not in this case.

--
BMO

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[AndGodSed]

This is slashdot, it is perfectly acceptable to do just that. In fact, it's implied.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Oops that's CEO not president.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Missouri. If the child has bruises or a "marking" in an area that looks like they disciplined then they could take custody away

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's moving towards 1984 where parents were afraid to speak, for fear the kids would report them, and the CPS would arrest the mom and dad.

No it isn't. Kids being able to get themselves taken into custody by the CPS just because they don't like their parents is nothing like the police state described in 1984. I wish people would stop noticing loose similarities between the world we live in and the world described in 1984. It was supposed to be reminiscent of the real world. It was supposed to encourage vigilance, not paranoia. Thanks to every idiot on the 'net citing 1984 in every discussion thread on every subject, the book is rapidly becoming a joke. We need a variant of Godwin's law to cover this.

As for that story you refer to, I imagine there's more to it than has been revealed. While there may be a troubling aspect to what happened, I am not in the habit of condemning people or organisations - especially government organisations - based on n-th hand reports on the Internet - they tend to have a distorting focus.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[NotBornYesterday]

Did you ever see that movie North?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Improv]

Ignoring made-up stuff by nutjobs seems a legitimate role for news organisations.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Let me guess. You also believe in those FEMA death camps, too, right?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Jaysyn]

All depends on the state you're living in. In Florida it's completely legal to physically discipline your child.

Fla. Stat. Ann. 39.01(2), (30)(f), (45) (West, WESTLAW through End of 2003 Reg. Sess.)

Corporal discipline of a child by a parent, legal custodian, or caregiver for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.

You just can't beat them till you leave bruises or welts. If you use a wide enough paddle, this won't happen because of the surface area. My parents used to use a cut down boat oar. Hurt like a mofo, but never left marks.

I wonder if there is any correlation between states that have outlawed physically disciplining minors & instances of youth offenders?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Im 12 years old and what is this?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Jaysyn]

[Citation Needed]

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Antiocheian]

Punctuation ?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

As for that story you refer to, I imagine there's more to it than has been revealed. While there may be a troubling aspect to what happened, I am not in the habit of condemning people or organisations - especially government organisations - based on n-th hand reports on the Internet - they tend to have a distorting focus.

The problem is that one can't even verify that the story in the inforwars article that he read is even real because it has no actual data with which one could verify it. It makes claims about a "couple in texas" and that's about as detailed as it gets. Knowing Alex Jones's track record of making shit up out of whole cloth (fema death camps anyone?) one can be pretty confident that this one is made up too. That or it's highly exaggerated.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Understanding the difference between you're and your:
You're a god damn moron and I hope your face catches fire.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

IM 8 YEARS OLD AND????

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Gilmoure]

That we require pants out in public? Yes.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Jaysyn]

Then why haven't those stories been reported on Fox News? Or are they also now a bastion of the Democratic party as well?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs the Wii and TV when you have the Internet? It's much more engaging and there are even chat rooms and such where they can meet all sorts of interesting people.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Fox News is probably conspiring with the Reptilians and the Illuminati to make sure you aren't seeing the story.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[geekoid]

Do what's right, and if the child does it there welcome to there new life with a state agency.
I don't think that's a win.

Of course, you simplification isn't likely to happen.

What, do you think the agency hasn't seen a few false claims from a child?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Jaysyn]

Oh right, I forgot about them. Carry on.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Artifex]

I work with a youth group at my church, mainly the teenage boys, and some are forced to attend by their parents, and they are impossible to control.

Why are you putting up with that? Your tacit approval of the parents' unreasonable requirements is part of the problem.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[raju1kabir]

may use physical force, but not deadly physical force

Wow, that's a lot of leeway. So if my kid refuses to do the dishes, I can chop off her toe?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[mwvdlee]

I've you'd have bothered to RTFA before commenting, you'd have read that (citation) "New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights".

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

And enough selective enforcement to make Jim Crow flinch, right?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

No, that would probably rise to the level of deadly force:

"Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation?

"Google is your friend, moron..."

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[mwvdlee]

The rest of the partial sentence you quoted explains that is should be "reasonable".

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

your right!

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Gates82]

Why are you putting up with that? Your tacit approval of the parents' unreasonable requirements is part of the problem.

Short Answer: For the kids that are not a pain in the butt.

Long Answer (sans explanation): Out of a moral and religious obligation (not that I would expect most slashdotters to comprehend)

Additional Note: Recently started working with this group of kids, and parents are being notified of the behavior and that it will not be tolerated; I hardly think I am part of the problem.

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[donaggie03]

there welcome to there new life

Really? That's just sad.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

In WA, a minor aged 16 or older can petition the court for an order of protection against their parents.

Not the same thing as this case, of course, but the law often allows minors that are "old enough" to act in their own name, and enjoy many of the same rights as adults.

For example, many find it controversial that minors above a certain age can obtain contraceptives and abortions and keep their medical records private from their parents.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

2 YO ??

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[megamerican]

I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."

Because prisonplanet and infowars are news websites of great repute. Oh wait...

Yes, because posting the official CPS report, interviewing the person and quoting another article on the matter is such lousy journalism.

In the report you will find:
"Parents are unsuitable and create an environment where the children believe the government will harm them" which is the sole concern listed.

So, please explain what is so bad about that article? Or is it that you don't like that website because they cover topics and asks questions which you don't typically agree with?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[maxume]

You also contradicted the subject of your post in the first sentence.

(I do realize that you were more imprecise than you were wrong...)

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Congratulations on doing exactly what you chastised the poster for; making an assertion and then providing no proof.

What the fuck are you talking about? The sole citation for his claim is a story that has little to no actual facts, such as the names of this couple or the name of the city and county that the incident supposedly happened in, that can be used to verify the incident. Nor can you find any public records to back up the claims in the story. Lastly, Alex Jones has been well-known for making up stories that routinely turn out to be false. I'm not sure what part of anything I've stated is an assertion without proof. My statements come from actually having read the story.

Bravo on being modded insightful for such obvious hypocrisy.

Bravo for being an idiot.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, because posting the official CPS report, [infowars.com] interviewing the person and quoting another article on the matter is such lousy journalism.

And yet I can't find any such report or any mention of this incident from any public source or the DFPS itself. Rather fishy, no?

So, please explain what is so bad about that article? Or is it that you don't like that website because they cover topics and asks questions which you don't typically agree with?

No, my problem with the website is that Alex Jones is a well-known nutjob who makes things up. Or do you actually believe that whole FEMA death camp nonsense too?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[selven]

A child that realizes this power and is willing to wield it....what could a parent really do?

Not create an adversarial relationship with your child?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[commodore64_love]

I already provided a citation for you: http://trueslant.com/stephenwebster/2010/03/30/tx-county-teaching-kids-government-is-out-to-harm-them-makes-parents-unsuitable/

It has all the names, the location, even a copy of the police report.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the age of 21? Wow, so parents in New York can hit you for 3 years after you become an adult?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[commodore64_love]

I stand corrected.

I guess that goes back to what Judge Napolitano says: There's no real difference between the R's and D's.
  Same party - different divisions.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you if you are female. If the situation were reversed, the father would have lost custody in an instant.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

yore write!

FTFY

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[maxume]

Isn't pride a sin?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[losfromla]

totally agree, I missed the first one, I was sort of ok with one, but two? That is sad, especially for a Dad In Portland. I think people rely too much on spell-check.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[WCguru42]

Under the age of 21? Wow, so parents in New York can hit you for 3 years after you become an adult?

The law doesn't say anything about the child not being allowed to hit back. Hell, if one of my teachers raised hands to me in high school they'd find out right quick that you shouldn't strike someone who's 6'4" without being ready for the repercussions.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[WCguru42]

It takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you if you are female. If the situation were reversed, the father would have lost custody in an instant.

plus alimony, plus child support, plus jail time, plus...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Doctor Faustus]

> Yup, thats the danger of working from home. Have to double check that I have pants on before I go out to lunch.

Why would you ever?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[aaandre]

Parenting as a power-over relationship where the child is trained in obedience is just one of the options.

What a parent could do is treat a child with respect and not rely on obedience/slave training to prepare their child for life. Getting one's child to obey is not parenting but domination.

It is possible to have respectful peaceful relationships in the family, based not on violence (fear, guilt, isolation) and manipulation (rewards and punishment) but on emotional intelligence and collaboration.

Check out the work of Alfie Kohn and Naomi Aldort for a start.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pants are so over... We prefer Muumuus... You insensitive clod!

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[oatworm]

I found one! It's not exactly "high quality", though.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[c6gunner]

In the report you will find:
"Parents are unsuitable and create an environment where the children believe the government will harm them" which is the sole concern listed.

Very true. In the report you will also find:

"Barry COOPER and his wife Candace COOPER use drugs, encourage the use of drugs by kids, and publicly admit to allowing the children in the home [to] smoke drugs."

Funny how you nutjobs always leave out the real reasons for any given event. It's like when the 9/11 lunatics start yelling about fire melting steel. You completely ignore the actual cause, and instead whip out some insane conspiracy theory to explain results which already have a completely rational explanation.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Fred_A]

RTFA, his grandparents have custodial rights, not his mother.

She still ought to check what the limit is for an abortion, maybe it's no too late over there.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[aquila.solo]

1) Profit!

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[hedwards]

That's not true, it varies quite a bit state to state. Here in WA, kids get the right to make all their health decisions, including abortion, at age 13 and at 16 they reach the age of majority for sex related things. 18 brings in most of the rest of the rights except drinking.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[DJRumpy]

Here is a better article with a bit more meat than the original posted in TFA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36216614/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

The specific piece about guardianship is mentioned at the bottom:

"Denise New said Lane moved in with his grandmother about five years ago, after she went through a difficult divorce, was having mental health problems and didn't feel she could provide her son with the supervision he needed."

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Reservoir Penguin]

Just great, whatever happened to humbly taking your punishment? I doubt a teacher would strike you for nothing.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[neonsignal]

The adjective "moot" has two meanings.

Of course, if you are referring to the use of "you're", then feel free to be a genocidal grammaticist...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Reservoir Penguin]

Considering recent events I think it is very fullish for the parents to leave their teenage boys at a church alone with a stranger. Maybe there is a more sinister reason they do not want to attend?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[cayenne8]

"What a parent could do is treat a child with respect and not rely on obedience/slave training to prepare their child for life. Getting one's child to obey is not parenting but domination.

It is possible to have respectful peaceful relationships in the family, based not on violence (fear, guilt, isolation) and manipulation (rewards and punishment) but on emotional intelligence and collaboration.

Check out the work of Alfie Kohn and Naomi Aldort for a start."

I dunno..if my parents hadn't given me some good (and well deserved) ass whippin's, I'd not have turned out very well.

I'm sure different kids react differently, but I was and still am pretty hard headed and inventive when it comes to behavior.

If I'd not had the fear of God put into me about bad behavior when younger, I'd likely not have turned out so well..

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[DarwinSurvivor]

1,000,000 internets to the first person that can get a lawyer to give even a brief definition of "reasonable" in ANY context.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Long Answer (sans explanation): Out of a moral and religious obligation (not that I would expect most slashdotters to comprehend)

You're right, I don't understand forced indoctrination of impressionable children into your organized cult. I'm sorry, you prefer the term religion.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[net28573]

A lot of people are suprised at how well the government can convince a large populace that something is what it isnt. If they spun the right story together i bet they could get people to believe the sky is really red but we can't see it. The fact is that records can be easily falsified, storys can be made up, lab tests forged and conspiracy theorists can be used as scapegoats. We all at one point or another believe someone to be telling the truth based on vague, unverified proof. With the honest whistle blowers must come the lying cheat that tries to cover his story up.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is referring to Barry Cooper of Never Get Busted.

juicy bits from the police report:
"The 14-year-old has drug posters in her room along with imitation marijuana items."
"Parents are unsuitable and create an environment where the children believe the government is out to harm them."
7-year-old child with cerebral palsy was engaged in "outburst" of "Crying Excessively" for "no reason observed during the execution of a search warrant at the residence."
Barry Cooper "does not believe in church" and "hates his father"
"The children are being mentally abused to believe drugs are good."
"The family will not allow any government employee into the home without court orders."

so really, the kid got taken away because of marijuana and other complete bullshit reasons
http://stash.norml.org/kopbusters-barry-cooper-and-wife-lose-son-over-misdemeanor-marijuana-charge

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[darkmeridian]

Contrary to what you might believe, New York State is a pretty conservative place. Sure, New York CITY is a liberal place, but the state overall is not. Oddly enough, the conservative areas depend on a handout from the liberal City to pay its bills. It's all pretty funny.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Nutria]

I don't understand forced indoctrination of impressionable children into (a socially acceptable) organized cult.

Then, since societies have been transmitting their beliefs and ways of living to their youth since the beginning of organized humanity, you're a complete idiot.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

for fear the kids would report them

-- as has been the case in China for generations.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

My fees are quite reasonable.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, alternately, you can fuck with the state, as Barry Cooper did; then you get on the fast track to losing your kids:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/%E2%80%9Ckopbusters%E2%80%9D-barry-cooper-wife-lose-son-over-misdemeanor-marijuana-charge

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

Contrary to what you might believe, New York State is a pretty conservative place

Bullshit. I've lived here (Broome/Chenango County area) all my life. Upstate has some elements of fiscal conservatism but not much cultural conservatism. Why do you think that the Republicans who've won statewide office invariably turn out to be anti-gun and pro-choice?

Oddly enough, the conservative areas depend on a handout from the liberal City to pay its bills.

And the "liberal City" depends on the "conservative areas" for it's water supply. I'll make you a deal -- NYC can stop paying state income taxes once it relinquishes the watershed areas in the Catskills.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[LordLucless]

Child Protective Services report reproduced here

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Golddess]

Bah, it's just a pinky toe, she doesn't really need it.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Golddess]

Doesn't the child have to be, y'know, not a child before the parent can kick them out?

There are other things though. Not taking your child to Disney World won't garner the wrath of CPS. Feeding your child nothing but spinach and other leafy greens with just enough of other foods to fulfill proper dietary requirements will not have them knocking down your door. Not giving them that Wii for their birthday won't have them giving you nasty telephone calls. There are plenty of other things, but I find it hard to believe eviction is one of them.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[RobinEggs]

Of course, if you are referring to the use of "you're", then feel free to be a genocidal grammaticist...

Wow...it's "genocidal" asking people to know the correct spelling of a five-letter word. I seriously hope you're kidding. Ooh, I got to use the word in question correctly. Snarky, yet unintentional. How delicious.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[FiloEleven]

Heck, if kid really wants to fsck their parents, just claim something sexual.

I can't think of any other way they'd bring it up...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Philip_the_physicist]

If the children are never alone with the supervisor, the children are probably safe. However, unless there are several adults, the supervisor may not be safe (especially if he is male). There was a false accusation at my old school a few years ago, and if girls in question had had the sense to rehearse their stories the teacher's career might have been ruined.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have time to write an opinion but no time to actually read the facts?

Seems somewhat selective distraction to me...

Reading the story results in you learning a few boring facts that, if anything, spoil some attempts at creative trolling. Whereas posting a witty trollish comment results in a bunch of entertaining replies, to many of which you can post further witty trollish comments, etc.

I mean, this is Slashdot. You've got to be new here. Or kidding.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[shutdown -p now]

Good to know that electric torture is perfectly okay, then.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[shutdown -p now]

I work with a youth group at my church, mainly the teenage boys, and some are forced to attend by their parents, and they are impossible to control.

Since it's a Church and all (and I presume it's a Christian one), have you ever stopped and thought, "what would Jesus do"?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Shakrai]

I'm reasonably certain that electrocution poses the risk of serious physical injury and/or death.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[shutdown -p now]

Depends on the amount applied. The trick about it is that the pain induced is significantly higher for non-damaging amount compared to practically any other method (which is precisely why it's so popular as a torture method in the first place).

As an experiment, try licking a 9V battery - it's completely harmless at that point, but it does sting quite a bit.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[batkiwi]

Societies have been enslaving those of other race or culture since the beginning of organized humanity.

Part of society is that it progresses.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[daveime]

I think I'd be more concerned about what the priest might do !

Repent and you are forgiven ? Better than a permanent "get out of jail free" card ... or should that be "stay out of jail" card ?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[ekhben]

http://trueslant.com/stephenwebster/2010/03/25/barry-candi-cooper-lose-their-son-over-misdemeanor-pot-charge/

I wouldn't say that this has anything to do with the teachings of the government hate.

Major news outlets don't bother running a story every time a pair of drug-addled paranoid anarchists sitting in a county jail cell make up some fantasy to explain why their child was taken away from them. It's not censorship. It's just not very interesting or uncommon news.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

The key words I read here are "Supervision" and "an incompetent person"

Wow, I wanna live where I can punish incompetence with violence. Those I supervise at work must be cowering in fear

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[electrons_are_brave]

Not in Missouri. If the child has bruises or a "marking" in an area that looks like they disciplined then they could take custody away

"Could" is one thing, "did" is another.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

it all depends. Before I moved overseas to work as a social worker in the Middle East I worked 10 years with at-risk, inner city children in America. I;ve seen cases where parental rights should have been terminated much faster and I've seen cases when it took very little to get parental rights/custody removed or transferred. From my experience (in Virginia) it depends on the situation and very much depends on the judge and Family Court you're operating from. Don't jump to conclusions about how easy or how difficult it *really* is.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[HopefulIntern]

I think by "genocidal grammaticist" he was trying to say "grammar nazi". It's overkill, but I'm just sayin'..

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[mcvos]

It would have been nice if the summary had mentioned that rather vital fact. Throughout the entire article I thought: how the hell can an under-age kid even sue his own mother? Isn't she his legal guardian and all that? Then, in the last line of the article, it's finally revealed that she isn't. So she's messing with her son's life after she lost custody.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that's a good idea

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[mwvdlee]

That's why, in the US, there's this jury-of-peers thing. IANAL, but a usable definition might be "could a sufficient result have been accomplished with less?"

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Nutria]

Part of society is that it progresses.

Yagoddabekiddnme.

Look around the world at all the societies that haven't changed a whit in one thousand year. "Progressives" even celebrate the fact: societal progress is seen as "cultural genocide".

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[L1feless]

A very good catch. Something else to consider is WHY the mother lost custody. As someone further down in these posts mentioned it takes a heck of a lot for a female to lose custody of her child. Even if the father, grandparents or aunts or uncles are better suited to be a parent it is often the case where the courts will still side with the mother. The custody of the 16 year old child should have been mentioned in the summary...although by not including that detail it did add a bit more shock value. Hope the kid wins.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[L1feless]

As a male who is 6 ft 2 and 240 LBS I share the comments made by the gentleman above. I will not humbly take 'Punishment' from anyone. I would expect a teacher to act appropriately, politically correct & professionally in a class room. Please note the lack of the word violently in the above. If a teacher were to have hit me in the class room they better be prepared for me to defend myself. Further up in this post is a very interesting comment which makes me question this law as a whole. 21 is in fact 3 years after you become a legal adult. What is the law surrounding assault and battery and similar offenses in New York as it applies to adults? Something tells me that this law and those probably don't jive well together.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[TheSpoom]

This is unfortunately very true. A friend of mine's significant other regularly checks into the psyche ward at the local hospital, and she still has full custody over their child, while he has to pay ridiculously unsympathetic child support amounts.

Hint: Child support is supposed to be based on your income. In practice, it's anything but.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't necessary considered an adult in all cases automatically when you turn 18. If you are still dependent on your parents (such as being supported by them or still in school), in may instances you are still considered a minor. In these cases are you not an adult until you are emancipated (e.g., move out, get a job, turn 21, etc.).

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends where you are. Over here in Nebraska, they don't ever need to prove anything, just make a few allegations they can twist the facts to vaguely fit.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[DarwinSurvivor]

Ok smarty pants, no define "sufficient"!

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents.

[DarwinSurvivor]

gah, "*now"

No contact.

[pclminion]

A no contact order against your mom? How exactly is that supposed to work?

Either the kid's worthless, or the mom is, or both. In any case, who gives a crap about this trash?

Re:No contact.

[Lunix Nutcase]

A no contact order against your mom? How exactly is that supposed to work?

The same way any sort of restraining order works?

Re:No contact.

[spun]

The kid's grandparents have custody. But more importantly, there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.' Never. Not even Hitler. If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist. We human beings have empathy for a reason.

Re:No contact.

[NevarMore]

It is cheaper to keep this trash closer to the middle, where they work, but are neither on the dole or in jail. The latter case costs us too much per year.

Re:No contact.

[pclminion]

I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?

Re:No contact.

[oldhack]

One word: Arkansas.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way. We would all be better off if everyone were happy, well adjusted, and could contribute to society, don't you think? Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?

Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.

Re:No contact.

[Em Emalb]

Way too many people exist only to serve as a warning to others.

Re:No contact.

[pclminion]

Perhaps I'm feeling overly misanthropic today. But let's drop the false dichotomy, shall we? I don't wish anybody dead.

Re:No contact.

[SmackTheIgnorant]

You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way.

Society isn't to blame for a person's mistakes, or a person's actions. Some successful people have risen from being poor and destitute, others have had life handed to them on a silver platter and threw it all away. We make choices, our own choices, and no one is to blame but us for the choices we make. Society isn't responsible for why this teen feels the urge to sue his mother - society has simply shown that it's possible... the individual is making it his own choice to sue. Others have felt the urge to communicate with their parents and work out a resolution to stop them from doing these things - was he not given the ability to talk with her? To Unfriend her? To mark his profile as private? These are HIS choices - not ours.

Very few people are held in a position where they HAVE to smoke, drink, do drugs, steal - maybe peer pressure pushes them to doing things once, but it's up to them to either stop or continue doing so. The choice is ultimately theirs. The choice this individual made, in this instance for this issue, was to sue.

Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.

Re:No contact.

[StuartHankins]

+1 sad but true

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Choices come from life experience, genetics, and circumstance. "Choices" are not uncaused causes. Every choice has a reason it was made.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Sorry. It's just that some people actually do think that way. I'm glad you don't.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

The choices that people make do not come out of the blue. They are not uncaused causes. They are part of an unbroken chain of cause and effect, and if we want to have a better world with less suffering, we must understand why people make the choices they do. Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything, contains no predictive power as a theory, and does nothing except provide an excuse not to care about a problem.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything

Perhaps not, but it accurately describes many individuals that I've had the misfortune of interacting with.

Re:No contact.

[MindlessAutomata]

Screw you buddy, I'm trash and I'm proud of it. Bigot.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeebus thank you for speaking some sense. "We as a society need to..." Um...no. "We" don't *need* to do anything. You can do as you like. I'll pay taxes and die, thank you very much.

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

I work for a human services agency...I can find nothing redeeming...

These statements, in concert, are wholly irresponsible.

Do the responsible thing, and quit. Stop being so selfish, and let someone called to this line of work have your position.

Re:No contact.

[Deadplant]

Stop worrying about who's "to blame" for things and instead concentrate on identifying causal relationships and you may find yourself better able to reach useful conclusions. Fault is irrelevant, concentrate on cause and effect and you'll be more likely to come up with practical actions to affect outcomes.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

I'm sure that's true. But most sad sack losers aren't born sociopaths. They had their loser-nature beaten into them by circumstance. Most of the real sociopathic parasites on the ass of society are CEOs or board members of Fortune 500 companies, not sad children of broken families. Blame the sociopaths, not their victims.

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.

Nature versus nurture, my friend.

It is easy to blame them when they're despicable people. But your emotional satisfaction doesn't obviate the observation that different situations can lead to different results under otherwise similar circumstances.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way.

That's bullshit. Oh noes! Society isn't fair?!? wah! This is the fairest society that has ever existed in the history of the world. Is there still room for improvement? Sure. But make no mistake... People are worthless (or not) BEFORE society treats them unfairly. It's how they react to their situation that reveals the value of their character.

Re:No contact.

[raju1kabir]

If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist.

I understand fairly well how the trash in my kitchen rubbish bin came to exist.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

They had their loser-nature beaten into them by circumstance

I honestly could care less. I've met people that have survived far worse than the "parents" of the kids my agency works with. None of them are putting cigarettes out on their kids or prostituting them out for money and/or drugs. Circumstance only goes so far as a rationalization for bad behavior and there comes a point when the individual needs to be held accountable for his or her choices.

Most of the real sociopathic parasites on the ass of society are CEOs or board members of Fortune 500 companies, not sad children of broken families.

Umm, at what point have I said that the children are parasites? I believe I was reserving my bile for their so-called parents.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

Stop being so selfish, and let someone called to this line of work have your position.

I didn't say I was direct care. I'm the IT person at my particular agency. You couldn't pay me enough to work in a direct care role. If I did work in such a role I would have been arrested a long time ago for beating the shit out of some "parent" that abused one of my clients.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

I disagree. Somewhat. I will say this: a certain percentage of people simply are born good. A smaller percentage are born evil. Nothing society can do to either type of person will make them any different. However, the vast majority of people are only what society and their family make of them.

When you see unfairness around, do you say, "Oh noes, society isn't fair?!? wah!" or do you try to do something about it? If you are one of those people who are just born good, you try to do something, because you don't really have a choice. Witnessing unfairness is painful to people who were born with a powerful sense of justice and no way of turning off their empathy. Trust me, if I could choose to be a heartless bastard like you, I would. My life would be simpler, and less painful.

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

I never said you did. My point stands. Go work where you are passionate about a positive outcome.

Re:No contact.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

... there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.'

To some, 'trash' is a badge of pride: http://www.whitetrashfastfood.com/

The next time that you are in Berlin, stop by. Absinthe is on me. Ya wanna wake up with another funny haircut, and more tatoos?

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Circumstance only goes so far as a rationalization for bad behavior and there comes a point when the individual needs to be held accountable for his or her choices.

Okay, well that I can completely agree with.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist.

I understand fairly well how the trash in my kitchen rubbish bin came to exist.

Yes, I imagine you do. I'm guessing your idea is that 'someone tossed it there,' which, coincidentally, is also the reason for trashy people: society tossed them there.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

You confuse cynicism with a lack of passion. I care greatly for the clients that we service. I just think that the people who fucked them up badly enough to require our services aren't deserving of any further consideration from civilized society.

Also, fuck you. I'll work wherever the hell I feel like, thank you very much.

Re:No contact.

[astar]

I do not exactly criticize your position, but other people have different values. the unitarians have a principle about respecting the human worth and dignity of every person. Now I really doubt that includes enabling the stuff you talk about. and there is the idea of unredemmabilty, which is not christian, but which I would be tempted to apply to henry kissinger. and lastly you might chose to think it is good to sort of honor human form, as a rule. that avoids some euthanasia and eugenics crap, which you could easily end up supporting and I do not recommend.

so I can say sort of interesting things, but you seem to have just done a lot of outrage. I am not sure you should go straight from outrage to an inclination toward lethality

Re:No contact.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Once you've made the decision that people should die for being a certain way, that's it. You've got some really scary company there. What is that certain way? For you, neglectful parents. For others, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, conservatives, you name the group, it doesn't really matter who they are.

Re:No contact.

[Blue Stone]

It's interesting that you cite all these numerous failings (which they certainly are) as being PROOF that that person has no redeeming qualities - the person has these traits THEREFORE they can have no redeeming qualities. That isn't how it works.

Maybe if you try and look at these people another way (as an exercise only!):

they're doing the best they know how.

Yup. That's a shocking thought in some cases, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Re:No contact.

[am 2k]

Uh, I hope you don't believe that you're getting a good sample of the general population there?

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

I'm not confused at all. Cynicism taints your ability to be successful and happy in that position, and it might not otherwise limit a similarly-abled person.

Yes, fuck me. But not because I'm wrong.

Re:No contact.

[b4dc0d3r]

Leaving your kids at home alone so you can go have sex and drugs is one thing. Ensuring they cannot harm themselves while you're away is thoughtful and deserves some consideration.

Ensuring they can't hurt themselves because their fingers are trapped in a closed, locked door to which you have the only key is... I can't even find the words. Anything I say would not be strong enough, I think it speaks for itself. Just thought I'd share.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

Who said I'm not happy and successful?

Re:No contact.

[NeutronCowboy]

Circumstance only goes so far as a rationalization for bad behavior and there comes
a point when the individual needs to be held accountable for his or her choices.

You're confusing rationalization and explanation. Furthermore, an explanation for a behavior is not the same as condoning it or as not holding someone accountable.

Where it is important is to determine what causes - or increases the likelihood of - said behavior. Abandonment? Parents who did the same thing? Genetics? Abuse? Even more important is tracking the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. Does therapy work? Basic employment? Specific drugs?

Yes, I also know people who have gone through hell in their child-hood, and who are now upstanding citizens. I can also tell you that the fact that they didn't do that on their own. They had therapy, they had people who helped them work through their issues, and they had a support system. The fact that they are now upstanding citizens is not merely the result of them being accountable - it's the result of a lot of people around them doing the right thing.

Wouldn't you want to know what the right thing is to do in these circumstances, and what the wrong thing is? Just labeling these people as worthless and ignoring them won't tell you anything.

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

Put it this way, you'll be even more so somewhere where you aren't caught up in so much negativity.

Plus you're not enabling the cynicism in others, which is another win for society.

Just think about it. I'm honestly advocating your interests here, alongside those humans your service organization serves.

Re:No contact.

[Thalaric]

Very few people are held in a position where they HAVE to smoke, drink, do drugs, steal - maybe peer pressure pushes them to doing things once, but it's up to them to either stop or continue doing so.

I actually see it as the reverse. The opportunity to choose comes prior to giving in to peer pressure. After that, choices are often impaired by the habit. Once one is physically addicted or has already made the wrong associations, they may not have a reasonable choice anymore.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that I find nothing redeeming in people like you but then I would have to admit that I hate myself.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Absinthe? It will take more than that to put me under. Got any ketamine?

Re:No contact.

[mad_minstrel]

Much like cleaning, you can't deal with negative things unless you're willing to immerse yourself in them to some degree. Finding another job would just be choosing to look the other way. You can be happy and cynical at once you know. And being cynical in itself is not really something negative, it's just another point of view. A very practical one, might I add.

Re:No contact.

[plcurechax]

(particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY)

Geez, you need to act like a competent bureaucracy and add enough paperwork and dead-ends that the "worthless" (i.e. losers / deadbeats) are too lazy to finish a requisition for gas money, let alone be approved and actual receive such moneies. And more obscure usage of language, and vocabulary. plain-English is a government anti-Pattern.

(And I do know we need social / human services agencies for those who are trying to escape / improve. The difficult part is finding the balance to get to the money & support to those who need it.)

Re:No contact.

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, because everyone that isn't average is a sociopath, rising to the top, or settling to the bottom of the heap, and everyone is a victim of something or another at some point in their life.

That anyone comes out even halfway normal is a miracle of GOD ^H^H^H Nature.

You know, you're exactly the same person you're bashing, and you have no idea. At some point in life, you have to realize you get out exactly what you put into it. If your life is shitty and you're 35 and living in your mom's basement, stop blaming your mom and move out.

I moved out when I was 18 exactly because I realized this truth back then. I chose NOT to be a perpetual victim. And there are PLENTY of perpetual victims and classes of people who continually blame everyone for their lot in life while doing absolutely nothing to fix their own situation.

And the saddest part in all of this, we have a whole class of people who enable this line of thinking, and come up with program after program that tries to fix problems that don't exist, because they don't understand what is a symptom and what is the underlying cause.

And you can't fix stupid.

Re:No contact.

[Garth Smith]

Why does it have to be either all society's fault or all the kid's fault? Can't we take the enlightened point of view that both affect how a person grows and develops into an adult? (I'd like to point out that helping society helps the environment of many people, and helping an individual has a positive effect on society as a whole.)

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

In a vacuum, you may well be right. Meanwhile, read his comment and see if you detect any negativity.

Re:No contact.

[Bing Tsher E]

So this 'restraining order' is how the mom got on the kid's Facebook Account? She only got access because he happened to leave his account in a logged on state on her computer.

That's an interesting new definition of a Restraining Order.

Are you always this angry?

Re:No contact.

[Bing Tsher E]

I kind of figured this out. A few screens up when you de-cloaked I said to myself 'there is no way this dud is a counselor or care-giver at a social service agency.'

So you're basically one of the janitors. The information janitor. Your resentment has an interesting way of surfacing.

Re:No contact.

[droopycom]

I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?

Keyword: Facebook

Similar to what made the Reiser murder/trial story news that matter (albeit slightly less intense).
That murder trial had nothing to do with technology yet Wired had a day by day coverage of the trial.

Re:No contact.

[Bing Tsher E]

I was going to guess the one word was Facebook.

I guess I was kinda close though.

Re:No contact.

[Roxton]

However, the vast majority of people are only what society and their family make of them.

Yeah. The semantics are a bit loaded, but it's an important pattern.

It's like your detractors uncritically read Charles Dickens in their youth. Being an orphaned street urchin is not particularly conducive to an honorable tenderness. "We'll save this orphan because he's sweet and kind. Oh, and it turns out he's the son of nobility." Fuck you, Dickens. Generally, street urchins aren't nice, or if they are, they're sociopaths. That doesn't mean you can't pity them, though. Or work to change society to mitigate the causes of street urchinry. Or take risks and make expenditures to rehabilitate them.

I think that if people had more opportunities to positively impact their communities, they'd be less likely to adopt disingenuous social frameworks. That's part of why I'm enthusiastic about the volunteer movement.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.

And I work health care. Once you are addicted to drugs it is considered a disease. You could never begin to imagine how extremely difficult it is to get over meth addiction and stay clean unless you have tried it yourself. Pick out any single meth addict from the population and odds are better than 50% they will not be able to get clean even with rehab. The addicts brain is permanently affected by meth. It simply works different after long periods of meth use. I consider that a physical handicap. You can call it how you see fit.

The addiction is insanely strong. The word "need" gets thrown around a lot and it loses meaning. These addicts _NEED_ as in "MUST HAVE" their fix. They will do ANYTHING they have to to get it. An addicts brain will think of nothing else until they get their meth fix and even then they will start worrying about getting the next one. If they go too long without meth (like 1 day) they become very sick and have massive amounts of pain.

That same addict who will do anything for their meth fix would do ANYTHING to go back in time and never take that first hit.

They are not trash. They are human beings who made a huge mistake and now have a terrible disease that causes their life to rot slowly. Every day is miserable.

They do not ONLY ignore family and responsibilities they also completely ignore their own health and well-being. Labeling them as selfish is a little awkward because they actually ignore their own needs except the need to get the next hit. Their health goes to crap, their teeth rot and fall out (google meth mouth for images) and they begin to look like death. It is a slow painful way to rot and eventually die.

Having friends or family who love you unconditionally will give you a chance to get better. Unfortunately, so many addicts do not have this or the family and friends avoid them because of their drug use. That leaves many addicts with no family or friends to turn to at the exact same time they need them more than they ever could have imagined.

Addiction is nasty, nasty business. But the affected people are not trash. They are treatable. They can get better. Often when people do recover they make it part of their life goal to warn others about addiction and try to keep people from having to experience the absolute misery they experienced.

Re:No contact.

[mad_minstrel]

What are you, a negativity radar coupled with a beowulf cluster of Delphic oracles? There's clearly not enough data in his postings to positively determine his state of mind, his level of satisfaction from his work or anything else about him to override what he is clearly stating, much less give any useful advice.

Re:No contact.

[c6gunner]

Yes, I imagine you do. I'm guessing your idea is that 'someone tossed it there,' which, coincidentally, is also the reason for trashy people: society tossed them there.

Trash doesn't become trash after you toss it - the reason you tossed it in the first place is because it was already trash.

Re:No contact.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Got any ketamine?

No, we abused up all the ketamine a few days ago on Slashdot in a thread about near death experiences or scientific heaven, or something like that. Our jury concluded that real death was more fun and exciting than near death.

An American specialist is expected to arrive here real soon, as soon as he can extricate himself out of some legal matters on tmz.com. He has a therapy called "The big 'P'", but he advises folks that they should not try to "push it" themselves.

And hey, if you are going to do something that you can only do once in a lifetime, like dying, do you want to be asleep while doing it? You'll miss everything.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 4.

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

Good point. Chalk it up to my assessment, and take with the requisite grain of salt.

Better question, why on earth does it bother you enough to post about it?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But my time on this planet has led me to believe I'm correct often enough to make judgments on limited information. You're free to disagree, if you'd like, but I'm free to keep on keeping on as well.

So we're both just wasting a lot of time here, and I'm led to wonder why you bothered.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

But most sad sack losers aren't born sociopaths.

Most "sad sack losers" aren't sociopaths. Sociopaths tend to have a complete disregard for anything outside of their own interests/desires. Many are high-functioning enough to be basically indistinguishable from normal folk unless you spend enough time around them, analyzing their actions.

That aside, "children of broken families" aren't on trial here. The drug addict who BROKE the family is the one under fire. The parent who would prostitute his or her own child is the one who broke the family. You can argue the cycle of abuse makes someone abuse their children, but people can still choose. And any parent who chooses to sexually exploit a child for personal gain sure counts as "worthless" in my book.

Re:No contact.

[oatworm]

Perhaps so, but humans aren't deterministic state machines. We're way too complicated to lump into a stimulus-response pattern, or even a "if person A experiences this with genes from B and C and experiences circumstance D in the meantime, person A will do E" pattern. Humans are, at best, mildly probabilistic; many people might do E, but some will do something wildly different, if only to be willfully contrary, or perhaps because they didn't even notice D or interpreted A is something completely different.

Granted, probabilistically, it's safe to say that, if somebody was raised in an abusive household, there is a greater chance that the person will be abusive as well. However, that chance is nowhere near guaranteed; there's also a chance that the person might fly to the other extreme, or just be pretty normal overall. Even if that weren't the case, and even if people were truly deterministic, it doesn't change the fact that being abusive does have clearly delineated legal consequences, in no small part because we, as a society, have decided that there is a vested interest in breaking generational chains of abusive behavior. These legal consequences cannot take into account prior background because, if they did, the law would be pointless - we'd just decide that the abusive person came from an abusive background and is therefore not responsible for their actions; this, of course, would give the abuser the freedom to continue the abuse. That doesn't help anybody. So, we introduce a circumstance L - if you abuse somebody, the law will come down on you like a pile of bricks.

Of course, humans aren't deterministic nor perfectly rational, so many people will continue to ignore circumstance L or misinterpret it wildly and continue abusing, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

Re:No contact.

[dcollins]

"Others have felt the urge to communicate with their parents and work out a resolution to stop them from doing these things - was he not given the ability to talk with her? To Unfriend her? To mark his profile as private? These are HIS choices - not ours."

FTA: "In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life... New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights..."

Which would take away at least some of your proposed choices.

Re:No contact.

[BobMcD]

Yes, I imagine you do. I'm guessing your idea is that 'someone tossed it there,' which, coincidentally, is also the reason for trashy people: society tossed them there.

Trash doesn't become trash after you toss it - the reason you tossed it in the first place is because it was already trash.

I'm guessing you don't recycle.

Re:No contact.

[mad_minstrel]

Actually, I'm just waiting for a render job to complete. I post because I need to waste away two more hours and because I enjoy disagreeing with strangers on the internet, much like others enjoy FreeCell. I replied to your particular posting because I feel strongly that jumping to conclusions is deeply wrong. If you feel your time is being wasted, my apologies. I'd like to point out though that you're free not to reply.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you feel this way and publicly comment on the internet about it tells me that you shouldn't be working for that agency in the first place...

and I notice farther down the you mention you work at that place in an IT position. Great - so not only are you not qualified to be commenting on these people's worth, but you DON'T EVEN WORK WITH THEM DIRECTLY AND LIKELY MAY NOT KNOW ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Those people that you think "should just die already?" You should be at the head of that list, asshole.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.' Never. Not even Hitler. If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, people from your same field was trying to heal my narcolepsy with highly addictive antidepressives. I took them for a while and it changed my life. For worse. Getting off them took months and was really difficult. You should know how much.
Best of all...that medication made me fall asleep much more often, even at work. Now I am unemployed, and my will to live is almost gone. But people thinks I am just lazy instead.
Why should I feel sorry for a crack or meth addict? There are plenty of examples of what those drugs do. What were they thinking? "It's not going to happen to me"? That's pure ego.
At least I was made to believe I could lead a normal life if I did those "legal drugs". From a person supposed to heal me.

Re:No contact.

[snowgirl]

Al Sharpton on The Colbert Report just yesterday noted that he was one of thousands in the same conditions, and that even though he was able to rise above it, the majority of the people he knew growing up are dead or in prison.

Just because you have an example of 1% that make it through, or make it out, does not mean that they did anything special necessarily even, and the average for all of them is that life sucks, and it is not entirely their fault. In a society where 99 out of every 100 that are in their situation fail to have an opportunity to succeed, that makes it 1% their fault.

Look at the Worlds Strongest Man competition... look at everything they can accomplish. The fact that you cannot is an indication that you're lazy, and incapable. ... That logic doesn't sound right, and neither should "look, this one person got out of the ghetto, so the fact that you're still here means you're lazy and incapable."

Some people can push harder than others.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Ah, luckily we have you, someone who DOES understand what is a symptom and what is an underlying cause, to tell those idiots who've spent their lives studying things like psychology, sociology, and childhood development, that they are idiots who don't understand anything.

You know, it's funny how often 'chose not to be a perpetual victim' translates to 'I got mine, now screw everybody else.'

Re:No contact.

[spun]

I agree that people's feelings of powerlessness to affect positive change leads them to adopt, as you say, disingenuous social frameworks. I like that phrase, by the way.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

It's nice that you can determine who can and can not be helped to become a better person. Obviously, all the people you label as trash are simply wastes of a human life and should just go ahead and die to make more room for the rest of us. And obviously, there is nothing anyone can do to make society better. Might as well not try, eh?

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly could care less.

you should. There are those in the social strata above you who would hold YOU 'accountable (which is a euphemism for 'live up to my standards or else') for your choices. sounds like you hate your job. why are you working there, loser?

I've met people that have survived far worse than the "parents" of the kids my agency works with. None of them are putting cigarettes out on their kids or prostituting them out for money and/or drugs.

far worse according to what standard? yours? everyone has different tolerances. a lot of times the people who do those things figure they've got no choice. it runs a lot deeper than 'here's some gas money, go see the kid.'

Umm, at what point have I said that the children are parasites? I believe I was reserving my bile for their so-called parents.

who like everyone else are limited by their circumstances. some is due to choice and some is not. preachy assholes like you are the ones who like to assume it's ALL about choice and the sky is always the limit. it's a bad mixture of that 60s hippie idealism mixed with a self-righteousness bred of deep seated insecurity. get over yourself. you're no better than they are if you have to strike at them like that, especially when you're in a position where you're supposed to help them. take your own advice and be responsible for a change: quit your job and go flip burgers loser.

Re:No contact.

[Eponymous Bastard]

Also, fuck you. I'll work wherever the hell I feel like, thank you very much.

Pity I don't have mod points. I'd mod you up just for that.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

but you DON'T EVEN WORK WITH THEM DIRECTLY AND LIKELY MAY NOT KNOW ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Put away your bleeding heart. There are no circumstances that justify the abuse of children under your charge.

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

There are those in the social strata above you who would hold YOU 'accountable (which is a euphemism for 'live up to my standards or else') for your choices.

Let them. I've never made a choice that placed someone in my care in harms way for my own selfish ends. I will stand in front of any of my fellow citizens and justify the choices I've made in my life.

sounds like you hate your job. why are you working there, loser?

No, I love my job, I just hate the people it brings me into contact with.

a lot of times the people who do those things figure they've got no choice

No choice? There's always a choice. You are seriously going to tell me that somebody who burns his kids with cigarettes or prostitutes them out to cover drug debts had no choice? Give me a fucking break. Put away your ideology and review the behaviors that you are defending.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps so, but humans aren't deterministic state machines.

Says you. We are sufficiently complex that we simply don't have enough information about the state of any one particular human at any one point in time, but we sure as hell have to be deterministic state machines. The decisions your brain makes depends on how it's wired up, what chemicals are currently floating around, and what neurons have fired in response to a particular stimulus. That's a deterministic state machine.

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you always this angry?

Grandparent post said nothing that could have given you the honest impression that he was angry, and you know it. You made that up and attributed it to him. In short, you are a liar.

Re:No contact.

[mjwx]

Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.

I think your experiences have made your view a but skewed, cant say I blame you but...

Comparatively speaking very few people are completely worthless, while they certainly exist their number compared to that of people that are good or at least have correctable flaws is quite small.

Sometimes I think the advantage of a nanny state is that we would be able to prevent people like what you have described from being able to breed. Then I remember that it would never work like that and stick my head in a bucket of ice water until such thoughts go away.

Re:No contact.

[randyleepublic]

Please, Mr. Calvin! Do you honestly believe that the gestalt of society and culture in the United States is doing anything even close to an optimum job of providing the nurturing that will best develop everyone to their full potential? OK, not optimum, how about 1% of optimum? 2%? The idea is not to "blame society" and thereby rob an individual of their dignity and self direction. The idea is to point out that we don't do a very good job, *so that we might improve*. Or you don't think any improvement in nurturing is possible? I think 5% is a realistic goal - let's start with that! Let's see if we can achieve 5% of optimum. Whatta ya say?

Re:No contact.

[Shakrai]

I said to myself 'there is no way this dud is a counselor or care-giver at a social service agency.'

No, the counselors are even more cynical than I am.

Your resentment has an interesting way of surfacing.

Resentment? Yes, I resent the fact that some lowlife who offers her child up for sexual services is allowed to breathe the same air that I do. As far as I'm concerned such a person is a waste of resources and it would be a public service to put them out of our collective misery.

But please, go on condemning me for having the audacity to call out that kind of behavior for what it is.

Re:No contact.

[c6gunner]

Trash doesn't become trash after you toss it - the reason you tossed it in the first place is because it was already trash.

I'm guessing you don't recycle.

Actually, I recycle or compost close to 100% of my trash. However ... I shudder to think what kind of analogy you're trying to make. Soylent Green?

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are stating a major divide between people. There are those that believe each individual is the master of his life, and others who believe our surroundings drive our lives.
I personally believe like you that we make our own choices.

Still, as an organized society, we should also take collective actions to help those in need. And I think we should help them without driving their lives whenever possible. That's very hard to achieve!!!

Re:No contact.

[Anonymous Coward]

break the chain

destroy the losers before they reproduce.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

You sound German, circa 1939.

Re:No contact.

[Archangel Michael]

"You know, it's funny how often 'chose not to be a perpetual victim' translates to 'I got mine, now screw everybody else.'"

Ever meet someone who picks guys for boyfriends who beat the crap out of them over and over again?

They like those types of men or else they wouldn't keep picking them. They don't want a nice boring geek who will treat them like a queen, because it is "boring" or some sort of self esteem issues or whatever. It doesn't matter.

And if they ever did find a nice guy who liked them back, they would sabbotage the relationship every chance they got, usually with a guy who beats them up.

They are a perpetual victim, because of the choices they make. That is what a perpetual victim does, because it is what they are good at. And they have people like yourself, enabling them to stay a perpetual victim because you continue to make excuses for the bad choices they make.

The fact is, it is much easier to blame everything bad on your life on everything but yourself. The moment you realize that the choices you make have a DIRECT IMPACT on the quality of life you have, irrespective of your upbringing, the sooner you can get out of the crappy lifestyle you've chosen.

Yes, life sucks sometimes. I've been 1/2 dead in a back of an ambulance, I've been depressed and out of work for long periods of time. The moment I realized that it was ME who was causing most of my problems, the problems started to go away.

So, Yeah, I got mine. And it isn't "screw everyone else" like you claim, it is "Wake up and realize the truth", which sounds a lot like "Screw you" because I'm telling people they are responsible for their life and choices, in a day and age where that is unfashionable, and it is easier to blame mom and dad, uncle child molester, mean teacher or because the dog didn't like you.

One thing I HAVE learned about all those experts you pointed to, is that they are often as screwed up as the people they are trying to help. And going to see someone as screwed up as you are to help you get unscrewed is like going to see a drunk liquor store owner the help you with your alcoholism.

Re:No contact.

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for the work you do for our society. Also, thanks for your words on the subject. That was quite refreshing.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Yes, I've met women like you described, and personally helped them overcome their addiction to harmful men. In the cases I've dealt with, these women all had abusive or absent fathers. I didn't just tell them to get the fuck over it and get on with their life. I listened. When was the last time you listened to someone else's problems?

You are responsible for your future, but not always for your past.

Just telling someone to take responsibility for their lives will not work. It is such an obvious and cliched thing to say, if you say it, what you are really saying is, "You are too dumb to figure out what you need to do is take responsibility for your life." It's insulting, not helpful. You think they don't know that? It's HOW TO DO IT that escapes them, and you don't know that because it isn't your life, it's theirs.

It is also insulting because it assumes that people's pain and trauma is meaningless, that anyone can get over any horrific thing just by ignoring it and focusing on the future. That isn't how the psyche works.

Why would you think those experts I pointed to are all screwed up? What evidence do you have, exactly, that psychologists, social workers, and so on are more likely to harm than to help? Any case studies? Personal anecdotes? Anything?

Maybe you think they are just coddling the crazy losers who come to them, and what those losers really need is an Archangel Michael style ass kicking to get them motivated?

Who have you helped to become a better person? Anyone? How's your strategy for helping people working out for you? Got a few success stories under your belt with your 'stop feeling sorry for yourself,' methodology?

Re:No contact.

[Archangel Michael]

First Success Story I have is myself. Yeah, we all can bitch and whine about something in our past that was traumatic. Poor people because they are poor, rich people because mom and dad cared more about money than the kids etc etc etc.

As for the abuse seeking women, I've know a few. The only ones I know that TRULY got health, simply realized one day that their choices were going to get themselves killed and just left, moved away, got out of town, left everything behind. There is something to be said for a "fresh start".

As for screwed up professionals, there are quite a few. If you don't realize this, then you're not paying attention. I'm not saying they all are screwed up, nor even a majority. But there are enough for me to have noticed.

Yes, they got their Masters and some even have Doctorates, and the piece of paper makes them think they know better than everyone else (what a crock). And you know, you can see their patients who NEVER get any better and keep going and going and going back. They've just replaced one abusive relationship with another.

I never said they were "too dumb" for anything. Again, people stay where they are COMFORTABLE, even if it is painful. It is why people stay in the Getto, locked into a cycle of poverty. CHANGE is the hardest thing one can do. Identifying that you need a change is easy, actually having the guts to do something is difficult.

And yes, sometimes a good old fashioned motivational ass kicking is needed. Tough love works, coddling doesn't. Sometimes one has to allow for the struggle for something to change from a Caterpillar to a Butterfly (if you don't know the reference, ask).

Lastly, I have a great story for you. My own daughter, who blamed me for everything on why her life sucked so bad. It was so bad, my wife and I kicked her out of the house at age 16, because she was unbearable to live with. Fast forward 6 years, she is now 21-22 and life is a living hell for her, and she has a nervous break down. Locked up in a Mental Ward bad. They were telling her that she was right that I was a terrible father, and that it was all my fault and so on.

The crap they were feeding her, was exactly what she WANTED to hear, but hardly truthful. Well after her stint in the ward, I told my wife, on purely a gut feeling, that she was ready to come home for help. We brought her home, and with a little "ass kicking" motivation got her straightened out.

Fast forward to today, she is now a supervisor at her work (age 24) and doing quite well (new car, new apt). I'm not a bad father, I did nothing to make her believe I was (I have two other daughters who are quite normal). I'm quite proud of ALL my kids. But I am especially proud of this one for getting her life together, and realizing that her problems were her own making. Which ALLOWED her to become successful in life.

So yeah, I have "Success Stories". And the psycho people running the Mental Health Ward, if it were up to me, would be arrested for abuse. They did NOTHING to help my daughter, but instead fed her a bunch of lies and crap trying to make her "feel better". What a crock of shit that was.

SO YEAH, I have experience. Yeah, I'm kind of jaded towards Psychologists and Social Workers.

Re:No contact.

[spun]

Hmm, well, okay, I can see why you are a little jaded. Kudos on helping your daughter. Key being: you helped her, she didn't just do it on her own. Does everyone have a father like you? We wish...

Sometimes an ass kicking helps. Sometimes it's the worst thing in the world. Sometimes love and understanding helps, and yes, I will admit: sometimes it just provides an excuse to stay stagnant. Key here being: no on strategy works best in all situations. Sometimes, an injustice is external, and needs to be corrected before a person can move on and take charge of their life.

In the final analysis, I've got to agree with you that no one can change someone else, if the other person doesn't want to change. But sometimes, all it takes is one other person believing in you to give you the confidence to believe in yourself. Personal change and growth are hard, and take time and effort. Nobody wakes up one morning and says, "I'm going to be a different person" and POW! they just are. It takes years of commitment to change to actually build new and better habits. And it really helps to have someone who cares about you say "I believe you can do it." Having someone who cares about you say "I'm going to kick your ass if you don't change," well, that's not so effective.

Most importantly, nobody gets anywhere being judgmental, of themselves or others. Discerning is effective, judging is ineffective. Punishment does not work as a motivator of new behaviors, and it is only a shotgun in extinguishing old behaviors. The whole hierarchical mindset of good/bad is wrong and harmful to the human psyche. You won't see many world religions preaching that we should be more judgmental and vengeful. You'll see that most of them have a common message of love, understanding, and compassion.

Alternatives

[mr100percent]

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.

Re:Alternatives

[Lunix Nutcase]

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

The kid lives with his grandmother and the mother has no custodial rights. That would make it a little hard for the mom to punish him in any way.

Re:Alternatives

[Jazz-Masta]

That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.

I love the "Tachy Goes to Coventry" (Global Ignore) feature of vBulletin. Banning users, or having the user *know* they are ignored just prompts them to find ways around it. When the user spins their wheels and has no idea they are being ignored, they keep doing it. Funny, actually.

Re:Alternatives

[Davey McDave]

A case of RTFA in this case, a careless untruthful comment on the summary.

"In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life."

The posts weren't from her account on his statuses or whatever, it sounds like she actually went onto HIS account and posted slanderous things in his name (or at least, that is what is being accused). Sounds a little more serious now.

Re:Alternatives

[Imrik]

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.

Read the article, she allegedly hacked his account and posted under his name.

Re:Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

So how would you go about putting someone on Limited Profile who hacked into your account?

Re:Alternatives

[Locke2005]

Just a little difficult to do after she has changed the password... she was posting AS HIM.

Re:Alternatives

[El Gigante de Justic]

The article is lacking detail on the exact actions taken, but he is accusing her of logging into his account and posting as him and changing his password, not just posting things to his wall or comments to his status. If she did use his log-in, then he actually has a case.

Re:Alternatives

[adisakp]

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

If you RTFA, the mother actually hacked into his account (guessed his password?), changed the password, and made posts as him.

In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life.

Re:Alternatives

[MrMista_B]

He didn't friend her.

She /cracked his password/, and posted /as him/.

Read the damn article, or you come out looking like an idiot.

Re:Alternatives

[dcollins]

"I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something). There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something."

FTA: "In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life... New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights..."

Re:Alternatives

[Qzukk]

the mother actually hacked into his account

Actually, the mother (or someone claiming to be her) started posting on the comments there (didn't her lawyer tell her to keep her mouth shut?) and according to that person, the son left the account logged in.

Re:Alternatives

[ankurb]

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

Yes, but isn't filing a lawsuit going to sour the relationship even more? Good point about putting in a limited profile though. That's what I do.

Re:Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

ya sure she would take away his comp for uinfriending her, not for filing a law suit? jackass!

Re:Alternatives

[hesaigo999ca]

And would also explain why the mother would need to feel compelled to use facebook to talk with him.
If she is not happy with what is happening with his facebook, then I guess, she should contact his guardian, and them know what is happening on such sites, that would have been the legal way to do it...

Had a daughter of a friend of mine who posted on her facebook, some really adult like comments about what she would and would not do for free, and trust me as soon as i saw that, i decided to approach the kid's parents but the kid had some excuse that it was a friend that played a prank on them, and her parents told here what sort of friend would do that, steal your credentials and set up those type of comments about herself.... sometimes makes you wonder why have facebook at all...!

Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[commodore64_love]

It looks like she's wearing a stiff helmet.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[Locke2005]

Haven't you ever noticed before that men tend to wear facial hair designed to resemble a woman's pubic patch, while women tend to wear hairstyles shaped like the head of a penis? Sort of a Freudian indicator of what their thinking of, I guess.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[snspdaarf]

Haven't you ever noticed before that men tend to wear facial hair designed to resemble a woman's pubic patch...

If her pubic patch looks like my facial hair, she needs to shave her inner thighs.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you ever noticed before that men tend to wear facial hair designed to resemble a woman's pubic patch, while women tend to wear hairstyles shaped like the head of a penis? Sort of a Freudian indicator of what their thinking of, I guess.

More likely a Freudian indicator of what YOU are thinking.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[Locke2005]

No, that would look a lot more like tits.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Men tend to wear facial hair designed to resemble a woman's pubic patch. All great men have worn mustaches. Therefore, all great men have been emulating a female's anatomy. Further proof for my belief that the vagina is a source of super powers.

I'm tellin' yah boys, either we wake up to the threat that is the blood-spewing female reproductive organs, or we will be doomed to extinction by Snu-Snu.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[Locke2005]

Behind every great man there is a woman, who is absolutely surprised as hell at his success.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair

[jonaskoelker]

So that is why all the guys I see are bald... Hmm, what do you know...

NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[Millennium]

So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.

However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.

Moral of the story: RTFA.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[tompaulco]

What the heck is happening in the U.S. these days? I've heard at least half of my kids friends' utter the phrase "I have to ask my grandma".

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[vlm]

Usually that means Mom is closer to one decade older than her kids, rather than two or three decades. Mom is still being raised by Grandma, still a teenager. Its not unusual to see 25 year old grandmas. That's actually a pretty good age to be raising kids, even if they're grand-kids...

Best advice is acorns don't fall far from the tree. You may want to limit your kids contact with those kids, etc etc.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[OrangeMonkey11]

So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.

However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.

Moral of the story: RTFA.

Not everyone who have their grandparents as parents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation; it could be that this kid mom had him when she was way young and cannot take care of him so rather than give him up for adoption or throw him away like garbage she gave him to her parents to take care of. And unlike some degenerates who just dump their unwanted kid(s) to their parents; she have the decency to stay in touch and try to be a parent as much as she can.

And from what I read this kid sounds like one of those POS EMO, he had an argument of some sort with his girl and went into EMO mode and drove 95MPH home.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[BitZtream]

Moral of the story: RTFA.

No.

The instant facebook is mentioned you simply assume its retarded. Its a big graffiti wall that people post crap to, then get pissed off because someone they didn't want saw it or someone said something mean about them.

Any news story relating to facebook that doesn't involve its last servers being turned off or some sort of airplane flying into all of their datacenters at one time is worthless and should be written off as something 'another one of those facebook/twitter/attentionwhores is being an idiot again'.

Thats where it should end. I don't really care what happened here, everyone involved is an idiot, possibly including the reporter who reported it. I can safely make that assumption without reading the story because its true for every story about facebook/twitter. Prove me wrong if you think you can, but I'm not going to sit around and wait for something to happen you can use as a reference.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[Anubis IV]

If you read through the comments on TFA, the mother actually starts responding. Supposedly, she had a mental breakdown (her failure to grasp the English language might have been her first clue) after going through a nasty divorce with her husband, followed up shortly thereafter by a fire in the house where she and her son were living. As a result, the son is now in the custody of his paternal grandmother, he hasn't seen the father in a number of years, the father isn't paying support, and the son apparently has a history of behavioral problems (the mother cited issues with truancy, drugs, and traffic violations, amongst others). She readily admits that she accessed his account from her computer after he had left it logged onto Facebook.

Moral of the story: The family was broken and crazy before. Nothing has changed.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[edunbar93]

You know what? I think it was about 10 years ago, possibly more, when I said "ICQ? *Why*? It's like IRC, but starts when you turn your computer on. I can do that with mIRC."

Apparently you haven't gone through this phase in your life yet. Here's a hint though: you're missing the boat. Stop being a curmudgeon at the age of what, 28?

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not unusual to see 25 year old grandmas

So it's not unusual for two successive generations to have kids aged 12 years old? Where the fuck do you live, Utah?

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[LordLucless]

25 year-old grandma? Given that the OP said his kids friends were asking a question, they're probably at least 5. For their grandma to be 25, there has to be a 20-year period between Grandma's birth, and the kid's birth. That would mean both parent and grandparent would have had to have given birth at age 10 (or another pair of numbers that sum to 20). I sincerely doubt that is common.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved ICQ. I had a seven digit number from being an early user; the real vets have six-digit numbers!

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions!

[Millennium]

Not everyone who have their grandparents as parents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation; it could be that this kid mom had him when she was way young and cannot take care of him so rather than give him up for adoption or throw him away like garbage she gave him to her parents to take care of. And unlike some degenerates who just dump their unwanted kid(s) to their parents; she have the decency to stay in touch and try to be a parent as much as she can.

I don't know; I'd call that particular situation pretty seriously F*ed up. You're right that not everyone raised by their grandparents comes from a seriously F*ed up situation, but the ones that aren't tend to be tragic instead.

This crap has gone too far.

[Kirin Fenrir]

Now, I don't use Facebook (or any similar site), but can't he just block her?

Since when have people become so helpless online that they cry for help every time somebody does something they don't like? You can TAKE YOURSELF OF OF ANY SITUATION ONLINE.

This is why I have no tolerance for anyone using the term cyber-bullying. Even if you have a full-on /b/tard attack, they'll get bored and go away if you ignore it long enough. Welcome to the internet, thar'be trolls here.

Re:This crap has gone too far.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can TAKE YOURSELF OF OF ANY SITUATION ONLINE.

Always a good idea, if posting in ALL CAPS, to check spelling first.

Re:This crap has gone too far.

[Imrik]

She allegedly hacked into his account and made posts from it so no, he can't just block her.

Re:This crap has gone too far.

[thearkitex]

Is it less necessary to check spelling if you don't use caps?

Re:This crap has gone too far.

[JazzLad]

When your password is ihatemymom it is easy to hack your account.

Re:This crap has gone too far.

[dcollins]

"Now, I don't use Facebook (or any similar site), but can't he just block her? Since when have people become so helpless online that they cry for help every time somebody does something they don't like? You can TAKE YOURSELF OF OF ANY SITUATION ONLINE. "

FTA: "In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life... New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights..."

from the article; she cracked his pw

[random coward]

According to the article; she isn't his costodian, and she didn't just post on his wall; she stole his password and posted to his wall as him. So identity theft much? Computer crime much?

The fact that a Judge granted the restraining order against a women on behalf of a 16yo male(son) also should be a good indication of the situation.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[camperdave]

I don't use Facebook, but are you not able to edit your own posts? Or is it like Slashdot, written in stone once you hit submit?

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[DarKnyht]

For free entertainment go read the comments on the story. Mom has registered and is spamming the board with her side of the story.

One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Tainek]

I don't use Facebook, but are you not able to edit your own posts? Or is it like Slashdot, written in stone once you hit submit?

On Facebook you can delete your posts, But you can't remove it from peoples thoughts

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Jaysyn]

I would, but apparently the station's web server is a smoking pile of slag right now.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Vayra]

That's one thing, but changing password? And posting slander?

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[mooingyak]

One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.

To one of my friends, or maybe my brother or sister, sure. To one of my kids? No, or at least nothing beyond some light teasing. And I'd never change someone's password.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Daniel Dvorkin]

One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved.

If you leave your door unlocked when you go to work, you don't deserve to get burglarized, and anyone who enters your house and takes your stuff is still guilty of a crime.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[PSandusky]

Got what he deserved "in the court of public opinion," sure, I'll go for that. In terms of legal implications regarding use of someone else's account, I severely doubt that's an adequate defense. [Insert hackneyed "just because I can doesn't mean I should" after school special moral here.]

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[oatworm]

Thank you. It doesn't matter how easy it is for you to reach out and grab something, if it's not yours, it's not yours and you have no right to touch it without permission. Good grief.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes beyond that; she changed the password to his email account as well so he couldn't change the facebook pw back (coincidentally it meant he couldn't check his email either ....).

I'm with random coward ... forget about the slander, there have got to be computer crime laws that deal with this. She basically hijacked his online existance.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Culture20]

One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.

To one of my friends, or maybe my brother or sister, sure. To one of my kids? No, or at least nothing beyond some light teasing. And I'd never change someone's password.

You have to enter your current password when attempting to change your password on facebook. If she changed his password, she wasn't just using the account after he left it logged in.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. There are lots of interpretations on this very thread of "hacking" and "cracking" a password, then. What is said is that in the nineties, the concept involved some real decryption. Now I see posts saying "can someone help me hack my ex girlfriend's hotmail account?" and other stuff .. it looks like teenagers have redefined hacking in ways they could only solve through "social engineering."

Rant aside, I wonder if there is a name for exactly the kind of misdemeanor you mention: forgetting to log out. Web 2.0 makes it an increasingly large vulnerability; nobody gives you anything if you don't sign in these days, and then when you do, they let you forget what login credentials you had since it's so rarely used.

Supposed Mom giving more details in comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to note that someone, possibly the mother is adding more details and explains some things in the comments section.

Re:Supposed Mom giving more details in comments

[Locke2005]

Just wanted to note that someone, possibly the mother, is posting numerous comments demonstrating that she is both illiterate and batshit crazy in the comments section. This isn't helping your case any, Ms. New!

Stupid woman

[Locke2005]

Half of the comments on that article are by Ms. New herself. Obviously she hasn't hired a lawyer yet, because the first thing a lawyer would do is tell her to STFU... she isn't making herself look like any more fit a parent by showing her ass in public in all these postings... and they're probably admissible in court as evidence that she is continuing to harass and slander her son!

Re:Stupid woman

[rwv]

Thanks for pointing out the comments section of the article. Her allegations are that the boy has a long history of bad behavior and that she's monitoring him for his own good. Also, she claims (responsibly enough) that he left his account logged into her computer and her posts (in the comments section of the linked article) are filled with enough typos and grammar errors that I'd believe she's incapable of truly hacking into anything that's reasonably protected.

Leaving aside the issue that she wasn't the legal guardian, what's wrong with a parent who wants to try to know what her underaged kid is doing? Since the guardian is liable to the trouble the kid gets in, and there are allegations that grandma wasn't doing the job, shouldn't monitoring kids be a legal right of a parent?

Also, can we have a referendum on saying people "hacked" a system where the keys were left in the ignition with the windows rolled down and the engine running? People store their passwords in web browsers all the time. Firefox has a way of going in and turning all stored passwords into plain-text. IE probably has the same thing. Using these built-in features of the software is not a form of hacking. At worst, it's the equivalent of walking into a house you don't own through a wide open front door when you haven't received an invitation. Sure, it's "Entering" but it's not "Breaking and Entering". Frown on it, but calling it "hacking" implies some sort of "skill" that most people don't possess and we should acknowledge where that isn't the case.

Re:Stupid woman

[Locke2005]

Reading his Farcebook page when he left it logged in I don't have a problem with. Changing the password, then posting defamatory remarks to the page while logged in as her son is grounds for a lawsuit... as is posting defamatory remarks about him on the News Stations comment page. Also, she contradicts herself in a way only truly mentally ill people can -- she is publicly defaming him because she is upset about unwise Facebook comments that can adversely affect his later life... WTF? She doesn't think her online announcements that her son speeds, has been arrested for drunk driving, and has been busted for pot might adversely affect his chances at employment?!?

Re:Stupid woman

[geekoid]

are filled with enough typos and grammar errors that I'd believe she's incapable of truly hacking into anything that's reasonably protected.

I know some talented software engineers with writing skills so poor it will make you weep.
Me for instance.

Nothing is wrong with that, at the heart of the issue is a big unknown. Their history. Clearly this isn't just one time event. There are issues here, and it could very well be that she isn't supposed to do this do to some court order, or other reason.

I feel you pain, but don't bother, hacking is now a generic term meant for people who are "trespassing".

Citation:

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation: Fox News. What more do you need?

Re:Citation:

[Lunix Nutcase]

Worse. His source is Alex Jones.

The real story, for me...

[wjc_25]

...is the wording of Arkansas's "harassment" offense law: "A person commits the offense if with purpose to harass, annoy or alarm another person without good cause, he engages in conduct or repeatedly commits acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person." (from the article)

It's unnerving to think that it's possible to take legal action against someone for such a vaguely defined offense. Think back to your childhood--or high school even, or college: how often did you "annoy or alarm another person without good cause"? Cripes sake, who hasn't? Suddenly this enormous, near-universal category of human interaction, namely anything that annoys or frightens one person "for no good reason," is legally actionable. Terrifying.

Re:The real story, for me...

[kramerd]

Its not particularly unnerving that it is possible to take legal action against harassment simply because someone harasses you. For one thing, if you take legal action against someone without good cause, we call that harassment. I'm fairly certain that if I am on the receiving end of such, I want to be able to take legal action. I don't understand why you find this terrifying.

Re:The real story, for me...

[BobMcD]

Yeah, but looking back, you were held back by the threat of violent retaliation. If you harassed that little kid too much - took things too far - his big brother would come and stomp a hole in your ass.

That sort of retaliation is presently illegal.

Therefore it follows that the harassment warranting it would be likewise.

E.g. Phoebe Prince.

Re:The real story, for me...

[donaggie03]

The problem isn't that harassment is actionable, the problem GP is trying to point out is Arkansas' definition of harassment. A person commits an offense if they annoy another person without good cause. Think about the implications of that.

Re:The real story, for me...

[Locke2005]

Stop it! You're intentionally annoying me, aren't you? And with no good cause! You better hope you don't live in Arkansas!

It gets worse. In California, you can get a restraining order against someone you were in a relationship with just by saying "I was afraid of him/her." Even if you have history of hospitalization for paranoia and depression. Even if that person has never actually done anything to make you afraid of them. If you cohabitate, they can then have a squad of cops come in in the middle of the night, roust you out bed, give you 5 minutes to gather your clothes (but nothing of value), and permanently ban you from the house you are paying for. They can then go through your remaining possessions and sell them at their leisure. All because someone said they were afraid for no reason. (If this does happen to you, immediately and permanently terminate the relationship. Beauty is skin deep, but crazy goes clean through to the bone.)

Re:The real story, for me...

[kramerd]

I don't see the problem that you do because I understand the meaning of words. Annoy in the legal sense here refers to molestation or harm, not irritation. You are going to have to show intent and harm or any lawsuit for the criminal charge of harassment will be thrown out on its face (and as I pointed out, could be subject to counterclaim of harassment).

How about he just leaves facebook.

[Murdoch5]

Facebook is a really lame site. If he cares so much about her posts then just close the facebook account. You want to update your friends call them, talk to them. Facebook is the reason people are becoming anti social. For thousands of years people got along with out facebook and I bet we can get along again by just doing face to face or call to call social networking.

On the other hand, she shouldn't post on his wall but the simple solution is post on her wall, if she did steal his password he can change his password. So I don't see why he's making such a massive problem out of this. If he thought about a solution he could have this cleared up in 1 second.

Re:How about he just leaves facebook.

[BobMcD]

Right, the kid should cut himself off from something his peers consider normal behavior because his mom is a whack job.

Wait, why?

Re:How about he just leaves facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

We also got along for thousands of years without electricity, plumbing or even houses.

Re:How about he just leaves facebook.

[Von Helmet]

Facebook is a really lame site. If he cares so much about her posts then just close the facebook account. You want to update your friends call them, talk to them. Facebook is the reason people are becoming anti social. For thousands of years people got along with out facebook and I bet we can get along again by just doing face to face or call to call social networking.

People got by for thousands of years without computers, but I doubt you're about to pull the plug. "Oh, but computers are useful!" you say. Well, yeah, so is Facebook. Facebook allows a whole bunch of people to better keep in touch with a whole bunch of other people, including many that they would otherwise not keep in touch with at all.

Just because you have no use for it, doesn't make it useless. Maybe you and your friends just haven't figured out how to use it yet.

Re:How about he just leaves facebook.

[Murdoch5]

I was just providing a workable solution for this kid to deal with his screwed up mom. My personal views about facebook are my own to keep and there never going to change.

Relating facebook and computers is not an even playing field, computers are the result of the need for fast and more effective means to complete work, facebook is the result of kid getting lucky that people to lazy to use a phone and will now just post on a wall.

If facebook provided some sort of information exchange such as Slashdot, root prompt or other forums then it would be different. As it stands the only thing I can gain from facebook is that a girl named jenny is dating a guy named bill and I don't know either of them.

Re:How about he just leaves facebook.

[alexhmit01]

She had access to his account because he left it logged in. She then proceeded to change the password on the Facebook account, and the password on the email account so he couldn't get a new password sent. She then proceeded to post messages that the county prosecutor agreed constituted harassment. So no, he can't "change his password," she locked the whole thing.

She didn't post on his wall, she impersonated him and sent messages out.

There is a big discussion on the forum of one of the local television affiliates over there, where she is posting all sorts of terrible things about her son while asking others to realize that she "has hope" for him.

Further, she hasn't had custody of her son in 5 years, he was visiting her, not living with her.

This isn't she posted an annoying comment on his wall, this is identity theft.

There is a story going on about a middle school girl who was beaten into a coma by a high schoolers. Apparently her friend borrowed her phone, send a few TXTs to the high schooler, some taunts about a dead brother, and the high schooler found the friend that actually sent the TXTs, had her point out the girl who owned the phone (that the perp thought sent the TXT), and beat her and stomped on her head with steel towed boots. The mentally unstable birth mother with a history of mental illness (her own statements) and probable/possible heavy drug use was posting messages on Facebook, and has since spread them all over the news to make her son look bad... Impersonating someone in middle school/high school and sending electronic messages on their behalf isn't simply a joke, it is a serious part of their social life.

Apparently his mother's online messages were causing him grief at school as she was posting embarrassing and/or slanderous messages, and she has proceeded to defame her son to the media, the message boards, etc.

The boy got abandoned by his mother, and she has decided to tell the world what a lousy kid he has an making sure that he is nationally known for his behavior problems.

I think he has a right to a life without his birth mother, who hasn't been his parent/guardian since he was 11 years old.

Re:How about he just leaves facebook.

[Murdoch5]

Thats totally fair, and I do support your idea

I think he has a right to a life without his birth mother, who hasn't been his parent/guardian since he was 11 years old.

How ever this shows a BIG problem with social networking sites. Once you have someone's password or know how to access there account you can do what ever you want to slander them. It's the same with pictures, you can view a tag and find the name of the guy who you want to beat etc....

I'm not saying I don't feel bad for this kid because I do, but I think at some point we need to start blaming facebook and social networking sites in general.

RTFA before commenting

[FreakerSFX]

I see that most people are commenting on just the headline without understanding the issues because they haven't read the...

wait, this is slashdot. I suppose it's not surprising.

Still this is one time that not reading the article is going to bite you in the ass.

A custodial parent does have the right to discipline their child. This parent could remove access and legally post (from their account) comments on their child's wall. Whether or not they have the right to hack the kids account is really not clear at this point. First, a parent doing this is generally violating the terms of use agreement of the website in question. Second, there are specific laws in some regions regarding this type of approach which would make it a crime.

This situation is pretty clear - the mom vastly overstepped her bounds and needs to be smacked for it. If it were my kid and they were living with me, I'd ask to see their account - if they refused to show it to me or I saw things that were troubling, I'd deal with them by denying access to the computer at my house and grounding them unless they deleted their account permanently or cleaned it up.

Parents do have ways to coerce their kids into cooperating. If the kids want to call family services falsely to get mom and dad back, go ahead. Their new home isn't likely to have a computer or parents that care or necessarily even be that safe an environment. Foster parents cover the gamut from loving, capable people to those who are prone to abuse children. I would never let my kid blackmail me. Don't like the rules, you may leave...my dad said that and I hate to parrot him now but he was right. Boundaries are too important to make deals and give up moral authority on.

Re:RTFA before commenting

[Locke2005]

The mom is NOT the custodial parent... did you RTFA?

Re:RTFA before commenting

[Antiocheian]

No he didn't. He said "this is slashdot". And true to his word, he kept on with his lecture, entertaining us, until you spoiled it.

Re:RTFA before commenting

[geekoid]

This one time? almost every time people who don't read the articles looks like a moron.

In this case it makes YOU look like the court jester of a moron king.
FTA:

"New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights, but New maintains she'd had a great relationship with him despite their living arrangements."

His mom does not have custodial rights. I don't know about over there, but in the US that would mean there are a lot of other issues with this relationship.

Re:RTFA before commenting

[BobMcD]

I'd deal with them by denying access to the computer at my house and grounding them unless they deleted their account permanently or cleaned it up.

"Uh, hi, DFS? I know this guy who tortures his kid by denying all access to her friends. He's making her a social pariah because he's a total psycho. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes her strip naked in front of him to make sure she isn't hiding a cell phone. The address is..."

Inquiring minds want to know...

[tompaulco]

If he is emancipated from his mom, are they still considered brother and sister?

his own fault

[forgottenusername]

His account got 'hacked' - he fails at password. "momisabitch" doesn't have enough alternating case or special characters.

Re:his own fault

[donaggie03]

Looks like the mom, while not having custody, does also live in the same house as the son and the grandmother. She had physical access, which is pretty much the trump card right?

Get it right

[Locke2005]

Where do you get "sues" and "files suit" from? Harassment is a criminal charge, not a civil one.

Re:Get it right

[galadriel]

Sure, but you can file civil suits over criminal behavior if the criminal court doesn't get you anywhere. Since the linked article also uses the term "sues," it's unclear.

That's the part of the writeup and the linked article that bugged me, too. Generally there's EITHER criminal charges OR civil suit. Aside from that, it sounds like a family spat that happens to involve some online behaviors, which may or may not have been illegal.

The Best Part is the Discussion

[ceritus]

Some quotes from the mother (drnew01):

!st of all...even tho she has legal cust...that has never mattered b4. I hired an atty for him when he was hit by a DD...I signed all the paper work not his grandmother...they had no prob with me not being his guardian when he got busted with pot....I delt with his atty for that and the same prosecutor that has filed this. It didnt matter that I wasnt his legal guardian when he was skipping school...I was the the school called. They cannot pick n choose when i should be in his life and when I shouldnt. My son has had a long list of behaviorial problem for awhile now. He not only endangers himself but other kids as well. Furthermore I didnt HACK into anything...he left his FB loggied in ON MY COMPUTER....and me having his password was a given if he wanted to use my computer. I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MONITOR HIM.....just b/c i dont have custody doesnt mean i dont care...and maybe if grandmother was doing her JOB I WOULDNT HAVE TO!

...

Hmmmm well I'll keep all this in mind when he kills sum1 and makes the news then. PPL like you all..those that dont monitor ur kids are whats wrong with this country. I hope like the world economy is better by the time your kids grow up...b/c if this generation is going to be our future I want no part of that...Id rather move to another country. Most of t hem are spoiled rotten vendictive little brats...and that is what my son is. THE ONLY REASON he is doing this is b/c of spite. AND IF I WERENT TRYING TO MONITOR HIM..... SUMHOW ID BE RESPONSIBLE for his mess ups in the end any way. Everything always bout the blame game. And no1 is responsible for anything any more. Here i am trying to be...and look where it gets me.

...

!st of all I didnt lose custody. I had a mental brk down while going thru a divorce and losing our home in a fire..so that is why grandmother has him...2cnd of HE LEFT HIS FB page LOGGED IN ON MY COMPUTER...and the things I found were mind blowing eyey popping and draw dropping. SO bad they cudnt air it on TV....these types of things are now being looked at by college recruitors and future employers. Maybe if granny was monitoring him I wouldnt have to?????

Seriously, go read the whole comment section, it's illuminating.

http://cfc.katv.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?forum=17&topic=78400&srow=1&erow=10

Re:The Best Part is the Discussion

[FrameRotBlues]

Hahaha...

I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MONITOR HIM.....just b/c i dont have custody doesnt mean i dont care...and maybe if grandmother was doing her JOB I WOULDNT HAVE TO!

Maybe if Grandmother would have been doing her job/kept her legs shut the first time this wouldn't have been an issue to begin with.

The problem with the gene pool is that there's no lifeguard.

Important tidbit:

[geekoid]

"New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights, but New maintains she'd had a great relationship with him despite their living arrangements."

I would wager that there relationship isn't so great, and this is just one thing of many.

His mother doesn't not have custodial rights. So none of the usual parent reasoning applies.

Newsflash: You are wrong,

[geekoid]

A) Working for a lawyer doesn't make you correct. It's bad logic. You are correct, but tossing on where you work is irrelevant.

B) A 16 year old doesn't know a correct legal term, so what? It makes him ignorant not an idiot.

C) YOU are an idiot and here is why:

Had you READ the article you should have noted "His mother doesn't not have custodial rights.". Don't they teach you to read after 2 years of working for a lawyer?

Re:Newsflash: You are wrong,

[geekoid]

No, it's not relevant. You do not need to be a lawyer to know the difference, you only did that to make you point more authoritative. Adding an unneeded logical fallacy.

Even though you are a genius working for lawyer person, apparently you need some help:

slander (slndr)
n.
1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

So while there is a technical fine line, in every day sue it is a perfectly cromulant word. Plus it was the boy that said it, not his lawyer.
Nice try.
C) now you're grasping at straws to save face. Nice~

"C) Not having custodial rights is irrelevant if you bothered to read the law."
It completly depends on why she doesn't have custodial rights. In some case parent are forbidden from communication.

You're attempt at an ad hom os so weak, I'm not going to bother to address it.

"w. As his mother even if she does not have custodial rights still has some rights."
Not the right to violate Facebook policy, or the right to spread lies.

" But since you ignore the US Constitution"
Please explain to me where in the US constitution it exlpain parental rights, and how it applies here.

" custodial rights is irrelevant if you bothered to read the law. As his mother even if she does not have custodial rights still has some rights. But since you ignore the US Constitution you think she has no rights, freedoms, or liberties at all, right?"
I never said that she had no rights, only that she doesn't have custodial right.

"If that is her son in any way, she still has to check on him or neglect charges will be filed on her by family services even if she doesn't have custodial rights."
Now you just making shit up.

All you arguments are based on logical fallacy's, but sine you took a few college classes, you must have know that.

I like how you try to use you being some sort of intern for employment law means you are an expert on custodial law.

Just so you know, when we say custodial in this context, we are not talking about employed janitors.

You know what she posted?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not post anything about him...I posted be careful of karma...it will bit ya in the butt....things like that. In which he respeonded with words i wont repeat on here.

She should get a /. superaccount.

Re:his own fault - FTFY

[Ralph Spoilsport]

M0m1s4b1tCh

Sigh

[geekoid]

I have no idea why I thought Arkadelphia was in Australia. I read the article, it says exactly nothing about Australia.

That's why I said:
"don't know about over there,..."

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd never have silly names like that in Australia. We might have Murrumbidgee, Gidginbung, Bungowannah, Moombooldool and Woolloomooloo but never Arkadelphia, that's just wierd.

More in-depth info

[mwvdlee]

From http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-family-facebook-flap,0,7005846.story
about the facebook accounts: "Denise New acknowledged changing both passwords to keep her son from getting access to his Facebook page. She denied hacking into the account."

about the custody: "Denise New said Lane moved in with his grandmother about five years ago, after she went through a difficult divorce, was having mental health problems and didn't feel she could provide her son with the supervision he needed."

Narrow View

[Demonantis]

I think you are wrong. Life is simply to complex to state that all people can make choices. You lose understanding, interest, and willingness to knowledge when you make blanket statements like that. Suppose the hypothetical situation where you have a man that works every single day of his life. He makes all his choices correctly and is very successful. If he walked into a store and was shot by someone robbing the place. Who is at fault? He did have the choice to go to another store, but how can you reasonable expect getting shot. Maybe it was the robbers fault, but what if he needed to do that to survive? It is very hard to expect becoming homeless and its even harder to get back on your feet once your there. Like, you can get a job because you don't have a place to live and you can't get that loan because you have no place to work. Maybe it is society's fault for not supporting people that are trapped there.

I think bad things do happen to good people. We live with risks everyday. I don't think the mother expected getting sued when she took that risk. I don't think the son would have thought he would ever decide to sue his mother. Things like this just happen. They need to work it out. Get over it and move on with their lives. Us speculating on how terrible or worthless they must be is absurd.

Re:Narrow View

[SmackTheIgnorant]

I'm looking at things from a point of accountability. Our choices dictate where we go in life - be it physically, mentally, financially, etc.... Some of these choices are simple: "Go into the 7-11, or wait till I get home to buy milk?" - you're accountable for this choice. It's your decision. You made it. It *WILL* meet up with other people's choices - such as the person who chose to rob the store, who chose to use a gun, and chose to shoot you with it, the clerk who chose to apply to that place for employment and/or not proceed to work elsewhere / better, and the thousands of other decisions that led up to that moment / place in time.... These are choices, simple or not.

If he "needed to do that to survive" - then how did he get into that situation? Did someone decide to hold his family hostage and kill him if he didn't rob the store? Or was there a series of events leading up to that choice of his, and that's what he decided to do?

I'm not saying that bad things don't happen to good people. Bad things DO happen to "good people". Trust me, sh** happens to the best of us, and the worst of us. How we cope with that is our decision. To say that the choice is removed is to do nothing, and even that is a conscious choice.

A friend of mine works as a social worker in one of the worst areas of Toronto. He deals with people with severe mental disorders, drug addictions, alcohol issues, abuse problems, people who are in and out of jail on a regular basis. Blame alcohol, drugs, upbringing all you want - some of these people fall into the victim mentality. Many do. Some make the conscious effort, the decision to get out of that situation, to do something different. And they do it! Yes, they go through hell, how they got there can not be isolated to a single choice, however, SOME people make the decision to get out of it, to escape the situation.

In this instance, the mother, not knowing the details or the history, would not expect the son to sue, attack, or threaten her. He could have gone after her with a knife, gun, assaulted her, ignored her, blocked her, destroyed her computer, or dozens of other things... There are things he COULD have done, and very well might have done some of them. And yes, he CHOSE to sue. That's his choice.

I'm not saying they're worthless. But they are responsible, and need to see that.

Re:Newflash Mother gets sued by son for doing her

[mwvdlee]

The kid is a retard, slander is the spoken word, libel is the written word, I worked for lawyers for four and a half years so I know stuff like that.

So because YOU have worked for lawyers, HE should know?

I've worked as a developer on OS/390 for ten years. If YOU don't know what causes a S0C4 abend from the top of your head, are YOU a retard?

Re:Newflash Mother gets sued by son for doing her

[Orion Blastar]

Nope but his lawyer who filed the case for him should know the difference between slander and libel in order to pass a bar exam.

I worked as a developer on OS/390 as well. Standard Bisam not enough room for the first level index.

he obviously needed better passwords

[WillAffleckUW]

Just a hint, don't choose "Death" as your password, kidlings.

Yet another reason not to use facebook

[Locke2005]

Don't most websites require you to type in the old password to set a new password, even if you are already logged in... precisely to prevent somebody else from stealing your account when you leave it logged in?

Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[Roger W Moore]

The place I see "racism" is in the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically, as if there are no ignorant people or bigots from elsewhere.

What you describe is bigotry and prejudice, not racism. Clearly there are bigots elsewhere as evidenced by the post you are complaining about (which if you think about it is beautifully ironic). Having visited the rural south of the US for the first time a couple of weeks ago I found the people extremely polite and friendly and the countryside was beautiful. So if some of your fellow citizens don't appreciate that just be thankful that it will probably help you stay that way.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[Anonymous Coward]

Having visited the rural south of the US for the first time a couple of weeks ago I found the people extremely polite and friendly

You must be white.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to live in the south.(SE Alabama to be more specific) While bigotry and prejudice is here. It is in no way any higher than other areas i have visited. In fact the general populous seems to be more friendly to strangers(regardless of color). I went to the high school which supposedly had the worst race issues south of Birmingham. I never had any issues with anyone race related.

Now the reason that we get portrayed as Ignorant bigots is due to the twisting of events. For example, in a friend of mine got into a fight over a guy messing with his sister. He was white, the guy black. This had nothing do with it yet when he got into trouble it was reported as a race issue. Both agreed it wasn't but that doesn't matter. This is VERY common here.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be white. I didn't have the same luck.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[ari_j]

That kind of hypersensitivity to made-up racial issues is common, and it's likely the reason that someone actually thought my joke about Arkadelphia was racist. Most of the people I have known who talk about racism haven't actually seen it. As you know, there is not really that much racism going on between blacks and whites in the South. For the most part, the South got over it. If you want real racism, try living on an Indian reservation if you're a member of the wrong tribe. No, not everyone there will hate you for your race, but more than a few will and it often turns violent.

I often wonder if part of the continued perception of there being racism where it simply doesn't exist comes from a desire to still have that problem, a self-pity kind of thing. Perhaps it's a feeling of being defined by being on the losing side of racial prejudice or perhaps it's the need for something to point to outside of oneself as the reason he or she is not getting ahead in life but, whatever the reason, a lot of supposed racism is imagined.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[ari_j]

Did you ask anyone in the South (capitalize that, by the way; it's a cultural region and not just a direction on the compass) if they appreciate the humor of Jeff Foxworthy or Larry the Cable Guy, both of whom are extremely popular comedians whose material largely revolves around a caricature of Southern rednecks? Most of the people I know from the South have enough of a sense of humor about the stereotypes that apply to their roots (which do not rise to the level of bigotry and prejudice just because someone makes a joke about them).

I've pointed out elsewhere that I am really entertained by this thread for the reason that it has drawn out a lot of the biases people hold, demonstrating them by how they react to the simple, succinct joke that I told about Arkadelphia. That's one of the reasons I like jokes so much, both telling them and hearing them: For every joke ever told, somebody out there will find it offensive. Jokes, then, are a litmus test for people's attitudes and biases. Tell enough jokes and record a person's reactions to them all, and you will be able to understand how he thinks better than you ever could just by asking him what's on his mind.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[Tak_1]

.......and straight, and christian.

Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism

[Phoghat]

I call BS. A friend of mine who is Chinese, moved to rural Georgia a while ago and hasn't met with one iota of bigotry or racism.

Poor title

[Runaway1956]

The title should be "Son needs to be bitch slapped for ignorance, then bitch slapped again for stupidity"

Mom did everything right, IMO. Yeah, the family is dysfunctional, but Mom is still Mom. And, leaving the computer unattended, without logging out of your account? FFS, he was BEGGING to be "hacked". Any moron who doesn't understand that leaving an account open and accessible to anyone who walks by needs to be embarassed.

Bitch slap that little punk until he stops whining and sniveling. Then, he may grow a pair, and stop racing his car or truck just because some girl says something he doesn't like.

Re:Poor title

[geekoid]

No she didn't. From a legal standpoint she isn't his mom. She has no custodial rights.

Maybe we would bitch slap people who don't read the article. Starting with you.

OTOH, you're an idiot who jumped to violence as their first thought of a response, so I shouldn't really expect much from you.

Re:Poor title

[Runaway1956]

Maybe you should re read the story, then you might consider changing your statement. The grandmother has "custody". The mother has not been stripped of parental rights. That is a distinction that some people might miss. Had the court ruled that mother was an unfit parent, then the court could have revoked her parental rights. In this case, the mother voluntarily put the son into another home where he could receive better care, than in her own dysfunctional home.

From a legal standpoint, she is still his mother, and the kid needs to be bitch slapped for his frivolous lawsuit, along with the reasons I've already mentioned.

Unfriend?

[swilver]

Unfriending your own mom would go way too far. Better to get an injunction.

The more you read...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, someone named a town Arkadelphia?

Arkadelphia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arkansas, Arkadelphia... arkenough already, this is getting arkannoying.

Re:Pop Quiz Hotshot!

[Orion Blastar]

To the person who modded my comment as flamebait or anyone else who disagrees.

Please cite the statute in question you referenced to find out that I am wrong on this, word for word. Apparently if you are a legal expert you know this stuff by heart.

Re:Pop Quiz Hotshot!

[spartacus_prime]

I see nothing in your long list of accomplishments about cyber law. In case you've been living under a rock, cyber law is just a tad different than the common law rules on everything. Yes, you may have taken Family Law and Slander/Libel Law courses, but how much did you truly learn about slander and libel as it relates to the Internet?

I would also suggest having a look at the Facebook Terms of Service just in case there's a provision in there.

But since you freely admit that you didn't pass law school, much less take the bar, your qualifications and knowledge are suspect here. Just because you work in a law firm doesn't make you knowledgeable in every facet of the law. Did your law firm ever deal with any cases like this one here?

The real word

[rusl]

...is "prejudism."

So there.

Re:The real word

[ari_j]

Wouldn't that be bigotry against prejudice? I think that would be a fun one to sign up for. You could lynch people for hiring underqualified whites instead of a qualified black woman. And I think you could even lynch your own members just for signing up. How fun would that be?

Re:Newflash Mother gets sued by son for doing her

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked as a developer on OS/390 as well. Standard Bisam not enough room for the first level index.

Seeing as you had nineteen minutes to look the answer up, it is clear that you did not know it off the top of your head. You were never a developer either.

I'm sure that the Germans who provided

[alizard]

a very large part of the brainpower behind the early years of the US space program could have been just as productive if the South had sunk into the ocean and they'd had to work from the West Coast. A rocket doesn't care where it's launcher is.

monitoring vs. posting

[ncohafmuta]

monitoring != posting. somebody needs to buy her a clue..or a dictionary.

Isn't that a criminal offense?

[davidwr]

If I were the DA I probably wouldn't prosecute someone for fiddling with someone's Facebook while they were logged in but I might threaten to do so just to make them realize they did a major no-no.

From the sounds of other comments, maybe the local mental-health court would be a more appropriate venue to solve this problem.

No

[davidwr]

If she's his mom, they were never full-brother/sister in the first place.

If you are going to make family-tree/incest jokes, try one of these:

*If he is emancipated from his mom, is she still his aunt? (his dad is his mom's brother)
*If he is emancipated from his mom, is she still his grandmother? (his dad is mom's son, his half-brother)
*If he is emancipated from his mom, is his dad still his grandfather? (his dad is also his mom's dad)

Personally, I don't think any of these are funny, but at least in the mythical world where entire states are full of nothing but incestuous families, they could be technically correct.

That's not the mother

[davidwr]

That's someone else posting after the mother left her account logged in. I smell a lawsuit!

Litigate-gate

[Anonymous Coward]

Omg - If I can just get Slashdot to relocate to Arkadelphia where...

A person commits the offense if with purpose to harass, annoy or alarm another person without good cause, he engages in conduct or repeatedly commits acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person.

Referencing this kind of inconsequential drivel and encouraging anyone to waste time considering it seriously is annoying, and it happens here, repeatedly.

  "Off with their heads!"
--- The Red Queen ---

Not a case of unfriending

[Eraesr]

Looks like the original poster didn't even read TFA.
His mom wasn't a Facebook friend. He claims that she "hacked" his account, changed his password and posted (slanderous) things about him using his own account.

There's only two truths here:

[pinkushun]

- He faked the posts from his mom, to lay charges against her for some revenge act
- She did post as him and isn't admitting to it publicly yet, understandably

Oh wait, three truths:
- He never watched hackers and doesn't know the three most used passwords are: love, sex, god

CAPTCHA: Password123 - easy to remember, easy to guess

Re:There's only two truths here:

[SharpFang]

1234ThisIsAVeryDifficultPasswordToBreak

hmm

[WeeBit]

I can see where a parent would want to keep a eye out on their teen online. But... I don't care what the teen does wrong, I would never ever humiliate, embarrass, or slander my own child. It's just not right!

Goddamnit...

[SharpFang]

My mother is a troll on the Internet, but goddamnit, she would not do that.

Re:Newflash Mother gets sued by son for doing her

[mwvdlee]

Even if the lawyer was wrong (and not, for instance, the article), how does that make the son a retard?

Thank you, try the veal.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be here all week.

From TFA

[merockstar]

New's son lives with his grandmother, who has custodial rights. So this story may not be exactly as it sounds. Also how does a sixteen year old afford to hire a lawyer anyway? If no lawyer would not this simply get laughed out of court?

Re:Newflash Mother gets sued by son for doing her

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone who supposedly works for lawyers, you write a lot of run-on sentences.