Slashdot Mirror


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.

76 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. The real question by ari_j · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:The real question by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Southern" is not a race.

    3. Re:The real question by WCguru42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    4. Re:The real question by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:The real question by ari_j · · Score: 3, Funny

      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."

    6. Re:The real question by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    7. Re:The real question by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, and why is the son so Arkannoyed?

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    8. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      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!

    9. Re:The real question by skarphace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Southern' is not a race, holmes.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    10. Re:The real question by darth+dickinson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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*.

    11. Re:The real question by Anarki2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    12. Re:The real question by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:The real question by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Exactly. Oh wait....

  2. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  3. Alternatives by mr100percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Alternatives by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Alternatives by Davey+McDave · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I've got the spirit, lose the feeling.
  4. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  5. Re:No contact. by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  6. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by ClioCJS · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  7. NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! by Millennium · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  8. Re:No contact. by oldhack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One word: Arkansas.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  9. This crap has gone too far. by Kirin+Fenrir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Caffeine is my anti-drug!

    Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
    1. Re:This crap has gone too far. by Imrik · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  10. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    so you're point is moot.

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

  11. Re:No contact. by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  12. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  13. from the article; she cracked his pw by random+coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:from the article; she cracked his pw by Tainek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

  14. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  15. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  16. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  17. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Gates82 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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?

  19. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  20. Stupid woman by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Stupid woman by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?!?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  21. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by bhamlin · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  22. Re:Supposed Mom giving more details in comments by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  23. How about he just leaves facebook. by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:How about he just leaves facebook. by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Wait, why?

  24. Re:No contact. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  25. Re:No contact. by SmackTheIgnorant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  26. Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  27. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  29. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by uberjack · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  30. Inquiring minds want to know... by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  31. Re:RTFA before commenting by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  32. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  33. Re:No contact. by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  34. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by AndGodSed · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  35. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Improv · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  36. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  37. Newsflash: You are wrong, by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

    That we require pants out in public? Yes.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  39. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  40. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  41. Re:No contact. by Deadplant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  42. Re:No contact. by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  43. Re:No contact. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  44. Re:RTFA before commenting by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

    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..."

  45. Re:No contact. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  46. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  47. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by donaggie03 · · Score: 5, Funny

    there welcome to there new life

    Really? That's just sad.

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  48. Re:No contact. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  49. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  50. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  51. Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair by snspdaarf · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  52. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  53. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by maxume · · Score: 2

    Isn't pride a sin?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  54. Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. by WCguru42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
  55. Bigotry, prejudice != Racism by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Bigotry, prejudice != Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.