That's the opposite argument from what I am being told is the court decision, and of the people supporting that decision.
Physical letters found after a child died contain the comments of other people to that daughter. Those are the comments that are being held sacrosanct in this discussion, moreso than the comments of the dead child sent as letters to others. Very few are arguing that parents couldn't be allowed to read a diary left by a deceased child.
I'm simply stating that there are ways the court could decide to preserve the right to privacy, while still seeing if the parents claim have any validity. Claiming that it can't happen because that isn't what the parents asked the court for is simply short sighted. Because if that is your argument, what would you say if the parents then went back to the court asking for exactly such a solution?
Mostly? You think we don't have an actual written body of laws that have been voted on by Congress and State Legislatures?
Your question is completely irrelevant to the courts ruling. It has nothing to do with "contract", age or other things.
Why?
The point of the ruling is: protecting the privacy of telecommunication, or secrecy, is a higher good than the parents desire to read the last facebook mails of their daughter.
Okay, now you are simply restating what was stated in the submission. That doesn't tell us why the lower court gave the exact opposite ruling, and the appeals court found reason to overturn that ruling.
The girl was 15 btw. So yes, she can make binding contracts within limits. Especially if they don't cost any money. Without consent of the parents.
I'm pretty sure kids can do that in the US too. But if the child dies, the parents are the ones to oversee their 'estate', private messages or not.
No idea why you life in a 3rd world/middle age law system and want to impose your fucked up law system on us.
I have to wish to impose anything at all on you. You have that covered already. I'm simply trying to understand why the court ruled how it did. Nothing in the submission mentions anyone other than the daughter and parents. Some posts actually clarified that it was the privacy of third parties that was at stake, not simply the dead child's privacy.
By the way, the fact that you don't know what "third world" actually means isn't really surprising, but your grossly incorrect use of the term is very amusing.
Who are the proper authorities when someone dies by accident, but the parents are worried it may have been a suicide? The parents are going to the court, which could be that proper authority, but the court is refusing to be it, and refusing to allow the parents to be it.
If the parents found a stack of letters in their daughter's room, from several of her friends, are saying the parents have to right to read those letters?
It doesn't have to be. Have the court appoint a lawyer to review the girl's messages, approving for release of only those relating to the parents question of suicide.
Courts invade privacy all the time. They just do it on their terms. This would not be unusual at all.
There's nothing to inherit, if the Parent held title to all property and accounts in the first place.
Property, sure. Accounts... are they really personal property?
Do you have a bank account. If so, is it your property?
After all, it's not like you go into the bowels of the bank and unlock a numbered vault to reveal piles of gold coins left to you by your parents before their death.
In that scenario, just release what the daughter said, minus any thing like "Yes, Amy Smith, I agree you should have an abortion before your father finds out your 35 year old boyfriend got you pregnant. At the age of 14."
If you thought that one of your children was killed by someone he or she met online, but had never told you about, you wouldn't want to know who they were talking to?
If the child was an adult, and entered a contract with Facebook as an adult, I could agree with you.
Does Germany allow minor children to enter legally binding contracts on their own accord?
If not, anything that child does is under the permission of their parents, who have legal authority over them, and especially over their estate if they die.
You're going to have to wait, and even if Trump starts the process today with an executive order he may not see it run to fruition as POTUS. Apparently there are two ways that Trump can actually do this; he can just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which is a process that takes four years (a rule introduced immediately after Trump was elected but before he actually became POTUS),.
If President Obama put us into the agreement with an Executive Order, President Trump can take us back out with one.
That is why international treaties are supposed to be approved by the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument was whether a person's right "has an age limit". I pointed out that, yes it does. You apparently agree.
That's the opposite argument from what I am being told is the court decision, and of the people supporting that decision.
Physical letters found after a child died contain the comments of other people to that daughter. Those are the comments that are being held sacrosanct in this discussion, moreso than the comments of the dead child sent as letters to others. Very few are arguing that parents couldn't be allowed to read a diary left by a deceased child.
So, your argument is that no letter from anyone can ever be read by anyone other than the recipient.
I'm simply stating that there are ways the court could decide to preserve the right to privacy, while still seeing if the parents claim have any validity. Claiming that it can't happen because that isn't what the parents asked the court for is simply short sighted. Because if that is your argument, what would you say if the parents then went back to the court asking for exactly such a solution?
You don't think the parents would be willing to put up the "processing fee" to pay an entry level lawyer?
That's an interesting take on the issue, unpublished works.
Germany has *laws*
Good for you.
You only have common law, mostly.
Mostly? You think we don't have an actual written body of laws that have been voted on by Congress and State Legislatures?
Your question is completely irrelevant to the courts ruling. It has nothing to do with "contract", age or other things.
Why?
The point of the ruling is: protecting the privacy of telecommunication, or secrecy, is a higher good than the parents desire to read the last facebook mails of their daughter.
Okay, now you are simply restating what was stated in the submission. That doesn't tell us why the lower court gave the exact opposite ruling, and the appeals court found reason to overturn that ruling.
The girl was 15 btw. So yes, she can make binding contracts within limits. Especially if they don't cost any money. Without consent of the parents.
I'm pretty sure kids can do that in the US too. But if the child dies, the parents are the ones to oversee their 'estate', private messages or not.
No idea why you life in a 3rd world/middle age law system and want to impose your fucked up law system on us.
I have to wish to impose anything at all on you. You have that covered already. I'm simply trying to understand why the court ruled how it did. Nothing in the submission mentions anyone other than the daughter and parents. Some posts actually clarified that it was the privacy of third parties that was at stake, not simply the dead child's privacy.
By the way, the fact that you don't know what "third world" actually means isn't really surprising, but your grossly incorrect use of the term is very amusing.
That seems to be all that anyone is concerned with.
Who are the proper authorities when someone dies by accident, but the parents are worried it may have been a suicide? The parents are going to the court, which could be that proper authority, but the court is refusing to be it, and refusing to allow the parents to be it.
So there is no proper authority.
If the parents found a stack of letters in their daughter's room, from several of her friends, are saying the parents have to right to read those letters?
It doesn't have to be. Have the court appoint a lawyer to review the girl's messages, approving for release of only those relating to the parents question of suicide.
Courts invade privacy all the time. They just do it on their terms. This would not be unusual at all.
Property, sure. Accounts... are they really personal property?
Do you have a bank account. If so, is it your property?
After all, it's not like you go into the bowels of the bank and unlock a numbered vault to reveal piles of gold coins left to you by your parents before their death.
Fine. Have a court appointed lawyer go through the daughter's messages, only approving of ones that don't interfere with others' right to privacy.
For all we know that lawyer may find out that the daughter was fascinated by trains and simply wanted to see one up close.
Whoops, slip, splat.
Parents can't rescind their children's right to life, but they sure can rescind their right to go to the beach until their grades improve.
In that scenario, just release what the daughter said, minus any thing like "Yes, Amy Smith, I agree you should have an abortion before your father finds out your 35 year old boyfriend got you pregnant. At the age of 14."
If you thought that one of your children was killed by someone he or she met online, but had never told you about, you wouldn't want to know who they were talking to?
If the child was an adult, and entered a contract with Facebook as an adult, I could agree with you.
Does Germany allow minor children to enter legally binding contracts on their own accord?
If not, anything that child does is under the permission of their parents, who have legal authority over them, and especially over their estate if they die.
You're going to have to wait, and even if Trump starts the process today with an executive order he may not see it run to fruition as POTUS. Apparently there are two ways that Trump can actually do this; he can just withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which is a process that takes four years (a rule introduced immediately after Trump was elected but before he actually became POTUS), .
If President Obama put us into the agreement with an Executive Order, President Trump can take us back out with one.
That is why international treaties are supposed to be approved by the Senate.
That's because we can afford to buy stuff from you that your own people can't afford.
How is the President of the European Union chosen?
Does everyone in Europe get to vote for him or her, one person one vote?
More like a people who believe a few have to be sacrificed to show the invaders how loved they are.
He failed at his own joke. What a nerd.
Now that is a 404 page.
Dammit Donald, we told you to ask Melania about that.
Not true — every country, including Tonga and the absurdities like Donetsk People's Republic have that potential already.
I don't think the Vatican has that potential. Nor does Monaco.