Really, the legislature should address this in a sound fashion by identifying it as a different class of offense - ideally only for digital transmission (since polariods have always been around, and hard copies generally aren't forever) - and as a very low level misdemeanor that includes the potential for a fine and/or community service only, and drops of your record when you hit 18.
I wouldn't exclude film, personally, but I generally agree with you. I'd swap out the fine and community service for counseling and drop it off the record at 18 for sure, if not at the state's age of consent. I'd explicitly note in the law that the kid is not to be entered in any sex offender list or registry, and that the offense is not to be considered if later sentencing the child for a real crime.
For repeats, I'd suggest an injunctive remedy against owning or operating a camera for some time, with real penalties if that gets violated.
That is, I'd make it as non-criminal as possible while still destroying the photos and making sure the kid knows it ain't right.
Every law that congress passes should have a section titled "Purpose" which describes, in detailed but plain English, what the goal of the law is. When cases go to trial, the judge and jury review the law and also the stated purpose of the law and unless the trial is fulfilling the stated purpose, no crime has been committed.
That's a neat idea. Amazingly, it's been considered before. Even more amazingly, that's almost exactly what happens!
Except it's only done if the law is ambiguous, in which case judges attempt to work out the intent of the law by looking at committee reports, conference reports, floor debates, changes to the bill during the legislative process, and, in a pinch, hearing minutes.
Teens have been having sex since time immemorial, it's built into us as a species and it's why we are all here.
Hmm, nobody's talking about teens having sex with one another. That's another matter, and I agree with you that parents should teach kids how to deal with it responsibly. I think I disagree with you, however, in that I think parents should discourage it.
Taking and passing around nekkid photos is not built into us as a species, nor have teens done it since time immemorial. The potential consequences are completely different than for sex. It's a different issue.
Why do you suspect that she was coerced into it by a boy?
Because I was a boy, once.
Why do you suspect that she was coerced at all?
Because peer pressure, as I noted, is a form of coercion. I'd even go so far as to say that the highly sexual popular media of today are a form of coercion. It may not be individual coercion, but it's nevertheless influence to make a poor choice by another person or people. While somebody, somewhere, may have had a totally original thought to do this and, through introspection, decided it was a good idea, I'm reasonably certain most did not do so.
Careful, your bias is showing.
Yes. I confess I have a bias in favor of trying to protect children from making bad decisions. I believe we, as a society, should work toward doing so.
I'll be the first to admit that I've seen underage girls who've made my pants go crazy. But I recognize that, in our society, children are not emotionally mature. Therefore, I favor protecting them where possible from actions they may later regret. I call this philosophy "being a human fucking being".
So this girl in New Jersey forced herself to take pictures of herself?
I suspect she was coerced into it by a boy. We generally, as a society, understand that children are easily manipulated and often have poor judgment, so we make it a crime to do so in ways that may be detrimental to them.
Had she been coerced by an adult, it would've been abusive. Coercion by another child - or even by the pressure of her peers - is not generally abusive, but it's not a reason to validate a given behavior. To paraphrase my mom, if her friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, it still wouldn't be a good idea for her to do so.
I think these photos should not be handled with the full brunt of child porn laws, but as poor choices by children. However, we should not consider the photography to be legal - to protect children from making choices they may well regret upon later maturity.
The best answer for the legal system to handle this IMO is to first educate kids (there's an effort going on now toward this), then enforce it fully but with a light hand, without bringing the full wrath of the justice system upon them. No jail time, no sex offender list, just destruction of the photos and mandatory counseling/education. This is pretty much what the prosecutor wanted to do, but he should have pushed for better laws rather than playing power games over it.
It may be useful to market a remote-access system for parents to view photos, messages, and such from their children's phones. If kids know that daddy might see their pics, it would probably inhibit them from photographing their hoo-hoos. Yes, there's an obvious criticism, but I think we need to have some presumption of trust for parents.
And nothing I've read contradicts what that google groups posting says.
Arrgh! Forgive a nitpick, but just because Google slaps its name all over its web interface doesn't mean it isn't USENET. It's like calling the Internet "AOL".
You're not really supposed to start sentences off with conjunctions.
You are mistaken. Even in formal writing, starting a sentence with a conjunction is acceptable. But do so carefully; it's easy to write an unclear or poorly-structured sentence that way.
Y'know, when I was a schoolkid, we were required to keep a daily journal in some English classes. I don't see a fundamental difference between that and blogging as a method of developing writing skills.
We were also taught how to use encyclopedias, and allowed to use them as source material. Given that the error-per-word rate in Wikipedia is lower than Encyclopedia Britannica, I see nothing wrong with using it. Better, Wikipedia lists primary sources, something I don't recall from ink-and-paper encyclopedias. Teaching kids to use it well seems like a fine idea to me.
Twitter and podcasts? Not so much. I don't see the educational value in these. I could see a school doing a podcast as a class project, I s'pose, but as part of a formal curriculum?
Here's how I judge it: a) There are typically patterns that guide how words in a language/script are spelled in another. 'H signifies aspiration' is as uniformly applied a rule re Hindi/English writing as you're likely to find.
I was trying not to sink into academic-style obfuscatory writing, I swear. But I will for a moment, for the sheer, unadulterated fun of it (whee!):
I think you'll find the phonology of English is such that an aspirated occlusive is neither contrastive (as in Hindi) nor, generally, explicitly digraphic. While digraphical phenomes may be indicated for contrastive words, particularly if transcription is prioritized, "Gandhi", as a proper name, is allomorphic with "Ghandi" in English.
Now, I'll agree that "Ghandi" is clearly orthographically defective, but has the advantage of demonstrating the monopthongal low-quantity nature of the "a". This is far more contrastive than aspiration, although as English is (largely) nonchrometic it can hardly be said to be fully distinct.
In real English, it doesn't matter. "Ghandi", "Gandhi", and "Gandi" are all just fine.
I'll bet you a moderate sum even a class of fifth graders would pronounce Ghandi and Gandhi differently in predictable ways, that in particular the latter comes much closer to how both Indians and decently educated westerners pronounce the word.
No bet, but stipulate a class of fifth graders who have never heard the name and we'll talk. I'll give odds that about half of them use a long 'a' for "Gandhi", but most use a short one for "Ghandi".
c) the spelling of a man's name is such a thing as he quite typically gets to decide.
Sure; I think I said exactly that, with the caveat that he didn't use a single spelling. While he seemed to prefer "Gandhi", and so do I, it's unlikely that he found it hugely important, given the variations.
d) The alternate spelling, assuming it corresponds to 'ghan-di' is not even a common Indian name.
I suspect that most common Indian names are written in Hindi, so we can walk around in circles with that all day.
Except inasmuch as you're arguing that name-spelling should abide by "transliterational" or "transcriptative" principle to conform to the pragmatics of hindi-english orthography, that display of technical vocabulary seems like no more or less than an empty show of erudition, a nitpicky display of casuistic quibbling.
Now, that's not fair. My first comment was brief and direct. Only when challenged to demonstrate my reasoning did I elaborate.
Mind you, the beginning of this post is an unnecessary show of erudition, but (I swear!) only for fun.
I'm proud to be pedantic while debating. Precise language and formality are how people should go about debating, rather than, say, name-calling. It's a skosh hypocritical, however, to shout "pedant" while criticizing the OP's spelling.
The latter is how Gandhi himself wrote his name in english.
Hmm. That's a valid point, but not entirely true. It's generally accepted that a person can determine the spelling and pronunciation of his or her own name, yah.
Unfortunately, if you look through photos of his writings, I think you'll find that he spelled his name "Gandhi", "Gandi", and even "Gandhiji" at various times. His passport said "Gandhi", tho'. I'll concede that he never used "Ghandi", so "Gandhi" is arguably more correct based on that.
His descendants, similarly, used variations on the spelling; Ela, his granddaughter, used "Ghandi" at times, although she appeared to ultimately settle on "Gandhi".
In the end result, I still don't think you can reasonably condemn someone for using "Ghandi", although it's fair to say "Gandhi" is preferred.
You see, examples are like cars. A car is an example, but the only example is not the car.
Blech, I mean to write "... demanded emails from the White House." My point being that my post's parent was implying a double standard that makes no sense. It wasn't an example, unless it was an example of that AC not understanding jurisdiction. If an American court had demanded information, or if the Canadian government had "lost" those emails, it'd be different.
But trying to say Canadian courts have a double standard because they didn't smack down the White House is pretty stupid.
No it's not. In Hindi, most sounds come in aspirated and unaspirated forms. In transliteration, the h marks aspiration for obvious reasons. "Ghandi" suggests that the 'g' in Gandhi is aspirated. In reality, it is the 'd' that is aspirated.
You appear to be confusing transliteration with transcription. In transcription, one attempts to precisely reproduce sounds between alphabetical representations of words. While transcription is a noble goal in transliteration, it's not always the primary one.
In transliteration, one attempts to approximate a word in such a way that it is recognizable as the same word, using a standard methodology, deviating if necessary where reversibility or precise transcription is desired.
Reversible, or lossless, transliteration attempts to recreate a word in another alphabet in such a way that transliterating back to the original using the same transliteration system comes up with the same word. It's worth noting that no transliteration methodology does this for all words. You must deviate from the standard if you wish to produce reversibility.
However, neither "Ghandi" nor "Gandhi" are reversible, since each uses multiple characters as a representation of a single character in the original.
Similarly, standard methodologies rarely produce precise transcription of all words. And producing transcription removes reversibility.
Transliteration often entails deciding whether reversibility, transcription, or methodology is most important. In addition, various competing methods of transliteration exist for many languages. As a result, transliteration by different people with different goals often produces different results.
While "Gandhi" is often considered preferable to "Ghandi" by native Hindi speakers who care about such things, either is valid. The only correct spelling is in Hindi.
Please, take some freshman writing classes at your local community college. You appear to have some good points, but you just don't know how to say it.
I'm going to have nightmares about being attacked by thousands of hyphens, each talking like a John Wayne impersonator on methamphetamines.
Yea, think it's better that they lose these IP addresses "on accident" like how the White House lost e-mails... chances are they will get slapped if they do that, while the government gets away with it...(oops did I say that out loud anonymously?)
I was not aware that any Canadian court demanded IP addresses from the White House. And I'd love to hear your theories about how a Canadian court would prevent the White House from getting away with claiming they were lost.
The Central Intelligence Agency's primary mission is to collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the president and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to the national security.
Mind you, I acknowledge that the two goals are not entirely exclusive. But "make the US safer" is very broad and leaves a lot of discretion, whereas "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence" is specific and narrow. For the record:
The CIA may also engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law.
But note that this is under the direction of the President, within Congress' laws as evaluated by SCOTUS. Also pretty narrow.
When you're the guardian for a child which could have enough meds to be lethal there's no time to fuck around for a judge to issue a warrant.
Any child old enough to have clothes with pockets could, in theory, be carrying enough meds to be lethal. If I were a babysitter, that wouldn't give me the right to force my charges to strip for me. But how else do I know? It's a conundrum, and it's one that can only be solved by not assuming that every child is an idiot who will die horribly if not monitored, naked, at all times.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school?
Absolutely. Dealing drugs is a crime, and should be handled by professional law enforcement, not amateurs completely untrained in such things.
Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too?
Occasionally. Mind you, that's a far cry from a strip search over an accusation from a child.
When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
Do you think that, if a student is found with a doodle on her desk and blames another student, the accused should pay a fine based entirely on this?
So this is "sexual abuse" now? They didn't even make her take all her clothes off,
She was forced to expose her genitals. That's equivalent to removing them all. Yes, I would call that sexual abuse.
and the search was done by women
Not relevant. People can sexually abuse their own gender, even if there's no sexual intent or motivation. This is specifically encoded in many of our laws.
Why are you imagining some sort of sexual abuse?
You didn't ask me, but I'm imagining that I looked over Arizona's statutes relating to crimes of a sexual nature and didn't find an exception for school administrators that allows them to force little kids to strip and waggle their naughty bits around. It's easy to imagine, because I did exactly that.
The McMinn County War had nothing to do with the second amendment, at that it is a good example that without the 2nd people can still get weapons and fight tyranny.
I confess I'd overlooked that part; I recalled it and linked without re-reading the article. Still, that's not the lesson I walked away with. They used firearms to fight a tyrannical local government after exhausting peaceful avenues; where they got them isn't necessarily relevant. Not everyone can borrow the keys to a military arsenal if they find themselves in a similar situation.
(I'm... getting old, and still haven't really decided how I feel about gun control. There's lots of very good counterarguments to second-amendmenteers. I was just correcting a factual assertion that no such uprising was successful. I may not have a strong opinion on second amendment rights, but I do like it when folks get the facts straight.)
Ahh, so you're saying that it can't be sexual assault unless she was naked? This attorney disagrees with you. Just because she wasn't completely naked doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault.
I'm pretty certain it wasn't sexual assault, since in Arizona, that requires intercourse or sexual oral contact to take place. It may well be molestation or another crime, however. Molestation is iffy, but since Miss Redding was forced to expose and manipulate her genitals, that may qualify as sexual contact. A lawyer could prolly say; I'm not one. Note that lack of sexual interest is not a defense against molestation (or most other sex crimes) in Arizona.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
So, he (the spokesperson/whoever made that statement)
I'm assuming, since the statement was briefed to the court, it was the District's lawyer:
I don't buy the argument that sex offender registries should exist, but even if you do, these people don't belong on them. They should still be punished rather harshly, though.
I agree with you, but it would be poetic justice. If convicted of a sex offense, they would be entered in the registry because of a governmental policy strikingly similar in nature to the zero-tolerance policy they espouse. That is, a policy that eschews judgment in favor of strict rules.
Ask yourself this: How many times were arms used to fight the tyranny of the government? There are a few historical examples (Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, Wounded Knee) but they are few and far between -- and, to date, unsuccessful.
You are mistaken; at least one was successful. Let me draw your eye to the McMinn County War.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, the legislature should address this in a sound fashion by identifying it as a different class of offense - ideally only for digital transmission (since polariods have always been around, and hard copies generally aren't forever) - and as a very low level misdemeanor that includes the potential for a fine and/or community service only, and drops of your record when you hit 18.
I wouldn't exclude film, personally, but I generally agree with you. I'd swap out the fine and community service for counseling and drop it off the record at 18 for sure, if not at the state's age of consent. I'd explicitly note in the law that the kid is not to be entered in any sex offender list or registry, and that the offense is not to be considered if later sentencing the child for a real crime.
For repeats, I'd suggest an injunctive remedy against owning or operating a camera for some time, with real penalties if that gets violated.
That is, I'd make it as non-criminal as possible while still destroying the photos and making sure the kid knows it ain't right.
Every law that congress passes should have a section titled "Purpose" which describes, in detailed but plain English, what the goal of the law is. When cases go to trial, the judge and jury review the law and also the stated purpose of the law and unless the trial is fulfilling the stated purpose, no crime has been committed.
That's a neat idea. Amazingly, it's been considered before. Even more amazingly, that's almost exactly what happens!
Except it's only done if the law is ambiguous, in which case judges attempt to work out the intent of the law by looking at committee reports, conference reports, floor debates, changes to the bill during the legislative process, and, in a pinch, hearing minutes.
Teens have been having sex since time immemorial, it's built into us as a species and it's why we are all here.
Hmm, nobody's talking about teens having sex with one another. That's another matter, and I agree with you that parents should teach kids how to deal with it responsibly. I think I disagree with you, however, in that I think parents should discourage it.
Taking and passing around nekkid photos is not built into us as a species, nor have teens done it since time immemorial. The potential consequences are completely different than for sex. It's a different issue.
Why do you suspect that she was coerced into it by a boy?
Because I was a boy, once.
Why do you suspect that she was coerced at all?
Because peer pressure, as I noted, is a form of coercion. I'd even go so far as to say that the highly sexual popular media of today are a form of coercion. It may not be individual coercion, but it's nevertheless influence to make a poor choice by another person or people. While somebody, somewhere, may have had a totally original thought to do this and, through introspection, decided it was a good idea, I'm reasonably certain most did not do so.
Careful, your bias is showing.
Yes. I confess I have a bias in favor of trying to protect children from making bad decisions. I believe we, as a society, should work toward doing so.
I'll be the first to admit that I've seen underage girls who've made my pants go crazy. But I recognize that, in our society, children are not emotionally mature. Therefore, I favor protecting them where possible from actions they may later regret. I call this philosophy "being a human fucking being".
So this girl in New Jersey forced herself to take pictures of herself?
I suspect she was coerced into it by a boy. We generally, as a society, understand that children are easily manipulated and often have poor judgment, so we make it a crime to do so in ways that may be detrimental to them.
Had she been coerced by an adult, it would've been abusive. Coercion by another child - or even by the pressure of her peers - is not generally abusive, but it's not a reason to validate a given behavior. To paraphrase my mom, if her friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, it still wouldn't be a good idea for her to do so.
I think these photos should not be handled with the full brunt of child porn laws, but as poor choices by children. However, we should not consider the photography to be legal - to protect children from making choices they may well regret upon later maturity.
The best answer for the legal system to handle this IMO is to first educate kids (there's an effort going on now toward this), then enforce it fully but with a light hand, without bringing the full wrath of the justice system upon them. No jail time, no sex offender list, just destruction of the photos and mandatory counseling/education. This is pretty much what the prosecutor wanted to do, but he should have pushed for better laws rather than playing power games over it.
It may be useful to market a remote-access system for parents to view photos, messages, and such from their children's phones. If kids know that daddy might see their pics, it would probably inhibit them from photographing their hoo-hoos. Yes, there's an obvious criticism, but I think we need to have some presumption of trust for parents.
And nothing I've read contradicts what that google groups posting says.
Arrgh! Forgive a nitpick, but just because Google slaps its name all over its web interface doesn't mean it isn't USENET. It's like calling the Internet "AOL".
Or maybe I'm just a crotchety old fart. :(
You're not really supposed to start sentences off with conjunctions.
You are mistaken. Even in formal writing, starting a sentence with a conjunction is acceptable. But do so carefully; it's easy to write an unclear or poorly-structured sentence that way.
Y'know, when I was a schoolkid, we were required to keep a daily journal in some English classes. I don't see a fundamental difference between that and blogging as a method of developing writing skills.
We were also taught how to use encyclopedias, and allowed to use them as source material. Given that the error-per-word rate in Wikipedia is lower than Encyclopedia Britannica, I see nothing wrong with using it. Better, Wikipedia lists primary sources, something I don't recall from ink-and-paper encyclopedias. Teaching kids to use it well seems like a fine idea to me.
Twitter and podcasts? Not so much. I don't see the educational value in these. I could see a school doing a podcast as a class project, I s'pose, but as part of a formal curriculum?
Here's how I judge it: a) There are typically patterns that guide how words in a language/script are spelled in another. 'H signifies aspiration' is as uniformly applied a rule re Hindi/English writing as you're likely to find.
I was trying not to sink into academic-style obfuscatory writing, I swear. But I will for a moment, for the sheer, unadulterated fun of it (whee!):
I think you'll find the phonology of English is such that an aspirated occlusive is neither contrastive (as in Hindi) nor, generally, explicitly digraphic. While digraphical phenomes may be indicated for contrastive words, particularly if transcription is prioritized, "Gandhi", as a proper name, is allomorphic with "Ghandi" in English.
Now, I'll agree that "Ghandi" is clearly orthographically defective, but has the advantage of demonstrating the monopthongal low-quantity nature of the "a". This is far more contrastive than aspiration, although as English is (largely) nonchrometic it can hardly be said to be fully distinct.
In real English, it doesn't matter. "Ghandi", "Gandhi", and "Gandi" are all just fine.
I'll bet you a moderate sum even a class of fifth graders would pronounce Ghandi and Gandhi differently in predictable ways, that in particular the latter comes much closer to how both Indians and decently educated westerners pronounce the word.
No bet, but stipulate a class of fifth graders who have never heard the name and we'll talk. I'll give odds that about half of them use a long 'a' for "Gandhi", but most use a short one for "Ghandi".
c) the spelling of a man's name is such a thing as he quite typically gets to decide.
Sure; I think I said exactly that, with the caveat that he didn't use a single spelling. While he seemed to prefer "Gandhi", and so do I, it's unlikely that he found it hugely important, given the variations.
d) The alternate spelling, assuming it corresponds to 'ghan-di' is not even a common Indian name.
I suspect that most common Indian names are written in Hindi, so we can walk around in circles with that all day.
Except inasmuch as you're arguing that name-spelling should abide by "transliterational" or "transcriptative" principle to conform to the pragmatics of hindi-english orthography, that display of technical vocabulary seems like no more or less than an empty show of erudition, a nitpicky display of casuistic quibbling.
Now, that's not fair. My first comment was brief and direct. Only when challenged to demonstrate my reasoning did I elaborate.
Mind you, the beginning of this post is an unnecessary show of erudition, but (I swear!) only for fun.
Shouldn't that nightmare be about thousands of em-dashes rather than hyphens?
Hey, nightmares don't have to make sense.
Okay, okay, I stand corrected.
pedantry of the worst sort
I'm proud to be pedantic while debating. Precise language and formality are how people should go about debating, rather than, say, name-calling. It's a skosh hypocritical, however, to shout "pedant" while criticizing the OP's spelling.
The latter is how Gandhi himself wrote his name in english.
Hmm. That's a valid point, but not entirely true. It's generally accepted that a person can determine the spelling and pronunciation of his or her own name, yah.
Unfortunately, if you look through photos of his writings, I think you'll find that he spelled his name "Gandhi", "Gandi", and even "Gandhiji" at various times. His passport said "Gandhi", tho'. I'll concede that he never used "Ghandi", so "Gandhi" is arguably more correct based on that.
His descendants, similarly, used variations on the spelling; Ela, his granddaughter, used "Ghandi" at times, although she appeared to ultimately settle on "Gandhi".
In the end result, I still don't think you can reasonably condemn someone for using "Ghandi", although it's fair to say "Gandhi" is preferred.
You see, examples are like cars. A car is an example, but the only example is not the car.
Blech, I mean to write "... demanded emails from the White House." My point being that my post's parent was implying a double standard that makes no sense. It wasn't an example, unless it was an example of that AC not understanding jurisdiction. If an American court had demanded information, or if the Canadian government had "lost" those emails, it'd be different.
But trying to say Canadian courts have a double standard because they didn't smack down the White House is pretty stupid.
No it's not. In Hindi, most sounds come in aspirated and unaspirated forms. In transliteration, the h marks aspiration for obvious reasons. "Ghandi" suggests that the 'g' in Gandhi is aspirated. In reality, it is the 'd' that is aspirated.
You appear to be confusing transliteration with transcription. In transcription, one attempts to precisely reproduce sounds between alphabetical representations of words. While transcription is a noble goal in transliteration, it's not always the primary one.
In transliteration, one attempts to approximate a word in such a way that it is recognizable as the same word, using a standard methodology, deviating if necessary where reversibility or precise transcription is desired.
Reversible, or lossless, transliteration attempts to recreate a word in another alphabet in such a way that transliterating back to the original using the same transliteration system comes up with the same word. It's worth noting that no transliteration methodology does this for all words. You must deviate from the standard if you wish to produce reversibility.
However, neither "Ghandi" nor "Gandhi" are reversible, since each uses multiple characters as a representation of a single character in the original.
Similarly, standard methodologies rarely produce precise transcription of all words. And producing transcription removes reversibility.
Transliteration often entails deciding whether reversibility, transcription, or methodology is most important. In addition, various competing methods of transliteration exist for many languages. As a result, transliteration by different people with different goals often produces different results.
While "Gandhi" is often considered preferable to "Ghandi" by native Hindi speakers who care about such things, either is valid. The only correct spelling is in Hindi.
Please, take some freshman writing classes at your local community college. You appear to have some good points, but you just don't know how to say it.
I'm going to have nightmares about being attacked by thousands of hyphens, each talking like a John Wayne impersonator on methamphetamines.
Yea, think it's better that they lose these IP addresses "on accident" like how the White House lost e-mails... chances are they will get slapped if they do that, while the government gets away with it...(oops did I say that out loud anonymously?)
I was not aware that any Canadian court demanded IP addresses from the White House. And I'd love to hear your theories about how a Canadian court would prevent the White House from getting away with claiming they were lost.
I am no grammar Nazi , but please use Gandhi and NOT Ghandi
I am a grammar Nazi. Gandhi's name is transliterated from Hindi; as is often the case with transliteration, either spelling is fine.
I would argue their primary goal is to make the US safer. You would have to prove otherwise.
Easy enough:
The Central Intelligence Agency's primary mission is to collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the president and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to the national security.
Mind you, I acknowledge that the two goals are not entirely exclusive. But "make the US safer" is very broad and leaves a lot of discretion, whereas "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence" is specific and narrow. For the record:
The CIA may also engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law.
But note that this is under the direction of the President, within Congress' laws as evaluated by SCOTUS. Also pretty narrow.
When you're the guardian for a child which could have enough meds to be lethal there's no time to fuck around for a judge to issue a warrant.
Any child old enough to have clothes with pockets could, in theory, be carrying enough meds to be lethal. If I were a babysitter, that wouldn't give me the right to force my charges to strip for me. But how else do I know? It's a conundrum, and it's one that can only be solved by not assuming that every child is an idiot who will die horribly if not monitored, naked, at all times.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school?
Absolutely. Dealing drugs is a crime, and should be handled by professional law enforcement, not amateurs completely untrained in such things.
Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too?
Occasionally. Mind you, that's a far cry from a strip search over an accusation from a child.
When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
Do you think that, if a student is found with a doodle on her desk and blames another student, the accused should pay a fine based entirely on this?
So this is "sexual abuse" now? They didn't even make her take all her clothes off,
She was forced to expose her genitals. That's equivalent to removing them all. Yes, I would call that sexual abuse.
and the search was done by women
Not relevant. People can sexually abuse their own gender, even if there's no sexual intent or motivation. This is specifically encoded in many of our laws.
Why are you imagining some sort of sexual abuse?
You didn't ask me, but I'm imagining that I looked over Arizona's statutes relating to crimes of a sexual nature and didn't find an exception for school administrators that allows them to force little kids to strip and waggle their naughty bits around. It's easy to imagine, because I did exactly that.
The McMinn County War had nothing to do with the second amendment, at that it is a good example that without the 2nd people can still get weapons and fight tyranny.
I confess I'd overlooked that part; I recalled it and linked without re-reading the article. Still, that's not the lesson I walked away with. They used firearms to fight a tyrannical local government after exhausting peaceful avenues; where they got them isn't necessarily relevant. Not everyone can borrow the keys to a military arsenal if they find themselves in a similar situation.
(I'm... getting old, and still haven't really decided how I feel about gun control. There's lots of very good counterarguments to second-amendmenteers. I was just correcting a factual assertion that no such uprising was successful. I may not have a strong opinion on second amendment rights, but I do like it when folks get the facts straight.)
Ahh, so you're saying that it can't be sexual assault unless she was naked? This attorney disagrees with you. Just because she wasn't completely naked doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault.
I'm pretty certain it wasn't sexual assault, since in Arizona, that requires intercourse or sexual oral contact to take place. It may well be molestation or another crime, however. Molestation is iffy, but since Miss Redding was forced to expose and manipulate her genitals, that may qualify as sexual contact. A lawyer could prolly say; I'm not one. Note that lack of sexual interest is not a defense against molestation (or most other sex crimes) in Arizona.
There is no reason to think that there was any sexual motivation for this search in the least.
In Arizona, lack of sexual motivation is not a defense to molestation or most other sex crimes.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
So, he (the spokesperson/whoever made that statement)
I'm assuming, since the statement was briefed to the court, it was the District's lawyer:
Matthew W. Wright
Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC
(480) 961-0236
Counsel of Record
10429 South 51st Street, #285
Phoenix, AZ 85044
mwright@holmwright.com
I don't buy the argument that sex offender registries should exist, but even if you do, these people don't belong on them. They should still be punished rather harshly, though.
I agree with you, but it would be poetic justice. If convicted of a sex offense, they would be entered in the registry because of a governmental policy strikingly similar in nature to the zero-tolerance policy they espouse. That is, a policy that eschews judgment in favor of strict rules.
Quite ironic, actually.
Ask yourself this: How many times were arms used to fight the tyranny of the government? There are a few historical examples (Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, Wounded Knee) but they are few and far between -- and, to date, unsuccessful.
You are mistaken; at least one was successful. Let me draw your eye to the McMinn County War.