13-Year-Old Charged with Felony for Recording Conversation with School Principal(reason.com)
reason.com
13-Year-Old Charged with Felony for Recording Conversation with School Principal
http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/22/illinois-teen-recording-principal-felony
16 comments
Some notes. 'eavesdropping' means listening in on a conversation without participating, and without consent of the participants.
That was not the case here, this case involved recording a conversation which the boy participated in.
Depending on local law it may be allowed to record your conversations without the other party's consent for personal use, as long as you don't reveal the recording to other parties. So the simple act of recording itself might be legal.
Depending on local law it may be allowed to record your conversations without the other party's consent for personal use, as long as you don't reveal the recording to other parties. So the simple act of recording itself might be legal.
[deleted]
This used to happen around recordings of cops as well. I believe the solution was to require cops to wear body cams. Perhaps consider proposing legislation that school staff, admin and others must wear a body cam when interacting with children.
It really makes you wonder what kind of adults are supposedly taking care our kids. If a principal thinks it is ok to give a 13 year old a felony for such a minor incident, how else are they punishing these children?
[deleted]
Can't anyone be charged with anything? Convictions matter, not charges which could easily be tossed out once they are in front of a judge.
Reason.com's article here links to some illinoispolicy.org[1] as the 'original source', and illinoispolicy.org does not provide any citations. The rest of the articles on that site lead me to believe that they are fearmongering and not reporting.
It's blogspam all the way down.
1. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-13-year-old-charged-...
Reason.com's article here links to some illinoispolicy.org[1] as the 'original source', and illinoispolicy.org does not provide any citations. The rest of the articles on that site lead me to believe that they are fearmongering and not reporting.
It's blogspam all the way down.
1. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-13-year-old-charged-...
Yeah this is a "get yourpitchforks, boys" type of article.
I was slightly amused at the notion that this will go on his "permanent record," because that is not a thing that exists. There are databases (plural) that provide data for background checks, social media accounts, etc., but a singular "permanent record" document simply doesn't exist and has never existed.
I was slightly amused at the notion that this will go on his "permanent record," because that is not a thing that exists. There are databases (plural) that provide data for background checks, social media accounts, etc., but a singular "permanent record" document simply doesn't exist and has never existed.
The "this will go on your permanent record" threat has been used by parents and schools for years. The fact that the author here also believes this leads me to believe that they have no idea what they are talking about.
I wonder if there is a case to be made here that there is implied consent by working in a building that monitors its occupants. The article says that the "public areas" are video recorded, so staff know that they will be recorded throughout the day. Also, does the school need consent on file for all students as well?
An obvious CCTV camera on the ceiling is different than a hidden camera or a hidden voice recorder, they even make fake black domes to make people think they are being watched. Also, some states differentiate between audio recording and video-only recordings when it comes to two party consent meaning you can video record the conversation without their consent but can't have audio.
Two party consent should be abolished everywhere that it exists. People have a right to record any conversation they are party to.
I would think since the Principal is a government official and the recording took place in a government owned building that the 13-year old in question would be covered under the first amendment concerning freedom of the press. Why does it matter whether the conversation was taken note of in a journal or a tape recorder? The kid wasn't eavesdropping, he was part of the conversation. I would really like to see the supreme court rule on a case like this.
The press don't go around surreptitiously recording people.
If the kid had started off the conversation by saying "I'm going to record this", then he would have been fine (legally speaking; the principle probably wouldn't be happy and likely wouldn't agree to it). Being informed that a conversation is going to be recorded and then proceeding with that conversation is granting implicit consent to the recording. The problem is he recorded it in secret, which means there was no consent.
In the case of journalists, when a journalist thrusts a tape recorder in your face and asks you something, it's pretty obvious it's being recorded, so answering the question is giving consent to the recording.
If the kid had started off the conversation by saying "I'm going to record this", then he would have been fine (legally speaking; the principle probably wouldn't be happy and likely wouldn't agree to it). Being informed that a conversation is going to be recorded and then proceeding with that conversation is granting implicit consent to the recording. The problem is he recorded it in secret, which means there was no consent.
In the case of journalists, when a journalist thrusts a tape recorder in your face and asks you something, it's pretty obvious it's being recorded, so answering the question is giving consent to the recording.
Legal in Iowa and other one party consent states. He should make a 1st Ammendment challenge and take it to SCOTUS.
The fact that Illinois traditionally has some of the most corrupt politicians (and, some might argue, school officials) in the country has absolutely no correlation to tough laws on recording conversations, I'm sure.