Comments: This doesn't surprise me one bit

(We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)


Assume every bit of the information about the family is true, Hube -- does it make the violation that is alleged to have occurred any less severe? Does it make the alleged over-reaching by the school district any less outrageous? The other legal woes here are irrelevant to the issue in this case -- which is why those other issues would never be permitted to be mentioned in court.

Posted by Rhymes With Right at February 25, 2010 07:06 PM

The key word is "alleged" and my belief is that they are just THAT, the more I hear about this story. But ultimately, you are right. I just feel zero sympathy for the plaintiffs, however.

Posted by Hube at February 25, 2010 07:16 PM

It even seems that it was the kid's (parents') failure to pay the insurance fee that prompted the district to activate the cam, which they've claimed is a security feature to enable them to locate the laptop's whereabouts:

Even so, it was the apparent failure to pay a fee - a $55 insurance payment to permit the Robbinses' son Blake to take his laptop home from Harriton High School - that might have prompted the district to activate the Web cam.

I'd sure be interested in seeing what sort of contract had to be signed in order to make use of these laptops.

Posted by Hube at February 25, 2010 08:51 PM

Even if that is true, the effort to discipline the kid for conduct at home unrelated to the laptop is a vast overreach of the authority of the school and probably a violation of the district's own policies.

Posted by Rhymes With Right at February 25, 2010 09:05 PM

If that is indeed accurate, again, it sure is. But I have my doubts ...

Posted by Hube at February 25, 2010 09:08 PM

A theory proposed by a listener to Michael Smerconish that I really like: Suppose the kid was having a webchat with another student and did something "inappropriate" ala drug use or sexual, and it was the other student who clicked the photo during the chat and brought it to the AP. Then it would be possible for both to be true: the school raised the issue because of a webcam photo AND the asst principal never used the webcam to spy on anyone.

The longer I think about that, the better it fits with the facts (and the apparently conflicting statements) as we have them.

Thoughts?

Posted by steve Newton at February 26, 2010 02:11 PM

Very interesting, Steve! And indeed quite plausible!

Posted by Hube at February 26, 2010 02:17 PM