iamshack

Watched The Debt last night. Was fairly entertaining, and Jessica Chastain is hot...but the movie was entirely not what I had hoped it would be. I hate when a movie is advertised as something other than it really is through manipulation of the trailer.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 06:16 PM) Fascinating thread so far. Interestingly enough, I've been studying Lawrence for the past day or two. The court could easily have found for Lawrence based purely on Equal Protection grounds, and in the same stroke distinguish it from Bowers. The statute at issue in Lawrence prevented only same-sex couples from engaging in sodomy; the statute at issue in Bowers applied to everyone. However, the Court in Lawrence decided to be pretty ambitious and decide it on due process grounds also (in order to essentially invalidate ANY anti-sodomy statute). The holding was confined to the "harm principle" -- the State cannot overstep the bounds of personal liberty, unless the conduct in question brings actual "harm" to another (admittedly "harm" is pretty broad, but they seem to have meant it in a colloquial, common sense way, and not in a "BUT SEEING GAYS MARRIED MAKES ME ANGRY" way). Since sodomy was deemed not to be harming anyone, the State could thus not ban it. And just to note, this only applies to consenting adults; minors and other protected parties are a different issue. As for the invasion of privacy and false imprisonment, I generally agree with what Jenks said early in the thread. In most areas of the law, for something to be considered "private" the person who wants to keep that secret must make a reasonable effort at maintaining its privacy. This doesn't mean keep it private from certain individuals or entities; it means to keep it as private as reasonably possible. So if the student was openly out at school, it doesn't matter if she didn't want her mother to know -- she had stopped keeping it "secret" in general, and therefore destroyed its confidential nature in totality (speaking in a purely legal and not ethical sense). I see what Jenks and Soxbadger are getting at with treating homosexuality as something that should be considered inherently confidential makes gays seem inferior. It's similar logic from Plessy, and which was underlying in "separate but equal" -- to tell a class of individuals "We're treating you differently based solely on this characteristic of yours [and not in any way that's meant to protect you]" tells them they don't deserve to be treated equally, and are thus inferior. I agree with it in that sense; but from a practical point of view, it seems fairly evident that there is a stigma associated with being gay that could cause "coming out" to be a difficult and deeply personal decision that should be respected; not because as a society we think you should be treated differently, but because some elements of our society as a whole has attached that stigma. And in THAT sense, this differs from "separate but equal" in the sense that it IS meant to protect individuals, in the same the law seeks to protect minors or the mentally ill (and no, I'm not equating homosexuality with either of those two). Jenks is right as to false imprisonment (at least in many jurisdictions, not sure about Texas). It may seem odd, but courts are pretty stringent on that the person allegedly being confined had to ask to leave. It wouldn't matter that the coaches locked the door and started asking her questions. If she didn't explicitly ask to leave, false imprisonment won't hold up (some courts have even said that just asking isn't enough; the person has to actually attempt to leave). All in all, it seems like the Coaches at least overstepped their bounds and should probably be fired, but I'm not so sure about the legitimacy of this litigation, at least without more facts. Good post, FT... I doubt there is a legitimate false imprisonment charge...they would have alleged it had it been the case. My guess is the reason they didn't allege it is exactly what you guys pointed out...she made no effort to leave. And Tex is right, the defense would simply argue they locked the door to keep the conversation private (by keeping others out), not to try and lock her in. In a practical sense, however, I'd be willing to bet it was done for effect as much as anything, for the sake of intimidating the girl. As for the issue of privacy, I disagree with your notion that the girl can't make her sexual preference known in one setting but still have the right to keep it secret in another. How is a high school student supposed to express, (or for lack of a better word) develop or enjoy her sexuality if it is unknown to all of her peers? As someone mentioned previously, there is an assumption made by most that people are heterosexual. In order to make it known that your preference is the same sex, you must engage in some sort of expression which makes that at least partially evident. If you're going to argue that she can't make it clear to her peers that she prefers the same sex, yet also keep this unknown to her mother, because her behavior at school destroys her expectation of privacy, I'd strongly disagree. The fact that she was able to keep it secret from her mother evidences the fact that she did have an expectation of privacy and that privacy still existed, despite her behavior at school. The school officials, minus some issue of imminent danger or harm, have no right to violate her expectation because they were not serving any interest other than some personal score of theirs.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) I'd love to know too. My mother in law has two 100-pound monsters who are awful about this. The minute they see you, they totally lose their sh*t and want to tackle you. Ugh Unfortunately, my 14 month old Great Dane has this terrible habit as well...and since he gets the attention when he does this, the other dog does it as well, in order to compete for attention. I am a terrible owner from a training perspective.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) And the thread was "You be the judge" and if I was the judge I would have denied summary judgment based on the fact that there is a chance that the Plaintiff could win based on the facts, nothing more. Hah, I don't think he meant literally

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) And that part didnt even make sense to me. If its a motion for summary judgment, the only thing that should matter is if there is anyway for the Plaintiff to win. If there is, Summary Judgment is inappropriate. I dont know why the ruling would go further and even if it did, I would think the Judge would need to rely on some sort of case law that suggested what is private to be kept from guardians. I don't know...I don't know who this judge is...I don't even agree with him stating the analysis starts with Lawrence...but I still stand by the belief that this is definitely an invasion of privacy.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) Shack, Its not about consent to have sex, its about the fact that minors are not adults and therefore they do not have the same rights as adults. Furthermore the invasion of privacy was telling the minors guardian. We already have rules that suggest a minors privacy can be invaded for the perceived benefit of the guardian. That is the argument the School made, and the judge ruled that the evidence would suggest the school did not have a legitimate interest in communicating the subject's sexual orientation to her mother.

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) So...? Much of his opinion is based on this supposition that comes without citation: He then reuses that quote and inappropriately cites to Lawrence at 573-574 which is merely a cite to another case involving "autonomy." The Judge has better standing in the Circuit opinions he discusses. One of which is a 2nd Circuit decision regarding the private nature of transsexuality that never cites to Lawrence. This is a different area of law than Lawrence and one that hasn't made it to the high court yet. He's obviously extending Lawrence from the actual conduct itself to the right to keep private the fact that one does engage in that conduct, and there is language in Lawrence to support that idea, which I quoted earlier. His rationale may indeed get shot down by the higher courts, but the first time a case is extended to mean more than it was previously, it always gets criticized for extending the holding farther than it was originally meant to go. This is the nature of evolving jurisprudence.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) Im not sure I agree. The first problem is fact based. Lawrence is "2 consenting adults", the case at hand is concerning an adult and a minor. The second issue, it is just a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff should win if they can show any fact pattern where they could prevail. It seems that this is a pretty over reaching ruling for a Magistrate Judge. I just read the synopsis but it implies that he acknowledges there has never been a right given to students and then grants it. Based on that alone its likely going to be appealed, just because this ruling could potentially be used by any student to sue the school (the synopsis suggests that the ruling is that all sexual orientation is protected and thus a male/female could sue the school if its revealed to their parents they are in a relationship.) I would agree with you more if this case was about sexual conduct, but it isn't. There is no need to consent because there is no evidence of sexual conduct. All that is in question here is whether the girl had a right to keep her sexual orientation private. Lawrence is relied upon only in that the subject's choice to not share her sexual orientation is an "individual decision concerning the intimacies of a physical relationship."

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) Bowers is also a sodomy case that is only tangentially related to sexual orientation. Privacy cases are really state rights cases and it is a stretch to use these SC decisions. This is the language the Texas Magistrate Judge is reading in Lawrence:

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) I'm phone-posting from a plane so I can't dig it up, but I think I already c&p'd the part of the decision that references Lawrence. I know a posted a link to the case, Wyatt v kisb, so you can find it that way, too. This is from your earlier post:

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) It does? Lawrence is a case about sexual conduct and I don't think it is applicable here. The US Magistrate judge in Texas disagrees.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Balta, I assumed he was referring to a Supreme Court case, but its unclear if this was filed in State or Federal Court. Which is why I wanted to be sure that he was referring to a Federal Case and not a State case, as I previously cited Texas State law under the assumption this case is in State Court (its unclear from article). I further was confused because the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas is about sodomy laws legality, which really wouldnt be applicable to a civil cause of action for invasion of privacy, unless Im missing something. Is the argument that because Lawrence said that sexual intercourse is private, any statement concerning it has to be per se invasion of privacy? The argument is that a person's sexual orientation is of a highly personal nature, even when the conduct in question is homosexual conduct. The only case which stated otherwise was Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) It IS about my sexuality. Remove the public aspect of it. I'm in the same situation as this person. I'm completely asexual in public, but there's a rumor that I do in fact like women. The teachers get it out of me and tell my parents. According to this ruling I have an expectation that my sexual orientation should remain private. And if you did not want your parents to know this, I would say you had every right for that to remain private as the subject of this case did.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) Ok, so if a teacher tells my parents he saw me kissing a girl in the hallway, I can sue because he's invaded my privacy of sexual orientation right? Not if he's merely reporting an action he witnessed you perform on school grounds.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:14 PM) Strangesox, If you are going to say Lawrence, at least give me a cite to the case so I can look at it. I dont know every case off the top of my head, especially ones that arent applicable to any cases Ive ever handled. Oh give me a break. Lawrence is not some random freaking case he is mentioning.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) Otherwise the fact that I love singing in the shower (or any other number of things I don't want people to know) is private and i should be able to sue if someone lets it out. That is a ridiculous example. The information has to be something that is considered an important private concern, such as your personal finances, your health, your SEXUALITY, etc.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) I am saying I would not have done what those teachers did. They were wrong. The correct course of action is to report it to the police if you believe something illegal is happening. And since one partner is over 18 and the other under 18, I would call the police and allow them to sort it out. I risk nothing by reporting. I risk my career and reputation is I think that an abusive relationship may be going on and I don't report. Well I have no argument with that, Tex...but you'd develop quite a reputation with the police if you started reporting all your statutory rape speculations to them

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) But you're skipping the first step, which is whether the information disclosed is "private" such that an invasion of that privacy is actionable. What these cases are essentially saying is that sexual orientation is now "private" information that shouldn't be disclosed without approval. Inherent in saying that is that something is wrong with being gay. You wouldn't see an invasion of privacy claim for outing me as being heterosexual right? This is completely irrelevant and nowhere present in any set of elements for a claim for invasion of privacy that I can find. The issue is not the character of the information and whether it offends anyone. The issue is whether the court considers the information something the subject would consider a private concern. An example frequently given is a credit report.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) No, I'm going to call the police and insist they investigate. Well I think you're full of s*** and saying that to try and make a point, but even if you did call the police, that is entirely different than what the teachers in this case did.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) Iamshack, Here is some Texas law (im not a tx attorney and this was the first stuff I could find that seemed reasonable) http://www.gaddywells.com/TEXAS_CAUSES_OF_...ON.html#Privacy 19. INVASION OF PRIVACY A common law right to privacy exists under Texas law. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973). The Texas Constitution guarantees the sanctity of the home and person from unreasonable intrusion. Texas State Employees Union v. Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Tex.1987). The elements of a claim for invasion of privacy are (1) The defendant intentionally intruded on the plaintiff's solitude, seclusion, or private affairs; and (2) The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex.1993). When assessing the offensive nature of the invasion, courts have required that the intrusion be unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973). --------------------------------------- So it is important what other people think, because the standard is: (2) The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. So if a reasonable person would not be offended by their sexual identity being revealed, there is no invasion of privacy. Thus in order to win, it will have to be determined that a reasonable person would be highly offended by a their sexual identity being revealed. Wrong. It's the nature of the intrusion, not the nature of the subject matter intruded upon.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) I am not going to risk my career and reputation by not calling the police if I suspect there is an innapropriate relationship happening. So if you work at a high school, and you hear one of your students is sleeping with an older person, you are going to single that student out, lock him/her in the room, and force him/her to disclose information about said relationship? I would think that would be a much larger risk to your career than ignoring the rumors.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) And I think that's where this case falls apart and probably was a gigantic waste of time/money/resources. There are no damages here other than, what, embarrassment? But it's only embarrassment if we're determining that homosexuality is somehow bad or unsightly or something that should be kept private. As I said to Badger, what are the requisite elements for damages in an invasion of privacy case? It's not for us to determine whether or not the subject should want us to know something or not...it only matters that the subject did not and that the defendant's actions were illegal in disclosing that information.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) Iamshack, Those are different causes of action. I have no problem with discrimination lawsuit, you would have to prove discrimination, damages etc. But this appears to be an action for invasion of privacy, that somehow merely revealing she was gay was actionable. Revealing someone is disabled would most likely not be actionable unless there was something more. Which is the exact same standard I would say in this case. There has to be something more. I didn't mean for this to get spun in the direction of discrimination. I understand they are not alleging that. However, without looking at the elements necessary to prove damages for invasion of privacy, my guess is they have a few things in common with the elements necessary to prove damages for discrimination.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) Would it be an invasion of privacy to disclose that someone has a disability? No, because inherent in discrimination laws is that you KNOW the person is disabled, but still do x,y, and z in response. Well that's not the question in this case. The invasion of privacy issue goes to the facts that occurred up until the point the mother was told her daughter is a homosexual. The discrimination laws would go to the damages, and therefore, what occurred as a result of the mother being told her daughter is a homosexual.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) It suggests there is something wrong with being gay. The idea would be that being gay is so secretive/personal that merely revealing someone's sexual identity is an actionable offense. If it truly is, than revealing anyones sexual identity should be actionable. Equality is equal, in all of its terribleness. No it doesn't. It recognizes there ARE measurable consequences in our society for being a homosexual. Should we not allow any lawsuits for discrimination against the handicapped because it might suggest there is something wrong with it?