Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:59 AM) She thought her daughter might be gay and asked her about it. Her daughter denied it. Her daughter's coaches then told her that their daughter admitted to dating an 18 year old girl. That seems like a crystal-clear violation of privacy to me. Absent the coaches' actions, the daughter's sexuality would still be a secret from her mother (if that's what she desired). Right, and so far there wasn't convincing evidence that she was openly gay to dismiss the suit, but it'll be left up to the trier of the facts. Her denial of that was probably enough to defeat the motion and get it to a jury.

I just don't see how you can be "outed" about something you already expect/assume/have suspicions about. Suspicions, btw, that were so strong that she asked about it on more than one occasion. There are degrees of wrongness which help decide a case. If this were a case where absolutely no one knew she was gay and no one had suspicions of it, it would be different, especially since we're talking about invasion of privacy and not a black/white line cause of action.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) The coaches disclosed private information that the mother was unaware of that unambiguously revealed the daughter's sexual orientation. Even if the mother was suspicious, they still violated her privacy by confirming those suspicions. The only question in my mind is whether they had an obligation or duty to report the rumored relationship. Given that the age difference was less than 3 years and that they had no knowledge of any physical relationship, it seems like a clear "no." How did the coaches "confirm" it? I'd be arguing that the coaches telling her wasn't "outing" her any more than whatever other evidence led to the mother's suspicions before all of this happened. The kid could have easily refuted it. "Mom, they're lying, they just don't like me. Hell, they kicked me off the team!" Again, I think this was inappropriate. Not arguing that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) I doubt the standard is how shocked the audience was to learn of the news the subject wished to keep private. The bottom line is that this is not the school's place to get involved in this sort of thing. Do you really believe this wasn't the coach being upset that this player was supposedly dating her ex? I agree it's not the schools place, and I agree these guys didn't do the right thing. But all that is different from whether or not her privacy was invaded.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) "The Coaches dismissed the remainder of the team, lead S.W. into an empty locker room, and locked the door behind them." She'd have to testify that she understood all of that to mean she was being confined against her will. That could potentially be refuted by a defense attorney asking if she ever asked to leave and if not, why not. Is that a slam dunk defense? No, but neither is just having the door locked. I think it'd be a tough sell.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) Yes, most likely because you WANTED it that way. The School District has no right to pull you aside and threaten you unless you divulge all your secrets to your parents based on a rumor they heard. There was no imminent danger present, there was no witnessing of an illegal act, this was not something that was reported to them as a potentially dangerous situation from others...this was a coach settling a personal score and then seeking to justify it after the fact with some "duty to disclose" nonsense. According to the link provided by SS, the mother also had suspicions about it, so it probably wasn't a complete shock:

yeah the false imprisonment claim is pretty weak here. She voluntarily went into the room and there wasn't any evidence that she couldn't leave if she wanted to.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) Yes, most likely because you WANTED it that way. The School District has no right to pull you aside and threaten you unless you divulge all your secrets to your parents based on a rumor they heard. There was no imminent danger present, there was no witnessing of an illegal act, this was not something that was reported to them as a potentially dangerous situation from others...this was a coach settling a personal score and then seeking to justify it after the fact with some "duty to disclose" nonsense. I was just pointing out the fact that it's pretty easy to keep things from your parents. So just because her parents weren't aware doesn't mean that other students and teachers were also not aware prior to this. And she admitted to these coaches that she was having a relationship. It wasn't based on rumor, it was based on what she told them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) If her own mother was unaware, how widely was it disclosed? I don't think keeping that a secret would be all that difficult for a high schooler. I feel like my parents didn't know about 90% of the dumb s*** I did back in the day.

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) You can't invade privacy when the information is already disclosed on a wide level. Reasonable efforts at keeping the information private must be made. If she was openly gay at school and everywhere else outside the home, then these coaches may not have known that it was being kept private from the parents. But that's for a jury to decide. And yeah this is false imprisonment, and probably intentional infliction of emotional distress. Re the privacy, at least in Illinois I don't think that would be considered a viable cause of action. "Privacy" requires calculable damages - i.e., a company allows your ss #, address, credit cards, whatever out and your identity gets stolen. Here we have sexual orientation that may have already been out of the bag. What's the damage other than having to deal with your parents (and no, the emotional part isn't recoverable as damages)?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) Why does that matter? If the person hasn't told their parents? You can't very well argue something is private if it's already public knowledge. Whether or not a specific person knows about it doesn't change that.

My directv recorded it. Maybe some other show jumped in front of your queue?

I don't think they did the right thing, but I wouldn't call it an invasion of her privacy either, especially if there was actual evidence that she was "openly gay for several years."

I'm excited for the inevitable meltdown when Melo gets back. I don't see how these guys play well together. Someone's going to have to give up the shots.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 10:26 PM) When it comes to movies and TV, I feel like you're an exaggeration of me. In that we agree but I take it to the extreme?

Anyone still watching Alcatraz or The River? I thought both this week were pretty meh, though I'll give props to The River for creating some genuinely tense moments.

Cowboys and Aliens. Ugh. What drek.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) Do you know if both parents can do the pre-tax $5k a year? Or is it $5k per household? That's an issue I wasn't sure of. 5k per household

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Dear LORD no. Really? Two former All-Stars? Atlanta has former All-Star T-Mac, so they're golden too, eh? Boozer is playing nowhere near his All-Star peak and Hamilton is a dinosaur who can't stay on the court. The Bulls would not contend for the #2 spot without Rose. They'd be a 5-8 seed at best. I don't think any of those teams I listed are particularly good, and they all have big flaws. I see no reason why they couldn't compete with those second tier eastern conference teams. They've been crushing the awful teams without him (about to go 6-2 after tonight's game). How many wins would that be alone in a season? 30-35? They couldn't go .500 against the better teams in the NBA?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) That still gets you the 5 or 6 seed in the East most years. That's not bad for a team whose best player would be Luol Deng. Deng the long overdue all-star, along with a two former All-Stars (Boozer/Hamilton) and a top 5-8 center (Noah). 45 would be the minimum. I think that team could compete with Boston/Indiana/Atlanta/Orlando for 2nd best in the east.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) For some people, that is the way to go. In my case, my wife has a PhD she worked hard to get, and has no desire to leave the workforce. Neither do I. Fortunately, we both make more money than the cost of day care would be, so we are financially better both working, than one working. Everyone's math is different. And it is way beyond math, of course. We just really like having our kid(s) be socialized in a more dynamic way, so "school" (day care) has that benefit. She has lots of fun, learns a ton, etc. Day care is but one possible path. Also, where you live, day care may be much cheaper. And one thing i forgot to add, you can take $5,000 a year of that cost as a tax deduction, which helps. Have either of you guys been able to take the 5k pre-tax savings account "deduction," plus the child care credit? I'm guessing they don't allow you to do that, but I haven't looked.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) I'm not sure what bothers me the most among all the things that could from this -- *The misrepresentation of "Obama will pay for..." (which isn't what she said). However, I understand it's easy to infer (maybe even correctly) that that's what she meant, instead of a general "He gives me hope" thing. In that case, something that bothers me is... *People who hear what they want to hear. I didn't listen to the speech in question (or maybe I did, but it appears to be from 2008 so if I did I don't remember it), but I'm guessing it was a typical "Sounds awesome, unless you read even slightly between the lines and nothing is being promised at all" type of speech. Maybe it's the cynic in me, but that's the lens through which I view every speech a politician makes; a lens which presumes we're being promised much, much less than what it seems, unless proven otherwise (proven in terms of what the speech actually said, not what happens later). However, do I put the blame on people who hear what they want to hear, or... *The politicians who tell people what they want to hear, and in a way that can save their ass later. Again, me being a cynic makes me place the blame on the people hearing the speech; the politician is just playing a role that's to his advantage; it's the people who blindly listen who give them that power. No sheep to speak to, no double-talk, or at least much less. While politicians do have the ability to just not do this (and make me happy!), it's a device too easy to use, and too often used, for me to get mad at a particular politician over it. "Just the way the game is played" is a phrase that comes to mind. *I'm not even going to touch on the "taking her daughter out of school" part in fear it could open a can of worms I want no part of. The only thing I will say is that I don't categorically oppose parents taking their children out of school for something that's beneficial (which I leave intentionally broad -- it could be a baseball game with a parent they don't see often, it could be a speech like this, whatever; depends on each parent/child); whether or not this was is the can of worms I don't want to open. The above was not directed at any party or poster (including you Jenks, though yours was the post I quoted). It just sort of touched off that occasional feeling of incredulous I get at misinformed people. Reminds me of one my first weeks of law school last year, when someone made a comment along the lines of "Well, we're all going to get really jobs out of school anyway." I felt bad for her more than anything, for committing that much money under such a dangerous misconception. I don't know if that's what she intended to mean either. But at minimum she was expecting more governmental assistance in her life (from policies created/extended/adopted by Obama) to lessen the burden of her having to pay for gas, her mortgage, etc. At most she seriously did think that she'd no longer have to pay for her gas or mortgage because Obama would take care of it. To me it perfectly summed up the average voter in this country - generally ignorant and uninformed not only about the political process, but of politicians and their true motivations.

worked last time:

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 08:19 AM) AnyOne ever use a site like Quibids.com? It's a scam.

I should add too that the price does go down after they hit like 15 months. I think it's only ~100 bucks less, but still.