There oughta be a law . . .
Preposterous.
Article linked above is short and if, like me, you visit pro-life websites with pictures of scrambled fetuses accompanied by captions reading "Luks lyk babeee 2 me" just to feel white-hot rage . . . well, you might just get a kick out of this story.
As far as I can tell, the big question here--the only question worth pursuing really--is who would/should he be able to successfully sue? We can ask why our society is so sex-phobic, why we think we can impose the position of role model on unwilling recipients, and why we bother with age-of-consent laws if we're going to treat anyone with a sizable age gap from their partner like a sex offender anyway . . . but I'm willing to file those under the broad category of "self-righteous assholes who reproduce are still self-righteous assholes, but are now bitter because they can't have any fun."
That being said, potential parties-to-sue based on limited information include: his girlfriend, his girlfriend's mother, the principal, and the school district.
His girlfriend was, at worst, negligent. And she's only technically negligent if she has a duty of some kind. She does not. Also, suing the girlfriend would be super-tacky.
The mother intercepted the text--the way in which she intercepted it could be important. Also whether it was a text or an email. The laws haven't quite caught up with us here, and that's a problem. The government needs a warrant to have access to your email (established by a federal court in the FTC case against Enzyte, of all things); however, employers can monitor emails sent during work hours. The expectation, of course, is that all your emails should be work-related or, minimally, work-appropriate if sent during a break. If you used your office's post machine or dropped a personal envelope to be sent out with the office mail, your employer probably still would not be able to justify reading your mail--though they could fire you for petty larceny (petty theft in the U.S., but it's more fun to say it like the Brits). There are almost no laws governing privacy rights between individuals in terms of email or text messages. We can't record a phone call that we were a party to without someone's consent but we can rifle through the text messages of friends, family and, most commonly, partners? We can't open the mail of someone else--even someone in your own household, even a minor--but we can open emails, delete them, and it's all within legal bounds short of acts of fraud?
There oughta be a law.
The mother is who he plans to sue, if the news is to be believed. There's no clear precedent for it, although the development of privacy laws that mirror current technology has been a (slowly) growing trend.
The principal is equally tricky--word on the street (internet) is that the coach had only been there 3 years and was still on a non-tenured, at-will employment status. Which means she doesn't need a good reason to fire him. Between federal law and Florida law, she cannot fire him for: gender, race, disability, or age. Good thing he's not gay, because then she'd just have another (perfectly legal) reason to fire him.
Lawrence v. Texas established a right to sexual privacy between consenting adults. Of course, that was based on the idea that what happens behind closed doors is your own business. That could logically be extended to mail--if people felt like mailing their sweethearts photos of them whacking off, which the postman will be handling. Could email or instant messages receive the same protection?
The district would be liable only if the principal was, under the doctrine of respondeat superior (let the superior respond).
My prediction: he will be able to possibly successfully sue the mother for harassment for redistributing a video that was intended to be private and was not appropriately safeguarded.
Meanwhile, this mother will have done irreparable damage to the relationship with her daughter, the daughter and teacher's relationship will reach a tumultuous end (possibly preceded by a hasty moving-in together/wedding/pregnancy), and that principal will receive an onslaught of indignant emails.
----
In other news, I like New Mexico. Like, a lot.
Article linked above is short and if, like me, you visit pro-life websites with pictures of scrambled fetuses accompanied by captions reading "Luks lyk babeee 2 me" just to feel white-hot rage . . . well, you might just get a kick out of this story.
As far as I can tell, the big question here--the only question worth pursuing really--is who would/should he be able to successfully sue? We can ask why our society is so sex-phobic, why we think we can impose the position of role model on unwilling recipients, and why we bother with age-of-consent laws if we're going to treat anyone with a sizable age gap from their partner like a sex offender anyway . . . but I'm willing to file those under the broad category of "self-righteous assholes who reproduce are still self-righteous assholes, but are now bitter because they can't have any fun."
That being said, potential parties-to-sue based on limited information include: his girlfriend, his girlfriend's mother, the principal, and the school district.
His girlfriend was, at worst, negligent. And she's only technically negligent if she has a duty of some kind. She does not. Also, suing the girlfriend would be super-tacky.
The mother intercepted the text--the way in which she intercepted it could be important. Also whether it was a text or an email. The laws haven't quite caught up with us here, and that's a problem. The government needs a warrant to have access to your email (established by a federal court in the FTC case against Enzyte, of all things); however, employers can monitor emails sent during work hours. The expectation, of course, is that all your emails should be work-related or, minimally, work-appropriate if sent during a break. If you used your office's post machine or dropped a personal envelope to be sent out with the office mail, your employer probably still would not be able to justify reading your mail--though they could fire you for petty larceny (petty theft in the U.S., but it's more fun to say it like the Brits). There are almost no laws governing privacy rights between individuals in terms of email or text messages. We can't record a phone call that we were a party to without someone's consent but we can rifle through the text messages of friends, family and, most commonly, partners? We can't open the mail of someone else--even someone in your own household, even a minor--but we can open emails, delete them, and it's all within legal bounds short of acts of fraud?
There oughta be a law.
The mother is who he plans to sue, if the news is to be believed. There's no clear precedent for it, although the development of privacy laws that mirror current technology has been a (slowly) growing trend.
The principal is equally tricky--word on the street (internet) is that the coach had only been there 3 years and was still on a non-tenured, at-will employment status. Which means she doesn't need a good reason to fire him. Between federal law and Florida law, she cannot fire him for: gender, race, disability, or age. Good thing he's not gay, because then she'd just have another (perfectly legal) reason to fire him.
Lawrence v. Texas established a right to sexual privacy between consenting adults. Of course, that was based on the idea that what happens behind closed doors is your own business. That could logically be extended to mail--if people felt like mailing their sweethearts photos of them whacking off, which the postman will be handling. Could email or instant messages receive the same protection?
The district would be liable only if the principal was, under the doctrine of respondeat superior (let the superior respond).
My prediction: he will be able to possibly successfully sue the mother for harassment for redistributing a video that was intended to be private and was not appropriately safeguarded.
Meanwhile, this mother will have done irreparable damage to the relationship with her daughter, the daughter and teacher's relationship will reach a tumultuous end (possibly preceded by a hasty moving-in together/wedding/pregnancy), and that principal will receive an onslaught of indignant emails.
----
In other news, I like New Mexico. Like, a lot.