Son Sues Mother Over Facebook Posts 428
Most kids hate having their parents join in on a discussion on Facebook, but one 16-year-old in Arkansas hates it so much he has filed suit against his mother, charging her with harassment. From the article: "An Arkadelphia mother is charged with harassment for making entries on her son's Facebook page. Denise New's 16-year-old son filed charges against her last month and requested a no-contact order after he claims she posted slanderous entries about him on the social networking site. New says she was just trying to monitor what he was posting." Seems like he could just unfriend her.
The real question (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real question (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The real question (Score:5, Informative)
The place I see "racism" is in the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically
First, that assumption would be correct. Second, the word you're looking for is douche-baggery, not racism.
Bigotry, prejudice != Racism (Score:4, Insightful)
The place I see "racism" is in the very idea of the assumption that anyone from the south deserves to be denigrated and disrespected automatically, as if there are no ignorant people or bigots from elsewhere.
What you describe is bigotry and prejudice, not racism. Clearly there are bigots elsewhere as evidenced by the post you are complaining about (which if you think about it is beautifully ironic). Having visited the rural south of the US for the first time a couple of weeks ago I found the people extremely polite and friendly and the countryside was beautiful. So if some of your fellow citizens don't appreciate that just be thankful that it will probably help you stay that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From Wikipedia entry for Arkadelphia:
"The racial makeup of the city was 68.98% White, 26.51% Black or African American, 0.53% Native American, 1.29% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 1.35% from other races, and 1.28% from two or more races. 2.59% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race."
So, what race of this variegated city is being prejudged here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so because some members of a group fit into a stereotype, that means it's ok to use it as a generalization. I'm sure you'd, likewise, have no problem with me saying that all blacks are criminals, and the French are smelly wine-guzzling cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
If you say it jokingly, it's absolutely fine. Jokes about racial/ethnic/religious/whatever stereotypes are the funniest ever, along with most other jokes where the setting and/or punchline is deeply politically incorrect.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly. Oh wait....
Alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)
There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)
The kid lives with his grandmother and the mother has no custodial rights. That would make it a little hard for the mom to punish him in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.
I love the "Tachy Goes to Coventry" (Global Ignore) feature of vBulletin. Banning users, or having the user *know* they are ignored just prompts them to find ways around it. When the user spins their wheels and has no idea they are being ignored, they keep doing it. Funny, actually.
Re:Alternatives (Score:4, Informative)
A case of RTFA in this case, a careless untruthful comment on the summary.
"In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life."
The posts weren't from her account on his statuses or whatever, it sounds like she actually went onto HIS account and posted slanderous things in his name (or at least, that is what is being accused). Sounds a little more serious now.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)
There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.
Read the article, she allegedly hacked his account and posted under his name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article is lacking detail on the exact actions taken, but he is accusing her of logging into his account and posting as him and changing his password, not just posting things to his wall or comments to his status. If she did use his log-in, then he actually has a case.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)
If you RTFA, the mother actually hacked into his account (guessed his password?), changed the password, and made posts as him.
In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life.
NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! (Score:5, Informative)
So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.
However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.
Moral of the story: RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This crap has gone too far. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when have people become so helpless online that they cry for help every time somebody does something they don't like? You can TAKE YOURSELF OF OF ANY SITUATION ONLINE.
This is why I have no tolerance for anyone using the term cyber-bullying. Even if you have a full-on
Re:This crap has gone too far. (Score:4, Informative)
She allegedly hacked into his account and made posts from it so no, he can't just block her.
Re: (Score:2)
from the article; she cracked his pw (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a Judge granted the restraining order against a women on behalf of a 16yo male(son) also should be a good indication of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:from the article; she cracked his pw (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't use Facebook, but are you not able to edit your own posts? Or is it like Slashdot, written in stone once you hit submit?
On Facebook you can delete your posts, But you can't remove it from peoples thoughts
Re: (Score:2)
For free entertainment go read the comments on the story. Mom has registered and is spamming the board with her side of the story.
One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.
Stupid woman (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about he just leaves facebook. (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, she shouldn't post on his wall but the simple solution is post on her wall, if she did steal his password he can cha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, the kid should cut himself off from something his peers consider normal behavior because his mom is a whack job.
Wait, why?
RTFA before commenting (Score:2, Insightful)
I see that most people are commenting on just the headline without understanding the issues because they haven't read the...
wait, this is slashdot. I suppose it's not surprising.
Still this is one time that not reading the article is going to bite you in the ass.
A custodial parent does have the right to discipline their child. This parent could remove access and legally post (from their account) comments on their child's wall. Whether or not they have the right to hack the kids account is really not clear
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd deal with them by denying access to the computer at my house and grounding them unless they deleted their account permanently or cleaned it up.
"Uh, hi, DFS? I know this guy who tortures his kid by denying all access to her friends. He's making her a social pariah because he's a total psycho. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes her strip naked in front of him to make sure she isn't hiding a cell phone. The address is..."
Inquiring minds want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
Important tidbit: (Score:2)
"New's son lives with his grandmother who has custodial rights, but New maintains she'd had a great relationship with him despite their living arrangements."
I would wager that there relationship isn't so great, and this is just one thing of many.
His mother doesn't not have custodial rights. So none of the usual parent reasoning applies.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:4, Informative)
RTFA, his grandparents have custodial rights, not his mother.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is slashdot, it is perfectly acceptable to do just that. In fact, it's implied.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Funny)
That we require pants out in public? Yes.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do parents "really" have any power over their kids today? I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them. Heck, if kid really wants to fsck their parents, just claim something sexual....and the parent is then pretty much branded for life, even if they did nothing wrong but try to discipline their child.
A child that realizes this power and is willing to wield it....what could a parent really do?
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them.
That doesn't mean child services will do anything about it. It's legal here in New York State (hardly a bastion of cultural conservatism) to hit your kids:
35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that would probably rise to the level of deadly force:
"Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you underestimate how much you have to beat a kid to get child services on you. Not even after my mother had my 12 year old brother drive her home from the bar (because she was drunk), then beat him so badly he was in the hospital for 3 days would the courts award my father custody. It took all of that plus a few failed drug tests before she finally gave up custody of him. Who knows what the courts would have decided, but it takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you. A whole hell of a lot.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you if you are female. If the situation were reversed, the father would have lost custody in an instant.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you if you are female. If the situation were reversed, the father would have lost custody in an instant.
plus alimony, plus child support, plus jail time, plus...
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:4, Interesting)
--
Who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
Re: (Score:2)
The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything.
So hit the little bastards until they realize who the boss is. Contrary to popular belief, it's still legal in all 50 states to use corporal punishment on your kids. Of course disciplining your kids would require being around them and why would you do a silly thing like that when you can rely on the Wii and TV to raise them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All depends on the state you're living in. In Florida it's completely legal to physically discipline your child.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 39.01(2), (30)(f), (45) (West, WESTLAW through End of 2003 Reg. Sess.)
Corporal discipline of a child by a parent, legal custodian, or caregiver for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.
You just can't beat them till you leave bruises or welts. If you use a wide enough paddle, this won't happen because of the surface area. My parents used to use a cut down boat oar. Hurt like a mofo, but never left marks.
I wonder if there is any correlation between states that have outlawed physically disciplining minors & instances of youth offenders?
Re: (Score:2)
What can a parent do? Two words:
Eviction notice.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, these guys did ok. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Funny)
there welcome to there new life
Really? That's just sad.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read the article.
You're totally wrong.
She has no rights. Not in this case.
--
BMO
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:4, Insightful)
I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."
Because prisonplanet and infowars are news websites of great repute. Oh wait...
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et cetera are censoring the news by ignoring these stories, then you have to turn to alternate sources.
Do you have any proof that the story you referred to is being censored by those news outlets? Do you have any citation to any public records to show that this incident actually happened? I've read the story both on infowars and prisonplanet and neither of them have any details. They make vague claims about a "couple in texas" that had their kid taken away. Considering these websites long track record of posting bullshit and phoney stories, you'd have to be a nutjob to believe it.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:4, Insightful)
Congratulations on doing exactly what you chastised the poster for; making an assertion and then providing no proof.
What the fuck are you talking about? The sole citation for his claim is a story that has little to no actual facts, such as the names of this couple or the name of the city and county that the incident supposedly happened in, that can be used to verify the incident. Nor can you find any public records to back up the claims in the story. Lastly, Alex Jones has been well-known for making up stories that routinely turn out to be false. I'm not sure what part of anything I've stated is an assertion without proof. My statements come from actually having read the story.
Bravo on being modded insightful for such obvious hypocrisy.
Bravo for being an idiot.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, left out the part about the illegal drugs being found in their residence and the fact that their anti-government views were but ONE of the claims levied against them.
Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.
Yeah, but leaving such a detail in would undermine his entire argument.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Democrats have pledged to work with RIAA and MPAA to protect the TV/movie industry's productions.
I hate to break it to you but the RIAA and MPAA also have republicans on their side. You remember that little law called the DMCA? Do you know from which party came the congressman who introduced the bill? The republican party. Do you know the current political affiliation of the current RIAA president? Republican again. If you think the Republicans aren't just as much in the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA you're even more dumb then you come across now.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops that's CEO not president.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignoring made-up stuff by nutjobs seems a legitimate role for news organisations.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. You also believe in those FEMA death camps, too, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why haven't those stories been reported on Fox News? Or are they also now a bastion of the Democratic party as well?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fox News is probably conspiring with the Reptilians and the Illuminati to make sure you aren't seeing the story.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:4, Insightful)
I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."
Citation?
Re: (Score:2)
His citation is infowars or prisonplanet or numerous other sites parroting those sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse. His source is Alex Jones.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:2)
As for that story you refer to, I imagine there's more to it than has been revealed. While there may be a troubling aspect to what happened, I am not in the habit of condemning people or organisations - especially government organisations - based on n-th hand reports on the Internet - they tend to have a distorting focus.
The problem is that one can't even verify that the story in the inforwars article that he read is even real because it has no actual data with which one could verify it. It makes claims about a "couple in texas" and that's about as detailed as it gets. Knowing Alex Jones's track record of making shit up out of whole cloth (fema death camps anyone?) one can be pretty confident that this one is made up too. That or it's highly exaggerated.
Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A no contact order against your mom? How exactly is that supposed to work?
The same way any sort of restraining order works?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The kid's grandparents have custody. But more importantly, there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.' Never. Not even Hitler. If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist. We human beings have empathy for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw you buddy, I'm trash and I'm proud of it. Bigot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way. We would all be better off if everyone were happy, well adjusted, and could contribute to society, don't you think? Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?
Re:No contact. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?
Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The choices that people make do not come out of the blue. They are not uncaused causes. They are part of an unbroken chain of cause and effect, and if we want to have a better world with less suffering, we must understand why people make the choices they do. Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything, contains no predictive power as a theory, and does nothing except provide an excuse not to care about a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything
Perhaps not, but it accurately describes many individuals that I've had the misfortune of interacting with.
Re:No contact. (Score:4, Insightful)
They had their loser-nature beaten into them by circumstance
I honestly could care less. I've met people that have survived far worse than the "parents" of the kids my agency works with. None of them are putting cigarettes out on their kids or prostituting them out for money and/or drugs. Circumstance only goes so far as a rationalization for bad behavior and there comes a point when the individual needs to be held accountable for his or her choices.
Most of the real sociopathic parasites on the ass of society are CEOs or board members of Fortune 500 companies, not sad children of broken families.
Umm, at what point have I said that the children are parasites? I believe I was reserving my bile for their so-called parents.
Re:No contact. (Score:5, Informative)
Stop being so selfish, and let someone called to this line of work have your position.
I didn't say I was direct care. I'm the IT person at my particular agency. You couldn't pay me enough to work in a direct care role. If I did work in such a role I would have been arrested a long time ago for beating the shit out of some "parent" that abused one of my clients.
Re:No contact. (Score:4, Insightful)
You confuse cynicism with a lack of passion. I care greatly for the clients that we service. I just think that the people who fucked them up badly enough to require our services aren't deserving of any further consideration from civilized society.
Also, fuck you. I'll work wherever the hell I feel like, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. It's just that some people actually do think that way. I'm glad you don't.
Re:No contact. (Score:5, Interesting)
You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way.
Society isn't to blame for a person's mistakes, or a person's actions. Some successful people have risen from being poor and destitute, others have had life handed to them on a silver platter and threw it all away. We make choices, our own choices, and no one is to blame but us for the choices we make. Society isn't responsible for why this teen feels the urge to sue his mother - society has simply shown that it's possible... the individual is making it his own choice to sue. Others have felt the urge to communicate with their parents and work out a resolution to stop them from doing these things - was he not given the ability to talk with her? To Unfriend her? To mark his profile as private? These are HIS choices - not ours.
Very few people are held in a position where they HAVE to smoke, drink, do drugs, steal - maybe peer pressure pushes them to doing things once, but it's up to them to either stop or continue doing so. The choice is ultimately theirs. The choice this individual made, in this instance for this issue, was to sue.
Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Choices come from life experience, genetics, and circumstance. "Choices" are not uncaused causes. Every choice has a reason it was made.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop worrying about who's "to blame" for things and instead concentrate on identifying causal relationships and you may find yourself better able to reach useful conclusions. Fault is irrelevant, concentrate on cause and effect and you'll be more likely to come up with practical actions to affect outcomes.
Re:No contact. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.
Nature versus nurture [wikipedia.org], my friend.
It is easy to blame them when they're despicable people. But your emotional satisfaction doesn't obviate the observation that different situations can lead to different results under otherwise similar circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
It is cheaper to keep this trash closer to the middle, where they work, but are neither on the dole or in jail. The latter case costs us too much per year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supposed Mom giving more details in comments (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Haven't you ever noticed before that men tend to wear facial hair designed to resemble a woman's pubic patch...
If her pubic patch looks like my facial hair, she needs to shave her inner thighs.
Newsflash: You are wrong, (Score:3, Insightful)
A) Working for a lawyer doesn't make you correct. It's bad logic. You are correct, but tossing on where you work is irrelevant.
B) A 16 year old doesn't know a correct legal term, so what? It makes him ignorant not an idiot.
C) YOU are an idiot and here is why:
Had you READ the article you should have noted "His mother doesn't not have custodial rights.". Don't they teach you to read after 2 years of working for a lawyer?