SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Illinois prosecutors have charged a 13-year-old student with felony eavesdropping for recording his conversation with two school administrators. Should he be found guilty and sentenced, a conviction could land him a minimum of one year in prison. According to TechDirt:
The [Illinois] law forbids recordings without all parties' consent. It would seem that the school officials' refusal to discuss anything further once they were informed they were being recorded should have been enough. The conversation was ended, along with the recording. If they were concerned they said something they shouldn't have during the previous ten minutes, maybe should have restrained themselves during the argument, rather than ruin a 13-year-old's life with a bad law Illinois legislators refuse to rewrite. Given how often this law is used to protect the powerful, it's hardly surprising legislators haven't expressed a serious interest in fixing it.
Everyone from the administrators to the prosecutors and those in between had a lot of discretion available to stop the chain of events, but all chose not to stop it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @07:34PM (7 children)
This kid's parents need to immediately setup a gofundme campaign to raise funds for legal costs. Time to draw some bad press to an abusive law and get paid!
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Monday July 02 2018, @07:56PM
Or take some parenting classes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @01:02AM (5 children)
Abusive law? You want random people recording you with impunity? Single party consent isn't as great as you think it is and there's a ton of repercussions that happen when only one party needs to consent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03 2018, @02:12AM (3 children)
The law could stop at simply rendering affected recordings inadmissible and still be effective. There is no need to ruin lives by also making the act a felony. The harshness of the penalty is a clear indication that those with power intended to craft the law to send a clear message to those without: one of fear. Regardless of the delinquency of this particular child, the punishment is disproportional to the offense and an unreasonable burden to his family. Any of us would feel the same if this were our child, hopefully even Frojack.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday July 03 2018, @07:01AM (2 children)
It is not just felony, the minimum punishment is 1 year.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday July 03 2018, @11:48AM
The minimum punishment is nothing.
He's a kid, so the maximum punishment is probably nearly nothing.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday July 04 2018, @06:44AM
Plus the detention he didn't serve, you forgot that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday July 03 2018, @02:15AM
Random people that I've chosen to have a conversation with? Sure. Why not, exactly? Why shouldn't they be able to prove, to themselves and others, what I actually said?
Now an uninvolved third party is a different question, but that's no longer even single-party consent. And even then - if you say something in public, you shouldn't be surprised if it comes back to haunt you.