You be the judge

[iamshack]

If you have knowledge of an adult having sex with a minor child. Seems like a police matter. Let them investigate and decide. Now do you also tell her parents that you notified the police?

They never had knowledge, Tex...they had rumor/speculation and then used their position of authority to intimidate the student into divulging information she had no interest in telling them, or her mother.

[Soxbadger]

As I was born post 1964 my obvious opinion is that separate but equal was a terrible policy.

[iamshack]

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?

[Jenksismyhero]

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?

 

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.

 

 

[iamshack]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

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.

 

 

[Texsox]

They never had knowledge, Tex...they had rumor/speculation and then used their position of authority to intimidate the student into divulging information she had no interest in telling them, or her mother.

 

 

I am not going to risk my career and reputation by not calling the police if I suspect there is an innapropriate relationship happening.

[Soxbadger]

But it's only embarrassment if we're determining that homosexuality is somehow bad or unsightly or something that should be kept private.

 

Jenks said it better than me.

[iamshack]

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.

 

[iamshack]

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.

[iamshack]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

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.

 

 

No, I'm going to call the police and insist they investigate.

[StrangeSox]

If you have knowledge of an adult having sex with a minor child. Seems like a police matter. Let them investigate and decide. Now do you also tell her parents that you notified the police?

They had no such knowledge and it is defensible in Texas.

[iamshack]

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.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Ultimately the issue will be damages. If they are just nominal its a waste of everyone's time.

 

If Im the Defendant, Im arguing that there are no damages, that there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian, so outing her is as irrelevant as saying that their daughter came to school with purple hair.

 

The rest just seems like commonplace school nonsense. Teachers, etc try and use leverage to get information from students.

Coming out is a pretty big deal for many people.

[iamshack]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

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?

 

 

[Texsox]

They had no such knowledge and it is defensible in Texas.

 

I am not an attorney. I do know what happened in Pennsylvania where having someone tell you they may have witnessed something innappropriate requires you to call the police and insist they investigate. Seems like a simple matter here. Call the police, they say there is no problem, and you and done. If there is abuse, and they do not investigate, I assume you would be free of any blame.

 

Again, if you suspect there may be abuse, why not report it to the police? I do not see any harm.

[iamshack]

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.

 

 

[Texsox]

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.

 

 

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.

[iamshack]

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

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

To get to this:

 

the court considers the information something the subject would consider a private concern

 

you have to decide this:

 

the character of the information and whether it offends anyone.

 

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.

[StrangeSox]

Jenks said it better than me.

The right to privacy doesn't revolve around the moral acceptability of the private information. That is a terrible argument.