These are some of the comments people have made about the curfew and related bits, and my responses to their comments. Feel free to e-mail me with any related thoughts.
DISCLAIMER: Some of these messages have been partly edited. This was only done where there was material not directly relating to the curfew law included in the message, I am not censoring these messages in any way when they do not jibe with my thoughts on this matter. The full text of each message is being saved on my drive, and can be refrenced if anyone feels it necessary.
As for the curfew, it affects Lost Abbey a lot, no? I can see where it would help, but the main problem has been kids not having somewhere to be and the Lost Abbey is somewhere they can hang. As long as they aren't "loitering about" I say let them be out. As to what happens when they get together, I've been to the Lost Abbey and it was just dancing and meeting people. A lot worse can happen. So there may be a little bump and grind, they aren't having full-on sex there. They could be at a frat party being busted by cops.... But the same stuff they may think this curfew prevents can very well in reality happen anywhere, at any time of day...even at school. During the day.And not just under 18 either...you should see the people here..and we're all over 18.
I'll look through your text more carefully later, but there's something I wanted to comment on now. School lockers and newspapers are the property of the schools, so students don't have much of a claim to them. Arguments can still be made, but it doesn't deal with Constitutional issues in the way that a curfew (or student car searches, for that matter) does.
I'm not as sure about that...the locker itself may be the property of the school, but the contents of that locker are the property of the student, and consitutionally there should be no way the school administration should be able to go through it on a whim. For instance, a safe deposit box in a bank isn't the property of the renter, it's the property of the bank...but a warrant is needed to open that without consent of the renter.
Newspapers I'm not as sure of yet...as I've said, I'm still doing research and collecting comments on all of this.
How the hell did that piece of crap pass and how do we get rid of it? Sorry, I'll try to refrain from taking this out on you. I'm quite serious, though. I'm sure there is a group or groups working on this and I am willing to help in any way I can.
I simply have a hard time comprehending how such a violation of what I consider to be basic rights ever came to be. Though I am 18 and this does not affect me directly, I strongly feel that to restrict the freedoms of individuals of any age, especially when there is no reason for doing so, is contrary to a big part of what the USA is supposed to stand for. This law could not possibly be constitutional, could it?
I suppose someone could refute my statement by saying that there are reasons for this new curfew law. Like what? I'd really like to know. Increasing juvenile crime rates? Hell, there's increasing crime in every age grouping. Why don't we just lock everybody up, that would make even more sense.
I'm glad to see that there are many loopholes in this new law, but scared out of my mind that even the principle of such an unwaranted restriction of freedoms has passed. What's next!!?
>serious, though. I'm sure there is a group or groups working on this and
>I am willing to help in any way I can.
That's part of the problem at the moment...as far as I know, there _isn't_ anyone doing anything about this, other than a lot of posturing, rhetoric, and threats. Kind of depressing...which is part of what spurred me into doing this, I think.
> I simply have a hard time comprehending how such a violation of
>what I consider to be basic rights ever came to be. Though I am 18 and
>this does not affect me directly, I strongly feel that to restrict the
>freedoms of individuals of any age, especially when there is no reason
>for doing so, is contrary to a big part of what the USA is supposed to stand
>for. This law could not possibly be constitutional, could it?
Part of what we're up against is that our law is based on one that has already been passed and survived court scrutiny in Denver (or possibly Dallas, I can't quite remember which). However, I can't believe that it's based too much on it, after reading that...(shrug)
> I suppose someone could refute my statement by saying that there
>are reasons for this new curfew law. Like what? I'd really like to
>know. Increasing juvenile crime rates? Hell, there's increasing crime
>in every age grouping. Why don't we just lock everybody up, that would
>make even more sense.
(grin) Part of it is that there's a lot of tension up here at the moment. Anchorage has finally reached a size where the gangs that have been evident to the kids around them for years, are finally becoming more evident to the public at large. This has been a record setting year for murders, and quite a few of them have been gang-related in some way, including two teenagers walking up to a woman in her car in broad daylight in Mt. View and shooting her to death after being involved in a bad drug deal. Things are getting scarier here, but the problem is that the only people this law will affect is the ones that follow the laws already...those who are running around ganking stereos and shooting each other aren't about to be too put off by this curfew law.
In other words, I see the motivation behind the law, and I understand why it passed so easily. I also, however, believe that it was approached in the wrong way, handled in an extremely slipshod manner, and needs to have a serious look taken at it, which is what I'm hoping to provoke.
But still, the school has every right to go through trash cans, classrooms, whatever; they can't be prevented from doing that on the assumption that student property may be found. Where is their right to search demarcated? I don't know.
Hm...schools go through the trash? They're really getting desperate... More seriously, I'd say that in the case of a trash can, especially in a public institution like a school, the implication is that once you throw something away, you're not claiming ownership of it anymore. Thus, it would be okay to go through it. It would be similar with classrooms...unless there are private lockers within the classrooms for students to store their belongings, the students should realize that any belongings they may have in the classroom are unprotected, and can be seen by anyone in there. Now, I don't believe that this would go to the point that by leaving a coat in a classroom, it would be okay for a school official to go throught the coat, looking in pockets and such, on a whim, as the coat itself is the property of the student. Getting into finer and finer distinctions here.
Yes, it's a more intricate problem than I thought it was. My sense is that it would be okay for a school to search through its property (trash cans, etc. [and I don't know if they do, it was just an example :) ]), but not private property, e.g. coats. So does that mean that if you put everything in your locker inside a bag, that they can't open it and see what's there? I'm leaning toward yes. These are borderline cases, but those are at least as important as clear-cut cases.
Oh, one point I wanted to make before is that minors do definitely have Constitutional rights. Lawmakers may not always respect those rights, but minors have the Constitution on their side.
>So does that mean that if you put everything
>in your locker inside a bag, that they can't open it and see what's
>there? I'm leaning toward yes.
From what I've been told, that's exactly the case, and may even be so in the locker searches that take place. I'd like to find out from a school official, but haven't gotten any response from any of those that I sent my message to. (shrug) Oh, well.
Back to Babble...