What is Digg?128 Comments
- jtjenn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+109I don't want some pedophile strip search me.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -8/+102As I said on my Blog, I can see some innocent girl getting raped through this.
- illicium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+89America is going down the drain.
- pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -4/+90I'd rather go to jail.
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+89This is simply how you train up future citizens to understand they have no rights. Just par for the course. Nothing to see here; move along.
Vote libertarian. - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+69Why is it that education officials and public government officials can decide when I get naked, and I can't get naked in public?
- FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+68Abuses are inevitable. Not just of girls either.
- Darth_tater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+61they will have to hold me down physically and have somebody else take my cloths off before they strip search me.
and i wonder how long it will be until this becomse abused by some pedophile or rapist. - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
^^ Just wear that on your shirt everyday.
Of course if this law were to ever pass it would be struck down by the SCOTUS. - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+55Don't you understand, these children are possibly terrorists.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45cause they're kinky like that
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43So much for 'protecting the children.' BAH!
Where the hell is the media?
Why is the first word of this BS found on Digg?
The american public should be as outraged as we are, if anyone would bother to let them know their congress wants to strip their children not only of their clothing, but their dignity.
No wonder more and more people are home-schooling. - 1010011010, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39This bill is several things.
1) An election-year tough-on-crime stunt.
2) One more step down the road of turning our schools into prisons.
3) Obedience training for future citizens. Getting kids used to random, warrantless searches will make them more compliant to government authority in the future. Plus, when whackos complain about violations of the 4th Amendment and government abuse of power, these folks will think and say, "but I've been searched all my life; it's no big deal".
4) Asymmetric. Are the teachers, administrators and other staff also subject to random warrantless searches? How about the politicians?
It must be stopped. Anyone performing such a search on my kids is going to receive an unpleasant visit.
Call, write and/or visit your congresscritter. It was a voice vote, so assume they are all guilty (voted for the bill) until proven innocent (can prove they didn't, or that they opposed it). Call your representative's office and request to know how they voted. Make your opposition known. Do the same for your sentator.
- airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Absolutely crazy. How far are things going to go before the public wakes up? Most people will answer "Well, you shouldn't have anything to hide if you're not doing anything wrong. What most people fail to realize is that the government also has the power to DEFINE what is right and wrong.
For chrissakes, some states have laws that make oral sex a crime. Imagine if they started enforcing that? Someone needs to remind the government they are here to serve the people, not oppress them. - tomi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Thankfully, I'm Canadian.
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25It's impossible if they think no one will take advantage of this law.
What day and age do we live in? - Shabadoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24With these wackos in power, it'll pass.
- Insert31990, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Interesting, we were just discussing this in US History in our debate portion.
It was under the topic, "When Authority Goes Too Far". - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I would think some ***** would be in their cake the next morning, followed by a thorough ass kicking/head cracking against the wall with possible eyes gouged out.
Sorry but no ***** is going to strip my son or daughter 'just because they can'. - chokeyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Unbelievable. If I had a daughter - or son for that matter - and an "education official" stripped them down, I can guarantee some ***** would hit the proverbial fan that day.
- Satanael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22That's one way to motivate more people to become high school teachers.
- mv10, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Thank God for Midterm elections when the Democrats regain the House
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19With the name "Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006" this bill will pass, no matter what it is really about. Those who don't vote for it will be highly scrutinized in ads/campaigns etc. just because of the name on the bill. "What, you don't want to keep the students and teachers safe?"
The same thing happened when the homeland security bill went through. "What, you don't want our homeland to be secure?" - CountChoculaAM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Treating children as if they have no rights is ridiculous. Furthermore, putting laws in place against a demographic that has no say so is even more ludicrous.
The old will always vote down the young. - 1010011010, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"Strip Searches" are just a logical extension, and a theoretical added indignity. The bill is wrong enough because of the at-will warrentless searches on flimsy pretexts that it sanctions.
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Too bad this rotten ***** will pass no matter ***** what.
- chokeyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"...just don't don't go to that school". Oversimplification. Ever visited the rural US?
- Aliarse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16So much for the "land of the free".
More like "the land of the guilty until proven innocent".
Glad i dont live there. - colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13that's nothing a violent overthrow as recommended by one of those, like, founding fathers guys can't fix
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13''King who is all powerful"
Done. But you spelled king wrong, the correct spelling is P R E S I D E N T - superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14kids get randomly searched in highschools daily in this country simply because they do not know their rights. I wonder what percentage of teenagers would submit to a strip search even if the bill wasn't in effect due to simple fear of authority and ignorance.
This is absolute *****. I can't believe this was even drafted none the less passed the house of representatives. I've got a good mind to go to canada. - thepyro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Think about it this way. The bill states that school officials and teachers can conduct searches on students suspected of carrying weapons, etc. However, it does NOT state any limitations to these searches. Therefore, one can assume that under this bill, strip searches are in fact allowed, although I doubt they will be implemented in each and every case... Still, that possibility is quite unsettling for those of us who have children in the school system...
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14obviously you have no idea how authority works
- lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17They actually do matt.
- HELLen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I'm glad we moved to Canada. The atmosphere and tone of the country seems far less on the brink of apocalypse. You should move too, before it becomes illegal to do so.
- compaqdrew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Strip searches? What? Here's the actual bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5295.IH:
IANAL, but I can't find anything about removing clothing in there. Inaccurate. - colinmhayes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11the inherent problem with that is that no matter what, one is still voting for a politician.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"they will have to hold me down physically and have somebody else take my cloths off before they strip search me."
They will. In other news, pedophiles across America are showing increased interest in careers in law enforcement. - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12http://digg.com/politics/Congress_Considering_Strip_Searching_Students
In case anyone in interested. - stocks29, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Seriously.....who elected the sick bastards that come up with this *****? What the hell is next? What is the benefit of this bill? Old grimy bastards can get off touching little kids w/o registering themselves as sex offenders.....
Whats next....is congress going to propose that we have a King who is all powerful and can sleep w/ anyone he chooses......stupid, stupid, stuipid..... - slaystench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10A bunch of pedophiles getting this ***** passed or what? This bill shouldn't go to the senate, it's a no brainer.
- Gunegune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Um, where in the article does it say strip search? Thats different from a search...."
The title and first paragraph. - CatsAreGods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Read the law as written, because that's what is being approved. Nowhere does it limit the type of searches or say who must be present, or even say what kind of evidence, or of what, must be presented. All it says is that school officials can search anyone at any time based on any suspicion.
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9god helps those who help themselves. contact your officials and let them know how you feel
- d3ik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What's scary is that most schools consider students under their 'care' on the way to and from school. The bill specifically states that the search only applies on 'school grounds', but I can see how this could be distorted. I would bet a large amount of money that if this passes some school administrator would try to search someone on their way to school or as they are walking home. What about on the school bus? This whole thing is pretty scary. Police are the only people who should be conducting searches, and there need to be protections in place to gurantee the 4th amendment isn't violated while doing so.
- chokeyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't see where it does. Perhaps that's the issue. Refer to 1010011010's post below.
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Sensationalistic? Sure, But so was WMD. Now there's a story I really wish had been buried.
Funny how governments get away with sensationalism, but anyone else can't. Facts be damned, let emotion rule.
Fact is, this bill is there to protect administrators, NOT students. A fine example of power closing ranks. Although it doesn't mention strip searches, it grants administrators the discretion to write policy. THAT's where you'll find the strip searches, in those policies. You won't find it in the bill that protects those that write the policies. That would be too obvious.
In case you're wondering what those administrators consider appropriate, go here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/national/main582492.shtml
Who do you want to protect? Them or the students? - calbff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8As am I. How can we make sure this kind of crap stays out of our government? It has so far, but...the US carries a pretty big stick.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8We Canadians shouldn't be so smug. Many of my friends find it insane that Bush got re-elected, yet Canadians elected Harper who is paving the way for these kinds of freedom crushing laws in Canada. The Conservatives will have no qualms throwing our rights and freedoms out the window just like Bush is doing to the US.
- Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13colbert is a libertarian
-
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is