First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Parent

Broken Bow, OK

#1 Mar 7, 2013
Should minors (under 18) be allowed on Facebook? I know there is an age limit but kids are getting on there lying about their ages and Adults are committing crimes by talking to this minors. As a parent I will not allow my child on any of these kinds of sites. They are used by people for "hooking up" not just to stay in touch with friends. Parents can not monitor their kids on these sites do to cellphone having Internet and private messaging on the sites themselves. Just wanting other opinions.
yes u can

United States

#2 Mar 7, 2013
Parent wrote:
Should minors (under 18) be allowed on Facebook? I know there is an age limit but kids are getting on there lying about their ages and Adults are committing crimes by talking to this minors. As a parent I will not allow my child on any of these kinds of sites. They are used by people for "hooking up" not just to stay in touch with friends. Parents can not m monitor their kids on these sites do to cellphone having Internet and private messaging on the sites themselves. Just wanting other opithere are nions.
you can monitor them if your that concerned make the page for them if they are mutual with you knowing the password and account info. I have a kid sister I take care of I have access to her account as my fiance has to mine and I have to his...okay? It easy if you are close enough and have a good trust bond.
ThirdEyeWatching

Hugo, OK

#3 Mar 7, 2013
This is a concern nation wide. For some, you can monitor and build a trust. For others, they will find a way to create an account without your knowledge, lie about their age, hook up, and as a result, the adult male, regardless if they knew the female's age, is prosecuted, as noted in today's Pushmataha County Felony docket - http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCase...
Social media has some great advantages; however without a credit card validation or some other sort of adult validation, minors will continue use and abuse social media for their own purposes. Personally, I think it is the lack of parenting skills and values in today's young adults that allow these crimes to propagate. <- means to pass on to offspring.
Nosey EYE WATCHING

Durant, OK

#4 Mar 8, 2013
ThirdEyeWatching wrote:
This is a concern nation wide. For some, you can monitor and build a trust. For others, they will find a way to create an account without your knowledge, lie about their age, hook up, and as a result, the adult male, regardless if they knew the female's age, is prosecuted, as noted in today's Pushmataha County Felony docket - http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCase...
Social media has some great advantages; however without a credit card validation or some other sort of adult validation, minors will continue use and abuse social media for their own purposes. Personally, I think it is the lack of parenting skills and values in today's young adults that allow these crimes to propagate. <- means to pass on to offspring.
First off, you should have NEVER posted that LINK. You call yourself "Third Eye Watching" and you behave as though you are so informative, so helpful and I'm calling BULLSHIT. You just posted a link to GRAPHIC sex acts that happened to a MINOR. Granted, the courthouse is IGNORANT for not locking that webpage, but you're even more of an ASS for linking to it.
Nosey EYE WATCHING

Durant, OK

#5 Mar 8, 2013
I hope they sue the courthouse. And you "Third Eye Watching" over at the courthouse. They have GROUNDS.
THE PEOPLE WATCHING

Durant, OK

#6 Mar 8, 2013
third eye do you know how f...ing stupid you are.post a link like that and all you did was hurt that family!!!!!!!!!! it looks to me you need to mind your own business,and stay out of other peoples business.who do you think you are ?????????? and you think you are helping PLEASE
ThirdEyeWatching

Muskogee, OK

#7 Mar 8, 2013
First of all, I know Nosey Eye and The People are posting from the same computer, so I know you are the same person or family. Second, the link is public record, therefore, it is available to the public, even if the truth hurts. Do you not think others are talking at school about this? The teens know more about this than you do. Third, if you were in the court room, it is not hard to figure out what happened. Fourth, the state is working on changing the database to where you have to pay to view the documents, but then again, they will be public record if you pay. Fifth, if you don't like what is posted on this forum, just complain to the forum moderator and the topic will be removed. Now you are informed.
ThirdEyeWatching

Muskogee, OK

#8 Mar 8, 2013
I do agree with you the affidavit should have been locked and non-viewable. I did not read read the affidavit prior to posting the message, so I agree with you there.
ThirdEyeWatching

Stigler, OK

#9 Mar 8, 2013
Nosey EYE WATCHING wrote:
I hope they sue the courthouse. And you "Third Eye Watching" over at the courthouse. They have GROUNDS.
Just so you know, I don't work at the courthouse nor do I live in Pushmataha County, but I know those who do and I'm sure it was just an overlooked error. I'll see if I can get in touch with someone to change the view settings.
Ralph

Oklahoma City, OK

#10 Mar 8, 2013
Is that not illegal to release the name of a minor in a case like that?
ThirdEyeWatching

Muskogee, OK

#11 Mar 9, 2013
Ralph wrote:
Is that not illegal to release the name of a minor in a case like that?
There are both federal and state laws related to the confidentiality of minor victims of sex related crimes, which differ depending on the type of court proceeding and jurisdiction (i.e. Tribal Lands). Withholding the names of minors is strictly an ethical issue for the media and not a legal issue. The media are legally allowed to publish the names of those involved in accidents and crimes and newsworthy events (including the names of rape victims - although it is a widespread policy for the media to refrain from doing so in this matter). In Smith v. Daily Mail (1994) the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to use the names of minors in newsworthy stories as long as the information is "lawfully obtained" and "truthfully" reported. In Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court in and for Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, et al, the Court held that a State (upheld by the US Supreme Court) could not impose sanctions on the accurate publication of the name of a rape victim 'which was publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime. In all probability, if the family files a civil lawsuit, the court will find that the clerk was protected by judicial immunity, even if the judge promised the family the victimís name would not be released. Illegal, no; unethical, yes.
Idiots

Enid, OK

#12 Mar 9, 2013
Nosey EYE WATCHING wrote:
<quoted text> First off, you should have NEVER posted that LINK. You call yourself "Third Eye Watching" and you behave as though you are so informative, so helpful and I'm calling BULLSHIT. You just posted a link to GRAPHIC sex acts that happened to a MINOR. Granted, the courthouse is IGNORANT for not locking that webpage, but you're even more of an ASS for linking to it.
Nosey Eye, you r an idiot. 3rd ey only posted a linc to a court report which is open 2 every1 ann maken convrsation. U made it wurse by what u posted. U shuld be ashamed. I say ur the ass ann idiot in this post.
Ralph

Oklahoma City, OK

#13 Mar 9, 2013
Well there ya go. Thanks for the clarification.
yes

Netherlands

#14 Mar 11, 2013
Ralph wrote:
Is that not illegal to release the name of a minor in a case like that?
It is definately illegal. Unmoral, unethical, illegal and wrong.
nice try

Netherlands

#15 Mar 11, 2013
ThirdEyeWatching wrote:
<quoted text> There are both federal and state laws related to the confidentiality of minor victims of sex related crimes, which differ depending on the type of court proceeding and jurisdiction (i.e. Tribal Lands). Withholding the names of minors is strictly an ethical issue for the media and not a legal issue. The media are legally allowed to publish the names of those involved in accidents and crimes and newsworthy events (including the names of rape victims - although it is a widespread policy for the media to refrain from doing so in this matter). In Smith v. Daily Mail (1994) the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to use the names of minors in newsworthy stories as long as the information is "lawfully obtained" and "truthfully" reported. In Oklahoma Publishing Company v. District Court in and for Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, et al, the Court held that a State (upheld by the US Supreme Court) could not impose sanctions on the accurate publication of the name of a rape victim 'which was publicly revealed in connection with the prosecution of the crime. In all probability, if the family files a civil lawsuit, the court will find that the clerk was protected by judicial immunity, even if the judge promised the family the victimís name would not be released. Illegal, no; unethical, yes.
Ask Penn State and Jerry Sandusky how they feel about lawsuits. The courthouse and YOU did NOT protect this child. Both the courthouse and your unethical behavior are open for a lawsuit.
realist

Talihina, OK

#16 Mar 11, 2013
a person has to be at least 13 to create a facebook, so if they are younger than that and have one they are lying about their age.
ThirdEyeWatching

Tahlequah, OK

#17 Mar 11, 2013
nice try wrote:
<quoted text> Ask Penn State and Jerry Sandusky how they feel about lawsuits. The courthouse and YOU did NOT protect this child. Both the courthouse and your unethical behavior are open for a lawsuit.
Society today is lawsuit happy. You can file a tort claim for just about anything. Heck, I might file one on you for defamation of character and then file a couter-suit to your lawsuit. That is one of the problems of our current society. 50 years ago your reasoning was almost unheard of. Just to make a point, go ahead, find an attorney, and file your lawsuit against the courthouse, the clerk, me, the forum for allowing the post, the judges who disagree with you, and all those who have already fought this battle, and anyone else you think you would like to add. Until you do, you really aren't going to learn a thing - Your comparison and analysis of the Penn State and Jerry Sandusky cases are apples and oranges.
Tish

Warner, OK

#18 Mar 11, 2013
Parent wrote:
Should minors (under 18) be allowed on Facebook? I know there is an age limit but kids are getting on there lying about their ages and Adults are committing crimes by talking to this minors. As a parent I will not allow my child on any of these kinds of sites. They are used by people for "hooking up" not just to stay in touch with friends. Parents can not monitor their kids on these sites do to cellphone having Internet and private messaging on the sites themselves. Just wanting other opinions.
I agree, my son is 11 and is one of the very few in his class who does not have a cell phone or an account on facebook.I actually heard one of the parents in his class tell another parent she was not responsible for what her child posted on facebook. It was not her problem he posted something he shouldn't have she had other things to worry about than that.
ForumReader

Enid, OK

#19 Mar 12, 2013
nice try wrote:
<quoted text> Ask Penn State and Jerry Sandusky how they feel about lawsuits. The courthouse and YOU did NOT protect this child. Both the courthouse and your unethical behavior are open for a lawsuit.
I don't see what he or she did wrong. Posting a link to ODCR or OSCN, which is just a generic open records case link available to anyone, was not and is not in violation of any law, criminal or civil, nor was it unethical or immoral. He or she has the right under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to post the link. If you don't like what the court clerk has published or documents that are open for review, you need to contact the court house, not bash ThirdEyeWatching. From what I can tell, he or she is out there watching and fighting for what is right and just, for the victims, offenders, and the public. Now that you have pointed out the problem, what do you intend to do about it?
ThirdEyeWatching

Warner, OK

#20 Mar 12, 2013
If she really wants to make a change, she needs to contact her state representative and ask for a bill to be introduced to change 12 OS 39 to include 21 OS 1119 on the list of court-controlled web site documents. It appears the database computer code flags only specific chapters as identified in 12 OS 39 as controlled documents. 21 OS 1119 Abduction of Person under Fifteen is not an automatic database flag or listed per Oklahoma Statutes as a web court-controlled document.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Antlers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chelsea Neese (Jul '15) 20 hr Buttnuggets 12
What the hell happened to Shody Lawrence and di... (Jan '12) Tue Sull 11
Who do you support for Associate District Judge... (Oct '10) Tue Goldie 27
Shawna Sayler Aug 21 Shawna 4
Cindy morell Aug 21 Pissed off man 1
might be moving to Clayton, tell about the place (Dec '16) Aug 21 Roe 7
Brandon Mangrum (Bean) ARRESTED! (Aug '12) Aug 20 Hep A 19

Antlers Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Antlers Mortgages