[hinckley buzzard]

If a university professor was doing research on children's sexual behavior, attitudes, etc, he would first have to submit this questionnaire to an ethics committee. To be found acceptible, at a minimum it would have to include informed consent of the parent, as well as notification that the parent could refuse to allow his children to be subjects without penalty. To be approved, it would also need to have a rationale of what the data was intended to explain and how it relates to the field at large. There would also need to be reasonable assurance that participation would do no harm including emotional harm, to the subjects. The idea that the State somehow has the right to invade family privacy at will, without any such safeguards, is draconian, fascistic and unethical. Any judge who gave this intrusion a blanket OK is himself ipso facto unethical and unfit to sit on the bench.

[Zack Nguyen]

I had not thought of that, You're right, a university researcher would probably not have got past the ethics committee.

And you're right, it is fascist.

[driftdiver]

"Any judge who gave this intrusion a blanket OK is himself ipso facto unethical and unfit to sit on the bench."

You just described about 1000 of our federal judges. Pretty much any of those appointed under Carter or Clinton.

[driftdiver]

"Any judge who gave this intrusion a blanket OK is himself ipso facto unethical and unfit to sit on the bench."

You just described about 1000 of our federal judges. Pretty much any of those appointed under Carter or Clinton.

[AndyJackson]

Any judge who gave this intrusion a blanket OK is himself ipso facto unethical and unfit to sit on the bench.

What the original federal court judge did, according to the 9th circus opinion, was to recase the original invasion of privacy claim into a due process claim and then ruled that they had no due process claim.

But it is not a due process claim (14th ammendment). It is an unreasonable and warrantless search.