7 ms·

> It had to be a law because children are people in Finland and most Nordic countries with rights that adults just can't take away. It's a strange concept to h

by Gormo 1y ago

> It had to be a law because children are people in Finland and most Nordic countries with rights that adults just can't take away. It's a strange concept to hold that there are rights that can't be taken away, but then take them away merely by passing legislation.

chithanh 1y ago
The keyword here is just. They cannot simply order children to comply, there has to be same legal basis like there has to be for ordering an adult to comply.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Maybe I'm seeing this wrong but a public school is a government institution, right? It seems reasonable, then, that the government could say "no phones in here", just like they can say "no drinks in the courtroom".
  - askonomm 1y ago
    Not all schools are government institutions or funded by the government. But it wouldn't matter to your point, because by that logic anyone who owns the building should then be able to make rules about what goes on inside that building, or any organization, etc. Much like how you have basic wardrobe etiquette, you could also have a rule that says no phones in a classroom. Now me being Estonian, just across the sea from Finland, I was surprised to learn this needed to be a law in the first place since when I went to elementary/primary school smartphones and laptops were not permitted in the classroom. Didn't need a special law for that, it was just the school's rules. You either play ball or you get called into the principals office. This happens enough times and you simply get kicked out of the school.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      Well sure, I tend to agree with that. Government buildings can be an exception because they're public and we more carefully constraint the things the government can do, and because you can be forced to go there. I too am a bit baffled by the idea that you need a law for that. But, as I said, we have a different common law tradition in America that changes things. The only two big legal influences which I've read on are common law and the justinian codex -> napoleonic code path; scandi law is alien to me.
eptcyka 1y ago
You have the right to get intoxicated, you possibly have the privilege to drive a car if you are licensed. It’s quite the shame that these shmucks legislated against doing both at the same time.
anhner 1y ago
Those rights can't be taken away... without existing legislation. There are many rights that can be taken away, freedom of movement for example in the case of prisoners, but you need laws in order to not make that taking away a crime itself. You can't just apprehend and throw someone in your basement because they stole something from you. Same thing with children's phones, a teacher can't just take away the phone because they didn't have the authority before.
- devsda 1y ago
  Now I'm curious. Is there a law that carves out specific exemptions for parents disciplining kids/teenagers like grounding, taking away phone and internet privilege etc.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Sure, I think this just looks a little alien from an American perspective because most of our rights are set up as explicit negatives to block the government from legislating them away, more than to prevent Joe or Jane Teacher from taking a phone. "Congress shall pass no law..." I guess the nordics don't have a common-law tradition and so never inhereted the in loco parentis doctrine that allows schools to take substantial actions regarding students? I'm not familiar with their legal history.
  - jofzar 1y ago
    You have free speech, but you can't say a certain threat that is in a whitest kid you know sketch. It's the same thing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCBraWRzIHlvdSBrbm93IHRyZXZvcg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCB...
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      This has always seemed blatantly unconstitutional, though, intentionally abused to create a chilling effect. It's not something I have or will say, but if "I want to kill Fred" isn't classed as a Virginia v. Black "true threat", the government has no legal basis for charging. Technically the statute isn't unconstitutional, it's just widely-abused.
oortoo 1y ago
Can't "just take away" ie, there has to be a law prescribing the removal of the right. Lawful rights vs inalienable human rights. Same thing exists in US. You have a right to certain things, like the right to privacy, but that right can be lost in the right circumstances as determined by law. The difference here is that in the US, children don't by default inherit the same legal rights as adults and instead have a different set of rights which often means they never had a legal right to, for example, privacy or ownership, in the first place.
teloli 1y ago
You should have seen what happened a few years ago during a thing called covid
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
Not at all. Libel can punish you for speech. Defamation can punish you for expression. If you break a law, you no longer can vote in some states (I heavily disagree with this, just stating a fact) or own a gun. Etc... Etc... This is very normal.
nabla9 1y ago
That's how it is everywhere. Constitution gives rights, exceptions must be set by law. You have free speech... then comes the list of exceptions, incitement of violence, defamation (libel and slander), Child pornography, perjury, speech integral to criminal conduct, copyright infringement, state secrets,
- smaudet 1y ago
  And hopefully the constitution sets some bounds on said restrictions... Otherwise a constitution becomes ineffective at some point. There are such things as unconstitutional laws and laws that should not be observed nor enforced...
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  The US constitution doesn't give any rights. It restricts the power of the government to curtail rights that already exist.
  - nabla9 1y ago
    I hope you understand that's just cute wording. Individual rights exist only as far as they are protected by others. If you are robbed and nobody goes after the robber, the right to property does not de facto exist. The government must take an action.
    - seanw444 1y ago
      The government doesn't need to take action when I already shot him dead, because they didn't infringe on my already-existing right to keep and bear arms. The "cute wording" is important because the mindset matters. If enough of the population believes that rights are permitted to a person, they will attempt to revoke the permission. If they believe that rights are fundamental and inalienable, they wouldn't dare to think of trampling it in the first place. Of course, through the years, that perspective has shifted a lot away from the latter and to the former, to which I say "the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
miki123211 1y ago
"can't be taken away" here means "can't be taken away by parents." Different countries fall in different places on the scale between "a child is strictly a property of the parent, with which the parent may do as they wish", and "a child is a human being which the parent has been given an obligation to protect from harm, but not to control." The US is a lot closer to the former, most European countries, and especially the nordics, are much closer to the latter. The former enables parents to send their kids to a private school with a decent curriculum if the state school forces propaganda on them, but it also enables parents to send their kids to a school where they teach creationism or prohibit being gay. The latter prohibits teachers from taking away children's rights to get a tattoo or use nail polish, but it also doesn't give schools the right to punish children for infractions or take away phones. Those are extremes of course, and most countries fall somewhere in the middle, but that point is different in different countries.
eddd-ddde 1y ago
Well ethics aren't absolute. If it wasn't this way we would be stuck with a set of rules for all eternity, even when deemed incorrect at a later point.
standardUser 1y ago
No more strange than existing laws being reimagined to provide rights for those previously denied them. The strange idea would be that rights are cosmic and unchanging and not the result of a constant negotiation between individuals, groups and the state.
DanHulton 1y ago
I think it was phrased incorrectly and that's leading to this confusion. More accurately, I think, it's that children have rights under the law that must be respected. This changes the law and sets specific situations where these rights are specifically restricted. Outside of those situations, those rights still must be respected!
jpalomaki 1y ago
This is also a question of balancing the different rights. The Finnish constitution also states that everybody has the right to free basic education.

by Gormo 1y ago

chithanh 1y ago

The keyword here is just. They cannot simply order children to comply, there has to be same legal basis like there has to be for ordering an adult to comply.

_bin_ 1y ago
Maybe I'm seeing this wrong but a public school is a government institution, right? It seems reasonable, then, that the government could say "no phones in here", just like they can say "no drinks in the courtroom".
- askonomm 1y ago
  Not all schools are government institutions or funded by the government. But it wouldn't matter to your point, because by that logic anyone who owns the building should then be able to make rules about what goes on inside that building, or any organization, etc. Much like how you have basic wardrobe etiquette, you could also have a rule that says no phones in a classroom. Now me being Estonian, just across the sea from Finland, I was surprised to learn this needed to be a law in the first place since when I went to elementary/primary school smartphones and laptops were not permitted in the classroom. Didn't need a special law for that, it was just the school's rules. You either play ball or you get called into the principals office. This happens enough times and you simply get kicked out of the school.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    Well sure, I tend to agree with that. Government buildings can be an exception because they're public and we more carefully constraint the things the government can do, and because you can be forced to go there. I too am a bit baffled by the idea that you need a law for that. But, as I said, we have a different common law tradition in America that changes things. The only two big legal influences which I've read on are common law and the justinian codex -> napoleonic code path; scandi law is alien to me.

eptcyka 1y ago

You have the right to get intoxicated, you possibly have the privilege to drive a car if you are licensed. It’s quite the shame that these shmucks legislated against doing both at the same time.

anhner 1y ago

Those rights can't be taken away... without existing legislation. There are many rights that can be taken away, freedom of movement for example in the case of prisoners, but you need laws in order to not make that taking away a crime itself. You can't just apprehend and throw someone in your basement because they stole something from you. Same thing with children's phones, a teacher can't just take away the phone because they didn't have the authority before.

devsda 1y ago
Now I'm curious. Is there a law that carves out specific exemptions for parents disciplining kids/teenagers like grounding, taking away phone and internet privilege etc.
_bin_ 1y ago
Sure, I think this just looks a little alien from an American perspective because most of our rights are set up as explicit negatives to block the government from legislating them away, more than to prevent Joe or Jane Teacher from taking a phone. "Congress shall pass no law..." I guess the nordics don't have a common-law tradition and so never inhereted the in loco parentis doctrine that allows schools to take substantial actions regarding students? I'm not familiar with their legal history.
- jofzar 1y ago
  You have free speech, but you can't say a certain threat that is in a whitest kid you know sketch. It's the same thing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCBraWRzIHlvdSBrbm93IHRyZXZvcg%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY&pp=ygUcd2hpdGVzdCB...
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    This has always seemed blatantly unconstitutional, though, intentionally abused to create a chilling effect. It's not something I have or will say, but if "I want to kill Fred" isn't classed as a Virginia v. Black "true threat", the government has no legal basis for charging. Technically the statute isn't unconstitutional, it's just widely-abused.

oortoo 1y ago

Can't "just take away" ie, there has to be a law prescribing the removal of the right. Lawful rights vs inalienable human rights. Same thing exists in US. You have a right to certain things, like the right to privacy, but that right can be lost in the right circumstances as determined by law. The difference here is that in the US, children don't by default inherit the same legal rights as adults and instead have a different set of rights which often means they never had a legal right to, for example, privacy or ownership, in the first place.

teloli 1y ago

You should have seen what happened a few years ago during a thing called covid

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

Not at all. Libel can punish you for speech. Defamation can punish you for expression. If you break a law, you no longer can vote in some states (I heavily disagree with this, just stating a fact) or own a gun. Etc... Etc... This is very normal.

nabla9 1y ago

That's how it is everywhere. Constitution gives rights, exceptions must be set by law. You have free speech... then comes the list of exceptions, incitement of violence, defamation (libel and slander), Child pornography, perjury, speech integral to criminal conduct, copyright infringement, state secrets,

smaudet 1y ago
And hopefully the constitution sets some bounds on said restrictions... Otherwise a constitution becomes ineffective at some point. There are such things as unconstitutional laws and laws that should not be observed nor enforced...
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
The US constitution doesn't give any rights. It restricts the power of the government to curtail rights that already exist.
- nabla9 1y ago
  I hope you understand that's just cute wording. Individual rights exist only as far as they are protected by others. If you are robbed and nobody goes after the robber, the right to property does not de facto exist. The government must take an action.
  - seanw444 1y ago
    The government doesn't need to take action when I already shot him dead, because they didn't infringe on my already-existing right to keep and bear arms. The "cute wording" is important because the mindset matters. If enough of the population believes that rights are permitted to a person, they will attempt to revoke the permission. If they believe that rights are fundamental and inalienable, they wouldn't dare to think of trampling it in the first place. Of course, through the years, that perspective has shifted a lot away from the latter and to the former, to which I say "the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

miki123211 1y ago

"can't be taken away" here means "can't be taken away by parents." Different countries fall in different places on the scale between "a child is strictly a property of the parent, with which the parent may do as they wish", and "a child is a human being which the parent has been given an obligation to protect from harm, but not to control." The US is a lot closer to the former, most European countries, and especially the nordics, are much closer to the latter. The former enables parents to send their kids to a private school with a decent curriculum if the state school forces propaganda on them, but it also enables parents to send their kids to a school where they teach creationism or prohibit being gay. The latter prohibits teachers from taking away children's rights to get a tattoo or use nail polish, but it also doesn't give schools the right to punish children for infractions or take away phones. Those are extremes of course, and most countries fall somewhere in the middle, but that point is different in different countries.

eddd-ddde 1y ago

Well ethics aren't absolute. If it wasn't this way we would be stuck with a set of rules for all eternity, even when deemed incorrect at a later point.

standardUser 1y ago

No more strange than existing laws being reimagined to provide rights for those previously denied them. The strange idea would be that rights are cosmic and unchanging and not the result of a constant negotiation between individuals, groups and the state.

DanHulton 1y ago

I think it was phrased incorrectly and that's leading to this confusion. More accurately, I think, it's that children have rights under the law that must be respected. This changes the law and sets specific situations where these rights are specifically restricted. Outside of those situations, those rights still must be respected!

jpalomaki 1y ago

This is also a question of balancing the different rights. The Finnish constitution also states that everybody has the right to free basic education.