Liability Form - A Kid Again: Fill & Download for Free

Ah, Americans. After emigrating from Britain, on my very first day of school in America, a kid came up to me and asked “What was it like to live in a country that wasn’t free?” That wasn’t the last time such wackadoo sentiments were expressed. Americans are indoctrinated, as children, to believe they are the only free people and a lack of interest in other cultures prevents many of them from ever questioning that.Don’t ask why without asking if.[1] The premise of the question is unfounded nonsense. Many countries and associations of countries include freedom of speech within their laws. Here are just a few examples:Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution says:Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.Part VIII, Paragraph 77 of the Constitution of Denmark says:Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution says:There shall be freedom of expression.No one may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the pro- motion of democracy and the individual’s freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law.Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administra- tion of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limi- tations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty con- siderations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression.Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions.Paragraph two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.Footnotes[1] A2–36: QUESTIONERS SHALL NOT ASK WHY UNTIL THEY HAVE ASKED IF

When I moved to America, from Britain, and attended my first day of seventh grade, a kid came up to me during physical education class and asked me “What was it like to live in a country that wasn’t free?” I was shocked to be asked that. That wasn’t the last time such wackadoo sentiments were expressed. Americans are indoctrinated, as children, to believe they are the only free people and a lack of interest in other cultures prevents many of them from ever questioning that.The reality is very different. The Cato Institute puts out an annual report (you can see the 2019 report, here[1]). In that report, they evaluate the level of personal and economic freedom, in countries around the world, using 76 different measurements. In the 2019 report, the United States of America was ranked as the 15th most free country (up two places from 2018).Fifteenth. That means fourteen other countries (including Britain) are ranked as providing more freedom to their inhabitants. That does mean 146 countries were ranked as less free than the USA, but most Americans would likely be surprised to hear they weren’t number 1 (USA! USA! USA!).The two categories provide more illumination. For personal freedom (which includes free speech), the USA ranked 26 out of 162. For economic freedom, the USA ranked 5 out of 162. That suggests that immigrants from more countries find improvements in their economic freedom by moving to America than immigrants who find improvements in their personal freedom.Free Speech (AKA freedom of expression) is a value that is shared in many countries. While the American First Amendment may get a lot of acclaim, it is not the only documentation of the value of freedom of expression by a country. Here are a few others, for your enjoyment:Chapter III, Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution says:Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.Part VIII, Paragraph 77 of the Constitution of Denmark says:Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution says:There shall be freedom of expression.No one may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the pro- motion of democracy and the individual’s freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law.Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administra- tion of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limi- tations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty con- siderations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression.Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions.Paragraph two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.In 1948, the United Nations expressed their belief that it is a human right, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):Article 19Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiersAt the same time that the Bill of Rights was being debated, the French were redefining themselves, post revolution, and publishing their Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. On the subject of freedom of speech, it says:Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.Footnotes[1] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/cato-human-freedom-index-update-3.pdf

Explain to the kid that such a threat is a very, very serious matter, and to never, ever, to make such a threat again.Tell him that if he ever did such a thing, it would change his life, possibly forever, in ways that he couldn't possibly imagine.Maybe call some close family friends or relatives to drop over, and tell the kid to tell them what his threat is.If the kid doesn't get it, tell him to call the police and see what happens. Maybe even hand him the phone.The essential main point is to not be cowed or intimidated or complacent about his threat. Deal with the kid head on and forcefully.I've been in a few situations where a guy had a relationship, or lived with, a woman who had kids. In a couple of situations, the guy was married to the mother. The kid made threats, and in one or two instances, the kid told his school teacher that he was being abused by the boy friend, fiancée or step father. The teacher immediately referred the matter to the school nurse, psychologist or guidance counselor, who notified CPS, who immediately interviewed the kid with police, interviewed the guy, and told him that he had to leave the home until the matter was resolved.In the cases where the kid recanted or questioning him (or her) convinced CPS that the kid was lying, and the guy stayed in the relationship, the relationship was never (or as long as followed it) was the same.In some cases, the incident was the beginning of the end of the relationship.In one instance, the police told the guy - the step father - he had 15 minutes to gather what he needed to be away from his home, until the matter was resolved.The next week, after a couple of interrogations or the guy, wife, kids, neighbors, determined that the kid was lying. The kid admitted that he was lying. The guy refused to return home. His reason was quite simple and rational: the kid had found out what enormous power he had, with no negative consequence to him, other than to have to say that he was sorry that he lied and promised to never do that again. He figured that the kid might pull the same antic again, and might be better at lying due to the practice he had, and the police and CPS, rather than see the kid as a habitual liar, might decide that the guy was abusing the kid because the kid made a second complaint. The ultimate ramifications could include criminal charges, loss of employment, suspension of professional license, public humiliation, some people believing that the kid's allegations must be true, simply because the kid made them, regardless of that the kid recanted and the case was closed, etc. The guy also felt that he could never, or not for a l-o-n-g time feel OK about the child. There were many heart-to-heart discussions between he and his wife. After considerable thought and heart and gut wrenching thinking, and his researching similar situations, he decided that he could not stay in the relationship. He and his wife agreed to an amicable divorce.During all this ordeal, the guy never saw the kid, even once, from the time that the police ordered him out of the house. He made sure that the kid was elsewhere when he removed all his possessions from the home. Since the mother couldn't afford the house, she moved into a nice apartment. Unfortunately, the apartment was in an adjacent town, so the kid, much to his chagrin, had to go to a new school.The mother was unable to find another relationship for many years. She actually was afraid of what the kid would do to any guy she had a relationship with. She never permitted her kid to be allowed be alone, even for a minute, with any guy she knew. Finally, when the kid was about 17, and on his way to college and independence, she allowed herself to form a serious relationship that led to her being happily married.The mother, try as she did not to, resented the kid for many years, blamed him (correctly) for family breaking up.I saw the kid when he was about 16. He didn't think what he did, and what the politicians CA and CPS, was "a big deal," and resented his step father for leaving.Then I saw the kid when he was a junior in college. He told me that he felt a chill, a barrier, between he and his mother. He felt that she was a good parent in all the usual stuff, but all she did had a joylessness about it, the atmosphere that his mother was doing her duty as a parent, because she felt she had to. This time, he understood the gravity of what he did, and his resentment towards his step father and mother was replaced by sadness.He wanted to see his former step father, with whom he had no contact since the fateful day. They met in my office. The meeting was cool, formal on the part of the step father. The kid asked for forgiveness. The step father told him that he wished him well, had long ago got over the pain and anguish he endured, had gotten his life together and moved on, and absolutely wanted nothing more to do with the kid and for the kid to please not contact him again.The kid actually liked his step father, looked at him as his Dad. The guy had been great to him, took him fishing, skiing, sports events, all sorts of father and son stuff.The ultimate outcome was terrible for the kid and the mother. The marriage was within the first year, and was therefore easily dissolved, with no financial or support liabilities on the part of the step father.The guy soon relocated about 100 miles away. After about a year, he found a woman he loved, they lived together and, once the divorce was finalized, they married.So, this is a sad story. The outcome could have been much, much worse, with the kid being believed, even if he quickly recanted: some CPS workers and police do not accept the recantations of kids, and do their best to press the issue, even pursue the matter criminally. COS and the police have been know to interview neighbors, employers, coworkers, family members of everyone, etc., destroying reputations and lives.This is a tale that might be told to a kid who threatens to call the police, CPS, or tell his lie to the school.