You're watching...
FOX News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on privacy implications in a Texas student ID card case.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Really a strange -- legal battle in Texas with this teenager battling -- high school over a policy that require students to display and ID card.
That has a microchip embedded that it is a fifteen year old name is -- Hernandez who alleges the chips.
Violated her religious belief she claims that the -- is actually the sign of the double.
Fox News senior judicial analyst and I'm not making any jokes judge ended a volatile.
I that they enjoy is here to discuss -- there was a preliminary ruling against her but don't argument.
Is flaw in what -- yeah I think.
-- a case of a lawyer paying too much attention to -- own client.
Because the client whose religious views are pretty extreme but they're -- religious fears that have to be protected.
And those views are -- by wearing this idea bears because that is a microchip Bennett it's the sign of the devil on she's going to go to hell as a result of it.
The court basically rejected that argument and sent by removing the microchip from the card.
The school is accommodated its need for safety its need to know where you are in the building.
And your religious concerns.
If she and her lawyers had -- -- privacy argument.
This is not News Corp.
We're we're all required to use our ideas to get from one section -- -- -- the next News Corp.
being a private corporation private property not regulated by the Fourth Amendment.
This is government property this is a school.
They are regulated by the Fourth Amendment the school can no more carry the government can no more make you carry a microchip -- -- can and plant a microchip under your skin and which has been suggested in another in another case that in my view would've been the stronger argument therefore her.
But we're facing a trend.
Connell and Vega and -- by the courts are accepting.
The loss of privacy right they take for granted that there's nothing wrong with wearing ninety around your neck because almost everywhere you -- today.
In the confinement of the workplace.
People -- wearing people think about this and take as you said it take religion out of it for a moment because it brings up kind of a wider discussion.
How to use technology to you you know make us more efficient or even make -- safer we're having all these discussions and schools about after the shooting -- Connecticut may be.
Something like this soar or more technology would be used let me -- but -- can't -- you you can't force people -- -- -- -- -- -- the argument for -- -- school of thought is.
-- that you need to balance.
Safety with freedom and and freedom will include privacy.
Another school of thought is.
Safety and privacy are not equals privacy is the greater good privacy is it is is that natural right I can keep myself safe but any of the government to stay away from me keep me.
Private so there's no -- there's a balance between them it's a bias in favor.
Of privacy so the -- should be on the government.
To prove why this is necessary not on the defendant to the the the student.
But to prove why this is so harmful but the momentum is toward greater security and gas and gas yes the government has the right government either either based on -- sound reason reasoning and logic.
Or its own thirst for power has scared most of the public into accepting these restrictions.
On privacy.
Our good friend Stuart Varney and I discuss this morning a proposal in the state of Washington.
Which -- put a microchip in your car and tax you by the miles you drive course would also know everywhere that your cargoes.
This is not GM doing this this is the government you see the Fourth Amendment.
Regulates these things it was written to keep the government off the people's backs I know times change.
And attitudes change -- freedom doesn't but with the risk of -- making you take a swing it and name updates in between us.
Just be some flexibility on this if it does it if you can't very good question this apparent and that's a superb question -- no -- to kiss that.
And intellectual -- because the Supreme Court has ruled that there is flexibility with respect to children.
You remember that crazy.
-- you'll know this phrase.
Bong hits for Jesus case right -- kid held up a sign -- and rates and bond hits for Jesus was off school property and it was after school hours and he got discipline for doing it.
The Supreme Court said when it comes to children.
Schools and the government have a little bit more authority than with respect to adults -- So what starts with fifteen year old will -- end up with priority five euros -- the slippery slope going to happen.
I don't think the judge took into account the dangers of this decision I think you very carefully.
Methodically and prudently addressed only her rather extreme if you will religious claims rather than the broad societal implications.
Of children.
Wearing microchips.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
