Hark! “Celebrities” and the media that follow them might just serve a purpose after all. Britney, Lindsay and Paris, and their various rehab and legal troubles, actually offer us a glimpse into the world of court-ordered rehab and First Amendment violations.
This item about Spears’ custody battle is illuminating. US Weekly (that bastion of accurate and serious reporting) writes that a judge ruled today that Britney can keep partial custody of her children, if she complies with a list of court mandates including meeting with a parenting coach 8 hours a week to observe her parenting skills and twice-weekly random drugs and alcohol tests.I know nothing about Britney Spears, and I have no opinion about her parenting skills. But I do find it interesting that the court system can mandate such obviously invasive procedures as a result of a custody case. Perhaps this would be acceptable after a full child-services investigation (though there are legitimate questions about that as well), but such measures as a result of a divorce case seem like an extreme example of the courts overreaching their jurisdiction.
Also according to US weekly, Britney and Kevin (how do I even know his name??) cannot make derogatory statements about each other. Is that not a violation of the First Amendment? Perhaps the court is employing the logic of driver’s licenses; having children is a privilege, not a right? Both options offer insight into the power of the courts.
This first occurred to me when I came across an article mentioning that Lindsay Lohan was wearing a court-ordered Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (or SCRAM). Reuters tells us that SCRAM is used in,
“Court-ordered rehabilitation programs of 43 states. About 40,000 people nationwide have used the device, some of them voluntarily…Worn around the lower leg or ankle, the monitor detects whether a person has been drinking by measuring the evaporation of alcohol from perspiration on the surface of the individual's skin, using essentially the same technology as a Breathalyzer.If it weren’t for Lohan, we never would have known this system existed. I didn’t even know there was such a thing as court-ordered rehab. It's mildly disconcerting that a judge can order someone to go to rehab and wear a bracelet monitoring their intake of a legal substance.
Data from the device is then transmitted electronically to the company's field operations personnel, who in turn furnish the information to a probation officer, counselor or other person assigned to oversee the patient's recovery.”
Lohan’s coke-pants incident also highlights some legal quirks: her previous rehab attempts help her case. They show that she is struggling with addiction, and historically judges are more lenient on addicts than on your normal weekend drug-user. Paris Hilton’s DUI case is another example. If you are to believe the reports, it can sometimes take only one drink to fail a Breathalyzer. This might be good information to know should you run into one of Beverly Hills’ festive Christmas roadblocks, designed to capture those driving “under the influence.” While we would never advocate drunk-driving, we are beginning to wonder what exactly constitutes “drunk” these days (and if the taxi lobby is somehow behind it…) We hear sugar and caffeine are addictive substances too - are they sufficiently "influential"?
If you argue loudly enough, you can find a public-safety justification for just about any law (no handheld cell phones in cars, anyone? Children under 12 must ride in the back seat? No smoking in PG-13 movies? We could go on…) And history shows that capricious states are willing to enforce laws that compromise individual freedom (the anti-contraceptive law which led to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and established the right-to-privacy doctrine.)
In tandem with this morning’s hearings about wire-tapping abroad, our privacy at home is worth scrutinizing too. It’s just funny that we have to hear about it through LaLohan.
Picture via Newday.com and MSNBC
