Lots Of Things Wrong In This Story

Kids today think they can (and should) record everything with their phones.  That's how you get famous!  They don't seem to understand appropriate boundaries.

Students should follow school rules.

Illinois law in this case is ridiculous.

Just as we don't expect law enforcement officers to be recorded at all times, neither should we expect school employees to be recorded at all times.  However, as a society we seem to be leaning towards body cameras on law enforcement officers when they interact with the public--for the sake of the officer and the public.  Should we expect something similar from school officials, that is, the recording of interactions when discipline is being conducted?

Paul Boron is 13 years old.

And he’s facing a felony eavesdropping charge that could change the course of the rest of his life.

His story stands as another chapter of controversy surrounding an eavesdropping law some experts have criticized as ripe for abuse and misapplication.

On Feb. 16, 2018, Boron was called to the principal’s office at Manteno Middle School after failing to attend a number of detentions. Before meeting Principal David Conrad and Assistant Principal Nathan Short, he began recording audio on his cellphone.

Boron said he argued with Conrad and Short for approximately 10 minutes in the reception area of the school secretary’s office, with the door open to the hallway. When Boron told Conrad and Short he was recording, Conrad allegedly told Boron he was committing a felony and promptly ended the conversation.

Two months later, in April, Boron was charged with one count of eavesdropping – a class 4 felony in Illinois...

In March 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Illinois’ eavesdropping law, holding that it “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated residents’ First Amendment rights.

But during lame-duck legislative session in December 2014, the Illinois General Assembly passed and Gov. Pat Quinn signed a new eavesdropping law. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, lawmakers included changes aimed at allowing residents to record interactions with police, for example, but kept intact the “all-party consent” provisions and introduced a difficult-to-gauge standard for when a person must get consent for recording.

As is so often the case in these types of stories, none of the characters is covering himself in glory.