Originally Posted by mcrowder

You change the meaning of my quote by snipping out, "In some cases." No offense, but that's incredibly underhanded. (Made worse by the fact that my post was last on a page and very possibly not even read by those just tuning in to the current page.) I absolutely do not mean that to be true in all cases. I mean it to be true in SOME case, and in the particular case of this thread.

Let me ask you, then ...

Who is usurping your rights by making you sign a form that allows an organization that you are choosing to work for in a capacity which puts you in a position of authority over children to perform a background check on you? In what way are your rights usurped? Especially considering that they can do what they ask anyway without your permission should they choose to do so.

It would be a different argument if this information was not already public, but I think I'd STILL land on the side of protecting the rights of the children and trying to keep potentially harmful people from being placed in positions of authority over them. To me, your right to privacy is superceded by the league's responsibility to the children the moment that you decide you want to be placed in a position of authority over them. If your privacy is more important to you than your ability to be placed into authoritative positions, you surely have the right to not work. Your rights are most certainly not being usurped in this case.