Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism

Lane writes "News-Press.com reports that 'Charter Schools USA is threatening legal action against parents who use an Internet discussion board to air grievances about Gateway Charter.'" This despite comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.

Comments

So much for freedom of speech

[jnmontario]

Another great example of somebody with expensive lawyers telling (read: threatening) the average person what they can do or think. Yay America.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[karmaflux]

Listen closely: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

Looking at some of the comments on that site, I can see why CSUSA thinks they have a case. Most of the worst posts have now been deleted, but the parents were in there accusing teachers of all kinds of horrible crimes, as well as CSUSA of condoning them.

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[BronxBomber]

Unless you are either an attorney for CSUSA or a poster on the forum, neither you nor I are in position to determine just how "truthful" the accusations are.

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

Given the fact that truths tend to be overblown and exaggerated as they are circulated among groups, damaging the business is precisely the point of criticism.

If you go to Bobs Store and Bob rips you off by falsely advertising a product that you bought, you would want to tell everyone you knew that Bob was a scam artist. The result - either people would believe you and not go to Bobs store anymore (hurting his business), or they would not believe you and choose to go. Your goal is to make sure Bob gets "his" because he broke the implicit trust you had in him when you bought something from him.

That having been said, the people who decide to believe you dont know you from Adam. But they tend to side with you because after all youre just the average joe, like they are.

So should Bob be allowed to sue you?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[MisanthropicProgram]

I wish people wouldn't be scared of lawsuits. Yes, I understand that if it actually goes to trial, the defendant could go bankrupt, but more than likely they're just as scared of a lawsuit as the parents - it costs a shitload of money for one. The parents could threaten the school with their own lawsuit - I'm sure there's something they could sue for - maybe breach of contract becuase of schooling that doesn't meet standards? I dont' know. That's for an education lawyer in their state and only in their state.

Also, I would tell the school to go ahead and sue. Then everything will become public. It'll be on the 5,6,10,11 O'Clock News, it'll be in the papers, /. will post something about it everyday, etc ....

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[notque]

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."

As do you. Grandparent was defending the case, you are supporting it.

Almost any discussion on it has preempted due process of the law.

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

If one comment proves to be libel, and rest do not, what happens? Is the parent in trouble, or the website?

And is recounting a rumor if it puts someone in a negative light libel?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[karmaflux]

You sort of missed the point there. If you are getting ripped off, then you are legally entitled to tell anyone who'll listen about your woes.

However, if Bob's clerk is rude to you, and you begin parading around town claiming that Bob raped your family and set fire to an orphanage, you are breaking the law.

If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.

Now, if CSUSA doesn't have any evidence that the postings were libelous, then Reigelman will win the suit (and will also win her countersuit for legal fees, if her lawyers are worth a damn). They may even be found guilty of barratry.

The point is that this is not a frivolous lawsuit or a First Amendment violation. This is a company taking the matter before a judge, because they think they have been wronged. This is how things are supposed to work. This is due process.

As a side, note, because the site owner claims to monitor the site -- specifically because she claims that all the content is "fact-based" -- the ceases to be protected by the laws that protect, say, Slashdot from being held responsible for the idiocy of Anonymous Coward. She has taken responsibility for the content of her site, and so she is now going to have to prove that all those angry posts are based entirely in fact.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Entrope]

Where does due process come into the picture? (Answer: it doesn't, since due process is about a person being able to protect himself against one-sided legal action.) The Constitution provides no penalties for libel, and corporations generally have as little ground as public figures do when it comes to making defamation claims. The joke has a nugget of truth in that in America, everything that is not prohibited is permitted.

You also confuse the company's claim that the posts are defamatory with that actually being the case. Since the company refused to identify -- even as an example -- any post on the site that was defamatory, I doubt even they believe they have a case that would stand up in court. They just want to scare people into compliance.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Due process involves the right to a fair and public trial and thus is applicable here. That is, Ms. Reigelman has the opportunity to defend herself and CSUSA has the opportunity to sue. Neither side gets dimissed out-of-hand.

Also in your second paragraph you're forgetting about the discovery process. Many of the worst forum posts have been deleted, which probably would have satisfied CSUSA, but now the website users are claiming nothing they have ever said was a lie, and that CSUSA is bullying them, which could just be more defamation. Only through discovery can there be resolution on that.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Vellmont]

Looking at some of the comments on that site, I can see why CSUSA thinks they have a case. Most of the worst posts have now been deleted, but the parents were in there accusing teachers of all kinds of horrible crimes, as well as CSUSA of condoning them.

I read through some of that website, the worst post I saw was something about stealing pizza. I didn't see anything approaching libel.

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

The proper approach would be to subpoena the forum owner for the names of the libelous parents. Then sue those parents for libel. The vast majority of the posts on this site are nowhere near libelous, so the school has no right to shut down the entire site.

This clearly sounds like it's just a threatening action designed to silence people rather than merely stopping libel. If it were about libel they'd being going after individuals, not trying to shut down the site.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[mejesster]

Why does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? Yes, libel is against the law, but this wouldn't be the first time we, as a society, have questioned what exactly the Constitution means in its language, nor would it be the first time that we have reconsidered such things. Most importantly, despite the potential merits of the case, I think both I and many others here are particularly concerned about the idea of a discussion-based internet community (like say, slashdot) being sued out of existence by some company trying to make a couple extra cents or cover its ass.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[DavidTC]

And is recounting a rumor if it puts someone in a negative light libel?

yes

Merely stating the existence of a rumor is not libel. The existence of a rumor is a fact, and as such cannot be a libel.

Suggesting it is true, however, can be libel.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution. It is very clear in what it is intended to mean. The main purpose is to protect the rights of the people or the press to criticize the government without having to worry about "disappearing" in the middle of the night. That is something that happens in too many countries. If this company is doing all of these horrible things, then the parents should take their case to court. If they are making this up the company has every right to press them to desist.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[ubrgeek]

the worst post I saw was something about stealing pizza.
Well, depending on where the pizza was "stolen" from and the situation surrounding it, it would indicate libel as libel relies on accusing a person of something that would be considered illegal in a court of law.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Charter schools aren't just any corporation. They receive taxpayer money to do a job usually performed by government bodies (public schools) and are therefore acting as an arm of government. So yeah, I'd say this is a First Amendment issue.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[An Onerous Coward]

No, this isn't "a company taking the matter before a judge." It's a company threatening to take matters before a judge unless an entire forum is nuked.

The fact is, the C&D claim there are unlawful, defamatory, and libelous statements being published, but aren't willing to cite specific instances of unlawful, defamatory, or libelous statements. That indicates--at least to my twisted, paranoid mind--that the lawyers know they don't actually have a case, and are hoping to shut the site down with pure, unadulterated braggadacio.

Also, you admit the possibility that the lawyers might end up being found guilty of barratry, and then claim with absolute certainty that "this is not a frivolous lawsuit". These cannot both be true.

Finally, your analysis of the website owner's legal liabilities is probably misguided. It may be that all she is required to do is to talk to the people who wrote the "defamatory" posts, and have them give their assurance that everything happened as the poster said. Otherwise, reporters wouldn't be protected from lawsuits if it turns out their sources were fraudulent.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[m_evanchik]

IANAL, but this is not such an open and shut case. These ignoramuses at CSUSA don't know what real criticism is, so I am going to show them.

These are CHARTER schools, which means that they perform an essential public service, education, with a special dispensation from the government. Their role is not strictly private. They are taking over a service that would normally be publically administered, and therefore open to the same type of broad criticism that public figures and institutions may be subject to. As such their openness to criticism is much greater than your average private business.

The public has an essential and compelling interest in promoting good education. This forum promotes that interest by fostering said discussion, a compelling and essential service. The interest of the corporation in protecting its image is far outweighed by the overwhelming interest of the public to have an open forum to discuss the public service the school provides. This charter school, it should also be noted is publically funded. Their CEO is a political pal of Jeb Bush. The President of the United States uses this organisation as a stage for his attacks on the public school system. CSUSA stinks of sacrificing childrens' futures in the name of political expediency. Like a diseased, filth-ridden sexual deviant, CSUSA sacrifices children in its perverse worship of Mammon. The Chairman and CEO, Jonathan K. Hage, is worse than John Wayne Gacy. (That last remark may be over the top, not in its accuracy, but merely in rhetorical appropriateness.)

The bottom line is that they are using strong-arm tactics to quell legitimate criticism and dissent. It stinks to high heaven and underscores an essential misunderstanding by their management to their public mission. They should have their charter pulled for this kind of legal thuggery.

It is my considered opinion that CSUSA is a rotten organisation with no business educating children. Their operation and their thuggish legal tactics are an affront to all civic-minded people.

This is pretty strong criticism and I stand by it. I find it hard that there was anything worse on the board in question. I can't stand bullies.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[MadEE]

Well, depending on where the pizza was "stolen" from and the situation surrounding it, it would indicate libel as libel relies on accusing a person of something that would be considered illegal in a court of law.

The comment would also have to be not true to be considered libel. It seems some of the parents are involved with selling the pizza in question so if it indeed did happen they are likely to have witnessed the act.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[kfg]

Declaring a case "open and shut" based on a finding after trial is a wee bit of circular reasoning, don't you think?

KFG

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[tbuckner]

"the worst post I saw was something about stealing pizza." Stealing pizza from desecrated graves!!!!!!!

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[dougmc]

it would indicate libel as libel relies on accusing a person of something that would be considered illegal in a court of law.

You seem to be confused about what libel means.

Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)

If I accuse you of having lots of one night stands with random women, that might damage your reputation, especially if you're a priest or married. But having that sex is not against the law, but my claim may still be libel -- as long as it's not true.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander claims, though our legal system can make it very expensive to even defend yourself against a claim of libel, even if you have that proof.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[cheaphomemadeacid]

I'm gonna sue you! i didn't like the above comment ("a concept which you seem not to understand") This comment is both injuring and will probably have a negative effect on the persons self esteem.

Now if i only had a few million bucks and an army of lawyers...

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[killjoe]

if that was true then cable tv would have no news channels.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

Your entire topic spun off into sputtery hate-speech at the mention of Jeb Bush.

Shouldn't you be hovering at the democraticunderground.com forums, and leaving us alone here??

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Dolda2000]

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

IANAL, but I do not understand why lying would not be protected as free speech.

Free speech, as far as I know, is that one is allowed to utter anything, anywhere. I do not understand why lies would not be protected under the same law as truths. Neither do I understand why defaming someone would undermine the protectedness of the statements made.

Otherwise, who is to draw the line between lies and uninformed statements, and the line between defaming and not defaming? And not least, why should lying or defaming be outlawed to begin with? Is not the point with free speech to be able to say anything, anywhere without worrying about legal consequences. After all, it is up to the listener to decide whether to believe the speaker.

Care to explain to me?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Blondie-Wan]

If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.

They might, but that's not the same as they must. It's hard for one of us on the outside to tell the difference between them having a legitimate grievance about out-and-out falsehoods and them just not wanting any bad publicity and so suing or threatening to sue with a certain confidence the site and the parents can't afford to mount an adequate defense.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Blondie-Wan]

Shouldn't you be hovering at the democraticunderground.com forums, and leaving us alone here??

Right, because Slashdot works hard to be much more even tempered and free from zealots than democraticunderground.com.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Whyte]

Charter schools aren't just any corporation. They receive taxpayer money to do a job usually performed by government bodies (public schools) and are therefore acting as an arm of government. So yeah, I'd say this is a First Amendment issue.

Maybe I'm missing something, but since went does accepting money from the government allow libel and slander to become protected by the First Amendement?

Whether or not Charter Schools (or any other corporations for that matter) have in fact accepted money from the government has little relevancy to free speech issues.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Jerf]

This defends against libel how, exactly?

You need to think more clearly. The "First Amendment" isn't a magic incantation to be waved around willy-nilly. If people are accusing others of libel, and can back it up in court, the First Amendment simply isn't in play, be the libel target government or private. Thus, waving it around in this situation is meaningless. It's not relevant; the First Amendment is never a defense for libel.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[FidelCatsro]

"If I accuse you of having lots of one night stands with random women, "

Now thats some libel i wouldnt complain about

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[phliar]

Your entire topic spun off into sputtery hate-speech at the mention of Jeb Bush.

Ah, so you mean Jeb Bush is a Nazi?

Or did you mean that Jeb is a member of a group subject to persecution and discrimination, i.e. the super-mega-rich middle-aged white men?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[benjamindees]

That was kind of the point of his post. The courts have said over and over that "political" speech is the most absolutely protected type of speech in existance. In fact, ruling after ruling has shown that if you're doing anything that may reasonably be interpreted as "communication" and saying anything that could even remotely be interpreted as "political", your rights are protected.

It's so protected, even, that we must create "campaigning" laws to prevent partisans from lying about the other candidate at the last minute before an election, when there's no time for a voter to verify such claims.

I'd like to see this "charter school" try to sue him.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[FurryFeet]

Great. I can see now the next headline. "Charter school sues Slashdot for libel".

Thanks a lot, man.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[tom's a-cold]

If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

This argument might make some degree of sense in those cases where there is no connection between the government and corporations. The reality is that "charter school" firms exist solely due to government fiat.

The whole reason there is freedom of speech is to make it possible to criticize government policy. If my local school board and teachers are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I have the right to criticize them. I'm sure that even you will agree with this.

Now the governor decides to privatize the provision of my kids' education. That's what a "charter school" is in case you didn't realize. So suddenly that same criticism of the same public service is no longer criticism of the government, it's defaming a company? The rule should be that speech regarding the performance of companies funded by the government is the same as speech regarding the government itself. Otherwise your fundamental right is being abridged solely because some bureaucrat decided to contract out. That's nothing but a slimy way for them to duck accountability.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[cpt kangarooski]

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

Yes. It's the bit that goes: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

The First Amendment is an absolute prohibition. You can argue that it's not, maybe even convincingly, but the burden is always on the person that wants to deviate from absolute protection.

Personally, I'm not an absolutist with regards to this, but I must say, it's a tempting position. It's one that has been held by judges and justices throughout the legal system, so it certainly seems to have some traction.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[m50d]

Erm, yeah, the part where it says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Making speech illegal, any kind of speech, under any circumstances, is making a law abridging the freedom of speech.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[DaveHowe]

Obviously, it doesn't - however, slander and libel are specific torts which are challengable (for substantial damages) in court. Its quite possible that the charter schools have a good case against one or more individuals posting for posting incorrect accusations (or ones incapable of proof either way) but this is apparently a takedown attempt (with SLAPP) against the board itself, to try and prevent any accusations (libellous or otherwise) from being heard. As charter schools are federally funded, this is of course enough to make it a first amendment issue - while of course actually suing individuals for posts they have made would not be.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Whyte]

Are there book rental fees at this school? I have a real issue with the book rental fees at the property tax funded public schools in my area. Parents are paying book purchase price rental fees on new to eight year old books every year (most books are probably around six years old.) At these prices, the kids should be getting new books and they should get to keep them at the end of the year

I salute your dedication to the cause, but was this a reply to my post, or did you accidently reply to the wrong one?

So much of this entire overall topic seems non-sequetor... Am I the only one that didn't get happy pills? Gimme damn it!

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Lehk228]

so you wouldn't mind if a bunch of people went around to your friends and family saying they saw you having sex with an HIV positive male prostitute?

also there are no laws allowing prior restraint, ie. noboy can stop you from saying something, but they can sue you or prosecute you after the fact if what you said causes unfair harm

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[SilverspurG]

Now, if CSUSA doesn't have any evidence that the postings were libelous, then Reigelman will win the suit (and will also win her countersuit for legal fees, if her lawyers are worth a damn).

You will admit, of course, that this is an idealistic presentation which ignores the intricate working of social and political connections, personal egos, and any interpersonal relationships between any and all people involved in the situation.

Something like... <conjecture type="fast and simple">the judge presiding over the case may have a daughter who's married to a fellow whose business is in managing the contracts for the janitors at these schools.</conjecture>

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[damsa]

If it was an open and shut case there wouldn't be a trial for two reasons. The first is that the parents would settle, the second if the parents did go to trial, the judge would enter summary judgment before the trial started.

Also it's generally not libel/slander at least in the United States if what you say you believe is true. So if someone told me that Bill Gates eats babies. It's not really lying if I believe her. Also if you attached alledged baby eater that also may be okay. Also if Bill Gates does in fact, eat babies then that's okay too as truth is an absolute defense.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[E_elven]

Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)

Even that is not enough for it to be libel, if one wants to be precise.

One has to knowingly write false information (I believe 'not in good faith' and 'without any evidence' are acceptable substitutes for 'knowingly') for it to fill the criteria.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[dabigpaybackski]

I'm not an Old Testament kind of guy, really, but there are times when I think aspects of the old Judaic legal code would serve us well, such as the one about bearing false witness against one's neighbor.

Here's how it worked. Say you knowingly made a false accusation against another person for which they could be legally reprimanded. Under the old Judaic system, you would be subject to whatever punishment could be meted out to the accused. So things could get pretty drastic for the defamer if they were caught.

While I'm not necessarily advocating a 1:1, eye-for-an-eye kind of ratio, I think implementing a milder version of this in our system would constitute a reform. I'm not referring to libel, for which civil penalties already exist (for those who can afford the legal expertise,) but cases where criminal charges can be brought against the accused.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Zeinfeld]

As a side, note, because the site owner claims to monitor the site -- specifically because she claims that all the content is "fact-based" -- the ceases to be protected by the laws that protect, say, Slashdot from being held responsible for the idiocy of Anonymous Coward. She has taken responsibility for the content of her site, and so she is now going to have to prove that all those angry posts are based entirely in fact.

Actually not.

IANAL. There are two standards for libel in the US depending on who the plaintif is. Public figures and most corporations are subject to a very strict standard of proof, the plaintif has to prove that the defendant knew the claims were false or was reckless or careless as to whether they were true.

In this case the company is performing a public service and ALL discussion of the company is protected political speech. It is a comment on the state provision of education services, not just the corporation.

It is very difficult to see how the defendant could now the claims made were false in this particular instance. The refusal to specify the claims found objectionable and the demand to take down the entire forum point to supression of debate as the clear objective of the corporation.

If the US actually have a press corps that questioned the activities of Republicans or their cronies this would be front page news. As it is it will be either unreported or burried on the inside pages along with reports of DeLay's numerous corruptions.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Breakfast Pants]

Then personally from your point of view it would bolster what you seek in a reputation and not hinder it. So that's not "some libel [you] wouldnt complain about;" it's a lie you wouldn't complain about.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[belmolis]

then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

Not really. If "against the law" has its normal interpretation of "being a crime", then in most jurisdictions libel is not "against the law". In all jurisdictions that I know anything about (US, Canada, and Great Britain) libel is first and foremost a tort, that is, something that is recognized as the basis for a civil suit.

There is such a thing as "criminal libel". Indeed, in some places there is or has been a crime known as "blasphemous libel". However, almost everywhere criminal libel has been removed from the criminal code or, where it remains on the books, is never prosecuted. That's partly because of a prevailing attitude that it isn't something that damages the public in general and hence should be dealt with as a matter of private law, and partly because it raises greater issues of freedom of speech. It's one thing for the government to supply a means of addressing a private grievance. It's another for the government make speech a crime. There are circumstances when it is acceptable for the government to do so, but they are limited. Generally speaking the legal community has recognized that issues of freedom of speech are reduced if criminal prosecution is not involved.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Vellmont]

Free speech, as far as I know, is that one is allowed to utter anything, anywhere

Not according to the Supreme Court. There are several limitations to free speech that most people consider entirely reasonable. The one everyone quotes is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Another would be also making terroristic threats against anyone.

But getting to your issue, libel and slander have been widely recognized as non-protected speach. Why? Well, let's give an example. Say a newspaper in a town wants candidate A to win, and candidate B to lose. If libel were protected speach all the newspaper would have to do is spread insidious, hard to disprove lies about candidate B such as "Candidate B is gay and has AIDS!" That gives an awfull lot of power to anyone with the power to spread lies.


Otherwise, who is to draw the line between lies and uninformed statements, and the line between defaming and not defaming?

A judge or jury would decide what's libel and what's not. Also, libel isn't just a lie. Libel is knowingly making statements with the intent to defame someone else. As another poster pointed out this can include making statements without evidence. While the newspaper above may not know that candidate B is straight and doesn't have AIDS (so they don't know for a fact what they're saying is a lie) the lack of any evidence would make it libel.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[ubrgeek]

Ahh, you are correct. It's been a lot of years since I had to study communications law. I just flipped through a copy of AP Stylebook's section on media law. While different states define it (and slander) differently, they do all agree on your point.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[ckaminski]

Which any great attorney would discover, and force the judge to recuse him/herself.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[rtb61]

You also miss an important point, libel has eveything to do with statements of fact rather than of opinion. Any claim can legally be made as long as it is made clear that it is an opinion, or in the case of forums the forum itself states that any posting made is an opinion of the poster.

So regardles of how damaging or defamatory as long as it is an opinion and not a statement of fact it is legal regardless of the blustering of lawyers. Of course there is one way to attack an opinion in court and that is to attempt to prove it was not truly an opinion of the peroson at the time they made it.

In my opinion every time one of these legal attacks have been made it is because scurrilous individuals who lauched the attack have something they are desperately trying to hide.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[abb3w]

IANAL, but I do not understand why lying would not be protected as free speech.

Neither am I, but I may be able to help your understanding... assuming you're not just another troll.

Lying is in fact protected as free speech under many situations. You can stand in front of the Supreme Court and declaim "The Sky is Purple! The Sky is Purple!" all you want, and it's protected free speech. People may look at you funny... or not, since in DC they hear worse lies from congress regularly. =)

When you make false statements that are damaging to someone's reputation, however, it is an injury against their right of property--to wit, that reputation. While intangible, the recognition of this as property has longstanding basis in Anglo-American law and culture:

"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing.
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."
--From Shakespeare's Othello

Thus, the right to speech (1st amendment) has to be balanced against the right to property (5th amendment, along with ludicrous amounts of Common Law). It's similar to why freedom of speech doesn't let you scream insults at me at 130 decibels with a megaphone six inches from my ear: that would be damaging. And so, the courts have issued rulings trying to strike that balance, making truth an absolute defense against claims of libel... but false statements knowingly made in malice, or with willful disregard for whether they are true, are a crime against the libeled party where you may have to pay monetary damages. (Who decides whether something is true or false, damaging or not? 7th amendment: Questions of fact must be decided by juries.) However, as a crime against private property, you can't go to jail for it. In short, it's not the speech per se that's restricted, but the damage to someone's reputation.

Freedom From Consequences is not in the Bill of Rights.

So...

[thegoogler]

Are they going to sue slashdot?

Re:So...

[donscarletti]

Are they going to sue slashdot?

No, but unless this post is modded to +5 I will.

Re:So...

[DamienNightbane]

Are they going to sue slashdot?

That depends on who you mean by "they". If this lawsuit goes well for CSUSA, I can think of a few companies that might. Surely we've all given Microsoft, SCO, Google, AOL, Apple, NASA, and quite a few other companies far more criticizm and libelous comments to feed on than a bunch of soccer moms ever could.

Re:So...

[FLEB]

I don't believe it would work. Since Slashdot doesn't conciously filter out posts based on content, the responsibility for content is placed on the writers, who could be individually sued for libel... I think.

Bad move

[A beautiful mind]

Honestly, i couldn't have found a worse course of action to take by that organization, to dig their own grave. First they only had to deal with 65 parents, now its in the press. Talk about bad PR.

Re:Bad move

[MemoryDragon]

Aw they do it the good ole american way, the just babble a little bit of Jesus and go on...

Re:Bad move

[bigtallmofo]

I agree to a point. Anyone that spends 5 minutes reading their web site and the comments therein (as I just did) will:

1. Want their wasted 5 minutes back
2. Will see what a bunch of whiners the parents on that site appeat to be. Most of the comments seem to be insulting each others' grammar and spelling. The rest are complaining about pet issues ("The principal told my daughter to take off her jacket").

Whoever started that company picked the wrong business to be in. Their primary customer appears to have way too much time on their hands.

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll get invited on morning shows, they'll hire a professional public speaker, and they'll stay on message, which will include God/Jesus. Now is the time to buy stock, not short it.

Call me crazy

[cat_jesus]

But don't you have to identify what specifically you consider libelous and defamatory if you are going to take legal action? I Guess Darl McBride has some alumni running Charter Schools USA.

I would write a letter back saying I have complied and to please let me know if I missed anything.

Re:Call me crazy

[NecrosisLabs]

INAL, etc, but my belief is that if this case actually went to court, then, yes, individual posts would have to be shown to be actionable; but this is merely a threatening letter.

First Amendment?

[AtomicSnarl]

We don't need no steenking First Amendment! We're the School Board! So there! Nyah!

Money to blow...

[Hexzero]

Sometimes media attention and a little /.ing is all it takes for a travesty to come to the mainstream. A charter school that wastes its time and financial resources on a lawsuite that can be considered frivoulous at best, should not be recieving state and gov't funds. Just another crap use for the joke the gov't calls no child left behind. Yeah, I am sure the funds are not connected. ERate is that perfect.... How much is a retainer for a medium-sized firm? Lets deduct that from the per head dollar amount the school gets from the state. Could that money have been used more efficiently? Probably... Perhaps we can get the government involved next. Senate hearings on closing the website down... Sounds like a viable option in todays government...

difficult to deal with

[Inigo Montoya]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

Re:difficult to deal with

[notque]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.

I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.

Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.

Seems pretty difficult to deal with to me.

Re:difficult to deal with

[mc6809e]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

No, good. This is how it should work. You screw up, you lose students and the money that comes with them.

What is sad it that this doesn't happen to government schools.

Re:difficult to deal with

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

"Government" schools are run by teachers who have powerful collective bargaining organizations to PREVENT this sort of thing from happening to them.

true tort reform.

[notque]

Could someone explain cease and desist letters to me? I've googled for them, but get a ton of how to make your own.

What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal.

Right?

Re:true tort reform.

[Hexzero]

Cease and desist letters can be considered a letter of intet. A warning if you will... The calm before the storm... Push him a little before we start flexing our financial litigation muscles.

Re:true tort reform.

[dirk]

Cease and desist letters are basically a warning. You send them to the person saying you believe what they are doing is illegal and you would like them to stop, and if they don't stop you may take legal action. They are basically a way to settle things without suing. Of course oftentimes they are used more as a threat than a warning ("Do what we want or we will sue you for millions of dollars") in the hopes the people would rather stop doing whatever it is they are doing than go through a court case they may or may not win (but will cost money either way).

In short, there is nothing wrong with C&D letters. They should be the first step someone takes when they find someone infringing their copyright, trademark or the like. But they shouldn't be used as a way to scare people away from legal activities, which they often are.

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

"Real" cease and desist letters place a potential defendant on notice that a potential plaintiff considers the actions of the potential defendant to be illegal or more specifically, a violation of the rights of the potential plaintiff and/or causing the potential plaintill harm. This has the legal effect of supplying notice to a potential defendant.

With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.

Re:true tort reform.

[notque]

With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.

Really? You're kidding me.

What if you do not beileve the action is illegal, and come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor.

Now you've unknowingly became a willful party.

Since a cease and desist letter can be sent without an action being illegal, it should not be assumed that all cease and desist letters indicate an issue that is 100% illegal.

So how could you be willfully breaking the law?

Maybe I'm overreacting, but that just doesn't seem reasonable, but maybe the burden is then on the person who recieved the letter?

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

What if you do not beileve the action is illegal...

Then you should not be sending cease and desist letters. At a minimun, you should have a good faith belief that all the elements of a legal wrong are present in your case. Ideally, you should have advice of counsel or a legal opinion in hand prior to sending a C&D letter.

...come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor

There is room in the law for true disputes and differences of opinion. That's why there are courts in the first place. However, you must have a good faith basis for bringing a claim.

Most courts in the US have adopted (in civil suits) rules that are based on the Rules of Civil Procedure from federal courts. Rule 11 requires litigants *and their lawyers* to have a good faith basis for bringing suit by performing a reasonable investigation into the facts *and* the law. A federal judge will not hesitate to sanction a lawyer for bringing a frivolous suit (frivolous = not well founded in facts or law / no good faith basis for making the claim). State court judges (especially those who are elected) often are not as strict.

Here's a civics lesson - want to screw up your judicial system? Elect your judges. Want judges who make good decisions based soundly on the law and are more impartial? Appoint them for life without possibility of salary reduction (can be fired for misconduct). If you don't believe me on that one, check out the many law review articles on the subject. We don't need tort reform in this country - we need JUDICIAL reform.

Since a cease and desist letter can be sent without an action being illegal, it should not be assumed that all cease and desist letters indicate an issue that is 100% illegal.

True - but it should have a good faith basis. If the recipient has a doubt about the legality of their acts, they should seek their own legal advice or reevaluate their conduct to see if it is worth risking legal action.

So how could you be willfully breaking the law?

Because although "ignorance of the law is no excuse" - that is, you can be held liable for beaking a law you did not know existed - once you have specific notice of the law in question, you have an obligation to ensure that your actions conform to the law's requirements.

...maybe the burden is then on the person who recieved the letter?

In many cases, exactly right.

Re:true tort reform.

[westlake]

What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal

Innocent until proven quilty is the standard of proof in a criminal trial.

It does not bar a formal rquest to stop what you are doing until the legal issues have been resolved.

Re:true tort reform.

[AndroidCat]

Not so. Civil courts can have juries. Juries are used to weigh facts and evidence. If those aren't in dispute by the sides in a civil case and it's question of law, then they don't need one. (Your court system may vary.)

Re:true tort reform.

[2TecTom]

Here's a civics lesson - want to screw up your judicial system? Elect your judges. Want judges who make good decisions based soundly on the law and are more impartial? Appoint them for life without possibility of salary reduction (can be fired for misconduct).

Good point, I believe I've just learned something, thanks.

I do have several off topic questions , if you wouldn't mind? Would initialing electing these permanent judges be workable? How else would you select and promote the judiciary? Do you see this applying to all levels of jurisprudence?

Re:true tort reform.

[notque]

Thanks. I appreciate the clarifications.

Re:true tort reform.

[anagama]

"This would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter, there is no jury."

Please mods, this is not insightful. It's flat wrong. Please save the poster the embarrassment of having his name prominently attached to such a statement.

Re:true tort reform.

[drsquare]

No, it's right. Lawsuits aren't decided by juries.

Note to anagama: Ally McBeal doesn't equal real-life.

Re:true tort reform.

[Tim C]

Now you've unknowingly became a willful party.

And a fool, for not seeking legal advice when threatened with legal action.

Re:true tort reform.

[anagama]

You are wrong, or we are talking about something else and not understanding each other.

Civil suits, of which libel would be a flavor, are often decided by juries. In any trial, it takes only one party to request a jury trial and it happens. Now, there may well be a disposition on pretrial motions, or there may be a specific statute taking an area out of the purview of a jury (for example, certain appeals from adminstrative tribunals are not entitled to a jury trial, e.g. civil driver's license revocations or the like (depending on jurisdiction etc. yadda yadda yadda), but that in no way means that civil suits are not decided by juries every day.

Ask yourself this, if juries never decide civil cases, why would you hear things in the news such as "Jury awards plaintiff $1m in product liability suit against Ford and Firestone" or similar things. If you don't believe, call up an attorney's office. Ask the question, "if I was in a car accident and had to sue the other person, am I allowed to have a jury trial?"

As for Ally McBeal -- I don't watch TV.

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

Anagama (and the others in this thread are right - you are wrong. Civil trials have juries unless BOTH the plaintiff and defendant agree to have the case decided by a judge. Exception: Small Claims Court.

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

I'll try to keep this brief. The federal system is actually modeled on the system established by my home state - Massachusetts. At the federal level, judges, from the trial courts (Federal District Court) to the Courts of Appeals to the Supreme Court are appoined by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Slightly off topic - when you hear current senators arguing about "filibustering" judicial nominees and the need to preserve checks and balances of the system (i.e., the ability of the minority party - here, Democrats - to "check" the majority party - here, Republicans) - there IS NO SUCH CHECK IN THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitutional checks and balances are among the BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT - the legislature checks the Executive and the Judicial checks both. The Constitution does not call for political parties. The role of the president is to appoint. The role of the Senate is to advise and consent to appointments. Every judicial candidate deserves to get a vote on his/her appointment. Filibustering breaks the system the Constitution put in place.

Massachusetts has a bi-partisan committee that recommends judicial candidates to the Governor who then appoints the judges. In both systems, judges are appointed for life during "good behavior" and their salaries can never be reduced. That is to keep the legislature from effectively starving a judge out of office by reducing his/her salary to a pittance. Judges can be removed from office by impeachment - and, unfortunately, it has happened in the past. Not often, but it has happened.

The system was created that way to insulate the judiciary from political forces. Judges are often put in the position of having to make unpopular decisions and must be free to apply the law to the facts at hand without worrying about losing their jobs because they made an unpopular decision. So I would say that even an initial election is a bad thing because it keeps political forces directly involved in judicial selections.

BTW - elections for judges are a relatively new thing. During the populist movement in the US during the 1920s, the suggestion took hold and states started changing their methods. Currently, I believe that 38 of the 50 states elect judges. I personally find it striking that the states that have elected judges seem to be the same states where people cry loudest for "tort reform."

As for how I would select judges, it depends. Some judges are great trial judges. Others are great appellate judges but would not be good trial judges. Others are both. So I would look first at the position to be filled, then at the list of candidates to pick a person who has the best qualifications for the job.

As for promoting judges, judges aren't usually "promoted" in the sense that if you do a good job in the trial court you move up to appeals and then to the Supreme Court. many judges are completely happy with the judicial position they hold. But if a judge wanted to move, I would consider that person along with all the other candidates and pick the best person for the job. Maybe the judge, maybe a new person. It depends.

Yes, I see it applying at all levels. In fact, in some cases (especially patent lawsuits), I would even advocate for professional jurors - people who have some legal training and with whom I can be assured that they will thoroughly weigh the evidence and apply the law as the judge instructed.

So much for being brief, but I hope I answered your questions.

Re:true tort reform.

[2TecTom]

Yes completely, thanks.

Re:true tort reform.

[belmolis]

Good discussion in general, but I think there's an unjustified leap of logic in your claim that filibustering undermines the system in which the President appoints and the Senate advises and consents. To begin with, note that he appoints "with the advice and consent" of the Senate. It's not as if the Senate is obligated to consent, with its consent ultimately just a ritual. More importantly, there's nothing in the Constitution, and nothing that I've ever heard of in what we know of the Framers' intentions (such as the Federalist Papers) or elsewhere in the legal tradition, that equates the Senate properly fulfilling its role with taking every nomination to a vote or consenting on the basis of a simple majority. Suppose that the Constitution required a 2/3 majority, or even the unanimous consent of the Senate. Would that alter the fundamental nature of the system? Would it shift the balance of powers significantly to the legislative branch? I don't think so.

The filibuster is essentially a long-winded way requiring a super-majority for confirmation. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. It would of course be more efficient to do this directly rather than by a roundabout means such as the filibuster. If I were (re)writing the Constitution, I would do exactly that. Judicial appointments are very important, have long-term effects, and except in extreme cases, cannot be undone. They ought to be as insulated as possible from partisan politics. Requiring a supermajority maximizes that insulation and sets standards higher. Bush and his allies are trying to ram through the small minority of his nominees that cannot gain bipartisan support because they have such strong biases and weak legal records. That is exactly what the Framers intended to impede, and it is a goal that would be assisted by requiring a super-majority. Failing that, the filibuster is the best available tool for accomplishing this worthy goal.

Re:true tort reform.

[belmolis]

Uh, I think all of the above are wrong. In the US federal courts there is a right to a jury in civil cases in certain circumstances. The legal basis for this in the Constitution is difficult to interpret today since the value of money has changed considerably and since it involved the distinction between law and equity which has since been abolished. Roughly speaking the current rule is that there is a right to a jury in suits for monetary damages of some significance. In other cases, such as cases where the remedy sought is an injunction, there is no right to a jury. There is also no right to a jury in cases under Admiralty Law. That is one clear restriction that survives from the Constitution.

State courts have their own rules and are governed primarily by state legislation, though by virtue of the 14th Amendment it is not impossible for the federal constitution to bear on the state systems. States generally have rules similar to the federal rules but not necessarily identical.

It is true that when there is a right to a jury trial the jury may be dispensed with if both parties consent. To my knowledge there is no situation in which a jury is required against the wishes of both parties.

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

I disagree. The filibuster PREVENTS the consent of the Senate from ever taking place in most cases. I'm all for Senators withholding consent for candidates that they feel are not qualified - but do it at a confirmation vote. Traditionally, confirmation votes required a simple majority. I don't think there has ever been a judicial interpretation of that portion of the Constitution that specifies whether a supermajority is permitted. However, I have not studied the matter and could be wrong about that.

Additionally, the filibuster of the past is gone so far as I understand. Gone are the days of Senators having to actually hold the floor to speak their minds for endless hours. Now, as I understand it, the filibuster is little more than someone raising their hand to say "filibuster" and delaying the process endlessly.

Re:true tort reform.

[belmolis]

Once upon a time a filibuster delayed a vote indefinitely and could therefore prevent the Senate from consenting to a nomination, but in 1917 the Senate adopted the cloture rule, which allowed the Senate to bring a filibuster to an end and force a vote by a vote 2/3 of the Senate. So the effect of a filibuster since then has been to refuse consent only when fewer than 2/3 of the Senators are prepared to bring the matter to a vote. The effect is, thus, in effect, to require at least a 2/3 majority. By the way, the Senate historian has a nice web page on the history of the filibuster.

I'm not sure about the current procedure, but I'm not aware that the rules governing filibusters have actually changed. (Judging by an episode of The West Wing I recall seeing during the past few months, they haven't, but I wouldn't want to base an argument on that.) It may be that the Senate has become wimpy and just folds at the threat of a filibuster, but as far as I know, if those favoring a vote stand their ground, the speaker still has to go through the pain of delivering a real filibuster. If the procedure has changed, I can see that it seems unfair not to make the users of the filibuster pay by having to go through the lack of sleep and raw throat and so forth, but from my perspective of it being a roundabout way of imposing a requirement of a supermajority, which I consider to be desirable in the case of judicial nominations anyhow, I don't see any need to make the "culprits" atone for their "sin".

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

Personally, I don't believe in "roundabout ways." I feel that everything should be above board. If the Senate feels a supermajority should be required, then institute a Senate rule for it and if need be, let the Supreme Court decide whether it is Constitutional. There are enough manipulations/machinations in political processes - I'm for eliminating those when- and where- ever possible.

This is getting surreal. I'm not sure which is more unrealistic - having a discussion on Slashdot re: judicial appointments or the fact that the discussion has been a very intelligent one.

Re:true tort reform.

[notque]

And a fool, for not seeking legal advice when threatened with legal action.

So if I sent out from a fake address of a company to several websites that listed the company, you would suppose that each of those website hire a lawyer for legal advice.

Costing each person tons of money for no reason, or they are a fool.

What if they are broke?

Is there free legal advice for this?

Hurting Their Own Business

[John_Booty]

Now, whenever somebody Googles for "Charter Schools USA", at least 9 of the top 10 search results will surely reference this questionable conduct. That's got to hurt their business in the long run.

I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

Re:Hurting Their Own Business

[notque]

I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

Unless they don't make very much money in which case they are left with Public schools or this.

It's not really the same question of voting with your money when you left with 2 very bad alternatives. One that you can at least attempt to reason with, or another where you are in even a worse position to make change.

Re:Hurting Their Own Business

[ocelotbob]

Unfortunately, corporate schools like this probably won't be affected all that much. Parents will search for the school name, see the awards, and move on. Best thing to do here, would be to googlebomb the names of all the schools they own; otherwise, their bastardry will be of limited knowledge.

Re:Hurting Their Own Business

[drsquare]

That's got to hurt their business in the long run.

I would think that libel would hurt them in the long run. Imaging people 'Googling' for 'Charter Schools USA' and 9 of the top 10 results are false comments about Charter Schools employees, accusing them of all sorts of things they didn't do. That's what would hurt them.

I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

Why? Because they stand up for their rights not to be libelled? That's a really stupid reason to decide your kids' educations.
'Hey son, you're not going to that good school, you have to go to a shit one instead, because the good one is suing someone who lied about them.'
'But Daddy, that shit school's full of bullies and incompetent teachers and drugs.'
'I'm sorry son, but people's right to libel people on the Internet comes before everything, even you.'

Re:Hurting Their Own Business

[John_Booty]

Why? Because they stand up for their rights not to be libelled? That's a really stupid reason to decide your kids' educations.
'Hey son, you're not going to that good school, you have to go to a shit one instead, because the good one is suing someone who lied about them.'
'But Daddy, that shit school's full of bullies and incompetent teachers and drugs.'
'I'm sorry son, but people's right to libel people on the Internet comes before everything, even you.'

Right, your theory makes perfect sense because

1. All public schools are bad!
2. There are no other good schools besides those run by "Charter
Schools USA" - it's either their schools, or crap!
3. There are no other charter schools besides those run by "Charter Schools USA"
4. These schools run by "Charter Schools USA" muuuuuust be good in the first place

How's that reality working out for you?

Re:Hurting Their Own Business

[drsquare]

On average, people live within the catchment area of very few schools, meaning there aren't many available that are feasable to travel to every day. Most schools are crap, turning down a good one because you love libel is a really stupid thing to do.

Fox News Generation!

[Adult film producer]

is there such thing as libel and slander anymore ? Seriously, fox news has perfected this type of character assassination by qualifying all their statements with "Rumour has it John Doe has been killing fetuses".. or "It's been said that jack frost hates the military and is a liberal!" or "Word around Capital Hill indicates democrats want to kill god" ... Easy as pie..

Nothing is slander anymore, it's just "Your opinion" Watch fox news sometime, they get away with saying crazy stuff all the time by using that legal technique.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[Adult film producer]

Ya, I agree with ya on that one, when I need a laugh I skip the comedy channel and flip to Fox.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[glesga_kiss]

Some say....there's an interesting documentary on this called "Outfoxed", I recommend checking it out.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[Dachannien]

Ah, sort of like "Word on the grapevine is that Fox News 'gets away with saying crazy stuff all the time'."

Did I get it right?

Re:Fox News Generation!

[caveman_bob]

I can't watch Fox News where I live. It has been banned in my area because it's been judged to violate obscenity laws. Or maybe I just banned it inside my house, I forget.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[drsquare]

You must be making this up, what sort of news programme uses rumours as real stories? I can't think of any in the world. Even Al-Jazeera is honest enough not to disguise things are rumours or hearsay. I can't believe anyone would be so unprofessional.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[shutdown -p now]

It's not their fault most people are too stupid to understand what exactly they hear.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[Absentminded-Artist]

You're sipping a bit from the liberal Kool-Aid(TM) if you think that Fox News is the only organization that does this. Try cynicism instead of political idealism - you get to be upset with more people that way! ;)

Re:Fox News Generation!

[Dachannien]

It has been documented

But apparently never documented on Slashdot.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[n6kuy]

At least they know how to pronounce, "negotiations" correctly...

That's the great thing about privatization

[smchris]

Accountability!

Oh? Never mind.

free ... huh ... something ?

[PGC]

...parents who use an Internet discussion board to air grievances...

Isn't there this little thing called .. huh .. "FREE SPEECH" ? Since when is it illegal to complain anonymous on a discussion board ? If you complain, we'll sue.

Re:free ... huh ... something ?

[Gilmoure]

All complaints can be delivered through approved channels, such as the local Parent Teachers Organization.

Re:free ... huh ... something ?

[Pig Hogger]

All complaints can be delivered through approved channels, such as the local Parent Teachers Organization.

If you had RTFAed, you would have seen that the scholl have CANCELLED PTAO meetings for the rest of the school year, effectively neutering the approved complaint channel.

Re:free ... huh ... something ?

[drsquare]

There's no law guaranteeing you free speech. Even your First Amendment just stops Congress making laws against speech, it doesn't let you get away with saying anything you want. If free speech were absolute, there would be no libel laws.

Re:free ... huh ... something ?

[Gilmoure]

Damn it! I forgot my sarcasm tags, again!

Re:First Amendment?

[Bloater]

If anything stops the nonsense I hear about in America it will be parents. Mothers are a force to be reckoned with.

Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[AndroidCat]

No link to them, so I went and had a look. They're definitely in the education business, that's for sure. Their site starts cheerful enough with the reaching kid graphic and Putting Children First sm slogan. Strangely, their mission and who we are pages don't mention much about kids after that. The Starting a Charter School makes my eyes glaze over.

I have no idea of how good they are as schools, do they have a political leaning, or anything like that. If I was a parent, I'd probably ask some questions too. Definitely an Edu-Corp.

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[legirons]

"Their site starts cheerful enough with the reaching kid graphic"

On my browser, the kid's head is separated from his body by (to scale) a shear of about 8 inches. Maybe it's just a freudian rendering-bug on Firefox.

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[kfg]

They're definitely in the education business. . .their mission. . .

Is thus to return a profit to their investors.

Thus there will be some people here who will claim that it is the school's legal duty to fuck over the kids to protect the stockholders.

Hey, why is this country getting so warm, and what are we doing in this handbasket?

KFG

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[AndroidCat]

No stockholder left behind!

They won't fsck over the kids. They are, after all, a Valuable Product of their company and will be as close to zero defects as their Quality Assurance department can manage. ;)

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[killjoe]

Unless the kids are the shareholders they will get second or third billing. In this case kids are more like products.

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

They will, however, fuck over the teacher's unions.

Hay! Is that the real point in all this anti-Charter-School stuff? Could it all be over money on BOTH sides??

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[kfg]

No, if you read the mission statement you'll find the school itself is the product, so the poor kids don't even have that going for them.

The kids are the natural resource. Have you seen how they handle natural resources?

KFG

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[kfg]

I'm not particularly anti anything. I am pro education.

Which is why I left the state school at age 11. I'm no particular fan of those either.

KFG

Also the "discovery" process...

[MisanthropicProgram]

When there's a lawsuit, there's the "discovery" process. IIRC (IANAL), this is when you basically search through the other sides records. I don't think some school for kidies wants to have ALL their dirt dragged out in court. From an attourney that taught one of my classes, this can be a deterent.

Re:who gives a fuck

[Spy der Mann]

But let's remember... that the tobacco companies sued Jeffrey Wigand for disclosing something they were doing wrong. Was it illegal what he did? Yes. Was it morally incorrect? NO WAY.

My words for the CSUSA: If someone so powerful like the tobacco companies couldn't keep a shameful secret hidden, what thinks you can? So sue them. Dig your own grave.

Simple solution

[Anita Coney]

Charter Schools USA should set up some "free speech zones" for parents. In other words, lock them in a closet somewhere, ban the press from entering, and let them gripe all they want.

It worked well for both the Republicans and the Democrats last year.

Gosh guys this is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

You think public schools are failing the kids.

My guess is that most of you are in your teen's and 20's with no kids that you know of. Right now there is a effort to Privatizating everything! Schools seems to be the best example of why not to privatize.

1) The tax payers almost never get a tax break from the new private charter schools. It's hard to see. but charter schools cost about the same per student as a regular school.

2) Charter schools with open enrollment like to pack the students in. for get 25 students per teacher. some Texas charter schools are 45 students per teacher.

3) Loss of control. This seems to be the point these parents are hung up on. Charter schools are companys. Private companys for profit. But like the privitization of other government services. The tax payer is being removed from the decision making process.

4) Not so high quality of education. Some charter schools are using teaching methods that have never really been evaluated against public or traditional private school standards.

Privatization in america means some rich guys get guranteed tax payer money while services and responsive action suffers.

truth

Re:Gosh guys this is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of what you say is dead on. As someone that is looking at starting a charter school (and I will stress, we are just the most preliminary stages), you are, by and large, right.

1. Any reduction in the cost of providing education is taken up by profit.

2. I don't know enough about this issue.

3. Yes, parents will by-and-large loose control. I don't think this is entirely a bad thing. If done right (and that's a REALLY big 'if') then you can largely eliminate the very costly problems that come from a few very vocal parents who insist that their child is perfect. Again, a BIG if, but not one to be overlooked or dismissed.

4. The basis for the charter school we are looking at is largely untested. Yes, we have done small scale testing that is VERY promising, but this concept has never been done on a large scale before.

If it works, we have a whole new way of looking at education that may just solve most of the major issues of education. And the best part is that these new methods and systems are reproducible at any school.

Will it work? I think it will, but the truth is we won't know until we try it. I can tell you this: At this point, opening a charter school is the only viable government funding source to test the concept with.

"Charter...Attacks...Criticism"

[Senor_Programmer]

Hmmmmm

Charter attacks criticism
Charter attacks parties who criticise
Charter responds to criticism
Charter responds to attacks
Charter counters attacks
Charter attacks attackers
Criticism provokes response
Criticism provokes attack ...

Perhaps the 'news that matters' might take a 'neutral' stance?

Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

CNN clearly never does this.

-- RLJ

Re:Right...

[colanut]

So what is your point? CNN is not the opposite of FOX. They are all corporate "news" outlets looking for ratings. They all distort for cash and access.

Re:Right...

[strider44]

Firstly, he was just saying that Fox were the worst at the practice. Secondly, did you actually click on the link that you gave? I actually decided to and all the links in the first page were either (a) book, movie or TV show reviews or (b) points that they just didn't have the facts to back up. None of them were personal attacks or would have been defamation at all. Quite the opposite, it would have been bad reporting to *not* say 'rumour has it'.

Re:Right...

[suwain_2]

The first match is "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem"

Maybe that was a pun, but anyone else find it incredibly ironic?

Re:Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

(b) points that they just didn't have the facts to back up

Thank you for this admission - it will keep this thread shorter.

Back to the original topic: discussing an aggressor attempting to censor protected speech via the legal system by using an unrelated example of sloppy journalism is probably not worth your or my time to discuss. It was a bad example which detracted from the valid (if tired) debate about free speech online.

My point, which evidently was missed (sarcasm can be subtle like that) is that Fox is no better than any other major journalism outfit when it comes to poisoning the well. All one does by holding up NewsEntertainment Channel A over NewsEntertainment Channel B is making one's political leanings the topic of debate.

-- RLJ

Re:Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

It was unintentional but it was so funny that I had to go with it. Googling the same phrase with NYTimes.com only yielded theatre reviews for a few pages. Feh.

It's funny the things one picks up when one reads, yes?

Cheers,
- RLJ

Re:Right...

[strider44]

I don't really understand why talking about possible rumours that people have been talking about is wrong. They weren't creating rumours, just reporting them when they were relevant to the factual story. In my opinion it's obvious that you didn't click on the link you gave, since if you had you would have seen the first story was reporting of a rumour that had a large impact on Microsoft shares.

But no, the original topic is defamation, which, it is rumoured, you seem to be doing quite well. Your point was based on blatently false evidence, which seems to be (I don't really know) what the story above is about. I don't care about American television politics, but I don't like someone making a point like that without backing up with at least *some* credible evidence, which you still haven't given.

Re:Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

I disagree with your comparison to the Daily Show. The latter is at least honest about what they do!

-- RLJ

Re:Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

This was really funny. Thank you!

Since you do not care about American television politics I am going to quit responding to this thread. That and you seem to be unawares how Google advanced searches work. In order to provide the link, I had to construct the search. In doing so, I was privy to the result set. The first one is the best, see the other thread of this grandparent for a humorous discussion.

To summarize: beating up the little guy w/ the legal system is bad. Making a straw man out of a news entertainment channel is just silly. Defending one news entertainment channel over another makes you look like a fool.

Have a nice day,
-- RLJ

Re:Right...

[Zebbers]

Since when does pointing to someone else doing something wrong vindicate you?

Re:Right...

[Lifewish]

Interestingly enough, only one of the first page of links could be considered to be even remotely slanderous if stated as fact. I'm british and thus pay no attention to either news source, so I can't comment on whether they regularly play silly buggers, but you might want to double-check your example.

Re:Right...

[Alsee]

Hit #1: "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem" addressing the problem of gossip in the workplace. Quite an ironic hit for your point.
Hit #2: A book review complaining about the book going from first person narrative to third person rumors. Again apparently critical of rumor.
Hit #3: "Rumor has it that Microsoft is considering giving away at least $10 billion of its massive $46 billion cash horde." Certainly not trying to cloak themselves against slander charges here, and as I recall this was in fact true.
Hit #4: Hollywood rumor on the future plotlines of a TV show. Ooooo, that naughty naughty CNN!
Hit #5: Story on skyscrapers in general, and a rumor that a certain new one will be particularly tall. Damn those scoundrels at CNN! Damn them to hell!
Hit #6: A joke about the sitcom industry. Just look at the depths those liberal elites will sink to at CNN to push their propaganda!
Hit #7: One of the most beautiful and luxurious homes in the world was purchased by "an unidentified head of state", and the story cites a rumor of the lucky buyer.
Hit #8: Rumor of industry economic strategy in - get this - the financial section. And what is the "big rumor"? Price cuts in console gaming prices! Ahaaaaa! And I hear there's a rumor that bears shit in the woods.
Hit #9: The approximate cost to produce a movie, and that it was "money well spent". My word! I didn't realize CNN spread such slander!
Hit #10: Cites "Start Me Up" as the advertizing song for the Windows 95 launch, and cites speculation that Jimi Hendrix's "Are you experienced" might just be the Windows XP advertizing song. Wow, talk about character assassination!

A scan of 11-20 turns up several more referrences to the "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem" piece and a couple of jokes.

If you were trying to claim that CNN engages in any sort of character assasination by spewing malicious anonymous hearsay, well you failed spectacularly.

It's funny how attempts to defend FOX News generally (explicitly or implicitly) admit thier slimy tactics and bad journalism, but instead try to defend it as ok because "everybody does it". I am not aware of any other news organisation firing good and responsible reporters and going into court to explicitly argue in defense of deliberately misleading the public. I am not aware of any other major media news that so heavily relies on spin and oppinion and implication and pusing an agenda at the expense of actual facts and content and reporting. And this fact-free or fact-lite style clearly shows on their audience. Just to cite the most egregious example, an absolutely appalling number of Fox viewers believed we actually FOUND the WMD's that we ransaked Iraq to find and destroy. I think it was close to 40%. Yes this is an old issue and it is merely one example of many, but I still find it absolutely mindboggling that any supposedly credible news agency could so extensively cover such an issue and manage to leave its viewers so throughly misinformed. It's just a running theme in their "reporting" style. They don't have any interest in actually informing their viewers. They often cover isses as drama in a content-free way and to support a deliberate agenda and bias and to discredit people based on character attacks.

But that's OK. They only engage in slimy tactics and bad journalism to counterbalance the pervasive liberal bias conspiracy controlling virtually all of the news in this country (and the liberal bias is even worse at those international propaganda pits like the BBC). Oh, and since Fox is "outnumbered" by everyone else "slanted the other way" they obviously have to engage in that much *more* intense slimy tactics and bad journalism to "balance the scales". Fox needs to be ten times as bad as anyone else to "balance" the ten times as many bad sources "on the other side". Yep, Fox news vs the world.

-

Re:Right...

[Adult film producer]

"They scream about the right to free speech, but as soon as someone says something they don't like, they rush to censor them. " I never suggested censoring them, my opinion of this is quite the opposite. Please keep Fox News on the air, please. Fox News serves as the perfect case study for young students in 'What a self-respecting journalist with intregrity should NOT DO - 101'

I feel the same way about about nazi/skinheads/the kkk/etc. They only bury themselves everytime they open their mouths. And the public is smart enough to make up their own mind about these insane groups, just as they will do for Fox News.

Re:Right...

[Legion303]

Since he got that new parrot.

"Tu Quoque! Tu Quoque! Awrk!"

If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[Brian Stretch]

Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard for free speech too.)

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[notque]

Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard [mackinac.org] for free speech too.)

I don't mean to dimish your point about the MEA union, but have you read the message board?

Most of the complaints are about a child being able to wear a jacket to school, and take it off before entering a classroom.

That doesn't sound like a mafia at all, it just sounds like parents who think the schools rules are silly.

The message board is there, read it.

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[drsquare]

Well if you don't like the rules, go to another school. Personally I believe the poor state of schools is a result of not enough discipline, rather than too much. Go to a private school and complain about the uniform, they'll just tell you go somewhere else if you don't like.

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[spitzak]

Other responders seem to have missed the point of the parent poster.

What he is saying is that the attacks on the school are really weak and about minor-sounding annoyances. If the teacher's union is trying to slander the school with false accusations, he is claiming they would use much worse things than rules about wearing jackets, thus he is arguing they are not slandering it.

I have no idea or opinion on this case, but am annoyed at responders who do not even bother to comprehend what they are responding to!

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

but am annoyed at responders who do not even bother to comprehend what they are responding to!

Give them a break. They were looking forward to a short spell this afternoon correcting Algebra worksheets before taking it easy. Then the fax came in from the Teacher's Union Bosses, and they've been astroturfing ever since. How would they have had TIME to comprehend it? The fax laid out clear guidelines about what to type.

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[JenovaSynthesis]

Well it's nice to know now only am I the son of a terrorist, but now a mafia boss too. Nice.

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[Lehk228]

the worst posts have already been taken down

Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[lachlan76]

I'm at a public school and I get the same deal if I want to complain.

Re:First Amendment?

[endersdouble]

Considering the recent treatment by the courts of free speech/the like in public schools, you have *no idea* how right you are...

since it is not seen as legitimate as the press

[crovira]

lawyers all feel safe in attacking it.

What needs to be done is to put up and then attack a site which the 'regime' does not atack as it is clearly a shill. You are not the subject of attack, but some one who suposedly is is getting clobbered.

As long as all the allegetions can be 'arguably' backed up, the proxy fight can continue unabated.

This gets the debate out of the 'close in' arena and gets into first ammendment rights.

Then you get press without involving the lawyers.

Make an example of that company

[gay358]

I think we should react by sending letters, e-mail to that school, tell others about this school using blogs etc. With enough coverage the school should face some financial setbacks and other companiens that are considering something similar would perhaps think twice.

Re:Make an example of that company

[retrosurf]

Why "should" "we" react? You immediately assume that
the school is the villain here. I've been to their
website, and while Jeb Bush is mentioned prominently
in relation to their head administrator, I don't
really *know* that they are evil incarnate.
But I am curious. I have probed them with a polite
letter. Based on their response or nonresponse, I
will evaluate their customer service, and I make
personal judgements based on politeness and
information content.

This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[Simonetta]

This is a example of the need for offshore ISPs where discussions can be held without harassment. It's an example of how the 'loser' countries of the 20th century can become the winners of the 21st. By being so low on the totem pole (a Pacific Northwest North American Tribal Nation's religious icon that has come to mean in American idiom to be insignificant in a hierarchy) that no one gives you any money so you have nothing to lose by providing a forum for people to air grievances.

An enterprising person in a (relatively) stable nowheresville sets up an uncensored ISP. Then charges micropayments for access. In return the ISP ignores all threats and warnings of civil actions from countries with overdeveloped legal systems. This could be in a country like Nigeria that is super-corrupt and has its own resource base, or UAE in the Gulf where there is so much wealth that they immune to any bullying. Or a place like Botswana that has stability and no money. Or maybe a microstate like Litchenstein that has traditionally provided these various discrete services to their powerful neighbors.

And again, you could fight this in court of law. You do have democracy, freedom of speech, tradition, and all that jazz on your side. But American courts run on money. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run just to hold the discussions on an offshore site in neutral territory. And it would send a strong message to lawyers that in the information age there is a new limit to the extent that they can use legal means to harass and intimidate people just for money.

Re:This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[caveman_bob]

Excellent comment, and a practical solution. Can any reader corroborate this - that a US-based person hosting a forum on such a foreign territory may remain immune to US legal action? I suspect that the person would still be attack-able unless they can remain anonymous.

Re:This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, the US citizen is still attackable, but the plantiff now has the problem of proving who the owner of the website is. Good luck with that.

(notice I said "proving", as in proving in a court of law. Figuring out who the owner is woud be a simple job for a private investigator, if perhaps somewhat expensive. Just trace the money)

Re:This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[Simonetta]

MOD -10 for explaining "totem pole."

Slashdot is a global forum. Many people here would not understand obscure American expressions.

Re:This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[Lehk228]

how do you trace the money? asking the ISP nicely who pays the bills?

Re:Entirely consistent with a petty "dictator"

[abulafia]

The ultimate goal is simply to stay in power. To hell with the collateral damage to the kids and the organisation. At least they're consistent.

"CSUSA has reviewed the Web site and has determined that your and other slashdotizens' and other Web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and Dr. Nauss,"

"Accordingly, CSUSA hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist your continuous published libel and defamatory accusations, comments and statements."

The sage advice of Danny Devito

[panxerox]

Lawyers are like nuclear weapons once you use one the option of winning is gone, that option is then only available to the lawyers.

Re:First Amendment?

[tylernt]

"Tort reform anyone?"

Yes, please. This sort of thing is hardly new. The aquaria community was rocked by a similiar debacle not too long ago:

http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249

And why not?

[Sebby]

...comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.

Any why not? Afterall, the records speak for themselves anyways. Doesn't matter who points out the facts in those records.

Text of the legal threat:

[Pig Hogger]

(Posted in anticipation of slashdotting)

Tripp Scott (law firm)

RE: CHARTER SCHOOLS USA
OUR FILE No. 980058.0001

Dear Mrs. Reigelman

Please be advised that the undersigned law firm represents Charter Schools USA, INC. (CSUSA) in regards to the defamatory and libelous web site you created and have publishedin disparagment of CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and Deborah Nauss. Since we are reprsenting CSUSA, we respectfully request that you direct any further communication through us.

CSUSA has reviewedthe web site and has determined that your and other parents' and other web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and DR.Nauss.

Accordingly, CSUSA hereby demands that you immediatly cease and desist your continues published libal and defamatory accusations, comments and statments about CSUSA, Gateway Charter Scool and Dr.Nauss through any means, including a web site. If you fail to heed this demand, you will leave CSUSA with no altermative but to proceed with all legal actions to protect CSUSA against your continues false, libelous and defamatory publications.

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Very Truley Yours,
Lisa D MacCLUGAGE
For The Firm

Phone number is 954-760-4906
e-mail: ldm@trippscott.com

Re:Text of the legal threat:

[AndroidCat]

CSUSA has reviewedthe web site and has determined that your and other parents' and other web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and DR.Nauss.

Sloppy wording. They might feel or think that the statements are "unlawful, defamatory and libelous", but they're not actually that until a court determines it.

Unless they got a quicky judgement from Charter Courts USA Inc...

Re:Text of the legal threat:

[Quill345]

I'm very surprised to see how poor the spelling and capitalization is in a lawyer's letter. I would have expected a more thoroughly reviewed document... is that for real?

Re:Text of the legal threat:

[JenovaSynthesis]

They're probably typeos from the transfer.

Re:Text of the legal threat:

[Sleet01]

I agree. I hate to be a grammar nazi, but my Japanese wife has far better grammar, diction, and control of the basics of the English language than these bozos do. Oops, looks like I just defamed and libaled (sic) a law firm; I'd better watch out!

In my experience...

[delirium of disorder]

Schools do not tolerate dissent. The whole purpose of the US education system is to encrourage obedience, not to instil knowledge.

(What happened to me)
http://www.textfiles.com/uploads/incident.txt

Re:In my experience...

[Paul Fernhout]

Someone like John Taylor Gatto would agree that a conformist
and obedient sort of person is exactly what mainstream schools were
designed to turn out. From:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/8e.htm
"The first exhibit for your perusal is the U.S. Bureau of Education's
Circular of Information for April 1872, which centers around what it
calls the "problem of educational schooling." With whose interests in
mind did the bureau view education as a problem? The amazing answer is:
from a big business perspective. By 1872, this still feeble arm of the
federal government is seen filled with concern for large industrial
employers at a time when those were still a modest fraction of the total
economy. According to this Circular of Information, "inculcating
knowledge" teaches workers to be able to "perceive and calculate their
grievances," thus making them "more redoubtable foes" in labor
struggles. Indeed, this was one important reason for Thomas Jefferson's
own tentative support of a system of universal schooling, but something
had been lost between Monticello and the Capital. "Such an enabling is
bound to retard the growth of industry," continues the Circular. There
is nothing ambiguous about that statement at all, and the writer is
correct, of course. Sixteen years later (1888), we can trace the growth
in this attitude from the much more candid language in the Report of the
Senate Committee on Education. Its gigantic bulk might be summarized in
this single sentence taken from page 1,382: "We believe that education
is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting
itself among the laboring classes." Once we acknowledge that planned
economies of nation or corporation are systems with their own operating
integrity, quite sensibly antagonistic to the risks educated minds pose,
much of formal schooling's role in the transformation that came is
predictable. If education is indeed "one of the principal causes of
discontent," it performs that subversive function innocently by
developing intellect and character in such a way as to resist absorption
into impersonal systems: Here is the crux of the difference between
education and schooling-- the former turns on independence, knowledge,
ability, comprehension, and integrity; the latter upon obedience."

Re:In my experience...

[DamienNightbane]

I dunno about you, but I'd say that your best option is to burn the place down.

With fire.

Re:In my experience...

[josh3736]

So you're just bitter because they busted you for violating the AUP. Guess what: it is their computers, their network. They control what goes over their wire. You set up a proxy to bypass the Web filters yet you're baffled that the administration took action against you?

Get real. If you pulled the same shit at your job, you'd get fired. Their computers, their network. "Dundee crown has a web filter. I do not appreciate this." Who gives a flying fuck what you appreciate? You have to play by their rules. Welcome to life.

Now, I'm not saying it's right. In fact, I thoroughly agree that US education functions only to turn out pacifist sheep--why else is voter turnout so damn low? However, civil disobedience is not going to get you anywhere. When it comes down to it, the school can do whatever the fuck they want to you--and there's nothing you can do about it. Just like in your experience, they don't even have to cite a specific written policy you've violated. Basically, all it takes is "because I say so."

Reform is certainly necessary if we really want to create an enviornment that fosters free thinking. But people don't really want free thinking. They just want their TV remote.

(Don't even get me started on Charter Schools. If you're looking to reform education, this isn't the way. It's a complete waste of money and does nothing for the kids.)

Re:In my experience...

[delirium of disorder]

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my description of the situation. I didn't do anything to the school computers. I set up the proxy at my OWN HOUSE! Durring the weeks that I was banned from the network, I only TOUCHED a school computer (and didn't touch anything else on the network: ie switches, hubs, cables, etc) once. I entered file:// into a browser to get a directory listing. I was expelled for talking to other students about the existance of the proxy, not for causing any damage to the school network.

"Who gives a flying fuck what you appreciate? You have to play by their rules. Welcome to life."

Maybe no one gives a fuck what I think....(although I do get some responce on slashdot). I, however, give a fuck about my generation's understanding of the world. I don't want my peers voting if the only political news they get is censored. I don't want them as my manager, attorney, or legislator if they don't understand how the most important communications medium of our time, the internet, works. Ignorance and obedience leads to totalitarianism. I don't have to play by their petty rules if they don't play by the rules of the constitution (Tinker v. Des Moins establishes that I have free speech in school). Sure, they have the power to kick me out...but every student has the power to refuse to even go to school*, much less submit to the curriculum. If everyone just used the power they have to the max, we would live in a nightmare of realpolitic, one that would quickly descend into war.

*Maybe they not only have the power not to go, but the right. Doesn't the Thirteenth Amendment state that:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Isn't being forced into a room, each weekday, for indoctronation and physical coersion (random drug searches, solitary confinement in detention, etc) a type of involintary servatude? You can argue that parochial or private school exists as an alternative, but not all communities have access to these and homeschooling is just not economically viable for most parents.

Re:In my experience...

[lachlan76]

Not to mention that schools seem to believe that they can punish students for what they do outside of school. As in "you were riding your bike without lights at 9pm several kilometers from the school. But because you were wearing school uniform we are allowed to suspend you." :|

Answer: yes!

[forand]

Yeah I see something that "mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business" the part that says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," it actually doesn't say anything about what type of speech. So how is it illegal?

That said the school can kick the offending students out of the school which would be perfectly within their own rights.

Re:Answer: yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It actually doesn't say anything about what type of speech. So how is it illegal? "

Becasue free speech is defined within the bounds of our legal system. It's not, "you can say anything you want to say in any situation you want to say it."

Such things include words that cause a Clear and Present Danger, words that that are Likely to Breach the Peace, Libel and Slander, and Obscenity.

Our legal system is not based on the Bill of Rights alone. It is defined through 200+ years of legal definition as to what those (and other) words mean.

You can't justify shouting fire in a crowded building with free speech any more than you can female circumcision because it's part of your religion.

Re:Censored or Mindfucked? What's better?

[drooling-dog]

Privatization in america means some rich guys get guranteed tax payer money while services and responsive action suffers.

Privatization means at least one other thing that may be even more important. When you privatize a service formerly performed publicly, you make a good portion of the taxpayers' money alloted to it available for campaign contributions and political lobbying. Getting rich in privatized public services means knowing what backs to scratch. So, in the end, everybody (e.g., business and cooperating politicians) wins except the taxpayers and, arguably, the public for whom the service is provided.

If you think this is something, just wait until they privatize Social Security!

Re:points that they just didn't have the facts?!?!

[strider44]

let me put that into context:

"Microsoft's $10 billion giveaway": "Rumor has it that Microsoft is considering giving away at least $10 billion of its massive $46 billion cash horde." - it is affecting the share price.

"Bank seizes 'world's most expensive' house": "Rumor has it the crown prince of Dubai snapped up the 90-acre property, which features a heated marble driveway." - not verified, but relevant to the story.

They were the only two news stories that were in the front page and satisfied my point (b). I'm Australian (obviously not American from my spelling) so I don't give a fuck about American television politics, but I don't believe that defamation is right, an opinion which is relevant to this story. The great grandparent post was giving false evidence to boost an unfounded point which is from my humble perspective defamation. He didn't even say "rumour has it" to boost that point.

Re:First Amendment?

[Aggrav8d]

"Democracy has no place in the classroom just like facts have no place in organized religion." -- Principal Skinner

Re:First Amendment?

[anagama]

Ah yes, here at slashdot, any mention of lawsuit means we hate the plaintiff. And maybe we ought to. But the parents here seem pretty low too.

I looked around for what the hubbub is all about. You might say that the schools actions were flagrantly shocking, despicable, and almost too egregious to publish. Alternatively, it might be related to the current trend of parents becoming more and more obnoxious. Anyway, if you suffer nightmares easily, stop reading here. If you are a spelling nazi, you might also want to avoid reading the parent's description of events. I quote:

Re: Principal failings
Reply #13 on: May 02, 2005, 05:43:36 AM
I was in the cafeteria I am a pto member and have first hand knowledge.

On pizza day, children turn their money in for pizza and recieve a poker chip. Insted of the help taking the money it makes it easier to just drop poker chips into a bucket. We have had problems with kids bringing in fake poker chips to recieve free pizza. On that particular Friday, we decided to watch carefully as each of the classes went threw the line and dropped their chips into the bucket.

We had one person watching the bucket as the chips went in. As a class passed through sure enough a fake chip was dropped in.

The child was told to wait a minute, when questioned as to where she recieved the poker chip the child said "from my mother"

Can anyone guess who the mother is? Yes..Dr.Nauss.
So if they are stealing pizza from the pto, imagine what other damage is being done?

The American Way

[Moggie68]

This is another case of the standard US operating principle: Lie, cheat, steal. When someone blows the whistle, sue them.

Having read the forum...

[Sfing_ter]

Having read the forum, these people think that their children are attending a "private" school. A charter school is a school that is not run by the public school structure but is bound by their rules... Many of the arguments and problems they have (claimed/state) are the same things that happen in "public"schools. They need to do some reality checking, if they go to the local school board they can get a lot more done than what they are doing now.

Also, these people are citizens of the Hangin-Chad state o' FlowRidda. It is now wonder they do not understand what is going on or how to go about getting things done.

Re:Having read the forum...

[noshitsherlock]

I am a parent of two children at the school, at no time did I or any other parent I am aware of, think our children were attending a private school. The charter school is not bound by the same rules and regulations as the public schools. You are however correct in your statement that the schools board is above the charter, they issue and renew the charters. Many complaints have been made to the board in regards to CSUSA. My complaints were mostly placed against the CSUSA CEO and what appears to be his partners in crime. CSUSA( and all other for profit charter schools-popping up every where)are a front for the legal robbery of our childrens educational funding...thanks to our govenor JEB BUSH.and his educational 'reform'. The rich get richer..and the children of our state get next to nothing..... If we Floridians knew HOW to vote perhaps we could change all of this...:)Of course a lot of this voting issue has to do with the fact that the rest of this country keeps sending all their half blind and deaf q-tips to us....

Congratulations!

[dr.badass]

Congratulations, Charter Schools USA : I now think you're a stupid, evil, company without having any idea what you do.

Update: Now that I know what you do (and more importantly, how you do it), I hate you even more.

But hey, all publicity is good publicity!

Re:Censored or Mindfucked? What's better?

[Bulk Tape Eraser]

By the same token, when you Unionize Public Schools, taxpayer money (mandatory Union Dues) is magically transformed into donations to powerful political interests.

Same thing, either way.

"Due process of law"

[autopr0n]

Unfortunetly, "due process of law" which you seem to like so much also requires that in order to lose a libel case, you have to prove that the other person knew they were lying. So, even if you prove the claims false, you have to prove they knew they were false...

It's all talk until the hearing.

[fishbowl]

Oh, wait, that's right. There's not a court in the nation that will hear this case. Story's a non-starter.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Charter responds to criticism with legal threats

[Chris Burke]

No, "Charter attacks criticism" is neutral enough. The line between "responding" and "attacking" is the C&D letter. If some of that criticism is in fact actionable libel, then that's fine, but by trying to remove an entire discussion board through the threat of legal action they are without a doubt "attacking criticism".

Re:false equivalency

[Anita Coney]

Democrats set up similar zones during their convention. Although I have to admit that Republicans turned them into an art form. So it appears that Republicans are at least better at one thing.

Re:As should be expected.

[belmolis]

This kind of tactic for shutting up critics is so common that there is an acronym for them: they're called SLAPP suits, for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation". They have been used especially by developers against environmental and/or community critics of their projects. They have been so badly abused that some states have passed legislation against them. They problem with them is that they are filed by organizations with lots of money, who can afford to pay their lawyers, against individuals or organizations that are often unincorporated and usually impecunious, who can ill afford to pay for legal advice and representation. Those threatened with SLAPP suits are therefore likely to give in even when the suit has no merit.

If you Google for "SLAPP suit" you'll find oodles of information. Here's one informative site.

Sheep and Wolves

[abb3w]

The whole purpose of the US education system is to enc[]ourage obedience, not to instil[l] knowledge.

This varies widely by the school district. My senior year in high school required a course in American Government. Since previous courses had outlined the general Three Ring Circus pretty well, the non-AP course spent half a year studying local government: to wit, the school district budget process and school board elections. Students had to sign up to attend at least three board meetings, and give in class presentations before and after about the budget sections scheduled for discussion at the meeting. Beforehand presentations had to have at least one question from each student about the material that might be suitable for asking the board for in class-discussion; whether we asked such at the meeting was up to the individual student-- some did, some didn't. After presentatations summed up the discussion, and any questions asked. It had the merits of getting the students and the parents more involved. It also woke up the school board when regular attendance went from an average of two (the assigned reporter from the paper and the town kook) to around twenty (some students actually got interested in the process, and attended almost all of the meetings). They got over their surprise, but initially were disconcerted when students from their schools showed up as the voters they answered to.

There was also a more colorful incident a few years earlier, when two weeks after a unit on the Unionization movement prior to WWII, my sister's class was given (by mistake) an impossible assignment. (Between the high school library, county library, state capital city library, library of the capital branch of the state college system, and the libraries of two other nationally recognized colleges within 30 miles, a total of thirty-one answers from seventy questions could be found.) The students responded by applying the previous lesson: they formed a union, elected representatives, showed up with red-white-and-blue picket signs, and refused to enter the classroom until an outside moderator-- the principal-- was called in to negotiate with the representatives. The students also called the city paper in advance, who sent a (snickering) reporter and photographer. The teacher refered to it as "a demonstrated major educational success in all directions"-- and was thoroughly delighted to see that the students had inarguably learned something. I think my sister still has the news clipping.

We were taught the system, not only how it worked and why it worked, but how the way checks and balances allow you to challenge and change the system if you have the determination to do so... and how to judge when it was worth the trouble. This is lamentably rarer than it ought to be. This may be in part because of parental preferences-- even most non-fundamentalist zealot parents find it easier in the short run to raise children as sheep rather than wolves.

Should you have kids, you may want to remember your own troubles with the schools, and choose to live in a district that does not aim to produce human sheep.

On the other hand, I'd say that you did exceed the network AUP for your school, and deserved to get a suspension-- although perhaps not the expulsion you evidently got.

If your concern was the freedom of speech, much more direct and legally irreproachable tactics would have been more effective. In your shoes, I would have tried to organize like minded students, found out what local permit requirements are for small public protests (usually none if under 10 people and without electronic amplification), and began staging public readings of careful selections from these overlooked/censored works. (If you can find appropriate related passages from Supreme Court case rulings or Presidential writings to add in the mix, it puts you on better tactical groun

"No, your monkey is correct."

[abb3w]

It's not relevant; the First Amendment is never a defense for libel.

Mmmm... not quite accurate under my understanding- although IANAL. Because of the First Amendment protection, standards for libel are much stricter for "public figures"-- which not only includes celebrities, but public officials acting in the capacity of their duties.

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. -- Justice Brennan for the majority, New your Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

So, if I were to publish a claim that you were seen raping a sheep on school property, you would not have to prove actual malice, merely that the claim was false. If I were to claim the same of the school's principal, he would have to prove that it was false, and that I either knew it was false, or that I published the claim without making any effort to check.

Since the Charter schools are performing a function traditionally (in this century) performed by state and local government and under state or local contract, any competent lawyer for the parents could make a good case they should be held to the standards for public officials. Which would mean that Charter Schools cannot prove libel simply by proving the allegations false-- they have to prove the parents made the false allegations with such "actual malice".

They may be able to prove this-- but their lawyers will earn their paycheck. Charter Schools USA are probably hoping the parents will bow out, or at least tone down to a more cautious level.

Re:"No, your monkey is correct."

[abb3w]

Yes, but charter schools principle is a private citizen not a public official. As I understand it, the usage of federal funds does not a public official make. As I understand it the standard requires a specific link to a political unit of the government before the person can be considered a public official. The further legal standard is different, specifically as Sullivan explains.

First, Federal funding appears to be only the start up money, and was not the political association to which I refer. The primary operational funding for Charter Schools (as I understand it) is not Federal, but provided by the local sponsoring School Board... which, either elected or appointed, is a political unit of local government. Since the Charter Schools are acting as agent for the School Board, it seems arguable that the corporation is a public employee, and to the extent its own employees act to the public service, so too might they be reasonably bound in their ability to claim libel.

Furthermore, stating "The further legal standard is different, specifically as Sullivan explains" is completely misleading, as footnote 23 explicitly declines to "specify categories of persons who would or would not be included," or to delineate the bounds of "official conduct". It does, however, refer over to Barr v. Matteo... the majority ruling of which includes:

The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. This calls for the widest possible understanding of the quality of government service rendered by all elective or appointed public officials or employees. Such an informed understanding depends, of course, on the freedom people have to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important.

As hired by the Charter School, in turn hired by the school board, for the official function of educating the community Rugrats, it would seem that the teachers and staff may have their ability to sue for libel over claims of their mis/mal/non-feasance of such official function thus limited to where actual malice can be proven, or to where it can be shown unrelated to their job. More to the point, the Charter School Corporation itself, having been directly appointed to administer a portion of a school district, is clearly thus restricted in any claims of libel. The teachers on their own might have a much better case... but much shallower pockets to pay a lawyer. =)

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. And you're right, it's nowhere near as clear cut as it would be for, say, the state Secretary of Education... or even the elected head of the county school board. But if evidence of malice is not included in court filings, the defense would probably try a summary motion to dismiss pretty quickly.

Re:"No, your monkey is correct."

[Jerf]

Touche.

Not being a lawyer, what I meant was that you can't just yell "First Amendment!" and expect to be off the hook. OK, every once in a while it can be a part of the defense, but it is never an open invitation to libel wildly.

So much for history class

[abb3w]

Maybe I'm missing something, but since went does accepting money from the government allow libel and slander to become protected by the First Amendement?

Since 1964; libel or slander only need "actual malice" for public figures.

No, it's not

[phorm]

This is an example of the need for more/better protections from SLAPP or frivolous lawsuits or threats thereof. Some states seem to be good at working against SLAPP (although I think an actual lawsuit needs to be launched), but we really need a way to nail down unwarranted/unsubstanciated legal threats as well to prevent what is becoming an industry of lawyers with cookie-cutter legal threats.

Re:"I say YELLING at children"

[vandon]

It's not always bad teachers.Most of the time it's bad parents who don't/can't/won't discipline their kids.
Parents need to put a belt across some of their kid's butts. All my friends and I had parents who cared about what we did after school and that we got our homework done. If we screwed up, we didn't get a 5 minute time out, we got grounded for a week and 5 licks. I guarantee that parental involvment and a little corporal punishment will do wonders for today's youth.
Too bad they'll call the cops on you for spanking your kid who's acting like an ass because you won't buy him a chocolate bar.