Slashdot Mirror
Students Banned from Blogging
wayward writes "Students at Pope John XIII, a Catholic high school, were told to take down their blogs from sites like Xanga and MySpace or face suspension. Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators. Not too surprisingly, free speech advocates got more than a little concerned.
Then you take away the owner's of those places' right to free speech. If I have a restaraunt and I have a "no cussing or you get kicked out policy," that restriction, believe it or not, is a form of speech.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
"Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators."
Apparently Catholic Priests don't want competition.
The Constitution restricts the actions of the government, not those of private citizens (with the exception of the 13th amendment, and formerly the 18th amendment). Private citizens cannot violate the 1st amendment--it is simply not logically possible. I mean, look at what you said: "If somebody wants to do something that the constitution prohibits or does not allow for, they will have to amend the constitution in order for it to be legal." The Constitution doesn't say that I can use a web browser, does that mean I need to wait for an amendment before I read /. ? I'm still having trouble believing you were modded +2, Insightful.
English is easier said than done.
Oh, almost forgot. This was a school in New Jersey, which was the third state to ratify the constitution. The following is from the original ratification:
"Now be it known, that we, the delegates of the state of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof, for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on the behalf of the people of the said state of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm, the same and every part thereof." (emphasis mine)
New Jersey, by its own ratification of the constitution, agreed to all of these terms, including the amendments which were ratified.
As if THAT wasn't enough, they doubled it up and expanded on these rights, just in case some dumbass came along and tried to misinterpret them! This is Article I, Paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey:
" Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
So what this says, QUITE plainly, is that "You can say whatever you want, but you will be responsible if you make false accusations against somebody. This truth will come out in court, but if we find out you were telling the truth in your mean statements about somebody else you will be acquitted."
It doesn't get any more plain than this. If this school is subject to state or federal laws they are going to lose.
And just a little tidbit to get you interested in constitutional law: Article II, Section I, Paragraph 6 of the constitution of the state of new jersey states that "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." I wonder if we could get that added into federal law somewhere? Or perhaps even the UN?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. I am not anyone else's lawyer. While my advice may be sound, it is not legal advice, and you should seek a professional if you need legal advice. Thank you.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
America always had a tint of Anti-Catholic in its history. Partially because America was colonized by people who were trying to escape the abuse of the church if the 1700s (AKA 300 years ago), then when the english took over they passed their anti-catholic culture into America. then during the late 1800s and early 1900s we had a influx of Irish and Italian (Who were predominantly catholic) immigrants who were blamed for steeling the other americans jobs. It is to a point where some Christian Churches (like many of the "Evangelical" Churches) will not recognize Catholic as a Christian Church as well (Which it is). So time goes on and the Protestant majority quietly passes their prejudice from generation to generation (Never anything extremely public because they know there are a fare amount of Catholics out there, and as far as they know they could be their boss or their coworker). Then the reports that the Catholic Church was hiding and relocating priests who were convicted for sexual abuse, and other sex crimes. Within a short period of time, 50 years of priests who have convicted these crimes are exposed making it seem like the majority of the priests are guilty. I don't know about you but normally I hear about 3-5 stories a year about normal teachers being indicted for sex crimes in my area on the US, so over 50 years that is close to 200 teachers who has been caught. Which is is slightly more then the priests indicted in my area, from crimes committed 50 years ago to today. Yes Priests should have a higher standard for themselves and yes they church should have been more open about it from day 1. But when the media got a hold of it was like gold for them because they know there are generations of people with prejudice against catholics who would love to hear this news, and because most people (of whatever faith) have a hard time with statistics and being able to break apart numbers, they look at big number (Where many of these priests are currently working church office jobs, or retired per say) and figure that the majority are doing this as well.
So in conclusion your post which at this time was moderated funny, just shows that you are a standard american who fails the ability to think for yourself and has a prejudice against Catholics in general. And these jokes are in bad taste because it is just throwing more salt in the wound.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I mean come on! If you really wanted to protect children from sexual predators would you really send them to a catholic school? Perhaps the Priests just don't like the competition.
Mind-control extends all the way towards one's feelings and sensation, and anything that does not conforms to the priests' directions (never mind what the bible says - the scatholic church has fought tooth and nail against the possibility of mere persons to be able to read it directly, hence it's insistence of using a dead language until about 40 years ago) has to be harshly suppressed. This is not for nothing that protestants were deemed heretics for translating the bible: it removed the middlemen between the bible and the people.
It is not for nothing that England and other protestant countries have enacted strict discriminatory and persecutive measures against scatholics; this was to prevent the brainrot that scatholicism is from wrecking the freedom and liberty of people.
As a matter of fact, of the scourge that shritsianity is, scatholicism is by far the worse kind.