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.
There is no "school" right to free speech. There is no right to free speech on the job. There is no right to free speech in a shopping mall, if the shopping mall has a rule that says otherwise. And, the First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this because it is not a federal law. So, the government hasn't made a law abridging free speech.
Not unless you think the Federal government gets to review and approve all school rules, employee handbooks and shopping mall rules.
Free speech advocates are concerned about the restriction of speech in a private high school?
No, fee speech advocates are concerned about restriction of speech outside of a high school for students who attend the high school.
Stop spouting the Post Anonymously crap, while I dont agree with the good Reverend he is objecting to blogs where the student post a picture, their name and other personal details.
serenity now!
We are seeing similar treatment of students having personal blogs and websites in public schools in Canada.
Again, the argument is that the sites could be used for gathering information about the kids.
Discussions about the limits of school responsibilities in personal lives, the role of parental supervision, and the level of Internet education being provided to children seem to go nowhere.
It seems that any issue involving kid's safety has the effect of turning of brain cells in some school officials.
There's a doctrine in the US called in loco parentis, stating that the school has the right, nay, the requirement to administer authority on the children when it deems necessary. That is how dress codes are not deemed unconstitutional and how schools are able to administer punishment upon the child. It is also one reason truancy is a crime.
This is a tricky little dillema. The students are in the school by the choice of their parents, which until they turn 18, is also their choice. On the one hand, they are voluntarily part of the organization, for better or for worse, so they sort of accepted whats going on, and an organization of consenting individuals should by all means have the right to conduct themselves in a manner that fits within the guidelines of the law. By remaining members of the catholic school community, the students could in essence be making the choice to be bound by the rules set for them by the school. However, that being said, whether or not they are recieving funding from the government, the fact of the matter is that they are chartered and incorporated within the United States of America, and as such, to exist, must abide by the laws of the United States. The fact that this is being introduced at a time after the students paid their tuition (essentially consented to be a member of the community bound by the rules set forth knowingly at the time of payment) though raises an issue. The agreement was changed to curtail their civil liberties in the middle of the term of service (the school year). This means that the students did not agree to it when they originally joined the community at the beginning of the year, and as such, they are not concenting to the new arrangement. Essentially, since this was not clearly stated at the beginning of the school year, they are being forced into having their civil liberties curtailed, which is illegal whether its a federal agent doing it or a new jersey transit train conductor forcing liberals to ride in the vestibule for being liberals (never happened....an extreme example....but it conveys my point). My personal feelings are that with regard to the development of the students into responsible, savy adults, is that making rules to protect people is not half as beneficial as teaching them how to protect themselves. IF you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime.
izm
The organizers and owners of the school are living entities.
here's what my right to assemble means.
I can start any organization and include or exclude any one I want. For any reason. Assuming Im not getting federal money. I can exclude black people (KKK), women (catholic priests), gay people (boy scouts). I am also free to make a school. That school is allowed to exclude or include people based on ANY criteria. The children aren't forced to go to that school. They are offered a free, public alternative. If they chose not to accept the free public alternative then they need to follow the rules of that school, which may be discriminatory if the school gets no federal funding.
If the govt were to step in and tell the school they couldnt have any criteria to allow children membership to their organizatin, then the catholic church could be forced to have women priest. And no, niether of those things would be right.
The "organization" is non-living but the people behind it are very much so alive.
My sister's high school decided to do this as well, here's the story:
From: Round Rock ISD info@roundrockisd.org
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:12 AM
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject:MAV MAIL-a letter from the principal
October 20, 2005
Dear McNeil High School Parents and Guardians:
While technology has served to improve our lives in numerous ways, it also has some negative effects. It has come to our attention that some Round Rock ISD students are sharing personal information and photographs on web sites that could enable viewers to locate the students. Two of the sites found to include RRISD students were www.xanga.com and www.myspace.com. On some postings students listed their full names, school names, cities, and other identifying information. Several included pictures and commentary (about both students and teachers) that are discomforting, if not downright disturbing.
While many of the postings on these web sites are not necessarily alarming, we want you to be aware that some students are sharing information and photographs that could compromise their safety. Please talk with your student about the dangers of publishing identifiable information and photographs on the Internet. Please be aware of the online sites your student is visiting from home, and discuss with your student the harm that can be done by publishing inappropriate information or photographs of others without their consent or knowledge. You may also want to consider obtaining content-filtering or other parental control options for your Internet service.
Students who participate in extracurricular activities that require higher standards of conduct, such as cheerleading, band, and athletics, may face consequences for publishing inappropriate web photos or information that identify their role in the school.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 464-6300. We appreciate your assistance in maintaining safe and secure environments for our students.
Sincerely,
Nelson Coulter
Principal, McNeil High School
-----
Personally I believe that is a load of crap, There goes the right to free speech.
Except if the kid posts information relating to school on his blog (his class schedule, what time he has lunch, etc.), it remains school business and thus the school has the right to regulate it. Thats what is being prohibited by this rule (for those of who just read the title or /. summary and not the actual FA).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
You missed the point.
The point being that in the US and elsewhere, a disproportionately large number of catholic priests - especially those working at catholic schools - have been convicted of the sexual abuse of children. Many Americans believe (rightly or not) that this has something to do with vows of chastity. By this reasoning, the problem is likely systemic.
It serves as a running joke that priest = child molester. In this context, the headmaster's paranoia about "online predators" could be based on personal experience. His excuse certainly seems pretty transparent to me, since the real risk is astoundingly low, especially for students in high school who certainly know better.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
There are alternatives to public blogging that would have allowed both sides to get what they wanted. For instance, require that students use livejournal (or some similar service) for all their blogging needs. Then all entries can be posted with a friends lock that allows only authorized friends to view entries. User info can be guarded the same way. Obviously, as with any compromise, some students are going to have make unwanted changes, but at least both sides are happy.
Interestingly enough, Canada seems to have much broader protections of freedom of speech. Don't know if this is implemented in practice, though.
The UN seems to disagree:
The US has ratified the ICCHR though in this case that doesn't mean much. Many international lawyers argue that even though the declaration is not binding, it could constitute international common law.
Personally, to think that a school could regulate after hours activities on pain of expulsion is completely alien to me. Some rights cannot be contracted away (i.e. indentured servitude is no more, no matter what any contract says) this IMNSHO is one of them.
According to Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html the freedom of speech is a universal human right. It shouldn't matter whether the violation is committed by a private company or a government -- it's not less of a violation because of that.
, the latter says:
While they sound quite similar, the first ammendment to the US consititution says "Congress shall make no law...", while Canada's equivalent the more nebulous "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms." It seems to me that Canada's has more room for interpretation. It might mean that the Canadian government can't take away those freedoms, much like the US first ammendment. However, it might mean that the government is supposed to make sure everyone has those freedoms. I like how the US first ammendment is specific in limiting the power of the Federal government to deny freedoms. There are many cases when individuals, corporations, or state governments deny those freedoms. There are additional US laws to address some of those situations, such as the Civil Rights Act.
Catholic clergy child abusers make it into the news more because for decades, the Catholic Church covered up the problem.
You'd have more of a point if most student handbooks didn't have a line that essentially means that. My favorite one was the prohibition of "any gang or cult related attire" in the public high school I attended. Gang attire... that just covers everything from T-shirts to 3-piece suits now, doesn't it? And that was used several times while I attended school to arbitrarily single out students the administration didn't like.
Although my favorite was still the line in our college's student handbook where it stated that the University could not be held at fault for any incident whether or not it was in fact the fault of the school. That clause got snuck in the semester after a kid died in a house fire on campus and there were whispers going around that a large number of smoke detectors on campus didn't work and that maintenance requests to have them fixed had been largely ignored.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Last time I checked, there is no clause in the Constitution saying anything about how old you have to be to qualify for the First Amendment.
Actually there is. Laws governing who is responsible for a minors actions (Parents/Guardians) address this.
Historically, the protection has been that any organization that receives federal funding cannot discriminate, but the new rules blow this away.
I believe the armed services are federally funded and I'm SURE they have never had freedom of speech if you work for them.
BTW - Freedom of speech has to do with an individuals right to openly disagree with the established government not speak out against everything and anything. If you start slandering me I can, and will, sue you (I'd still prefer to beat your ass but until I can get that legalized taking your money will have to do).
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
It's a private school... it can set rules as it sees fit regarding on and off-campus behavior. Also, this isn't a "free speech" infringement any more than moderators deleting posts on a private forum. Free speech is protected from the government passing laws that would limit it, not from private institutions enacting their own rules. Don't like it? Switch schools.
The students could win this legal fight because of one technicality:
While Pope John's school handbook does not specifically forbid students from creating personal profiles on Web sites, it does prohibit students from posting anything on the Internet pertaining to the school, without the school's permission.
If they aren't explicitly banning bloging in their handbook, but they are doing it anyways, then they're NOT enforcing their rules - they're overstepping their bounds.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
No. Thanks to the 14th Amendment, most (all? IANAL) Constitutional restrictions on the federal government also apply to state and local government. That is why a school teacher paid from local property taxes in Podunk, Idaho is bound by First Amendment freedom of religion restrictions. And the Peoples' Republic of Berkeley can't outlaw firearms (Second Amendment).
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
here collates stories of Protestant abuse as well.
SYS 64738
Mrs. Askin CONTACT phone: 973-729-6125 email: erinaskin@popejohn.org Catherine Astor catherineastor@popejohn.org Mrs. Elizabeth N. Buniak elizabethbuniak@popejohn.org Never mind the T&A in the cheerleader photos, these people are just begging to be signed up for all kinds of mailing lists. Shining example, folks. Carry on.
The name of the school in the article is certainly wrong. Pope John XIII was not a pope of note, while Pope John XXIII was one of the giants of the Catholic Papacy. School website bears out the latter: http://www.popejohn.org/