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.

Comments

Re:Constitutional protections....

[cdrguru]

The constitution applies to Federal laws, and perhaps state and local ones in some cases. It has no applicability to schools, employers, or anything else.

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.

RTFA

[NoGuffCheck]

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.

not just in Catholic schools, or the US

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Other Schools are doing this too

[JRW129]

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.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[civilizedINTENSITY]

A more appropriate quote:

First, most of this essay applies only to public schools. As private institutions, private schools are not subject to any restrictions in terms of violations of the rights of students. Hence, while a public school might have to prove that its violations are for a higher purpose or stem from its in loco parentis responsibilities, a private school may set limits arbitrarily.

Second, students in public schools are not stripped of their rights completely. In Board v Barnette (319 US 624), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that students could not be forced to salute the flag against their will. In Tinker v. Des Moines (393 US 503), the Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War could not be forced to remove the arm bands by school officials. As written in Tinker, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Finally, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of the free flow of ideas in schools: "The classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas." (Keyishian v Board of Regents [385 US 589]).

Tinker was all about freedom of expression. The students in Tinker merely wore black arm bands. They did not disrupt school activities in any other way. The actions of the students are often used to distinguish the right of speech and expression for students from the rules that can govern those rights. Again the distinction hinges on the impact of the expression on the educational process.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Dwonis]

Interestingly enough, Canada seems to have much broader protections of freedom of speech. Don't know if this is implemented in practice, though.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Jonner]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is worded differently from the US Bill of Rights. Specifically, while the former says:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

        a) freedom of conscience and religion;
        b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
        c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
        d) freedom of association.

, the latter says:

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.

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.

Re:I studied in a catholic school.

[Peter La Casse]

That's the public perception, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that the rate of sexual abuse by clergy is higher than the rate of sexual abuse in the general population, or that the rate of sexual abuse by catholic clergy is larger than by clergy of other denominations or religions. Are there any studies that show one or both of those things?

Catholic clergy child abusers make it into the news more because for decades, the Catholic Church covered up the problem.

Vaguely worded contracts

[SeanDuggan]

Of course not, unless their contract said "We reserve the right to expel you for any reason whatsoever."
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.

Re:Vaguely worded contracts

[arkanes]

It might be worth knowing that clauses like that tend to be extremely weak, especially if you can actually prove malfeasance on the part of the school. If they didn't perform regular maintenance and thier smoke detectors didn't work (a violation of a large number of school regulations and building codes), you'd have an excellent chance of winning a lawsuit no matter what kind of disclaimer they have.

No Foul

[zoomba]

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.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[indifferent children]

There are many cases when individuals, corporations, or state governments deny those freedoms.

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).