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

Constitutional protections....

[BWJones]

Well, there is this thing call anonymity.... Oh, don't forget free speech. 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. By the way, if you are in the DC area, you owe it to yourself to stop by the National Archives and see the Constitution. It had a surprisingly profound impact on this jaded science geek.

Back on topic: On legal grounds, because the school is a religious school, they can make certain requirements. For instance, I once dated a girl that was recruited from Norway to be on the BYU ski team. She accepted because of the scholarship even though she was not part of the "moral majority" there. Here is the deal though... they made her sign an "agreement" that she would not consume coffee or alcohol even while not on school grounds. She abided by that contract, and honored it. But when her parents came into town, she went to dinner with her family. She did not have any wine at dinner, while her parents did. Two days later, she was called into the Presidents office because someone had reported (ratted) her for being with people who were consuming alcohol. The deal is though, because this was a religious school, there are no personal rights issues at stake and she had no recourse. Her personal choice was to leave BYU and her scholarship behind because she was so offended.

Of course this is one of the major problems associated with federal funding of religious programs for charity or education. These charities can discriminate and there are no federal protections for these folks who are discriminated against even though the source of the funds are federal in nature. Shockingly, there have been discrimination cases based upon religion, race or appearance that are being upheld because "private" churches or schools can make any requirements on their "clubs" they want. Historically, the protection has been that any organization that receives federal funding cannot discriminate, but the new rules blow this away.

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself religious and was raised Catholic, but large organized religions have proven difficult for me to participate in.

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.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[cerberus4696]

I would argue that there *is* a right to free speech in those places; it's just not one protected by the US Constitution.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[DustyShadow]

My problem with your argument is that the speech was not taking place on school grounds. Unless the kids signed something that said they were not allowed to have accounts on these sites, I don't know how the priest can really do anything about it. But, with that said, it is a private school, and they should be allowed to kick anyone out if they feel like it.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[TheoMurpse]

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.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[QuantumG]

Which is a good reason not to go to a private school and actually work to improve your public school system. Of course, exactly the opposite is happening as people have lost all concept of community.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[jcr]

A School acting in loco parentis doesn't trump the actual parents. When the kid's not at school, he's the parent's responsibility, not the school's.

-jcr

Re:Constitutional protections....

[pete6677]

Although the constitution doesn't specifically state this, kids under 18 have no real rights. The only "rights" they have are the privileges their parents let them have. It would pretty much cause chaos if it were determined that parents couldn't interfere with their kids constitutional rights. For example, a minor cannot be locked up for criticizing a government official, but that doesn't mean they can sue their parents for not allowing them to go to an anti-war rally.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Moofie]

I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Vombatus]

Can a school expel someone without warning for, for example, eating hot dog buns on a Friday?

The proper penalty, of course, is to say 6 Hail Marys and make a donation to the school building fund

Re:Constitutional protections....

[dbrutus]

I am a Catholic, president of the finance committee for my parish, occasional technical consultant for my diocese and frequently write about religious topics on my own blog. The principal is a tool and this has little to do with Catholicism. In fact, it can quite easily be criticized on the grounds of interfering with parental rights (did you see any parental input at all in this policy?) and discouraging evangelization. From a Catholic perspective, this is poor pedagogy and a bad example for our youth.

If I were at this school, I would immediately start a Catholic evangelization blog and provide reflections on my personal religious life. For an extra twist of the knife, I'd call it St Isadore's Shrine. If this is going to go to court, let "religious discrimination" be the grounds for the 1st amendment suit. If the blog didn't get shut down, the school has other problems in that it's not enforcing its rules evenhandedly and providing a bad moral example for the students.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[belmolis]

Wrong. That's NOT what the article says. The principal has prohibited the kids from having blogs at all, regardless of what they discuss on them. He is not just telling them not to reveal information about their school schedules that might conceivably put them in harm's way.

In any case, blogging is not what gets kids in trouble on the net. All of the cases that I've heard of of serious problems involve kids, mostly girls, getting involved with predators in chat rooms. If he were really concerned about the kids, that's what he would warn them about. This guy is either more ignorant about the net than a school principal in this day and age should be, or concern for the kids is just a pretext and he's really trying to prevent the kids from posting anything critical of the school.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[HiThere]

You need to improve your analysis of the system. Follow the chains of control and the chains of responsibility, and you will soon find that the public school system as it is implemented is designed to fail. Community has little to do with it. Emotional commitment has little to do with it (though parents with both commitment and a lot of time can overcome many structural problems).

The key decision was the moving of funding (and fund raising) from the local level to a combination of the state and federal level. From that point on the public school system deteriorated, though changes were implemented gradually, and you will still find some local schools that perform well. (The criteria is that the local area has enough money to raise sufficient local funding to subsidize the schools, and thus to regain control.)

I'll grant you that the justifier (fairly distributing the school funding) was plausible, but the effect was that the control of the system moved from the local area, where people were individually concerned with how their children were doing, to the state and federal level where the concern was "How can I present this well". Some believe that the schools were intentionally sabotaged, with malice, but I feel that an analysis of the system shows that this is an unnecessary hypothesis. The system was changed to give the central government control, because governments like to control things. This inherrently resulted in the schools doing an increasingly poor job, because the feedback loops were either broken or had long delays inserted into them.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop at cross country teaching? Why not out-source the entire thing to a country with a large number of well educated english speakers who would work for less then their american counterparts?

Re:Constitutional protections....

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Not quite the same, and yet...

(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, today said a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court protecting the constitutional rights of minors to participate in political campaigns "represents an enormously important First Amendment victory." "The unanimous decision to uphold the constitutional rights of young people to participate in a key area of the electoral process represents an enormously important First Amendment victory," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who represented minors before the high court. "The decision clears the way for young people to exercise their First Amendment freedoms in the context of a political campaign. The decision sends a strong message that the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association for young people must be protected."

Re:Constitutional protections....

[jadavis]

What's this "community" you're referring to? The people of the United States? The people in your state? The people in your town? The people in your school district?

I agree with you, but we need a sense of scale. The United States Federal government is way too involved in the schools. The states are too involved. Most school decisions should be made at the local level, and then some of course at the state level. No federal involvement should take place. No federal money, either.

The surest way to destroy any sense of community is to make a federal issue out of everything. If decisions are local, people will get involved, meet their neighbors, and encourage cooperation on policies that make sense to those people.

I say we should have more conservative policies at the larger scales of government and more liberal policies at the smaller scales of government. Think about it: liberal ideas work great for families and communities, not so great for the Soviet Bloc. I'm way oversimplifying, I know. Of course there are a lot of people that too closely associate with one label or the other that they don't even think that way.

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....

[uncqual]

Don't forget the effect of the Teacher's Union(s) which (at least in California) have great power and are more interested in their members' benefits than the quality of education they provide. Hopefully some of this will soon change in California at least.

Ironically, and as much as I hate to admit it (I'm mostly a libertarian), the movement of more Federal control in education finally pushed aside the petty objections to uniform testing of students. The teacher's unions usually objected to any objective measure of student achievement because (correctly) they realized that this would also help objective measure of teacher ability. Testing isn't the perfect solution, but it's much better than NO objective accountability.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[MullerMn]

Do you write songs for Emo bands?

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....

[SpaceJunkie]

While I do not think the government should dictate how a community group is run, there should be a clear boundary they cross when they run afoul of the constitutional rights of the members of that (or other) communities. In which case I fully support the government moving in.

Of course it is a matter of where you stand on the governments of the world. In the US, you have a written constitution, which it is fairly difficult for any current administration to change. This in effect is designed to guarantee your rights. Were it not for that, no, I would not trust the administration to have any control.

The constitution is (hopefully) a little more permanent and well thought out than a corrupt government (are there many other kinds?) likely to change as soon as there are enough armed people or annoyed foreign countries. A statement that applies as much to N. Korea as it does the US in the current state of affairs. In this case - the constitution may actually act to protect US people form their own government.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[HybridJeff]

Keeping a blog on the internet is to school as swearing at home is to your resteraunt.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[spiritraveller]

The amount of false information people are posting on this article is both dizzying and distressful, since it shows how little Americans know about their own Constitution and how it has been interpreted for all this time. I can't say that I knew any more about this stuff before I went to law school.

The Constitution is mainly a blueprint for relations between the Federal government and the States, between the Federal government and the People, and ever since the Fourteenth Amendment, between the States and the People. Before the 14th was passed, the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights did not protect anyone from regulation by state actors, only federal actors. Notice that every state has a Bill of Rights of its own which its courts may interpret more broadly than the Federal Bill of Rights.

Except for the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery, nothing in the Federal Constitution governs relations between the People and non-government actors (other people or corporations). So in general, a private school can regulate its students speech as much as it wants, because it is not a government actor.

The First Amendment does apply in public schools, because those schools are government actors. Of course, the schools get more leeway than a police officer on the street would get. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District for more information on Free Speech in public schools.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[jacksonj04]

But if a non-state school has a "no blogs" rule they are within their rights to exclude you if you have a blog. Likewise with haircuts - some (non-state) schools have short haircut policies. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[bcattwoo]

Does the shopping mall have any right, legally, morally, or ethically, to restrict what you do in your back yard?

Of course not. Nor do I have the right to demand entrance to the mall if it chooses to deny me for whatever reason (provided it's not based on my sex, race, religion, hair color, "sign", blah, blah, blah).

Would you expect a school to be able to enforce a dress code off-campus? Any student seen in Starbucks on the weekend gets suspended? Any student seen browsing the banned book display at the bookstore gets called into the principal's office?

No, but since it is a private school I could pull my children from such a school if I found its policies overzealous. The school has no power over me like a government or, to a lesser extent, employer does, so it is pretty easy to avoid their rules.

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:Constitutional protections....

[ArhcAngel]

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).

Re:Constitutional protections....

[SupaKoopa]

I don't know about you, but getting something tattooed on my forehead is something I think I would resist.

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).

Re:Constitutional protections....

[maxume]

What does "community" have to do with government run public schools?

Well, at some point in the past, a community didn't think of the gov'ment as some abstract higher power, but as an agreement among the community about how to do things. Think of public schools as 'community run public schools', (which they are!) and your comment doesn't make very much sense. The problem isn't over-reliance on government, it is forgetting exactly what the government is supposed to be and supposed to do.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[mdwh2]

Whilst we're talking about "rights", it's a shame people don't seem to think we have a right to education.

A school, even if it is entirely private, is not the same thing as a private organisation that people can choose to go to such as a restaurant.

We live in a society where school is not a choice, but compulsory (indeed, here in the UK parents have been sent to prison for their children playing truant). It ought to follow that any organisation wanting to receive the status of "school" - even if it is totally private - should abide by certain rules (otherwise you could label anything a "school", and therefore avoid sending children to a proper school).

This particular case isn't even about admission policies, it's about kicking students out whilst they are already there. It's all very well saying "Don't like it, go somewhere else", but doing so will severely disrupt their education (not to mention causing problems if the only other schools are further away, or if other schools refuse to take them because they were "expelled" and labelled as troublemakers).

Therefore, in my opinion it follows that a private school most certainly does not have the right to do what it likes, if that causes disruption to a child's education.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[dbrutus]

Actually, it's like not being let into the theater because you've rented a DVD from Blockbuster.

Thinking more about it, the suit that would likely have the best result would be in the ecclesial courts as the bishop holding the purse strings for the school would not be amused at anything that smacked of repressing evangelization. If the bishop lets it go through, the nuncio probably wouldn't like it and the Pope would like it even less. They all have email and they're all in one Catholic directory or another.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[ifdef]

Well, at some point in the past, a community didn't think of the gov'ment as some abstract higher power, but as an agreement among the community about how to do things.

YES! That's EXACTLY the concept that's missing these days. I would say "Mod parent up", except that that always sounds so dumb.

Maybe we need smaller communities, so that EVERYBODY can be involved in the decision making.

Also, with smaller communities, it might become more obvious that taxes are the way that we all pool our money to do something for all of us. It's pretty common to think of taxes as going to "them" somewhere (who then waste them), and that money for projects we want also comes from some benevolent "them". We need to get it through our skulls that it's not "them", it's "us". WE pool OUR money, and then WE, through our representatives, spend it. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's not someone giving us a gift of a library from above, it's our money and our neighbours' money.

I once read a book which said that a major factor in the way the Soviet Union was dysfunctional was that nobody felt that they were doing something for anyone. You didn't make shoes for some customer that might be your neighbour, you made shoes for "the system", for some giant warehouse "out there", that had no connection to actual people that you know that might be buying them eventually. You didn't grow potatoes to feed your family, or to sell to your neighbours in exchange for the fruits of their labour, you grew potatoes for "the system", which would in all probability ship them to some totally inappropriate place and let them rot while your neighbours go hungry. And if the world is like that, then why make any effort to do a good job? Why NOT steal whatever you can get away with, since everybody else is doing the same thing. It's not like there is someone you would hurt by that, you would only hurt "the system", and Lord knows it owes it to you.

I think that this is part of the mentality that allows looting during natural disasters or, for that matter, simple power outages. It's not Mr. Smith who lives two doors over that you're hurting when you break his window and take stuff from his store; it's some nameless, faceless corporation, who is insured anyway, and who owes it to you by now anyway, so why not take whatever you can get away with? It's just "the system".

No, we need to get things back onto a human scale, where we're interacting with each other, instead of each interacting with "the system". Where the "government" is just US who are making agreements about how to do things (including how to spend OUR money).

I really think that the United States was founded on principles like these, but they have gotten lost over the last few hundred years.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Courageous]

Whilst we're talking about "rights", it's a shame people don't seem to think we have a right to education.

When one describes a right in terms of the things (implied) that others must give you, then assuredly it is not a right.

Conversely, if one describes a right in terms of things that others must not take from you, then quite possibly it is indeed a right.

One cannot have a right to education, a home, or medical insurance, without forcing others to pay for them. One can have a right to pursue an education, purchase a house on the free market, and so forth, without intruding upon others. One set of things are probably rights. The other set of things probably are not.

There are probably other angles you can take on your private school has public school responsibilities tack, though. I don't see your opinion as wrong, really. I'm just objecting to the whole "right" thing. :)

C//

Re:Constitutional protections....

[MadCow42]

But if a non-state school has a "no blogs" rule they are within their rights to exclude you if you have a blog. Likewise with haircuts - some (non-state) schools have short haircut policies. Don't like it, go somewhere else.

You bring your haircut with you to school... it's part of your school life. As long as the kids aren't blogging from school, or perhaps promoting their blog at school, the school doesn't have ANY right to even discuss the subject.

Maybe the school can sue students for slander if they post libelous statements on their blogs about the school... but that's where it stops.

Legally it may be different because a private school is essentially a private business, but I sure hope not.

MadCow.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Pig Hogger]

You only need to go to most Countries in Europe to see just this happening, in France they control what you are allowed to play on the radio (you have to play a certain percentage of french artists per hour etc...)

It's not worse than not being allowed to say "Shit", "Piss", "Fuck", "Cunt", "Cocksucker", "Motherfucker" and "Tits" on TV...

Re:Constitutional protections....

[solman]

The original point is still quite valid.

There are many cases when individuals and corporations deny those freedoms.

In the US we believe that by doing so, we respect the rights of those individuals and in the case of corporations, the rights of the individuals that own the corporation.

In much of the rest of the world (the text supplied here suggests that Canada may be one of those places) freedom of speech is interpreted as restraining the actions of individuals.

None of this is to suggest that the rest of the world takes freedom of speech seriously anyway. If I start a business in Quebec and talk to my employees in English, I would forfeit my freedom of speech (and potentially my business). If somebody believes that one race is superior to another race, and openly expresses this belief in Europe, he or she is liable to be arrested. Most of the rest of the world likes the concept of freedom of speech, just as long as it is isn't used to say things that the majority finds repugnant. If Voltaire was alive today, he wold be an American. I pray that in 2050 I can still say that.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Petey_Alchemist]

That's the gist of what I emailed to the school today.

I think a lot of people also have a deep seated misunderstanding of the Constitution's applicability to the present case--at least based on the modded-up posts.

First off, most of the Constitutional rights that can be applied to public schools--as limited as those are--are thrown right out of the window because this is a private school. Since there is no government compulsion to attend a private high school, it is viewed as a consensual activity. You give up your rights. Moreover, I'm somewhat appalled that no ./ers have made the connection that this Catholic school is obviously not bound by the establishment clause of the First Amendment--so why should it necessarily be bound by the speech clause?

Don't get me wrong, I'm as against this move by the principal as any other faithful technogeek. Legally speaking, however, I'm not sure there is any reason why the private school *can't* do this. The body of law regarding student speech on the Internet is very unclear. Nothing has mustered certiori, and the assorted state cases have been divided, with some higher courts ruling that a public school official can, in fact, order a student-made website mentioning the school to be taken down (and punish them if they refuse)--and other courts allowing students more latitutde.

Again, you will not see Tinker nor Hazelwood brought up as binding precedents in this case, because it is a private school.

A few Cyberspeech related cases will show what I mean in terms of mixed court opinion: Beidler v. North Thurston School District, No. 99-2-00236-6 (Wash.Super.Ct.)(7/18/00) Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 30 F.Supp. 2d 1175 (E.D. Mo. 1998) Coy v. Board of Education of North Canton Schools, 205 F.Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ohio 2002) Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415, 92 F.Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wash. 2000) J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002) Klein v. Smith, 635 F.Supp. 1440 (D. Me. 1986) Mahaffey v. Aldrich, 236 F.Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2002) O'Brien v. Westlake City Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:98CV647 (E.D. Ohio 1998) Thomas v. Board of Ed. Granville Central School District, 607 F.2d 1043 (2nd Cir. 1979)

In brief, * A student's website contained his unflattering opinions of the school and the principal. The student was suspended for 10 days. The principal testified that he disciplined the student because he was upset by the contents of the page-not because he believed it would cause any disruption within the school. A federal court overturned the student's suspension (Beussink v. Woodland R-IV, 1998).

* A student created a website that contained "derogatory, profane, offensive and threatening" comments about a teacher and an administrator. The website featured a drawing of the teacher with her head cut off and solicited $20 donations to help the student pay for a hit man to kill the teacher.

The student was expelled and appealed the expulsion. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the districts decision. The court first concluded that the website did not contain "true threat." (If it had, the speech would have received no constitutional protection.) However, the court determined that the student's speech caused a substantial disruption, including emotional and physical injuries to the teacher so severe that she could not continue teaching that year or the next. (J. S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 2002).

* A student and an unidentified classmate created "Satan's webpage" on an off-campus computer. The site contained a list of people the student wished would die and a section entitled "Satan's Mission for You This Week" that encouraged readers to commit acts of violence and murder.

After being alerted about the website by the police, the school district suspended him for posting "intimidation and threats" on the Internet. However, a federal district court held that the student's suspension violated his First Amendm

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Mr2001]

Most of the rest of the world likes the concept of freedom of speech, just as long as it is isn't used to say things that the majority finds repugnant. If Voltaire was alive today, he wold be an American. I pray that in 2050 I can still say that.

Heh. In America, you have freedom of speech, unless the words you're speaking happen to have been spoken earlier by someone else who didn't give you permission to repeat them (copyright). Or unless you're telling someone how to circumvent an access control (DMCA).

Re:Constitutional protections....

[Jonner]

As a US citizen I am appalled at how out of hand copyright power has become, in particular with the DMCA. I think much of current copyright law and enforcement of those laws is not consistent with the US Constitution. However, I don't think the basic idea of copyright is the problem.

Re:Constitutional protections....

[dbrutus]

In my church, we do not seek to withdraw from the world but be a light unto the world. Pulling all the Catholic kids blogs means that the Internet becomes a little bit darker, a little bit less wholesome of a place.

I would expect the school to educate students to defend themselves against predators. I would expect the school to bring somebody in skilled in information analysis and let the kids know exactly how vulnerable they have made themselves with imprudent use of a tool. I could even see a letter going home to parents alerting them to the dangers. What I don't see as proper is threatening these children's education (that's what suspensions and expulsions do) because the kids aren't doing what they haven't been taught to do, exercise appropriate information discipline.

You're quite deluded about what fiduciary responsibility actually is, much less what my fiduciary responsibility is. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

It's time for Heinousjay's "how many" post

[heinousjay]

How many jokes about Catholic priests "blessing" the tender young high school students, in poetic contrast to the concern of predators?

I say at least 10-12. Could be wrong.

believe me...

[Paladin144]

Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators

Believe me, if they're going to a Catholic school, the students have a hell of a lot more to worry about than online predators.

Re:believe me...

[uncoveror]

Want to convince a kid that religion is bullshit, and make an atheist of him? Send him to Catholic school.

Re:believe me...

[BrookHarty]

Want to convince a kid that religion is bullshit, and make an atheist of him? Send him to Catholic school.

That reminds me of a gal on Bill Maher said. "All those people you interrogated in Iraq, if any of them are innocent, they ARE terrorists now"

Nothing makes you hate more than being persecuted..

Re:believe me...

[databyss]

Count me on that list too, and I enjoyed my catholic school.

The teachers and the people were good there.

Nothing makes an intelligent person more critical of religion than actually learning about a religion.

Thank you!

[Spy der Mann]

You just gave the principal A VALID REASON to protect his students from online predators!

(For those who can't see the parent, don't bother. it's a gnaa troll.)

And given the fact that most blogs - specially the blogger ones - have become a target for spamvertising, I couldn't agree more with him!

Can't they just...

[Red Samurai]

Blog anonymously? That should solve the problem.

Re:Can't they just...

[Grey_14]

Why should they have to hide their identity from their SCHOOL?

Re:Can't they just...

[aussie_a]

Blog anonymously? That should solve the problem.

People who live in countries that attempt to take away the right to free speech have to do that. However American citizens shouldn't be forced to undertake such steps when they're in their own country. Free speech isn't just for the anonymous, it's for every single citizen of your country.

The fact that so many would be so blaze about this is very telling of the society in America.

Re:Can't they just...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they have to hide their identity from their SCHOOL?

Because it's full of Catholic priests?

Free Speech

[queenb**ch]

If you want to protect students from on-line predators, have some adults that hang out in the online chat rooms. Just one lurking, trusted adult can put an end to a lot of crap in a chat room. Chat rooms aren't the only places to talk to kids on line though. Most on line games have a chat/messaging component. Because of some of the things that we've observed, our gaming clan has enacted really strict rules about this for our "junior league" members. Have adults that are privvy to all the conversations during on-line game play. Tell parents not to put the computer in the kid's bedroom. Have the parent install monitoring software and check up on what junior's up to on-line.

Major Super-Important Point - THE COMPUTER IS NOT A BABYSITTER. YOU MUST INTERACT WITH YOUR CHILD.

There are dozens of way more effective steps than taking down a blog or two. Explain to kids that real names and real places don't get used in blogs. Using someone's real name, or telling where they live, etc. should be cause for suspension.

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:Free Speech

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

What about when your kid reads Slashdot and uses OpenBSD with encrypted volumes at 15 years old and runs his browser in a chroot jail with connections being routed through TOR to a server via an SSL Tunnel?

Do like all other parents do in a similar situation: Put a blank stare on your face and go back watching TV.

Tax dollars...

[valkraider]

I see no problem with this sort of restriction in a private religious school, as long as they don't receive any tax dollars.

'doh!

Re:Tax dollars...

[izm]

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.

Re:Tax dollars...

[sig97]

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.

Re:Tax dollars...

[grimwell]

Also, freedom of speech is not a human right, it's a constitutional right

How about free will? Doesn't having free will also mean you have freedom of speech, regardless of what any law might or might not say? "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The constitution doesn't grant us the right of free speech, it merely attempts to protect it.

Re:Wait, wait, wait

[Grey_14]

Yeah, Your right, we should ignore any local issues and work on problems in other country's first.

Re:Wait, wait, wait

[aussie_a]

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.

Re:Wait, wait, wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't they be finishing up with China first?

Uh huh.

The problem's always somewhere OUT THERE isn't it?

The problem is that China is prohibiting Freedom of Speech, something they've never guaranteed their citizens, not that organizations and institutions in the US are starting to prohibit in a country FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM. Right?

The problem is that evil sexual predators OUT THERE are molesting our kids, not that the vast majority of children are molested and beaten by their own, often religiously zealous and dysfunctional, parents. Right?

The problem is that evil terrorists, who strangely haven't bothered us since 9/11, threaten our safety and security because they killed 3000 when tens of thousands die of cancer, pollution and ignorance every day. Not to mention the thousands of children who die from malnutrition and parental abuse. Right?

The problem's always out there. Don't look here. Nothing to see here. LOOK OVER THERE!

Yossarian

[airos4]

Then they can start signing the loyalty oaths to get to the mess tent... I do so love it when the world starts emulating something that was once a "dystopian nightmare"

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.

Well it could be like my school

[Anonymous Coward]

My school tracks down your blog and reads it. If you say anything in it(such as drug or alcohol use) you must take a drug test or are suspended until you do(if you try to fight them in court you only have 21 days because if you are out of school longer then that you fail for the year no matter what your grades are). I dont even know what happens if you talk about attacking the school. Its funny though the only way they figure out your blog because they gave everyone laptops and kids goto them and blog.

Re:Well it could be like my school

[gamblor87]

Its interesting to note how different school systems appear to be in Australia from the US. The MSN Spaces of people at my school (nerds and non-nerds alike) post pictures and stories about other students with no issues. We have a laptop programme, so every student has wireless internet access and their own computer. I have never heard of suspension over what is posted though. Has that happened before or is this all a hypothetical?
We are a fairly protected school in terms of internet and such. We have ContentKeeper running across the network to stop certain sites being shown but did step on a few toes when the Uniting Church, who own the school, discovered that their own website had been blocked under 'Personal Beliefs/Cults'. The problem was very quickly rectified! Also, if laptops are sent in for repair and Kazaa is discovered, you recieve disciplinary action (anything from detention to suspension) and your My Music or Shared Folder(s) are deleted with all the contents inside it. This is even if there is no indication it is being used over the network (hard, considering it is blocked).
Anyway, I shall be watching this thread closely, its interesting! I think it is taking matters way too far. Blogs are online journals. They are replacing the hard-bound journal of yester-year and record the thoughts of teenagers during their times at school. I think it is a healthy thing for students to be doing, provided that they do not disclose personal information openly. MSN Spaces are good for his, they can be limited to people who you know and who are on your contact list, so it becomes even less of an issue and more of a good thing.

stop blogging or get suspended?

[Anonymous Coward]

... wow, that must open some DOS attack potential. Blog using your friends/foes identity and get her suspended. Nice.

God Forbid

[miyako]

God Forbid the student's may run across people who might post ideas that run counter to the church.
In fact, some of them might not even be *gasp* Christian. The children might be promoted to *Horror* Question the Doctorine of the Church!
Please Someone Think Of The Children!
(Not anti-religion, just think that by highschool people should be making up their own minds about it. Shouldn't true belief and a relationship with whatever god(ess)(es) a person chooses to follow or not come from self reflection and soul serching instead of bullying, parental decree, and a lack of exposure to alternate viewpoints?)

Re:God Forbid

[wkitchen]

God Forbid the student's may run across people who might post ideas that run counter to the church

Heh, that reminds me of a cartoon I saw in a magazine many years ago (like 20 or so). A woman is in a school principal's office, chewing out the principal for corrupting her child's morals. The principal says "What did I do?". She replies "You taught him to read!".

Re:God Forbid

[SimonInOz]

What's wrong with being anti-religious? Personally I am definitely against anything that encourages folk to believe in things without proof (repeatable proof, at that).

This covers religion (no proof), witchcraft (no proof and definitely not repeatable), astrology, ghosts, even racial hatred (proof? of what).

I am in favour of people making decision on the basis of tested theories. I am in favour of people changing their behaviour when things they have previously believed turn out to be false. I am in favour of people questioning their beliefs.

Morals are a different question. But does being honest and trustworthy, and following an agreed set of rules make for a good and just society? Yes it does - this has been demonstrated repeatedly in history. Take away the rules and the countries/societies fall apart.

Doubt things. Test things. Do experiments. Be sceptical. Ask questions. Listen to other people's questions.

Think!

Isn't this what schools are about ... oh, sorry these are RELIGIOUS schools. And that's NOT what they are about, is it?

Re:God Forbid

[RexRhino]

So THAT is why schools aren't teaching kids how to read!

Re:God Forbid

[edunbar93]

What's wrong with being anti-religious?

Despite being an atheist, I strongly believe that I should treat others as I would want to be treated. And that includes ramming my religious beliefs down other people's throats. I would prefer that they don't do it to me, and thus I don't do it to them, even if they do do it to me.

Teaching By Example?

[dour power]

How does the school know what's best for the students when they are outside that environment? This plays right into the (unfortunately) common belief that school personnel are supposed to do the parenting for the students instead of the parents.

Not exactly the best way to show the young and impressionable how to deal with the world.

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.

Wow...

[Kickboy12]

The idea of a private school regulating student activity outside of school is not unheard of and there is a long tradition in it...

Sigh. I went to private school. They never pulled a bullshit move like this. They did make suggestions on what we should and shouldn't be doing outside of school, but they never enforced it.

To me, this is like drug testing in school. Basically the school is saying what you do outside of school is our buisness. When, in reality, it is not their buisness in any way, shape, or form what a student does on their own free time. Any statements otherwise, such as the ones in this article, can, and will, be taken as a act of Facism and Retardism par the anti-freedom act of the Bush Administration (2004).

Welcome to Theocracy. Leave your open-mindedness and revolutionary scientific theories at the gates of Hitler.

You have entered the anti-Twilight Zone.

Re:Wow...

[RexRhino]

Trust me, religious institutions have been making retarded demands of it's followers since the beginning of organized religion. Surely not posting blogs is less a restriction that, say, celibacy until marriage, or wearing a burhka, or animal sacrifice. Aren't arbitrary restrictions based on "faith in doctrine" and hierarchical decision making part of the defining qualities of religion? If it was "everyone do your own thing, we are open minded", it wouldn't be a proper religion, now wouldn't it?

And stupidity wasn't invented and patented by G. W. Bush. Many institutions that are run by people who claim to be opposed to G. W. Bush have policies against blogging, in order to "protect women", "protect people from hate speech", or _insert_random_politically_correct_jingoism_here_. If you think a Catholic school is a close minded hive of intolerant and monolithic thinking, try going to a public university!

I lived in sparta where the school is located

[Billly Gates]

I had old buddies who went there.

Its a strict school. Backwards too I may add.

They have disciplinary problems in the schools out there and jersey has a high precentage of lawsuits. I wanted to go to Pope John because I was being bullied and harrased daily in elementry school and I was hoping they could protect me.

I studied in a catholic school.

[Spy der Mann]

(I won't mention the name to protect the innocent yadda yadda). Here in Mexico the catholic way of life is quite different from the US - while in the US the catholics have (or had - VERY past tense) been kinda isolated from evangelical christians, here in Mexico, catholicism (at least the name) is the norm.

Catholic schools have been distinguished here for their strict morals, and I do feel grateful for my religion classes, despites their obvious shortcomings (I'd prefer the evangelical way - streamline, not creationist and the like - of teaching religion, i wish the religion classes had been more interactive and fun).

Anyway.

The problem with catholic schools is their own fame: Parents saw them as some kind of disciplinary schools. So what happens when you throw in a bunch of troublemakers, hoping a few teachers will put order in their little dirty minds?

All the bad words, dirty jokes and whatnot, I learned because of the students in the "best" school! And because I was a nerd (and shy) since I was little, I was always the target for bullies. Lesson: Bullying is OK, but getting even at bullies gets you reprimanded, a low grade on "conduct" and in the worst cases, kicked out. Of course, being good and earning the teachers' respect inside school, didn't save you from getting beaten OUTSIDE school on the way home!

Nice discipline, really (/sarcasm).

A few years later, this catholic high school became famous for the LACK of discipline by the students. I also feel grateful for having graduated before the decline of this particular school.

So, yes, the parent poster is right, the students have HELLUVALOT more to be worried about online predators.

Re:I studied in a catholic school.

[edunbar93]

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.

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.

silly british ka-nigits

[coyote4til7]

Instead of ranting here, I just went and posted a simple question on their website: when were they going to ban students from going to public places since it's oh so much easier for a predator to _follow_ a student. I'm sure there are plenty of other creative suggestions that could be posted at http://www.popejohn.org/

Oh... I stumbled on the fact there seems to have been two Pope John XXIII (either the journalist left out an X or there are two Pope John High Schools in Sparta NJ). The first was also called an Anti-Pope and (thanks Wikipedia!) and later charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest. Oh the irony, the irony!

Religious restrictions: News at 11!

[RexRhino]

Imagine that, a private religious institution actually making rules for it's memebers! The next thing you know, Jews won't be eating shelfish and Muslims won't be able to drink and eat a big hearty breakfeast during Ramadan.

We are one step away from a nightmare scenario where there might even be clubs were men meet to wear aprons and learn secret handshakes. Clearly this is a case were the government needs to step in! The government always brings freedom!

Geez, I don't know what this church is thinking! Normally religions have few restrictions, and they are all quite reasonable!

Re:Wait, wait, wait

[tjw]

Just the other day I read a story about the police arresting someone in my county for theft. I wish those anti theivery advocates would just finish up with Nigeria first.

Re:Could someone explain to me ...

[Spectra72]

Even other Christian sects think the Mormons are weird. Don't draw too many conclusions based on what the magical underpants group does.

protecting minors

[danharan]

Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators.

The threat is in the wild, untamed outside world. Trust us, we're the Catholic Church. We know how to recognize sexual predators!

Re:Wait, wait, wait

[Dominatus]

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.

depends on what "problem" you're trying to solve

[kaan]

Blog anonymously? That should solve the problem.

Obviously, the stated purpose is to protect the students from predators, so the problem appears to be "how to protect the students when they're on the internet". But - and I mean this with the utmost, non-flamebait sincerity - isn't a big part of Christianity the ability to control people and their behavior? And given that, is the problem instead, "how to maintain control over what the students say, think and do"?

To be fair, religion in general (not just Christianity) serves as a means of population control. It tells us when to be happy, when to be afraid, how to live, how not to live, how to treat each other, etc. And it keeps us all looking for the big payoff in the sky, instead of paying attention to the boring details of our mundane lives. But all of this is subjective and varies widely across different cultures, just like religion does.

I can't help but think part of this "student protection" plan is to in fact maintain a tighter hold on the students, including what they say and do on the internet.

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:Other Schools are doing this too

[vidarh]

Seems like a very reasonable policy to me. Instead of a blanket ban they are just asking parents to take responsibility and making sure students are careful about what they post, and in particular when that includes pictures/information about other students or staff.

What's the problem?

Re:Other Schools are doing this too

[sysadmn]

Sorry, as a parent, I think this letter is wholly appropriate. Instead of substituting his judgement for a parent's, he is asking parents to use their judgement about what is right for their kids. He's also putting parents and students on notice that those who might represent the school can be held accountable for their actions. That, in and of itself, is not unreasonable. If some kid gets bumped from the cheerleading squad for calling a teacher a doodyhead, then you can complain.

The Constitution and Catholics

[ricoder]

Joking aside, I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that a Catholic institution has no stake in protecting its students from online predators. This is like suggesting that a community (like say, a state such as MA) has no stake in protecting its citizens from murderers because the state has a certain percentage of murderers in it. Yes, there are predatory priests, but that does not define the Catholic church, nor its members.

Furthermore, Free Speech as provided by the First Ammendment, like so much of the Constitution, is completely misunderstood by a large portion of Americans, and a great deal of the rest of the world. There are pleanty of examples, not the least of which is the Dixie Chicks crying foul (and using the term censorship) when other free citizens decided to boycott their product. Free speech is for everyone, good and bad, and I'd argue that it is more important to protect the bad, since it needs the most protection. Having said that, and digressed, in this case the body silencing the speech is a private organization silencing its membership. That membership is neither a right, nor involuntary. They may do as they please legally, and the membership that doesn't like it can certainly leave.

Be careful what you wish for. If the fed gets control of what private organizations can do in every regard, its only a short put to your front door...your living room...your bedroom.

But hey...at least the term SPLOG wasn't used...

Re:The Constitution and Catholics

[RPoet]

The UN convention on the rights of children (ratified by every country on Earth except Somalia and USA) ensures children the right to freedom of expression. Children are not objects to be owned by their parents or the State like some precious pet. While experience is certainly needed in order to influence society, we need to give them access to an environment where such experience can be attained. If we deny them the right to express themselves freely, where will the experience come from? Children are kept in a bubble until they reach the age of majority, and then overnight they are expected to behave like responsible, reflecting adults. Many 18-year-old first-time voters are so inexperienced and immature that they hardly dare to think independently. What kind of effect does that have on a democracy?

Not a free speech issue

[Myria]

There are two important things here. First of all, this is a private high school. The First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, and even more so to religious private organizations *. Nor should it have to. If there is a problem with free speech, they can go to some other, possibly public school.

Even if the student is not going to a Catholic school by choice, the First Amendment does not apply. Although the government cannot restrict the free speech of a minor, the parent can. Parents are all-powerful with regards to their children, with the exception of a few things like abortion.

All in all, if I were running the school, I'd be far more worried about the clergy molesting the children than some outsider reading a web site.

*: Religious organizations, or more accurately non-profit organizations in general, really do have more freedom with their views. You can't fire someone from a normal job for saying "there is no heaven" (or another inoffensive but heretical statement). But you can certainly do that to your clergy. Freedom of speech and freedom of association both work this way.

Melissa

Good Intentions

[emjoi_gently]

After reading the article and the replies here....

To me it sounds like Good Intentions, badly implemented. It's not a matter of censorship or religion or anything like that.

Posting personal details on the Web is a bad, stupid, dangerous thing to do, especially for kids.
I've drilled that into my kids, who are much younger than these.

What is needed, and perhaps should be part of whatever computing studies kids do nowdays (already is?) is basic Internet Awareness.
Safe Sex for the Net.

The school needs someone to come in and instruct both the kids and the teachers, to cut down on the bad actions by the kids, and dumb reactions by the teachers.

Wait

[max born]

If Rev. Kieran McHugh is prohibiting students from posting online blogs to protect them from predators then the reason every other school is not doing the same is because either a) there's no problem with students posting blogs or b) he's wiser than all the other principals.

If it's really about protecting students I think he'd want educate them about the values of anonymity and the dangers of giving personal information when using the Internet.

Wednesday Morning

[Anonymous Coward]

Timmy,

Report to my office BEFORE HOMEROOM Wednesday morning.

Don't be late.

-Principal O'Brien

Online predators?

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

I read your newest blog entry. Your soul is mine. Muaahahahahaaa.

But what of the TEACHERS?

[Chris Tucker]

Will no one THINK of the TEACHERS?

From the school website:

"Teachers Sites

Mrs_Askin Mrs_Harrigan Mrs_Olsen
Mrs_Astor Mrs_Kalafsky Mrs_Partida
Mrs_Buniak Mr_Kenny Mr_Peck
Mrs_Covel Mrs_Morris Mrs_M.Ross
Ms_deVries Mr_Morro Mr_Vohden
Mr_Ferrise Mr_Nicholson
Mrs_Franc Mrs. O'Connell"

Look at all those websites! Surely, each and every one a target for the foul predators that lurk on the Internets!

Please, for their own good and safety, they must be PREVENTED from having their own websites!

Re:But what of the TEACHERS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they have no problem in posting the tennis team :) http://athletics.popejohn.org/girlstennis/Rosters/ 2005_varsity_roster.htm

Not surprised

[saskboy]

Blogging is known to be potentially dangerous. In fact I have no doubt that no fewer than 2 sexual beings have looked at my blog in the past hour. And we all know that sex is bad, so sexual beings must be bad too.

But seriously, kids should not be blogging their thoughts in public anyway. It's different if they do it as a kind of job, but otherwise their blogs are just insipid surveys and risk taking opinions that people outside of their trusted social circles should not be entitled to read. Children don't know any better, and can't deal with the consequences when things go awry. They can't even sue someone for libel, or defend themselves directly in a libel suit.

Free access vs safe lifes

[VincenzoRomano]

The point here should not be free speech. The constitution (with some minor exceptions) will grant us that.
Would you feel safe if anyone could chat with your younger sons?
Having a blog can expose your identity and your internet presence to anyone.
Younger people (but not only them) can be easily nobbled by older and more experienced people. You can read about the results in everyday newspaper.
Shutting down their blogs may not be the right move. Not at all actually. But something is to be done definitely.
Instead of talking about religion parties being more or less stupid, it could be great is someone of us could come out with some better idea to protect our sons!

Re:Free access vs safe lifes

[vidarh]

The first thing to realise is that most abuse is being conducted by family/close relatives and friends of the family. Focusing on predatory behaviour on the internet is stealing focus away from the real problem. In the UK the NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children) did research a few years ago where it was shown that only around 25% of abuse of children was carried out by people who were strangers to the child.

Stopping blogs or chatting or other online behaviour won't stop that. It will only teach them that they need to hide what is going on in their life from you - destroying trust may very well prove to do far more damage to their safety than not by stopping them from telling you about worrying things before it develops further.

Re:Too bad.

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Are you implying that blogs are supposed to be read? I thought those were the places where characters go when you press backspace.

Catholic School

[zdzichu]

No one expected the Spanish Inquisition!

Tax dollars have nothing to do with it

[Kelson]

The question is, what right does the school have to limit what the students do at home, on their own time?

Is it within the school's rights to suspend anyone who watches an R-rated movie, even if their parents are present?

Suppose someone reads books not on the approved list -- at home? Plays D&D on the weekends? Dates someone of another religion (again, not on school time)? Eats junk food?

What gives the school the right to dictate the student's personal life when the student is not on school property or engaged in a school function? And if something does give them that right, where does it stop?

The First Amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

... protects citizens from GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED restraints on speech. Private institutions such as Catholic schools and private employers are immune.

Seriously. Look it up and then stop complaining about how CowboyNeal* is infringing on your rights.

* not a federal institution

freedom and age

[delirium of disorder]

Before I get into a rant, I'd like to say: What's the big deal about teens and sex anyways? In my experience, young people rather enjoy it and don't need to be protected from any predators any more then anyone else does (anyone who forces non-consensual physical activity on another, regardless of the age of the victim or the attacker, is a criminal and should be treated as such). Any consensual physical activity is a right (regardless of the age of the participants). I think adults (especially Catholic priests) are sexually frustrated and afraid that they are attracted to teens. This attraction is just a biochemical response that normal people generally have to physically fit members of the opposite gender (and sometime the same) who are old enough to be fertile. Because they are repressed and for stupid cultural reasons they want to repress the rest of us, they hide their own desires by over reacting and trying to imagine that young people are not sexual. They censor both because of personal embarrassment and because of the sense of power they get by manipulating others.

How can we label people "free" and give them the rights free-thinking people deserve if we allow them to grow up totally ensconced in conservative ideology?

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. --attributed to Thomas Jefferson

But...teaching without both free access to different points of view, and the freedom to express your own point of view, is not real education, it is only indoctrination. If children aren't given the opportunity to receive all kinds of knowledge, they accept uncritically whatever traditional "values" their parents believe in simply because their parents are close to them. When parents are given total control of where their children can spend their time, the child's intellectual development is totally at the mercy of the parent. Adults can, if they make enough of an effort, completely shape a child's world. And yet, If we were to emancipate children from the grip of their parents, most of us would immediately force them into some other state institution (public schools, most likely) which would be a violation of both the liberty of the student, and the freedom of the parent to "own" their child.

Despite legal adulthood being set at 18, the age in which we are given full human rights is for the most part not well agreed upon in America. For example, various states in the US have different and conflicting age of consent laws that allow for sexual freedom anywhere form age 14 to 18. Many young teens (junior high or middle school age) have detailed enough knowledge and a strong enough sense of responsibility that I would trust them to vote or drive cars. There are many legal adults age 18 and up that don't deserve these privileges. Age is an unfair and inconsistent measure of whether one deserves human rights or social privileges. Also, please note that when I refer to children in this post, I mean any human under that age of 18, a large portion of which are more knowledgeable then an average adult especially regarding information technology. I am not just talking about little kids.

Children in America really are an oppressed group; parents here can use coercion to force feed their kids whatever sick ideals they stand for. The United States and Somalia are the only two nations to have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Nearly American seams to end up having "Faith" (false conviction in unjustified propositions) in the same God that there parents did. Funny how our respect for parents "rights" to control their kids leads to the propagation of violent and idiotic ideas like Christian fundamentalism and racis

Re:depends on what "problem" you're trying to solv

[CaptainCarrot]

But - and I mean this with the utmost, non-flamebait sincerity - isn't a big part of Christianity the ability to control people and their behavior?

No, not at all. That's a ridiculous (although not uncommon) caricature. I won't deny that occasionally Christianity has become a tool of the state, and in those cases it has become one of a number of means by which the state attempts to control its population, but control over the masses is really foreign to the Christian ethic. It's far more about the individual learning to control himself. When it becomes about controlling others, it devolves into a mere cult.

It indeed is intended to draw focus away from earthly things -- or rather, one earthly thing: the self. The only path to heaven is on earth, by doing good for others, treating them the way you would wish to be treated, giving what is needed. It is all about serving others. Most Christians do not forget the admonition in one of the Epistles that faith without works is dead.

If this is "population control", then so be it.

A Better Solution - LiveJournal

[osmodion]

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.

Re:No age limit?

[mpe]

Children aren't free to do whatever they want. They're more or less controlled by their guardian. Do you think the founding fathers passed the bill of rights with children in mind?

The criteria of "child" has varied over time. Thus maybe the question should be along the lines of "Would current High School students be considered children according to the standards of the late 18th century?"

Is it a bank? No it's a Catholic High School

[alanw]

http://www.catholicism.org/school.html

http://www.catholicism.org/ibank.barclays.co.uk/ol b/p/LoginMember.do/index.htm

Re:depends on what "problem" you're trying to solv

[millennial]

No, actually. Religion isn't about control. Religion draws people in who realize that they can get power over others by pretending to be more pious. It isn't that religion is meant to control people, it's that people abuse religion to control people. Religion is okay; religious PEOPLE can be bad. Further, if you don't like dogmatic beliefs, religion can be bad, while faith - a personal belief - is okay.

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.

The key thing to realize here:

[millennial]

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.

Nail it to the door instead

[ka9dgx]

Instead of doing an online blog, just make about 95 posts or so, and nail it to the door of the school instead. It worked for Martin Luther. ;-)

--Mike--

Am I the only one that sees the irony here?

[zeenixus]

let's see. A Catholic institution makes a big hurrah about 'saving the children' from external (internet) predators.

The last time I checked, the catholic church is far more interested protecting it's predatory clergy than any children. And when confronted about such abuses and the ensuing coverups, the catholic church does what any major corrupt organisation would do: deny it, call them isolated incidents, white wash it, boldly lie about it, and most of all, refuse to do anything about it (not necessarily in that order).

A website..

[Digz]

here collates stories of Protestant abuse as well.

But what of the TEACHERS? Oh, the hypocricy.

[Chrontius]

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.

Control

[halber_mensch]

This whole issue is not about safety, not about precaution, and definitely not about education. It is about control. Religion is not content to being a part of a person's life; as an organization it seeks to dominate all influences to the person. Hence why we have such an outcry from the religious right for things such as prayer in schools, banning of abortion, banning of homosexual relationships, et cetera ad infinitum. These people are not content to live their own lives, but feel a great desire to dominate the lives of others because they really can't play well with the other children. Now in this situation in Sparta, Reverend McHugh has simply seen a way to infiltrate his students' lives outside of school and has taken action on it, assured that the parents will not risk protecting their children from this social predator because of the cash they blow on tuition and the social ramifications of being ostricized in the catholic 'community' for disagreeing with the clergy.

Aside from free speech type issues...

[eth1]

Anyone else think that a policy like this would be horribly easy to abuse?

Student: *create new blog*
"hi! My name is (name of person that cut in front of me in the lunch line yesterday). My school sucks and the principal is a gay child molester."

Principal: "What you say?!" *expel*

Why attack religon?

[elmerf9001]

Umm, this story is about privacy... And it turns into a Catholic bashing session? Come on folks, EVERY religon has its faults. But I believe people should have the choice whether to believe in a Supreme being or not. If are you an aethist that is your choice, but please don't critize people becuase the the choice they have made... About how gravitating back to the original meaning of the story? I believe it was about Freedom of Speech...

sometimes students are the predators...

[issachar]

I teach and run the network at a small independent Christian school in British Columbia. One issue that came up last year was bullying via internet. The typical student verbal bullying can get even nastier when it's done online oddly enough. (I don't know why that is, perhaps the physical separation computers provide reduces the "think before you speak" mentality).

Annonymity does a lot less for protection from predators when the predators are your peers.

I see this as a problem without a very good solution. I actually have my students create anonymous blogs in my classes and I go through the dangers of putting personal information online. I prefer a "teach discernment and good judgement in a relatively safe environment" rather than a reactionary approach, but it's still not a perfect solution.

I could see why a school might resort banning blogs if they have some of the worse problems. Still, it's a difficult rule to enforce. Actually, it might be a good test. If it's anonymous enough that no one can find it, then you don't need to shut it down. /kidding. :)

Re:Students will love it

[mu-sly]

Well, when people have a generally easy life, it breeds apathy about such things as free speech, freedom from excessive government intervention in daily life, going to war and so on.

I'm part of the NO2ID campaign here in the UK, campaigning against the compulsory biometric ID cards that the UK government are trying to introduce. Our main problem in finding supporters is not that people think ID cards are a good idea, just that the average member of the public out there really couldn't give a shit... about anything... as long as they have an easy life.

They don't know or care about history, they just pay their taxes, get in line and do what they are told to do. Don't dare require them to think for themselves!

It's why kids here are more than happy to skip school - why should they care, life is easy! Check another country like Uganda, where truancy is absolutely non-existent. Sure, the kids are only getting a basic education, but because life is hard and they've seen some serious shit, they appreciate every little scrap of chance that someone hands them.

People wonder why history repeats itself? It's because when you have it really easy, nobody gives enough of a shit to stop something terrible from happening, which brings the cycle back round again.

So don't be surprised that these kids don't see why freedom of speech is important - far too many of them have no cares in the world, as long as they get it easy.

Yours sincerely,
Captain Obvious

Thank God Someone is Protecting the Children

[srobert]

"Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators."

Thank God we have Catholic authorities to protect the children from all of the perverts out there in the world.

Re:Could someone explain to me ...

[rthille]

I tend to bash religion because a central tenet of most religions is to accept without question. That is, "have faith". And when you have a group of people who have been conditioned since a very young age to accept things passed down 'from a higher authority' without question it's very possible for the 'higher authority' to abuse that power.

Re:depends on what "problem" you're trying to solv

[CaptainCarrot]

This is a nifty little sermon, but you've missed the mark. Of course it's about obeying the commands of Jesus Christ. I even provided links to one of the more important. But this is accomplished from within, not from external control, which is the subject under discussion. In other words, it's not the control imposed by the earthly Church organization that saves you -- although voluntarily submitting yourself to it can help -- but it's about the transformation of the self in following Christ.

I pity you that your brand of Christianity operates through fear, as you attest. It is far better to aspire to heaven from love God.

Re:I call BS

[Kelson]

Agreed!

I think the problem with this discussion is that people are arguing two different issues.

Position A: It's wrong for an institution to do this.
Position B: No, it's perfectly legal.

But B isn't responding to A -- A's position isn't that it's illegal, but that it's wrong. And B isn't saying it's right, but that it's legal.

Legality and morality are two separate issues that happen to intersect in a number of places (murder being both immoral and illegal) but differ in others (it's perfectly legal to cheat on your girlfriend, but few people would claim that it's moral to do so -- and many would argue it's immoral to be sleeping with her in the first place).

Back to your post, I've never understood the blind faith in private enterprise that big-L Libertarians seem to have. The idea seems to be that the corporations will save us from the government. That's kind of like hoping that a tiger will save you from a lion. I say throw the lion and the tiger in a pit and let them keep each other busy.

John XIII?

[ZhangFei]

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/