Slashdot Mirror
Students Banned from Blogging
wayward writes "Students at Pope John XIII, a Catholic high school, were told to take down their blogs from sites like Xanga and MySpace or face suspension. Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators. Not too surprisingly, free speech advocates got more than a little concerned.
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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
Electric Monkey Pants
Blog anonymously? That should solve the problem.
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!
Stop spouting the Post Anonymously crap, while I dont agree with the good Reverend he is objecting to blogs where the student post a picture, their name and other personal details.
serenity now!
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.
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?)
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
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.
(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.
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.
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...
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
I read your newest blog entry. Your soul is mine. Muaahahahahaaa.
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!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
No one expected the Spanish Inquisition!
:wq
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.
... 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
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.
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
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*