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.

19 of 876 comments (clear)

  1. Constitutional protections.... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Constitutional protections.... by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:Constitutional protections.... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Constitutional protections.... by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Constitutional protections.... by belmolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Constitutional protections.... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
    6. Re:Constitutional protections.... by MullerMn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you write songs for Emo bands?

    7. Re:Constitutional protections.... by Jonner · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
  2. believe me... by Paladin144 · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

    1. Re:believe me... by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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..

  3. Can't they just... by Red+Samurai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blog anonymously? That should solve the problem.

    1. Re:Can't they just... by Grey_14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Can't they just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Why should they have to hide their identity from their SCHOOL?

      Because it's full of Catholic priests?

  4. Well it could be like my school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Other Schools are doing this too by JRW129 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. The Constitution and Catholics by ricoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. But what of the TEACHERS? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  8. Re:Free access vs safe lifes by vidarh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  9. The First Amendment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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