Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case

An anonymous reader writes "A student who brought a suit against his middle school has been awarded a settlement after two years of legal battles. USAToday reports that the suit was brought after the school leveled harsh disciplinary measures against the student, based entirely on comments made to his website guestbook." From the article: "Grayson Barber, who handled the case on behalf of the ACLU, said the school presented no evidence that Dwyer's comments were threatening or disruptive of school activities. 'Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression.'"

Comments

Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[dartmouth05]

Students have free speech rights--they are limited for the special circumstances of the school house environment, but it is undeniable that public school students have certain 1st Amendment rights. A website, written from a home computer, would seem a rather obvious example of free speech that cannot be punished by school administrators, especially if the punished speech was in a guest comments section that the student may not have written himself.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[ryanr]

And yet there have been way too many cases where school officials punish a student for something done off-campus. I can think of several on-line posting examples like this one, and one case where a student was suspended because a principal saw her jaywalking around town, or similar.

I'm happy to see this ruling.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[MindStalker]

Quite possibly the speach itself was physically threatening to certain people at the school. Such speach is not protected. What the school did not understand was that simply offering a forum for free speach does not hold the forum creator instantly liable for the speach in said forum. Possibly if takedown request to the individual messages that contained threatening speach were ignored only then would there be a case against the forum owner.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

S-P-E-E-C-H

Spell it with me now... Speech. Speech.

Good, you've got it!

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Total_Wimp]

Possibly if takedown request to the individual messages that contained threatening speach were ignored only then would there be a case against the forum owner.

Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU. In this case, however, the school decided that it's own more stringent rules trumped law and they metered punishement without so much as a trial.

If it weren't a state-run institution, if our young citizens weren't compelled to attend school by law and if the offense had actually occured on school grounds then these punishments may have been acceptable. But when a citizen is compelled by law to be a member of an institution and then that instutution can institute rules that extend to all other aspects of the citizen's life and then when those rule can supercede state and federal law, well, then you have a problem.

TW

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Petey_Alchemist]

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

But it really depends on whether or not they have a "code of conduct" clause in their student handbook.

Incidentally, IANAL, but I was disciplined in high school for making a website that criticized a fellow student at the school. Rather, I was disciplined for viewing the website, and fell prey to a rarely-invoked clause about viewing webpages with profanity in them, and for printing it out to show people. They did say they could do nothing to me because I made it at home--and my vice-principal was a lawyer, so perhaps there's something to that...

In any case, they can nail you on a small thing and enforce maximum punishment for something like that. Normal punishment for what I did was to have your computer privileges taken away for a week. I was banned from school computers for the rest of the school year and received two Saturday detentions.

Like I said, maximized penalties based on minor infractions. Like my senior year when, while I was involved in a public dispute with the school board and administration about their underhanded and corrupt tactics on a planned schedule change, I was suspended for going into the girls bathroom.

Course, I was with two junior girls at the time.

Oh high school.

--Petey

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[rpresser]

Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU.

Please turn your brain on before posting.

The speech in question was message board comments, posted by visitors, not by the boy himself. Even if that speech was threatening, the boy is blameless. I would be supporting him in such a case; the ACLU would join me; and if you wouldn't, well, I won't threaten you for such a viewpoint but I certainly would look askance. And vocally decry your decision.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Total_Wimp]

um, sure. You're right. Except the article pretty clearly states that the assertion by the school board was that Dwyer was responsible for the speech in question and Dwyer's defense was that the school had no right to govern his speach.

From the article:

The settlement of the lawsuit brought nearly two years ago follows a decision by a federal judge ruling that Oceanport school administrators violated Ryan Dwyer's free speech rights.

and

"While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly, I'm hopeful this will help ensure that free speech rights of students aren't trampled on again in the future," said Dwyer, who is now in 11th grade.

Clearly everyone in the case saw this as a case of Dwyer's right, or lack thereof, to say whatever he wants outside of school grouds, not a matter of whether Dwyer or his guestbook poster should be held responsible. I was merely pointing out that if Dwyer had said something truly threatening, the police, and not his school, should be the government agency taking action.

TW

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[eosp]

The "modified 1st amendment" that applies in schools can only be used if the act "disrupts the educational process." For example, the black armband.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Anonymous Cowpat]

can you explain something here for those of us not from, er, wherever you're from.
How does a school keep kids in for a detention on a Saturday? Saturday isn't a school day (is it?) so you'd actually have to turn up there voluntarily to be kept in. Doesn't anyone ever say "uuuh no. Your authority ends at 3:30 PM on Friday and doesn't start again until 9AM Monday, so yaa-boo sucks to you" ?
Compelling kids to come in on a Saturday for detention seems to be the ultimate in schools invading on what kids do on their own time, why is no-one hopping up and down about it?

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[BlueCodeWarrior]

I had a friend who got suspended from my old high school because of comments he made on his web site.

Granted, he was trying to critisize the President, and didn't type with very good grammar and spelling. I didn't see exactly what he wrote, but his 'I couldn't care less if the President would die right now,' was taken as a threat, and he actually got investigated by the FBI...under house arrest for months, endless legal trouble...

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[John Courtland]

Having served many Saturday detentions, I often wondered about this myself. I am unsure as to the exact way they do this, I would assume they can restrict your entrance to the school the following Monday if you don't show up on Saturday, and that could just escalate into a suspension. For some reason, nobody, from what I can remember, ditched a Saturday and was there on Monday. I don't even remember if anyone really ditched a Saturday. I never did and now I wish I had so I would know what they could actually do about it.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Petey_Alchemist]

Um...never thought about it. It's SOP. It's considered within the school's prerogative to compel you to be at school on a Saturday for disciplinary reasons, I suppose. Usually Saturday detentions are awarded if you've skipped some regular detentions.

I mean, by your logic, regular after school detentions aren't ok either.

I never thought about it that way, true, but I think this is a good example of school's disciplinary powers reaching beyond what is normally considered the school.

--Petey

I'm from New Hampshire. But most people I know from most places had to deal with the spectre of a Saturday detention hanging over their heads...

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Petey_Alchemist]

At my school, it would normally go like this:

Student gets a detention. Skips it.

Student, for skipping detention, gets a Saturday. Skips that.

Student suspended for skipping a Saturday. Gets a couple days off from school, which was the point in the first place.

Generally, the kids who skipped their first detentions were fine with missing school, and my school didn't have the cojones or personnel to enforce in-school suspensions, nor the desire to put kids in the streets by expelling them.

--Petey

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Petey_Alchemist]

Not entirely. Review the Hazelwood decision, which strictly redefined the Tinker to which you referred. The black armband, actually, was found to have not disrupted the education process, contrary to what you posted.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Anonymous Cowpat]

well, no, they're not. It's only a shy short of imprisonment (if for a very short time) meted out by someone who isn't the courts with no opportunity for the person being punished to defend themselves. If it wasn't the practise and someone suggested it now, I suspect that they'd be laughed at. A lot. I suppose in a similar way as people who haven't grown up with the death penalty seeing it as barbaric, if people weren't used to the idea of schools giving kids detention since forever they'd be pretty outraged at the idea.

Moving the topic to the side a bit. School administrators - what? When I was in school we had ~ 4 members of 'administrative' staff and they had no contact with the pupils - everything was dealt with by teachers of one sort or another. The school was 'ruled' by the teachers who had non-teaching type people to help them. Not a school run by administrators which also employed teachers to teach kids.

I'm from the UK, incase you're wondering what all the questioning is for.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[GooberToo]

In *public* schools, it is yet to be seen if a "code of conduct" can abridge any federal right. Sure, they may think they have clout...and they may even dance around like foolish clowns, but the reality is, in public schools, the schools are actually fairly restricted in what they can "govern" by their "code of conduct" as it pertains to federally granted rights. You know it, I know it, they know it. Just depends on how big an ass is running the school.

It really just boils down to, how far do you want to take it...and it really helps if the ACLU is there by your side to help run it along.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Petey_Alchemist]

The U.K. is run very differently from the U.S.

No, but see the schools act as parents. It's called in loco parentis, and it's well defined in American law. Schools are allowed to discipline students as they see fit in order to better the educational experience of other students. Detentions are considered a deterrent--Saturday detentions, even more so.

Most schools here have a principal and at least two vice principals. They handle all the disciplining, administative manners, etc. They regularly have contact with pupils, and are very involved with the everyday running of the school.

--Petey

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[berzerke]

...You know it, I know it, they know it. Just depends on how big an ass is running the school...

Except the "ass" won't have to foot the bill for any judgement against the school. Probably won't get fired for it either. Maybe a transfer at worst. That enviroment kind of encourages such actions.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[NanoGator]

"Course, I was with two junior girls at the time."

Could you elaborate, preferably with imagery?

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[DeafByBeheading]

The right not to have to censor potentially offensive comments in his guestbook is part of Dwyer's right to free speech.

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[Petey_Alchemist]

I would, but it would be illegal ;)

But I assume you heard about the recent Carolina Panthers incident?

Sort of like that, only it never went that far. Unfortunately for me.

--Petey

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[FLEB]

A threat of apathy against the President?!?

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[ademaskoo]

Alot of us have made websites like this. I made one against my high school administration by posting a 22 page journal (single spaced type), which was SEVERLY damning to those involved (the site was appropriately titled "My Story"). But I wasn't suspended or anything because I posted the site live one day after graduation :-) The site was actually kind of famous. I got around 400-5000 visits to the site every month. I feel kind of bad now for taking it down after 3 years. . .

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[SillySlashdotName]

Addressing your second point, another of my (many) pet irritations.

In the beginning, the Intelligent Designer - (chorus from the cheap seats - and Kansas) "Amen, brother!", "Praise the Intelligent Designer!" - created schools to TEACH, and people went because either they wanted to learn, or their parents wanted them to learn and get educated and get good, well paying jobs so they didn't have to starve to death in the snow. Those that didn't care if they starved or not didn't go to school, and no one cared. Their frozen corpses were often put in insulated sheds and used by the rich to keep malt beverages cool during the summer.

And the Intelligent Designer saw that it was good.

Then someone noticed that only the wealthy were going to school - the nonwealthy were getting childlabor jobs to help support their families - and that has to be unfair somehow, so a law was passed that before entering town, the driver had to fire a shotgun into the air to warn the local horses that one of those new fangled horseless carriages was coming by. That did not help the school situation, so another law was passed, this time making it illegal to employ children in dangerous jobs and during school hours. The theory seemingly being that all the suddenly unemployeed, starving children would have to go to school.

When the overcrowding in the pool halls became a problem - not to mention the motorcycle gangs and blatant sneaking into and out of movie theaters to see the second show WITHOUT PAYING! - another law was passed stating that if two trains meet at a crossing, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. Again, their good intentions didn't seem to have the desired outcome, so yet another law was created, stating that all children shall be required to attend school until their 18th birthday. This seemed to have a more profound effect, and Paul Newman and Jackie Gleason went on to have acting careers in the suddenly empty poolhalls - as did Tom Cruise, unfortunately...

An unintended side effect of this new law was to creat an entire new class of criminal - the TRUANT. On the plus side, the vast number of previously idle truant officers now had a directive to enforce. Of course, to know who was a criminal, someone had to be hired to track attendance and notify the authorities when those dangerous school-skippers were not where they were supposed to be - namely in school, associating with the other, law abiding childred, fomenting rebellion.

So now the schools are teaching AND monitoring attendance.

At some point, it was noticed that people were paying more to see mens football than womens knitting club, so ANOTHER law was passed, making it illegal to fly a kite in Washington DC. When that had little noticable effect, congress got into the act and passed Section 8. When the housing assistance laws did not have the desired effect either, Title XIX was made law, telling the schools they had to fund the massively money losing womens sports equally as well as the money making mens sports - even though that made no financial, logical, or - until this time, legal - sense. Of course, to monitor compliance, many, many reports and documents had to be submitted to the government, so some more people were hired to create reports and to actually montitor the sports programs and coaches - except Bobby Knight, of course - as well as staffing the new government agencies the reports were being sent to.

So now the schools were teaching, monitoring and reporting attendance to the Federal Bureau of Mandatory Schooling, and monitoring and reporting on the sports situation. (Strange to think, but it required making decisions based on sex in order to prove you are not making decisions based on sex.)

Next, some parent found out that Billy Bob was beating up on their darling child, and sued and won on the grounds that the school 'should do something about it!'. More documentation, more reporting, more oversight, more people, more supervisors, more enforcers.

Now the schools were teaching, m

Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion

[rpresser]

And you STILL can't spell speech .

Pure Profit

[s-twig]

$100,000 isn't bad for your first website.

Re:Pure Profit

[ecklesweb]

Why do I think that the kid isn't going to see much of that $117,000? If it's been in court for two years, there are some legal bills mounting somewhere, and I wouldn't think it surprising or even wrong if the ACLU took a big ass cut to pay for the services it rendered.

Anyone know for sure whether the ACLU takes a percentage of judgements or settlements to offset litigation costs when one of its clients wins?

Re:Pure Profit

[Stealth Potato]

That would really suck if that were the case, since I think the kid has earned that $117,000 for sticking it out for two whole years. Seems like there might be some justification for stupidly-high multi-million-dollar jury-awarded settlements after all: after the inevitable appeals, expenses, and legal bills, there's just not that much left!

Re:Pure Profit

[cpt kangarooski]

It's really quite variable depending on the case, the jurisdiction, and so on. I doubt there's a standard practice, although remember that the ACLU's work is not like a typical plaintiff's firm's.

At any rate, even if it were on contingency, that tops out at about a third. Contingency fees are a gamble; sometimes you win big, sometimes you get about what your rate would've been, and sometimes the lawyer ends up worse off than if he had never taken the case.

Re:Pure Profit

[svyyn]

Oftentimes (about half), when the ACLU takes a case, the plaintiff agrees to no damages and have only legal fees awarded. To the best of my knowledge (and I have worked with the WVCLU for several years), they always ask for legal fees, which are almost always awarded before damages. Since this is damages, the ACLU will likely not take a cut, but will have also collected legal fees beyond the $117k. However, I do not trust the article to have accurately reflected the differences and to not have simply lumped both sums together.

Just as well

[dakirw]

It's a good thing that the school district got its hand slapped for enforcing a stupid rule and then refusing to state the rule that was violated. How can someone be held liable for what another person put in a guestbook? And then to top it off, suspending a kid from school and not allowing him to go on a field trip or play sports for no justification? Jeez, at least tell the guy exactly what rule he violated. That school district just taught its students a lesson in the abuse of authority.

Re:Just as well

[techwrench]

"The school district has never -- to this day -- explained to us what rule or policy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father." According to the article, there was no stated rule, stupid or otherwise.

Re:Just as well

[Surt]

Yep, they taught their students you can get big $$$ when you abuse the authorities.

Re:Just as well

[Anonymous Coward]

In my high school, any activity the administration didn't like was a violation of a rather broad rule where students weren't allowed to distrupt the educational environment.

I was once sent to the Vice Principal's office for reading a book in class - the textbook for that class.

To be fair, I was ignoring the teacher, since she was very repetitive, and she generally disliked me since I disputed the political slant of her lectures.

Re:Just as well

[Surt]

Wow, moderated troll for an on-topic post. Way to go mods. Who exactly was being trolled for?

Re:Just as well

[Red Alastor]

I was once sent to the vice principal because I lost my pencil case and when they found it, there was an empty bottle of aspirins in it. He asked me for 15 minutes if it used to contained something I was selling.

Re:Just as well

[Surt]

Hopefully what the students will learn is that when you stand up to abusive authorities you stand to win big $$$.

Re:Just as well

[xclay]

Well, considering the experience that I had with a youth group that I had served some time ago, I can totally understand why they would suspend such a spoiled student.

Re:Just as well

[DavidTC]

s/abuse/get abused by/

Re:Just as well

[Thing 1]

Actually, if the school board had gotten away with not telling the student which of their farcical "laws" they violated, they would have taught the student a lesson in the proper abuse of authority. (Of course, these lessons are rarely learned right, because the climate changes and the student then becomes the incarcerated...)

Re:Just as well

[Surt]

I meant it as it was, in the meaning of bringing the lawsuit as a form of abuse.

How much?!?

[afaik_ianal]

While I completely agree that the school was in the wrong... $117,500???

How do the courts justify a payment of that much money over some relatively minor punishment (It's not like the punishment was cruel or unusual).

Re:How much?!?

[greginnj]

Ok, fine, how little will you accept to have your free-speech rights violated?
...
Oh, that little?
...

Maybe you just don't have all that much worth saying, then?


As Ben Franklin said, "Madam, we've already established what you are; now, we are just haggling over price."

Re:How much?!?

[falcon5768]

simple

cost of the lawyer + losses for having to go through a trial when the accusation couldnt hold up in court.

Re:How much?!?

[drxenos]

Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Authority only responds to a kick in the nuts not a nab from the cookie jar. They will think twice about violating another students Unrevokeable rights when it cost them 120,000$ a pop.

Re:How much?!?

[Androk]

I was going to Mod, but wanted to rrreply instead. 117,500 is a lot of money, they point is that now we have people's attention. If they said here's $1,000, school districts would keep abusing their athority. This makes it so school districts might actually think before acting Androk

Re:How much?!?

[slavemowgli]

It's supposed to act as a deterrent - not just in this case, but also as a warning to all other schools in the country that might have similar rules. Essentially, it says "freedom of speech *is* an important thing, and you can't just arbitrarily deny your students this freedom - and if you try, you'll get a real punishment for it, something that actually hurts as opposed to just the metaphorical slap on the wrist".

Re:How much?!?

[GigsVT]

This is tax money we are talking about here. Why should the residents of New Jersey, the students of that school district, and to a lesser extent, the entire nation (some federal money trickles down to school districts), pay for the oppressive actions of a few idiot administrators?

I'm in total agreement with you regarding free speech, but don't lose perspective here.

Re:How much?!?

[southpolesammy]

I'm sure it'll be justified in ways such as lost opportunities, black marks on the education record that will cause certain undergraduate schools to shy away from such as candidate, and so forth. However, the real reason is the courts smacking the school district for violating the rules, and if they were to do it again, it would be 10x as much.

Of course, the irony is that residents in the school district will ultimately foot the bill, so in essence, although the Dwyer's win, they lose as well. If the court had really wanted to serve justice, some school officials should have been given the boot today.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) That's George Bernard Shaw, not Benjamin Franklin, and 2) setting an appropriate penalty for an action isn't stating that that's your price for accepting that action.

Re:How much?!?

[metlin]

I guess this is to strongly discourage similar incidents in the future - if it was a lighter fine, the school (or other schools) would be tempted to do the same thing time and again.

A large fine would largely be detrimental to such actions.

More importantly, it becomes imperative that such offenses to the very fundamental fabric of free speech should not be treated lightly, no matter what the situation. Else it would not be undermining the incident, it would be undermining free speech.

And sometimes, people only understand force and authority and a large fine reinforces the importance and gravity of the situation, and at the same time showing that such incidents will not be dealt with lightly.

Precedence in law is a wonderful thing. ;)

Re:How much?!?

[GigsVT]

Why would it be a deterrant? This is a public school we are talking about here. They aren't going to go bankrupt. They have no profit motive. They just have more reason to whine to the state to get a bigger budget next year because their schools are falling apart.

Re:How much?!?

[serutan]

For some reason the whole usatoday site comes up as a blank page for me so I can't read the article, but $117,500 such an odd amount I wonder how much of it is to cover the kid's legal fees. Maybe all of it?

Re:How much?!?

[applemasker]

Did anyone RTFA?

They SETTLED - the Board came up with the offer and the kid and his parents accepted it.

The Board was most likely advised that they risked higher exposure if this case went to trial in the form of punitive damages and attorney's fees which are available in cases like this where government entites are found to have violated constititional rights (like, in this case, speech).

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the residents of New Jersey, the students of that school district, and to a lesser extent, the entire nation (some federal money trickles down to school districts), pay for the oppressive actions of a few idiot administrators?

The residents of New Jersey, and to a lesser extent the entire nation, bear responsibility for the idiot administrators that their representatives hire and put in positions of authority. The people are responsible for the government. Like it or not.

Re:How much?!?

[servognome]

Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?

I'll shut up for $50,000 :)

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does that make when your 'elected' government is taking away all your other rights? You are getting locked into a 'secure' police-state more each day...

Well, at least you can bitch about it!

Re:How much?!?

[murphyslawyer]

This is tax money we are talking about here. Why should the residents of New Jersey, the students of that school district, and to a lesser extent, the entire nation (some federal money trickles down to school districts), pay for the oppressive actions of a few idiot administrators?

I disagree - I think the taxpayers are the perfect candidates to pay this fine.

After all, they voted the school board into office.

Re:How much?!?

[afaik_ianal]

So fine them - that seems like a more equitable way of detering.

Re:How much?!?

[ThomaMelas]

It's a deterrant because that administrator is probley going to be drawing unemployment. No one is going to give that school board the funds to cover it. So this leaves the board of Ed one of two options: Raise taxes and keep the admins while having to explain it at the polls, or raise taxes and fire the admin while saying it was a one time mistake and they didn't recomend him (or did with reservations) at the polls. Would you bet for you job if you losing it helps an elected offical keep his?

Re:How much?!?

[AviLazar]

Gimmie 50 cents and I won't tell you

Re:How much?!?

[Jtheletter]

Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?

The problem with this case is that the penalty is very high for what amounted to inconveniences on the part of the student. Don't get me wrong, I think the school was clearly in the wrong and when I was a student I had similar "inconveniences" inflicted on me by overactive school admins, and it is disruptive to a student and can be problematic. However to argue that $117,000 worth of damages were done seems overly harsh. Of course that figure probably is also intended to cover lawyer fees and time lost by the family due to the court case, but it is still a very high figure.

The bigger problem though is that this (it appears from the article) is a public school. This is not some huge corporation or individual being fined, this is the school board. This money is coming from the taxes collected from citizens of that county, NJ state, as well as every other American (thanks to federal subsidies). So when you ask me how much is my freedom of speech worth I can tell you it's worth a helluva lot, and I should be recompensated for my time/money lost defending it, but by taking money away from the public school system you're punishing every student and taxpayer for the infringement of my rights, and are really in the end only hurting me again. Repay them for their lost time and court costs, repay them a little for the indignity of the case, but keep the figure lower than if it were against a private entity because you're onyl draining the school's resources. If it were me I'd turn around and donate any cash left over after costs right back to the school because otherwise it's just going to be taken from me (and my family and friends) many times over again as taxes are raised to cover this loss in the school budget.

Just my $0.02.

Re:How much?!?

[afaik_ianal]

You mean I can rent it out by the week? $117,500, huh? Where do I sign up? :D

But seriously, where does the figure come from? Who decides "how much free speech is worth"? Are you saying your free speech is worth $117,500? $1M? $10M? My freedom of speech is not for sale: It is a fundamental right, and not for sale or trade.

$117,500 is a hell of a lot of money (will set that guy up quite nicely). The school did something fundamentally wrong, so _fine_ the school, or discipline the people who screwed up (to prevent them, and other schools from doing it again in the future), and compensate the kid in line with what he experienced.

Re:How much?!?

[swv3752]

Part of the cost is to discpline the School District. The cost is no more than the yearly salary of a School District Superintendent.

Re:How much?!?

[afaik_ianal]

Do I get to sue the mods for modding me down? $100k would be fine.

On a more serious note: how is it that a couple of mods find my post insightful, others disagree and mod it overrated, and I get modded down past the starting point? It's not like it was troll or flamebait.

Re:How much?!?

[greginnj]

I stand corrected on Shaw -- I was relying on memory, and the line seems to fit Franklin's image.

On the following:

setting an appropriate penalty for an action isn't stating that that's your price for accepting that action.

If you mean, "GP can claim that the fine in this case should be no more than $1K, without saying that's his or society's price for accepting that action", I strenuously disagree. It is the perpetrator of the offense that does the 'accepting' in those situations. Cases like this are exposed in the press all the time -- the corporate fines that are too low to prevent malfeasance; the DUI penalties that are too lax to keep someone from drinking and driving again...

I want these penalties to be high, because freedom of speech is sacred. Any erosion anywhere makes it easier to erode these rights somewhere else. And I sure as hell wouldn't want someone thinking they can get away with restricting my or my children's freedom of speech for only $1K.

As a sort of sociological experiment on this -- I remember reading about a day-care center that had problems with parents picking up their kids late. In an effort to reduce the practice, they instituted a $5 fine for each time a child was picked up late. They were astonished to find that the late pickups actually increased, because the $5 figure had clearly established the 'price of guilt' -- rather than a vague shame about abusing the system, the parents got off scot free after paying $5.

Unfortunately our legal system is tilted towards monetary penalties -- they need to be set high enough to avoid creating the same effect.

Re:How much?!?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

1 million dollars. If you give me 1 million dollars I will support your cause with the following exceptions.

1. I wont come to physical harm
2. I wont have loss of opportunity.

So, you can buy 90% of the free speech I may or may not choose to practice!

I think the rep party eyeballs it in the several hundred thousand dollars, being thats the cost to buy the opinion of a journalist, I am a bit more expensive though because I set my buy out price higher.

We can haggle though if you like.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

And now students are going to all run out and try and push the borders as much as possible to see if they can cash in on being an infantile, childish, immature, antisocial cunts.

If a teacher would get in trouble for putting comments about a student on the teacher's own, off campus web site, then a student should also receive the same. How quickly do you think a teacher would be fired if they put the following on their own website: "I was in class the other day and Peter P. Petersen demonstrated once again that he is a total moron, incapable of learning a single fact. I can't believe how stupid that kid is." A statement that could be made by anyone in the class. Even if the teacher stayed well away from posting information that would be restricted (ie. scanned PDFs of P.P.P.'s last test), they would still be fired immediately and probably Mommy & Daddy Petersen would be suing the teacher and the school district for emotional trauma.

But of course, if Peter P. Petersen instead attacked a teacher, he's just acting within his first amendmant rights.

People need to stop being such losers. Our country is going straight to hell because everybody is attempting to get as much as possible for themselves while having as little responsibility as possible for their choices. Fucking losers.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to bitch about 'how much' take a look at how much school administrators make and how many of them are. Then ask yourself do they work with kids. You'll find most of them don't, in fact most of them don't do anything except try and find ways to make themselves look useful. (You could say the system is a bit top heavy.)

I think the case described in the article is one of a useless school administrator trying to make himself/herself look useful (and in the process trampling some kid and his constitutional rights).

Another thing worth noting is that the school is in New Jersey. A close friend of mine taught in New Jersey in the 'Teach for America' program. Not exactly the best school system in the country. From what I understand the system is not big on improvment since that might involve change. Being criticized by a pupil (in a public forum) probably is the number 1 cause of school administrators heads exploding.

After reading the article I was distrubed by the school boards atitude:

The school district issued a prepared statement that said it solicited advice and guidance from legal advisers and law enforcement officers and acted "on its belief that it was protecting all of the children and the staff in the district."

"In the settlement agreement, the Board of Education expressed its regret for the entire incident that caused a great deal of concern to the Board of Education, its present and former members, as well as the Dwyers," the statement read.

I wouldn't call that an apology, nor do they address the "critical statements" made by Dwyer or even freedom of speach. Seems they are missing the point.

Re:How much?!?

[modecx]

That sounds like a fair chunk of change, but it's really not. In real terms of what the city could do with that money: pave 30 feet of two lane road (using immigrant labor), pay a few maintaince guys for a year (and their pensions), pay a newish DA for a year, provide a decent computer lab... It's a slap on the hand, and in the broad scope of things, almost insignifigant. At least they'll be a little more hesitant to grab out of the Civil Liberties cookie jar... Maybe.

On the bright side, because of the UCLA, they've just paid for his higher education and maybe a decent car--depending on what he wants to study. He'll make more buckaroos and get taxed for it, and they'll have it back in 30 years or so, assuming he dosen't move. And that's priceless, I think.

Re:How much?!?

[afaik_ianal]

But it wasn't a fine - it was an out of court compensation payment.

I'd accept it if it were a fine - the fine would be set at some suitable point that detered others from doing the same thing.

But how is this kid entitled to that money?

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

...of the UCLA, they've just paid for his higher education...

Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?

Anyway, you're absolutely right. I've worked for somebody you might consider to be 'part of the problem' in higher education. We worked in a basement office (imagine where Milton got stuck in office space) while she collected a pretty damn nice salary and tried her best to look useful. It's not as if we did nothing, but the fact that we were constantly looking for sundry projects to prove our worth signaled the end of the department.

Then again, that position got me my current, awesome job, so I don't mind being part of the problem.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other side is that it now incentivizes students to be irresponsible, disrespectful, self centered, turd-biscuit losers. Because, hey, if I'm a dick to my countrymen and they try and do something about it, I'll get paid.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship is always cruel and unusual.

Re:How much?!?

[kidcharles]

That's actually a modest sum for a case like this. Enough to be punitive to the school and award enough to cover 2 years of legal fees.

Re:How much?!?

[StikyPad]

I'm sure it'll be justified in ways such as lost opportunities, black marks on the education record that will cause certain undergraduate schools to shy away from such as candidate, and so forth.

You were one of the ones who fell for the permanent record ploy, eh? It's amazing how many students we get with that.

Krabappel: As you know, Bart, your permanent record will one day
                      disqualify you from all but the hottest and noisiest jobs.
Skinner: What do you say, son? You keep our secret and some other
                      student can inherit your gloomy, windblown future. [holds
                      up Milhouse's noticeably thinner file]

Somebody posted that quote in the teacher's lounge a few years back. Still makes me laugh.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The easiest way to fix that is strict testing, ALA japan. Want to get into highschool? You don't have to be mature, but you god damn better be smart. That means not clowning around in school.

Too bad it would never work in this country. We seem to love our right to be stupid.

Re:How much?!?

[PMuse]

They SETTLED - the Board came up with the offer and the kid and his parents accepted it.

That $117,500 is an amount that could very easily represent the kid's attorney's fees. As for whether the board members will get the boot, that'll be up to the voters at the next election. Maybe today, in fact.

"Gee, Mr. Voter, I tried to stomp on a student's rights and lost, costing the district about $200000-300000 in settlement costs and attorney's fees. But you're still gonna vote for me, right?"

Re:How much?!?

[dual_boot_brain]

Ummm... and they would care about a fine why? It isn't their money that they are paying with, it is the taxpayers money. Fine them out the wazoo, they'll just lobby to get an extra quarter percent tax increase next year. You can forget about getting anyone fired too, between tenure and the unions everyone (except the students) is sitting pretty. What we have here is a bad case of externalities, the school can shift all costs to the taxpayers and carries no burden for bad management or fiscal irresponsibility.

Re:How much?!?

[WaterBreath]

After all, they voted the school board into office.

What about the people that didn't vote for anyone serving on the school board? What about people that didn't vote at all, and don't have kids in school and so they don't have any "personal stake" in the school system?

If the school district can be required to pay this, then they should be allowed to sue the people who made the decisions in question, for some sort of "malpractice", to recoup the expenses for this incident. If the school board members endorsed the punishments, then they should be free game for litigation as well.

The taxpayers made the decision on who to hire for the board. The board made the decision on how to hire for principles, the principles, I assume, had at least some say in who gets hired for other administrative positions in the school. There's a lot of levels of responsibility to go through before this should fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers. Otherwise, it's kind of like saying that the CEO of Best Buy should be held personally responsible for harassment perpetrated by an individual salesperson during work hours. I don't think that makes much sense.

Re:How much?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

BULL SHIT

Re:How much?!?

[conJunk]

IANAL, but happily employed by some... they'll still get their fees... just because they settled before trial doesn't mean the attorneys don't get paid

Re:How much?!?

[ScrewMaster]

On a more serious note: how is it that a couple of mods find my post insightful, others disagree and mod it overrated, and I get modded down past the starting point? It's not like it was troll or flamebait.

I'm sure it has more to do with the widespread use of recreational drugs than anything you actually said.

Re:How much?!?

[Mnemia]

So how do you suggest that the courts enforce the law and ensure that schools do not violate students' rights? Like it or not, monetary penalties will cause them to change their behavior. You have a right to be pissed that this money is not going for education, but your complaint should be with the school administrators who caused the lawsuit rather than the victim of their actions. The public outrage at the money is part of the point. It may end up causing these assholes to get fired or voted out of office.

Is it possible for courts to order a school to fire a particular employee such as a principal or teacher?

Re:How much?!?

[Deadstick]

The purpose of punitive damages is, well, to punish. The difference between $100,000 and, say, $1000 is the difference between punishment and an operating expense.

Remember that the taxpayers in that school district are getting the bill. The school board is going to get holy hell from them, and it's a safe bet there won't be any more of that crap.

Oh, and the educational benefit to the students? Priceless.

rj

Re:How much?!?

[lubricated]

> What about the people that didn't vote for anyone serving on the school board? What about people that didn't vote at all, and don't have kids in school and so they don't have any "personal stake" in the school system?

They should have voted. If they(or their landlord) pay taxes they have a personal interest.

Re:How much?!?

[afaik_ianal]

Ok - Let's assume that this was a court enforced payment, rather than an out-of-court settlement as in this case. I completely accept that the school should be punished, mainly because it prevents organisations from doing the same thing - but can you remind me again why it is the kid who gets this payment? Sure, compensate him for his legal bills, and give him some amount to cover the hurt he must have suffered from taking a week off school, but don't let him pocket the punitive side.

I'm not in the US. I live in a country where if I break the law, I have to compensate the victim for any losses they incur as a result of my crime (and these are not always just actual financial losses). The courts separately punish me for breaking the law. This may be in the form of a jail sentence, community service order, or quite frequently, a fine, which is paid to the government - the victim is compensated separately.

To pay the fine to the victim, is like having the family of a murder victim carry out the imprisonment of the murderer.

Re:How much?!?

[FeriteCore]

"If the court had really wanted to serve justice, some school officials should have been given the boot today."

They probably won't be given the boot today. Setting the school system up for an expensive out of court settlement will probably not be considered a career enhancing achievement, however.

Re:How much?!?

[ScrewMaster]

Oh ... they get the point all right. The problem is that these people are far more concerned about their public image than the quality of education afforded the students at their fine institution. And that problem is very widespread and has to do with our educators being more politician than educator.

A large corporation can become so topheavy with middle management (synonymous with "administration" in educational parlance) that it fails to maintain sufficient productivity and goes out of business. Or maybe it will go through bankruptcy, reorganize, and come out of it a leaner, meaner organization. Schools, on the other hand, have no intrinsic negative feedback mechanism to provide a penalty for poor judgment. Rather, if their little empire isn't big enough to suit them, they complain bitterly about being "underfunded", demand additional tax money to "improve the educational experience of our children" and then go hire some more administrators.

Really, it's not hard to figure out why the American public education system is in such a shambles.

Re:How much?!?

[modecx]

Is that a typo or a Freudian slip?

Damn, you caught me with my penis down. Errr. Yes, I meant my mother. FUCK! Pants, damnit, P-E-N-I-S!! Yeah, anyway.... Goddamned four letter acronyms and five letter penii.

Re:How much?!?

[NanoGator]

"Ok, fine, how little will you accept to have your free-speech rights violated?"

Okay, let's not be so dramatic. The other poster's saying that's an awful lot of money to pay out to a kid for this case. What the other poster is missing is that the idea is to punish the school for wrong-doing, and that's probably where that number came from. (i.e. schools aren't going to want to shell out 100k+ for this sort of BS.)

If it were up to me, the student would get a small portion of that money and the rest would either go to the local gov't or to a charity or something. Why? Because I loathe the idea that this sort of price-tag could result in BS cases.

Re:How much?!?

[charlieo88]

It's not irony, it's justice. Sucks being stuck with the bill, but they are the electorate that is responsible for the school board, who are in turn responsible for the school administrators.

Re:How much?!?

[FLEB]

The kid gets the money because money is a primary tool of both punishment and reward in civil law. It's quantifiable, transferrable, and rather neutral.

The amount, aside from covering legal fees and compensation, is supposedly enough to punish the school to the tune that they'll not do it again.

Re:How much?!?

[wbren]

Of course, the irony is that residents in the school district will ultimately foot the bill, so in essence, although the Dwyer's win, they lose as well. If the court had really wanted to serve justice, some school officials should have been given the boot today.

I'm not so sure the school system will have to pay for it. I was involved in a very similar case, and was awarded a substantial amount of money. The school system did not pay me, their insurance company did. You see, most towns insure their school officials for vast amounts of money in case they do something stupid (like try to censor a student).

Re:How much?!?

[DavidTC]

You dumbass.

Teachers work at a school. And despite what you think, pretty much all information about students is restricted, not just 'scans of tests', whatever the fuck you're talking about there. Even stuff that could trivially be observed by anything, like school attendance, people working for the school are not supposed to give out to the public.

They certainly are not supposed to comment on the relative intelligence of students, although they tend to ignore those rules when they are praising student. Almost every teacher in this country would agree that saying 'X is a moron' in public is not something teachers should be doing and should be dismissed for, or at least not have their contracts renewed. They would probably frown upon stating it in that manner even in the privacy of the teacher's lounge.

In general, people who work for the government should not be handing out random information or even opinions about people who interact with them, be that DEFACS talking about who gets food stamps, the tax people talking about what your cars are worth and what your income is, the social security people giving out your number, the censor talking about how many people live in your house, or the teachers talking about their students. Private businesses can set the rules however they want, but leakage of your information with the government should be nothing to people outside the government. Even if the information is retrievable elsewhere.

Students OTOH, are subjects of a school, it is in a position of authority over them. They do not work for the school. They are required to obey the school's instructions by law for behavior while at school, and leaving and going to school, and at no other time, and the school is restricted in how it can punish them. And as the school is a government institution, it has certain things it is forbidden to do even for students who are physically present at the school, freedom of speech being one of them.

Teachers are employees of government institutions, and students are forced users of those institutions. Their sitution is not comparable. It's as idiotic as comparing the rules of behavior for IRS employees with the rules of behavior for taxpayers. If I happen upon your tax return, I can tell everyone how much you make. They cannot, and this is how it should be.

As for people bearing responsiblity...the kid didn't start this. The school started illegally hassling him about something that was none of their business, eventually punishing him. It would be like the DMV telling you to cut your grass, and eventually refusing to renew your license for that. That is none of the DMV's business, barring some really weird law, and don't go blaming people who refuse for the problems that the DMV is causing.

Re:How much?!?

[GigsVT]

The people in the school district may have voted them in, but most of the funding was probably state or federal, as in most school districts.

So your argument breaks down because of that.

Re:How much?!?

[GigsVT]

I think the idea is to motivate people to bring these cases. These cases involve a heavy time investment, and potentially monetary investment (if they can't find some lawyer to take it pro-bono). People might be unlikely to bring such a case up if there weren't some potential payoff.

Re:How much?!?

[Deadstick]

That's a different issue, and I'm not comfortable with punitive damages going to the plaintiff either...except that if the state had a financial interest in the outcome, it would find endless ways to bias judges.

rj

Re:How much?!?

[eokyere]

next time another school decides to be "stupid", they'll have to weigh being stupid against "$117,500"

Re:How much?!?

[proteonic]

Anyone get the impression that only dipshits run for office in the school boards? It's probably that we only ever hear about these people when they do something wrong (either poor judgement, fiscal mismanagement, or a pig headed inability to compromise on some issue), but I would love to hear some examples of school board / administratiive officials being commended for doing something right.

Anyone.. anyone.. Bueller?

I say this, because the Parent argues that tax payers should be paying the fine. I'm personally not convinced it's the tax payers' faults. I feel that most school board elections give you a choice between Dumb and Dumber. The officials should be run out of town, and the running of schools should certainly be more transparent to the parents who send their kids there.

Re:How much?!?

[Jtheletter]

You have a right to be pissed that this money is not going for education, but your complaint should be with the school administrators who caused the lawsuit rather than the victim of their actions. [...]
Is it possible for courts to order a school to fire a particular employee such as a principal or teacher?

Let me clarify quickly, I have no issues with the defendents in this case, I'm not sure how much say they had in the award amount but in the end it was the court which picked a number, so I'm not blaming them.

Your last point I think is more the direction I was leaning when thinking about what other solutions were available. Instead of fining in essence the entire community by taking the money from the school, the courts should instead focus on the administrators who made the bad decision. Now whether they are punished by fines, suspension, loss of their job, or other would have to be debated. (note: I don't think jail time should be an option, at least not in this case. It's one thing to make a bad decision but prison is a very serious punishment and a FOS infringement would have to be grave indeed to merit prison in my opinion.)
In cases such as these it's not so much the (school) system breaking down, as it is over-reactive administrators who are the cause of the problem. I know that many of these admins prefer to err on the side of caution when punishing offences because responding too weakly can cause them just as many problems with parents and the community, but when the issue is one that pertains to a basic right granted by our constitution, a little more care should be taken. Perhaps the school board needs to adopt a review policy for punishments that involve such sensitive topics. Perhaps they already do? After all, given the Kansas school board's recent display of ignorance it's clear that even having a committee you can still get critical decisions wrong!
(ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science class! One school cannot redefine the definition of an entire field of study on a whim! Sorry for the minirant.)
In that case perhaps the whole board needs to be punished by the court to remind them how the laws of the land trump their own sense of what is and isn't ok behavior/speech by students. Just food for thought, and thanks for your response. :)

Re:How much?!?

[Lehk228]

overrated is broken but would probably be too computationally expensive to fix. overrated should never be able to go under net moderation +/-0 and underrated should never be able to go more than one over the sum of other positive mods and the starting bonus, thus let underrated negate bad downmods and contribute up to one point on it's own, while overrated can negate bad upmods

over/underrated should also vanish at a rate of one over/under per other oderation in the same direction

Re:How much?!?

[voidptr]

Yet another reason the continued trend of federal tax money being redistributed to local authorities should be stopped. There's no accountability for the money.

You want local schools? Local money pays for it. Don't make a taxpayers in some other state pay for your local elected incompetence.

Re:How much?!?

[WaterBreath]

Fair enough answer to my second question, though I'd still argue for the recourses outlined in the rest of my post. Otherwise "unfair" scenarios could still arise, such as that of my first question. You can only push the line so far back by saying that if the person really cared that much they could have done X. Because in the end it's the decision of all. And as far as I'm concerned, the law should not level class-level punishments regardless of individual fault. IMHO, it's enough punishment to the community as a whole that they got what they voted for: a school-board insensitive to consitutional rights. "Artificial" punitive damages for everyone, regardless of whether an individual supported the board in the elections or not, is going a bit far.

American Dad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, you can read. The system works!

Schools react harshly to protesting students

[saskboy]

Any student that takes a chance and says something against authority, or does something that some board members may find offensive, run the risk of suspension. A couple years ago a girl in Florida was suspended for her Halloween outfit because she covered herself in unused condoms, and encouraged other students to take them. The official story from the school was that she was being disruptive, and refused to change shirts, but really it was about a repressive administrator that felt that "handing out condoms admits to being sexually active, and that was against the policy of the school which is abstience".

Schools are messed up places in some parts. If you didn't always toe the line, and didn't get suspended, consider your school a progressive one.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[LWATCDR]

Even that is understandable. The school found it disruptive and frankly it probably was. It was in school and they can enforce a dress code. This case is much different. This was a website that was not hosted by the school and was a comment in a guest book that may or may not have been written by the student.
As long as you are not breaking the law I do not see how a public school has the right to do anything about what you do at home.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I got into a fight with a shop professor once. He had the habit of whacking people on the hand with a ruler when he got pissed at them. I was taking fencing lessons at a time, so what I did was take my own ruler and parry. We ended up exchanging a few blows, then he grabbed my ruler and I grabbed his. He ended up with both, proceeded to hit me over the head with one of them (don't remember if he kept a grip on the other), at which point I decked him.

The principal decided that I was in the right because he hit me first, so I got a written apology. Surprisingly I ended up with a B in that class, the hard feelings only lated two weeks or so.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[Anonymous Coward]

I got suspended 10 days one year for being disruptive. I didn't stand for the pledge of allegiance once and got suspended for three days. We also had a lovely school shooting that same year and our newspaper was not allowed to report on it, according to the school. That was a repressive high school.

Believe it or not it was in Florida.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[Sevn]

I used to have a typing teacher that would smack your fingers with a ruler. I told her not to smack my hands with the ruler. So she went out of her way to try to do it. Most of the time I got my hands out of the way fast enough that she'd smack the keyboard instead and get all pissed. She finally lost it when she went to smack my hands, hit the keyboard, I busted up laughing, and she hit me over the head. So I took the ruler, broke it in half, and threw it in trashcan. I got suspended for 3 days even after she admitted she hit me over the head with the ruler. So I went to the county, filed assault charges, dropped her class and went on with my life. The school board apologised later, and she got fired for drinking on the job about 3 months after that. They still eventually charged me for the cost to replace the ruler.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[jmcharry]

When I was in maybe fifth grade some of the students started a petition to the administration to modify some rule (I forget what). Nobody got suspended but they took the top five signers of the petition and beat them with a fraternity paddle. This was in a public school, but many years ago. Fortunately, I was a bit below the cutoff and walked.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[kabocox]

Schools are messed up places in some parts. If you didn't always toe the line, and didn't get suspended, consider your school a progressive one.

Or like I've always said, public schools preparing the public to live life in a police state to be happy with whatever repulican voting they get and to believe that they live in a democracy.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[cpt kangarooski]

That's funny, since the Supreme Court ruled that students don't have to pledge. That was back in '42. I sympathize, having also grown up in Florida. Thank God I left as soon as I could.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it the rule to get rid of the paddle?

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[Daedalus-Ubergeek]

This is Slashdot. Abstinence is involuntary.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm ... that is disruptive.

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[planetoid]

You mean the Campaign To Stop Weeaboo?

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[RyoShin]

Parent is right, and this is from personal experience.

Noone that I know would describe me as a rebel, but my high school principal apparently saw me as such at one point. I was in a "Film in Literature" class, where we watched a lot of movies applied various lessons like you would literature. The teacher for the class was big into underlying, useless philosophy, which made up for a big portion of the tests.

I am a critical thinker, but I just had no idea where she was pulling some of this crap. While the other students regurgitated her every word, I tried to come up with my own answers for her philosophy bull crap. At one point, I got so frusturated because of the useless BS of it all that I wrote a small note at the end of the paper. All I really said was that I thought that focusing on this kind of stuff so much in a class, especially when all interpretations have to match one answer, is useless.

Two days later I got called to the principal's office and was threatened with expulsion if I did it again. I didn't (my GPA was already messed up due to bad choices in my Freshman year), but that just made me hate it all the more.

(One of the questions, in reference to the movie "Shawshank Redepmtion" was "Why is the truck that Red rides at the end of the movie red?" My answer: "Because Red is the one riding it, or it was the first truck of that kind they could get their hands on." Not everything has an underlying ideal.)

Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students

[DavidTC]

If they want to enforce a non-disruptive dress code, they shouldn't let students wear damn Halloween costumes, which is almost the defination of 'disruptive clothing'. Heck, the kids probably didn't think of that on their own, the school more than likely had an offical 'Halloween' where people dress up.

However, 'disruptive' in schools is almost always code for 'the teachers react to it'. Clothing is not disruptive unless it plays loud noises or flashes lights, or students get up during class to mess with it.

No student would even try to get away with the first two during class, and the later simply wouldn't happen in high school because the students enjoy watching accusations of 'disruption' too much, and the joke is ruined if it actually is causing one, so they will sit carefully and quietly facing forward, waiting for the lies about 'disruption' to start.

In the entire time I went to high school, I have yet to see anything except a fight or a loud argument cause a 'disruption' in school. And a cell phone, once. (This is in the age when cell phones were banned because 'drug dealers use them'.) Possibly if there were gangs, gang colors and symbols could cause a problem, but I suspect in schools where that is a problem, no one does anything about them.

Yet my peers kept having silly and provocative things they did called 'disruptive'.

All high schoolers know 'disruptive' is a lie. It's a way to get rid of anything the administration doesn't like, without actually making a rule against it.

OTOH, by our senior year, the school had caught on to our class, and even let a guy run for 'homecoming queen' without the slightest reaction.

What did it say?!?!

[Warlock7]

There doesn't appear to be any mention of what was claimed to have been said on the site, other than "anti-Semitic" comments. What did the site say that got the kid in trouble?

What were the criticisms of the school?

Re:What did it say?!?!

[F. Bester Tester]

I agree,
not even Slashdot reported the speech in question. The student will have to settle for cash in place of an open forum or discussion.

Live by word, die by the dollar...

As above...

[Anonymous Coward]

So below. Go, baby blogger, go!

This kid is a genius

[NardofDoom]

He has one helluva a business plan:

1) Create website with guestbook
2) Wait for some idiot to post disparaging comments about his school.
3) Get suspended (woohoo! four day weekend!)
4) Get the ACLU to sue the school for him
5) Profit! At taxpayer expense!

No student loans for this kid, eh?

Re:This kid is a genius

[Dragoonmac]

Bet Maddox wishes he'd thought of it first.

Re:This kid is a genius

[DavidTC]

At least his business plan had no ? in it.

weird...

[rwven]

They expelled a student from my high school for making a wesite about how stupid he thought the school was...

there's a distinction

[conJunk]

actually, a couple of distictions...

first is that the school acts in loco parentis while the student is traveling to/from school. so, if a teacher sees a kid jaywalking on her way home, the school may legally respond to that

the other distinction has to do with published policies. if the school has a policy that says "you get suspended for violating city ordinances", and then the kid gets caught jay walking, that's that.

this case seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it though? the kid was operating at home, so the school's traditional in loco parentis is inapplicable, and they wouldn't state a policy. it doesn't get clearer than that... of course, IANAL...

Re:there's a distinction

[ryanr]

If the school is still responsible for the kids while they are walking home, then the school is doing a lousy job keeping an eye on them.

I suppose the school can try to have whatever policy they like, but I don't think it's any of their business whether the kids violate city ordinances on their own time. I would hope to see such a policy get shot down in a similar manner.

Re:there's a distinction

[conJunk]

I'm having dificulty googling anything as concise or relevant as we got in my 7th grade "you and the law" course. Basically, in loco parentis isn't going anywhere fast. It's been part of life in America for about 50 years, and the courts are happy to keep it that way.

this article is rather brief, but provides a little more insight on how the courts feel about it

Re:there's a distinction

[ryanr]

Interesting. Does that mean the school has any responsibilities during the trip home, too?

Re:there's a distinction

[chris_mahan]

Does that mean the school is responsible once the "child" is at home? In front of his computer? In his ROOM?

Excuize me, but stupid rules like that is why people like me (a taxpayer) don't want to give school and school administrators more money. And I'm gonna turn 37 this month, and I have a child. So don't think this bitterness at the gross inefficiencies of American schools will pass. It's been festering for 20 years.

Re:there's a distinction

[conJunk]

That's what they told me. Turned out useful in my experience too. Once in 7th grade (coincidentally, the same year I learned this stuff) I got mugged by another student on the way home. That poor kid learned about this the hard way!

Re:there's a distinction

[Mac Degger]

In loco parentis? How many parents prosecute their kids for talking back to them, or jaywalking? If schools deign to use that phrase, they better act like it.

I'll go one further here, on a somewhat relevant subject; zero-tolerance policies. These are what cause things like Columbine to happen (and no, zero tolerance wasn't due to Columbine, although that did accelerate it). Zero tolerance (ZT) is dangerous, because it constricts aggression. A schoolyard scuffle, no matter what else, relieve mental pressure on all involved (if the nerd gets at least one punch in :wry-smiley:). Without any mental or verbal acting out, the aggression gets bottled up, to erupt in only the worst way possible, for when simple child agressive behaviour is outright banned, the only way it can be expressed is when it has reached boiling point and the child doesn't care about the consequences anymore .

Damn, I realise this has no real place in this thread, but now I've typed it out, and I'm not gonna delete it :P

Re:there's a distinction

[b17bmbr]

IANAL, yada yada, but IAAT ( I am a teacher), and it is my understanding that once we give the student over to the parent/guardian, we're free. for example, if a student has to leave early for a doctor appt., once the parent has signed them out, we transfer supervision.

Re:there's a distinction

[Namronorman]

Zero tolerance is a real bitch, and I say this from first hand experience. A school I used to go to would suspend you if you were in a fight, even if you didn't defend yourself etc. If someone jumps/mugs/etc you, you'll likely be suspended even though you yourself didn't do anything wrong.

I got so fed up with the bull shit of being jumped (I was a minority in the school and was often alienated) I just started to fight back. School is kind of like prison now, you beat someone up on the first day and they'll respect you. If you don't beat someone up on the first day, someone will beat you up and you'll be suspended regardless!

It upsets me with what's happening to what used to be a fine country. What's worse is 90% of the people don't seem to care until it's too late.

Re:there's a distinction

[lubricated]

your school was easy. In my school it was immediate expulsion. Yes it was a public school. Yes it was in a large city. After you got expelled you got to go to a crapy school where they put all the expellees.

Re:there's a distinction

[mikael]

first is that the school acts in loco parentis while the student is traveling to/from school. so, if a teacher sees a kid jaywalking on her way home, the school may legally respond to that


Interesting. Many schools deny they have any responsibility if a kid gets injured due to bullying or fighting.

Re:there's a distinction

[Praxx]

Zero Tolerance ... Why educate, when it's easier to just kick them out?

Re:there's a distinction

[FLEB]

I think that's true, but in cases of a student walking home, that "transfer of ownership" happens when the student gets to their destination, not simply when they leave the grounds.

Re:there's a distinction

[wingsofchai]

School is kind of like prison now, you beat someone up on the first day and they'll respect you. If you don't beat someone up on the first day, someone will beat you up and you'll be suspended regardless!

Hmmm....I bet a lot of prisoners wish they could get suspended from prison.

Re:there's a distinction

[Stalky]

A school I used to go to would suspend you if you were in a fight, even if you didn't defend yourself etc. If someone jumps/mugs/etc you, you'll likely be suspended even though you yourself didn't do anything wrong.

If this is a sign of national decline, it's been going on for a long time, then -- I ran afoul of that rule at my high school in 1976.

Re:there's a distinction

[belmolis]

I just wish that people who promulgate so-called zero-tolerance policies would realize that far from looking strong and principled what they've really done is brand on their forehead "I am too stupid and lazy to make logical distinctions."

Re:there's a distinction

[welshsocialist]

That may be, but I seem to remember when I was in high school that students who smoked would gather on the sidewalk opposite the school itself, due to (I think) the belief that the school staffers wouldn't be able to get them off grounds for smoking, as it was forbidden on school property.

Re:there's a distinction

[b17bmbr]

I think you're right. However, I have never figured out where the boundaries are. For example, if a student walks home from school we're still technically responsible. However, if said student stops and throws a rock through a store's window, we're not liable. Or, if instead of heading home, he decides to go to the mall and three hours later is kidnapped, we're again not a responsible party. There's alot of gray area.

Fantastic

[bgog]

This is wonderful!! There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period. If threatening comments are made they of course have the right to call the police who DO have authority outside of school. However it is NEVER appropriate to levy a school punnishment (like detention or removal of privilages) for an activity outside school. It's just a power grab to make the administrators feel more important than they are. Worry about education and keeping kids safe while at school. Leave the parenting to me and any criminal punnishments to the police.

Re:Fantastic

[alan_dershowitz]

I'd just like to mention that in the school district where I went to high school, getting arrested on a drug or alcohol violation would result in an immediate school suspension. After I left, there was also a case where a student created a web site [school name]sucks.com. The site got taken down. He should have contacted the ACLU.

Pretty much my entire high school experience was dodging a barrage of arbitrary threats and punishment from school officials, and I wasn't even one of the troublemakers. I hated that place, it was a soul-sucking hellhole. I find it interesting how many people have this same experience. Schools across the United States seem to be run like Gulags.

Re:Fantastic

[man_ls]

What gets me even more is certain activities, 100% legal off property of the school, become punishable offenses on their property.

Take smoking, or even posessing, tobacco or tobacco products (or, for that matter, any medication OTC or prescribed, etc.) As was, for that matter, posessing a cellular phone on your person.

An individual I was friends with a number of years ago, was caught with a pack of cigarettes in her purse by an administrator walking by. She was 18 (legal age for smoking/owning tobacco) and was not smoking them at the time, she just had them in her bag. She was not distributing them to anyone else. She was suspended for ten days and referred to some court or other for community service.

I was entirely disgusted when I heard about it from her.

Even worse is, the law is actually on the side of the school here in Florida, criminalizing activities which in any other context, can't even be construed as annoying, let alone criminal.

Re:Fantastic

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period.

In general principle, I do agree. I think a pretty clear exception to your statement would be school sponsored events, such as sports, band, field trips and such.

Re:Fantastic

[Fried-Psitalon]

And yet at the same time, as a teacher in a Title 1 (read: seriously economically disadvantaged school) we spend a lot of time seeing parents that don't do ANY job of parenting at all. We run multiple after-school programs just to keep kids off the streets who don't have a parent at home to watch over them. We expect teachers to teach students morals and values (or do we? I've lost track of public opinion on that subject at the moment), teach responsibility, and inspire public virtue in our students... but the moment the final bell rings, the teacher is expected to ignore everything that goes on. So as soon as the kid steps off school property and beats the holy living crap out of another student, I should turn and walk away? Cool. Next time I won't have to pick up the black eye stepping between the two and saving one kid from the beating of his life. Except I'll get sued for that. I'm not saying the principal was in line for what happened here (though I strongly suspect there's another side to the story where maybe the kid refused to remove the comment or something), but I am saying that there are all kinds of cases where teachers and schools ARE expected to exert authority outside of school hours... and are gravely endangered if they don't. The line isn't clear - don't smash the school for trying (however poorly) to err on the side of protecting decency.

Re:Fantastic

[drinkypoo]

It's still illegal to take a gun into a courthouse if you have a concealed weapons permit, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be against school rules to have tobacco on school grounds. If your friend's not smart enough to not get caught with her cigarettes, she shouldn't be bringing them to school.

Re:Fantastic

[dex.pdx]

I agree with your statement.

This may be slightly off topic however I would like to make a clarification; Police do not have the authority to "levy punishment" for any non-convicted criminal. The court/justice system does, the role of police is to enforce law through investigation and apprehension.

So the should process should go like this:

• Student does something questionable out side of school.
• School administration files a complaint with the Police.
• Police then investigate and apprehend the student if the complaint is founded in police-able law.
• The student then faces the justice system...

I just wanted to make this point as it seems like a common misconception that police are the law, they are in fact not the law only the face/hand of the law.

And, just for my juvenile edification I would like to point out the police motto is "To Project and Serve" something that is increasingly being ignored.

Re:Fantastic

[tool462]

Except in the example you gave, the line is clear. The one kid beating up the other is committing a crime. It would be a better world if more people would step in and stop this kind of violence, but it seems that most will just turn their backs and ignore it because it's "not their business." I commend you for doing the right thing, even at the expense of your own safety. However, the kid in the OP was not committing a crime--the school was. Outside of the classroom, the school has no right to limit anybody's freedom of speech. They overstepped their bounds, and given they are an educational institution, they should know better than most the limits to their authority.

Re:Fantastic

[kabocox]

a teacher in a Title 1 (read: seriously economically disadvantaged school) we spend a lot of time seeing parents that don't do ANY job of parenting at all. We run multiple after-school programs just to keep kids off the streets who don't have a parent at home to watch over them. We expect teachers to teach students morals and values (or do we? I've lost track of public opinion on that subject at the moment), teach responsibility, and inspire public virtue in our students... but the moment the final bell rings, the teacher is expected to ignore everything that goes on.

See that's your problem. You and other teachers want or think that the parents want you to parent the kids at or before or after school. You may be right about your students and their parents. My wife and I would complain to the school board members if we observed our public schools teachers doing anything of the kind. I only want my teacher to teach the state required guidelines for what my child's age group should learn. I don't want you or the state to tack on your morals or values on my children or any other child other than your own.

The only two morals that I really think public shool does a good job at are 1. show up every day. 2. Turn in your work every day or what ever you have done.

Re:Fantastic

[rpresser]

If you genuinely believe that the two cases are similar -- that the harm made possible by letting someone bring a gun to a courthouse compares to the harm made possible by letting a student bring tobacco to school -- then you deserve whatever misfortune comes your way, up to and including having a plane dropped on you.

Re:Fantastic

[swv3752]

Well, as a concerned citizen, I want teachers teaching morals amongst other things. Most kids sure are not getting it at home.

Re:Fantastic

[Peter La Casse]

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be against school rules to have tobacco on school grounds.

How about "There's nothing wrong with having tobacco on school grounds"? Sounds like a good reason to me.

If smoking is banned, which is reasonable, then punish anybody who breaks that rule, not anybody who possesses the means to break a rule. Otherwise, you'd be endorsing banning pens and pencils, since they can be used to poke the eyes out of other students, which is against the rules. In the tobacco case, there is a "substantial noninfringing use" (so to speak) for having tobacco on school grounds: you might have just one purse that you take everywhere, including places where smoking is allowed.

Re:Fantastic

[drinkypoo]

God damn, what a tosser you are. Right after submitting this comment I realized that some idiot somewhere would decide that was what I meant, but it was too late. Let me clarify for you: it's normally not legal to carry around a loaded gun; it is legal to carry one around if you have a concealed weapons permit, but you still can't carry one into a courthouse because it's against their rules. (You can't have a lot of other shit in courthouses either, like nail clippers or a wallet with a chain - no shit.) Similarly, most high school students are not permitted to have cigarettes (minor in posession of tobacco products) but if you are over 18 you can carry them. However, it's still against the school's rules. I hope this clears up your little misunderstanding. I realize you specified an "if" but people usually don't waste their time posting unless they really think that someone meant the thing they're railing against.

Bozo.

Re:Fantastic

[Peter La Casse]

I think it would be just grand if the school system would impose my morals on an entire generation of youth, but I don't trust them to get it right.

Re:Fantastic

[bgog]

First of all let me say that teachers have a very difficult job and I couldn't respect them more.

Second, it is awsome that you stepped in to protect the child.

Of course, as a human being, you should help the kid being beaten up. However off of school property it is the police that should who have the authority. The kid who did the assaulting should be punnished by the law but not by the school. I'm not saying that the school shouldn't call the cops or even detain the kid who did the fighting but It is not their place to suspend if the offense didn't occur on their property. Off of their property there are police and courts to deal out the justice.

It is very sad that some parents don't parent, however that fact doesn't give the school the right to take over that job outside of school. It is great that you have afterschool programs and if someone is bad during the after school program then the school has full authority to do what they will.

This is simply a matter of authority. When I was in high school I got a ticket for reckless driving. It occured on a sunday 100 miles away from school. I was doing donuts at my families cabin. I was punnished by the proper authorities. The police ticketed me and put points on my license and my parents grounded me from driving the car. Unfortunatly for me when my school found out I was suspended from participating in sporting events for 3 weeks. This type of this is simply not their buisness. It is also not their buisness what kids do on the internet at home. Fine inform the parent if the activity is bad or call the cops if it's illegal but an in-school punnishment is simply out-of-place.

Again thank you for teaching, I DO have the highest respect for teachers and schools.

Re:Fantastic

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, there is no need to have tobacco on [most] school grounds; you can't smoke there anyway. More important to me, however, is the idea that you're not going to get busted for it unless you give someone a reason to know that you have it. School is not a place for screwing around with your smokes. Granted, I haven't heard the whole story, but why would an instructor even know you had cigarettes in your bag in the first place?

Re:Fantastic

[bgog]

Cool, what set of morals should they teach. Yours or Bob's?

Bob says your girls can't be on the swim team because it's not moral for them to expose their skin.
Bob says the teachers should hit your kit if he swears.
Bob says it is not moral to teach science because it is against HIS religion

Sorry, parents get to teach their kids the morals and values that THEY choose.

Re:Fantastic

[Peter La Casse]

If a behavior is morally, ethically and legally acceptable, then it should not be banned. You shouldn't need a reason to carry any given thing onto school property, and the only things that should be banned are things with irreparable consequences, like firearms. If somebody smokes on school property, it's not the end of the world: give them detention or something and the situation has been resolved. If somebody gets shot, then it might be the end of the world for them, so it's legitimate to not allow kids to bring firearms to school. (Whether this extends to less-lethal or nonlethal weapons, and if so, which, is debatable, but that's a topic for another thread.)

It might be splitting hairs to differentiate between smoking and carrying tobacco in your purse, but them's the breaks. If something is morally or ethically unacceptable, then make it legally unacceptable, and if you can't, don't punish those under your authority who do it under legally allowable circumstances.

Re:Fantastic

[drinkypoo]

If someone smokes on school property and gets caught, it's probably because someone else was in a position to breathe their smoke; secondhand smoke is one of the biggest killers in America. If they don't get caught, again, there's no problem. Regardless, the use of cigarettes represents a significant health risk to others. (ObDisclaimer: I work in a casino, where people smoke. I am also a smoker, but I smoke additive-free tobacco, which I believe to be less harmful. However, I am having to breathe in smoke which is not additive-free...)

Re:Fantastic

[Vellmont]

And your analogy still sucks. Those conceal and carry laws have specific exemptions against the right to carry guns into places like courtrooms. Beyond the law it's easy to see why such a restriction is justifiable.

Why then is merely carying cigarettes considered "wrong"? I don't dispute the fact that schools have the right to make moronic rules, they do that all the time. What's under dispute is the justifiability of this rule. By comparing it to something that's entirely justifiable you make it sound like this rule is a perfectly acceptable one.

Re:Fantastic

[Steven W00ston]

My brother was suspended for getting in a fight with another student. AT HOME. When I found out about that, I was very disappointed that my mom never stepped in and said anything.

Oh, schools...why do you hate freedom?

Re:Fantastic

[Fulcrum of Evil]

secondhand smoke is one of the biggest killers in America.

Bullshit. smoking may kill a lot of people, but there's no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is more that an irritant to most of us.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as a concerned citizen, I want teachers teaching morals amongst other things. Most kids sure are not getting it at home.



That sounds good as long as they are teaching morals that you agree with.
Unfortunatly they usually are not.

Take my kids school. They seem to by trying to brain wash them into pacifism. They have all kinds of slogins that they have the kids memorize. It is all about peace and conformity. They even have a flippin song!

Pacifism sounds wonderfull until you run into someone in the next school that didn't get brain washed then you are just a door mat. I would much rather my son learn "Never hit smaller/weaker kids, stick up for your sister and when you run into a bully punch him in the nose as hard as you can", but they don't teach that. They teach "conform, don't stick up for yourself, and no running during recess.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called being in possession of contraband. It was a substance that students are not allowed to possess regardless of age. No conspiracy here. Of more interest would be the school administration seeing empty alcoholic beverage containers in the vehicle you drove to school. At this point, ownership of the vehicle apparently has no meaning. You could be borrowing your dad's truck and he tossed a couple of empty cans in the bed but it doesn't matter because you appear to be in possession of contraband. You are now facing suspension and the vehicle along with your locker, person, and back pack will be searched.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called being in possession of contraband. It was a substance that students are not allowed to possess regardless of age.

In many (most?) states, high school seniors are old enough to legally possess tobacco.

Of more interest would be the school administration seeing empty alcoholic beverage containers in the vehicle you drove to school.

Bull. I know of no law preventing the ownership of empties (glass, metal and plastic beverage containers), alcoholic or otherwise. So a civic-minded student who picks up some litter on the street is breaking the rules? Riiight. Don't schools try to encourage recycling these days?

I recall my high school would occasionally have bottle drives to raise money for various things. Kids would go around and collect empties to cash in the deposit value. Perfectly legal.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

As a teacher? Absolutely not, it isn't your right or responsibility. As a citizen? There's a crime being committed, go for it. It's when it becomes school policy that the bounds have been overstepped.

Re:Fantastic

[scotch]

secondhand smoke is one of the biggest killers in America

This is of course untrue.

Re:Fantastic

[DavidTC]

Poeple here are really confused. Some stares outlaw possession for minors, some states don't. Some outlaw it with harsh fines and community service, some merely take the tobacco away.

The state I'm in, Georgia, outlaws possession for 'personal use'. I.e., it is perfectly legal for minors to possess tobacco if they do not intend to consume it.

Which is such an unprovable situtation that, for all intents and purposes, it is legal for minors to possess tobacco as long as they are not currently smoking it, or at least the police will not attempt to fine you the 50 dollars. If the police stumble across the cigarettes you just claim 'Those are my parents.'.

Even if they come across evidence you smoke them...it's legal to smoke in the presense of your parents in this state, or in their house with their permission. They have to prove you intend to smoke them elsewhere.

Although the cops will steal your cigarettes if they come across them. Legally, they probably can't do without charging you with possession, but objecting would probably piss them off enough they would give you a ticket and you'd have to fight it in court.

And, incidentally, this is why you'll see 16-year old kids selling tobacco in Walmart, at least in Georgia. They can legally do that, as they do not intend to consume the tobacco. (In fact, it is obviously illegal for them to stand around smoking Walmart's tobacco in Walmart for quite a few reasons, firstmost because that would be theft by conversion.) Hilariously, it is just as illegal for a 16-year old to sell tobacco to as 17-year old as anyone else.

And it's still illegal to purchase (or even barter!) cigarettes if you're underaged. And it's against the law to smoke at school, regardless of your age, and I'm not just talking about school rules or students. Against the law, period. Even visitors to football games cannot, in theory, smoke.

And, no, I didn't smoke as a minor, and I still don't smoke. I just knew a lot of smart people who did.

Re:Fantastic

[Lehk228]

secondhand smoke is one of the biggest killers in America.


if by one of the biggest you mean not even close to a major cause of death then you would be right, instead you are just stupid

Re:Fantastic

[drinkypoo]

Actually, there is significant evidence. While the site I will now proceed to link clearly has its own agenda, check out their citations: http://www.tobacco-facts.info/second_hand_smoke.ht m... Lung cancer, and heart disease. Stop fooling yourself - you're the only one you're fooling. I am a smoker, and I believe that my right to smoke ends when it interferes with another's right to health - as long as they're polite when they ask me to move away or whatever. If someone comes up and coughs at me pointedly, I ask them to hack that shit up so I can enjoy my cigarette in peace.

Re:Fantastic

[kabocox]

They seem to by trying to brain wash them into pacifism.

Poor teachers that's a lost war if I've ever heard one. It's a decent thought. "Try to get the kids not to fight each other." But does it work? Nope. I've always thought that they should teach all the kids karate so that they could all defend themselves, and it would be some thing useful learned in PE instead of ring around the rosy or red rover. Actually, they play some games picking up plastic cups in PE now a days.

Society

[Trip Ericson]

I think this is as much a problem with society as anything else.

The article states that the school district did not show what rule was broken exactly, and had no proof of these anti-Semitic remarks they claimed were on this site (not that such things can be outlawed--first amendment).

I am of the belief that this was solely to shut him up. He was criticizing his school district, using his first amendment rights, and so long as he wasn't slandering the school district (or libel, as the case may be), that's tough. However in our society, anyone who says anything at all about anyone else is up for punishment, be it this, suspension and such, or a lawsuit.

The most the school can do is block his site within the school system using filters. IANAL, but from what I gather, their power should end right there. Especially if the site was not being updated from school, as the article indicates.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad to see this. I doubt it will help, but who knows, maybe it will allow for other schools to get their acts together.

Rights

[queenb**ch]

I think that Penn & Teller said it best -

"You do not have the right not to be offended."

Can you imagine what would happen if Slashdot were held responsible for our comments? *SNICKER*

2 cents,

Queen B

Re:Rights

[krbvroc1]

Can you imagine what would happen if Slashdot were held responsible for our comments? *SNICKER*

You snicker, but I see the Senate confirmation hearing for a future political position.

Senator: Sir, I have before me posting alledged to be by you on a computer web service referred to as slashdot. Are you familiar with that?
Nominee: Uh, yes Sir.
Senator: Are these postings labelled as from one 'FukMonkey345' yours?
Nominee: Sir I can assure you that was a long time ago.
Senator: Sir, remember you are under oath, I have evidence here that you claimed that you 'Welcome the nerd overlords?' Who are these folks?
Senator: You also stated that 'In Soviet Russia they own you'? What is this commie loving talk?
Senator: Do you have a prejudice against us old people? There are frequent references in the record to 'In Korea only old people use...'.
Senator: Finally, what did you mean when you claimed 'All you base are belong to us'?

Re:Rights

[alex4u2nv]

Senator: Also, what did you mean by, "Set US up the bomb."? Guards, sieze him!

Re:Rights

[commodoresloat]

Nominee: I agree that these posts look a little troubling, Senator, but please, Sir, let the record show that at least I got the first post.

Re:Rights

[Petey_Alchemist]

Again, this is modded up funny, but let's seriously consider this for a second:

If we're dredging up Samuel Alito's yearbook photo, why is it so far fetched to believe that in the future, the Internet will be scoured for facts about people?

What happens when a future Presidential candidate had a shitty myspace when he was 14?

Any idiot can use Google can become a "websleuth". We have it all the time here on /., with people identifying troll accounts and cross referencing them to actual accounts.

Look, no one is free of skeletons in their closet. But our generation (speaking as a college student) has left a "paper trail" like no other. Imagine if suddenly the New York Times had this sort of access to Bush! AIM transcripts, emails, messageboard postings, facebook groups, et cetera. How much will the Internet Archive be hit up for this sort of thing?

Let's face it: by the time many of us younger /. users are older, we'll have to deal with one of two crises in politics. Either:
A) We'll see new laws enacted somehow barring journalists and bloggers from publicizing past information on candidates (fat chance), or
B) We'll have to, as a nation, come to grips that all of the leading Presidential candidates listened to My Chemical Romance and were, at best, SA Forum Goons and, at worst, XXX password crackers.

You laugh. I think our generation is already bracing for this. I was interviewing kids at my college (William and Mary) about the use of "Tribe" as our nickname. NCAA has asked us to change it, etc, etc. I went to ask some kid upstairs about his opinion as to whether or not it was a valid change, and this sophomore looked at me and said, "seeing as I someday want to run for public office, I'm going to have to decline to answer your question."

Will software corporations hire background investigators to check whether or not you ever frequented a bit-torrent site?

Will the frivolous, unthinking, knee jerk petitions/forums/porn sites/facebook groups we are associated with in our youth some day come back to haunt us in this new, incomparatively open world?

Stay tuned...

--Petey

Re:Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir is a salutation given to knights. If you are going to address a senator (and unless he was already knighted), the proper way to address him would be "Mr. Senator".

Re:Rights

[Namronorman]

From the hall of fame: Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot

Re:Rights

[nsasch]

Weird thing is, I've already taken this into account. I regularly search for my name on Google, and I find mostly links to Amazon.com reviews, and slashdot comments. I generally keep proper puncuation and capitalization. The domains I own, all are very business-like.

My personal site, while it does have personal information such as the music artists I like, it has a blog with full sentences, nothing extremely controversial. Everytime I post something, especially on /., I think about, what if my future employer read this?

Most likely, I'll come across somebody, I'm thinking for scholarship applications or similar, that will `Google` me, and come across all my footprints. They'll see I have an organized website, they'll find a scientifically and technically focused blog, and they'll see that I participate on /. in my "downtime".

Even my MySpace, I'm 15, it's almost required that I have one, is in a fair condition. I maintain only close friends on my MySpace, and delete innapropriate comments. In the future, I assume people will realize that my MySpace was for social connections, not business, and most everyone is very different in their social, business, and academic lifestyles.

Re:Rights

[Skye16]

They also respond well to "hey, bitch! I just threw you 16 million in campaign contributions. get your ass over here and do what I tell you!"

Re:Rights

[RulesLawyer]

In fairness, it's even more the case than ever before that one should post to Usenet as if what one writes will also appear the next day on the front page of the New York Times and whatever paper your boss, SO, and parents read. To a degree, this has always been true, but with the Internet explosion its the case more than ever.

This was written back in April 1995. This was also considered in misc.legal in 1994.

Simple solution: you're responsible for your own speech. *gasp*

Re:Rights

[Petey_Alchemist]

Impressive, young Skywalker.

Me? I'm entirely too lax in this area. I'm opinionated, irreverent, offensive, et cetera. No more than I am in real life, but too much for public discourse.

Suffice to say most of your peers aren't like you.

--Petey

Re:Rights

[Petey_Alchemist]

Interesting. I'm not old enough to have been a Usenet junkie.

I certainly learned my lesson--mostly--after that event my freshman year. When I was a senior, a peer was kicked out of NHS for posting comments that were derogatory to certain teachers--a teacher had gone through her history and printed out every one of her comments, searching for things to get her on.

I'm not denying responsibility for speech. My argument is this:

The average person, who does not yet have any political aspirations, will be less likely to regulate his or her speech on the Internet than a person who does have such aspirations. We are going to have a generation of people who will find themselves bitten in the ass by their Internet personas, because muckraking journalists will look for anything--even a drunken "FUCK BUSH" post--in the future to label a political candidate.

--Petey

Re:Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. So what about if someone who happens to hate you posts something nasty about you?

1. Years later you have a job interview. It goes well.
2. The Boss is impressed and looks you up on Google to get more background on what sort of person you are.
3. Finds a page saying 'X is a nasty vile twat who is rude and absuive to everyone' (or something).
4. Boss phones the next person on their list and gives them the job instead.

5. ???
6. Profit!!! Or *not* since you're now jobless.

Re:Rights

[Scarletdown]

Senator: Sir, I have before me posting alledged to be by you on a computer web service referred to as slashdot. Are you familiar with that?
Nominee: Uh, yes Sir.
Senator: Are these postings labelled as from one 'FukMonkey345' yours?
Nominee: Sir I can assure you that was a long time ago.
Senator: Sir, remember you are under oath, I have evidence here that you claimed that you 'Welcome the nerd overlords?' Who are these folks?
Senator: You also stated that 'In Soviet Russia they own you'? What is this commie loving talk?
Senator: Do you have a prejudice against us old people? There are frequent references in the record to 'In Korea only old people use...'.
Senator: Finally, what did you mean when you claimed 'All you base are belong to us'?

Nominee: Sir, I am afraid that I have no choice now but to mod you down. -1 Troll
Senator: Wha?...

Nominee then gets appointed to whatever position he was running for, because suddenly, very few people can now see or hear the asshat Senator who was grilling him about his Slashdot activities. And there is much rejoicing in the name of His Noodly Appendage.

the school had a policy of student abstinence?

[tehwebguy]

if the school did legitimately have a policy for student abstinence (which it may very well have, especially if it were a private and/or religious school) then they were well within their limits.

there is a big difference between doing something on campus that violates school policy, and making a website from home.

Re:the school had a policy of student abstinence?

[bladesjester]

I fail to see how a school can legitimately have a policy for abstinance. I can see how they would consider encouraging people taking condoms off of someone's shirt to be a bit disruptive, but a school policy of abstinance leads to a few rather unplesant questions.

1) what about sex ed, which is a required part of public education? (just saying "don't do it" does a lot of harm. The STD rates for countries like Japan, which lack sex ed, really show this. Consequently, Japan is working to improve this.)
2) do they refuse to educate girls who become pregnant?
3) can they refuse to allow other kids who have been rumored to have had sex (true or not) to come to school?

Re:Why am I not surprised....

[bgog]

Wow. This got modded as Troll? I'm an american and I'd call it 'Insightful'

Profit?

[Spy der Mann]

1. Make webpage
2. Get punished
3. Profit!!

It's every student's dream! :D

Re:Profit?

[Scarletdown]

1. Make webpage
2. Get punished
3. Profit!!

Or alternatively...

1. Secretly set up a webcam in principal's office.
2. Arrange for cute but stuck-up, spoiled brat cheerleader to end up in principal's office for disciplining (preferably on one of the days when the cheerleaders wear their uniforms to school)
3. Broadcast resulting entertainment on a pay-per-view web site.
4. ...?
5. Profit

Of course, back when I was in jr. high and high school (early to mid-80s), the technology for the above business model didn't exist yet: no web cams, no Web or publically accessible Internet, and no computer hardware that would be able to handle such a production (the TRS-80s we had just didn't have the horsepower to manage an enterprise like this.)

And that's exactly why you hammer them hard

[PotatoHead]

early, right out of the gate.

The school works for us, not the other way around. They may be trained as educators, but they have nothing on honest, caring, critical thinking parents where raising kids is concerned.

Most of the crap kids must endure these days is directly related to making the job easier for the educators. A noble goal, and one that I support. However, this goal must not get in the way of helping kids to learn citizenship, responsibility and ethics --along with their rights and responsibilities.

If the school does something lame with your kid, do not let it slide because the damage is minor, or resolving the issue takes time. Address it completely and fully and make sure your kid knows why this is being done and what the value is.

Often the school will want the parents to meet with the educator without the student in kind of a settlement meeting. The idea being to come to a solution that insures no educator loses face. Don't do that. If the problem involves your kid, then the discussion is fair game as well.

There are a lot of things about my school district that I don't like, and there are a lot of things I do like too. My point is they are not perfect, even though they try really hard to convey that to both kids and parents. Once they realize you see through that and require they deal fair, many issues get a lot easier as time goes on.

I'm happy this kid got to actually speak. I am also worried that he does not see the flip side of the issue; namely, that free speech has consequenses. Later in life, he might speak and be right for doing so, but might not consider the consequenses of his speech where his peers are concerned.

Who knows though. Might be a smart young man who just learned a valuable lesson early enough to really make a difference. Just worry a little that it might go to his head, that's all.

If the student is reading this: Good luck in life, young man, but be sure to think your future speech all the way through before speaking!

(Not that you did anything wrong, because you didn't. It's just that speaking out does not always equal a nice bankroll.)

Re:And that's exactly why you hammer them hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure at all what you're saying, but it's irrelevant. The kid didn't post anything; the case referenced postings in his guest book made by other students.

Re:And that's exactly why you hammer them hard

[Surt]

In fairness to the student: the likelyhood he would learn that his speech has no consequences is fairly low, since it wasn't his speech that got him in trouble in the first place. It was someone elses speech, and I hope he rightly learns that he shouldn't worry too much that someone else's speech will get him into trouble.

Re:And that's exactly why you hammer them hard

[Ryan Amos]

Most of the crap kids endure at schools these days is to make school administrators feel self-important and powerful. Teachers are usually fine and pretty in tune with what's going on, but administrators will make and enforce stupid rules just so they can pat themselves on the back later.

Re:And that's exactly why you hammer them hard

[PotatoHead]

Normally don't reply to AC --see my journal for why. However, you missed the point of my comment.

I know it has little relevance to the major topic at hand. I was just addressing the parent comment with a little reinforcement.

Re:Why am I not surprised....

[Spy der Mann]

You're right... the current education system encourages passiveness instead of interaction, i.e. discussions, debates, etc.

So yes, please mod grandparent up. And no, please don't mod this up, it'd be wasted karma.

Oceanport School District Student Speech Policies

[Bananatree3]

Here is the "Freedom of Speech/Expression" policies for the school district that this guy was suspended in (pdf): http://www.oceanport.k12.nj.us/PDFFiles/5145.2doc. pdf

ACLU

[Botia]

Wow! I'm so used to the ACLU fighting on the other side saying that students don't have freedom of speech because it violates separation of church and state, mentions God, etc. It's a wonderful thing when they fight for the rights of the students and not against.

Re:ACLU

[theodicey]

You need to go back and read the First Amendment, the defense of which is the ACLU's primary purpose. First sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Coerced prayer in schools is an obvious violation of the first clause. Other religion in schools issues are a question of how to balance the second and third clauses.

Re:ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no coerced prayer in public schools....well not in the USA anyway. If you're talking about some place like Saudi Arabia then you should know that the US constitution doesn't apply there....yet.

Re:ACLU

[Botia]

"Coerced pray in schools" is not a "law respecting an establishment of religion". It is not even a law. Preventing students from praying is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech."

Re:ACLU

[cpt kangarooski]

Oh, and when did the ACLU ever say that? There's a difference between students praying, and the school endorsing their prayer.

Re:ACLU

[jfruhlinger]

Um, there used to be coerced prayer in public schools all over the U.S. Christian prayers, it goes without saying. The reason they don't exist anymore is because groups like the ACLU sued to get rid of them. If the ACLU were to set up a Saudi chapter (SCLU?), I think it would be a good thing.

jf

Re:ACLU

[jfruhlinger]

Public school districts are institutions of local governments, and their regulations have the force of law for students (i.e. the rules have the force of the government behind them and students can be punished for breaking them).

Preventing a student from praying -- silently in class, or on his own time at recess or outside of class -- obviously is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech." So is failing to make reasonable accommodations for private religious practice.

School officials (who are government appointees) giving a student a microphone and having them pray in front of a school assembly is a whole different kettle of fish. You're essentially saying "This student's beliefs are the beliefs of the school district," which means that the local government is declaring one religion or set of beliefs to be true. That is also obviously in contradiction with the 1st Amendment.

Why do so many Christians seem to feel that they are being "repressed" if Christianity isn't given offical state-funded recongition?

jf

Re:ACLU

[fader]

The same ACLU that has consistently fought in favor of allowing children to pray, distribute religious literature, or otherwise express their religious beliefs in schools? You're either arguing against an organization you know little about, or simply being disingenuous. Neither one is a particularly honorable tactic for persuading people to your beliefs.

Re:ACLU

[rpresser]

Perhaps you are not aware that prayer in schools has caused major conflict in the past. Not only between Christians supporting prayer and atheists or other-religionists opposing it, but between different Christian sects. Consider the "Battle of Philadelphia", where a dispute over which Bible should be used in school Bible readings led to rioting and the burning of two Catholic churches.

Preventing students from praying may save lives. Religious folk are not to be trusted with the general welfare; they will always overlook it as they attend to their own special welfare.

Re:ACLU

[Fulcrum of Evil]

"Coerced pray in schools" is not a "law respecting an establishment of religion". It is not even a law. Preventing students from praying is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech."

What is with you people? Every time this issue comes up, somebody needs this exact point explained - the first ammendment applies to coerced prayer in school. Every time. Bonus points if you argue the point after somebody quotes SCOTUS rulings.

Re:ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me who prohibits students from praying in school? The ACLU defends this right.

You sir, have been duped. I will pray to God for your salvation.

Re:ACLU

[belmolis]

Why do so many Christians seem to feel that they are being "repressed" if Christianity isn't given offical state-funded recongition?

The claims of most religions are so utterly lacking in empirical foundation if not ridiculous and contradictory that few people would believe them if not indoctrinated since childhood. This is why many people want to impose their religion in the educational system. The desire of many Christians (and Muslims) for state recognition and funding is due to a combination of this and the fact that as exclusive religions, whose adherents consider non-believers to be damned and enemies of believers, they consider it dangerous and evil to allow anything other than their own religion.

Re:ACLU

[Lehk228]

in order for that to work the sudis would need to first obtain civil liberties, any attempts at such action would be met with execution as a traitor and heretic

All for free speach

[g0bshiTe]

While I'm all for freedom of speach even if I don't agree with it that's what freedom of speach is, I don't however, think it is right that in this case the school was sought after for a monetary award, when so many schools are so underfunded these days, this sends a message not of freedom to speak and be heard or to express, but rather to sue your school and profit.

I think in this case some other form of restitution could have been sought and some agreement made, granted that this kid will ever regain the days lost from expulsion/suspension I'm sure he/she didn't care much though.

To this person, I say right on you protected your rights, and most likely denied someone of a better education due to lack of funding.

Your rights will be stomped on the rest of your life, get used to it. Not saying give in to it though. You should fight for them, people gave their lives so we could enjoy the few rights we have left.

No other point to this post.

Re:All for free speach

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, what should have happened is that the power-mad, un-American assholes that punished him should have been fired, barred from working with children anywhere ever again, and personally fined. Nobody should be fucking around with Free Speech rights, especially when the target is impressionable children!

These school administrators are more harmful to America than terrorists are!

Re:All for free speach

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he/she didn't care much though.

Are you really sure? He didn't just get suspended for a few days, he also had a few privalages taken away like a school trip, and they benched him from the Baseball team for 1 month. Thats alot of baseball games the kid missed.

Your rights will be stomped on the rest of your life, get used to it.

What a defeatist attitude. What this school district did is appalling and they should be punished for it. If nobody fights for their rights, where will we be tomorrow?

-fohat
(posting anon cuz I already modded here)

Re:All for free speach

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think in this case some other form of restitution could have been sought and some agreement made, granted that this kid will ever regain the days lost from expulsion/suspension I'm sure he/she didn't care much though."

First, the student was also prevented from playing on the baseball team for a month, and was not allowed to go on a class field trip. Second, most schools do not allow you to make up quizes/tests/homework missed while suspended. This can have a major impact on your grades, which can affect which colleges you can get into, and whether you get a scholarship.

Having said this, the school administrators responsible for this action should also be punished. They interfered with his education because he dared to criticize them and to allow someone else to insult them. It's a clear case of abuse of power.

Re:All for free speach

[MooUK]

Agreed; there's no reason the school should pay out money that SHOULD be used to teach people.

However, I see no reason why the compensation shouldn't be paid right out of the wages of those responsible for the original decision.

Re:All for free speach

[Deagol]

I know you're being sarcastic, but *please* don't use the now-tired line of equating XYZ with terrorists. When driving home last night, I heard some asshat (I think it was some representative of MADD -- Mothers Against Druke Drivers) equating drunk drivers with terrorists. What an ass.

Save equating terrorists with terrorists. Doing otherwise dilutes the term and makes the world a worse place for everyone.

Re:All for free speach

[mrchaotica]

Actually, I think people who subvert America's ideals are really are worse than terrorists. Seriously. After all, all terrorists can do is kill people, but people who don't care to uphold our ideals of Freedom -- at all costs -- could destroy the entire country.

Think about 9/11: Al Qaida merely killed a few thousand people, but the "PATRIOT" Act took away the freedom of 250 million. Freedom is more important than lives, anyway -- if you're a truly patriotic American, that is.

He can BS, that's for sure.

[Fermatprime]

From TFA:

"While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly, I'm hopeful this will help ensure that free speech rights of students aren't trampled on again in the future," said Dwyer, who is now in 11th grade.

He just got $120,000 because his school suspended him for a week, and he's going to say that the most important thing about the case to him was the free speech rights? For some reason, I'm skeptical.

Re:He can BS, that's for sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can believe it. Maybe he's not old enough to be cynical yet.

Who's paying this?

[VickiM]

The New Jersey school district is to pay the child $117,500, right? Um, is that $117,500 of tax money? That's a lot of chicken nuggets and little milk cartons...

Re:Who's paying this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The school district's indemnity insurance will be paying for this, it will not be paid from any school funds.

Re:Who's paying this?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was justice it would come out of the pay of the administrators that did this. These people do stupid things like this and make 6 figures. More likely it will mean the district will put off hiring a music teacher or a decent math or science teacher for another few years.

Re:Who's paying this?

[phauxfinnish]

Um, is that $117,500 of tax money? That's a lot of chicken nuggets and little milk cartons...

This always comes up with cases about the First Amendment. Yes, of course that is $117,500 of tax money.

Look, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from government censorship. Only government censorship; the First Amendment does not prevent private entities from censoring your speech. In any First Amendment case where restitution is found to be due to the plaintiff, said restitiution will be derived from tax monies.

You might want to argue, then, that monetary reward is not the appropriate restitution for violation of First Amendment rights. I will leave it to you to define a better way to right the harm of such violation. Serious government censorship is usually immediately effective in its aims, if not violently so. By time the courts have decided that censorship was unfounded, it is often too late for the censor speech to have its intended effect. In the business world, such 'irreparable harm' results in monetary rewards.

I like to think of it this way:
You are being fined because the school improperly violated this student's rights. Your tax dollars are going into his pockets. This is the price you pay for not being involved enough with the local governance. Not to say that you are not active enough in your local politics, but the Government is of the people, by the people. We, the People, are ultimately, collectively responsible. The collective has been found guilty in the Court and must pay restitution. Hopefully, we have learned our lesson and will ensure that our schools follow the laws of our land. Hopefully...

Re:Who's paying this?

[Landshark17]

That's a lot of chicken nuggets and little milk cartons...

It's OK, the food sucked to begin with. Trust me, I went to high school in New Jersey.

Re:Who's paying this?

[Billosaur]

The New Jersey school district is to pay the child $117,500, right? Um, is that $117,500 of tax money? That's a lot of chicken nuggets and little milk cartons...

Yes, that certainly is a lot of chicken nuggets and milk, not to mention pencils, books, and salaries... but how else are you going to teach a school that is was wrong? By hitting them in the wallet, the one place most school districts can't afford to take a hit.

Aren't the schools supposed to be teaching our kids values? Or did I miss that part of American History class?

Re:Who's paying this?

[PhraudulentOne]

That's why this judgement was so fair. Yes, the money is paid out using tax money, but now parents can go and complain about those administrators. Awareness was raised. The people in charge that caused this issue are now responsible for causing that school district to pay out $100k+. At the PTA meetings, parents can get involved. This is a good judgement because it opens the eyes of parents and administrators alike.

  The message is: Do not push the children around and run your schools like prisons, or you will pay.

No, the government did not take the $100k out of the budget for school supplies and more teachers. Do you think that would fly in real life? Do you think if they used this as an excuse to not hire a teacher, the parents would let that fly? Awareness has been raised for the people involed with this New Jersey school, and hopefully the parents will now collectively stand up for their children.

But think of the children.

[srobert]

"There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period."

  But the school environment should prepare students for their adult life. Will their employer not have rules about what they can do when not on the employer's time? We can't have a generation of children grow up with unrealistic expectations about their rights. In the interests of an efficient national economy, we need the school system to teach students to respect authority at all times for their own good.

Re:But think of the children.

[raider_red]

"We can't have a generation of children grow up with unrealistic expectations about their rights. In the interests of an efficient national economy, we need the school system to teach students to respect authority at all times for their own good."

For the love of God, I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, we're going to have an entire generation who would vote an idiot into the White House, sell their children to Haliburton, and think that it's their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.

Re:But think of the children.

[bgog]

You said it. The employer can have rules about what happens on the EMPLOYERS time and the school can say what happens on the SCHOOL'S time. I don't expect my employer to tell me what I can do In my house and the school shouldn't have a say in what MY kids do in my house either.

Of course the school will have rules while my kid is there and my child must obey them.

Re:But think of the children.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Surely what we need is a complete generation of young people who care a great deal for their rights, and also know that authority does sometimes need to be ignored/done away with (i.e. when it's corrupt, abused, self-appointed, etc) instead of the present system where about 1% have brains and get shouted down as terrorists/unpatriotic/dissenting when they stand up for their rights.
If everyone stands up for their rights then it will be impossible (or very hard) to remove them.
To use your employer example, if an employer finds that all/almost all of their new workforce refuses to accept rules governing their own time then the employer will have to change the rules - you can't fire/hire most of your workforce every week. The national economy will iron the wrinkles out eventually and everyone will be happier, except the fascists.

Re:But think of the children.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most, if not all, employers have rules about what you can do off clock time. Drug testing is probably the most common example, but people have been legally fired for many other unethical off-work activities.

Re:But think of the children.

[bgog]

I'm aware. You make a good point. However i'd argue against that as well. I really don't want to churn up that debate here since it's off topic. Drug testing is good if you drive a truck because you could kill people. However if you have some deskjob then they should fire you if you do a bad job and otherwise mind their buisness. If they suspect you do drugs they can also contact the PROPER authorities and report you.

But again on the subject of school and children. It really isn't the schools place to punnish my kid for what he writes on the internet at home. If it they don't like it then they can call me. If it's illegal (such as threatening people) then they should call the cops. It is not their place to punnish for that act.

There is also a difference between an employer and a public school. If I'm publicly trashing my employer they can feel free to choose to stop paying me. However a public education is a service provide by the governement to my kids. In my opinion they don't have a right to interfere with that (ie suspension) because of something my kid did at home. Just like they can't take away your voting rights just because you crit the governemnet on the internet. It's just not their buisness. Call the parent, call the cops, or butt out.

The lessons of youth

[leereyno]

Being a young person is a long hard lesson in the abuse of authority. This case is a happy exception in that the abusers were punished and punished publicly.

This case clearly demonstrates what most of us already know, that an awful lot of school administrators pursued a career in education because they wanted a job where they could lord themselves over other people. This kind of abuse is inevitable anytime one group or person has too much power over another group or person.

This kid didn't do anything wrong. I'm glad he had the courage and intestinal fortitude to stand up for himself and fight his oppressors. He was punished for the "crime" of being young and because the administration thought they could get away with it. They saw him as a non-person without any rights. A punching bag to take out their frustrations upon. Maybe they'll think twice next time, assuming that there is one since the voters now have 100,000 reasons to elect a new school board. No one likes being told that their tax dollars were spent to compensate the victims of abuse at the hands of a public institution.

Lee

Re:The lessons of youth

[agraupe]

Which part of this was flamebait? From where I'm standing (a high school student) this appears to be fairly accurate. I've been threatened with suspension or expulsion for minor offenses, only to be told "it was a misunderstanding" when my parents ask about it. The abuse of power is a huge problem in the public education system, and putting your head in the sand doesn't help anyone.

And yes, I do know that many educators do value their jobs for the right reasons, but that still doesn't make this sort of thing okay when it happens.

Re:The lessons of youth

[slackmaster2000]

Parent shouldn't be flamebait!

Anyhow, I really have a hard time believing that anybody gets into education for the power trip. If anything, I'm willing to bet that a lot of poor educators get into education because it was their last resort, and then they become bitter and take their personal issues out on children.

I personally knew at least four people in college who went into education after failing at their original major - well, maybe a couple of them just decided they didn't like their original major. These people had no real *desire* to be teachers, and didn't necessarily even like children. They way they conveyed things to me it was just a sort of fallback. Education undergrad programs are pretty simple too, from the coursework I saw (helped a few with homework). Not that learning how to teach isn't challenging, but a lot of the courses seemed to be really watered down (although I was in engineering so I'm sure I was biased). Anyhow, this is all kind of sad because teaching *well* is a very, very difficult job...as is staying inspired year after year. If someone is just going to sort of pick a major out of the air, I'd hope that they wouldn't even consider education.

Re:The lessons of youth

[leereyno]

Teachers don't go into it for the power trip, administrators do. Not always of course, but often enough to be a stereotype if not a cliche. The teachers are actually the subordinates of the administrators and are given as much grief by the bad ones as the students. They try to create the facade of a unified front to the students, but if you watch closely enough the usual office politics are all too obvious.

I was in high school from 87 to 91. Back at my old school we had a vice principal who was obsessed with the clothes people wore, especially girls. Now I'm not talking about people coming to class dressed like clowns, thugs, or crack hoes, I'm talking about irrelevant things that no one else would care about. My sister had a run-in with him because she was wearing an ankle length skirt with the kind of stockings that have a line going up the back. I don't know what you call them, but he apparently thought they were "totally inappropriate" and actually sent my sister home to change. The funny thing is, my grandmother was REQUIRED to wear those kinds of stockings in school when she was that age. This put him on my sister's bozo list, from which he was never deleted.

What business was it of his what my sister wore to school? None at all. The only way it would have been any concern of his or anyone else's is if her attire was somehow disruptive, which it wasn't. Yet Mr. Boyd took it upon himself to become the fashion police for the school. I personally believe that the criteria by which he judged something to be inappropriate was whether or not it made his dick twitch when he looked at the girl. Apparently those stockings flipped his switch and so he took his sexual frustrations out on my sister. It is oft said that someone who is a pain in the ass "just needs to get laid." Well in his case I think that was all too true. He was a divorced middle aged white guy, not exactly a babe magnet.

I think that school administrators have some of the same problems that police officers do. An administrator spends his days dealing with the FFA, or Future Felons of America, that miniscule percentage of the student body that is made up of worthless assholes. After a while this tends to affect how you deal with every student. The moral caliber of most people in high school is not appreciably different from the average person in their 20's and 30's. What makes things so difficult for people that age that unlike adult society, the dregs have not yet found their way to prison or skid row usually. As a result everyone gets treated like a potential problem because of the 1 in 100 among them who really is a problem. This is one of the reasons I'm planning to home school my kids. The other reason is because I actually want them to learn something.

Lee

Re:The lessons of youth

[Grimster]

This is why I as a parent will take (and do take but kindergarten isn't really the mean streets yet) an extremely active part in my child's education. My kid's teachers will know my face on sight, and will know that EVERYTHING that happens with my child will be reported to me and I will ask my child every day when he comes home how his day was and if I hear reports of behavior from teachers and administrators I feel should be addressed you can bet your ass I'll be up there and having a little conference with them.

I put up with a little bit of that shit as a high schooler myself. Not much, a little more than was "average" in my school but the average amount of BS was pretty low compared to the crap today. They refused to let me be valedictorian even though the highest GPA was usually chosen as the valedictorian (which I was highest by a good margin) because I was a bit of an outspoken troublemaker in their eyes. They tried to kick me out for a silly skit we did during the graduation festivities but I already had my diploma and all required courses to graduate so had they kicked me out I'da still graduated, of course the OTHER fellas who were part of that skit would also have to be kicked out, and all those dudes would have not graduated and a couple were "favorites" so... no expulsion for me (all I said was "welcome to Ardmore Coxsey Bible School" at the beginning of the skit, haha they DEMANDED we not say Coxsey Bible when they heard us practicing one night but I did it anyway).

They also "lost" every copy of my transcripts I asked my counselor to send to colleges and scholarships I was competing for, seriously, she just didn't send the fucking things. This didn't happen just once, or twice, I'm not being paranoid, this happened no less than 5 different times. I was not even considered for 5 scholarships because my transcripts never arrived on time. It was so bad that my gifted education teacher finally went up to my school herself, demanded my transcripts, and then SHE made copies of thsoe transcrips and sent them out for me to the scholarships I was applying for! If that crap happens to my kid the shit will hit the fan you can rest assured. Wish my parents had been a little more helpful with that crap but I solved the problem myself regardless and got a whole slew of awesome scholarship offers despite my principal (who I am pretty sure was the one making the counselor "lose" my shit, me and the counselor never really had words, good or bad).

Basically I'll be sure I'm there to make sure my son isn't being shit on.

The Catholic School in New York

[panth0r]

Does anyone remember that big deal that happened in New York where students were told not to start personal websites (MySpace and the like). Here, I found the Slashdot article:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/235524 3&tid=95
Now, I know one can make the argument that these are different situations, but they both deal with a school's right to compel their students to change what they do outside of school, specifically on the Internet. The other large difference is that this is a public school and the other school was Catholic, but this really shouldn't matter outside of school. Schools should have no right, Catholic or public, to compel their students to take down personal blogs, much less self-maintained websites. To add another two cents to my already tall stack, a middle school should be encouraging the growth of a mind who has already written and maintained his own website before he turned 15, just eight years ago this student probably would have been considered nothing less than a genius and encouraged, no matter the contense of the site... just my two cents...

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[nsayer]

The other large difference is that this is a public school and the other school was Catholic, but this really shouldn't matter outside of school.

But that's the crux of the buscuit though.

The same constitution that says that public schools cannot censor out-of-school activities by students also grants private institutions of all sorts "freedom of association" rights (these are not explicit, but are implied by the first and fourth ammendment rights of peaceful assembly and protection from unreasonable search and arrest. They're a bit like the "right to privacy" that is similarly implied). Those rights allow them to say who may and may not be afforded access based on any criteria they like. The entire difference lies in the fact that the public schools are part of the government and private institutions and parties are not (so long as they do not accept any government funding for their activities).

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[pornking]

Schools should have no right, Catholic or public, to compel their students to take down personal blogs...

Why can't a Catholic school do this? Unlike a public school, a Catholic school is a private organization. It seems to me that enforcing this "right" limits the ability of private organizations to conduct their own affairs.

A Catholic school, and for that matter, any private organization is perfectly entitled to enforce its own code of conduct on or off its property, and apply any (legal) disciplinary measures they see fit. Far from being an abomination, this is exactly as it should be.

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[panth0r]

I've been attending private institutions all my life and I intent to have my children go to similar institutions. I agree that a catholic school can make a rule that says a personal website is not permited, but there can be no legal repercussions should he student violate this rule, the very worst the [Catholic or private] institution could do would be to permanately remove the pupil from their institution. Guess that's nothing new...

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[DJCF]

The entire difference lies in the fact that the public schools are part of the government and private institutions and parties are not

For sure you're right.

It's still wrong though. Why should a student going to a private school have any less rights than a student going to a state school? Why should he have to take down any website, infringing or not, while his neighbour down the road who goes to a state school, does not. (And lets not forget, the comments were in his guesbook for pete's sake!)

Schools, while not being equal in terms of academic performance, should certainly be equal in terms of not grossly overstepping the boundaries of common sense. In this respect, I think there should be a legal requirement which states public and private schools have the same obligations and responsiblities to the students.

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[Blue Stone]

"Why can't a Catholic school do this?"

Because a Catholic school, or any type of private school, should not be allowed to treat children as it's posessions.

There's plenty of time for that when the student graduates and is owned by their employer.

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[jftitan]

One thing comes to mind...

"We're not telling people what to think, we're just trying to show them how." -Serenity

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[ColdSam]

What makes you think a Catholic school would want to encourage the growth of a young mind? The last thing they want is to teach kids how to think independently.

Re:The Catholic School in New York

[entrigant]

If the parents don't like the schools policy then perhaps they shouldn't pay to let their child go there?

these nimrods

[zogger]

"The school district issued a prepared statement that said it solicited advice and guidance from legal advisers and law enforcement officers and acted "on its belief that it was protecting all of the children and the staff in the district."

He should sue those bozos as well now that the school is taken care of. And none of them deserve to be in the law community if they are the ones that "advised" on the censoring. If you can't understand the first amendment,a fundamental part of our history, something that is a born-with right and *not* some government granted permission or privelege, then you don't need nor deserve to be a cop or a "legal advisor".

Re:these nimrods

[MooUK]

Those responsible for the decision should perhaps find the money already being paid to this kid coming out of their bank accounts and wages, instead of the school's funds.

Re:these nimrods

[zogger]

You would hope so.

Re:these nimrods

[Lehk228]

that would be a terrible idea, if the system worked like that the school just needs a scapegoat advisor to break the law.

it was the school infringing on the student's rights

the school should pay the judgement

Re:these nimrods

[zogger]

You mean the school district tax payers should pick up the tab for something named humans did? Why? A handful of pompous power mad idiots did this, not the entire school dstrict. Petit fascists. Screw 'em!

I'm against corporations/governmental entities and non profits who get sued using money common to their orgs to pay off fines or judgements or settlemens. All that does is shift the cost downstream to innocent parties who had nothing to do with the issue at hand.. Criminal acts are done by human beings, human beings should be the ones to pay fines. A "school" is just a building, some human doofuses are the ones who violated that kids rights. The doofuses should pay out of their own pocket and not use other peoples money-tax payers- to fund their illegal,and in this case obviously quite *stupid*, acts.

Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment would fare better if it read:

Since when [do] US school systems encourage anything other than acceptance of spoon-fed garbage[?] It's a miracle that nation continues to function with [such] rampant illiteracy and under-education. Look at their president[,] for [P]ete's sake - he's barely able to communicate on [the level of] a 3 year old.

A few notes of my own:

• With diction as poor as yours, I'm surprised you dare comment. I am a product of the American education system, and my grasp on written communication outstraps yours much the same way the Hulk outguns Tinkerbell.
  
  
• Morons don't only exist in America, and not all Americans are moronic. If you honestly disagree with those statements, you merely serve to prove them true.
  • One of the great things about America is that morons like this school's staff often get their asses served to them on a plate. $117,500 is a lot for a school district to shell out.
    
    
• I may not be happy with George Bush being the President, but I'd pick him over you.

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[renehollan]

One of the great things about America is that morons like this school's staff often get their asses served to them on a plate. $117,500 is a lot for a school district to shell out

Unfortunately, that means the taxpayers.

Now, while it can be argued that the idiots who voted for the school board officials who decided to suspend this student deserve to pay that settlement, I don't think the entire school board electorate should.

On the assumption that the settlement will come out of future real-estate taxes that fund the school system, those who can prove they did not vote for the idiots should be exempt from contributing to the settlement. No one is giving up a secret ballot here -- one can chose between anonymity and a refund and decide what matters more (though I think one would be proud to prove they didn't vote for an idiot).

Yes, yes, this requires secret receipts for votes, and tax levies become a bit complex, but hey, that's what computers are for.

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

['nother poster]

Firstly, youse obveosly never saws tink lay the smack down on nobody.

Twosly , your right. Not all americans is morons, some is assholes.

You sir are a prime example of this type of behavior, and I assume you are quite proud of yourself. "Those who can do, those who can't teach." You could bring nothing germaine to the conversation, so you simply attempt to teach grammar and spelling.

Quite a telling indictment if you ask me.

Ah, well. Enough baiting the trolls.

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[rkcallaghan]

Yes, yes, this requires secret receipts for votes, and tax levies become a bit complex, but hey, that's what computers are for.

No anonymous system can ever allow any form of reciept without losing that anonyminity(sp?). The way you describe it seems to indicate you're already aware of secret voting issues; but for those that need it spelled out for them:

Thug: Vote for Quimby, or I'll kill your kids.
You: Okay, I voted for Quimby.
Thug: Show me your secret reciept.
You: No.
Thug: *BANG*

Feel free to replace thugs with any other power that be that fits your vision of "what could really happen"; but if you don't think vote coercion is a possibility at all, my post isn't going to help you regardless.

~Rebecca

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[renehollan]

Simple.

The receipt requires several keys to decrypt, of which you only hold one. The other(s) are held by the party for which you voted, or in escrow for them.

Now, I suppose you could argue that escrow is not secure since the escrow agent could be corrupt (and collude with the thug in your example), but then you have the usual recourse to argue the whole election was rigged.

Why would you need to prove to a *nobody* who you voted for, if there is no benefit to you? That smacks of duress and collusion between the escrow agent and thug. Of course, you could argue that the judiciary is "in on it" and equally corrupt, when your complaint of election fraud is thrown out, but at that point you're dealing with "If I don't win the election, I'll kill everyone's kids"-type corruption, and a completely secret ballot won't help you. It may interest you to know that the 1995 separation referrendum in Quebec, Canada, had the pro-separation Quebec government threatening to raise taxes if they did not win a separation mandate. Not quite a death threat, but damn frightening nevertheless. (The soap and jury boxes, being expended, and the ballot box ineffective, the time comes to reach for the ammo box).

So, yes, a receipted ballot can never be completely secret, but the secret can be made to be known only to a sufficiently "comfortable" large number of individuals and organizations that must cooperate to reveal it. If you believe that even this is insufficient protection, then you might as well give up on the value of government powers distributed between multiple branches.

The larger question, however, is whether those that did not vote for a taxing body, can be exempt from taxation by it. As a libertarian, I think the answer should be "yes", since taxation is nothing more than theft by a popular mob, but I expect that many will disagree.

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[abscondment]

But what about those who can do teaching?

There is a real lack of quality teachers in the public school system. Many of them are just there because quitting now would mean losing their retirement, not because they love teaching or because they are good at it.

That phrase does have a lot of people who are governed by it, but it's not the rule. My father is one of the best teachers I know. Teaching is a passion and an art for him. He works at a private school - right away, that's a pay cut (public school teachers get paid much, much more for less experience). He moved from being an administrator to a highschool teacher because he wanted more direct interaction with the kids' development - yet another pay cut.

Too many teachers are doing it because they "can't" - but it's certainly true that some people are better at explaining complicated concepts than otheres.

$0.02

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[rkcallaghan]

This is a tangent, but I wanted to reply to you.

Being a Libertarian myself (Registered, Active Voter and Supporter), I must respectfully disagree regarding your "yes" answer on taxes.

I hate taxes as much as the next person. I will also grant you that in our country, and in probably most if not all communities, taxation has degraded in to "popular mob theft"; as the resources are misspent and the population is locked in by outside forces (corporate slavery).

However, in its pure form, an individual member of a community may not have voted for a particular tax; but they have their implicit agreement to the other members of the community -- In order to gain the benefits of being a part of this community, I have agreed to honor the system of the community itself, and that means going along with votes I don't like, or I can leave. Thus taxation is not theft when the taxed are able to leave the community.

As I mentioned though before, in our country, few are really able to leave their communities (whether it be corporate slavery, international working visas, or civil war fallout not allowing states to leave their community either).

~Rebecca

Re:Spoon... Garbage... Mmmm....

[renehollan]

However, in its pure form, an individual member of a community may not have voted for a particular tax; but they have their implicit agreement to the other members of the community -- In order to gain the benefits of being a part of this community, I have agreed to honor the system of the community itself, and that means going along with votes I don't like, or I can leave.

That's the "consent" argument.

Certainly, if one consents to a socio-political system that involves taxation, then one has agreed to be taxed, yes. And, in some limited circumstances, this might actually make economic sense: broad taxation, even with the inevitable redistribution of funds from those that pay "more than their fair share" to those that pay "less", might be more cost-effective than the overhead of precise billing. In fact, on a local level, this works rather well: I like high quality schools in my town that benefit all children, because educated children are more likely to be procuctive citizens. It breaks down, however, the wider the geographic scope of the taxation becomes. If I move into a new town, then yes, one can argue that I've accepted the tax structure that might exist there.

But, what exactly have I consented to? The present tax levels? The power the government has to change them? The power to deny me the right to leave? The 1995 Quebec referendum on separation, if sucessful (It failed by the slimmest of margins) would have broken the province into ten economic zones, with different levels and kinds of taxation in each, and a prohibition to move from one zone to another to avoid the levels and kinds of taxation in a particular zone.

You could argue that in moving to a particular place, one has consented to all the powers the local (district, county, state, or federal) government has. But I disagree: to what extent do I have a choice and can consent freely? Consent is acceptance of a contract, and a contract is a meeting of minds. Where there is no meeting of minds, there is no contract, and hence no consent. Most likely and rationally what I have consented to, in my mind, and in order of importance and relevence is (a) the status quo, (b) my freedom to leave should the status quo change to my detriment, (c) that the cost to leave should not change from what it is when I arrive. No rational person, and certainly no libertarian, would consent to arbitrary rule by a popular mob with no hope of escape.

It is far better to have less government power than to excuse more by way of the freedome to leave: more government power might make such a freedom quite illusory when it would matter. I've been there, seen that, and left by the skin of my teeth and the fortunes of a vote too close for comfort.

Even this uncomfortably slippery argument for government power by consent does not address the issue of the newly franchised: those that only recently have the power to vote. To what have they consented before they can vote? Nothing, I'd say. First, their power to consent is not recognized (minors are not generally recognized as being able to contract, except for "necessaries", in most jurisdictions), so they can't be legitimately taxed. The carrot of socialized services can be dangled in front of them so as to "encourage" consent, and if the youth are poor and hungry, they will readily do so, though this can hardly be called consenting freely. Best then, for us to empower our children with the skills to support themselves (and this harks back to the value of education, so long as it isn't socialist pablum), so as they enter adulthood, the can make a free choice: there is no more powerful voice of non-confidence in government than the youth rejecting all it might offer.

Re:Why am I not surprised....

[DigiShaman]

Look at their president for pete's sake - he's barely able to communicate on a 3 year old level.

Is Kerry really smarter then Bush?.

Lawsuit settlement not coming out of school budget

[Jon_Hanson]

I seriously doubt that the settlement money here will come directly out of the school district's budget. More than likely they have some kind of liability insurance policy that would pay out in a case like this. Maybe it's too small of an amount for an insurance payout, but any entity that doesn't have some kind of general liability policy is asking for problems when a case like this arises.

My wife, who is a music teacher in a public elementary school, has a general liability policy for $1 million that covers her for anything that the district won't. Especially handy is today's lawsuit-happy society.

Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[slappyjack]

"speach" is apparently Gaelic for "wasp, any venomous insect, bite or sting of wasp, etc., stitch in the side"
(From: http://www.mackinnon.me.uk/Faclair/S.html in case you wanna look up some Gaelic; and really, who doesn't?)

"Speach" is also a surname.

If we're going to discuss schools and education and whatnot, maybe we should use the right words.

I, for one, do not support "Freedom of Speach." Keep your wasps away from me.

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Total_Wimp]

That's really so nice of you to point out my error. Have you considered posting on "Colon: News for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation Nerds"?

Or maybe instead of your friendly spelling advice, you could give me advice on the best spell check for my web browser? Remember, make fun of a man's spelling and you feel superior for day, but teach man to spell and you can feel superior for a lifetime.

TW

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Bloke down the pub]

Alright then.

the school decided that it's own more stringent rules

That expands to "the school decided that it is own more stringent rules". What's that trying to mean? Is it supposed to be some bizarre form of the present continuous (s/is own/is owning/)? Here's a clue, only Indians are writing like that. Indians and Japanese game developers from 1980.

You - down in the hole - want a new shovel?

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[slappyjack]

That's really so nice of you to point out my error. Have you considered posting on "Colon: News for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation Nerds"?

No, I have not. Typically I mangle the crap out of the english language on a daily basis with my incredibly poor typoing skills. However, "speach" looked close enough to a real word that I took the time to make sure it wasnt an alternate spelling or something else I didn't know.

Or maybe instead of your friendly spelling advice, you could give me advice on the best spell check for my web browser?

Spelling hints when you're unsure:
http://www.onelook.com/
Google the word alone (and see if it asks you "did you mean?") or with a "define" parameter, e.g.:
googling the word "speach" alone
Searching for the definition with "define:speach"

Remember, make fun of a man's spelling and you feel superior for day, but teach man to spell and you can feel superior for a lifetime.

Actually, it came from curiosity out of wondering if we americans had mangled the shit out of yet another british spelling of a word. I mean, all those dropped "u"s (humour, armour, etc.)... just WHERE do they GO? Are they in a big pile in heaven next to all the lost socks and sunglasses?

As for feeling superior; I'm currently seven grand in the hole, jobless, and living in my "sister"s spare bedroom. I don't feel superior to anyone right now.

However, I'm still a giant smartass.

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Total_Wimp]

I am NOT defending my spelling or grammar. I AM pointing out that when I bang out a quick reply on a real-time forum without any spelling or grammar checker that I will almost always make mistakes. And I'd like you to cut me some slack, or, alternately, suggest some kind of technology (isn't this "News for Nerds"?) that may assist me.

And finally: I fucked up my spelling. I'm really, really, sorry. Now could you please attack the substance (or lack thereof) of my post so we can have one of those healthy, on-topic debates I keep hearing about.

TW

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

lolz correct him for spelling then use "Alright" as a word... ok, hotshot!

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok fine... but that extra apostrophe actually took you *more* effort and it took you *longer* to type your "quick reply".

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

> I fucked up my spelling. I'm really, really, sorry. Now could you please attack the substance
> (or lack thereof) of my post so we can have one of those healthy, on-topic debates I keep hearing about.

No way!

Oh, BTW, I couldn't help noticing that your spell checker wouldn't help you with your usage of "metered" when you probably meant meted.

:)

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[WalksOnDirt]

If you are using Firefox you can use Spellbound at http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

Coincidently, it saved me from the same misspelling of speech earlier today.

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[XFilesFMDS1013]

Don't know if you're actually looking for a spell checker...but I use Spellbound, a Firefox extension, works great for me.

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when someone carefully thinks about their grammar and spelling before hitting "submit", it usually means they thought about the content and substance too. Just a thought. I know, it's not that important, but something to think about.

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Total_Wimp]

Actually, I was. I really appreciate you taking the time to recommend this. I just downloaded it an the damned thing works. THANKS!

It would be cool if one of the browser makers thought of adding this in as a default. Might even be bigger than tabbed browsing.

TW

Re:Not to be a smartass, but its "speech"

[Total_Wimp]

Coincidently, it saved me from the same misspelling of speech earlier today.

That's funny. I just downloaded it based on another Slashdotter's advice and I'm very pleased with it. It's one more reason to not click on the big, blue e. Anyway, I wanted to take the time to tell you THANKS for helping a bad speller out.

TW

Re:Why am I not surprised....

[cbiltcliffe]

Let's not make this a D vs. R, Kerry vs. Bush, "my guy's better than yours because yours does X" thing.

If the only thing you can say in Bush's favour is that Kerry's stupid too, then you have a serious problem.

How about this:

They both suck. They're both in the pocket of large corporations, both are completely out of touch with individual Americans. If you don't have a lobby group, you might as well not exist.

When an election campaign turns into a situation where even your own campaign ads say nothing about you, and they're just "My opponent sucks because..." ads, (as every US political ad I've ever seen is) your political system is horribly broken. What you're saying is that there's nothing whatsoever to be gained by voting for you, only lots to lose by voting for your opponent.

I'm not saying that the US is alone in this. I'm Canadian, and we're just as bad, although we've got three major parties to vote against, instead of two. After all, that's what we're really doing. We're not voting for any particular party; we're voting against the other two. They all suck.

The Liberals say "Don't vote Conservative, or all your tax dollars will go to the west, and buying guns for teenagers. They're all a bunch of rednecks." The Conservatives say "Voting Liberal is a vote for corrupt government and scandal." NDP says "Don't vote for either of them, because they're both socially irresponsible."
Well, they're probably all right, to a certain extent. But how about this: Instead of telling me what I'll lose if I vote for your opponent, tell me what I'll gain by voting for you. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be running for office.

Re:Lawsuit settlement not coming out of school bud

[raider_red]

Never, ever, ever post the ammount of your liability policy on a public forum. It's like an invitation to frivolous lawsuits.

Good for him

[Eli Gottlieb]

This guy was lucky. I was arrested for resisting being forcibly moved into detention when I refused to go on my own. I wasn't being violent, just standing in one place being a smart-ass and pissing off the principal and resource officer, who shouldn't have been there in the first place. Neither of these threatens anyone or is illegal. The case was dismissed from court once we got a lawyer, and we decided not to sue for damages. If you don't want to believe me on a matter of personal experience, fine. I've got better things to do than prove I was arrested.

So, yes, abuse of power is an immense, towering problem in public schools. Personally, I hope that having to pay $117,000 whenever they fuck up will make school officials a bit more conservative in their exercise of authority. They have gone so far so often that the ACLU has to print special pamphlets explaining to students that they have Constitutional Rights in school! Given that students are citizens as well and Tinker vs. De Moines, this fact should be obvious and self-evident!

Re:Good for him

[CupBeEmpty]

Personally, I hope that having to pay $117,000 whenever they fuck up will make school officials a bit more conservative in their exercise of authority.

Probably not... I mean its 'our' (if you are in that school district) tax dollars that just payed them and schools still need the same amount of money to run (only now add $117,000). I am however, in FULL support of this decision. The same is true of the recent myspace "terror threat." For those that don't know some kids put up some text on their myspace pages talking about bringing guns to school and killing everyone. So the next day only 400 out of more than a thousand students came to class. The kids were charged (very rightly) with a couple felonies. The problem is that all the parents and administrators are all charged up and ready to go after myspace somehow claiming it was their fault... somehow for allowing people to post whatever they want on the webpage they provide. I know... baffling.

Corporations & Schools, still a power grab/tri

[COredneck]

With many blogging sites, some of which are critical of corporations especailly by their employees concerning their policies. There are many instances and examples of this. Freedom of speech should be based on the Zenger Case from 1732 which you have the right to say anything as long as it is the truth.

It is interesting that the workplace considers your outside of work behavior/activities as a part of the "picture" when you get your annual review or when they decide to discipline you. In my previous job I left, my manager and I did not exactly get along to say it nicely. When it was determined who will get pay raises and who won't, I did not get one. The main reason mentioned was a I received a very big speeding ticket out of state - in Wisconsin while on vacation. The fine was more than $150. Since the company I work for is a government contractor, I was required to disclose the ticket to management. Traffic tickets have no bearing on job performance, therefore, should not be "counted". The group I left, many of the managerial people were former IBM employees.

On schools, many of them especially at the collegiate level dish out punishment for infractions outside the "school yard". Here in Colorado, if you get convicted of rioting and you go to a state supported school, you will get suspended for at least a year. This is in response to the riots in Boulder where University of Colorado is located. Another school, Southern Illinois University also applies off campus offenses towards campus punishment. The motivator of this is because of the Halloween parties in the Carbondale area has gotten out of hand such as riots. The high school I went to Indiana - BTW private started to crack down on many things after I graduated in 1985. At the time, many of the students were potheads. The school started to apply their discipline system to off campus incidents such as getting arrested for marijuana. The year after I graduated, the school got a new Dean who was previously an administrator at one of Indianapolis' inner city schools. One student got jugged (Catholic school term for after school detention) for passing the dean on the highway. The dean recognized the person and car.

This is wonderful!! There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period. If threatening comments are made they of course have the right to call the police who DO have authority outside of school. However it is NEVER appropriate to levy a school punnishment (like detention or removal of privilages) for an activity outside school. It's just a power grab to make the administrators feel more important than they are. Worry about education and keeping kids safe while at school. Leave the parenting to me and any criminal punnishments to the police.

MORANS

[Steven W00ston]

Get A BRAIN!

Re:Oceanport School District Student Speech Polici

[Anonymous Coward]

They sure like underlining everything now don't they.

Hate speech is against the law

[cdrguru]

Therefore, any anti-Semitic comments are illegal.

Of course, I may be mistaken about this. Last time I looked only certain hate speech is actually prosecuted. You can march down the street with a swastika banner shouting "Kill the Jews!" all day long and nobody will stop you. On the other hand, "Kill all the Fags!" will likely get you arrested.

Fortunately, most of the time the police have a lot better things to do than enforce hate-speech laws. Maybe that does fall onto the school then - if you aren't educated what hate speech is, who's fault is it?

You are so sigged.

[porkchop_d_clown]

First, you're exactly right. Second, the phrase "But that's the crux of the biscuit though." is icing on the cake.

MOD PARENT UP

[Steven W00ston]

so i don't have to read any more OMG THINK OF THE TAXPAYERS!!!! posts

How do you punish a school?

[ChaosDiscord]

How do you punish a school? Apparently you fine the school district. That's more than a little broken. In this case the school (or those acting on the school's behalf) was clearly wrong. The kid did nothing illegal. He did nothing during school hours or on school computers. But fining the school district will just hurt the students. Programs will be cut or perhaps taxes will go up. Perhaps it will irritate the school board enough to fire those who made the decision, but that's a pretty indirect solution. Directly punishing those who made the decision seems to make sense, but in general ones employer should share responsibility for the employees decisions.

Gah.

Hate speech is NOT against the law

[Nonesuch]

cdrguru wrote:

Therefore, any anti-Semitic comments are illegal.
Of course, I may be mistaken about this.

IANAL

Yes, you are mistaken.

Last time I looked only certain hate speech is actually prosecuted. You can march down the street with a swastika banner shouting "Kill the Jews!" all day long and nobody will stop you. On the other hand, "Kill all the Fags!" will likely get you arrested.

If a person delivers a hate speech denigrating all Jews, or African-Americans, or gays, then this would not be considered a hate crime anywhere in the United States, because no criminal act has occurred. Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Specifically, Federal and most state "hate crime" laws apply strictly to "incitement to violence". So you can say "Kill the Jews!", but not "Kill Kyle Broflowski, because Kyle is a Jew".

Fortunately, most of the time the police have a lot better things to do than enforce hate-speech laws. Maybe that does fall onto the school then - if you aren't educated what hate speech is, who's fault is it?

Keeping in mind that there are no Federal or State "hate speech" laws, just "hate crime" laws which apply to actions beyond general rhetoric against a class of individuals.

Many colleges and schools have their own "hate speech code", but these do not have the force of law.

Re:Hate speech is NOT against the law

[DavidTC]

Actually, you can say 'Kill Kyle Broflowski, because Kyle is a Jew.'.

You cannot, however, say it to a mob holding shotguns thirty feet from Kyle. I.e., you can't say it if the mob is actually going to do what you say and kill him, right there.(1)

However, this would be illegal no matter what the reason for killing Kyle was.

Although it is sad that, under hate speech laws, you could be punished more if the reason was 'he is a Jew' vs. 'he's drinking Pepsi instead of Coke'. Either way, you did exactly the same thing and got exactly the same result. Motive has never been a legal determination of guilt before.

Motive and intent are two different things, before anyone talks about 1st and 2nd degree murder. Intent is how much you plan a crime, and what you intend the results to be, but motive is why you want to commit it at all. Assuming you sat down and planned it out, killing Kyle for the money vs. killing Kyle cause he slept with your wife vs. killing Kyle because he cut you off in traffic all have the same punishment, but killing Kyle because he's a Jew is somehow a bit worse than that.

Which is logically the same as saying those other motives are better for some reason. It is morally more sound, and is better for society, to kill Kyle for his life insurance than to kill him because he's Jewish, according to the law.

I have a lot of problems with this reasoning, not to least because people are free to think whatever they want, so saying that 'disliking Jews' is a 'bad thought' is a bit dodgy in American law. And if we go there, we have to punish people who killed him for his life insurance more, because fraud is illegal, and punish people who killed him for cutting them off in traffic less, because stopping Kyle from driving dangerously is a good thing...

Frankly, 'motive' needs to be entirely left out of the 'which law did you break' consideration. It's obviously used to help prove the case against people. (Or the lack is brought up to disprove cases.) It can even be brought up as a defense 'I committed this crime out of the goodness of my heart', or even 'He needed killing.'. (2) And it can brought up at sentencing, by whichever side, thinks it would look best, as it always could be.

But making 'motive laws' is just a bad idea in America. It does, indeed, lead to Thought Crime, even if to commit that Thought Crime you have to commit another crime at the same time.

1) It is also illegal to hire people to commit crimes for you, but that's not exactly the same thing.

2) Which can actually work as a legal defense in places besides Texas, depending on what 'needed' means. Besides the obvious self-defense, I mean. The canonical example is in a lifeboat in freezing water that is sinking with three people in it, it is legal for two for them to throw a third out, and even kill him if he attempts to get back in. It is also legal for him to attempt to kill one of them and take that person's place.

that's how we do it here

[conJunk]

right. i work for a non-profit law firm that functions this way. our clients don't pay a dime. when we win, we charge the kind of rates that give attorneys a bad name, and the companies that should have known better and not gotting into the mess in the first place get six-to-seven figure bills

I KNOW WHERE THE VOWELS WENT!

[Z34107]

I mean, all those dropped "u"s (humour, armour, etc.)... just WHERE do they GO?

The questin should be, "How do the Brits justify their wasteful consumption of a perfectly good vowel?" :-D

But, actually, (not) to be a smartass, Noah Webster being the extreme patriot and nationalist he was, created an "American English" dictionary around the time of the American revolution. He spent his life promoting it - and guess what? It's now our language!

People, especially during the American Revolution, wanted to separate themselves from British culture and create their own national identity. They wanted to be cool and unique, and, like, not be soulless knockoffs of the British they just overthrew. So... they dropped most of t3h instances of the letter "u" from English and, as the French say, "tada."

And, as I say, "And the rest is history." Or something.

Re:I KNOW WHERE THE VOWELS WENT!

[lastchance_000]

So what you're saying then is that American English is 18th Century leet-speak? Fascinating.

hahaha yes!

[digitallysick]

this is the best story ever, finally someone stood up and made a change, i would go to school, decked out in a brandnew car, and walk by the teachers and staff and say thankyou all for being dumbasses, it has made me alot of money, and thats what i learned at skool!!

Was addressing both of them, but

[PotatoHead]

really didn't make my comment clear. Oh well, such is life and this is /. afterall.

Re:Was addressing both of them, but

[scotch]

So how did quitting smoking go?

Its called "deterrence" Re:How much?!?

[voss]

When school districts are aware they can be successfully sued regarding the issue then they are less likely to be idiots regarding the topic

Re:Lawsuit settlement not coming out of school bud

[Anonymous Coward]

But all the Loch Ness Monstah needed was tree fiddy. And I'm like, DAMNIT MONSTAH!

suspension bullshit

[!!!!FiReStArTa!!!!]

I got sent home from my grade 11 New York trip for breaking curfew. Just visiting the guys across the hall, at 11:00pm! Anyway, when I got home (on my bday) I found out that my band director had demoted me from first chair flute because I got suspended from school, and that I couldn't go on the band trip. I had already been suspended and sent home, now they were going to deny me another trip? I quit the band in protest and wrote a letter to the band director asking to be given back my old position and to be allowed on the trip, and it worked! Schools can be reasoned with, you don't always need to take them to court!

Re:suspension bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You were playing skin flute and got punished for it? You must not have been very good at it.

Re:Corporations & Schools, still a power grab/

[ankarbass]

"The year after I graduated, the school got a new Dean who was previously an administrator at one of Indianapolis' inner city schools. One student got jugged (Catholic school term for after school detention) for passing the dean on the highway. The dean recognized the person and car."

Are you suggesting that the dean assumed that the student was speeding or improperly passing? Or was this just a case of the dean's pride being hurt?

I went to this school

[JayBees]

This is actually the middle school I graduated from back in 1998. In fact, I learned HTML making the school's web site back in 6th grade. The poor bastards have barely changed it since. Anyway...

Here's what you should know: Maple Place School is not unusual in any way, shape, or form. Students don't have rights anywhere. It's about time that changed.

Oh, and since defending the ACLU is almost a hobby of mine, on a related note, my sister's friend's mother works for the middle school, and is complaining that now the school can't enforce any sort of dress code, "thanks to the ACLU." Apparently a lot of girls are dressing very slutty now. I've heard this same criticism about similar cases, that dress codes are being overturned thanks to the ACLU, turning schools into orgies, strip clubs, etc.

Well, guess what? The ACLU isn't handing out thongs, tank tops, and 6-inch heels to girls in front of schools across the country. These kids have parents. Parents who give them money to buy all of this slutty clothing. Parents who let their kids walk out the door looking like the prostitutes who hang out in front of the subway stop near my apartment. Parents who let their kids watch MTV and don't make any effort to give girls positive role models.

So if you want to blame someone, blame the parents of these kids. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, just a parent with his or her head on straight and priorities right. The ACLU is fighting the good fight.

Re:I went to this school

[Trinn]

If the parent is OK with it, and the kid is well educated on sexuality, what the hell harm does it cause? It is NOT the woman's fault if she is assaulted for "dressing provocatively" (not that I was suggesting anyone was thinking that, just stating since that line of reasoning is still fairly common despite having been tossed out almost a century ago).

Sorry to come off ranting here a bit, and I want to make it clear I am not ranting at you, I also support the ACLU fully, and believe in a rather absolute freedom of expression. I think our fear of especially sexuality but many other things in this country (referring to the USA of course) is really harming us. Two things that really piss me off are #1 the 'shady' light in which 'pornography' is viewed, and #2 the illegality of things like prostitution. Seriously, someone, tell me, how is a woman being 'degraded' by AGREEING to participate in something? in fact by DESIRING to? Now of course I am ALL for going after those who would force ANYONE to do these things against their will, but that is a whole other story. I am in fact quite the feminist, I just think that its ridiculous, much like the "think of the children" arguments.

Re:Why am I not surprised....

[DavidTC]

Hey! The President has an IQ of at least 80. Possibly as high as 90!

School IS a Prison

[Anonymous Coward]

As an instructor of criminal justice I like to draw comparisons for my students between criminal justice institutions and non-criminal justice institutions and I have to say that modern city schools and modern prisons have so much in common that it's scary. For example the principles of the convict code (don't snitch, don't take shit, and don't respect authority) are ingrained in school students. Not to mention the cameras, bars, metal detectors, and all of the other physical elements of control...

Your experience just speaks to the way we criminalize our children.

Re:Why am I not surprised....

[Scarletdown]

You're right... the current education system encourages passiveness instead of interaction, i.e. discussions, debates, etc.

I suspect that the U.S. educational system is set up mostly to grow generation after generation of sheeplike consumers. It would not be good for the powers that be if our kids entered into the adult world with the ability to think for themselves and make decisions based on anything other than what they are spoonfed by the advertisers on TV, radio, and the commercial portions of the Internet.

Re:Corporations & Schools, still a power grab/

[DavidTC]

See, that I have a rather large problem with. Accusations of criminal activity.

Sure, possibly it should be okay to punish students for actual criminal activity. After they get convicted. Although I fail to see how a) the justice system didn't already punish them , and b) it's going to hurt the school if people speed.

However, punishing students for possible crimes, one they have not actually been charged with, should be flatly outlawed, and I mean that literally. It should be illegal to claim a student has broken the law and punish them for it.

In fact, it is slander to claim someone has broken the law if they have not done so, so, in theory, it already is illegal.

School has liability

[ademaskoo]

A school I used to go to would suspend you if you were in a fight, even if you didn't defend yourself etc.

Actually, the school could be held liable for indiferent negligence in applying the conduct code and infliction of emotional distress. Also, if you were getting jumped ALOT and school officials saw it and did nothing, they could be held liable for not protecting you from harassment, assault, battery, etc.

Schools are responsible for your safety. If they fail to keep you safe, of punish you because you try to protect yourself from danger, then they can be held liable for SEVERE damages.

Re:School has liability

[PatrickThomson]

Schools aren't courts of law and they try not to get sued, it's easier not to assign blame in a fight.

Re:School has liability

[ademaskoo]

Yes that is true. But putting a black mark on a student's record wrongfully will get the school sued and the school will lose, especially if the student didn't fight back. Its all about protecting one's self from bodily harm. When schools harbor a culture of violence, they bear some responsibility when a student gets hurt.

Re:School has liability

[PatrickThomson]

Exactly! Rather than step in and say "you were right, you were wrong" they impartially seperate both participants and the record reflects that.

Re:School has liability

[Anonymous Coward]

I still cannot agree. If schools punish the victim, then that victim has every right to sue for wrongful punishment. And the student will win the suit if he didn't fight back against his attacker. Even if he did fight back to prevent himself from being hurt, he still might win a lawsuit if the school punishes him. It's common sense. For example, if a woman gets raped, it would be absured to punish the woman because she participated in the rape.

Foul....

[PotatoHead]

Thanks for asking. I've relapsed. Thought I had it until major family stress hit. It was far too easy to just buy a pack and smoke just one. (yeah, I know stupid...) I think had I gone a bit longer, it would all have been ok.

Doesn't help that the bloody things are basically everywhere either.

Giving it another go on the 15th actually. Maybe this time I'll see some better success :) The good news is that I still really want to quit. Didn't before, but just thought it was the right thing to do. This little episode nailed that issue for me. They gotta go.

Re:Foul....

[scotch]

To bad about the relapse, but I know how it goes. You gotta keep trying to quit. There's no easy answer, but for me, quitting everyday seems better even if you fail. I'm in an enlongated quitting phase, over a month. I've done multiple years. Though I feel great about it and don't want to start again, I'm under no illusion that I won't start again someday. The key for me is a replacement activity. Running or cycling does it for me usually. Train for a marathon.

this is what we get

[popsicle67]

I am not surprised by the glut of fascism in the educational system of late. We are all to blame in this because we no longer value people who excercise their rights in a conspicuous manner. This has lead administrators to believe that censure is the answer to combatting opinions contrary to their policies. In my day we would openly scorn teachers and administrators if we believed they were in any way trying abridge our right to free expression up to and including protesting rules we thought unconstitutional. We would educate ourselves as to the relevant arguments against whatever policy we disagreed with and make our arguments and nobody ever thought to abridge these rights because we all had parents who either had fought for freedom or had a parent who did so they would have got their Irish up and got rid of the administrators because they didn't appreciate this kind of tomfoolery whem it came to freedom.

Bleeding Hearts Need To Read This Urgently

[lifespan]

Unreal. Let me explain the other side for those too one eyed and ignorant to consider it themselves.

Disrespectful nasty little child who has inadequate parent(s). As his parents spend too much time drunk, drugged or absent, they never got around to instilling any values into him. So little darling Johnny goes off to school every day to make life hell for everyone in his own personal ethical void.

He decides to slander a person working at the school by writing insulting things about them in his guestbook then goes around the school instructing people to go to the site and check out what he wrote about old Mr XYZ.

He is confronted by XYZ and responds aggressively and defiantly. If this was your wife or son being slandered and ridiculed at school as a direct result, would your heart stop bleeding for this impudent curr of a child? I would suspect so since the only thing that forces empathy on the selfish is experience.

Next little Johnny goes home and cries to Mommy or Daddy about how Mr XYZ was so mean to him. Mummy or Daddy, racked with guilt about how much they neglect their child in pursuit of their own interests, massively over-react and fail to consider that their child is only telling them HALF THE STORY, JUST LIKE THIS ARTICLE.

This message was written with the express purpose of prying open the "other" eye of civil libitarians.

Re:Bleeding Hearts Need To Read This Urgently

[lifespan]

This post was modded insightful, for the last week but now it's a troll? Sounds like a few mods might have seen some of themselves in the parent I described above and didn't like it!! LOL.

Training Fascist Collaborators.

[srobert]

That's funny. Of course I'm being sarcastic. The school system is training a docile workforce of fascist collaborators. The History of the American Labor Movement is not covered in history class. If it were I'm sure Walmart would demand equal time. I think it's tragic that if current trends hold, you will one day be in competition for a job with someone from the next generation down who won't resist the employer's insistence on total control of their lives. Try to persuade them to stand up for themselves (so that you won't be sticking your neck out by yourself) and they'll tell you that you're not being a "team player".

Hiding your history on the net takes work

[billstewart]

On the Internet, everybody knows what a dog you are...

My earliest material on the net is probably a Usenet posting from 1981 that Google got from the DejaNews archives which got them from somewhere. The only real privacy I've got out there is because Google reports 253,000 hits for "bill stewart", many of which are obviously not me, plus my first decade or so on Usenet had a variety of different addresses as my employer's computing infrastructure evolved. But I've had the same primary home and work email addresses since ~1995 and been on a couple of long-running mailing lists that leave me a long Web trail for anyone who actually cared to look.

For kids today, I'd strongly recommend using disposable screen names, changing them every couple of years, and using different handles for different types of activity. It's nice to be able to demonstrate that good things you wrote were yours; it's not necessarily as good that everything you've said about every topic is linkable. For instance, my great talents and insightfulness and vast experience in network and Internet design and architecture topics are relevant to future employers; my politics shouldn't be, but it's not like they're not easy to find, in case anybody I'd like to work with in the future happens to be a Republican, and the random First Posts and throwaway bad puns I've inflicted on Slashdot may have used up a bit of karma but are similarly inescapable except when I posted them as Anonymous Coward (which I typically only do for material that's significantly at odds with my employer's positions on the telecom business or else is in worse-than-usual taste.)

Teachers getting physical

[billstewart]

I went to mostly-suburban junior high and high school, so teachers almost never got physical with kids unless they were breaking up a fight. The one exception I remember was when a kid running an errand walked into the junior high metal shop without stopping at the door to put on safety glasses. The teacher (who was also the football coach) picked him up, slammed him against the wall, and informed him he'd better never do that again. The message apparently got through (:-), and nobody had a problem with it, because the metal shop was potentially dangerous.

But if a teacher had hit a kid with a ruler, I'd expect there'd have been zero tolerance for that sort of thing, and that's the direction that zero tolerance *ought* to be applied, not like the current abuse-of-authority crap that schools like to push around today.

Stupid politically-correct school smoking rules

[billstewart]

Back in the 70s, when I was in high school, we didn't have these stupid political-correctness zero-tolerance anti-smoking rules. Until a few years before, students smoking in school was forbidden, and students dealt with it in the traditional ways, by smoking in the bathroom and sneaking smokes outside, and that meant that you couldn't breathe in the bathrooms and there were cigarette butts all over the lawn near the doorways. (You also couldn't breathe in the teachers' lounge, because teachers were allowed to smoke there.)

The school system decided to try treating the students as adults, and set up two areas outside where you were allowed to smoke and provided trash cans and ashtrays. And all of a sudden you could breathe in the bathrooms (plus they were less crowded because there weren't gangs of kids smoking), and the rest of the place became generally cleaner except the main smoking court itself, and the teachers who didn't smoke could tell the teachers who did smoke to go outside with the kids. Worked fine, provided a good place for the kids to hang out, and while the 70s were full of lots of tree-hugging hippie crap, smoking was a lot more common than it is now in spite of all the anti-smoking propaganda we got in health and gym classes.

Sometime in the mid-80s, Republicans started pushing political correctness on everybody, smoking got banned in the schools, and while smoking was a bit less popular by then, kids went back to smoking in the bathroom, so breathing in the bathrooms became impossible again, and the teachers declared one of the two teachers' lounges to be non-smoking and the smokers got the other one.

School Solutions

[Chewbacon]

From what I remember in high school, administration would much rather get rid of a problem than solve it. If the engine makes a squealing noise, do you rip it out of a car? That's the mentality you deal with. I had a friend who was suspended for 2 weeks. Some other guy attacked him over a parking space mix up (boo-damn-hoo). My friend didn't even throw a punch, he just held the guy against the wall until a dean broke them up. Then there was the friend who said "There's a lot of mexicans on that side of town." He was expelled under some hate and racial guideline. HIS MOTHER IS MEXICAN AND GREW UP ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN! I don't have kids, but I fear for anyone who does and they're in public school. Think about what kind of people are teaching your kids to succeed in life.

My freedom of speech is worth more than MPAA's IP!

[Anonymous Coward]

mbedabedabeda, 'n' that's not all folks!