Slashdot Mirror


Student Faces Expulsion for Blog Post

ThPhox writes "A student in the Plainfield School District in New Jersey is facing expulsion from the school district for a post made on his personal blog during non school hours. From the article: "A 17-year-old student who posted on his blog site that he was being bullied and threatened by the Plainfield School District will face an expulsion hearing this week, a local attorney said.""

1,045 comments

  1. Dumbasses by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A 17-year-old student who posted on his blog site that he was being bullied and threatened by the Plainfield School District will face an expulsion hearing this week

    Well, if he wasn't being bullied by the school district before, he sure is now. They just proved his argument for him!

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    1. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point. The administration jusy blew their own case.... if it ever gets in front of a jury.

    2. Re:Dumbasses by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 5, Funny

      In an unconfirmed report, the English teacher for this school has apologized saying that the school needed a better example of irony because the students just weren't getting it.

    3. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with teachers and principals these days? Why do they feel like they need to become bulli... Ahem... Authority figures to students? Frankly, if I ever saw one of these shitheads that seems to like to pick on kids, I'd walk up and kick him in the nuts... But that's just my opinion.

    4. Re:Dumbasses by capt_mulch · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All I can say is thank whichever God for the Internet and freedom of speech. I'm 42 years old and have been battling stupid old dumbasses who a frightened by individuals speeking their mind (Oh, whichever God, you're not towing the line - Kill Them!!!!!) since Pontius was a pilot. Feel enriched that your children can use the Internet and speak their minds. Try and control that and you have lost them. Rejoice in the fact that young people are exploring the boundaries. They will learn their own limits. The Internet, by the poeple, for the people.

    5. Re:Dumbasses by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Not only are we teaching our students math, science, literature, and music, but we're also giving them experience with them the American legal system by inducing them to sue the F%$# out of us."

    6. Re:Dumbasses by NickCatal · · Score: 1

      I would love to see this kid expelled... ACLU picks it up, tries to get it to the Appellate level, and finally this School District/MySpace crap that everybody is talking about would be handled...

      And the district has to know that if they expell him they will end up with a lawsuit...

      --
      -nick
    7. Re:Dumbasses by LegendLength · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So i could publicly accuse my hypothetical school of anything online? (does the media matter? newspaper, sign on freeway overpass), and no matter how bad the slur you would not expel me?

    8. Re:Dumbasses by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      How does one learn the limits if nothing happens when they are crossed?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:Dumbasses by Stellian · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So i could publicly accuse my hypothetical school of anything online, and no matter how bad the slur you would not expel me?

      Yes. Common sense dictates that they can only sanction you for what you do/say in school. If they feel their image has been affected they can sue you. If they feel threatened they can notify the authorities.
      However, they should not be able to unilaterally act as judge and jury of your actions outside the school.
    10. Re:Dumbasses by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds like the only people who crossed a line were the school district. Hopefully, they will learn something.

    11. Re:Dumbasses by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Interesting question!

      Of course, a public school being a government entity, they are bound by this particular limitation. You might find you're familiar with it.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      United States Constitution, First Amendment.

      They've clearly crossed that line. Now let's hope someone teaches this school district a good real-world lesson about what happens when you step over boundaries!

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    12. Re:Dumbasses by TrueXtremeIcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As the other replier to your post has mentioned, the school should not have any control on your actions OUTSIDE of school. I mean, I'm in college right now so I have a bit of experience with the internet and public high schools, but even this blows my mind. Can any of you older men/women actually sit there and imagine doing something at home outside of school time, and then getting in trouble for it in school (and I'm not talking about actual treatening things like claiming on the playground you are going to blow up the school)? The schools are overstepping their bounds. If they are going to be so totalitarian in the post-school lives of the kids, why do we even bother having parents? Why do schools sit there and try to claim "Its not our jobs, its the parents job" when at the very same time they are going to reach into the home and bypass the parents for something so innocuous as this? If the schools want this much power behind the children's lives, they might as well institute public schooling as a year long camp where the kids are forced to live on the school campus (sleep in the gym?) and completely cut the parents out of the whole equation. They can't have it both ways.

      --
      T-X-I
    13. Re:Dumbasses by RockModeNick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My HS, back in the mid to late 90's when I was in HS, had a policy of disciplining students for fighting even if they were not on school grounds at the time. Not that there were any reports of this, because both students are always punished the same, even in CLEAR cases of self defence, or even if one kid just lays there like a slug and lets the other guy beat him.

    14. Re:Dumbasses by TrueXtremeIcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fail to see how airing out complaints on a blog qualifies as "stepping over the line."

      But I don't fail to see how suspending (and attempting to expel) the student for exercising his First Ammendment rights after school and off school property qualifies as the school overstepping its boundaries of authority.

      --
      T-X-I
    15. Re:Dumbasses by Who235 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, in theory they should only be able to sanction you for what happens at school. in theory communism works - IN THEORY.

      When I was in high school, a mere twelve or thirteen years ago, I was suspended for a party I had when my parents were out of town because it was rumored that there was (gasp) some marijuana there.

      To their credit, my parents went to bat for me, saying it was none of the school's goddamned business what I did outside of school hours. They were royally pissed off at me, but they understood that the school's underlying premise was flawed and stupid.

      To make a long story short, the suspension was cut in half as a compromise.

      If the system wants to fuck you, it will find some excuse. It's a lesson I learned young, and a lesson that kid in New Jersey is learning now. I feel sorry for him, and I hope it turns out well for him. Hopefully the media coverage will cow the school enough that they back down, but they will probably find some absurd reason to press on.

    16. Re:Dumbasses by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      You'll speak when you're spoken to mister!

      *slaps you across the room*

    17. Re:Dumbasses by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I think threatening a Columbine-style incident crosses a line or two...

      Anyways, considering he is facing expulsion (as opposed to actually being expelled), I think your claim is a bit premature.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    18. Re:Dumbasses by WgT2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I used to teach... used to.

      This kind of non-thinking is one of the reasons I wanted to leave the field.

      Seems these administrators are not too different from the rest.

    19. Re:Dumbasses by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      So i could publicly accuse my hypothetical school of anything online?

      No. The limits set in law in this country limit free speech all the time. These limits come when truth are not being spoken about. Slander, liable speech, defamation of character, conspiracy, all of these things are illegal, and yet they are merely "speech". Same goes for the infamous desire to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!

      Granted, there are laws about compulsory attendance of school, but those laws are typically for those between the age of 7 and 16, so at 17 he is clear of that. I don't know what this kids ambitions are, but if he was not planning to go beyond highschool, its a known fact that he will make more money than his classmates that don't go beyond a hs education if he starts working now instead of wasting his time in highschool.

    20. Re:Dumbasses by jdbear · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFM The kid did not threaten the school, or blatantly accuse them of anything. He discussed HIS FEELINGS. He wrote, and I quote, "I feel threatened by you," to which the District replied, that the district will take action if it believes there is a safety issue. The student has been suspened for 10 days, and is being forced to go through an Expulsion hearing. I'd say they are "taking action."

      If a student came to the office with a vague complaint of being threatened by a Teacher, with such a lame example, they'd be told to get over it. Why can the entire school system get by with being more "sensitive?"

      I FEEL that they are just a bunch of whining crybabies, and should be immediately fired and replaced by more responsible adults.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    21. Re:Dumbasses by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it really is a case of libel or slander, they should report it to the police. Police enforce the laws; not school districts.

      The fact is that a student is trying to excersise his free speech, while not in school, and the school is trying to silence him. If they are trying to expell him now for voicing his opinion, it stands to reason they tried other things to silence him earlier. Why wouldn't you think they were?

    22. Re:Dumbasses by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The non-thinking they are instilling seems to be working.

      Wasn't there a poll a few years ago that said students believed the freedom of speech should be more restricted?

    23. Re:Dumbasses by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slander, liable speech, defamation of character

      FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.

      conspiracy

      I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.

      Same goes for the infamous desire to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!

      Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts. FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal. I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.

    24. Re:Dumbasses by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where did he threaten a Columbine-like incident?

      He correctly pointed out that, if you push (bully) people too far, they will snap and fight back, but there's nothing I've read that indicates he was feeling anywhere that frustrated.

      Maybe a poor analogy on his part (was the school really on his case everyday, making his life hell everyday?), but doesn't seem to be a threat to me.

    25. Re:Dumbasses by TheGreek · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it really is a case of libel or slander, they should report it to the police. Police enforce the laws; not school districts.

      Police enforce criminal law.

      Libel and slander are torts and are thus the domain of ambulance chasers.

    26. Re:Dumbasses by illuminatedwax · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reading the actual blog, it appears the English teachers there ain't teaching 'em shit.

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    27. Re:Dumbasses by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never read any school caselaw.

      That said, this school is run by retards.

    28. Re:Dumbasses by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      RTFM The kid did not threaten the school, or blatantly accuse them of anything. He discussed HIS FEELINGS.

      It was hard to read because they didn't show us a single word of his original comments which allegedly caused the whole problem.

      He wrote, and I quote, "I feel threatened by you," to which the District replied, that the district will take action if it believes there is a safety issue.

      Which in the same breath started rambling about ***COLUMBINE*** of all things. ***COLUMBINE*** (i need more stars).

      I personally would not expel the guy, nor would i even suspend or detention him. I do feel, however, that they have a right to suspend or even expel him in this specific case.

      If a student came to the office with a vague complaint of being threatened by a Teacher, with such a lame example, they'd be told to get over it. Why can the entire school system get by with being more "sensitive?"

      So little Jonny walks in and says "Mr Smith was in a public forum making threats about me. The next day the teacher followed up with additional comments referencing a shooting incident where two teachers went crazy and shot up the school back in 1990 (hypothetical of course). Then Mr Smith went on to tell me to put that in my pipe & smoke it, all the time telling me that I am the one bullying him!"

      Please tell me where I have stuffed up the analogy.

    29. Re:Dumbasses by cloak42 · · Score: 1

      True, but regardless, the school district has no jurisdiction in the matter.

    30. Re:Dumbasses by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      If it really is a case of libel or slander, they should report it to the police. Police enforce the laws; not school districts.

      I fully agree in principle. But in practice sueing a kid is not only terrible publicity and a major timewasting headache, it also costs a lot more than simply getting rid of him.

    31. Re:Dumbasses by bcl · · Score: 1

      (1) Conspiracy is a "state of mind" crime. If they can "prove" that you meant what you were saying, that you were really planning to do illeagal thing X together with someone else, you have consipired to do X. Typically, proving that you were really planning on committing the offense requires...doing more than just talking about doing it.

      (2) I don't think you are splitting hairs when you talk about yelling fire. The yelling of fire should be perfectly legal and you should be responsible for the consequences. Thus, if there is no fire, you have incited panic, maybe people were hurt, and the first responders time was wasted. If, however, there was a fire, I would think that yelling fire in that theatre was a very GOOD thing.

    32. Re:Dumbasses by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      yelling fire isn't the crime... inciting a riot and causing panic for no apparent reason is.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    33. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of dumbasses, how do we get the initial posting corrected to read "Illinois" instead of the erroneous "New Jersey?" All the dumbasses who read /. are not going to read the actual article and won't bother reading enough of the comments to see it did not happen in New Jersey. These people will then begin spreading misinformation and stupid people will believe it.

    34. Re:Dumbasses by mjh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But there's a significant difference in what (allegedly) did and what this kid did. If you were involved at all with the posession or sale of marijuana, that is a criminal activity. What this kid did, writing down his vulgar, but non-threatening opinions of the school is not criminal. It is, in fact, constitutionally protected.

      It's crap like this that makes me want the public school system abolished and replaced with something more privately run, where competition can weed out this kind of stupid behavior. For the poor, create the equivalent of "food stamps" so that they can get an education, too. But everyone (including the poor) gets to choose which school they want to go to. If this school had the fear of losing revenue and students because of their misbehavior, do you really think they'd even attempt this?

      Socialism doesn't work. This is an example of what it can do.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    35. Re:Dumbasses by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Even if there is a fire, is yelling "FIRE!!" the best way to handle it?

    36. Re:Dumbasses by koreaman · · Score: 1, Informative

      Tuesday, May 02, 2006
              you are bully's. I feel threatened by you. if you don't like what you see here then do not come here its that simple. I'm pretty sure when you suspended Sam you brought her to tears, you are a bully and you make me sick. there's nothing you can do about us posting about parties we've been to and how much liquor we had or how much pot was smoked, the police need to do a better job, you are not the police. and how is it that you feel threatened what was said that was so threatening. I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? none of this is posted at school, its all posted from our home computers, and once we step foot into our homes we are not on school property any more. you are just power hungry, don't you ever think? did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

      Monday, May 01, 2006

      dear plainfield school district 202:

                    i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my fuckin web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you fucks. freedom of speech. and who the fuck are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.

      edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me)

    37. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have read that post to the end but I just hit the line "why do we even bother having parents" and now my mind is boggled.

    38. Re:Dumbasses by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this only applies to Congress. It does not apply to states, counties, or cities, although most states have similar language in their constitutions. I do, of course, hope for an amendment to fix this issue in the future.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    39. Re:Dumbasses by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      While I agree what they are doing to this kid is wrong, please note schools have always had a large discretion as to what happens to their students even when not on school time/grounds.

      If you fight another student, say on the weekend - at a park...if your school hears about it, they will suspsend you and the other student.

      In college, there are many majors where if you get caught underage drinking you better drop the major because you will never get certified (think education majors).

      There are many such situations, some legit (i think my first example is legit, the second is arguable) but things like this kid and his blog...

      I have not seen the blog --- did he write any libel (sp) information about people? If that is the case I could see that as grounds for expulsion. If he said his math teacher was a XYZ and said math teacher is not...

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    40. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably pulling the fire alarm is the best way. Unlikely to cause panic because people are conditioned to false and test alarms. They're more likely to be too slow to get out than trample others on their way.

      On the other hand, yelling 'fire' is more likely to have people glare & lable you 'nutcase' than to cause panic these days..

    41. Re:Dumbasses by Roody+Blashes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Frankly, if I ever saw one of these shitheads that seems to like to pick on kids, I'd walk up and kick him in the nuts...

      Holy crap, you're like the Bruce Willis of the World Wide Web. I'll bet you're a big tough man talking the talk before he walks the walk rather than an obese, smelly, poorly-dressed nerd with no social life and twig-like, pasty limbs.

      Please, make some more credible threats of violence. You just don't see things like this on the WWW. It's so novel!

      --
      If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
    42. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do we even bother having parents?

      Oddly enough, the trend is that parents aren't much of a part of the equation any more either. That plus a lawsuit-happy society causes many schools to just call the police now instead of trying to deal with discipline problems while at school.

      I agree that posting a blog that wasn't written on school equipment or on school grounds, as long as it isn't criminal, is outside of the school's jurisdiction.

      However, the kid deserves some grief for even using MySpace or Xanga.

    43. Re:Dumbasses by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      Teachers are generally the sort of fat blobs you are accusing this guy of being. Beating up on most teachers would not be a particularly macho achievement. Most can't even hold their own with pre-teen kids, nevermind someone with post-pubescent muscles.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:Dumbasses by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Well, at that point he should be thanking his school, because you're not getting irony either.

      Repeat after me: Irony Is A Form Of Wordplay.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    45. Re:Dumbasses by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1

      Which in the same breath started rambling about ***COLUMBINE*** of all things. ***COLUMBINE*** (i need more stars).

      Yeah, but in the next sentence he explicity states that he is in no way threatening any kind of harm. From what I can understand, this post was in retaliation to the administration coming down on him and his family for posts prior to this one.

      The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

      The school is doing a classic CYA. Threatening expulsion immediately puts the onus of fault on the kid in the eyes of the public.

      This makes me so mad. Freedom of speech hardly exists in this country. This is the same thing a kid would write in his/her diary at home throughout the centuries, but because it's now available to a wider audience, the school thinks that they have the right to action.

      Incorrect. INCORRECT. I hope to God that the courts do the right thing here and set a precedent that dictates that once school is out, the administration has absolutely no right or say over a child's actions. If schools complain that they can't be discipliarians and teach at the same time and they need the parent's to step up, then stop trying to be disciplinarians in off time.

      This is the state trying to raise your kids by administering discipline for any transgression at any time. Be very afraid of this.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    46. Re:Dumbasses by scotch · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you can't use the word "Columbine" in a post nor discuss the motivations of the perpetrators without it being a threat. Wow, truly disturbing.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    47. Re:Dumbasses by geobeck · · Score: 1
      Slander, liable speech, defamation of character...

      "Slander is spoken. In print it's libel." -J. Jonah Jameson, Spiderman

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    48. Re:Dumbasses by Roody+Blashes · · Score: 1

      Wow, care to cite the study that established that particular "fact" about the physiology of teachers, professor?

      Holy crap. This may well be the densest thread in Slashdot history. If one more jackass posts something stupid, it may well collapse into a singularity and consume the entire Internet.

      --
      If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
    49. Re:Dumbasses by phunctor · · Score: 1

      Shouting "FIRE!" also works well for rape, car-jacking, and treason.

    50. Re:Dumbasses by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      If you allow the system to fuck you based on an excuse, then not only have you earned the fucking, but you've fucked the rest of us as a result.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    51. Re:Dumbasses by Who235 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The communism thing was a Simpsons quote added for humor which clearly didn't work.

      As to whether there was or wasn't marijuana at my house on Saturday, it makes absolutley no difference on Monday.

      If it was criminal, let the principal call a cop. My suspension was still bullshit and the party at my house was none of his business.

      The only thing he would have been justified in doing would have been to call my parents and let them know I had a party and there might have been some grass there. Even that's pushing it as far as I'm concerned.

    52. Re:Dumbasses by tdk2fe · · Score: 1

      IANAL, however we studied this case in one of my political science classes. The precedent set by court rulings deams that if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are creating a clear and present danger. If you incite panic amongst other patrons needlessly, and everybody rushes for the doors, then people can get trampled, hurt, etc... Also, i'm pretty sure if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and emergency personnel arrive, then you violate more than a handful of laws. tdk

    53. Re:Dumbasses by phlinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ammendment 14, section 1:

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    54. Re:Dumbasses by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      Alright, we are now officially playing armchair lawyer :)

      FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.

      Actually, regarding things like defamation of character, liable, slander, etc, those are almost 100% civil, not criminal things and proof does not play in the civil court arena. In a criminal case with a jury trial, the government has to "prove" to the jury "beyond reasonable doubt" that said crime did happen by said person. The burden of proof is entirely on the state. In a civil case, there is no guilt or innocence verdict. It is not black and white, the defendant is found liable or not liable, and there are degrees of said liability which usually is translated into a payment of money. The infamous OJ trial where OJ was found "not guilty" in the criminal case, and he should have. Even though I believe and most everyone else believes he was guilty. OJ was later found pretty damn liable in a civil case where he was sued by the families of the victims, and OJ was found liable for "wrongful death".

      I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.

      But the "steps" are usually plans, which are all in the realm of "speech". Conspiracy to commit murder and murder are two completely different animals. You can be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder without killing anybody. Something like giving a few grand to an undercover cop under the premise that he will kill somebody for you will usually do the trick.

      FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal.

      I don't like the yelling fire issue. I think its completely silly, and its only there for pretty dumb people to think a little.

    55. Re:Dumbasses by dirty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From dictionary.com: "Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain)." Irony can be a form of word play.

      --

      -matt
    56. Re:Dumbasses by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not defending this school; I think the superintendant of schools in New Jersey would be an asshole to not start handing out pink slips today. However:

      As the other replier to your post has mentioned, the school should not have any control on your actions OUTSIDE of school.

      Not only is this not true, but it's also disingenuous. To begin with, what the kid did was effectively not actually outside of the school; it directly related the school and actions inside of it. That the actual work wasn't done on school grounds is immaterial; it was about the school. The analogue to this thirty years ago would be this kid walking around putting flyers under the doors of everyone in the district talking about the issue. (Please remember that a blog is public, and so there's no issue of privacy, range of intent, or who he was trying to talk to. Maybe the better example is the town bulletin board.)

      That said, it doesn't actually have to be about the school. As a crass example, if the school saw videotaped evidence of the kid involved in a violent, weapons-based hold up of a store, or perhaps a hand-to-hand beating to death of some other kid over race or sexual orientation (this really happens in certain midwest states,) and were I a parent in the district, I would not only expect an expulsion but I'd go to court to force it.

      Can any of you older men/women actually sit there and imagine doing something at home outside of school time, and then getting in trouble for it in school [...] ?

      Absolutely. If there was a VHS tape of me being a crack dealer, I should expect those school doors to be closed to me permanently. What I cannot fathom is the idea that open criticism is an actual offense, much less that he's being unfairly punished for saying he'd been unfairly punished.

      Yes, there is a distinctly evil circus theme going on here; I can hear the out-of-tune calliope and the evil cackling. It has nothing to do with from where he made the blog post, though.

      Why do schools sit there and try to claim "Its not our jobs, its the parents job" when at the very same time they are going to reach into the home and bypass the parents for something so innocuous as this? ... They can't have it both ways.

      This is a straw man. You cannot claim incongruity between this school's actions and some hypothetical other school's actions. Besides, from the sound of it, there isn't much a lack to complain about as regards this school.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    57. Re:Dumbasses by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "(this really happens in certain midwest states,)"

      Not to mention, north, south, east and western states, dumbass.

    58. Re:Dumbasses by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      if you get caught underage drinking you better drop the major because you will never get certified (think education majors)
       
      If this actually happens, there will be no more new teachers. The best and the brightest aren't going into education these days.

    59. Re:Dumbasses by Twanfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Absolutely. If there was a VHS tape of me being a crack dealer, I should expect those school doors to be closed to me permanently. What I cannot fathom is the idea that open criticism is an actual offense, much less that he's being unfairly punished for saying he'd been unfairly punished.

      Oh, I get it. I see what you're going for. If you do something bad that becoming a better educated or adjusted individual might fix, you are denied the education and teaching that would get you out of that situation, forcing you to persist in your life of crime. Brilliant!

      While I'm no fan of having a crack dealer in a school with my child, I would expect something else to happen instead of them being denied schooling. I would expect jail time, isolation, and (god forbid) a reform program designed to cease the offending behavior and 'retrain' the offender into a more valuable or even just viable member of society.

      There is a reason why libraries are frequently public institutions. Knowledge is what elevates us to a level where social behavior is well formed. Why deny that to someone who arguably needs it the most?

    60. Re:Dumbasses by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech.

      Uh. This just isn't true. Libel does not require actual damages at all. (Slander does.) If I get up on a newspaper opinion poll and write about how much I think (insert politician here) is a (insult horrible lie here,) and it turns out I'm writing for a newspaper with 0 readers, I have still incorrectly defamed his character and I'm still liable for libel. (By the way, liable means "I am responsible for the outcome of these actions." There is no such thing as "liable speech." It's called libel. Please don't comment on the nature of a five letter law you can't even spell.) Libel requires only that the medium of conversation is lasting, which implies writing and covers well the internet.

      In fact, if what the kid says is false, then this is the textbook definition of libel.

      If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.

      Did you know that giving false legal advice is a felony?

      I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.

      Again, nonsense.

      If the feds get a wiretap warrant, and they hear you, Vinny and Guido (I'm sick of the terrorist metaphors; let's go back to the old trusty Italian Mob) plotting to knock over a bank, that's a conspiracy. The federal government is under no obligation to wait until you go bust out the guns; once there's intent, and once it can be established that what was being discussed wasn't humor or speculation, then it's real enough to be actionable (in practical terms, this involves agreeing to act at a specific time, date and on a specific location or target.)

      Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts.

      Here's a better thought: stop searching a community-written site for detail-oriented things like legal advice. There is no shortage of legitimate, correct and well-thought-out material on sites like law.cornell.edu, and there is no shortage of examples - particularly in law, but also elsewhere - of Wikipedia being essentially full of crap. By and on the whole, it's a fine, high accuracy reference, but it simply does not have the level of quality control to be used as a legal reference.

      FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal.

      Uh. The actual yelling of fire isn't what's illegal, it's the attempt to cause panic. Exactly what are you arguing with here?

      I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.

      Yeah, welcome to 1904. The issue of intent as regards the nature of protection of free speech has been well settled in this country for more than a hundred years. Read a law book; I am not a lawyer, but I believe the appropriate precedent is the supreme court case Aikens v. State of Wisconsin (c194-195 1904.) Just because you can come up with a possible mistake doesn't mean the court hasn't long since handled it. Moreover, the hair you're attempting to split isn't at all germane in context.

      Clarance Darrow you are not.

      Moderators, remember the golden rule of moderation: do not mark something as insightful if you yourself cannot verify something as correct. Meta-moderators, unleash the hounds.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    61. Re:Dumbasses by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      To be clear, tortuous offenses are actually the domain of everyone. In theory, if Party A slanders Party B, I may sue on B's behalf. (Me personally, I'm too lazy.) That said, in theory someone could have sued this kid from Texas, if they believed there was a case. You see this sort of thing happen in human rights cases a lot, and this is a common mechanism by which the ACLU, SPLC and EFF get themselves involved.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    62. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From The St. Louis Post Dispatch:

      Free speech fight hits Kirkwood High
      [snip]
      They never brought the list to school, but by early March, it was circulating around campus. When two junior girls brought it to administrators' attention, all five boys received 10-day suspensions.

      It's a situation that is cropping up ever more frequently as the Internet blurs the line between students' on-campus behavior and their off-campus lives.

      A high school senior in Pennsylvania was suspended in January for posting a parody profile of his principal on MySpace, another popular networking site.

      New Jersey's Oceanport School District paid $117,500 to settle a case brought by a student who had been disciplined for putting up a Web site from home that harshly criticized his middle school and compared the principal to a dictator.

      The courts have long held - since the Supreme Court's Tinker v. Des Moines decision in 1969 - that public schools can restrict students' First Amendment rights only when what they say materially disrupts school operations.

      Officials say that's exactly what happened in Kirkwood. The list Bates and his friends posted left some girls in tears and forced administrators to spend most of a morning handling the situation, said district spokeswoman Nona King.

      "These remarks were personal and cruel, and they were made about over 100 junior girls," King said.

      [snip]

      The boys suspended at Kirkwood and their parents were all surprised that the school could impose discipline for Internet postings made at home, said Mark Bates, Aaron's father.

      Aaron's parents said they don't defend what the boys did but don't feel it was the school's place to punish them.

      "These kids had no inkling that this could have been the result of what they did," Mark Bates said.

      And civil liberties advocates argue that noncriminal behavior that happens outside of school is none of the school's business.

      "This was off-campus speech," said Tony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. "It wasn't these students that caused the disruption. . . . If they'd done something to bring it into the school, it would be a different case."

      Rothert said he has been in contact with the family of one of the boys.
      [snip]


      -mcgrew
    63. Re:Dumbasses by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      I am aware of the 14th, but the court's interpration is subject to change. I'm too tired to continue this argument right now, but there are some great discussions further down. I hope, wish, and want to think you're 100% right, but I believe the courts are simply reading things as they should be, instead of as they are. The law needs revision.

      As I was saying earlier, though, the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this at this moment, since the New Jersey state constitution lays things out quite clearly:
      Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.


      In simple terms, the school belongs to the state, and, as such, is subject to the state constitution. This does not need to be elevated to the federal level because the local and state laws clearly protect this child's comments.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    64. Re:Dumbasses by TrueXtremeIcon · · Score: 1

      "That said, it doesn't actually have to be about the school. As a crass example, if the school saw videotaped evidence of the kid involved in a violent, weapons-based hold up of a store, or perhaps a hand-to-hand beating to death of some other kid over race or sexual orientation (this really happens in certain midwest states,) and were I a parent in the district, I would not only expect an expulsion but I'd go to court to force it." There is a very big difference in all of those examples you gave as opposed to the one with this kid (not to mention being incredibly extreme).. All of those activities are ILLEGAL. It is not uncommon for students to get busted for illegal activities and then get suspended and expelled for their actions, regardless of location or timeframe. That is the school protecting itself from possible threatening situations. Schools typically do not allow CRIMINALS inside their campuses. But as I said above, this is certainly not what is happening now. This kid has done absolutely nothing wrong (as shown by the actual article where the police chief or inspector or whatever he was saying that there were no prosecutable offenses in the blog post). Trying to lump these actions together is pretty baseless.

      --
      T-X-I
    65. Re:Dumbasses by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What better way to instill pacifism than by showing that the wrath of destruction is blind?

      My years in school taught me one thing: Those in power are the kin of hurricanes and other forces of nature: Unthinking, unfeeling, amoral. All you can do if you're hit by one is try not to get blown away.

      Those years did prepare me for the real world, however, by placing me in a scenario so viciously bad that afterwards I could handle anything. After a situation where administrators are a force of nature to be avoided, and students are vicious cutthroats who will tear you to shreds if you say a word, the working world is serene and freindly.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    66. Re:Dumbasses by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Informative
      One form of irony involves word play. Another form has no reference to word play:

            1.
                        a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
                        b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
                        c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
            2.
                        a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
                        b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
            3. Dramatic irony.
            4. Socratic irony.

      That doesn't make this case ironic, it is merely a self-fulfilled statement, but you can have irony without words.
    67. Re:Dumbasses by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      To be clear, tortuous offenses are actually the domain of everyone. In theory, if Party A slanders Party B, I may sue on B's behalf.

      Oh, really?

    68. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding, it's depressing for me too. Even when I was in grade school, I knew these people were stupid with a capital S-T-U-P-I-D. I remember alot of times where they couldn't be bothered to figure out who started the fight even when it was patently obvious. This was like looking at a freight truck and a cheese grater and not having any idea who delivered the TV.

      I also remember another time where I was the victim of vandalism, actually had proof of the culprit, and it was swept under the rug. Then there was an incident later that year, where I got a half-day suspension because a fat girl didn't like the hang-gliding stick figure I drew at the joking request of a friend. You know, it's the same thing with the police, too. Be the victim of a break-in or fraud or terroristic threat (all of which have happened) and they "put it on file" and forget about it. Shoot off a firework or two in your backyard and suddenly they can't wait to beat down the door and fine you.

      You know, come to think of it, if there's one thing I learned from these retards (besides where Slashdotters and intellectuals get their contempt for authority and Joe Six-Pack), it's that _you_ have to do what _you_ think is necessary to protect yourself and your property. Following the rules is a fool's errand while vigilantism gets results. The only concern one should have is getting caught...and, for all the times guilt, facts, and evidence have had nothing to do with the judgement handed down, I'm starting to doubt even that.

    69. Re:Dumbasses by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Wow, I wish they'd done that at my high school. If, hypothetically, someone punched you in the face, you fell down, and on the way back up gave them a world class uppercut to the nuts, and then spent some quality time kicking them while they were down, your punishment was much more severe even though the other guy started the fight.

      Taanj.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    70. Re:Dumbasses by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      personally i would think that "the school district" needs to sponsor his enrollment in a boarding school that will nurture him and show him the limits he can go.

      (in the case of my high school there would be no hearing he would be GONE (but then again
      my high school had/s ties to BJU))

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    71. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Gawd people! The spelling is "libel". As in "I'm liable to point out that you should not libel others."

    72. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Speaking of strawmen...
      or perhaps a hand-to-hand beating to death of some other kid over race or sexual orientation (this really happens in certain midwest states,)
      ...please post evidence.
    73. Re:Dumbasses by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      "(i need more stars)"

      Yeah, it's unfortunate that you can't just wave your arms in the air hollering like an insane preacher, like you can in real life.

      "JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS! (Wait....Sorry, wrong topic) COOOOOOOOOOOLUMBIIIIIINE!"

      It's a shame we live in such a cowardly society that we allow ourselves to be terrorized by children.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    74. Re:Dumbasses by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Now I know how those kids at Columbine felt!!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    75. Re:Dumbasses by scotch · · Score: 1

      Are you threatening me?!?!?

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    76. Re:Dumbasses by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I got two weeks of in-school suspension when I was 16 for writing a letter to the editor of the local paper under my own name. Public school, etc, etc.

      It taught me an important lesson which is: don't write under your own goddamn name!

      Seriously. I don't condone what's happening here, but people put stuff out there under their own names that blows my mind. This is the freaking information age, okay? People are going to google you first thing, and they're going to read what you write, they're going to make opinions about it, and if you've not been careful, it's going to be your ass! The stuff is going to be viewed by people you're dating, people you're trying to work for, people who are trying to steal your identity...Don't put your name on it!

      It's not like you can't point people to your blog/writing if you want them to read it, and it's not like you can't put things out there to be read under a different name. But putting it out there under your own name, especially if you're a minor, is a bad idea.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    77. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the district has to know that if they expell him they will end up with a lawsuit...


      What do they care?

      For starters, any money they "lose" isn't theirs. They'll just raise your taxes permanently to cover this temporary setback. If they can't, guess who suffers? That asshole's salary won't be cut, no, they just won't buy books (and any number of other essentials) for the students next year.

      So, those of you learned in law, why is the school itself, instead of the obvious retard, the one sued in this sort of case?
    78. Re:Dumbasses by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Reading the actual blog, it appears the English teachers there ain't teaching 'em shit.

      Got a link? There wasn't one in the article.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    79. Re:Dumbasses by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Well, apparantly being a whistleblower and notifying the citizenship of an incident of treason (e.g., illegal NSA wiretapping) is now illegal. Scratch that off your list of exceptions. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    80. Re:Dumbasses by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Actually, regarding things like defamation of character, liable, slander, etc, those are almost 100% civil, not criminal things and proof does not play in the civil court arena.

      Actually, you are wrong. There is a burden of proof, its just that its lower, and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Otherwise I can sue for something you never even said.

      But the "steps" are usually plans, which are all in the realm of "speech".

      Its the execute of the steps that are outside free speech. If you actually go to buy a rifle, for example, even if you do so legally and with permits, if shooting someone with a rifle was part of your plan (with others), you are guilty of consipiricy.

      Conspiracy to commit murder and murder are two completely different animals. You can be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder without killing anybody.

      I never said they were the same, nor did i say you have to carry out the entire plan. If you're planning (with others) to blow up a building, simply buying the materials to build a bomb is sufficent to be guilty of consipricy. You can talk about it all you want; its when you take some step to start executing the plan is when it crosses into conspricy.

      Something like giving a few grand to an undercover cop under the premise that he will kill somebody for you will usually do the trick.

      I don't see how that counteracts my point; I said youi need to execute some of your plan, I never said you had to fully carry it out.

      I don't like the yelling fire issue. I think its completely silly, and its only there for pretty dumb people to think a little.

      Well if you count the opinions of judges only 'thinking a little' and the judges themselves are 'pretty dumb', I guess thats your prerogative. But the concept is useful for framing a discussion on freedom of speech and when it is or is not ok to take that freedom away.

    81. Re:Dumbasses by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      No! Not at all!

      You know, I bet those kids at Columbine were constantly being accused of threatening people too...

      --
      It's been a long time.
    82. Re:Dumbasses by xrobertcmx · · Score: 1

      This is a very interesting case. As a local goverment Agency, I can see the school facing some interesting challenges trying to enforce something like this. What it looks like they are saying is that if they are called names or bad mouthed they can use security as a pretext for getting rid of the student (who maybe watched Pump Up the Volume one to many times). However, it does bring to mind the issues that some employee's are facing with different companies around the country trying to enforce specific standards on their workforce during and after working hours. I know several companies are now enforcing no-smoking rules, violation of which result in termination. The rational behind this is lower medical costs. However from an employee point of view this is a violation of their privacy at home.

    83. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it take effort to spew crap like you do all the time?
      Granted the OP sounds like a real dumbass, but you're starting to make him look smart.

      Trolling for dollars, methinks.

    84. Re:Dumbasses by MoreBonez · · Score: 1
      A few years back, a kid I knew got expelled for the same sort of thing. Recognizing that he hadn't done anything on campus and the punishment was unjustified, I told him to call the ACLU. He did, and he won. (Here's the new link to the article mentioned in that post.)
      FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.
      They took depositions from a number of the school's teachers for this trial, and systematically asked the same questions: Did you believe any of what was said about the assistant principal on the website? Did the website lower your opinion of him in any way? The answer in every case was, of course, no.
    85. Re:Dumbasses by Roody+Blashes · · Score: 2, Funny

      AAAAAGH! You're forming a wormhole! Nooooooooooooo!

      --
      If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
    86. Re:Dumbasses by donnyspi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think not putting your name on something is cowardly. If you want to say something, stand behind it and be prepared to accept consequences whether just or unjust. Otherwise, don't bother saying stuff. If you don't want to sign your name and stand behind what you say, think about whether it is it really worth saying and if it's really a good idea to say it.

    87. Re:Dumbasses by mjh · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that I agree with the suspension that you received. I'm saying that there's a difference between what happened to you and what happened to this kid. The public school system which is part of our government, *should* be actively protecting first amendment rights. They have no such obligation to protect criminal activities.

      As to whether or not there's justification for a criminal activity having any impact on your schooling, I don't know. I know of a number of people who have been accused of crimes, and as a consequence been fired from their job. It's a practice that seems pretty commonplace. I don't know if the legality of this practice has ever been challenged. The point of this paragraph is that if you think it's bulls*it, then you'd better get used to it, or be willing to take up the legal challenge.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    88. Re:Dumbasses by misleb · · Score: 1

      Well, at that point he should be thanking his school, because you're not getting irony either.

      Very well written, but every dictionary I have available to me says you are quite wrong. "References" for your little rant consist of a television cartoon series and an etymology dictionary which doesn't have much to say on the subject. Basically what you are saying is "trust me, I know what I am talking about. Dictionaries of the world be damned." Please provide some credible and meaningful references for your claims.

      Repeat after me: Irony Is A Form Of Wordplay.\

      Verbal irony is a form of wordplay, but there are several different forms of irony.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    89. Re:Dumbasses by aallmighty · · Score: 1

      When I was in 7th grade (9 years ago... wow), a friend and I had prank called a girl a couple times at home (just called and hung up, didn't say anything). So they called the cops, and the cops told us to stop and we did. The next day we were called down to the principal's office and suspended for a week. I thought it was ridiculous since it had absolutely NOTHING to do with school, but there wasn't much I could do.

    90. Re:Dumbasses by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Funny

      But there's a significant difference in what [you] (allegedly) did and what this kid did. If you were involved at all with the posession or sale of marijuana, that is a criminal activity. What this kid did, writing down his vulgar, but non-threatening opinions of the school is not criminal. It is, in fact, constitutionally protected.

      1. There is no significant difference. In both cases, the school is overstepping its bounds, involving itself in matters way beyond its purview.

      1.a A rumor of criminal activity isn't sufficient for criminal conviction in a court of law. Why should it be sufficient for a school?

      2. The Right to Party is protected by the Constitution. Please refer to the famous case Beastie Boys v. Your Mom, in which the Supreme Court ruled that your mom does not have the right to throw away your best porno mag.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    91. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think not putting your name on something is cowardly. If you want to say something, stand behind it and be prepared to accept consequences whether just or unjust. Otherwise, don't bother saying stuff. If you don't want to sign your name and stand behind what you say, think about whether it is it really worth saying and if it's really a good idea to say it.

      I for one totally agree with your statement!

    92. Re:Dumbasses by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      "FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true."

      That is wrong. The harm to the reputation is assumed IF it is proven something was said with the intent to harm. EG if i said "you were a lying cock sucker", you would not have to find someone who thought less of you to prove harm, only prove that I said it about you and that other people heard it. What is also wrong is that the implication that it only applies to lies. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, if the intent is to harm, it is actionable. If you can prove it was a true statement though you may lose the case and be fined $0.01.

      IANAL - but at least I understand some of the basics.
      See a decent explanation here;
      http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamatio n.html

      Note that in most cases, the award for is usually much less than the costs to win the case and cases of slander or liable are seldom bothered with by lawyers - there's no money to be made - unless it's big company A slandering big company B.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    93. Re:Dumbasses by slashkitty · · Score: 4, Informative
      i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my fuckin web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you fucks. freedom of speech. and who the fuck are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.

      edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me) [image of miller lite]

      Well, he did admit to drinking and he did ask to be suspended.

      http://www.xanga.com/Heckler3672bro

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    94. Re:Dumbasses by mjh · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing my point. Whether the school is overstepping it's bounds for involving itself in the aleged commision of a crime is not relevant. At best, it's a questionable practice. But there is absolutely no question that the school, a public institution, should be charged with protecting the first amendment. And that in suspending and threatening to expel someone over a comment is, IMHO, entirely inappropriate and almost certainly unconstitutional.

      As far as violating your privacy, I would argue that the very fact that there is a third party in the first place (the government) who believes it has any business snooping into what you do in the privacy of your own home is a huge part of the problem. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, explain to me exactly how the government should be involved at all.

      I remain steadfast in my beliefs that private institutions, as opposed to government institutions, would handle this situation much more to everyone's liking.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    95. Re:Dumbasses by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      If this actually happens, there will be no more new teachers. The best and the brightest aren't going into education these days.

      "If this actually happens"??? I went to Shippensburg University (in Pennsylvania) which started up as a teacher college...one of the best teacher colleges in the state. I was not an education major but I remember my friends, who were, telling me that if they get caught underage drinking they are hosed. Same thing with those who want to go into law enforcement.

      Now given, if you get busted the cop might be nice and reduce the charge to something that won't make you lose your career of choice. Or if you fight it in court....but that is circumventing the required punishments.

      I could definitly understand the sentiment. One day I will be a parent, I do not want my kids learning from a person that feels breaking the law is OK...and underage drinking is breaking the law....does that make me a hippocrit---yea, but when it comes to my unborn children I don't care.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    96. Re:Dumbasses by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      if you fight another student, say on the weekend - at a park...if your school hears about it, they will suspsend you and the other student

      I only wish that were always the case. I was in a situation where I was constantly bullied by the #1 school jock. He threatened me constantly, and kept insisting to fight me. We finally met at a local park where he proceeded to kick the shit out of me.

      At school, he was treated like it never happened. I was called into his office, and it was decided (this time) that becuase it was off school property that it didn't matter.

      The same situation a year before with differant kids resulted in them getting suspended for 3 days each.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    97. Re:Dumbasses by ziggy_zero · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It would be cowardly if we lived in a world where people didn't get punished for what they said. In this world, it's just common sense.

      Besides, it's not like if you don't sign your real name whatever it is you want to say doesn't get said.

      --
      I belong to the ______ generation.
    98. Re:Dumbasses by Gattman01 · · Score: 1
      Or if you fight it in court....but that is circumventing the required punishments.

      This isn't true.
      In addition to any legal consquences/punishments, the school will also impose their own.

      A couple of years ago, my some guys on a fraternity show, or something on MTV. They hopped the wall into zoo, which was caught on camera, then aired.
      The zoo had them charged with trespassing. To top it off, the Student Judiciary body gave them comunity service hours to complete. I don't remember what happened with the trespassing charges, though.
    99. Re:Dumbasses by l5rfanboy · · Score: 1

      And yet this happens more and more frequently these days; it will be a dark day if the School wins on this one.

    100. Re:Dumbasses by oc255 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so let's say instead of getting in trouble over a blog, he was leading an after school class.

      Let's say that he didn't have permission to schedule time in the gym but he did it anyway. He taught a class in the gym named: "How To Stay in School 101" where he would talk to fellow students about how to avoid trouble and flunking out.

      However since he didn't reserve the gym, he gets caught and suspended for unauthorized assembly. That's a good example of Irony of Fate?

      I blame Alanis Morissette for all the confusion. Nothing in that song "Isn't it Ironic?" is ironic. It's all just unfortunate.

    101. Re:Dumbasses by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      bullied by the #1 school jock

      Seems like a bit of favoritism...who wants to get rid of the schools best jock? Obviously, given your age at the time you didnt know all you could do, but knowing what you know these days you could have taken the matter above the principles head, and even to the media...that would have been nice.

      Shame you didnt get help from the school. One thing that happend, which was crappy. My cousin lived accross the street from school. She was sitting on her lawn and some girl (who didnt like her) came up and started fighting her. My cousin got suspended...my cousin was sitting on her home porch!

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    102. Re:Dumbasses by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I think he means that it is difficult to get a teaching job if one is convicted of a crime. Poorly phrased, and seems to imply that an academic department would care one way or another about an adult student's behavior off campus and outside of class.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    103. Re:Dumbasses by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: Irony Is A Form Of Wordplay.

      Not necessarily.

      This kid has situational irony. Hell it's almost cosmic irony that this is...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    104. Re:Dumbasses by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      In your examples, finding of guilt and meting out of punishment should be handled by schools, and not by the police and courts?

      What's ironic is that you go on to accuse someone of using a straw man, after bringing in this ludicrous non-applicable (to the case at hand) examples.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    105. Re:Dumbasses by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      It's crap like this that makes me want the public school system abolished and replaced with something more privately run, where competition can weed out this kind of stupid behavior.

      Yes, privately run companies are famous for repsecting peoples rights.</sarcasm>

      (Actually, I'm sympathetic to some parts of the charter school movement, and to school choice amoung public schools in a district. But let's not pretend that the same sorts of companies that routinely trample workers would treat students any better.)

      Socialism doesn't work.

      Socialism - the control of economic resources by workers, as opposed to capitalism's rather than by a government-backed minority of owners - can work, though of course every time it rears its head those in power do everything they can to quash it. It is a shame that so many people confuse socialism, Marxism, Stalinism, social democracy, and regulated capitalism.

      Public schools have fsck-all to do with socialism.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    106. Re:Dumbasses by Se7enLC · · Score: 1

      At my school, there was no direct punishment for what you did outside of school, even if it was against the law.

      HOWEVER, to get around that loophole, the school required that you sign a form if you join any clubs, sports teams, or participate in any extra-cirricular activities, possibly including things like trips and prom. The form stated that you agree to be kicked off the team if you are caught drinking or doing drugs, even if you are not at or anywhere near school. If you refuse to sign the form, you are not allowed to be in the club / on the team / etc.

      A pretty ingenius system, if you ask me. It doesn't technically punish you for using drugs/alcohol, you just aren't allowed to do certain things if you do. Kind of a pre-emptive punishment.

    107. Re:Dumbasses by EntropyXP · · Score: 0

      This is the funniest shit I have ever ready on slashdot. Thanks for making my day...

      --
      "No one will really be free until nerd persecution ends."
    108. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, he did admit to drinking and he did ask to be suspended.

      So? Should the school be able to suspend or expell him for drinking outside school? Should they suspend a student who asks them to?

      The former policy would leave the school with no students, while the latter would be extremely unpopular with parents and teachers, given that lots of misguided students would ask for such treatment, to their own detriment.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    109. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like when some people of a certain religtion say, "How dare say that I57AM is a violent religion! I shall blow them up for that!!!"

    110. Re:Dumbasses by computational+super · · Score: 1
      Feel enriched that your children can use the Internet and speak their minds.

      There was a quote that used to float around the Internet back in the "old days" (the mid 90's) that the Internet could never be controlled beacuse "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Great quote. Used to be true. Isn't true anymore. The Internet has effectively been controlled.

      How? The same say we've always been controlled. Fear. Fear of being caught saying something unpopular. The anonymity to say things we're afraid to, or can't, say in public - that anonymity that was once the hallmark of the Internet's freedom - is gone. The Internet isn't even remotely anonymous. There are some attempts to reintroduce anonymity to the Internet, but there are depressingly few people supporting them - and depressingly even more actively campaigning against them.

      Why not? Fear. Fear of terrorists. Fear of pedophiles. Fear of libel. Fear of piracy. Irrational fears of things that don't go away when your anonymity does... but depressingly scary enough to enough people to coerce the majority of the population into giving up - handing over - the anonymity that finally allowed us to speak frankly and for the first time in the history of the human race, tell the unadulterated, pure, non-watered-down truth about everything - the anonymity we'd never had before, and that we'll likely never have again. It was great while it lasted.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    111. Re:Dumbasses by gebbeth · · Score: 1
      Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts. FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal. I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.

      I know that this is the case in Louisiana with regards to gun laws. It is perfectly legal to carry a handgun unconcealed on your person without a permit. The rub is that if someone(s) react(s) to your carrying a gun and a general panic ensues, you the gun carrier are guilty of disturbing the peace. It sounds strange to me that you can be held liable for someone else's reaction, but it boils down to you being the catalyst of that action even though the catalyst is perfectly legal.

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    112. Re:Dumbasses by mjh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Public schools are funded through socialist means. Say what you want about control of economic resources by workers, but it's just not true. Economic control in socialism is done by the government. They tax the money and then provide it for something else. Capitalism is a much better example of distributed control of economic resources. No one forces you to purchase food from BiLo or Publix or (whetever your local grocer is). As a result the owners of those stores have no control over your economic resources. You have all the control. If you don't like the quality of produce, you go somewhere else. The owner of that grocery chain can do nothing about it.

      Compare and contrast this with public education. It's paid for through taxes. It's regulated through a central, hierarchical authority. The people who receive the education services, get one and only one choice: attend or not. There are no alternatives. You can't extract your tax money to go somewhere else. You can't even extract your tax money to fund home schooling, much less private schooling. If you try to keep your money, the government comes and puts you in jail for tax evasion. The vast majority of the population has absolutely no control over how their money gets spent in public education... except maybe every 4 years when a new election cycle comes up. And then you'd better hope that your pet peeve gets noticed enough to become an election issue. And even then your favorite guy might lose. But even if he wins, and your solution gets implemented. There may be other folks who were happy without that solution and are now forced to fund that solution and have it applied to them. No matter who gets to decide in socialism, someone gets screwed.

      Sorry. Socialism can not work. The only thing socialism successfully does is concentrate decision making power into government officials - who are about as far away as possible from the real costs and benefits of the decisions they make.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    113. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      So i could publicly accuse my hypothetical school of anything online? (does the media matter? newspaper, sign on freeway overpass), and no matter how bad the slur you would not expel me?

      Absolutely. Perhaps I might want to (not likely, given my personal philosophy) but I would not have any legal authority to. The public school system is created by laws, charters, and case law, which grant them certain authority over students that are placed in their care. But they only grant that authority so long as the students are in the care of the school. The school is said to act in such cases "in loco parentis" ...but when the student is at home, they aren't.

      Note that the school still has the full range of legal recourses available to it which any other citizen would have. However, having read the blog in question, I would consider any actual legal steps they might take laughable. Which is why they've ignored their legal options and instead gone to bullying the kid and his family. Of course, if the family can afford to, they'll beat the pants off the district in court, but I'd also bet that the district is well aware of that and calculates that an actual showdown is unlikely. Let's hope they're wrong.

      One other note: Metallica does appear to have a strong case against this kid if they ever happen across his blog, assuming he doesn't have appropriate license to broadcast "Master of Puppets" on his page.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    114. Re:Dumbasses by CWRUisTakingMyMoney · · Score: 1
      FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal.

      No, I think the act itself should be illegal. The whole point of being able to restrict some types of speech is to avoid the type of panic that would be caused by yelling "fire" in a theater. Once the panic has been started and people start to get hurt, it's too late. At some point, the authorities have to be able to stop it before it happens. So the act itself, and the probable panic it would cause, is made illegal, rightfully in my eyes.

      It's worth noting for completeness that Justice Holmes (I think) was only talking about speech that had no real value whatsoever, like, well, yelling "fire" when there's no fire. In the case in question here, it doesn't look like the kid even did that, he only said one thing which could be possibly construed as a vague threat. That's not enough to punish the kid, at least through school channels. In any event, this will be a really interesting case to watch unfold, to see what schools can do about outside-of-school but related-to-school conduct.

      (IANAL, but I'm working on that).

      --
      Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
    115. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I got two weeks of in-school suspension when I was 16 for writing a letter to the editor of the local paper under my own name. Public school, etc, etc.

      PATENTLY unconstitutional. You could have, you SHOULD have, sued their asses. Not just for monetary compensation (which would be limited) but for an injunction/enjoinment/whatever against punishment until the court decided the matter. Of course, the court would have found in your favor in about 2 seconds, so any "charges" would have been dismissed and your record completely cleared.

    116. Re:Dumbasses by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I live in the area and I know the math teacher in question. I can state unequivocally that he is, in fact, an XYZ.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    117. Re:Dumbasses by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, I think the act itself should be illegal. The whole point of being able to restrict some types of speech is to avoid the type of panic that would be caused by yelling "fire" in a theater.

      Then you restrict speech urging people to rise up against an oppresive government, or even speech that tells some truth about the government which could case panic.

      Once the panic has been started and people start to get hurt, it's too late.

      Agreed, and if people ARE hurt because of a panic you started, well, you would be responsible (assuming of course there really is no fire).

      At some point, the authorities have to be able to stop it before it happens.

      You've now entered the realm of thought crime, which I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to argue the Framers didn't support.

      So the act itself, and the probable panic it would cause, is made illegal, rightfully in my eyes.

      You are likely to hit someone with a a car and kill them, even if you follow all the rules. Someone may step out in front of you, and you may see them, but not in time to stop. What you're suggesting is that we take away everyone's right to drive, because they might hurt someone. Put another way, your life is ruled of fear of bad things that might happen, so you try to make it so that no one can do anything.

      No, punish only those that have actually harmed someone, not those that might harm someone. No harm, no fowl.

      It's worth noting for completeness that Justice Holmes (I think) was only talking about speech that had no real value whatsoever, like, well, yelling "fire" when there's no fire.

      The problem is of course determining the 'value' of speech or expression. You could say that porn has no value. If you think it has no value, does that mean it shouldn't be protected? If a majority agree? I'm not even sure he was talking about speech with no value, as I don't recall any text in which he stated that. After all, what if some speech has value and also creates a clear and present danger? What do you do then?

      In the case in question here, it doesn't look like the kid even did that, he only said one thing which could be possibly construed as a vague threat. That's not enough to punish the kid, at least through school channels. In any event, this will be a really interesting case to watch unfold, to see what schools can do about outside-of-school but related-to-school conduct.

      Here at least we agree. FWIW, I didn't construe even a vague threat from what I've read so far.

    118. Re:Dumbasses by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'Why do schools sit there and try to claim "Its not our jobs, its the parents job" when at the very same time they are going to reach into the home and bypass the parents for something so innocuous as this?'

      Because idiots have handed such vast powers to the schools in the first place.

      If a child gets beaten up outside school, if a child gets distressed outside school, if a child doesnt know about the birds and the bees outside school etc, etc, etc. Its the schools fault every single time, and the schools have to take on more and more responsibility to raise peoples children in the place of parents. Now your saying that they shouldnt bipass the parents? Why the fuck not? Parents werent there to teach sex ed, parents were there to protect there child, parents werent there to comfort there child but now the school is kicking the child out so the parent might actually have to do something there up in arms about it??? Seriously who is trying to have it both ways here?

      I dont agree with the decision, I do think the school has overstepped its bounds, but im not surprised by it, and trying to claim the schools are somehow robbing parents of there right to raise there children. Especially when parents have been whining, complaining and suing the schools in to taking over all there responsibilities. Thats just absurd.

      Look at it this way. If people choose the schools to back off and stop teaching or getting involved with anything outside of basic education, I would put money on the fact youd have a half dozen parents groups and legal cases within a year because there children dont know what a condom is, and twice the cases based on the fact the school wasnt looking after there kids out of school hours. (because there have been so many parents leaving there children with the school around here for a good hour or so after the place is supposed to close they had to hire more staff to look after them. Note that wasnt a service it was a neccesity because the parents just werent getting there on time.) Youd sure as hell have a lot more outrage at schools doing that than you would at schools kicking kids out for blogs. Cant have it both ways? Your right so parents have to pick one. strip the school of its responsibilities and raise your own child or dont be surprised if the school is gonna bitch slap your kid any time it pleases.

    119. Re:Dumbasses by thc69 · · Score: 0
      He threatened me constantly, and kept insisting to fight me.
      If he did it on school grounds, that would definitely be within the school's jurisdiction to stop.
      We finally met at a local park where he proceeded to kick the shit out of me.
      I can't imagine a reason why that should be punished by the school. That's a police matter. Also a stupidity matter -- bully threatens you and requests your presence at his chosen location for your own ass-kicking, and you show up? Unarmed? You were forewarned, why weren't you forearmed?

      In school, I was always a geek (before it was cool), and sometimes a victim, but I never allowed myself to end up in such a dire situation. I had one bully who threatened me, and requested the same sort of off-site meeting for my beating. I refused to have anything to do with it. I didn't want to play his game. I insisted that if he wants to fight me, he's going to have to do it at school.

      We fought twice. Actually, I took a minor beating twice; although the second time, I managed to throw my shoe at him in an attempt to kick him (the shoe was loose, my kick was useless).

      Either way, it happened in an environment where I knew I wouldn't get beaten too severely before somebody stepped in, and where I knew the bully would get punished. I got punished too, but I was always happy to get suspended; to me, it was just an unexpected day off from school, which was the last place I ever wanted to be.
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    120. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      By the way, this summary has an important detail wrong. The district in question is Plainsfield ILLINOIS, NOT NEW JERSEY. We should all have been able to tell by the fact that the link goes to a Chicago newspaper which never mentions the state in which the district lies. But I for one did not notice that, and sent a (polite, but firm) email to the wrong district suggesting they drop the matter before they get their pants sued off. Well...the fellow was not as polite in return and basically called me an idiot for getting the wrong district.

      So, I feel dumb, but whatever. If you are going to call or write, make sure you do it to the Illinois district. http://www.learningcommunity202.org/

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    121. Re:Dumbasses by jc42 · · Score: 1

      It's crap like this that makes me want the public school system abolished and replaced with something more privately run, where competition can weed out this kind of stupid behavior.

      Sorry, but this story happened in the United States, where that wouldn't work. Our Constitutional rights only protect us from government actions. Private corporations are not required to follow the Bill of Rights.

      Since this was a public school system, the kid has a chance of getting the courts to apply the First Ammendment (which includes freedom of speech and the press). Of course, he'd have to file suit, and the local courts would almost certainly decide against him, leading to appeals. It wouldn't be decided before he graduates, as the appeals process can easily take a decade, so it wouldn't affect the school while he's a student there. And it would cost his family a LOT of money.

      In a private school, the story is different: He would have no rights whatsoever. Well, ok, they would probably be pushing it if they did something to him that caused serious physical damage or death. But short of that, a private school can legally impose any sort of restrictions they like, and the courts won't say a word. If a student were to try a lawsuit, the judge would probably just laugh and tell him to get back to his studies.

      It's similar with employment, where the employer can impose any on-the-job restrictions they like (short of serius physical injury). The only exception is that the 13th Ammendment says that an employee can quit (with possible fines depending on the employment contract). An underage student doesn't even have the right to escape; the legal system will label this "truancy" and return the student to the school.

      And good luck finding a "market" solution to this. Competition only works when at least one competitor is willing to supply what you want. If they all have "gentlemen's agreements" to not supply something, you don't get it.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    122. Re:Dumbasses by misleb · · Score: 1

      However since he didn't reserve the gym, he gets caught and suspended for unauthorized assembly. That's a good example of Irony of Fate?

      No, that is an example of hypocrisy. It would be Irony of Fate if the students in the "How to stay in school 101" class somehow got suspended. The intended effect of the class was to help students stay in school, but the result was just the opposite. Also known as tragic irony.

      I blame Alanis Morissette for all the confusion. Nothing in that song "Isn't it Ironic?" is ironic. It's all just unfortunate.

      Yeah, and THAT is ironic. It is especially clever, assuming Allanis knew what she was doing, because the idea of irony itself is being used as a mechanism for irony. Then again, maybe Allanis is just ignorant and nobody clued her in before she released the song. :-)

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    123. Re:Dumbasses by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      My HS, back in the mid to late 90's when I was in HS, had a policy of disciplining students for fighting even if they were not on school grounds at the time.


      Part of this is going powermad with authority combined with laziness in making relevant distinctions (particularly, treating all parties the same in fights), but part of it is the fact that schools have been held liable for actions that occurred off school grounds, as well -- including fights that either (1) occurred off-campus during school hours between students, (2) occurred between the time students left school and the time they got home, (3) were "arranged" at school and then occurred off campus".

      Further, there have, I believe, been cases where the school was held liable for not protecting students proactively from threats that the school should have known about because of events that school officials were aware of that occurred off campus, even if the school was not strictly responsible for those off-campus occurrences.

      So while "common sense" might say schools should only care about events that happen on-campus, that "common sense" would be wrong from the perspective of any responsible administrator.
    124. Re:Dumbasses by Mark_Uplanguage · · Score: 1

      Just consider that it might be possible the school is trying to prevent "criminal" charges from being pressed. If they don't do anything and just let the justice system deal with it, it could be much more damaging to the student.

      Then again, the student sounds like an idiot - I wouldn't protect him from squat.

      --
      "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
    125. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      But there's a significant difference in what (allegedly) did and what this kid did. If you were involved at all with the posession or sale of marijuana, that is a criminal activity. What this kid did....is, in fact, constitutionally protected.

      That is a difference, true. But it does not make any difference to the school's role in the situation. You forget that the school is not a law-enforcement agency. They are not legally authorized to take disciplinary action in either case. The only thing they are allowed to do is call the cops and tell them what they heard. Of course, the "rumor" of possession of marijuana isn't going to excite a cop much. Neither will a blog post. Which is why in both cases the school simply ignored their legal options and went to bullying the student instead. In the marijuana case, they correctly calculated that the family would not go to the expense of suing them. The Plainsfield (Illinois, not New Jersey, the summary is wrong) district has obviously made the same calculation, but it appears (given the quotes from the lawyer in TFA) that they may have been mistaken.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    126. Re:Dumbasses by MonkWB · · Score: 1

      I have witnessed an instance of the system screwing you a few years ago in highschool. There were some kids who had clearly come from outside and were clearly just smoking some weed. This disciplinary person at our school knew this but could not really proove it. So she abused the system. She asked the 3 kids who were sitting in the office to stand up. They asked why, but she just kept asking and when they refused, she got them written up for disprespecting authority. Obviously these kids were doing something wrong, but the disciplinary person's way to handle the situation was also wrong.

    127. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      No, that is an example of hypocrisy. It would be Irony of Fate if the students in the "How to stay in school 101" class somehow got suspended.

      No, he was right. Isn't the person who got suspended in his example also a student? Thus they still took a student out of school when the expected result would be fewer students out of school. Situational irony. Very simple. Your point that it was hypocritical of the school is much less sound, but probably also supportable.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    128. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. Socialism can not work.
       
      Why do you keep using that word? I don' thin' that word means what you thin' it does. (Princess Bride)
       
      Seriously guy, you don't know anything about publicly funded schools. Most control is local, with lots of access to affect policies, starting with the PTA's, local school boards, selectmen (or the equivalent county legislature), city councilpersons, state legislature, governor, and on upward. Parents have enormous ability to affect their schools. (Only people like me have no control; no kids, but still I pay for their kids' schools.)

      Private institutions are the worst offenders against individuals' rights, especially private schools with waiting lists. Once in, they do with kids what they please, cause, guess what? Lots of other kids are waiting to get in. Private employers also lead the way in violating employees' rights. Public employers (local, state and federal agencies) are much more closely scrutinized and controlled.
       
      Why is it that people so love taking shots at public entities? Schools, the national weather bureau, the post office, motor vehicles divisions, and so on. They all provide excellent service, but people like you spend so much time bitching about them.

    129. Re:Dumbasses by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Can any of you older men/women actually sit there and imagine doing something at home outside of school time, and then getting in trouble for it in school...

      Well, I'm not in school, but if I smoke a joint on the weekend and my employer decides to give me a pee test any time in the next six months, I'll be fired. They can do it at any time, and it's perfectly legal for them to do so.

    130. Re:Dumbasses by yoden · · Score: 1

      or as if it wasn't perfectly legal for him to drink with his parents... (which may or may not be true, but isn't proveable either way from his blog...

      --
      Computers can make otherwise intelligent people stupid, much like slashdot.
    131. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that I agree with the suspension that you received. I'm saying that there's a difference between what happened to you and what happened to this kid. The public school system which is part of our government, *should* be actively protecting first amendment rights. They have no such obligation to protect criminal activities.

      OK...perhaps, but irrelevant. We aren't talking about a district protecting anything. We are talking about a district punishing a student. In one case the act they are punishing him for was legal, in the other it was illegal. This has absolutely no impact on the discussion, because the school is not a law-enforcement organization. They have no authority to enforce law, and no authority at all outside acting in loco parentis during those times when students have been placed in their care. Had they found actual pot on the actual student while he was in class, they still could not have arrested him for it...they could have called the cops, who would have, and they could have suspended him or whatever else their policy states. But they would be left out of the legal process other than as witnesses at trial. Similarly, they could have suspended him for any number of things that weren't illegal...and it doesn't make any difference whether it was legal, constitutionally protected, etc.

      In short, when talking about whether a school is justified in punishing the actions of a student, the legality of those actions is completely and totally irrelevant.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    132. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I shall blow them up for that!!!"

      And just look at this offensive cartoon! I must murder 47 people today!!11!1!oneone! A11@h will be soooo proud of me!!!

    133. Re:Dumbasses by Mahou · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      whoa whoa obese with twig-like limbs? seeing a fat person is horrible enough, i hope i never have to see such a freak of nature like you've described

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    134. Re:Dumbasses by mjh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I believe that I do understand the meaning of socialism:
      Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines, and may also refer to political movements that aspire to put these doctrines into practice. These movements generally envisage a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

      Wikipedia

      Of course, public schools have local oversite. But they simply do not have control. And if you want an example of that, I submit to you No Child Left Behind. How many people who don't like the rules imposed have any control to supercede them?

      I don't think you have a very good understanding of the words "Personal Responsibility". What they mean is that if you don't like the private school you're sending your kids to, it's your responsibility to either influence change or leave. If you don't like the terms of your employment, it's your responsibility to find a new employer. In general, you are responsible for the condition of your life. If you don't like it, change it.

      I love taking shots at public entities because they are

      1. expensive
      2. ineffective
      3. destroyers of freedom

      And all in the name of insulating people against the consequences of free choices. I'm glad you think that public institutions provide you excellent service. I submit that they are the highest cost producer and if we sent less of our money to them and didn't allow them to spend as much as they do, we'd all be better off and richer.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    135. Re:Dumbasses by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "But there's a significant difference in what (allegedly) did and what this kid did. If you were involved at all with the posession or sale of marijuana, that is a criminal activity."

      True, but, still...that would be something OUTSIDE the school, and none of their business...at least that was the way when I was in HS.

      I mean, a mear rumour would not have even registered...and I know people that got busted for minor posession...outside of school property and school hours...but, there were no ramifications at school for this. Geez, this would be like getting suspended from work, just because you got a traffic ticket over the weekend for speeding.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    136. Re:Dumbasses by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Should the school be able to suspend or expell him for drinking outside school? Should they suspend a student who asks them to?

      1) Yes, if this was a rule that they agreed to. Plenty of private schools do things like this.

      2) I agree here - no. "I hate school! Please suspend me!"

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    137. Re:Dumbasses by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      To make a long story short, the suspension was cut in half as a compromise.

      So you are saying you still got fucked, they just lubed you up after you protested?

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    138. Re:Dumbasses by misleb · · Score: 1

      No, he was right. Isn't the person who got suspended in his example also a student?

      Well, in the somewhat contrived example, the "student" was playing the role of a teacher.

      Thus they still took a student out of school when the expected result would be fewer students out of school. Situational irony.

      Ok, but it would have been much more ironic if the whole class was suspended.

      Your point that it was hypocritical of the school is much less sound, but probably also supportable.

      The hypocrisy I was refering to was on the part of the teacher (student, really) of the class. He didn't practice what he preached. First rule of "staying in school" is to not piss off the school by doing something like holding a class in the gym without getting permission.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    139. Re:Dumbasses by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Calling the school authorities 'pathetic fucks' and telling them to 'kiss his ass' might get a student expelled? What is the world coming to?

      I think a more suitable punishment would be to just give him the cane and let him stay at the school, but apparently that's unacceptable in this PC age where disorderly louts are given free reign to do whatever they want with no consequences.

    140. Re:Dumbasses by mjh · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but this story happened in the United States, where that wouldn't work. Our Constitutional rights only protect us from government actions. Private corporations are not required to follow the Bill of Rights.

      True. But private corporations, as opposed to the government, are not allowed to forcibly extract money from us. If a private corporation does that, it's called theft. When the government does that, it's called taxes. The reason that we have limits on the government is because they can foricbly extract our money. Without those limits we'd have constant coups.

      So what controls do private corporations have? They are regulated by customer satisfaction. Each one of us has a right to stop being a customer to a private corporation. We control their purse strings. So they are forced to make sure we're happy.

      It doesn't matter that the constitution only describes limitations on the government and not private entities. The limits and controls built into a free society with property rights are much more powerful limitations than the constitutional limits on government.

      In a private school, the story is different: He would have no rights whatsoever.

      That's only true if you ignore the right that he and his parents have to extract their money from the school and send it and the kid somewhere less draconian.

      And good luck finding a "market" solution to this. Competition only works when at least one competitor is willing to supply what you want. If they all have "gentlemen's agreements" to not supply something, you don't get it.

      The "gentleman's agreements" are surefire ways to lose market share. Don't believe me? How well do you think the RIAA is doing with their "gentleman's agreement" to only sell music through their existing distribution channels? Don't like that example, how about the american car companies who never updated their manufacturing processes and enabled Toyota and Honda and others to come in and steal huge portions of market share? Every example of innovation ever, came about because someone decided that the status quo wasn't good enough. Enormous corporations have been toppled by this process.

      Good ideas simply can not be kept in the can. Someone else will come along and let them out to the detriment of the gentlemen who agreed to squash them.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    141. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, in the land of the free, we should remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

    142. Re:Dumbasses by vertinox · · Score: 1

      edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me) [image of miller lite]

      Did he drink it on school grounds? Was he intoxicated at school?

      Or did he drink this at home... Or maybe in Mexico?

      You can't simply suspend a student because he says he drinks alcohol (he might be making it up). There would have to be hard evidence that it is on school ground or leading to bad behavior on school grounds.

      Otherwise we'd have kids being supsended for drinking wine at Sunday mass.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    143. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it has long been shown that communism doesn't even work in theory.

      (Basically since there is no market to determine the economic value of things the allocation of things cannot be done other than in some adhoc fashion determined effectively by a dictatorship. See Mises Socialism book - he for saw the rise and effect of Nazism, Fascism and Communism, all socialist isms. And he did this in 1922).

    144. Re:Dumbasses by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1


      Yeah, I used to teach... used to.

      This kind of non-thinking is one of the reasons I wanted to leave the field.

      Seems these administrators are not too different from the rest.

      Tell me about it. On 9/11 I stayed home from work when I found out what happened. I then went to get my brothers out of school because our mom was in one of the towers. She was alright, but we could not reach her on her phone until MUCH later so we were all freaking out.

      The important thing is I was listed as a legal gaurdian (or what they considered one, we filled out the paperwork) earlier that year in case of emergencies as my mom was in the hospital not too long ago and we didn't want to take chances. I'd already picked one of them up from school when they were sick.

      I go to the principal's office and tell her everything that's going on: world trade center, mom unreachable, tower just collapsed, etc.

      Wait for it...

      Sorry, we can't let you take him without calling your mom first.

      Even the secretaries did a double-take. They stopped typing and just stared at her. I was paused and asked "I just finished telling you my mom might be dead and you acknowledge I'm listed as both an emergency contact and legal gaurdian, what's the problem. Hell how about my father, we can call him up right now." (he was at work 1.5 hours away, I lived 5 minutes away, it only made sense I pick them up).

      No, I don't let kids out of school without speaking to their mother first.

      I got pissed, I demanded that either she release my brother from class or I go find him myself. She eventually caved.

      Again, my mom wound up being OK but we didn't know that until like 3PM that day. Later, she met one of the secretaries that said they were proud I was able to talk some sense into the principal.
    145. Re:Dumbasses by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention. My brother was in middleschool, which shared the same building as the highschool. I was able to get my highschool brother out in less than a minute. Across the hall in the middleschool office I ran into the world biggest idiot that wouldn't let me get my youngest brother out (who was in 8th grade).

    146. Re:Dumbasses by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Economic control in socialism is done by the government. They tax the money and then provide it for something else.

      Not all socialism is state socialism. Anarchy is a form of socialism - libertarian socialism, the original libertarianism before the right stole the term.

      Capitalism is a much better example of distributed control of economic resources. No one forces you to purchase food from BiLo or Publix or (whetever your local grocer is)

      You're confusing markets with capitalism. There are socialist market theories, and command-econmony capitalist systems (like the U.S. during WWII).

      The capitalist/socialist question is "Who owns economic resources? Who profits from their exploitation?"; the socialist says it should be the guys actually doing the work, the capitalist says the owners and investors, even if they're "absentee stockholders" who do no work, should profit.

      The market/command econmony question is "Who decides what end resources are directed to? Who decides what gets produced?"

      Anarchists are opposed to centralization in either matter. (Zenarchists further realize that "Universal Enlightenment" - i.e., a society of informed, actualized human beings - is a prerequisite for radical decentralization to be stable.)

      If you want real distributed control of economic resources, get rid of the government's ability to issue corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyrights, patents...oh, and trash the reserve banking system.

      [Public education is] it's paid for through taxes. It's regulated through a central, hierarchical authority.

      Agreed. Neither of these facts makes public education socialist, however.

      The people who receive the education services, get one and only one choice: attend or not. There are no alternatives.

      There are in fact alternatives to public school: private schools and homeschooling. Do these not exist where you live, or what?

      You can't even extract your tax money to fund home schooling, much less private schooling

      No, you can't; why would you expect to? You can't extract your "defense" spending to pay for your own guns.

      The objective of education spending with your tax dollars is not to educate you specifically, it's to have an educated society, just as the objective of defense spending with your tax dollars is not to educate you, it's to provide for the common defense. (Personally, I'm open to tax credits for charitable contributions, so maybe if you contribute X dollars to a charter school, X dollars should come off your tax bill.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    147. Re:Dumbasses by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      This isn't true. In addition to any legal consquences/punishments, the school will also impose their own.

      Schools also tend to have a court system (I know I have experienced it). If you bring to them precedent (i.e. "look what the judge said") that should help your case.

      You want stupid...on my 21st birthday i went to a bar and got drunk. I got back to my dorm room and went to sleep. Got a knock on my door at 4 am...someone told the building i had been drinking (they probably saw me at a party)....The resident directory asked the city police officer if there is a fine or ticket he needs to give me (the cop told her since i was sleeping and over 21 there is nothing he could or should do). The school forced me to go to AA and write an essay about drinking and why it is bad or they wouldn't let me register for next semester. Now THAT is stupid...Over 21, sleeping in bed and I have to deal with that.

      But c'est la vie, I could have fought it, but didn't know better...that is how schools get the kids...they use the fact that young people don't understand (for the most part) how the system works.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    148. Re:Dumbasses by stevejobsjr · · Score: 1

      Many of the things in it are ironic from the observer's point of view. We don't expect the plane to crash, for example. We'd chide the man for being afraid of flying. But then the opposite of what we expect happens when it does crash. That's irony.

    149. Re:Dumbasses by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      when i was a sophomore in high school, we moved over christmas break from upstate new york to new mexico. i returned near the end of the year to pick up my yearbook and visit with friends. we had called ahead of time to make sure this would be okay, but when i showed up at school that day, the assistant principal i ended up running into felt that what i was doing was terrible and that i should leave school immediately. i was pretty upset that she was keeping me from visiting with my friends as my mom had arranged this ahead of time (with the head principal, however). knowing i had approval somewhere, as i walked out i said, "i'll be back." she asked, "what did you say? you just threatened me." she proceeded to call security and have me escorted by security off the campus. needless to say, after my mom made some calls, i *was* back, and no, i wasn't toting uzis or anything. the fact of the matter is that many high school administrators are Out Of Control. they view children as the enemy, and it makes for a toxic environment that only hurts the future of our children and our nation.

    150. Re:Dumbasses by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      That's a valid point, but its not like he said it in the New York Times. I'm curious why the school's authorities even bother reading some kid's blog. Unless they systematically google every kid in the school, I'm assuming someone sent them the URL, which is about the only way anybody's going to find the entry in the first place. I say, it's clearly outside the practical jurisdiction of the school. A lot of people don't like their school. They shouldn't be allowed to say it in public? It sounds like the kid's a trouble-maker anyway. They should be able to find a reason to discipline the kid without starting a nation-wide first amendment debate.

    151. Re:Dumbasses by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. What someone says on their own time on their own website is called free speech. The School Authorities are way over the line here.

      There goes another civil liberty slip-sliding away.

      Feel free to sacrifice your own liberties, leave mine the hell alone.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    152. Re:Dumbasses by phiwum · · Score: 1

      It would be cowardly if we lived in a world where people didn't get punished for what they said. In this world, it's just common sense.

      Huh? It's not cowardly because you really can get hurt by saying the wrong thing?

      I thought trying to avoid harm rather than take a stand was more or less the definition of "cowardly". Don't get me wrong. Anonymity has its uses. But choosing anonymity in order to avoid bad consequences is cowardice (or at least "un-brave").

      I'll admit that I'm not particularly brave, but let's be honest about what bravery and cowardice are.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    153. Re:Dumbasses by DennisInDallas · · Score: 1

      Posting anything anywhere, Xanga in particular, under yer own name is not a bright thing.

      I regret my selection of my slashdot pseudonym as it reveals far too much personal information. You don't think my (school|employer|favorite jackbooted government agency) is monitoring this discussion, do ya?

    154. Re:Dumbasses by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      Yes, if this was a rule that they agreed to. Plenty of private schools do things like this.

      If it were a private school, this debate could be entirely different. I assume parents of students at private schools sign some sort of contract with the school, which can define whatever terms they want. But it isn't.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    155. Re:Dumbasses by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      It's funny that all of the below posters neither read the article (which truely drives home the point of Irony) nor understand Irony.

      note I didn't say it was Ironic :P

    156. Re:Dumbasses by mctk · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one catching the irony in this statement?

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
    157. Re:Dumbasses by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      That's out of context, and he shouldn't be facing anything for this.

      You shouldn't "face" punishment for a constitutionally protected right.

    158. Re:Dumbasses by bm5k · · Score: 1
      Common sense dictates
      You're assuming that this has something to do with common sense.
    159. Re:Dumbasses by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Here's my take, after reading the entry. He was talking about free speech.

      But people under 18 are NOT PEOPLE, therefore free speech does not apply to people under 18. That's why the public school system ends at 18. Because you become a person and then you get those rights such as voting, free speech, etc. Until you are 18, you are your parents and if you want to talk, you have to do it through them.

      I was under 18 once (a while ago) and I felt the same way this kid did, and I got suspended and I got in trouble because I was smart and thought I knew the law. But the bottom line is that you are NOT a person until you are 18. You are a child, a sub-person. You have human rights but you are not a full citizen of the United States.

      The school has a legitimate argument because the kid was advertising breaking the law, which is not illegal per se, but could be viewed as disruptive. It IS illegal in most states to advocate breaking the law, subverting the government, creating anarchy, etc. The school system has a legitimate complaint if they believe that this local post may cause other students to break the law.

      But, I don't think the student should be punished. I think the parents should be punished for raising such a dumbass.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    160. Re:Dumbasses by l5rfanboy · · Score: 1

      Thomas Jefferson and George Washington distributed fliers penned under assumed names as well. Perhaps that is the greatest show of tyranny that individuals cannot speak as themselves.

    161. Re:Dumbasses by compro01 · · Score: 1

      My HS, back in the mid to late 90's when I was in HS, had a policy of disciplining students for fighting even if they were not on school grounds at the time. Not that there were any reports of this, because both students are always punished the same, even in CLEAR cases of self defence, or even if one kid just lays there like a slug and lets the other guy beat him.

      was this a private school by any chance? if so, they're completely free to do that.

      if this is a public school you're talking about, then that ought to have been taken to court.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    162. Re:Dumbasses by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      Submitter needs to work on his reading skills. This isn't Plainfield, New Jersey. It's Plainfield, Illinois.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    163. Re:Dumbasses by sfjoe · · Score: 1

      1.a A rumor of criminal activity isn't sufficient for criminal conviction in a court of law....

      Which is why the Republicans in the current administration are bypassing the courts - just too inconvenient.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    164. Re:Dumbasses by compro01 · · Score: 1

      unless I'm misunderstanding the article (it seems a bit short of details), the school in question is a public school, meaning that by law (since a public school is a government institution, they are bound by the constitution), they can't legally do that kind of crap.

      you're talking about a college, which would usually be a private school, and not bound by the constitution, and thus free to do as they like in this type of situation.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    165. Re:Dumbasses by Oztun · · Score: 1

      This is not a private school where anything goes. When the government owns the school they should be respecting the constitution IMO.

    166. Re:Dumbasses by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Ah, the angst of the teenager who knows all. Guess what? Till you're 18, there's no such thing as free speech. Guess what else? Unless it's a state school, even when you're 18 they can do what they please to you based on what you say. Free speech only means the government can't hassle you about what you say (within certains limits, ymmv, etc) it doesn't apply to private enterprises at all.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    167. Re:Dumbasses by Oztun · · Score: 1

      I missed the part where he advertised breaking the law. If you were referring to him drinking we don't know that he didn't have his parents permission which would be legal. His parents might be big dumbasses which would explain everything.

    168. Re:Dumbasses by WgT2 · · Score: 1
      No, I don't let kids out of school without speaking to their mother first.

      !!!???

      Utterly a sign of fear and incompetence. At least you might have been able to pull the principal from across the hall to talk some sense into that one.

      But I'm really, really glad it worked out for you, your brothers, and your mom.

    169. Re:Dumbasses by sedyn · · Score: 1

      Free speech isn't cheap. You can buy an opinion, or you can afford to have an opinion. Otherwise, in the sake of self-interest, speaking in public is generally a bad idea.

      Pissing off a superior at work, or worse, pissing off customers/clients. Costly move that few people can stand to benefit from.

      Some people can pull it off though, RMS comes to mind. But I think he's willing to suffer for what he believes in, I doubt many of us have the same constitution (I know I don't).

      That being said, I'm a person who will speak my mind even if it is determental to my own well being. Whether you could call it character or foolishness is a matter of opinion (and I have crossed the line sometimes). But I definately do not have a tongue that is glib enough to pull it off.

      --
      Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
    170. Re:Dumbasses by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Except he didn't just 'use the word "Columbine"' in a post, nor did he just 'discuss the motivations of the perpetrators'. If your landlord were to inform you that the last guy who didn't pay his rent on time ended up at the bottom of the river, and then reminded you that you were very close to being late on your rent as well, how exactly would you interpret those two statements? As mere commentary on unfortunate things that happen to people?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    171. Re:Dumbasses by heptapod · · Score: 1

      I hope they suspend him for that color scheme. Plus suspending the kid isn't going to help his skills in grammar and spelling.

    172. Re:Dumbasses by misleb · · Score: 1

      A plane crashing while demonstrating some new safety features would be (mildly) ironic. Any random plane crashing is just unfortunate. It takes a little bit more than "something unexpected" to get irony.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    173. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just posted your email address up on a spam few sites, hope u have your brave boots on!

    174. Re:Dumbasses by msouth · · Score: 1

      Um, could we add a "-1, full of himself" moderation category? :)

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    175. Re:Dumbasses by recursiv · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of this before, and I'm skeptical. Can you cite a source specifically stating that children do not enjoy the benefits of the first amendment?

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
    176. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then try this phrase: "Nanny State"

      [Cute: The CAPTCHA I got was "handbag".]

    177. Re:Dumbasses by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "In an unconfirmed report, the English teacher for this school has apologized saying that the school needed a better example of irony because the students just weren't getting it."

      So is this teacher going to sign his or her name to a motion for injuction to stop the process against the kid, or is he or she just going to use this as a platform to make smart-assed unconfirmed reports?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    178. Re:Dumbasses by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it is enough to just say something and get it out there, even anonymously. Once you mention the white elephant in the room, maybe others will have the nerve to either see it for themselves or have the nerve to say so.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    179. Re:Dumbasses by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see the kid take this to court. Imagine the shame of his English teachers when he wins on account of "it can't be a threat if it doesn't rise to the level of intelligible communication."

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    180. Re:Dumbasses by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      A most authoritative and well-referenced link, thank you. But you're all wrong about what irony is. It's like brassy and coppery, except it's made of iron.

    181. Re:Dumbasses by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Till you're 18, there's no such thing as free speech.
      I'm 18. That said, link to legal precedent, please? Minors may not have many privileges, but I don't see any age restrictions in the Constitution.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    182. Re:Dumbasses by AME · · Score: 1
      [...blah blah blah...] No Child Left Behind [...blah blah blah...] I submit that they are the highest cost producer and if we sent less of our money to them and didn't allow them to spend as much as they do, we'd all be better off and richer.

      In light of this statement, are you then a supporter or detractor of No Child Left Behind?

      On the one hand, it's Federal control over local school policy and procedure, which I presume you don't like. On the other hand, it's essentially a non-funded mandate of better performance, which, in light of your final statement, I presume you would be in favor of.

      Not trying to force you into a defensive posture; just curious.

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
    183. Re:Dumbasses by strikethree · · Score: 1

      If the system wants to fuck you, it will find some excuse.

      Do not anthropomorphise "the system". What should have been said is, "if someone within the system wants to fuck you, they can easily abuse their power/privilege and do so."

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    184. Re:Dumbasses by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I remain steadfast in my beliefs that private institutions, as opposed to government institutions, would handle this situation much more to everyone's liking.

      Whatever gave you that idea? A government-run school must abide by laws that govern the government, i.e. the Constitution and the First Amendment.

      A privately-run school has no such restriction, and can punish students for any reason whatsoever. (I've been there.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    185. Re:Dumbasses by burnteternal · · Score: 1
      free speech does not apply to people under 18

      This is incorrect, the 'Convention on the Rights of the Child' article 12, states:

      If a child is capable of forming his or her own views they also have the right to express those views

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rig hts_of_the_Child

    186. Re:Dumbasses by drsquare · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about the civil liberties of you or me, we're talking about children. Children have the 'right' to do as they're told and nothing else. Is it any surprise that kids are so unruly and disobedient today now there are scores of hand-wringing liberals whining about their rights, to the extent that teachers aren't even allowed to give children a nasty look without being sued for infringing their precious civil liberties?

      I say fuck free speech, the constitution etc. Teachers should have complete authority over their pupils, in or out of school. That's the only way that's proven to work. This modern PC crap HAS to end, it's been a complete disaster. Observe the local surroundings of any secondary school at finishing time for the proof.

    187. Re:Dumbasses by phiwum · · Score: 1

      I post to Usenet with an unobfuscated email address. I'm not particularly worried about your threat.

      Hell, my email address is visible here on slashdot! Why do you suppose I am scared of making it public?

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    188. Re:Dumbasses by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Next you will be telling me that I need to cite some study before I bring up the fact that people drive like psychos on LA freeways.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    189. Re:Dumbasses by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      I was 14 at the time. I really just wanted to get on with my life. The harrassment was pretty intense. I did'nt hear from him ever again except for a hushed comment once in the halls, which I took as a victory for me. Yeah it was stupid. I agree totally there. Kids do stupid things. I was stuck in that "DORK" image till I was 21. Somehow, a fast red car and money make girls and guys somehow apreciate (sp?) you more.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    190. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, he did admit to drinking and he did ask to be suspended.
      He also asked them to kiss his ass, but did they? Nooooo.

      Well, all right, for all I know maybe they did, but I bet they didn't do a very good job of it.

    191. Re:Dumbasses by misleb · · Score: 1

      But a plane crashing *isn't* unexpected. Although rare, it happenes.

      -m

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    192. Re:Dumbasses by thc69 · · Score: 1

      I was somewhere between 12 and 14 in the situation I described. I managed to obscure my "DORK" image by growing an afro (I'm white, and my school was almost devoid of blacks, the few who were there didn't have fr0s) and smoking pot, at which points I was known as freak and then pothead.

      I guess the lesson, for any young students reading this, is that what I did was slightly less ineffective than what dragonweezel did -- I got beat up by the bully on my own terms: In a relatively safe place (school) where he was sure to get in trouble (as was I).

      Even more effective is to learn to fight, and (important!) get the confidence to execute your learned skills (don't kick your loose shoe off; kick some ass).

      Better still, learn to avoid fights -- there's usually a way to walk away if you can keep cool and think logically. Before you get to that point, though, you can often defuse it way ahead of time -- the bully builds up to wanting to beat on you. Sometimes that's difficult, though, if he's chosen you as his target and persists despite your brush-offs/smartass replies.

      Most effective is to avoid all of it altogether -- be cool by laughing at yourself (bully says "Your sister's a whore", you say "If you want an appointment with her, I'll need a $20 downpayment"), admitting to the stupid or weird things you do and laughing at them (bully says "That answer you gave the teacher was retarded", you say "Yeah...I rode in on the short bus today"), come up with a distraction (my fr0), get in with some crowd* that doesn't get picked on, etc.

      *: Not the stoner crowd like I did, though; that wasted a lot of my money and got me in some trouble. Then again, maybe in this day and age, computer geeks get some respect. Anybody care to report the status of computer geeks respect in high school?

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    193. Re:Dumbasses by inKubus · · Score: 1

      This is incorrect, the 'Convention on the Rights of the Child' article 12, states:

      According to your link:

      "According to UNICEF, the Convention has been ratified by 192 countries. Only Somalia and the United States have not ratified the CRC. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government."

      So, this is not relevant.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    194. Re:Dumbasses by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Why do people seem to lose all reason and sensibility regarding their childern?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    195. Re:Dumbasses by scotch · · Score: 1
      How would I interpret that? As an admission of guilt for the murder of the landlords tennants, at least implied. Possibly as a threat of the same to my person. That is of course different than the communication by the students, but whatever it takes to justify jackbooting these teens you or someone else will provide. These students did not murder anyone, yet you would assume that they imply a threat where others see a commentary of the chilling effects of authoritarian control. Feel proud that you read into neutral or ambivalent text the justification for the stifling of free speech. I tend to err on the other side, but your view is certainly popular in 21st century America.

      No regard.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    196. Re:Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that the Press is really telling this story as it actually is. His blog is black and he admitts to drinking and, unlike the news stories, he DOES mention the school name and district. Has anyone read "Nothing by the Truth" By Avi? Here is a summery of the book:

      penchant to hum along with the playing of "The Star Spangled Banner" resulted in national media coverage, culminating in the professional demise of a well-meaning English teacher. Phillip Malloy likes to hum as the national anthem is played over the school's intercom system each morning. Despite the English teacher's repeated requests for him to stop, Phillip continues until he is suspended. His parents challenge the school, and chaos ensues. Phillip is struggling to achieve status in sports and assert his individuality in the classroom. He is a freshman--invincible and careless. Philip is testing authority and self-reliance while exploring his own independence. More importantly, he is unaware of the eventual consequences of his actions to himself and others. A major theme of this book is truth and the search for complete truth amongst the multiple versions of the same incident.

      Here is the news story:

      A 17-year-old student faces expulsion by the Plainfield School District in Plainsfield, Illinois as a result of blog posts he made on xanga.com which were critical of the school staff, alleging bullying and intimidation. The student has already been suspended for 10 days for the "inappropriate comments" and "threats" the school felt he had expressed on his blog. The posts were not made on school time or with school equipment.

      I doubt the full story and views are being printed in the press and I think that this relates alot to the book.

    197. Re:Dumbasses by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      "These students did not murder anyone, yet you would assume that they imply a threat where others see a commentary of the chilling effects of authoritarian control."

      No, others (such as the ones arguing to punish him) saw it as a threat. Thats why they wanted him expelled, in case you forgot to RTFA.

      "Feel proud that you read into neutral or ambivalent text the justification for the stifling of free speech."

      Excuse me? When exactly did I express an opinion over whether or not he should be allowed "free speech" over what he posts on his blog? As opposed to merely stating that this kid should have thought about what he wanted to write before sitting in front of the keyboard? Because there is a difference. Your post is a prime example, as while it fails to contain an even remotely logical argument, I do not feel you should be banned from slashdot.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  2. Probably was ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was probably recommended by his english teacher. He was tired of the insipid, inane blather that this blogger was posting and he had the opportunity to make an example out of him.

  3. Organizations behave like this... by jginspace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...it's a good preparation for real life.

    1. Re:Organizations behave like this... by linvir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it is real life. If this kid gets expelled, he's screwed.

    2. Re:Organizations behave like this... by uw_badgers · · Score: 1
      If this kid gets expelled, he's screwed.

      Actually, not necessarily. I heard of some kids that were expelled for cheating from a top high school. It was no big deal. They transferred to another top high school. The high schools cannot notify colleges about the expulsion unless specifically asked by the college.

    3. Re:Organizations behave like this... by magicchex · · Score: 2, Informative

      What a buncha bullshit assumptions to make...

      I've had more than my fair share of legal bullshit happen and I'm a above average University of Michigan student who got accepted to even better schools but couldn't afford to go.

      Don't paint everyone with your stereotypical brush.

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
    4. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "a above average [...] student"

      I love it. You are a funny, funny man.

    5. Re:Organizations behave like this... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well I guess i should admit that i went looking at his x(z?)anga site before making that post. Maybe you might come to the same conclusion maybe not. Here is another by his sister? Anyways, I dont think there is anyhting worht getting expelled over. But i do dougbt he would be any worse off.

    6. Re:Organizations behave like this... by kampit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ..and I quote from the sisters' blog:

      Dear District 202 or Plainfield South,

      if my website is a problem with you then dnt read it...its not for you...wat i do outside of school is my bissness n mi parents...they control me wen im not w/ u for 8 hours a day...u dnt lik me n i dnt lik u so go away...oh n i hope that u r readin this...cuz its not a threat...cuz i kno that u wuldnt want us to break into ur privte lives then dnt snoop in mine...any questions call mi mother...she is lookin forward to talkin w/ u...

      meghan haggard

      P.S.

      dnt u hav ne thin better to do w/ ur lives?


      If I was the chief what's-his-face for the school district, I wouldn't like them talking about my district online either, atleast not until they bloody well pass some english exams.
    7. Re:Organizations behave like this... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Freedom-Fighter in me wants to hug this girl for speaking the truth, but the English teacher in me wants to strangle her. I mean, seriously, mi instead of my? Is it really that hard to move your finger two keys over?

    8. Re:Organizations behave like this... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Have you come across essays written in txtesque yet? The best laugh I had in ages was one (Admittedly a very good parody) of "rmeo n jlet", with the memorable line "wer4 rt tho rmeo?".

      Seriously though, I had grammar and punctuation drilled into me from a very young age. Typos are understandable, and /.ers leap on them far too eagerly, but sometimes you have sentences which roll on and on with no form of punctuation in sight. Grammar isn't too bad, but evidently some kids just don't get it.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    9. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grammar really isn't the worst part. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind the spelling. It's not 1337, it's not shorthand, it's just... retarded.

      "wuldnt" instead of "wouldn't"?
      "privte" instead of "private"?

      She's just leaving out random letters. I guess it's not any more despicable than rANdOm caPItaLiZaTIOn, though.

    10. Re:Organizations behave like this... by OmnipotentEntity · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah... Now I know why they suspended him. Hell, I would have suspended him too. He has criminally bad web design.

      Red Text on a mostly black background image is eye-bleedingly difficult to read. And when linked to by a high traffic site, it is considered a violation of the Geneva Convention as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

      And the Metallica music embedded in the background is a sin before God and man and he should face the highest possible penalty.

      --
      "Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
    11. Re:Organizations behave like this... by mepcotterell · · Score: 1

      It is unlikley that he is some honor child exceling with hopes of some ivy league dreams. If this started by hushing a website paper authored by him that contained enough fould language to attract the attention of the school, I doubt he is even an average student. Either way, the hit on his record won't be as ahard as you might think. You definitley not assume that is the case. There are plenty of honor students these days that use vulgor language and exibit what many people would consider innapropriate behavior. I know that when I was in highschool (recently) the behavior of honor students was not all that different from those who were not honor students.

    12. Re:Organizations behave like this... by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      It's text speak. It's a method of spelling and grammar used by kids because they wish to rebel against all of the rules taught in english class. Apparently she has succeded, she has pissed off an english teacher.

    13. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to me to see open letters to the administration on both of the pages you linked to, both rife with problems in grammar, punctuation, and basic organization. Sure, one's personal blog is an informal medium, but this eighteen year old boy knows (or hopes) school administrators are reading his letter. Most school officials (or adults in general) are likely to treat him like a child if he writes like a child.

      Knowing your audience is a basic writing skill, and one he should have been taught at a much younger age. I think the expulsion scandal should be the least of this school's worries.

    14. Re:Organizations behave like this... by ate50eggs · · Score: 2, Funny

      swallow evil ride the sky, cross my heart and hope to die, i lose my self in a crowded room, you fool it will be here soon, it comes alive, and i die a little more, it comes alive and each moment here i die a little more, and then the unnamed feeling it comes alive, and the unnamed feeling its take me away...

      so... wait. was he expelled for bad poetry?

      --
      not everything is a science experiment!
    15. Re:Organizations behave like this... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Why? The public school system is obliged to continue to school him, and there's no shortage of small companies run by people angry at the man who'll say "omg I can't believe they screwed you, I will so hire you." Liberal politically oriented colleges like Oberlin, Amherst and Penn State will be all over this kid. By the time he's got one good job under his belt, nobody's even going to notice. Most people don't even put their education on their resumes.

      Don't get me wrong, this is a bump in the road. But the end of it? Hardly.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    16. Re:Organizations behave like this... by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      Proper grammar and spelling would make it appear as if she cared what 'they' think. They(the school) are the ones who taught her right? So she'll show em' they failed with her mad grammar and spelling. Some day she might grow up and find such things useful, but for now she's a teenager angry with the system and she doesn't care 'nd dey c'n al g0 an' an' an'... I guess what I'm saying is that unless the school is legally punished and the expulsion removed from this kid's records he really will have a lot of trouble. I can almost guarantee that zero universities will remember or care how he was expelled.

    17. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Surt · · Score: 1

      In what way? He'll just go to a different school ....
      When he applies to college, he'll either omit the expulsion from his application, or explain it. If he explains it, the right colleges will grab at him. If he omits, they have no way to know.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    18. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read between the lines of the two blogs you can see the real issue for the admins. The offensive blogs that were originally getting students expelled involved the students talking about drinking and smoking, but instead of calling the police the school demanded the blogs be taken down and suspended the students under unknown pretenses. Why would the school want the blogs taken down if they had already punished the students or they could have brought the police in? The sister's blog mentions a dress code that is carried out with bias, namely a mater of school image was enforced strictly against the kids with bad reputations but not against the students that appeared to be good little children.

      The issue that the administration has with the students appears to be that the school is supposed to be perfect suburbian school (a public school with a strict dress code?!) and the actions of the social outcats or "Toughs" as they call themselves was threatening to give the school a bad reputation by posting their party habits online. If anything this makes the schools actions all the more wrong because they are waiving the 1st ammendment rights of some students while forcibly remaining ignorant to the actions of others in the belief that they have the utopian suburban school.

      To quote the sister: "go ahead suspened me and prade around the school "the bad kids are gone"

    19. Re:Organizations behave like this... by trp0 · · Score: 1

      ies

    20. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, and when you make people pass English exams to graduate from high school the idiots who can't pass sue the state. I love America. You know it just has to be racist if a person who happens to be a minority fails the exam ... I mean, only white kids are dumb and fail exams. When latinos or African-Americans fail an exam, it's not because they're dumb but because of some conspiracy of white people to make them fail.

    21. Re:Organizations behave like this... by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      What language is that?

    22. Re:Organizations behave like this... by sremick · · Score: 1

      "The best laugh I had in ages was one (Admittedly a very good parody) of "rmeo n jlet", with the memorable line "wer4 rt tho rmeo?""

      Dude, I want this. Please tell me where I can find it.

    23. Re:Organizations behave like this... by bishop32x · · Score: 1

      Nope, that would be for plagarizing (those are lyrics from Metallica's the unamed feeling).

    24. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    25. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, it is real life. If this kid gets expelled, he's screwed.

      No he's not. He can just finish his diploma at a community college, and while he's at it do a couple years of college anyway. If he puts just a little thought into it he'll come out ahead of the dumbasses who stayed in high school.

      I encourage every teenager to drop out of high school. High school is nothing more than day care. Get your kids out and into a real school ASAP. I did it and had no problem getting accepted to college and later grad school.

      Community college has a much more professional atmosphere than high school, and the classes aren't much harder. Community college is also a great place to get a head start on real college. Tuition is cheaper and the classes are smaller so you get more individual attention. The first couple years are just prereqs anyway, and the quality of those core courses is about the same anywhere you go.
      Being responsible for ones own learning is a great lesson for kids to have before they go off to an expensive 4 year school too.

      There is every reason for every kid to drop out of high school and not a single one for them to stay. Go to community college.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Organizations behave like this... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Why in the world would you apply to schools you can't afford to attend?

      I was a National Merit Scholar, but I only applied to schools that offered me a full ride (three schools - none of them prestigious). My parents had made it clear that if my going to college would require them to pay a single dime, I wouldn't be going.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    27. Re:Organizations behave like this... by linvir · · Score: 1
      To be fair to me, I was thinking about it in terms of the British system (I think it's a lot worse to be expelled here). Not that that's a good thing to do, but it's my only option. TV has forced a heck of a lot of knowledge of US law, politics and culture down my throat, but I don't seem to keep the useful bits.

      But your post is interesting. Lacking any kids of my own, I've decided instead to hatch a plan to have someone else's kids over in the US kicked out of high school. It'll all balance out in the end.

    28. Re:Organizations behave like this... by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it really that hard to move your finger two keys over?

      Ys.

    29. Re:Organizations behave like this... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Did those honor students at least know how to spell or put simle sentences together? realy, read thier work and look at the crappy webpages.

    30. Re:Organizations behave like this... by magicchex · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, posting drunk at 6AM will do that. I noticed right after posting :/

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
    31. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that "mi" is Spanish for "my"? Perhaps this student isn't a native English speaker.

    32. Re:Organizations behave like this... by sedyn · · Score: 1

      I recall spelling in a similar manner when I was younger.

      Then again, the filesystem could only handle 8.3 character names.

      I'm sure there are some older programmers who may have had a flashback to only having 6 character labels.

      --
      Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
    33. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat i do outside of school is my bissness n mi parents...

      This is what I find most troubling of all. This stupid bitch's parents tolerate or perhaps even encourage her behavior, rather than putting a stop to it. People whine about the failing public education system, when in reality 90% of the problem is worthless parents.

    34. Re:Organizations behave like this... by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      If you're at a high school with a (mostly) comprehensive slate of AP classes and you take them, you'll meet or beat community college students for free. I started my first year of college (at University of Michigan) with 43 credits (counting a placement test for the 4-credit programming class required for all engineering students).

      Disclaimer: I've been told my experience is "not typical"; I was also a TA for a 200-level class my second semester.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    35. Re:Organizations behave like this... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but you still have to deal with the fucking public schools. Tuition at a CC is cheap, and you get to keep your dignity. You spend a lot less time at school too, so there's plenty of time for a part time job and still time left over to party.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Wasting money and time by tknn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully the school board settles quickly and cans the people. Last thing they want to do is lose all that money they are going to in a clear-cut 1st amendment case....

    1. Re:Wasting money and time by Soporific · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which one of you cretins modded this a troll?

      ~S

    2. Re:Wasting money and time by edumacator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Last thing they want to do is lose all that money they are going to in a clear-cut 1st amendment case....

      IMHO the school overreacted by trying to expel the kid. But I don't think the line is as clear as it might seem. The kids says, "I've been bullied by you." Then goes on to say the kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied by the school.

      So the school is reading that as a veiled threat. I think that is an overreaction, but schools are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If this kid had gone on to actually take action, an extremely unlikely prospect, and the school had known about that post, the parents would have been screaming for the administration's heads.

      I am a teacher at a school that recently had a student post a "hit list" to his MySpace page and he was expelled. The difference was the threat was explicit. In this case I would have liked to have seen the administration talk to the kid and explain how his post could have been seen as a threat and worked with him on avoiding that potentially sticky situation in the future.

      Most schools do believe in free speech, and trust me, teachers take a whole lot of "free speech" from their students, but this case, at least in intent, isn't simply about free speech. It's about the administration overreacting to a possible veiled threat.

    3. Re:Wasting money and time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that schools are overreacting to EVERYTHING and claiming that everything is a threat. I seem to remember a student who was suspended because they had a nail clipper with a fingernail file on it. I read of a student who was suspended because her mother had put a plastic butter knife in her lunch bag. There are innocent medications that high school students have been expelled for bringing to school, such as Tylenol, Pamprin, and doctor prescribed asthma rescue inhalers. I believe that there was a first or second grader who got into trouble for having a common cartoon character on her book bag. One school even threatens to punish students if they bring peanuts or peanut butter to school -- even as part of a sack lunch. The examples of this sort of bullshit go on and on; Google for "school suspension" to find many more examples of these abuses of power by school teachers and administrators.

    4. Re:Wasting money and time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most schools do believe in free speech, and trust me, teachers take a whole lot of "free speech" from their students, but this case, at least in intent, isn't simply about free speech. It's about the administration overreacting to a possible veiled threat."

      It's true that intent is the issue, but teachers and administrators need to be aware of the fact that they are subject to far less "free speech" from students than the rest of American society is from itself. People, in general, tend to express their opinions more and more as they grow older... starting in their teen years, reaching apex in late adulthood. These students are stretching their wings of expression.

      Would it be different if it were a teacher being fired for doing the same thing?

      If the rest of our society practiced the "free speech" policies of most school systems, we'd be a far less "free" society.

      Our over-sensitivity to comments, and criticism has bred a system of censorship under the guise of courtesy.

    5. Re:Wasting money and time by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Here's the post, FYI:
      you are bully's. I feel threatened by you. if you don't like what you see here then do not come here its that simple. I'm pretty sure when you suspended Sam you brought her to tears, you are a bully and you make me sick. there's nothing you can do about us posting about parties we've been to and how much liquor we had or how much pot was smoked, the police need to do a better job, you are not the police. and how is it that you feel threatened what was said that was so threatening. I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? none of this is posted at school, its all posted from our home computers, and once we step foot into our homes we are not on school property any more. you are just power hungry, don't you ever think? did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

      Bold/italic emphasis mine, since this is probably the part that allowed the small-minded administrators at the school to take action... Since when is BRINGING UP Columbine automatically a veiled threat? In the context of a threatening message, it could be considered that, certainly. Yet, if you read it in context here it doesn't seem threatening at all. It seems like a statement of fact: The kids at Columbine were bullied, and there's very little difference between bullying committed by students as opposed to faculty/staff. Telling somebody to shut up for criticizing you could be described as bullying...

      Certainly, what he has written here is not fine literature, but hardly a "Veiled threat." He was, inartfully, making the point that by punishing students for blog posts in order to "protect the kids" the school administration might, ironically, be creating the very problem it seeks to prevent. He explicitly says they didn't intend to threaten anybody, simply posting reactions to events from their own lives as an act of free expression.

      This is a clear over-reach by the school system--He didn't post the page from school on their computer or internet connection, he did it from home. Further, other media sources have indicated that Xanga/MySpace/Friendster (the "social networking" sites) aren't accessible from the school, so there is no chance of this kid's web-site being "disruptive to the educational process," which was the last standard I am aware of for determining whether a school can abridge student civili rights or not. The school's claim that the message was threatening is dubious at best when taken in context.

      It seems more likely that some administrators came down hard on somebody this person knew, and he wrote a scathing (in its own way) response that depicts those administrators as ogres. Instead of disrupting the school with a protest, he went home and wrote constitutionally protected editorial article on his web-site. Administrators decided to further-overreact by suspending him and threatening expulsion. Now they're really up shit creek, because if they back down they're "caving" in the eyes of everybody because of the previous hardline stance they've taken. If they go forward and expel him, it essentially validates everything in the kid's post--that they are taking away kids educational opportunities.
      --
      Who did what now?
    6. Re:Wasting money and time by dm42 · · Score: 1
      I think there's more than just the Columbine reference here...

      did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied.


      Granted, it is a veiled threat, but the veil is quite thin. Break down what he said and you'll get the picture:

      1) You have angered people by bullying them. ("...you have just pissed of kids...")
      2) When angered, people do bad things. ("...you are really going to have a threat on your hands..."
      3) The natives are growing restless ("...this will start a community backlash...")
      4) Here's an example of what might happen ("The kids at columbine did what they did because they were bullied.")

      No single sentance is a threat, but taken together it's a pretty strong statement. The phrase, "did you ever stop to think..." actually ADD to the threat, not detract. It's saying, "the ball is rolling and you should have thought about that BEFORE... now it's too late, things are in motion." [just think about when your mom and dad used the phrase ---- the deed was done and then you were asked the question, "did you ever stop to think?]

      However, even with all of that in mind, angry kids are a part of the educational experience. Often times its because they don't know how to handle the situation in which they find themselves and adults (being the power-hungry overlords that we are) are more interested in covering our butts than we are about teaching kdis appropriate strategies for dealing with anger (eg. accurate, factual, and well written communication with the school administration, school board, or state department of education)...

      This level of anger and threat comes when a person feels "boxed in" in a situation... and often, the adults in the situation think they are "mitigating damage" (i.e. covering their butts by not letting negative things be heard about them) by boxing the kid in...

      If at the first instance, the administration and/or teachers would have taken the kids concerns (whatever they were) as something that was important to him and showed him appropriate avenues for dealing with it, this whole thing could have been avoided. As it is, they did what adults often do with kids, they said, "You're unimportant... I don't have time for you." -- and that's the message our kids usually get in public education anyway...
    7. Re:Wasting money and time by rbochan · · Score: 1

      Last thing they want to do is lose all that money they are going to in a clear-cut 1st amendment case...

      It's rather ironic that, in school, you supposedly get taught about the United States Constitution in a place where it's rights do not apply to you. The only other such places besides schools are military bases, and prisons.
      Oh, and "free speech zones".

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    8. Re:Wasting money and time by edumacator · · Score: 1

      I think you nailed it on the head. This point is what I was trying to say in my original post.

      As an educator, I always want to point out that these issues aren't simple. I agree with the grandparent post. The administration overreacted. But it's hard not to in education these days. There is political pressure on the administration from both sides. I am not saying they are right, but they are in a predicament. If they censor the kid, they get blamed for violating his rights. (In this case, that is what I think they did.) But if they did nothing, and something horrible had happened, they would be fired, and maybe even charged criminally.

      My hope is that we don't just blame the school system. It's really easy to blame this totally on the school, but the problem is much deeper than that.

      "You're unimportant... I don't have time for you." -- and that's the message our kids usually get in public education anyway...

      I have to disagree here. I think that problems are all you see in the news about education. Remember, the school that student is in probably has a lot of students who feel completely supported and has teachers working day in and day out to help them succeed.

      I am a public school teacher, and I put up with relatively low pay, little respect from the community, and some other minor difficulties because I care about our kids. The belief that teachers and administrators don't care is pervasive, but nonetheless incorrect. Most teachers try to reach every one of their kids. It's just that being a good teacher isn't news worthy. Hearing about how a teacher or administrator does something horrible, that is definitely news worthy. Just keep in mind that most of the kids don't have this kind of issue.

    9. Re:Wasting money and time by edumacator · · Score: 1

      I'd be careful using years worth of isolated incidents to say schools suspend for everything. That isn't true. Schools have become much more hesitant about suspending and expelling students.

      The examples you give are few and far between and most of them aren't as simple as they appear in the news clips. For instance, most students who are suspended for having Tylenol and the like are suspended because they aren't in the original labeled bottle. I'm sure you know schools are trying to deal with a pretty intense drug problem, and they have laid out clear guidelines and most schools require medicine to be in its original packaging. What ever happened to following the rules? Also, the peanut butter story, if it's the one I'm familiar with, is because a student at the small school was super allergic to peanuts, and even getting peanut oil on her skin could have led to her death. Be careful when listening to or reading media reports. They are often sensational.

    10. Re:Wasting money and time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I read the story was that he posted that after the school had already taken action against him and had supposedly found threats in his beer post.
      Also, there is no threat of his actions there. He states that he has not expressed any intent to harm others, but that the treatment of him by the school is comparable to that of the kids at Colembine and how treating people as they have treated him could contribute to some kids doing very bad things. This is a valid opinion, and his being a current student should not place any restriction on his rights to express it. His only real threats are legal (with lawyors and shit) or to the pride of school administrators. The school administrators obviously need a chip knocked off their showlders, and the legal action, media coverage, and public opinion will do this.
      Even if he had threatened I believe that a school system should be able to deal with it in a more constructive manner. Discussing it with the child in a non-threatening manner can go a long way. Kids feel alienated and aren't yet able to deal with it, but then the schools take their expressions of frustrations as cause to alienate them further.

    11. Re:Wasting money and time by koreaman · · Score: 0

      I go to a public high school and I can say that while some teachers care, others don't give a rat's ass.

      The teachers who do want you to succeed (usually becaues it'll help their own reputation) don't help by teaching any better, they help by doing things like giving open-book tests

      The teachers who don't want you to succeed basically just say "fuck you."

      The rare exception is the teacher who actually cares about students. I'm glad to hear that you are one of them, and I wish you taught at my school.

    12. Re:Wasting money and time by rho · · Score: 1
      Since the parent of this illiterate kid obviously won't take responsibility for him, the school has to. I'm wildly uninterested in this punk kid's woes. Teenager doesn't have free speech? Whoop-de-fucking-do. If he has a parent of any ability, there's a lot he's not able to do that normal adults can.

      Christ almighty, the only overreach is the shrill complaints coming from Slashdotters who should be smart enough to know better.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    13. Re:Wasting money and time by dm42 · · Score: 1
      "You're unimportant... I don't have time for you." -- and that's the message our kids usually get in public education anyway...

      I have to disagree here. I think that problems are all you see in the news about education. Remember, the school that student is in probably has a lot of students who feel completely supported and has teachers working day in and day out to help them succeed.

      I'll admit, the statement was somewhat intentionally over-generalized. There are many good teachers and good administrators -- and those that are good aren't newsworthy.

      However, I think you'll agree that the U.S. education system is based on the "assembly line" model. The students are raw materials, we send them through the different machines (classes) and do different things to them ("educate them") and when they're out, they're a "finished product." My (admittedly anecdotal) personal experience bares this out... and it's even worse in higher education (i.e. College).

      In school, if a kid "doesn't fit the mold," there is really very little time to spend -- and most of the effort is geared to making them fit the mold (think ADD/ADHD drugs, "resource rooms," etc.). In this system, teachers have only 1 year to discern, diagnose and begin working with a kid before they "move on." There isn't time to establish the relationship and trust necessary to effect a real difference.

      This STARTED with the concept that a kids brain is a "tabula raza" and only got much, much worse when the schools threw out "in loco parentis" and assumed that the "parents are just loco" and began exerting power and authority beyond what they were intended. In some cases, this is justified (pot-head and deadbeat dad who beats their kids -- or even just parents consumed with making a buck and not interested in truly being a parent [i.e. kid as social status]). However, where parents are doing their job, the kids will very often hear one thing about how the universe works at home and something else at school (Think: Kitzmiller v. Dover).

      Public schools have become a major experiment in social engineering which kow-tows to the latest political whims rather than truly educating children... Rather than teaching HOW to read, write, do arithmatic, and generally "think." The main portion of the curriculum dictates the answers to questions which continue to be debated (condoms v. abstinence, evolution v. creation, god exists v. god doesn't exist, Allah and YHWH are the same v. they aren't). Intelligent people disagree about many, many things. But in schools, where everything is "choose the right answer, a - b - c - or d" -- when you choose the "wrong" answer, your grade (and thus your future) suffers.

      We need to stop screwing kids up in public schools -- if parents want to screw them up and fill their head with zany ideas -- that's their own problem. But when we as a society decide to do it, we all become culpable. While it may "take a village to raise a child," the "chief" of THAT village should be the parent of the child, not some looney government buracrat more interested in his paycheck, funding, and how well he is liked by the teachers union than in actually educating our children. Not some group with a political agenda -- and it certainly should not be handled by those pandering for PAC money and running for re-election.

      [OK... I think I'm done ranting... for now...]

    14. Re:Wasting money and time by edumacator · · Score: 1

      If you will agree to put politicians who make decisions about how schools function wherever you put teachers in your post. I will agree with you whole heartedly.

      I think you will see a sharp change in educational philosophy amongst teachers who haven't barricaded themselves in their classrooms in the last twenty years. We know there needs to be a change. We want to change the Carnegie units (Think courses) and go to a more student centered classroom. But teachers don't make those decisions. So while we are saying, you can't assess a student's ability by his or her score on a multiple choice test, they say more standardized tests. We say, hey I want to keep this kid around for another month or two and he'll get the idea; they say, "Follow the state mandated curriculum." Teachers are there for the kids. We know it isn't working the way it is, and many teachers are trying to make this point. But we don't make the decisions.

      I worry that grouping teachers with the politicians who have their own self interest in mind causes two problems. One, teachers take enough abuse without being grouped with politicians we generally despise. Two, it drowns out the internal voice of teachers saying, "Hey, we're in the trenches, and this isn't working. We need reform now.

      But overall you make good points. I might suggest you either take them to your politicians in an attempt to change the system, or run for office. I'll vote for you.

    15. Re:Wasting money and time by jafac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems like a statement of fact: The kids at Columbine were bullied, and there's very little difference between bullying committed by students as opposed to faculty/staff.

      That's more true than you know.

      The fact that the Columbine kids were bullied is one part of what set them off. The other fact is that the school administration not only allowed the bullying, but took active part in it (by choosing to respond to physical confrontations, fights, assaults, with punishment for the victim, but not for the bully - often because the bully is a star athelete - remember, the team quarterback at Columbine was accused of rape by a cheeleader the year prior to the shootings, and the administration offered her early graduation to keep her quiet).

      It's not just bullies that cause school shootings and violence. It's when school administrators take an active role in encouraging bullies and bullying through selective enforcement.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    16. Re:Wasting money and time by edumacator · · Score: 1

      I would agree that there are some teachers who don't care, but I would suggest that overall, most teachers are trying to do what's right. Even the ones who give you endless worksheets. Think of them like parents, they always want what is best, but sometimes miss the mark.

      If you accept that teachers are humans just as prone to mistakes as others, I think you would find that most of them are trying.

    17. Re:Wasting money and time by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Quite well stated...

      As an uncle (two nieces, one nephew) and someone who as gone through some of the assembly line myself (public school, private school (better), home teaching due to illness (Much better), and international student (quality is between public and home teaching). I have to say that you are hitting the nail on its proverbial head. Most (not all) school systems (and subsequently the teachers who are beholden to them) have one goal. Get the maximum number of bodies out the door in as little time as possible. Sadly this means that anyone that disrupts the flow or does not fit the mold is shunned.

      To give you a personal example:

      During my 2nd grade (In '79 for context) there was a test that was being given. I had completed the test (and turned it in) well ahead of schedule. (A 4 hour test that I completed in 90 minutes). So with ample time on my hands, I decided what I believe any rational person would do; I took out a book and proceeded to read privately. This angered the instructor. As I said, this was quiet reading; the book was readily available (so no rummaging sounds). I believe the book was on programming in JCL. (father gave me a LOT of training at home).. so obviously outside of the school curriculum. Well, one thing lead to another and I was in front of the principle. Thankfully my parents went to bat for me. (I mean seriously, what would they have me do? Fiddle around for 2 1/2 hours?) The point is, I was outside of their expectations and so was "disruptive" because I acted like a reasonable person rather than a "cog". (Thank god, we moved later that year to the UK). But it taught me one very valuable lesson, the american grade school system is not there to teach, it is simply a creche.

      The point is, for much of that system, anything and anyone that does not behave in an expected (and therefore predictable and controllable) way is a threat.. and like any organism, threats are to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

      As I said, there are some exceptions to this rule, but quite often those exceptions are also perceived as threats to the system and are eliminated.

      ex: That wonderful teacher that tried to go outside of the curriculum and bring some practical application to what is being taught. (I have known quite a few of these and they have all ended in private institutions or non-traditional schools.. Teaching the young how to apply knowledge?. How dare you!!)
      ex: That educator that encourages discussion and thought rather than the basic "A" or "B" answers. (Ditto.)
      ex: That great person who teaches critical analysis and forward thinking. (not looking at what is immediately in front of you, but what is far ahead of you and how to plan for it). (once more)


      When the funds allocated to schools are based on the number of people graduating from the school rather than the quality of the students that depart I think it is safe to say that most schools don't want "TEACHERS". (or students for that matter). Both Teachers and Students gum up the works. They want cogs and gears to keep the system running quickly and (in their mind) smoothly.

      Jumping back to the present...

      My oldest niece takes after me. (She an intellectual rebel and does her own thing) I am quite proud to say she has argued with teachers and won. I've gone to bat for her (her parents are busy and I take a special interest in this because of what I have gone through) One thing that I have tried to teach her, is to understand that the school system is designed to teach two things:

      1. The Basics (as they claim), plus morals, values, etc... that have been tacked on due to lazy parents who are not parents.
      2. Less obvious, but no less important is sometimes it is wise to play dumb. There is a time for being smart and there is a time for being wise. Sadly, schools don't want wise students, they only want students that can leave the system as quick as possible. It is frustrating, but ultimately it will serve little purpose in

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    18. Re:Wasting money and time by dm42 · · Score: 1

      It's both/and. There are some GREAT teachers who do GREAT work. The entire system needs to be changed which will necessitate a philosophical change. We didn't slide into this in 20 years (more like 200+) and we won't fix it in 3 years. Change like this ends at the legislature, it doesn't begin there. At the same time you're complaining about more standardized tests, those who claim to represent you are fighting against public funds for schools who are trying to be incubators for new ideas (charter schools, parochial schools, etc.). They are ostensibly worried about their power as leaders of the NEA and the powerful teachers lobby than they really are about students -- most of them haven't set foot in a classroom or dealt with kids in years (if ever). In reality, they don't represent the teacher in the trench who's trying to make a real difference -- they represent themselves and their own big paychecks and their own big pensions and relishing the power that they weild by being able to pick up the phone and have mighty senators, congresscritters, and presidents bow to their will. I think "public education" is a failed social experiment. It was fine when the school was community oriented and largely unregulated. But now, it ought to be abandoned and the good teachers should put together good schools in ways that benefit the children that attend and the parents should be placed back where they belong as the role of "headmaster of education" for their children. But like an antiquated tax code, the ramifications of dismantling such a huge institution frightens too many and is unlikely to happen. Being a public school teacher is not an easy task... and it's not made any easier by the "institutions of power" (be it legislatures or powerful political lobby's or even school boards and professional administration). I wish you the best but for your own sake (and in order to really help where you can) get out of "public schools" and work at a GOOD charter school (yes I know there are many bad ones) or parochial school.

    19. Re:Wasting money and time by Shadowlore · · Score: 1
      It seems like a statement of fact: The kids at Columbine were bullied, and there's very little difference between bullying committed by students as opposed to faculty/staff.


      Actually there is a difference, and it is not insignificant.
      Bullying by an authority figure is worse as it carries the implication that it is acceptable. A schoolyard tough bully is just using his force of muscle and/or threat of it to accomplish his goals. A member of the staff/faculty is using the authority of their position to do it - in addition to any other means they have. While they may be fundamentally the same concept, the effects are drastically different.

      You expect the school yard bully to do it. You should not have to expect the staff/faculty to do it as well.
      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    20. Re:Wasting money and time by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      The kids says, "I've been bullied by you." Then goes on to say the kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied by the school.

      Most likely just projection. We all do it: I hate working here, therefor pretty much everyone else must hate working here. The kid see's something similar to himself in the Columbine kids and then projects his own situation on them, it's how most of us perceive the world around us. It is not surprising he finds that his problems are external either (whether they are or not we rarely blame a bad situation on ourselves). It is interesting that he projects that (external causes) onto the Columbine kids (as most other people in the world would attribute the bad actions of someone else they do not know to interal causes not external).

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    21. Re:Wasting money and time by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      It would take knowing the kid to be sure, but I think it's a case of an undereducated kid with heightened emotions of rejection from authority figures, venting online. Heaven forbid.

      People compare others to Nazis, but that doesn't mean they are going to try to shoot them [as was customary for people who opposed Nazis].

  5. Hilarious by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What's hilarious about that is where I live, in the SF Bay Area, a student can basically walk into class and beat the crap out of his teacher and still not get expelled.

    Expel more people, I say. The pendulum needs to swing back the other way a little bit.

    --
    Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
    1. Re:Hilarious by fizzfaldt · · Score: 2, Informative

      "a student can basically walk into class and beat the crap out of his teacher and still not get expelled"

      A similar situation happened in my school.
      A fight broke out between two students and the teacher held one back.
      The student turned around. He looked at the teacher, paused to recognized him, and then elbowed him in the face.
      He knocked out a couple of the teacher's teeth. This caused the first (and only) day this teacher ever missed a class in his 35+ year career.

      The student was not expelled. In fact, IIRC the student was only punished for the fight with the student. Elbowing the teacher was not brought up.

      The teachers responded with a strike, and some students staged a walkout to support them.
      (Of course the rest of the students then walked out to have a day off.)


      If the student was violent, or at least made actual (or veiled) threats to the school or otherwise I could understand the punishment.
      As it is, I disagree with their punishment of the student for his posts online.
      The information garnered from TFA didn't sound like there was any threat at all.
      Unfortunately it seems that we have too many school officials (and this carries on into politics) who are too scared of anyone who doesn't conform.
      'What if the threat was real and I did nothing about it?'
      They start to see threats that aren't even there.
      Anyone who is a little different starts to set of these alerts in their heads; he simply brought himself to the attention of some of these people.

      I imagine the school in question doesn't really foster free thinking and speech.
      Perhaps if it did, he wouldn't have felt it necessary to post what he did online.
      (That was the point if I understood the article.)

    2. Re:Hilarious by maop · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter who wins the fight but how it started and what was done.

    3. Re:Hilarious by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 1, Informative

      You are full of shit and obviously didn't go to school in the Bay Area.

      Physical Violence against a teacher can be grounds for expulsion, and students have been expelled for threats of physical violence.

      Bringing a knife to school can get you suspended and/or expelled.

    4. Re:Hilarious by maop · · Score: 1
      A fight broke out between two students and the teacher held one back. The student turned around. He looked at the teacher, paused to recognized him, and then elbowed him in the face.
      If holding the student back got the student hurt by not allowing him to defend himself then elbowing the teacher could be a natural reaction. With only selective information being available about the fight you may be able to justify any punishment. The school administrators need to examine all the facts of the incident.
    5. Re:Hilarious by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      Expel more people, I say. The pendulum needs to swing back the other way a little bit.

      Ah, that's really smart: make sure that they get as little education and training as possible so that it's virtually ensured that these people will become violent criminals.

      I don't know what the solution is to discipline problems in school, but expelling people is clearly not it--it's not even a punishment, it's giving up the opportunity to reform these people. And we're reforming them not for their benefit but for the benefit of the rest of society.

    6. Re:Hilarious by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the solution is to discipline problems in school, but expelling people is clearly not it--it's not even a punishment, it's giving up the opportunity to reform these people.

      The entire schoolboard of nearly every western country would disagree with you there (about expulsion being taken off the table).

      Note also that when students are expelled, they are not expelled from the entire school system for life, as you implied a couple of times.

    7. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you don't care, but just in case, becoming violent later in life has no statistical correlation with your educational attainment. It does correlate with other factors such as whether you had two parents in the home, however.

    8. Re:Hilarious by fizzfaldt · · Score: 1

      I left some information out by mistake.
      The teacher who got injured (Mr. B) held back one student (the one who elbowed him).

      The other student in the fight was held back by another teacher at the same time, so there was no danger to the student.
      I wanted to stress, that the student did pause at least a few seconds after
      recognizing that it was a teacher holding him and seeing the other student was at least
      10 feet away and being held by another student before he actually elbowed Mr. B.
      It seemed clear (or so it seemed to myself and all witnesses I spoke to) that it was retaliation for stopping the fight.

    9. Re:Hilarious by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      No, but after a whole frackin' year of no school(that's how long it is here) it gets hard to get back into the swing of things. And increases chances of failure.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    10. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the student is so disruptive that [s]he is expelled weekly, then for the rest of the students to learn, it may be best to send that kid to a tighter control environment, such as a private school which can enforce discipline on the student's whole life. I.E. Dormatory away from home, regimated class time, etc.

    11. Re:Hilarious by wootest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that they should expel the guy who wrote stuff in his private weblog outside of school time on his own premises because other people that are more violent do not get expelled? What kind of example would this set? "Sure, bring a knife to school, just don't keep your web site updated from home."?

      If there's a pendulum that needs to swing back, it would seem to me that it would swing back on the people that actually did something wrong.

    12. Re:Hilarious by Steve525 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the solution is to discipline problems in school, but expelling people is clearly not it--it's not even a punishment, it's giving up the opportunity to reform these people. And we're reforming them not for their benefit but for the benefit of the rest of society.

      I don't have a problem with this. If the stundent is violent or very disruptive kick him/her out. That way the teachers aren't wasting all their time dealing with a handful of trouble makers. Instead they can actually teach the student who are willing to learn. If the trouble maker can straighten out, then let them back in.

      Having said this, I honestly don't think it would work. The reason being exactly what this story is about. Instead of kicking out a small number of really bad kids, they will end up kicking out a large number of kids who aren't really bad but have just hit a rough spot. Your point may be that it is impossible to tell the difference, and I guess I'd agree with that. Still, I have no sympathy for a student who willfully starts violence against other students or teachers. If there was a way to kick only those students out, I'd be all for it.

    13. Re:Hilarious by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      "If there was a way to kick only those students out, I'd be all for it."

      I know a really good guy that wanted to teach elementery school in the inner city (Winston-Salem, NC). The school he worked at was heavily minority with poor parental involvement. He told me one time that he was told by his principal that they couldn't expell or suspend any more black kids because the school board said they had expelled too many already.

      You can kick out disruptive and unrully kids but you have to be politically correct about it.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    14. Re:Hilarious by npsimons · · Score: 1

      What's hilarious about that is where I live, in the SF Bay Area, a student can basically walk into class and beat the crap out of his teacher and still not get expelled.

      You were probably joking, but there is a *big* difference between beating the crap out of someone and criticising them. If you can't see that difference, then I think that there was something missing in your education.

      Expel more people, I say. The pendulum needs to swing back the other way a little bit.

      Maybe it needs to swing back towards equality between administrators, teachers and students, but in this case that would mean _not_ expelling a student for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.
    15. Re:Hilarious by Surt · · Score: 1

      The obvious question in this situation: why didn't the teacher report the assault to the police, as the logical escalation when the administration failed to expel?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    16. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not assault if you're the one who jumped into the middle of a fight and starting holding underage children against their will, and you happen to lose a couple of teeth.

      Teachers are supposed to *not* get involved, for that very reason.

      I went to a very violent school, and the protocol was to call the police officer on campus, and get the fuck back. It's the teacher's own fault, IMO.

    17. Re:Hilarious by GuloGulo2 · · Score: 1

      "it's giving up the opportunity to reform these people"

      That's not what a school is for.

    18. Re:Hilarious by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      "Sure, bring a knife to school, just don't keep your web site updated from home."?

      You know what they say, "The pen is mightier than the sword."

    19. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my mother-in-law's school, she has kids that perpetually use the classroom as a restroom in the middle of class and "forget" to bring pencils and paper to take notes/tests. The administration will not back her up - each student is only allowed one detention per day, no matter how many times they break the rules. Ninety per cent of her class is failing due to lack of interest or motivation, and yet the parents are calling her saying that she is the problem, despite her offering make-up exams and extra credit. This is high school, mind you. Basic algebra and remedial math. I believe there is a calendar in their house counting down the days until she can retire and escape that Hell-hole.

    20. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So what you're saying is that they should expel the guy who wrote stuff in his private weblog outside of school time on his own premises because other people that are more violent do not get expelled? What kind of example would this set? "Sure, bring a knife to school, just don't keep your web site updated from home."?
      I guess the pen(keyboard) really is mightier than the sword(knife).
    21. Re:Hilarious by Politburo · · Score: 1

      a student can basically walk into class and beat the crap out of his teacher and still not get expelled.

      I call bullshit. Let's have a link to a news article.

    22. Re:Hilarious by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      If there's a pendulum that needs to swing back, it would seem to me that it would swing back on the people that actually did something wrong.

      Actually, it should swing back and smack the grandparent poster in the head. That'll learn 'em.

    23. Re:Hilarious by zen-theorist · · Score: 1

      no that is not what he said.

    24. Re:Hilarious by fizzfaldt · · Score: 1

      I can understand that in a very violent school that might be the policy.
      Mr. B did in fact follow our school policy.

      Seeing as our school isn't particularly violent, our policy is to prevent
      the students from hurting each other if you believe you can do so.

  6. How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Cranky+Weasel · · Score: 1

    I'm curious. Are school districts bound by the first amendment in the United States?

    1. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Yes they are. They are governmental organizations.

    2. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes and no.
      Students have practically no rights when on the premises or using school resources. When off campus however is where the arguments are coming up these days- most would argue students are under normal law when not on school grounds or comitting crimes (making threats, etc) against the school, faculty or other students.

    3. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything [the public is allowed to know about] is bound by the constitution, with no exceptions. Especially schools, which are government organizations and the bill of rights was put there so the government couldn't take them away.

    4. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public Schools, yes, as they are technically government organizations.
      Private Schools, no, as they count as businesses.

    5. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      For the most part, yes. IANAL however. Some examples: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcas es/courtcases.htm#fes

    6. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by jginspace · · Score: 5, Informative
      When off campus however is where the arguments are coming up these days

      An example:

      Yohnka said the courts have put strict limitations on students' freedom of speech within the schools. But districts need to be mindful of students' rights when they are outside the school, saying there are school districts overstepping their boundaries by trying to discipline students for behavior outside school hours.

      A Pennsylvania student won a case that involved a suspension for his private blog that critiqued his principal's dress habits, speech and other matters.

      "Ultimately the principal attempted to punish him, the kid ended up challenging the suspension," Yohnka said. "The court reversed the suspension saying essentially the kid had the right to comment in any way anyone else would outside of the school.

      From: http://www.webstreetcafe.com/news/4_1_JO23_FREESPE ECH_S1.htm

      Everything he did he did outside of school. He used a computer from home. He used an account he created from home what was clear it was a personal activity," Yohnka said.
    7. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm curious. Are school districts bound by the first amendment in the United States?

      If the district accepts ANY money from the federal government, yes.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Something that is interesting is that schools are not only government organizations, the student is compelled to attend them. This is a big reason for the seperation of church and state in schools. Sadly, what workes in one fasion is ignored in another. I apears that freedoms are selectivly applied. I guess is follows the lines of you will do what i say when i say.

    9. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      If the district accepts ANY money from the federal government, yes.


      School districts are part of the government, and thus bound by the first amendment. It has nothing to do with accepting federal money. Perhaps you're thinking of private schools.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 0

      This is not true, students are permitted to say anything on campus that is not obscene, lewd, vulgar, or plainly offensive at school, and case law has continually proven that judges will protect student speech if it doesn't legitimately qualify in these categories. I strongly support what this student did, as to fight ignorance about the laws of our country examples are neccesary.

    11. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm glad that decision was overturned, or think of the message it sends:

      At home, you can call the president a Nazi. You can mock spiritual leaders all you want. But for Christ's sake, don't say your school principal wears a dumb looking suit.

    12. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      no, all this takes is parents willing to stand up for their kids instead of acting like the onther 900 unattentive soccer mom's and SUV dad's.

      I personally did this for my child, she was to be suspended for "pushing" and after talking to her and her friends and who was involved (I.E. I Did the principals job for him) I informed my daughter to ignore the suspension notice and gave verbal notice to the principal that I will not honor his suspension request and I will bring lawyers into it if he chooses to ignore me.

      She does not have a suspension on her record, Another fight of mine to inspect her record for errors once a year, and she recieved an apology from the principal.

      You can not treat the people that run the schools as professionals because they typically are not. They shoot from the hip and make broad assumptions in order to make it a very easy day for them. Teachers typically do not give a rats ass about teaching and the administrators simply get "annoyed" when something is brought up to them for attention. Many cases of hallway mugging and other incidents come home with the kids, the teachers care less that it is happening so I did 2 things. 1- teach my child to defend herself very effictively. 2- she is going to a private school for the rest of her grade school time.

      Public schools in America = lowest quality education you can possibly get for your child. Yes there are exceptions of teachers that do care and make a difference but they are outnumbered by the crappy ones 20 to 1 and it is getting worse as the years go by. EVERYONE remembers the teacher that was retiring that year. You did nothing in his/her class. It was either nothing but movies or "self guided study" and the tests were all open book.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by peter_gzowski · · Score: 1

      Students have practically no rights when on the premises or using school resources.

      Incorrect. See Tinker v. Des Moines: "First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."

      These rights were eroded somewhat in later decisions (forgive me for not looking them up right now), but basically all they said was that free speech can only be surpressed in situations where the student's speech interfered with the educational process.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    14. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Public schools in America = lowest quality education you can possibly get for your child. Yes there are exceptions of teachers that do care and make a difference but they are outnumbered by the crappy ones 20 to 1 and it is getting worse as the years go by. EVERYONE remembers the teacher that was retiring that year. You did nothing in his/her class. It was either nothing but movies or "self guided study" and the tests were all open book.

      This was not my experience in public school. In fact, I received a generally excellent education and attended a private college where I did just fine keeping up with the students who had attended exclusive private schools for their pre-college work. In fact, with the Advanced Placement credits I had earned, I entered with nearly a semester of college credit.

      I also was taught by two retiring teachers. Both changed nothing in their grading policiees or teaching methods in their respective final years. Hell, my physics teacher actually enjoyed teaching that he applied to for an exemption to the mandatory retirement which was never processed as he managed to die over the summer vacation after I graduated.

      There. Now we have dueling anecdotes, which is one reason that anecdotal arguments prove nothing. I learned that in a public high school logic class.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    15. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by JJBSr · · Score: 1

      Good for you for standing up for your child!

      In my experience, public school problems usually have either disastrous parenting or a terrible academic environment as the source. From your description, the former school probably had both.

      Sadly, lots of public schools have disintegrated into badly run day care catering to the lowest common denominator.

      Worse, they call cramming for the standardized tests mandated as measures of education quality, "teaching," which is worse than a misnomer.

      Parental advocacy is the only way to go, even in a relatively strong public school system like the one my children attend.

      Despite its quality, there are occasions where somebody with a little authority decides to cross the line of good judgement and make an example out of one of the good kids--usually as a sacrifice at the altar of political correctness.

      Ciao!

      JJBSr

    16. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      The court reversed the suspension, but how did that get the student his time back. (I know that missed assignments and tests will be excused or made up)

      Assessing monitary damages might make it up to the kid, but it punishes the public that pays for it, and the other kids who will get fewer services because of a fine.

      The court really needs to assign mandatory 1st amendment education to the principle and teachers involved. Obviously they missed something in civics class.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    17. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      My experience was identical to this and I had almost a year's worth of credit. In fact, I was better prepared than most of the kids at the out-of-state college I went to. They also likely had public education but you can't just say all public education is bad.

      I can't say the same of the private school students near my house. Through various friends, I learned about drug habits and other misconducts they performed. Hmmm.... I would really want my kids exposed to that...

      Now we have two versus his one. We win.

    18. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      "The plural of anecdote is not data." There, just had to get that logic out of the way.

      I went to a parochial grade school that was supposedly so wonderful. (Though my parents were probably a little biased, since my dad was a teacher there.) When I got to public high school, I envied the opportunities my friends had had in their public grade schools and jr. high. They weren't light-years ahead of me, but while I'd been learning why Lutherans are good and Catholics are bad, they had been taking extra math, and even shop classes, which sounded pretty interesting. 3 to 1!

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    19. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      Sigh......no, they are not. Read the 1st Amendment one more time (since there have been plenty issues on /. of this nature before):

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      I think I've made the important part perfectly clear. Government institution or not, public schools are not bound by the 1st amendment when it comes to deciding what is a punishable offense and what is freedom of speech. There are, however, several judicial precidents regarding how long the arm of the school can get. I believe it was posted somewhere else under this topic, but here it is again: Tinker vs. Des Moines and others

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    20. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Number_5 · · Score: 1

      Actually the Supreme Court of the United States has said that students do not shed their first amendment rights at the schoolyard gate. The case was Tinker -v- Des Moines and was related to students being suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. I not sure the current court would find for Tinker though.

    21. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by VikingDBA · · Score: 1

      Yes? No? Maybe? Does it really matter? Are judges bound by the constitution anyway? I think this case will hinge more on whether or not the judge has a bad bologna sandwich for lunch that day.

    22. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Hel+Toupee · · Score: 1

      Pretty strong words. I'm sorry you've lost faith in America's educational system. I work in a private school, and my wife is an English/Theater teacher going back for a degree in Special Ed. I take offense at some of your comments, and would like to defend, or at least explain.

      You can not treat the people that run the schools as professionals because they typically are not. They shoot from the hip and make broad assumptions in order to make it a very easy day for them.

      Administrators, at least around here, nearly all of them require a Master's Degree (at least). Several principals in my area, and both superintendants have PhD's. They are professionals. You tell me (truthfully) there wasn't a time that you haven't done exactly the same thing you describe here at your job. I'll also kindly point out the fact that in these two sentences you "make broad assumptions" about all "people that run the schools", and then abhore the practice.

      Teachers typically do not give a rats ass about teaching

      I'm flabbergasted. Teaching is one of the most underpaid professions in the country. You honestly think that most of the teachers in America do a job they hate for less pay that they could make managing a McDonalds? Most of them teach because they love the job. The media loves to make all teachers out to be uncaring and inept. Just think of how we're portrayed in The Simpsons, movies like "Ferris Bueler's Day Off", and in the news by all the reporting on scandals recently. I'm not going to say that you need to pull your head out of you-know-where and really take a look at some of your kid's teachers, but it might help. Teachers scrape along on sub-standard saleries, take on extra-curriculars, and spend countless (unpaid) hours preparing and grading because they LOVE the kids.

      You've stated the problem with America's schools - the onther 900 unattentive soccer mom's and SUV dad's. Perental Absenteeism is causing America's youth to need guidance and education in right-and-wrong from somewhere else, and MANY parents expect that guidance to come from the schools. I can tell that you take an active role in your child's life. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem, and for that I commend you. Your other comment - Yes there are exceptions of teachers that do care and make a difference but they are outnumbered by the crappy ones 20 to 1 and it is getting worse as the years go by. would benefit from some real thinking as well. You have listed one vague instance of a teacher not doing his job the year before he retired. That's one of how many? {SARCASM}I'm glad school administrators are the only ones that make broad generalizations.{/SARCASM} Time and time again it has been proven that 'one bad apple spoils the bunch'. The media and gossip blows one case in several hundred way out of proportion, and pretty soon the 'unwashed masses' believe that every case is the same. This is obviously what has happened to you. Take a closer look, and I think you'll realize that you shouldn't go ranting about things that you only have a very tenative grasp on.

      I'm not even going to go into how teachers are being forced to cope with increased class sizes, and unfunded government mandates from both local, state, and federal governments.

      I'm also not saying that the school district was right in disciplining the student for his actions. I believe they overstepped their bounds. The school should definately tell the parents, as it should be the parents' job to discipline the child, as the incident happened at home. I will say, though, that Myspace et. al. have been brutally badmouthed in the news, and in literature that school administrators follow lately. It has reached a fever-pitch, and most administrators will over-react, because they don't understand the problem, and the sources that they trust for information only vaguely understand the problem. They come from the by-gone world where the printed word held the zenith of

      --
      PERL:
      All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
    23. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First let me recognize you for not abdicating on your child.

      As for teachers, I enjoyed many Great ones.

      I remember the teacher who retired; He showed up out of the blue, with specific books for many of his last students at their high school graduations 4-6 years later. Admittedly, he quit due to frustration with fighting the school administration to be able to teach.

      The shop teacher took it upon himself to learn computers and then out of his own pocket and personally solicited contributions, turned his shop into one of the best computer labs I have ever heard of in a public school. I am only sad that the shop was consumed to do it, as I enjoyed much time there.

        -Shawn

    24. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Well, the anecdotes are going to vary widely over school districts. The public schools in florida are actually of relatively high quality, they public schools in georgia are crap. And in georgia they are making it harder and harder to become a teacher. My fiance has a degree in Biology and a degree in Psychology, both from a very prestigious private college in florida. She had schools breaking down the door to hire her as a teacher in florida. We moved back up to georgia and the school systems won't even give her the time of day unless she has an "education" degree.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    25. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by neodragonslayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People need to stop saying this, because it makes them sound like idiots.

      First of all, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. The whole basis of constitutional law is how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

      Yes, the First Amendment originally applied only to Congress. However, more came after that. Specifically, I refer the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

              No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


      This has been interpreted, on more than one occasion, to refer to the fact that the states must uphold many of the same rights as the federal government does. This has been referred to as the "Nationalization of the Constitution."

      Read up a bit before you spout off nonsense.

    26. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Hel+Toupee · · Score: 1

      Worse, they call cramming for the standardized tests mandated as measures of education quality, "teaching," which is worse than a misnomer.

      There is not a teacher around who doesn't agree with you. These mandated tests were required by state and federal government. Students HAVE TO take them, or the school is punished. Students HAVE TO do well on them, or the school is punished. These tests are a large determiner in funding that the school gets from the government. No funding = No teachers = No public school. We're actually fighting for your children and your wallet by cramming for these stupid government-mandated tests. If we didn't, we'd have to tax your $300,000 McMansion and your rediculously large SUV more. That, or just let you *shudder* pay to send your kids to private school.

      You are absolutely right. We'd all rather be teaching that cramming for these stupid tests and jumping through all the "No Child Left Behind" hoops that we have to on a daily basis. BTW, NCLB (No Child Left Behind) is a four letter word, and as such, has NO place in school.

      --
      PERL:
      All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
    27. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      At home, you can call the president a Nazi.

      No, you can't. That's slander. The pervasive myth that once you're off of school grounds you may say whatever you want is nonsense.

      Don't get me wrong - the kid hasn't done anything wrong. However, that's because the kid hasn't committed slander. He talked about his feelings of being threatened; there is nothing actionable in that. However, stating someone's political affiliations, especially with something as charged as the Nazi party, is slander, and slander most certainly is illegal, even in one's home, even among one's friends. (In fact, there are even cases where burning a religious or political symbol into someone's lawn have been held as libel; the most famous is RAV vs. City of St. Paul.)

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    28. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Public schools in America = lowest quality education you can possibly get for your child.

      Actually, studies show that when you rank private and public schools by funds available to students, public school children perform significantly better. The supposition is that the quality of education is equivalent, and that the students are benefitting from the larger average count of other student minds.

      The primary problem with public schools is underfunding. If you don't like it, talk to your senator, the other parents in the district and the local superintendant. Lord knows I did.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    29. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Mayhem178 · · Score: 1

      You know, it's funny, but I seem to recall mentioning that judicial precident is what matters in this case. And let me point out once again the major point of my argument, which you seem to have completely missed. I'll use your example:

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Last I checked, the public school system had not the authority to make laws. You're right, though. The "Nationalization fo the Constitution" did force the states to uphold many federal laws. Problem being is that the burden of maintaining the public education system is no longer on the shoulders of the state governments.

      Don't mistake my argument for agreeing with the school's decision. I think it's ridiculous that any school should meddle in the personal affairs of its students. But to blindly point to the Constitution and scream "OMG 1ST AMENDMENT LOL!!!1!111!!" every time this same issue comes back up is just ignorant.

      I think this mentality is a byproduct of the public school system being placed under the federal government's jurisdiction. It should be returned to the state governments.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    30. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that the broad sweeping brush that schools use is due in part to a large number of parents who (unlike your case) stand up for their child when they've clearly done something wrong and deserving of punishment.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    31. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      A Pennsylvania student won a case that involved a suspension for his private blog that critiqued his principal's dress habits, speech and other matters.
      "Ultimately the principal attempted to punish him, the kid ended up challenging the suspension,"


      Do you know if anything was done about the principal?
      He's clearly not fit to be in charge of anything, especially not kids.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    32. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by wrightam · · Score: 1

      I'm the product of the Georgia Public Schools, and I like to think myself quite educated. But then again, that was 10 years ago, and admittedly, things supposedly are worse at my old high school now.

      As a whole, though, the state does seem to be getting worse.

      My wife recently garduated with a degree in History and Minor in Anthropology. Her options:
      1) Go back to school for 2 years for a teaching certificate.
      2) Back to school for 3 years for a masters.
      3) Back to school for 3 years for an education degree.
      4) Substituting.

      She went into substituting for a year, but it wasn't worth it. She made more this past year at Home Depot were she only worked part-time and got benifits. But she's still got a few friends teaching, and the horror stories that I hear from them - bad parents, bad fellow teachers, bad administrators - it's not pretty.

      We are having our first child this year. We have a couple of other friends who have/will have children this year. My Wife will be home schooling them, with the rest of us piching in to help round things out.

    33. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Buddy+The+Cat · · Score: 1

      I've got to agree with you. I find myself lucky enough to be in a very well off public school, in fact, I'm posting from there now. Most of our teachers are very well trained in the subjects they teach, and enjoy and take pride in what they do. Sure, you always have bad apples. I'm assuming that my situation here is a rarity the way that many people talk about public school. Oh, and just a funny tidbit, my school blocks slashdot. God-damn those intellectuals and their crazy ideas at that Slashdot!

    34. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      but basically all they said was that free speech can only be surpressed in situations where the student's speech interfered with the educational process.

      That's part of the problem. Guess who decides what does and does not interfere with the educational process. Yes, a court can overturn it, but most people will never take it that far, because they either assume that the school is right or because they don't think it's worth fighting.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    35. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      1 out of 300,000,000 million awesome.
      There's nothing to suggest that your case is the rule and at all indicative of how the average student will perform when graduating from the American public school system. In fact we often see the opposite.

    36. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      I came out of the Georgia Public school system as well. I consider myself well educated in spite of the school I attended, not because of it. Most of the people I know who escaped from that particular school with any kind of education achieved it through personal effort more than any kind of offering from the school or the teachers.
      Also, the teachers are not at fault here. The curriculums are designed by the state and the teachers are forced to teach to them. The teachers have to toe the administration line or they get reprimanded. Teachers have little or no control in their own classrooms any more. So even the best intentioned, most fantastic teacher in the world can only do so much when teaching to a very very poor state mandated curriculum with a shoestring budget for the classroom and 50 minutes a day with 35 kids.
      And after a few years of this even the best teachers get jaded and frustrated.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    37. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by JJBSr · · Score: 1

      I certainly meant no offense to teachers.

      My experience in a couple of American public school systems during the sixties and early seventies was terrific, largely because of wonderful teachers and the substantial curriculum they taught.

      As a parent who participates across a broad spectrum of my children's educational milieu (parent-teacher conferences, School Board, and especially budget-related meetings) I know all too well about the government funding associated with these tests.

    38. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by monopole · · Score: 1

      I had much the same experience at Whitney Young HS in Chicago. Public education when funded and done right is excellent.

    39. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      1 out of 300,000,000 million awesome.

      Uncited statistics are bullshit. Care to back that up?

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    40. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      The primary problem with public schools is underfunding.

      Not where I live! I just moved from Oregon (very low taxes and very low school funding) to New York (very high school funding) and the school is MUCH WORSE. They spend 5X what Oregon spends and the school is TERRIBLE.

      There is an optimum amount of money to spend. If you spend more than that, you just start to attract thieves which is the case here in NY.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    41. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Obviously you missed the point of my message, care to pull your head out of your ass? Thats one person claiming success. There are 300,000,000 million people in the US. The point of my message was that just because he had a good experience in the public system doesn't mean others didn't or that its indicative of the whole. Everytime you turn around there seems to be more evidence pointing towards declining scores and pillaging of public school funds so there isn't much evidence to support that what he experienced was "normal" or "Average".

    42. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by daigu · · Score: 1

      Actually, your comment: Now we have dueling anecdotes, which is one reason that anecdotal arguments prove nothing. I learned that in a public high school logic class...

      supports his point.

      Arguments are either logically valid or invalid. Truth is a quality of premises and the conclusion. Even if you have true premises and a valid argument, the conclusion may still be false. So, proof is not a term that should be applied here.

      If you were to reconstruct the parent's argument with a rough but charitable reading, it might read something like this:

      1. Good teachers outnumber bad teachers 20 to 1 in U.S. public schools.
      2. Alternatives to public schools have a better ratio of good teachers.
      3. Without good teachers in school, students are less likely to get a good education.
      =
      C. Students are less likely to get a good education in U.S. public schools than alternatives.

      The argument could be fleshed out a bit. But, it is essentially logically valid and it seems reasonable that you could come up with a ratio of good to bad teachers - however good and bad is defined - that would make all the premises true.

      In your arguments, you state that you managed to get a good education and could compete with people educated in private schools. However, this only negates the original's argument if you render the conclusion exactly as the parent post did: "Public schools in America = lowest quality education you can possibly get for your child". However, it is clear from the reminder that this was not meant as a categorical statement but as a probablistic one based on 20 to 1 and that there are unstated premise that indicate that the ratio is higher in alternatives.

      If you render the argument as I have here, then your counter-examples based on your education and experience with retiring teachers do not demonstrate that the premises of the argument are false. In fact, the fact that you mention AP courses - where it seems reasonable to assume that there would be a higher concentration of good teachers - is a clear example that you were not in a typical public school environment and you are likely an outlier.

      If you wanted to counter this argument, you should show how the ratio is false in some way - that there are actually more good teachers in public schools than elsewhere or that there is a higher ratio relative to alternatives than is submitted here. You might also show that the argument is not taking some crucial element into account. However, your comments don't do any of this.

      In the interest of disclosure, I should say I went to public schools. I would probably make this same argument, but I would do it differently:

      1. The primary purpose of U.S. public schools is to socialize young people into U.S. society.
      2. A liberal education is frequently at odds with socialization into U.S. society.
      3. There are educational alternatives where a liberal education is the primary purpose.
      =
      C. Students are less likely to get a good education in U.S. public schools than alternatives.

      Same conclusion, different - possibly true - premises. But proof? No. It is also highly likely that my quick reading and analysis missed some important aspect - same as yours.

    43. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by peter_gzowski · · Score: 1

      Guess who decides what does and does not interfere with the educational process.

      Previous court cases do. It is generally accepted that only lewd, vulgar and plainly offensive speech should be supressed. The next thing you might say is that the school can then deem something "plainly offensive", but the courts have limited this as well. The relevant court cases are Tinker, Bethel and Hazelwood. As far as people not taking it that far, well that's a consequence of not standing up for your free speech rights. These court decisions have provided pretty clear guidelines for school policies when it comes to free speech, though.

      --
      "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    44. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, after recieving a year of terrible education in a local private high school, I decided to transfer into the local public school (known for its academics). The academic programs there were vastly better and there was much more diversity in the way of electives. I, too, had nearly a semester's worth of AP credits upon entering college. For what it's worth, we sent two kids to Princeton, two to Yale, and about fifteen more to the other Ivies (out of a class of ~170). While the public school system in general is less prestigious than the private school system, this is much less of a rule than is convenient to believe.

    45. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Every standardized test I took in High School was trivial, and useful only for grade inflation. They tested only the most minimal possible knowledge of the subject. If students were failing these tests (and many were) it meant they had failed to learn anything useful about the topic.

      The idea that you have to teach the test is silly. Teach the subject well, and the test will be easy. The whole point of the tests is to illustrate how low the bar has been set.

      As an example to clarify: my district started district-wide testing my senior yera in high school, with much the same motivation as NCLB. Because the tests were new, the score required to pass was set very low, to allow a margin of error for poorly written questions. The passing score for the math test the first year was 26%, on a four-choice multiple choice test, with no penalty for guessing. Think about that for a minute. In one school, more than 90% of students failed (more than half failed in my school, both were inner-city hellholes). Think about THAT for a minute.

      The teachers with many failing students wailed and moaned, of course, but then they would: they were revealed as the no-talent babysitters they really were. The tests were dead easy, I made a near-perfect score in each, even in classes that I disliked and barely paid attention. The only "teaching the tests" that was done was by my history teacher, who made us memorize two dates (VE Day and VJ Day) for the test. Seriously, teaching is like any other profession; many people have the job but not the talent, and should be forced to seek a different line of work.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1
      Public schools in America = lowest quality education you can possibly get for your child. Yes there are exceptions of teachers that do care and make a difference but they are outnumbered by the crappy ones 20 to 1 and it is getting worse as the years go by. EVERYONE remembers the teacher that was retiring that year. You did nothing in his/her class. It was either nothing but movies or "self guided study" and the tests were all open book.

      Bull, You only get out of an education what you're willing to put into it.

      The biggest difference between private schools are better is that the parents actually care.

      I know plenty of people who got squat for education from their private schools, some of them even have college degreed from private universities. CS and Math degrees accredited private universities, private HS and still couldn't get a job better than techsupport, and this was before the bottom fell out.

      In short, think for yourself and take personal responsibility for your life. If you do that you will succeed no matter how bad your school is.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    47. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the legality of what you speak, remember, this is /. and how often do we hear "_______ is a Nazi?" It may be slander, and it may be outrageous and stupid, but people do call others Nazis as an insult all the time. It may be nigh impossible to enforce (If I were to make a blog and made every article about "How George Bush is a Nazi" I doubt I'd be arressted.) Simply because the President, as a public figure, takes a great deal of abuse, no matter how well he preforms in office. As such, if we were to punish everyone who slandered him, there'd be a lot of people in trouble with the police. (Does anyone remember a certain famous black singer saying live, "George Bush doesn't care about black people?") Plus, in the case of referring to the president as a Nazi, it's somewhat subjective. It is assumed I'm saying the actions he takes resemble those of a Nazi, which are only my opinions, as insane as they might be.

      This is, of course, different with, say, a corporation. If you publically state that the President is a Nazi, 99% of people will just think you're a nut and ignore you. But if you start saying, "Apple products will burn down your house and kill you," without any scientific basing for that, you're likely to get into a bit of trouble with a few lawsuits from Apple.

      So my original example was meant to be taken rather literally. You CAN call the president a Nazi on the Internet. Plenty of people have done it, and plenty of people will do so in the future. Is it technically legal? No, but neither is Jaywalking, but that doesn't stop countless people from doing it. Legality, however justified or unjustified, doesn't stop people from downloading copyrighted files. And slander laws certainly won't stop people from throwing baseless insults at any president.

      Note: The idea of George Bush being a Nazi is merely my example of an opinion that can be expressed on the Internet, and may or may not actually reflect my view of the man, so please, no flamewars, it was just an example.

    48. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOu have some very major flaws in your statement.

      Administrators, at least around here, nearly all of them require a Master's Degree (at least). Several principals in my area, and both superintendants have PhD's.

      this means absolutely nothing. the amount of education you have means, are you listening, NOTHING AT ALL. you can not be educated to be a good teacher or someone that has the ability to understand and handle a large body of kids. I do not care what they try to show you in a book it can not be learned except through actually doing it and being born to it. Teachers that went to school to become a teacher because they want to help educate children and are actually in their class after school for their kids to ask questions are real teachers that went to get that piece of paper that says they can teach.

      Guess what, they were top notch teachers BEFORE they got that piece of paper. The paper only serves to make some over educated nimrods feel better. It does not in any way make a better teacher.

      I know of a teacher that has 3 PhD's and 4 Masters degrees and he is still a self centered asshole that can not teach his way out of a paper bag because you can not learn personality and compassion. two things that are far more important to a educator than ANYTHING you can learn in any school on this planet.

      Thus, education = nothing but you had a lots ot time and money to use on getting a piece of paper that means absolutely nothing. YOu could have gained the same education at home .

      I know of several rural schools that have maximum BS degreed teachers and administrators that are far better educators than the people you speak of. they spend countless hours with the kids before and after school and they are part of the community.

      THAT is what is important.

    49. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Ok you weant to get technical about it, fine. The first amendment originally applied only to the federal government. But the due process clause of the 14th amendment makes most of the bill of rights (but not all of it) apply to the state governments. Therefore, the first amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment.

      Since any governmental organization in the US is either a creation of state or federal government, then the 1st amendment applies to all governmental organizations.

    50. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the REAL lesson is that American public education varies IMMENSELY in quality, and I do mean immensely. For myself, during primary education I went to seven different schools and can attest to that being the case.

      There. A statistic that's also an anecdote.

    51. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by wrightam · · Score: 1
      Maybe I got out just in time or something, but I had several great teachers while I was in school up to '96. They knew how to push us to excel. As far as administrators, I remember when I started high school (our high school was 10-12 until my senior year when we finally moved 9th grades from the 8-9 Junior high), the new principal that year was my old elementary school principal. I was actually surprised when he remembered serveral us us, despite the 5 year gap and the multitude of students he'd seen back then and since. He was a very fair principal, but then, the wave of zero-tolerance bullcrap never hit my school while I attended.

      And while I know that there are so many potentially great teachers out there, the schools are still filled with many who just shouldn't be there, ot at least need to be reigned in. My wife subbed for one teacher and had to give a student detention for disrespecting her and not doing her work. But when the teacher returned and the student had to sit in detention with her, the teacher allowed her to do whateer she wanted. The next time my wife had the student , the student bragged about it. My wife later came to find out that the teacher was one of those "friend of the popular girls" type, and the student was one of those girls. A few other teachers have had similar issues with the same teacher, even as recently as an end of the school year dance were the student (8th grade middle school) were dancing in ways that are, at least by many standards, inappropreate for 8th graders. When one teacher tried to get them the stop, the "friend of the popular girls" backed them up and let them continue. The administration told the teacher who tried to stop them them that she did the right thing, but, as to be expected, they didn't do anything about it.

    52. Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      My point was that the other person was also only 1 in 300 million so his story also proved nothing. There are bad public schools, but there are also bad private schools that cruise on their exclusive reputations while producing mediocrities as well.

      Furthermore, it might be better to emerge ignorant from the public schools, yet with some education on real life, than to emerge ignorant and privileged like the Duke Lacrosse team or our President seem to have. Ignorance is correctible. It appears that arrogant contempt for your "lessers" may not be.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  7. thats all right by Rooked_One · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we weren't using our rights anyways........ dot dot dot

    1. Re:thats all right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      we weren't using our rights anyways........ dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot

      You forgot to finish, so I did it for you.

    2. Re:thats all right by Internet+Ronin · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I wish I had some mod points to bump this up higher. I think you've captured the modern American mindset in a simple, easy-to-use phrase. We just can't give them away fast enough, huh?

  8. Nothing New by slifox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nothing new. Most schools, even in areas that are highly "liberal," try to control their students' thoughts and actions to the point of extreme.

    Illinois state law says that schools are allowed to act in the best interest of a student, as a parent when the parent is not around (ie, during school days). It does not say schools can discipline students for their thoughts and actions outside of school and not during school time. However, schools are taking it upon themselves to do this regardless.

    I find depriving a student of his 1st ammendment rights or his education not in his "best interest."

    This must stop. The only way it will happen is having cases like this go to court, and schools finally exposed for what they are doing.

    1. Re:Nothing New by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's not being deprived of his right to free speech, he's learning an important lesson about being responsible for his public statements. He has a right to say what he wants; they have a right to kick him out.

      No, they don't.

      The First Amendment, as extended through the Fourteenth and interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars government institutions from punishing or rewarding anyone on the basis of almost all speech. Note that the school in question is a public school, and thus is a government institution and bound by that law.

    2. Re:Nothing New by imthesponge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If free speech can't be used without fear of punishment, then it isn't really a right, is it?

    3. Re:Nothing New by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

      This is nothing new. Most schools, even in areas that are highly "liberal," try to control their students' thoughts and actions to the point of extreme.

      I think you meant ESPECIALLY in areas that are highly "liberal".

      Evan Coyne Maloney details a case where a student on a liberal campus was theatened with expulsion for "hate speech" because they didn't like the "Ellen" series finale.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Nothing New by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1
      Actually, public schools are generally local government institutions - and so should be completely unaffected by the constitutional ban on federal laws restricting the freedom of speach.

      That is, right up until the moment they accept federal funding...

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    5. Re:Nothing New by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I think you meant ESPECIALLY in areas that are highly "liberal".

      Wingnut hogwash.

      Evan Coyne Maloney details a case where a student on a liberal campus was theatened with expulsion for "hate speech" because they didn't like the "Ellen" series finale.

      Your link is long on snipets but very short on details and context. And thus, worthless.

    6. Re:Nothing New by egarland · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, public schools are generally local government institutions - and so should be completely unaffected by the constitutional ban on federal laws restricting the freedom of speach.

      Incorrect. As the parent stated, the first ammendment was extended by the fourteenth to include state and local government. Just how the 14'th extends things has been a matter of much legal debate and lots of rulings but it has generally been held up by the courts as meaning the entire bill of rights applies as much to state and local governments as to federal.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    7. Re:Nothing New by dakryx · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think the constitution only applies to the federal government as long as the local government doesn't take money from the feds? Now suppose we have a police department who receives no federal funds, do you then believe they don't have to adhere to the constitution?

    8. Re:Nothing New by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      So your free speech can have consequences for other people, but not yourself? Start taking responsability for your own actions someday.

    9. Re:Nothing New by Khaed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on what the punishment is.

      If a famous person says something to offend their fans, who turn away in droves, that could be considered a punishment. But are the fans constitutionally obligated to continue buying the CDs/games/movies of said famous person? Of course not. (I don't think you're suggesting this, but I felt it should be said.)

      However, this is a government run school. Be it state, federal, or local, the government should not be punishing him for free speech, on his own time, off school property. Unless he is threatening (or libel/slandering, but that's a whole different debate), they are completely out of line. Period.

      I didn't read TFA, because, well, this story is nothing new, but I can see this as a time for the ACLU to step in. I know if I were this kid, I would have googled the ACLU immediately. The school already plans to kick him out, or is at least considering it. He basically has nothing to lose by bringing down heat on them.

    10. Re:Nothing New by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Your link is long on snipets but very short on details and context. And thus, worthless.

      Look you lazy bastard. He has the video hosted there. If you can't find it, http://www.torrentz.com/torrent_70924.html

      Long on context and long on details.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    11. Re:Nothing New by staeiou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's not being deprived of his right to free speech, he's learning an important lesson about being responsible for his public statements. He has a right to say what he wants; they have a right to kick him out. No one is depriving either of them of either right. It's like how I have the right to post this and you have the right to call me an idiot and some other guy has the right to mod me "Overrated".

      If the kid was banned from Disneyworld for saying something critical about Disney, I would totally agree with you. Hell, if the kid was at a Catholic school and posted about the joys of premarital sex, I would be fine with the admins if they chose to kick 'em out. However, for public schools, education is compulsory - you have no choice in going or not. You also can't even pick which school you go to in many areas.

      Your slashdot analogy is incomplete. In this kid's situation, your analogy would mean that he has the right to say what he wants, and the admins can tell him how stupid he is. This shouting match DOES NOT include the admins expelling him. Expelling isn't a putting an anonymous -1 modifer on a post. It is more like banning your account. When the admins have the authority to expel a kid from an education system for such reasons, it kills any sort of fairness in the situation. How is this not a deprivation of rights, especially when the kid didn't freely decide to be apart of the school rules?

    12. Re:Nothing New by tob · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I find depriving a student of his 1st ammendment rights or his education not in his "best interest."


      Actually it is. There's nothing that will teach students the importance of civil liberties the way a case like this does.

      In my high school there was an official school paper (De Tand) that toed the party line. Students started producing their own paper(Bernrode Actueel), but after some criticism of teachers were forbidden to hand them out in school. They just started handing them out just outside the school gates. A few years later Bernrode Actueel replaced De Tand, and to the best of my knowledge it still has that place, 20 years later.

      Stuff like that has taught me a lot about the world in a setting that is relatively safe.

      Regards,
      Tob
    13. Re:Nothing New by garnetlion · · Score: 1

      If it were a private institution, you would be right on the money. But its not, it's an extension of the federal government, and as such, they are bound by the same Consitutional restrictions that bind the rest of the federal government. /was nearly expelled from Catholic school for the same thing.

    14. Re:Nothing New by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      He is thinking of the reletivly recent cases were some activist were trying to protest on private school property. The private school (some colledge) refused them and make the statment that they would be arested for tresspass if they entered the grounds for that purpose. After a very short court case, It was ruled that the private school was within it's rights if it didn't accept money from the government.

      I believe this was reconfirmed were some other private schools set rules in place stating certain things couldn't be posted to the internet or writen about in the newspapers and such. But all these cases involved a private school and some action thought to be protected by some constitutional rights. I can see how this "private" could be overlooked. It was usualy just givin that those schools were private and typicaly mentioned as if it was an after thought. Usualy in the discusion It went something like someon suggest witholding money and then the fact they were private and didn't recieve government money would come up.

    15. Re:Nothing New by arodland · · Score: 1

      Now suppose we have a police department who receives no federal funds, do you then believe they don't have to adhere to the constitution?

      That's a pretty ignorant question. What part of a directive like "Congress shall make no law" does a local police department have to "adhere to"? They aren't Congress and they don't make any laws. What part of "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in" does a local police department have to adhere to? You should try thinking about what the Constitution actually means one of these days.

      However, there is a complicating factor, which has been brought up elsewhere: the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been interpreted in various ways as saying that insofar as the constitution protects certain rights of the people from the federal government, those protections should also be held against the state and local governments as well. What effect it actually has is sort of questionable, due to muddled interpretations, and arguments that one of the primary pieces of language in the amendment should be held ineffective because the writers "didn't really mean it" -- but be that as it may, the amendment exists.

    16. Re:Nothing New by arodland · · Score: 1

      To clarify a bit further: ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment, the only parts of the Constitution that has any real bearing on the actions of state or lower governments, are the parts that say "the states may not X" (where X is something like "enter into a treaty"), and the part that says that any rights or powers not specifically mentioned devolve to the states or to the people. (This bit is frequently overridden by "practical" concerns, but that's a story for another day.)

    17. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they're doing is perfectly legal.

      "14th amendment Section. 1, Sentance 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

      Meaning, everyone who was once a citizen of their state becomes a dual citizen of the federal government (United States = Federal government) and the states which, through reconstruction, were disbanded and became instrumentalities (corporations) of the federal government. Which means even though the school is local, the school is an instrumentality of the munincipality/town/city (another corporate entity; each varies slightly), which are an instrumentality of the district/parish/subdivision/ect (another corporate entity, each varies slightly) which are all instrumentalities of the state, which are all instrumentalities of the federal government, and the feds have all the power. More importantly;

      "Section 1, Last sentances, 14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

      And there is no mention, anywhere, where these new "US citizens" get constitutional rights or any rights of any kind; only "protection under the law" AKA civil rights. And freedom of speech isn't a civil right. The judiciary may have ruled we've got rights, but it isn't written on any piece of paper anywhere that we do.

      Additionally, if he has social security, he also signed not to question any benefits he gets from the state, which includes the schooling, which is the main reason they're after him; he's questioning the benefit. For the record, saying "I don't want any benefits" is considered questioning the benefit; people have been thrown into jail, for life, for demanding that their social security be rescinded, going into court, and making a perfectly legal arguement.

    18. Re:Nothing New by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're monumentally stupid. The right to free speech is *exactly* that, it's being able to expect no punishment from exercising your right.

    19. Re:Nothing New by gkhan1 · · Score: 1
      On an tangential note, I must say that the 14th amendment is one of the greatests parts of the american constitution. I mean, with that amendment they really got it right.

      Really, it brilliantly captures what it means to live in a democratic society (it's not the only one ofcourse, the first, fourth and fifth amendments are also pretty vital). A nation cannot fuck with a persons civil liberties, they cannot abrige their rights only because a specific right isn't covered in the bill of rights, and they have to offer each and every person the Equal Protection under the laws.

      It's basically saying "Fine, you don't like (abortion|homosexuality|sodomy|black people|privacy|integration|whatever), but you know what, it's a fundamental right in any democratic society. So stick your ignorant ideas up your bigoted ass." It's an awesome amendment.

    20. Re:Nothing New by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      People like GP are generally unable (or just unwilling) to understand the difference between "consequences" and "punishment."

      If it's punitive or retalitory, it's punishment, and crosses the line.

    21. Re:Nothing New by freedom_india · · Score: 1
      I don't understand how your post was modded as Flamebait when it is the most frank and honest and insightful response.

      Something to be said about our system seems...

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    22. Re:Nothing New by gkhan1 · · Score: 1
      You're interpreting the Due Process clause in a very narrow way, and it has been long held (atleast since Griswold v. Connecticut) that the due process clause protects much, much more than is specifically written down. It has been interpreted as liming the government on infringing inalienable natural rights of individuals. This is called substantive due process. This has been interpreted as protecting for instance privacy and abortion, aswell as the rest of the bill of rights.

      This is the case: The government wishes to punish him for excercising his first amendment right. The government can't do that. It violates due process and the first amendment. It's really as simple as that.

    23. Re:Nothing New by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if my speech has legal consequences for me, it isn't free. Defamation and making threats are punishable offenses, so they don't qualify as free speech.

    24. Re:Nothing New by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      it has generally been held up by the courts as meaning the entire bill of rights applies as much to state and local governments as to federal.

      No it hasn't. For various reasons, the courts approach this on a right-by-right basis. They have not incorporated all of them (especially since we're really only talking about the first eight), and sometimes only have incorporated parts of them. It'd be accurate to say that most or nearly all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, but it's not accurate to say that the whole thing has been.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    25. Re:Nothing New by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 0

      even in areas that are highly "liberal,"

      I think you mean "especially in areas that are highly "liberal,".

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    26. Re:Nothing New by McChump · · Score: 1

      You might want to go sit in on a Constitutional Law class, where it will be explained, in minute detail, why you're wrong when you think you're right. The short answer is that the words of the Constitution don't always mean what they appear to mean. The long answer is that this sort of behavior by the school district has long been held to be unconstitutional, going back at least to Tinker v. Des Moines School District:
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=393&invol=503

      --
      I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
    27. Re:Nothing New by vykor · · Score: 1

      I think that's irrelevant in this case, considering that the New Jersey state constitution also offer this guarantee. "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

      The constitutional question can still be brought up in state court, as local government is a creature of the state government.

    28. Re:Nothing New by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "This is nothing new. Most schools, even in areas that are highly "liberal," try to control their students' thoughts and actions to the point of extreme."

      Really? I find this statement quite unbelievable and think that you are simply making this statement up. DO you have some sort of study you can point to?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    29. Re:Nothing New by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      *sigh*
      Does the right to free speach then give me the right to walk into a crowded mall and shout "BOMB!"?

      I doubt many people will agree that in that case total free speach should be allowed/be without concequences.

      Suppose I had a habit of finding the biggest jock on the field and saying "You American Footballer's are wusses for wearing all that armour - play a proper sport like rugby and stop being a girl hiding behind that padding". Would I expect the police to protect me from that guy kicking 7 bells of $h*t out of me?

      I've come to the conclusion that free speach is about the right to express opinions, as opposed to the right to say anything anywhere. It is also my responsibility to society to show some sensibilty and not antagonise my fellow man.
      To use the above example, I should be able to sit with my mates in a pub and express the opinion that american footballers are a bunch of wusses, if a jock overhears this then that's different to me seeking him out and saying to to his face. i.e. i would expect protection in that case.

      That said though, the right to cause offense is more important than the right to not be offended.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    30. Re:Nothing New by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      "Actually, public schools are generally local government institutions - and so should be completely unaffected by the constitutional ban on federal laws restricting the freedom of speach.

      Incorrect. As the parent stated, the first ammendment was extended by the fourteenth to include state and local government. Just how the 14'th extends things has been a matter of much legal debate and lots of rulings but it has generally been held up by the courts as meaning the entire bill of rights applies as much to state and local governments as to federal."

      Actually, the 14th Amendment was written to reinforce the fact that State and Local governents and laws are superseded by the Constitution when they conflict, and to guarantee the right to "due process" and of "equal protection" under the law. Such rights already existed, but they were codified there.

      For example, a state can't force you into a trial without jury. A state can't burst down your door and search your home without a warrant, etc.

      And, a government school cannot pass a "law" abridging the freedom of speech, any more than they can expel a student for practicing a religion they don't like off school grounds outside school hours.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    31. Re:Nothing New by XJHardware · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment, as extended through the Fourteenth and interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars government institutions from punishing or rewarding anyone on the basis of almost all speech. Note that the school in question is a public school, and thus is a government institution and bound by that law. Too bad Alberto Gonzalez just struck down the first ammendment earlier this week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html Which is exactly the situation you are describing. The government punishing people for "speaking" in a public forum. Here's hoping the Supreme Court has a moment of lucidity when this goes in front of them.

      --
      The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
    32. Re:Nothing New by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Actually, public schools are generally local government institutions - and so should be completely unaffected by the constitutional ban on federal laws restricting the freedom of speach."

      Reaching for federalism in instances like this is a double-edged sword at best. State constitutions are generally much more liberal in protecting personal rights than the federal constitution. For example, being a New Jersey school, it's subject to:
      Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
    33. Re:Nothing New by Xtacy · · Score: 1

      TFA says that ACLU has already commented, so I'm sure they are/will be involved :)

    34. Re:Nothing New by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1
      Does the right to free speach then give me the right to walk into a crowded mall and shout "BOMB!"?

      A poor example, shouting "fire" in a theatre is doing something factually incorrect, irresponsible and likely to cause direct physical harm. Free speech has this proviso, but this is a world away from what we're talking about here.
      Suppose I had a habit of finding the biggest jock on the field and saying "You American Footballer's are wusses for wearing all that armour - play a proper sport like rugby and stop being a girl hiding behind that padding". Would I expect the police to protect me from that guy kicking 7 bells of $h*t out of me?

      Well, actually, in a peaceful society, yes you would. You would be stupid to think that the police have time to do so, but in theory atleast, you have not started violence so sould be able to expect none back. Even if we assume that you have incited violence by your words, you're talking about an unconsidered responce from an individual, not a considered responce from an institution! We should expect a responsible organisation to react in a more measured way!
      I've come to the conclusion that free speach is about the right to express opinions, as opposed to the right to say anything anywhere. It is also my responsibility to society to show some sensibilty and not antagonise my fellow man.

      Rubbish, sometimes people need antagonising to break them out of their complacency. What would have happened if the Sufferogettes decided not to antagonise, or perhaps Martin Luther King thought he'd better allow the status quo to continue. History is littered with people who have the guts to say "this isn't right, I'm going to do something" and it's up to *every* person to guide their own life and what happens around them in an ethical way.

      This is about a person having their whole future thrown into question because they feel they have been badly treated, and said so.
    35. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most schools, even in areas that are highly "liberal," try to control their students' thoughts and actions to the point of extreme.

      Didn't you get the memo? That's the new definition of "liberal" -- a complete 180 from the true meaning of liberty (the right to voluntary association).

    36. Re:Nothing New by bubblesonx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do you find this unbelievable? The so-called liberals have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't tow their "political correctness" line.

    37. Re:Nothing New by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      "Free speech has this proviso, but this is a world away from what we're talking about here."

      Right, so you agree with the point I'm trying to make then that speech shouldn't be free if it causes others harm. The problem is where to draw the line, should I not be allowed to talk openly about how to build a home-made bomb because it could help any terrorists? Should i not be able to criticise the government because a revolution will cause harm/death to a lot of people?
      It's all about where you draw the line and that is a matter of opinion, not facts or rights. How much more important is one man's right to speach over anothers life (or a probablility of anothers death).

      Re: Antagonising, I'm trying to stick to the generic real world case, as opposed to the actual principles. Along the same lines that in principle I don't want to have a military...

      In principle you're totally right that I should be able to antagonise anyone on a verbal level without a physical consequence. But this is the real world, and there does come a time when a physical response to a verbal event is arguably justified.
      FWIW I'm with the kid on this issue, the school is way out of line, I'm just trying to make the point that speech and what you say has a responsibility to the rest of society. What I was trying to say was an action that merely antagonises is probably best worth avoiding. Taking the MLK case, "a black woman drinking out of a white's fountain" may have just antagonising at the time, it may have been many things, but it started events that changed society for the better. I don't think I ever said all antagonising was bad (see the last line in my post) just that it should be done with care.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    38. Re:Nothing New by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      if a jock overhears this then that's different to me seeking him out and saying to to his face. i.e. i would expect protection in that case.

      Actually, assuming police were present, they would protect you in either case. As long as you don't threaten someone w/ violence, you can say whatever you like to them, and they do not have a legal right to physically attack you. You can even go up to a police officer and insult him, his mother, and his religion, and he can't arrest you -- for that. Now, police in the US have a lot of personal discretion, so most likely, you will get arrested if you piss off a cop. However, the arresting complaint will never say "He insulted me"; it will be more along the lines of "He threatened me" or even "I found this small bag of cocaine in his pocket after searching him for looking suspicious", which is a completely different topic.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    39. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What DO Americans think they are doing with their country? How can anyone think of addressing social and moral issues through the courts? Is this an effect of having no history or culture?

      Thank God I went to a Public School, and stayed out of the state educational system altogether.

    40. Re:Nothing New by edumacator · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment, as extended through the Fourteenth and interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars government institutions from punishing or rewarding anyone on the basis of almost all speech. Note that the school in question is a public school, and thus is a government institution and bound by that law.

      I made this point in another thread, but I think it is worth mentioning here. The issue isn't about his right to free speech, but whether or not he made a veiled threat. (Personally, I think the administration got it wrong.) The administration is looking at the post as a threat.

      From the post:

      I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ...

      My take is the school sees the reference to Columbine as a threat. I don't agree, but the argument should change to is that a threat or not? Most school officials I know, find MySpace and the like to be a nuisance, but haven't even considering censoring free speech. In the instances that people do advocate censorship, they are just plain wrong, but this case is about whether or not the student made a threat.

    41. Re:Nothing New by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Most schools, even in areas that are highly "liberal," try to control their students' thoughts and actions to the point of extreme.

      Not sure why you put "even" there... in my experience "liberal" organizations are always the worst about controlling thoughts, whether schools or anything else.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    42. Re:Nothing New by Icculus · · Score: 1
      Students started producing their own paper(Bernrode Actueel)

      man, that's sounds like the name of the dude that emailed me to buy viagra the other day.

    43. Re:Nothing New by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I think schools should spend their time teaching. An administrator focused on providing quality learning doesn't have time for frivilous political pursuits. A teacher who is using their mouth and brain to teach doesn't have much else to use to try to imprint their political philosophy on students.

      I've witnessed this promised land first hand. Students don't bother sharing their political philosophy because they've got work to do. Teachers don't bother sharing their political philosophy because they've got work to do. Thus, the school is a place for learning, rather than a personal soapbox for whoever to indoctrinate people.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    44. Re:Nothing New by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      However, repeatedly upheld precedent states that the governmental institution in question is the school system, not one particular school. As long as there is a school provided by the school system for that child, then this school is in fact well within its rights to wash its hands of him. The government is required to school the child. The government is not required to school the child at one particular location.

      This is leveraged frequently to break up groups of children who have a history as violent troublemakers when a principal believes they're colluding to do future bad things. I came from the second high school in the country to have permanent metal detectors, and I've seen a lot of people sue and lose over this. The interesting exception was in the case of one particular malcontent who'd already been expelled from everywhere else; suddenly my highschool was unable to expel him simply because there wasn't another school to take over for him. (Eventually they actually sued one of his other schools at which he'd done nothing wrong to let him back in, because he had done things wrong at my school, and won.)

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    45. Re:Nothing New by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Be it state, federal, or local, the government should not be punishing him for free speech, on his own time, off school property. Unless he is threatening (or libel/slandering, but that's a whole different debate), they are completely out of line. Period.

      Have you actually read what he wrote? Whereas it's not threatening, it can be easily and understandably misread as a direct threat. The kid says he's feeling bullied, and later he says the reason Columbine happened was because those kids felt bullied.

      Yes, he does later say that he's never made a threat, and yes, in a cold reading it's clear that this kid isn't threatening. However, the way he wrote it was particularly ill-considered, and it's quite easy for someone to take what he wrote as a threat. Furthermore, he doesn't make clear that he's not threatening until after the sentence about Columbine; if someone stopped reading there and immediately went to act, they wouldn't get the clarification.

      The school isn't attempting to curtail him for criticism. Read their action - they think they're acting against a threat. Yes, they're wrong, but not for the reasons you think they are.

      I didn't read TFA, because, well, this story is nothing new

      You should have, because it's not what you expected at all. In general, if you're not going to read what's happening, don't criticise it, because you're more likely to be wrong, like here, than not.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    46. Re:Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled "amendment," not "ammendment."

      I know some folks don't care, but some folks do and just don't realize the spelling.

    47. Re:Nothing New by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1
      Right, so you agree with the point I'm trying to make then that speech shouldn't be free if it causes others harm.


      No, what I actually said was causes *direct* harm, and is *also* irresponsible and factually incorrect. If you shout "Bomb" in a shopping centre when there isn't one, that would be all those things. Obviously the harm from shouting that outweighs the non-existent good. This is an extreme, but as soon as you get away from the extreme, supressing things is very very dangerous.

      Your other examples are very woolly, "could be used by terrorists" "might cause a violent revolution" when there are also non-harmful conclusions to those actions and the likely positive effects are so much bigger anyway.

      You say you think all antagonising isn't necessarily bad, but I would say that's incompatible with this statement from your previous post:
      It is also my responsibility to society to show some sensibilty and not antagonise my fellow man.


      Of course a line is drawn somewhere, but I would argue that where isn't up for debate (if I can do that non-recursively). Anything can be justified as harmful speech if you aren't specific about what to prohibit.
    48. Re:Nothing New by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I've met quite a number of public school administrators over the years. I'm lucky that most of them where I went to school were actually OK. But I've met so many of them that are just horribly bad, it has convinced me that there is something terribly wrong going on in general. I can't say for sure whether it is a case of this kind of job attracting bad elements, or the job turning them bad. But the end result is that I see a kind of personality in probably at least 50% of public schools which would be best described as "a failed politician". What I mean by that is that the person is someone who really wanted to be a politician so he/she could (at least try to) control other people's lives. But they failed because they were not good enough to control adults, or realized they could not succeed, and instead, pursued their agenda against some of the more vulnerable of our society ... our children.

      We need to remove these kinds of people (the politician types) from our schools. This will be hard since there are so many of them. But the effort needs to begin somewhere. It looks to me like the Plainfield School District is as good as any for the next big effort.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    49. Re:Nothing New by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      I find depriving a student of his 1st ammendment rights or his education not in his "best interest."

      I'm finding more and more that denying a student the Rights embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is actually considered part of his education. They [the schools] just sometimes get the order of the curriculum screwed up and the student finds out about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before they get to the "taking away rights" part of the course.

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    50. Re:Nothing New by drsquare · · Score: 1

      This raises the question, should children have constitutional rights? I can't think of any advantage of schoolchildren having free speech, and plenty of disadvantages.

      If you're going to allow private schools to discpline their children how they want, I don't see why public schools should be any different. The American system seems to be saying that only rich people are allowed to send their kids to schools with proper discplinary standards, whereas the poor have to send their kids to schools where the hallowed 'constitution' comes before raising well-behaved kids.

    51. Re:Nothing New by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Look you lazy bastard.

      Fuck YOU, fatty foopah. Laziness is expecting other people to prove your points for you, not the other way around.

      He has the video hosted there.

      Oooooo! So now it's a random site with a video! Boy, that changes everything! If it's in a video it must be true, as evidenced by the Clinton Chronicles, SBVFT, and of course Fox News.

    52. Re:Nothing New by Khaed · · Score: 1

      I have since read the article; I still think they're wrong. So does the ACLU, apparently

      They didn't call the cops, they didn't feel like it was a serious threat. If they thought he was serious, they would have had the cops arrest him at school. For making a threat. But they didn't, and they told his mother they "didn't have time for this." Sorry, if I think someone is actually threatening to shoot me or people at my place of work, I am calling the cops to deal with it.

      What I thought: School wants to punish boy for something he said online, while at home, that they didn't like. What it is: School wants to punish boy for something he said online, while at home, that they don't like. But they don't feel the threat was serious enough for law enforcement.

      Sorry, no, I'm not wrong in this case. It is pretty much what I expected. The only thing I'm left wondering is what initially caused him to feel bullied, before the post in question.

    53. Re:Nothing New by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Ah I see you were indeed talking out your ass. Perhaps I should say you were talking out Rush Limbaughs ass.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  9. Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As much as it's good to post in public, which is the whole point because sharing is natural and a relief (and fun), we must protect our identity while being able to complain louder and more specifically. Use anonymizers and forms of encryption if relevant to reveal yourself in the way you want to and don't say something stupid like the article's mention of a specific bomb threat.

  10. Free speech by SniperClops · · Score: 0

    What happened to free speech

    1. Re:Free speech by Admiral+Justin · · Score: 1

      Free Speech! Get it now! Only 37 payments of $1999.99 per month!

      Seriously, those little admendment thingies that orbit the constitution have gone up in smoke, the smoke of the consitution itself after it was rolled up.

      --
      You will be baked, and there will be cake.
    2. Re:Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not at liberty to discuss this.

    3. Re:Free speech by SniperClops · · Score: 1

      I'm from Canada, I wonder if this would happen here?

    4. Re:Free speech by Admiral+Justin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, Canada prefers to sit around and watch what america does wrong, then have part of itself try to split off again, because they are bored.

      --
      You will be baked, and there will be cake.
    5. Re:Free speech by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      last i heard, canada doesn't have a blanket guarented freeom of speech. Thir constitution clearly say they can limit it by making a law if neccesary.

      So, yes. It could happen there. It is even more likley to "be able to happen" there. But ironicaly, it isn't happening there.

    6. Re:Free speech by SavedLinuXgeeK · · Score: 1

      I would not say such things if I were you ....

      --
      je suis parce que j'aime
    7. Re:Free speech by BurntNickel · · Score: 1

      What happened to free speech

      That is a forbidden question.

      Have a jelly baby.

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    8. Re:Free speech by TRS80NT · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? Free Speech was acquired in 2001 by a consortiun of corporations led by the pharmaceutical and energy industries and Disney in a rider to the USA PATRIOT Act.


      --
      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
  11. Compared to overseas by ajdlinux · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is it with Americans and expulsion? Here in Australia if someone gets expelled it is because they have done something absolutely crazy that in America probably would have them in prison or something like that, e.g. bashing up other students. Even something like swearing in front of the teacher, depending on the school, may only get you suspended.

    1. Re:Compared to overseas by Dunarie · · Score: 1

      "e.g. bashing up other students"

      Bashing up other students is perfectly acceptable here in the good old US of A, DEFENDING yourself however, will easily result in at least a two week suspension. Oh, and god forbid you give someone, say, a hangnail on the bus.

    2. Re:Compared to overseas by Malestyr · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hell, one kid was caught selling vodka, setting a dumpster on fire and melting the lid, smoking, selling pot and he got suspended. Three times. That wasn't enough to get an expulsion. Beating someone up is a week long suspension(annoyingly, so is fighting back.)

    3. Re:Compared to overseas by quintesse · · Score: 1

      Fighting back will got you suspended? Really? Wow, the one time it happened to me the school principal commended me on "showing restraint" in defending myself (she knew I was taking karate lessons). Of course, the truth was I just that my mind completely blanked when the fight started and couldn't remember anything of karate until it ended. Hehe.

    4. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, pretty right, you shoulgd see N.V hardcore school, people getting shankt in the neck and whatnot pretty much every week, the principals hardline response hasn't done shit.

    5. Re:Compared to overseas by zoephile · · Score: 1

      And you mean the kid was suspended for that ?? Back when I was in school that was considered normal school behavior. Sounds like these scool administrators are too sensitive these days.

    6. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it with Americans and expulsion?

      The problem with US schools is the teachers and administrators have completely lost the ability to reason.

      Everything they do is nothing more than an automatic, knee-jerk reaction, always in the direction of Political Correctness.

      Sad.

    7. Re:Compared to overseas by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      My high school would disciple you for fighting even if you were jumped and beaten into a pulp without even getting to turn around to face your attacker.

    8. Re:Compared to overseas by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      In the UK, those things you said usually get a detention at most.

    9. Re:Compared to overseas by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      You say that,but A friend who is an instrutor had problems when he was mugged recently. His first instinct was to fight back using his techniques. He then remembered the advice to not do so and let himself get kicked in.

      Good job, because even though the police caught the mugger, he got let off because of the injuries he sustained from my friend initially defending himself counted as provocation. Heaven knows what would have happened if he'd have properly disabled the mugger!

      Then there was the other friend (BIG guy, into swords as a hobby, claims he has an 6' broadsword for a toy - never seen it except in photos though). Who got attacked by 3 guys and he ended up getting stabbed during trying to hold them off. At that point he went nuts and let loose his self defense/fighting training and ended up hospitalising two of them. The only reason he got off without criminal charges was because there was cctv footage of him being stabbed before he properly attacked them.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    10. Re:Compared to overseas by doublem · · Score: 1

      Dear God, the repercussions for defending yourself against one of the members of the football team, and winning the fight are absurd.

      It was easier to transfer.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    11. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The schools expel to protect their own financial interests. It is so easy to sue in the US that schools are constantly afraid of what action by a student might end them, the school, in court. When a student gets to the point of making them worry too much, the school expels them. Twenty years ago the student would have ended up in special education first, but with mainstreaming, that isn't as much of an option.

    12. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swearing in front of the teacher would not be considered grounds for any punishment in The Netherlands. A kid might get detention if he routinely swears *at* the teacher.

    13. Re:Compared to overseas by stonecypher · · Score: 2

      What is it with Americans and expulsion? Here in Australia if someone gets expelled it is because they have done something absolutely crazy that in America probably would have them in prison or something like that, e.g. bashing up other students.

      Here the problem is Slashdot, not America. Slashdot has attempted to turn this into a freedom of speech issue. It isn't.

      The real problem is that the way the kid wrote what he wrote, it's very easy to mistake it as a threat to murder other school children. The kid says he feels bullied, and later he says Columbine happened because kids felt bullied. Now, the kid isn't actually making a threat, and afterwards he does even repeat it, but if you're an adult with a predisposition to worrying about this kid's behavior (which given the post seems likely) and you get to that part, you're likely to stop reading there and start acting.

      Yes, the school is in the wrong, but it's not a freedom of speech issue at all. The school's wrong because it thinks what this kid did was to threaten to come into school and shoot the place up.

      And frankly, the kid earned it by writing what he did. Alluding to Columbine is just goddamned stupid. That's like being angry at the President and trying to say that you have the same feelings as did the people who led up to 9/11. Sure, you're not saying you're gonna blow up a building, but that kind of ridiculous character attack and the possible underlying threat really earn you the grief you get as a result.

      As angry as I am at the school system's people for being so dense as to make the mistake about what this kid is saying, I think we need to be equally angry at the kid for comparing himself to being a Columbine kid and then acting like he wasn't saying anything particularly bad. Yes, the school system is in the wrong here, not the kid. But the kid's still an asshole, and we can't go around telling him it's okay to make comments like that - whereas in the eyes of the law it is, in the eyes of simple social behavior it most certainly is not.

      Yes, the punishment he deserves isn't being expelled; it's being ostracised. But, he most certainly deserves the ostracism.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    14. Re:Compared to overseas by cibyr · · Score: 1

      Swearing in front of a teacher? That'd get you a detention at worst, and only if the teacher is in a bad mood...

      --
      It's not exactly rocket surgery.
    15. Re:Compared to overseas by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem you miss in your comparison, and thus the source of your confusion. You assume taht the disciplinary tree is the same. It isn't. At least it wasn't, and likely has diverged (mutated) even further sicne I was in. I went to schools in Germany and the US.

      In the US, it has been successfully inculcated that you have a right to government schooling. Not I did not say education. It has already been established that the schools are not required to actually *teach* you.

      By this expectation of "right of schooling", it has further been inculcated that you can't be punished or removed for extreme behaviour. That becomes merely another "section" of school. After all, the argument goes, those kids have the same right, n'est ce pas?[1]

      Add to this that it is not merely a "right", but a requirement to be there. In most places in the US school attendance is mandatory[2]. So this throws a seriously large monkey wrench into the machinery.

      Add to this suspension. Suspension is a notoriously bad punishment. When the students *want* to be there, suspension carries a real penalty. But how is suspending a student who clearly does not want to be there a punishment? And of course any other penalty is prevented because it might get labelled racist/sexist/unfair/whatever. So we are left with suspension and expulsion. Suspension, as mentioned, does not work. Thus we are left with expulsion.

      Yet it is still not so simple. Expulsion for extreme cases is not only warranted it is duty-bound in my opinion, and likely in a majority of people's opinion. However, we have to further add in the notion of "zero tolerance". ZT is an excuse, and a pathetic one at that. Zero Tolerance is why we see six year olds getting suspended and expelled because they drew a picture that had a gun in it. Was this the case here? Possibly. I expect that ZT was a factor whether it was the excuse or the direct cause.

      You see, the US school system has been set up for failure. We all know you can't please all of the people all of the time. Yet this is precisely what the US School system is mandated to do. We force people who do not want to be there to be there, which leads to behavioural problems and serve as a massive distraction of funds and learning time. We say that "no child must be left behind"[3] so they all have to be served by bending over backward as far as we can possibly do and then some to "accomodate" them. Some people find certain things "offensive" or "objectionable", and others find opposite things in that category. Essentially it becomes little more than a race for the bottom, as all large scale socialist systems do.

      1. Run to the lowest common denominator and meet that need.
      2. Claim objectives met: Declare victory.
      3. Demand higher pay for actually meetign these "onerous" requirements. (Profit)

      Meanwhile the rest of us pay the price, as do the children who are so wrongly "served" by this system. We pay not only in terms of tax dollars, but in economic loss and intellectual accomplishment devaluation. Each generation it gets worse, since the bar is lower and lower for each generation. The same goes for punishment and discipline. The US School System pretty much serves two purposes and does that increbibly poorly:

      A) Provide "babysitting" while parents are at work.
      B) Provide pork barrel projects and a means to siphon economic value away for personal gain (polticians, so-called teacher unions, school administration)

      Some may say this is all intentional, made to dumb down Americans so they can be more easily controlled. I say it is irrelevant. The net effect is precisely that. Thus it matters not in the big picture if that was the intent. Even worse, the cycle creates a positive feedback loop. Unless there is enough intervention, it will eventually explode.

      1. Funding, really.
      2. Funding, really.
      3. Funding, really.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    16. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear God, the repercussions for defending yourself against one of the members of the football team, and winning the fight are absurd.

      It was easier to transfer.


      You too, eh? It's amazing what a shot to the solar plexus followed by a kick to the kneecap will do to even the largest of jocks if you're quick.

      Of course after that then they make threats (along with their team mates) and you have to remind them that sooner or later, they will be alone.. and you're going to show up with a few "accessories".
    17. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real problem is that the way the kid wrote what he wrote, it's very easy to mistake it as a threat to murder other school children. The kid says he feels bullied, and later he says Columbine happened because kids felt bullied. Now, the kid isn't actually making a threat, and afterwards he does even repeat it, but if you're an adult with a predisposition to worrying about this kid's behavior (which given the post seems likely) and you get to that part, you're likely to stop reading there and start acting.


      So their lack of reading comprehension is this kid's fault?

      I don't think so.

      Yes, the school is in the wrong, but it's not a freedom of speech issue at all. The school's wrong because it thinks what this kid did was to threaten to come into school and shoot the place up.


      Did the kid elicit a direct threat? Yes or no. No. So STFU, have a Coke and a smile.

      And frankly, the kid earned it by writing what he did. Alluding to Columbine is just goddamned stupid. That's like being angry at the President and trying to say that you have the same feelings as did the people who led up to 9/11. Sure, you're not saying you're gonna blow up a building, but that kind of ridiculous character attack and the possible underlying threat really earn you the grief you get as a result.


      Oh please. It is a freedom of speech issue and you're a dumb fuck. It is the lack of critical reasoning skills (as is apparent in your case) that the country is going down the shitter. It is also the slippery slope being used to shut down "unpopular" views.
    18. Re:Compared to overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, pretty right, you shoulgd see N.V hardcore school, people getting shankt in the neck and whatnot pretty much every week, the principals hardline response hasn't done shit.

      And, evidentially, their English teacher really sucks.

  12. Re:Friendly piece of advice by Romancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    You're expelled.

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  13. It's in IL, not NJ by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    New Jersey doesn't have a monopoly on Plainfields. There are many other Plainfields like it, but this one is mine. ;)

    Clue: it's in the CHICAGO Sun-Times.

    Further clue: from TFA - "Joliet Police".

    I live near there - Plainfield is where the big Tornado disaster occurred about 12-13 years ago.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    1. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by Zen · · Score: 1

      I was wondering where they came up with New Jersey. Never even heard of that one. I've got some friends that are teachers out that way. Plainfield was a booming school district a couple years ago - hiring more new teachers than any other subarb of Chicago due to growth. I'm going to have to check around and see if there were any memo's sent out by the school to the teachers about this. They must have told the teachers something.

    2. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by jginspace · · Score: 1

      More clues... I believe this is the school http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=360312

    3. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

      Now it all makes sense!! Joliet is pretty much about the worst terrible place in Illinois you can go.

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    4. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Well, as my dear old Dad used to tell me, If God wanted to give Illinois an Enema, Joliet is where he'd stick it!

      Actually, other than the notorious Stateville Prison there, it's a pretty nice area.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    5. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      If it's reported to the Joliet Police and has to do with infringing on freedom of speech, you can be sure that ManCow will have the details this morning.

    6. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by jrumney · · Score: 1
      And the student?

      That blog references two other names (Sam (female) and Kyle) being suspended for what they posted on their blogs, apparently references to drinking and smoking pot at parties over the weekend.

    7. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting about Plainfield Indiana... it has a big international airport (indianapolis int'l airport)

      oh and on a further note, I got to see what that tornado did to Plainfield IL about 3 months afterwards (my dad's best man in his wedding lived in Plainfield, IL); Heck I'm from the Peoria area, we had an F-4 go through Metamora (where I went to high school) about 2 years ago.

    8. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      For once it isn't New Jersey school districts doing something stupid.

    9. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by wobblygeek · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Ever been to Kankakee? Wilmington? Braidwood?

      Joliet is Heaven on Earth compared to most of the rest of this state.

    10. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by wobblygeek · · Score: 1

      It's not the first time this district has done something stupid, and it won't be the last. Plainfield is notorious for idiotic decisions around here.

    11. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by cmossell · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never been to Decatur.

    12. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by wobblygeek · · Score: 1

      Mancow knows nothing about nothing. I know you were probably being silly, I just hate Mancow.

      Funny story: I used to work at the local paintball field Mancow played at once in awhile with Shatner and other celebs. A couple years ago, during one of the Shatner games, Mancow shot himself in the foot, faked a leg injury, and limped off for fear of getting shot. He played a total of about 7 minutes that day. Next morning though, he was back on the radio, screaming about how he kicked all kinds of ass and pwned the field.

      Of course, none of the refs could seem to get through his screeners that morning...

    13. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is nothing new for the Chicago suburbs. There was a case almost exactly like this, except not threaten for students' lives, just security of the network at a school I attended. Actions preformed off school, posted on a server completely off school, kids read it on the internet in school.

      In this case handful of people got detentions, one guy got expelled, and a lot of the parents were pissed off. The school districts in these areas really go unchallenged.

      Note they are famous for the same thought process as the school district that handled the powder puff football hazing incident. Flex their power, instill FEAR in the minds of every student and then life is easy. I had one administrator when I went back telling me bout how the bush administration uses FEAR to further there agenda. My reply, 'it appears they took your tactics'.
      Haven't gone back since, the place could flood and flush all the rats out of the administration for all I care.

      There are some amazing teachers in those schools. They normally start out doing amazing leaning classes. But over time the gears of a power trip administration grind them down to mere machines reading off a bulleted power point. I've seen it happen to a handful of great teachers.

    14. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've never been to the East side. like 95th and Commercial. I'll take Wilmington anyday over that.

    15. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by dr_canak · · Score: 1

      Cool,

      thx much for posting the correction! I didn't read TFA, just the discussion/comments until you posted this. Glad I did. It's my home town and my cousin is representing the student :-).

      thx much,
      jeff

    16. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      New Jersey doesn't have a monopoly on Plainfields. There are many other Plainfields like it, but this one is mine. ;)

      Yes, but New Jersey has THREE of them. We outnumber you! P-FUNK REPRESENT

      Plainfield, NJ, is a small city in decline. Its residents are disproportionately poor, and I'm certain its public schools have bigger disciplinary problems to deal with than a nonviolent kid mentioning Columbine on his blog. So no, I don't think this story COULD have come from Plainfield, NJ. Mod submitter -1 Sloppy.

    17. Re:It's in IL, not NJ by forkazoo · · Score: 1
      New Jersey doesn't have a monopoly on Plainfields. There are many other Plainfields like it, but this one is mine. ;)

      Clue: it's in the CHICAGO Sun-Times.

      Further clue: from TFA - "Joliet Police".

      I live near there - Plainfield is where the big Tornado disaster occurred about 12-13 years ago.

      Wacky. One of my best friends moved from Wheaton to Plainfield at the start of High School, so I spent quite a bit of time in that neck of the woods. It's been a few years, but from what I remember of Plainfield, I can understand why the administration would invest so much time and effort into harrassing this kid. There just wasn't anything else to do in that town! ;)

      I don't think my friend specifically mentioned any major issues with the High School at that time, but it was a pretty strange small town sort of place, and I can totally believe some person with no actual authority would decide to abuse it completely because he is the king of his little hill. (See also, Tuttle OK...)

      The best thing about Plainfield was the fact that the captain of their High School scholastic bowl team was a very pleasant and attractive young lady. One of my top five favorite teams to play against in Illinois at that time. :)
  14. I know where this mentality comes from by aurelito · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't imagine things have changed drastically since I graduated from high school four years ago. Our staff was afflicted with the worst type of technology paranoia. They couldn't really grasp the size of the internet; they could only understand electronic media as analogous to print, which -- given the popularity of "the internet" meant that publishing something unflattering about your school on the web was (to them) tantamount to taking a full page ad in the New York Times. These people _are_ bullies! They're afraid of the internet, so they'll compensate with administrative brawn.

    1. Re:I know where this mentality comes from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell... I got banned from using the library computers at my high school. Know why?

      First, I was just banned from using their $0.10-page printing service. Because I used it too much by printing pretty much all my schoolwork there when my home printer died one semester. Note that I had to pay $0.10 per page to print stuff. And I did, without complaint. They claimed they were only allowed to buy computer-lab supplies once each school year, and that I'd worn out all but one of their printer ribbons for the public computers already when they instituted the ban on my further printing. They did buy a LOT more ribbons the next year though with all the money I'd forked over for printing, so that one was simply a goof between logistics and reality there.

      The second and lifetime ban from even using the computers occured when they deleted the MSPaint shortcut from the start menu because someone drew two circles, then two more filled circles in what could either be called cleavage or a pair of white-wall tires in abstract, and left a vulgar phrase across the top of the screen in MSPaint. However, they left the actual MSPaint program installed on the computers, and saw me using it one day. I never noticed they had removed it from the start menu, because I never accessed it that way. The 'run' command was my route. Hacking and/or installing previously blocked software was how the two-day suspension notice was marked in the reason column, I'd imagine the note on why I was banned from using the library computers matched it.

      So, yes. The students at any facility are almost guaranteed to know more about the technology present in the school than anyone actually employeed by the school itself.

    2. Re:I know where this mentality comes from by bodester17 · · Score: 1

      The schools are really afraid of technology and they do not know how to controll it. At my school a couple of my friends who liked to poke around on computers found the instant messaging function on the novell system. The system admins had no idea it was there, that the functionality had been turned on, how to monitor who started the IMs, and how to turn it off. When one of us would send a bunch of IM's it would give the person who received the IM the ability to IM anyone else logged into the system. The school administration could not control it and they threatend the whole school with disciplinary action.

  15. Left and Right -- The Odd Couple by DumbSwede · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We likely don't know all the facts to this story, things can sound very clear cut depending on how you synopsize them, however I think blogs will eventually have to be considered as something between public and private. Various organizations will have to be banned from acting based on any information obtained from them -- perhaps even banned from actively searching them out without legal cause.

    Odd how these threats to basic rights seem to come from the Left and the Right equally. Nobody in the extreme can ever stand dissenting opinion.

    1. Re:Left and Right -- The Odd Couple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Odd how these threats to basic rights seem to come from the Left and the Right equally. Nobody in the extreme can ever stand dissenting opinion.
      That's because extremists of all stripes are more alike than almost anyone else. Visualize the range of ideologies as a sphere. You immediately notice that the 'extremes' (in your example, far left and far right) are actually right next to each other on the sphere. The only thing that seperates them are the specifics of their ideology - in all other aspects, they are in fact identical. Both believe that it is their 'right' to attempt to have absolute control over the thoughts of others.
    2. Re:Left and Right -- The Odd Couple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't entirely correct.

      The 'far right' has recently been associated with the neo-conservative movement. This is not the true 'far right' - it's more of a fascist movement than a republican movement.

      The true 'far right' are the libertarians, which hold that no one can have any control over anyones thoughts. Ever.

    3. Re:Left and Right -- The Odd Couple by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Funny enough... These don't represent left or right wing extremists. Left and right wing extremists tend to be a bit more lenient about this kind of behaviour. Political extremists in America tend to react to dissenting opinion by trying to shout at each other, but not necessarily repress via any sort of legal system. There are exceptions to this, but that's just what I've noticed in general.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Left and Right -- The Odd Couple by Skreems · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty poor metaphor. Some of the most liberal people I know believe only in preventing government and other public interference in private affairs, including freedom of speech.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    5. Re:Left and Right -- The Odd Couple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must be living outside of the United States, of if you are in the U.S., still be thinking that it is the year 1999 or earlier.

  16. don't have time?! by guardiangod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [mother]:"I asked, 'If this is such a serious threat, did you call the FBI?' They said, 'No, we don't have time for this.' I asked, 'Did you call the Joliet police?' and they said, 'no.'"

    Don't have time? Don't have time?!

    So what you are saying basically is that, rather than going thru the annoying route of reporting to the police, you are just going to expel the kid? I guess the kid's 60 years worth of future is too unimportant compared to your job huh? I mean, we wouldn't want your daily wanking^h^h^h^h^h^h administration sessions be interrupted.

    I can't believe this. We are entrusting our childen to these...educators?! No wonder Columbine happened you idiots.

    Remember, to a school, there are thousand of students; To a student, however, there is only one school. So please, get it right.

    1. Re:don't have time?! by moranar · · Score: 1

      I guess the kid's 60 years worth of future is too unimportant compared to your job huh?

      Because turning him over to the police ensures a rosy future, doesn't it? And yes, I know he might be innocent. Still, being expelled from a school is nothing compared to having a criminal record.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    2. Re:don't have time?! by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's not going to have a criminal record because he didn't do anything wrong. Failing to report the "threats" to the PD proves that the school isn't doing this because they think he's dangerous, but that they didn't like what he said. The school is going down, hard.

    3. Re:don't have time?! by linvir · · Score: 1
      Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied.
      I really don't think he'd do any jailtime for that statement. Don't try to make the administration sound like they've got his best interests at heart, because if that was their reasoning, you can be damn sure they would have wanted everyone to know, instead of avoiding the question with "we don't have time".
    4. Re:don't have time?! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      A couple of corrections to both scenarios:

      Since he's a juvenile, he won't bear a permanent adult arrest record.

      Also, the law requires him to be in school 'til 18 (unless he enlists or is emancipated legally) so he will get his education, albeit at a private school. This will just punish his parents, at least financially...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    5. Re:don't have time?! by ultranova · · Score: 0

      I guess the kid's 60 years worth of future is too unimportant compared to your job huh?

      Yes. Did you really expect anything else ?

      I can't believe this. We are entrusting our childen to these...educators?!

      And they are getting an invaluable education about human nature and their place in the world. By the time they graduate, with any luck, they know better than to think they have rights - they know there is things that they can get away with, and things they can't get away with, and it has very little to do with what the law says either way.

      After all, your rights prevent the government from oppressing you - but there are many, many, many other entities against who you are hopelessly outmatched and who are free to crush you for saying something they don't like.

      Your first thought, when considering whether or not to say something, shouldn't be if you have a right to say it; it should be if you might get in trouble for saying it. The school teaches you that, and it is a priceless lesson.

      Kids need to learn conformity - because the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Keep your head down and your mouth shut, and don't draw attention to yourself - that's the most important lesson you can learn in school.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:don't have time?! by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      To a student, however, there is only one school

      Um? Nope. He has to try and re-enrol somewhere else; he just has to find somewhere that doesn't agree with the first school on the right/wrongness of what happened. If he tries to enrol to a school that has the same views as the first, then he won't get in. If he applies somewhere that is sympathetic to his viewpoint, and this case was the only reason for expulsion, then he'll get in.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    7. Re:don't have time?! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You must have had one sad, empty childhood....

    8. Re:don't have time?! by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      I don't know if this is the case here, but where I grew up, anyone expelled was banned from the entire district and not just the one school.

    9. Re:don't have time?! by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Judging by the kid's appalling grasp of the English language and total inability to use apostrophes appropriately, I think the school has already failed the student. Expulsion is only the icing on the cake - it won't make much difference at all.

    10. Re:don't have time?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [mother]:"I asked, 'If this is such a serious threat, did you call the FBI?' They said, 'No, we don't have time for this.' I asked, 'Did you call the Joliet police?' and they said, 'no.'"

      His mother is nothing but a worthless cum bag who would rather rail against the system than admit she's done a shitty job raising her equally worthless piece of shit son.

  17. Not Surpised by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Thinking back on high school, omes teachers and school administrators were pretty insecure, petty people who liked to use their positions to bully students. Sometimes teachers/administrators can be just as childish as the students they teach. Most of them will never admit that they're wrong. If you argue them into a corner, you're told to drop the discussion or face disciplinary action. Compared to college, high school was not a place that promoted learning or thinking. There was one thing high school promoted and that was blind obediance to authority. Of course there are many good high schools across this country and obediance to authority to some extend is good. However, I'm not surprised that there are other schools like mine across this country run by insecure administrators who feel the need to bully students.

    Ironically, one of the books I had to read for high school was "All Quiet on the Western Front". The drill sergeant in the book was a postman prior to the war so he felt the need to abuse the recruits. He knew that outside of his position in the heirarchy, no one respected him as a person so he abused his powers as a drill sergeant to make himself feel better. Reminds me of some school administrators... Sad bastards.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    1. Re:Not Surpised by Comatose51 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Obviously I skipped out on the days when they taught grammar, spelling, and/or typing.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    2. Re:Not Surpised by linvir · · Score: 1
      blind obediance to authority.
      Actually most also teach at least one other thing: you are your social status. Maybe it's a better way of putting your lesson, since it includes obeying authority, but it was definitely the main theme of my secondary education.
    3. Re:Not Surpised by fmerenda · · Score: 1

      > Some teachers and school administrators were pretty insecure, petty people who liked to use
      > their positions to bully students.

      Unfortunately, this isn't limited to some teachers. It's also *some* cops, *some* politicians, *some* managers, etc. It pretty much happens anywhere people are placed in power. There's going to be some people that seek power just because of their own insecurities, and then proceed to abuse that power.

      OK, so maybe it's *most* politicians! :)

      Take care,
      -Frank

      --
      -- http://www.MindBlowingPhotos.com
      Photography inspired by music, nature and life itself.
    4. Re:Not Surpised by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      There was one thing high school promoted and that was blind obediance to authority.

      Holy shit. Just thinking that a school might promote such values boggles the mind - then again I'm German and we've already learned our lessons about blind obedience.

      Seriously, disciplinatory action for talking back at the teacher? The worst thing that can happen to you over here is that the teacher cuts the discussion off and takes a note to round down your grade... Disciplinatory action is what happens when you beat up someone else or damage school equipment. And we're talking about detention or having to sweep the school yard. In order to get expelled you have to screw up big time - essentially breaking either someone's arm, the law or some really expensive schol property.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    5. Re:Not Surpised by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Ironically, one of the books I had to read for high school was "All Quiet on the Western Front". The drill sergeant in the book was a postman prior to the war so he felt the need to abuse the recruits. He knew that outside of his position in the heirarchy, no one respected him as a person so he abused his powers as a drill sergeant to make himself feel better. Reminds me of some school administrators... Sad bastards.

      Right now, your English teacher has a silent tear of joy running down her cheek, and she doesn't know why.

    6. Re:Not Surpised by abb3w · · Score: 1
      Thinking back on high school, omes teachers and school administrators were pretty insecure, petty people who liked to use their positions to bully students.

      My school wasn't like that, but the teachers there were exceptional from all I've heard from my college peers. Of course, encouraging debate and creative thinking resulted in some interesting situations over the years, such as my sister's class, who picketed their social studies teacher over an impossible homework assignment (the principal was called in as an arbitrator); or my 12th grade English class, which informed the teacher that after Macbeth, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet in previous years, Romeo and Juliet would be too depressing, and we insisted that we wanted a comedy this year, thank-you-very-much. (She held a class discussion, then assigned us all to write a 1-4 page persuasive essay based on the discussion... which gave her enough time to adjust her lesson plans. We did The Tempest.)

      Teachers creative and adaptable enough to cope with creative and adaptable students are very hard to find. It's so much easier if you only have to deal with a pack of sheep... but not as beneficial to society in the long run as herding cats.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    7. Re:Not Surpised by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      When we grew up and went to school,
      There were certain teachers
      Who would hurt the children any way they could,
      By pouring their derision upon anything we did,
      Exposing every weakness,
      However carefully hidden by the kids.

      But in the town it was well known
      When they got home at night,
      Their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them
      Within inches of their lives.

      -- Pink Floyd, "The Happiest Days of Our Lives"

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  18. totally rediculious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The kid posted from a non-school computer not on school time. Its his legal right to be able to say what he thinks of the school. Unless the school is being threatened with physical violence they have NO say in what a student does out of school.

    1. Re:totally rediculious by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Of course they could sue him for slander. And an independent body, like a court would decide who is right. You must take responsiblity for what you say. But it should never be up to the one who feels offended to serve justice. Now they are exactly bullying and threatening him.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    2. Re:totally rediculious by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Of course they could sue him for slander. And an independent body, like a court would decide who is right.

      I'd agree with that, and if he was subsequently found guilty then they could think about spending or expelling him, or making him stand in the corner or write lines or something.
      To just punish him straight off is to take the law into their own hands!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  19. A blog isn't any different than any other medium by philask · · Score: 0

    I'm not going to comment on the relative merits of the school taking action against the pupil for what he said on his post.

    However I do object to the general sense of 'if its a blog its ok', people seem to think that if they say something in their blog they are somehow protected or that it's OK to say it there because it's their personal space...

    Wrong, a blog is a tool for publishing text, no more or less than that, before the word blog was banded around people published personal websites with news pages (which is all a blog is). I would expect anything you publish on the web to be treated equally be it on the front page of Slashdot, the BBC website, a discussion forum or a blog.

    In conclusion - don't hide behind your 'blog'.

  20. Power by massivefoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the problem here is power. During school hours a student is of course a student has to be expected to obey school rules, conform to standards of behaviour, respect staff etc. Unfortunately, the teachers at this school appear to have got it into their heads that this includes complete control over the student's communications. I remember at my old highschool our headteacher once suspended a pupil for having a mohican haircut, despite the school's published unifrom code stating nothing about haircuts. When parents complained she didn't seem to understand why anyone objected to her making up and enforcing rules at will.

    The student should be commended for what he did. If he is genuinely being "threatened" and "bullied" by his school then he not only had a right but something of a duty to inform others of that, and yes, he should be in court, but as a plaintiff, not a defendant.

    1. Re:Power by joe+155 · · Score: 1

      "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    2. Re:Power by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the problem here is power.

      I think you didn't read the article. The school is reacting to what it mistakenly believes is a threat to shoot other school children. It has nothing to do with power or freedom of speech. The kid says he feels bullied and then talks about how Columbine happened because kids felt bullied.

      True, he's not making a threat, but it's an easy mistake to make.

      Next time learn what's going on before talking about it.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    3. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "True, he's not making a threat, but it's an easy mistake to make."

      Because schoolteachers can't be expected to correctly interpret a simple piece of text that students write?

  21. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by EvanED · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is legal. Schools are allowed to have dress codes. Schools are allowed to decide what constitutes "non-disruptive" activity to the learning environment.

    But schools CAN'T dictate what dress the students wear at home, and can't dictate what constitutes "non-disruptive" activity when they are sitting at their dinner tables with their families. ...his statement (especially with a veiled threat in the name of the Columbine assholes) exudes attitude.

    My reading is that the Columbine post was posted AFTER the school threatened expulsion, though the article is very unclear.

    In my opinion (only) I think it's disruptive.

    How so?

    In what way does a post on a website that probably can't be visited on school property disrupt classroom activity?

  22. bullies by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really wonder what the discussion was like at the school board meeting. It's like: Hey, we can't let this guy get away with calling us bullies. What should we do about it? Hmmm, lets threaten to expell him. That will teach him. The sad truth is I've seen similar things in the corporate world. Maybe this is a good lesson on how the world works (as a previous poster mentioned).

    --
    No Sigs!
    1. Re:bullies by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe this is a good lesson on how the world works (as a previous poster mentioned).

      How about this lesson? "This is how it is" does not mean "This is how it should be".

      Strange, I never seemed to get taught that in school either.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    2. Re:bullies by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that, in general, the corporate world is allowed to throw you out on your ass for whatever reason they feel like. But a public school, as a government institution, must conform to the rights granted by the Constitution - which in this case means protecting this student's freedom of speech, as long as said speech doesn't impair the ability of students at the school to learn.

    3. Re:bullies by mikael · · Score: 1

      From my experience of elementary and high school, the qualifications to become a principal were to demonstrate leadership skills through sport (ie. being a jock), with
      the consequence that they don't really understand the concept of open debate or freedom of speech. It's more "I'm bigger than you, so do what I say".

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:bullies by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

      Being "thrown out on my ass" for getting caught making love with the chairman's daughter was totally unconstitutional.

    5. Re:bullies by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      The difference is that, in general, the corporate world is allowed to throw you out on your ass for whatever reason they feel like. But a public school, as a government institution, must conform to the rights granted by the Constitution - which in this case means protecting this student's freedom of speech, as long as said speech doesn't impair the ability of students at the school to learn.

      Didn't read the article, huh?

      The school is reacting to what it mistakenly believes is a threat. The kid talks about how he feels bullied, then talks about how Columbine happened because those kids felt bullied too. It's an easy mistake to make. This has nothing to do with free speech or governmental obligation. This is a bunch of scared parents who think Little Timmy's about to shoot up the place, and who are trying to get him away from their children.

      Put down the drama stick and try reading what's actually going on.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    6. Re:bullies by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I really wonder what the discussion was like at the school board meeting. It's like: Hey, we can't let this guy get away with calling us bullies. What should we do about it? Hmmm, lets threaten to expell him.

      More like "Hey, this kid says he feels bullied and Columbine happened because students felt bullied. What do we do?" "Well I don't want him around my kid, he's too big a risk, expel him."

      At least make an attempt to understand why the people did what they did.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    7. Re:bullies by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      While your response was not to me...

      I have three children, the oldest of which is in school. I fully understand how irrational parents can get, I've attended PTA meetings. Try being one of the few at such a meeting who's against censoring a book because someone doesn't like how it portrays certain groups!

      I understand fully that this happens, and to a large extent WHY it happens. It can also be understood how and why the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, or a murder happened.

      Understanding something does not mean you must agree with or condone it. An easy mistake to make is still a mistake, a witch-hunt is still a witch-hunt, unfounded hysteria is still unfounded. The fact that it can be understood how they made an unacceptable decision does not change that it is an unacceptable decision.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    8. Re:bullies by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 1

      rights granted by the Constitution- which in this case means protecting this student's freedom of speech

      Within the philosophy upon which the US government is based, The Right to Free Speech exists independent of the government. We create and authorize our government only to the extent that it is representing our interests. Yes, it is the duty of the government we have created to protect our Rights, but the government does not grant us the rights we have authorized it to protect. If the government ceases to serve our purposes, we are also free to revoke the authority we have granted to it.

      Or at least that was the case until about the 1850s. Currently the government serves nothing but its own headless bulk.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    9. Re:bullies by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I could go on about how the only rights we have by default are those we can defend for ourselves, meaning that the instantiation of government can grant us rights we otherwise wouldn't have, but I already beat that dead horse at length in another thread.

  23. Re:Friendly piece of advice by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Funny
    He should get an AK-47 and shoot them into their filthy faces.

    The worst is that I feel you

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  24. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by etymxris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When a student makes statements that are (1) outside school hours, (2) off school property, (3) not associated with any school activities, then yes, the student has a great deal of liberty as to what he can say and do. Correspondingly, the administrators have very little say in what he can do in such circumstances. The notion of avoiding "disruption" is unlikely to fly here either. If they can control criticisms of the school in an environment completely outside of school authority, then they can pretty much dictate anything that students do.

    A threat must be direct and immediate for it to fall outside of first amendment restrictions. His "threats" are vague, indirect, and unlikely to result in any real consequences.

  25. Depends... by Cadallin · · Score: 1
    (a)how much do the student's parents file on their 1040 and (b) how prominent are they in local politics (ie how aware are the school administration of (a)?)?

    In all seriousness while you might want want to think that was entirely a grim joke. It makes a LOT of difference. This might be especially enlightening for those of you from outside the USA about just how stratefied US society really is. The higher income your family is in american school pre-college (and at college at some private esp. ivy league) the better you get treated by teachers and administrative staff, and the better grades you get.

    American Primary and Secondary Education are the ugly fascist underbelly of american society designed to help the rich get richer and make the poor poorer.

    1. Re:Depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What's wrong with this? Rich people are actually good for the economy, while poor people are a liability. It's only fair that society would favour rich people.

    2. Re:Depends... by Sheltem+The+Guardian · · Score: 1

      You aren't getting the point. Smart and industrious people are good for economy. As for adults, these corelate highly with richness. But as for childs, it does not. So actually you should better treat them all equally, and let them differentiate puraly based on their still-hidden merits.

    3. Re:Depends... by mrjb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with this? Rich people are actually good for the economy, while poor people are a liability. It's only fair that society would favour rich people.

      BZZZZZZZZZT - WRONG. It is all about distribution of wealth.

      The rich have power to decide where the money of the poor must flow. They (banks, insurance companies etc) take money from the poor by raising high interest on loans etc, making the rich richer and the poor poorer- effectively *causing* poverty. This is a very desireable situation for them because more people will need loans.

      If you're saying the poor are to blame for this, you're either happily ignorant middle-class or your rich daddy never told you where the money came from.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    4. Re:Depends... by jdbear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, that may not entirely be true. I come from a very poor family. My grandparents were sharecroppers (they worked other people's land for a share of the yeild) and my parents struggled to make ends meet. We were evicted from a half a dozen homes, and moved from a dozen or so before we could be evicted, because we could not pay the rent. I clearly remember wondering if we were going to eat on Christmas (much less get any presents,) one year.

      Still, even with alcoholism, prescription drug addiction, infidelity and the inability to keep jobs, my family worked it's way out of poverty to a decent middle-class life.

      My sister left home at 15, got pregnant by 17 by a resident-alien (here legally, but not a citizen,) and was married and divorced before the baby was a year old. That baby is now 16, is an honor student at a decent high school, dances classical ballet, tap, jazz, etc, and was awarded the "best student of her year" by her principal last week.

      With a little hard work and some principles, anyone can work his way out of poverty and into a decent life. Children who are cared for and taught the right principles can excel, even in public schools.

      I ended up joining the armed forces, then getting out and using the Montgomery GI bill to go to school. I'm now a professional with a Masters degree, earning a six figure income and have a bright future ahead of me. Don't say the poor are being univerisally exploited by the rich. They are being held back by their own habits.

      America is the land of opportunity, where anyone can be rich. No one is going to hand it to you, it takes hard work and perseverance, and a clear understanding that one's choices define one's circumstances, not the other way around.

      It's true that it's harder for someone with no resources to climb out of poverty. I'm not claiming that isn't. Also, I acknowlege that there are plenty of soft rich kids out there who will do just fine because they had every advantage given to them. Also, I will be a working stiff all of my life, where some people will get to dabble in whatever suits their fancy because Daddy gave them an huge inheritance.

      All of that having been said, there is some truth in the statement, "The rich are getting richer because they are doing those things that made them rich, while the poor are getting poorer because they continue to do those things that made them poor."

      There is a growing descrepancy between the rich and the poor in this country, but it is NOT because the poor are getting poorer. The poor are not any more poor than they were in the 1930's, the 1940's or the 1950's. In fact, when was the last time anyone has seen mass starvation in the US? People boiling their shoes for the leather? The biggest problems among the "poor" in America seem to be obesity and drug use.

      The rich are getting richer, and it is primarily because they can invest their money in business, and the value of business is growing. Their investments grow, so EVERYONE who has invested in them gets richer. That includes people in the lower middle class who invest what little they can, and the "merchant class" who own small businesses or farms.

      When someone comes to me and says, "the poor are only poor because the rich made them that way" they are also saying, "anyone who has achieved a comfortable life is evil, because they are repressing the poor." Does this mean that all of my hard work and sacrifice have been a sham, and I'm really part of a secret conspiracy to exploit the innocent poor? I beg to differ. We have to get away from cult of the repressed, and start encouraging "the poor" to do those things that will make them more productive and more comfortable.

      In an ideal world, we would not have a "poor" class. We would have a baseline of people who live a simple, yet comfortable life and a rising level of families who strive for more. We would stop using the word "poor" to describe an economic status, because it would be recognized that the people in the lower income bracket (in our ideal world) are content with the level of income they make, or are just beginning their climb to higher incomes and a more expensive lifestyle.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    5. Re:Depends... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Don't be so smug. Someone has to clean your toilets.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Depends... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      They (banks, insurance companies etc) take money from the poor by raising high interest on loans etc, making the rich richer and the poor poorer- effectively *causing* poverty.

      Oh, horseshit. Time and time again university studies have shown that the two primary causes of poverty are the lack of a local healthy market economy and saving habits. Furthermore, statistics show that poor people almost never get loans, because the banks know they're not getting paid back. If you honestly believe a bank wants to make a loan to a risk candidate like a poor person, I suggest you call a bank, pretend to be a poor person, and try to talk them into a loan. (Call the bank manager first, and tell them you're from a newspaper and you need to know the effects of being poor on getting a loan. They'll set up everything you need to temporarily dodge things like credit checks.)

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    7. Re:Depends... by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
      If you honestly believe a bank wants to make a loan to a risk candidate like a poor person, I suggest you call a bank,

      Nah, don't bother. Just realize that redlining still occurs - it's just more easily covered up now because "computers never lie" and all the redlining is "hidden" in the backend.

      --
      Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    8. Re:Depends... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, statistics show that poor people almost never get loans, because the banks know they're not getting paid back.

      Whew. That'll come as a great relief to all of these people who seem to be under the mistaken impression that the poor are often preyed upon by mortgage banks offering loans they know can never be paid off. I'll be sure to let the attorneys we employ whose sole responsibility it is to handle these types of cases know that they can move on to ther things.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    9. Re:Depends... by crossmr · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered about this, and if children who come from harder lives end up doing better on average than those that don't because they had to struggle so much when they were young. When they become adults struggle isn't new to them and they're able to handle it easy and get ahead. I often here stories about succesful people who had very rough childhoods or had to overcome some major adversity early in their life.

      It could just be they only show those stories because they're inpsiration.

    10. Re:Depends... by apankrat · · Score: 1

      America is the land of opportunity, where anyone can be rich. No one is going to hand it to you, it takes hard work and perseverance, and a clear understanding that one's choices define one's circumstances, not the other way around.

      And it is exactly so in any other country (with a handful of obvious exceptions).

      --
      3.243F6A8885A308D313
    11. Re:Depends... by metamatic · · Score: 1
      It's certainly possible to work your way out of poverty. However, there are plenty of situations where the odds are clearly stacked against you. Credit is one of the big ones. There's a whole industry built around giving poor people credit cards with 0% interest, letting them spend an amount they'll never be able to repay, catching them out with the terms and conditions, then jacking up the interest rate and sucking money from them every month for the rest of their lives. And it's observably the case that people who don't need loans get them thrown their way; while people who need loans desperately, get jack.
      There is a growing descrepancy between the rich and the poor in this country, but it is NOT because the poor are getting poorer. The poor are not any more poor than they were in the 1930's, the 1940's or the 1950's.

      No, but there are more families officially in poverty now than there were at any time in the 1970s, and a higher percentage of families are in poverty too.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    12. Re:Depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich people are actually good for the economy, while poor people are a liability.

      You have it backwards. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up. The wealthy do not create wealth, they aggregate and control it.

      All wealth is created on the factory floor, the programmer's cube, the fast food grill, the store checkout counter. The poor grow your food, clean the toilets in the CEO's office, produce the goods and sell the merchandise.

      Most of this nation's (at least) poor work for their meager earnings.

      It's the rich that are parasites on the economy. Seeings how in 1980 the average CEO made 20 times the lowest paid worker, while now he makes 400 times the poorest worker in the factory, it's never been truer.

      Off topic (for the article, on-topic for this post), Lay and Skillings have been found guilty.

      Parasites.

    13. Re:Depends... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Rich people are actually good for the economy, while poor people are a liability.

      And who exactly would make the things the rich people would buy with their money if poor people didn't exist?

      Money is nothing without people. Money does not make an economy. People do.

    14. Re:Depends... by jdbear · · Score: 1

      No, I think it probably does work the way you suggest. After all, one does not make effective soldiers by protecting their feelings, or train a top athlete by protecting him from having to excercise.

      If one wants to excel in anything in this life, one needs to learn the value of hard work.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    15. Re:Depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also, consider how the poverty level is measured. AFAIK it was never a super-scientific system, but essentially it's bound to the costs of food as a proportion of budget. (A third, or something.)

      Now, I'm guessing that food is less of poor families' "essentials" than it was in the past, given healthcare costs, transportation to/from work, cheaper food, etc... If food is a sixth of your budget, you're probably above the poverty line, but it doesn't necessarily say you're not hurting in other non-luxury ways. It could be that the situation is even worse than the poverty stats would imply.

    16. Re:Depends... by jdbear · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, there are also more rich people in the country, and the number of millionares (not the fortunes of the existing ones, but the shear number of people with over a million dollars) is much higher than in anytime in history.

      Home ownership is at an alltime high percentage. I'm not saying that there is not a problem that needs to be addressed. Being poor sucks, trust me, I know. What I'm saying is that we can't just blame "the rich" and take no responsibility for our own actions.

      Also, look at the number of single parent "families" that are counted amoung the poor, and coorelate that info to your number of families living in poverty. Compare that to the number of single parent families in the seventies. I don't have the numbers in front of me now, but I do seem to remember that it's much harder to become rich if you are a single parent trying to support four kids from four different fathers.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    17. Re:Depends... by Razor+Sex · · Score: 1

      Someone already addressed the thing about the poor indeed being poorer today than they were, but here's something about social mobility. It's declining:

      An article from the Economist

      An article originally published in Business Week

      And ancedotally, it would seem to me that the rich are screwing over the poor (or at least the non-rich), at least to an extent. I can't think of the companies, but I've heard of at least two companies that recently did pretty big layoffs (one was 3600 employees, iirc), and proceeded to give their top executives massive pay raises. It seems that those layoffs weren't so necessary, though I'd be willing to hear an explanation that put layoffs and pay raises in sync with one another.

      And here's some outright bias for you: nobody should be earning what top executives do now. I don't know where I'd draw the line between a high, but legitimate salary and an exorbitant one, but for instance, it's ridiculous to have someone making 50 million a year. That salary could be defensible if trickle-down economics worked, but it doesn't. That's an exaggeration; tt can and undoubtedly does sometimes work, but there's nothing to make it inevitable. People are free to sit on enormous piles of cash that never do much but collect interest, or to spend their money outside the country. There's no guarantee that the money goes back into the economy from which it came. It also assumes a system which isn't gamed to disproportionately reward those already with money.

      That said about structural factors working against the poor, they do also have self-defeating economic habits. Positing either of these as the sole cause is wrong.

    18. Re:Depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poor are poor because they allow themselves to be exploited by the rich. If enough people stop being exploited, then we get a middle class with extrordinary individuals in the upper classes, and the formerly rich in the potter or hung from the highest pole.

    19. Re:Depends... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, there are also more rich people in the country, and the number of millionares (not the fortunes of the existing ones, but the shear number of people with over a million dollars) is much higher than in anytime in history.

      Which is simply more evidence of the dissappearing middle class, unless you want to attribute it all to inflation.

    20. Re:Depends... by Zinch · · Score: 1

      It seems that those layoffs weren't so necessary, though I'd be willing to hear an explanation that put layoffs and pay raises in sync with one another.

      Company is run in a very inefficent way. Management re-organizes and, through streamlined processes and automation, company can produce the same amount of output (or more) while reducing the number of people required. Management is rewarded for their efforts.

      End result: fewer workers, management rewarded, increased profit for shareholders. And in fact, it's the right thing to do.

    21. Re:Depends... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice story. Sounds utterly plausible. But I doubt you can back it up with one example of a company that laid off at least 5% of its workforce and being back to full economic strength within a couple of years. Most of these huge layoffs, the company simply ends up doing significantly less than it did before. But the stock prices jump, because investors get positively orgasmic when they see a CEO being a heartless bastard, because they believe that heartlessness makes for good, sound business decisions.

      Show me a CEO who, rather than killing jobs, cuts his salary and gives back most of the bonuses he earned over the last decade, and I'll show you a company that is going to bounce back. Of course, this never actually happens, so it'll be tough to prove me wrong.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    22. Re:Depends... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1
      All of that having been said, there is some truth in the statement, "The rich are getting richer because they are doing those things that made them rich, while the poor are getting poorer because they continue to do those things that made them poor."
      I fully agree. The problem is, "what the rich are doing" == "buying lobbyists, senators, and think tanks to rig the game in their favor" and "what the poor are doing" == "being too poor to buy lobbyists, senators, or think tanks to rig the game in their favor".

      We have deep, deep problems in this country. One of the biggest is the slow, steady corruption of the political process by corporate interests. Corporations and wealthy individuals make the overwhelming majority of campaign contributions. They do this entirely out of self-interest: the people they want elected are the people who will shape the country in the way they would like. This leads to the other biggest problem: the increasing inequality between the wealthy and the poor in this country.

      I'm fully in favor of personal responsibility. But I'm in favor of it for myself as well as for "the poor," and I fully believe that my responsibilities include a responsibility to my fellow man, responsibility for the world I live in, and responsibility for the future. I have no right to ignore those responsibilities out of greed or laziness.

      I'm sure you agree in principle, if not on my specific interpretation of those responsibilities.

      You've told me an inspiring story of personal responsibility. I applaud you for your hard work and dedication.

      But let me tell you two stories. One of personal responsibility, the other of personal irresponsibility. One is hypothetical. The other is shamefully real.

      Meet Bob. Bob is a trucker. Bob has two kids, high credit card debts (blame his psycho ex), and a desperate desire to get ahead. Bob is hypothetical. He's been saving, paying extra in his monthly check to Visa, because he wants to be out of debt as soon as possible. One day, Bob gets in an accident. Six months and $90,000 in medical bills later, Bob is in financial ruins, the creditors are making his life a living hell, and they're about to foreclose on his home.

      Bob files for bankruptcy.

      This is how most bankruptcies happen. Not carefree, irresponsible spending, but a simple lack of resources in the face of a sudden, overwhelming crisis.

      Now the other story. Despite the preceding fact, which the credit companies know full well, they went to Congress and rewrote the rules last year. They whittled away all sorts of important bankruptcy protections. Why? So their kids could eat? Hardly. Credit card companies had been posting record profits. But they wanted to inflict those who collapse under their financial burdens with less protection and more paperwork.

      In other words, they wanted to avoid personal responsibility for making risky loans. And because they have the dollars, and can buy political clout in all its forms, Congress gave them a do-over.

      The truly wealthy* can buy their way out of all sorts of responsibilities, especially in our current administration. They don't like the responsibility of protecting the environment (which is as good an example of our common wealth as anything), so they buy less restrictive legislation. They don't like the responsibility of funding a school system that would allow anyone to succeed regardless of their station, so they buy tax loopholes and hide income from the government. They don't like the responsibilities imposed by society, so they buy new ones.

      * This doesn't include you. About 20% of all Americans believe they are in the top 1% of all income earners.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    23. Re:Depends... by Cederic · · Score: 1


      Disclaimer: I used to work for a credit card company.

      >> letting them spend an amount they'll never be able to repay

      Sorry, but I believe in personal responsibility. Don't spend money you can't afford. Being poor is not an excuse for poor fiscal prudence.

      Yes, credit card companies do offer very large credit limits, and anybody accepting every card offer they receive and spending the limit on each card will find themselves unable to pay. There is a simple solution here, and it's nothing to do with the credit card companies.

    24. Re:Depends... by metamatic · · Score: 1

      You may find it hard to believe, but a lot of people really don't understand how credit cards work. If you think otherwise, you should watch the PBS Frontline documentary on the Secret History of the Credit Card. It was amazing to see seemingly intelligent people saying that they keep a balance on their credit cards even though they have cash in the bank.

      I heard a girl in the mall telling a friend that her mom had advised her to shift balance from her regular credit card to a store card. There are people who believe that making the payment suggested on the credit card bill will reduce their debt, and don't understand why it never seems to go down.

      I don't think it's reasonable that the credit card companies are allowed to incent bad behavior, and then turn around and blame the victims. The new Citi Simpliciti card is the most recent example--a card that lets you skip minimum payments as long as you spend more money. How evil is that? It's basically designed to get people further into debt than they can afford.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    25. Re:Depends... by jdbear · · Score: 1

      I agree to 99% of what "an onerous coward" has written. It is truly shameful what some of the powerful have done in congress. I agree that some of the power players have warped the political process for personal gain. I know that it happens, and I deplore the practice. There is rampant corruption in the system. I agree to that.

      That having said, there is NOTHING in the system that keeps anyone at the bottom. There are corridors of power at the top that those of us climbing the ladder may never break into, but there's enough water in the ocean for all of boats, big and small.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
  26. Re:Friendly piece of advice by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Funny
    *Bang*
    *Bang* *Bang*

    That feels good!

  27. Re:Friendly piece of advice by porkface · · Score: 1

    This is why we can't have nice guns

  28. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by EvanED · · Score: 1

    Huh? What does having a blog have to do with this?

    The same would be true if he sent into the local paper what he wrote on the blog, or printed it out and stapled it to telephone poles around town.

    (Okay, the telephone poles might be worse because depending on the ordinances that could be seen as vandalism... taped it up to willing store windows then.)

  29. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by iamhassi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "Places of business impose all kinds of restrictions on employees. Owners of property impose restrictions on trespassers."

    sure, but with a business you're always welcome to quit and work somewhere else. Can't really do that with school.

    And trespassers usually aren't trespassing when they're no longer on the property.

    This kid posted this stuff outside of school. What's the harm, really? The school's just going to have hundreds of other rebellious teens doing the same thing now, they going to expell them all?

    "If you read the quote, in legal terms there is an implicit threat..."

    um, if you read the article they have quotes from the police saying the school was not being threatened and that the kid did not post anything illegal.

    I'd hate to be the school if the kid can get a lawyer, could be a good pro bono case for a young lawyer trying to get a name for himself.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  30. Re:Friendly piece of advice by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read from TFA:

    ...Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ...

    I thought to myself: yeeeesh, bad analogy warning.

    Then I came and read your post, and suddenly I was very nervous.

  31. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by etymxris · · Score: 1

    He's not asking for any special protection because he's blogging rather than engaging in other forms of speech. He just wants the protections granted to speech in any medium. And it looks like he's not getting these protections.

  32. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He makes an excellent point

  33. Re:Friendly piece of advice by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
    This is why we can't have nice guns

    A well-placed homemade bomb will do the job just as nicely.

  34. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Trifthen · · Score: 1

    I think you missed the entire point of his post. He basically said, "Look Mr. School District, it's not like I'm one of the columbine kids. I haven't threatened anyone, and you're still treating me like shit. WTF?!"

    It takes a pretty drasticly slanted interpretation, diseased mind, or an obvious agenda to manipulate that into, "I'm not saying I'm one of the columbine kids, but..." The agenda here of course, is to find any excuse to expel a kid perceived as a troublemaker. Hence a whiny post becomes grounds for expulsion. It's magic!

    --
    Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
  35. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by yagu · · Score: 1

    A threat must be direct and immediate for it to fall outside of first amendment restrictions. His "threats" are vague, indirect, and unlikely to result in any real consequences.

    Vague threats are sufficient. Look at this page and consider the paragraph:

    The message may be vague and implicit in an attempt to avoid blame, including legal consequences, while still clear enough to serve its purpose.

    A vague threat often is intentionally designed to avoid legal consequences. Sometimes the attempt works, sometimes it doesn't.

    This student referenced Columbine, which is vague. However it won't guarantee impunity.

  36. Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by egarland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for schools teaching kids good behavior but there are a few things they do that are both wrong and just plain illegal. Things schools should keep in mind:

    Schools are mandatory. School attendance is not optional in the US. Kids have to go. There are a few who have the means to attend alternatives but those who don't are forced to attend public schools no matter what.

    Schools are part of the government. Like police and judges our schools are government bodies. You can not give schools the ability to force the removal of fundamental rights. Judges can't. Police can't. Schools *MUST* be bound by the bill of rights including the right to free speech. They don't have the right to take that away much like they don't have the right to take your life away (forget detention.. you're going to the gas chamber.) You could argue that schools should be allowed to control speech in school creating short periods of time when their rights are suspended, although it's probably a bad idea. To say they have the ability to remove fundamental rights from people altogether is completely ludicrous. No federal, state or local government body can have that power. Granted, the bill of rights only specifically mentions federal government, the trend lately seems to be ruling that the 14'th amendment extends the bill of rights to state and local government. This would include schools.

    The other thing that it's important to note is that speech restriction is essentially creating thought crimes and the effects are usually precisely the opposite of what was intended. Discouraging open exchange only worsens the problem that we are trying to ignore or make invisible. The first amendment exists for this reason and it's for this reason we should defend it absolutely without question always. Everyone has a right to be heard.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    1. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by barefootgenius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two points. The first is that children are a special case. They are purposely discriminated against. The second is that schools are not there to teach you to think. They are there to indoctrinate you and prepare you for the workforce.

      --
      /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
    2. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're not required to go to school either. However, they're required to go to some sort of educational program. Homeschooling, private school, private tutor, etc.

      But the point here is, he's required to go to this school, and they're treating him like crap.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by egarland · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, they're not required to go to school either. However, they're required to go to some sort of educational program. Homeschooling, private school, private tutor, etc.

      Those without the means to supply an alternative educational program (all require a significant investment of time and/or money) must attend public school. A majority of the population does not have the means and thus is required to go to public school.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    4. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Private schools don't take everybody and they cost a lot of money. Home school is basically for people who want to raise badly socialized religious fundamentalist kids.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    5. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by DocLandolt · · Score: 1

      "The first amendment exists for this reason and it's for this reason we should defend it absolutely without question always. Everyone has a right to be heard."

      Great rant, until the end. Two things -- first, did you really contend that we should defend this freedom "absolutely without question always"? Should anything be defended without question? It sounds to me like you more have 'faith' in our Bill of Rights than believe in it.

      Also -- and I find this important to point out because it seems to be a very common misconception -- everyone has the right to 'speak', but not to 'be heard'. It's quite a distinction.

    6. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by CatsCradle · · Score: 1
      Everyone has a right to be heard.

      No, everyone has the right to speak, just because you're talking doesn't mean I have to listen to you (spammers).

      --
      --- CatsCradle
    7. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing that it's important to note is that speech restriction is essentially creating thought crimes and the effects are usually precisely the opposite of what was intended. Discouraging open exchange only worsens the problem that we are trying to ignore or make invisible. The first amendment exists for this reason and it's for this reason we should defend it absolutely without question always. Everyone has a right to be heard.

      Sentence 1: opinion presented as statistic
      Sentence 2: opinion
      Sentence 3: derived from 1 and 2
      Sentence 4: fact

      In fact you should defend the first amendment (claim of Sentence 3) because it enshrines the right to be heard (fact in Sentence 4); whether or not you like it, it's a right.

      Saying something is "usually the case" is quite difficult to back up and doesn't really make for a convincing argument. And I can think of some examples where moderate speech restriction is a good thing. For example, Canada has hate crime laws, and I think they are pretty good things; they probably wouldn't stand up in the U.S. legal system.

      However, in general I agree with you, and I think the school system in this case sucks.

    8. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by egarland · · Score: 1

      For example, Canada has hate crime laws, and I think they are pretty good things; they probably wouldn't stand up in the U.S. legal system.

      If they disallow speech, they worsen the problem. It may look better on the surface but you have stifled people and the effects of that will be much broader and deeper than the problem you think you solved. You may not believe it. There may or may not be existing evidece for it. I have no proof to offer other than if you think about it you'll probably see why. Just because I don't have any proof to point to to help convince you of my opinion, doesn't mean it's not true. It just means I'll have a hard time convincing others.

      It's not editorializing if you aren't trying (always in vein) to write objectively.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    9. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Schools *MUST* be bound by the bill of rights including the right to free speech.

      Why hasn't anyone read the article? :(

      This has nothing to do with free speech at all. The school isn't attempting to curtail the kid because of criticism; that's just how people have decided to invent the school's intent. If you actually bother to read up on why they did what they did, you get a whole different view of the situation.

      The school mistakenly believes the kid threatened to murder other children. First he talks about feeling bullied, then later he talks about how Columbine happened because other kids felt bullied. If you see that and start acting, you might miss the vague sentence later on where he tries to express that he's not actually making a threat by saying he never has.

      This is an easy mistake to make, if you actually read what the kid wrote, especially if you know the kid and if he's a troublemaker who seems emotionally disturbed (I don't know that that's actually the case here, but to read what he wrote, I suspect he has the sort of personality where people will believe that even if it's not true.)

      The fact of the matter is, if you don't read carefully, it looks like he's saying he's going to go in and shoot up the school. He's an angry teenager who chose a very dumb metaphor to explain the depth of his grief, and whose writing skills are so low that where he later tries to explain that he's not making a threat, it's really not that obvious.

      He's a bad writer, the principal is a bad reader, and the school board, made up of parents, are trying to expel him before he kills someone.

      It's a gigantic misunderstanding based around asshole behavior from all directions, which has led to a set of bad beliefs which were acted on correctly. If he really had threatened to shoot up the school, expulsion would be exactly the right thing to do, because the next step would be to prevent him from getting into another school.

      It's not the school or the school board at fault. It's the person who told the school and the school board - unfortunately nobody says who that was - that the kid had made a threat he really didn't make.

      And, in the end, it's the kid's fault for talking about Columbine and being a bad writer. Yes, yes, the school is meant to be held to a higher standard, they should have checked more carefully, they should have asked a lawyer, that's all true. But this whole thing happened because one asshole kid used a tragedy to inflate up his personal sense of grief, and sucked too badly with a word processor to even say "I'm not threatening you."

      Lots of people have done their own individual wrong, but let us not lose sight of the fact that this kid is a sanctimonious douchebag with delusions of persecution. Yes, he might be actually being persecuted, but to read what he's writing you'd think he was in Guantanamo Bay. And frankly, it doesn't matter if everything he's saying is true: the way he says it still makes me want to punch him in the throat.

      Down with the school for not checking, down with the school board for acting on emotion instead of knowledge, down with the person who said it was a threat for being a judgemental horse's ass. But most importantly, down with that kid for using someone else's tragedy to seem to suffer. That's just disgusting.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    10. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      They are there to indoctrinate you and prepare you for the workforce.


      If that is true, then schools need to be overhauled just to even obtain that objective. In the workforce envrionment:
      - You can legally quit and transfer to another job if the manager/supervisor are hostile. In a school envronment, there's resistance (e.g. you can't participate in some extra-curricular activities after transferring.)
      - When you encounter hostile/belligerent co-workers, you can actually deal with them by getting management involved.
      - The workforce does not normally provide excessive workloads that require you to work 24/7. In the event that it does, it's either contained to a few fields and/or you are going to be paid well.

      Schools do provide some training to get into the workforce - writing a resume and coverletter. However, there are new things to remember:
      - The resumes they teach you to write are stock resumes - ones that look like every other resume.
      - There is very limited training in knowing how to get through an interview. For that, I had to resort to CanadaRT.ca, a government sponsered program used to give experience and employment searching skills.
      - One of the skills trained in CanadaRT.ca is the projection of confidence in the Interview. Schools tend to wax confidence because of the envrionment that closly matches a prison, the excessive and/or unoptimized workload, and the semi-arbitrary schedule.
    11. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. When I look at the law, it makes sense to me. Certainly it's not as bad as Chinese censorship or anything ridiculous like that.

      http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41491.html

      I just fail to see a case where this law prohibits something such that I would get upset about its prohibition. If there is something, I would rather the law be fixed than thrown out altogether. Perhaps section 319(2) is a little broad, if anything.

    12. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by egarland · · Score: 1
      I don't know. When I look at the law, it makes sense to me.

      That's because you are assuming you will agree with it whenever it is enforced. If only speech that the government/general population agrees with is allowed then we have no freedom of speech at all.

      From the law: Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence...
      I think everyone with the bird flu should be killed and their bodies and possessions burned.
      There.. I just violated that law by expressing an opinion. I better not go to Canada soon! It may be a good idea that saves billions of lives, it may be a bad idea that needlessly kills innocent people, either way it's wrong to prohibit talking about it.

      And why! Why are we prohibiting talk? It's a thought crime, basically saying that we shouldn't be able to communicate certain ideas to others? It's based on the notion that evil is stronger than good.. that hateful, genocidal ideas when allowed in public will win against rational ideas that value life. This view that government must save us from our own evil nature is a horrible stance for government to take. It's the exact same moral ground governments need to ban religions and lifestyle choices and new-fangled ideas like freedom and democracy.

      The problem is that evil ideas spread *best* in the dark, they shrivel and disappear when exposed to public discussion and rational thought. By blocking discussion of them you are essentially protecting them and fostering their growth.

      Take my bird flu comment for example. What might sound like a terribly good idea whispered in a one on one discussion between military generals would likely be torn apart if splashed on the front page of a newspaper. Prohibit talk about something and you dramatically increase the chance of it happening. It's analogous to tying down that annoying drippy relief valve on your water heater. There.. that made that problem go away, everythings neet and tidy now. Time to get some sleep .

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    13. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. You didn't read it fully. According to the law,

      "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group

      "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

      So, your statement would have to say something like,

      "I think Muslims and black people with the bird flu should be killed and their bodies and possessions burned."

      in order for it to be considered an offense. Now, if you want to come up with a better example, sure I'm listening.

    14. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by Harry+Coin · · Score: 1

      Home school is basically for people who want to raise badly socialized religious fundamentalist kids.

      We're homeschooling our daughter. The wife and I are both secular humanists. There's a non-religious social network for homeschooled children in my area where children get group lessons and social interaction. One of the reasons for keeping her out of the public schools is because of the badly socialized kids who attend them. Another is because of incidents like this one. We also want to ensure that she can think for herself and isn't immediately cowed by authority as they teach you to be in public schools. We also don't want to dull her natural curiosity by dividing her studies into arbitrary timeframes. If you can get secular homeschooling in Alabama, you can get it anywhere. But don't let me stop you from beating that strawman.

      --
      That's pre 7-11 thinking....
    15. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I believe you, right.

      Oh wait a minute I don't believe you at all. Never mind.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    16. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      Neil Cicierega (aka Lemon Demon) was homeschooled. Scroll down for links to some of his work that you might be familiar with.

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    17. Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional by egarland · · Score: 1

      The point isn't the example. The point is forbidding any discussion by law is wrong.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  37. Public speech isn't private. by stewby18 · · Score: 1

    however I think blogs will eventually have to be considered as something between public and private.

    That doesn't make any sense. If you want a private blog, you use a system that has accounts and access controls. If you want something between private and public, you use an alias that's not linked to your name in any way, and don't post identifiable things. If you post things under your name on publicly accessible sites, for the express purpose of making that content available to the rest of the world, you cannot possibly have any expectation of privacy. Something you broadcast globaly, indiscriminantly, is by definition not private. Saying that people shouldn't be able to "search" public blogs without legal cause is like saying that if you stand on the street and shout that you are selling drugs, and a police officer overhears you, that constitutes an illegal search.

    Not acting on personal speech is completely different, and there are already various protections relating to speech. The idea of people saying things that, e.g., their employer may disagree with (but that their employer can't legally take action against them for) is not new to blogs.

    1. Re:Public speech isn't private. by DumbSwede · · Score: 1

      There are obviously gray areas between public and private speech, I'm sure the courts hear them all the time. By current legal standards blogs are certainly considered public speech, but that doesn't mean certain organizations couldn't be restricted from trolling in them, specifically Government organizations of various types. The School System has no business ferreting out what every student is up to or said in public outside of school -- HOWEVER the internet has given them a new powerful tool to do so.

      I've little pity for those who might fall afoul of the Law based on information obtained in public sources on the net, but each Government organization should have a clear and publicly posted policy on how and why it is collecting personal information on the web. Failure to do so should preclude said agency from being able to use such information for other than informing police of clear ongoing criminal activity.

    2. Re:Public speech isn't private. by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Certainly. That is true.

      The point is that that's completely non-germaine.

      The story is about a student telling off his school in his blog. He got expelled. Expelling him on this account is a violation of his free speech.

      Sure, the school could have used evidence found in his blog against him in court, in a trial, if he admitted to breaking the law in his blog, it could be considered a confession. That grey area is being explored.

      This, however, hasn't anything to do with that grey area. The freedom to open your mouth and state your opinion is protected by the Bill of Rights, and the school is attempting to not only silence his protected speech, but to punish him and make him an example to others. This is exactly what that law was written to protect him from, and I hope that his constitutional rights are upheld, that he prosecutes the school for this infringment, followed by a private suit.

    3. Re:Public speech isn't private. by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      So, if I stand across the street from the school with a sign that says, "Principal Bob is a fuckwit, I hope he snuffs it." should the school be able to take any action against me?

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    4. Re:Public speech isn't private. by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      That's not what I said. Try reading my entire comment. What I'm saying is absurd is the idea that the administration at the school shouldn't be allowed to *read* the sign.

    5. Re:Public speech isn't private. by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Sure, they can read it all day long and twice on sundays, but if they attempt to punish me for writing and holding the sign then they've gone too far. I don't think anyone has suggested that they not be allowed to read the kids blog.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    6. Re:Public speech isn't private. by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has suggested that they not be allowed to read the kids blog.

      No one except, you know, the post I was replying to in the first place.

      Various organizations will have to be banned from acting based on any information obtained from them -- perhaps even banned from actively searching them out without legal cause.

      Read first, flame second.

  38. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your response makes no sense and is full of non-sequitors.

    "Schools impose all kinds of restrictions on students. Places of business impose all kinds of restrictions on employees. Owners of property impose restrictions on trespassers." RTFA before posting - this has absolutely ZERO to do with the schoo. He posts on his own time with his own equipment and has made no threatening comments (per the Joliet police chief quoted in the article.) None. Of. Their. Business.

    "This is legal. Schools are allowed to have dress codes. Schools are allowed to decide what constitutes "non-disruptive" activity to the learning environment." Again, if you would think and read before typing, you would see that this has NOTHING to do with the learning environment. It was done outside of school on privately owned equipment and made no criminal threats to any student, faculty, staff, or facilities.

    "The unanswered question in this article is, did the student cross any line violating the school policy? If you read the quote, in legal terms there is an implicit threat -- some attorneys will argue "assault". Other attorneys will argue "free speech." If this is the case, then you go to the authorities. The district found the comments so threatening that they have contacted NOBODY about it. Not the police (local police chief says no crime has been committed - a pretty bold statement with likely pending legal action so it must be pretty cut and dried to him), not the DA's office, not the FBI. Yeah, must've been pretty serious stuff.

    Should a public school be able to mete out punishment for violation of its dress code for clothing worn outside of school premises and during non-school hours? Others could see the student and it could cause a disruption.

    What about giving detentions for students swearing with friends while hanging out on a Saturday afternoon? Surely this is setting a bad example and influencing the friends that are present.

    What if a student gets a speeding ticket? Not only is this a bad example, it is endangering lives. (Won't somebody thing of the children?!)

    Face it, the kid (who does in fact sound like an idiot) posted some comments that even the local police chief says are in no way criminal (no threats, etc.) This public school district has absolutley no business interfering with what activities the student engages on his own time using his own resources. None. Zip.

    It's pretty obvious what party is causing the greatest disruption here.

  39. Rights, in a school?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rights don't exist in schools, especially not in schools in "free" countries like America and the UK.

    1. Re:Rights, in a school?! by DoddyUK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not in the UK. The students often have much more rights than the teachers. As a result, in some schools the teachers are powerless to effectively punish bad behaviour or expel pupils since the parents will use sort of Human Rights crap, which makes the local education authority overturn the decision, which in turn means that the school is stuck with the little bugger. And people wonder why the education system is in a mess nowadays.

      --
      Some think the Internet is a bad thing. I just think that AOL is a bad thing.
    2. Re:Rights, in a school?! by massivefoot · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure they wouldn't try. You're correct about it being difficult to expell a genuinely disruptive pupil, however that doesn't stop staff paranoia regarding the net. We once got a letter sent round out school from the senior staff full of some crap about the internet and posting of comments considered embarassing to school officials, with a vague suggestion that the police could become involved and a reminder that libel was illegal. Nothing ever came of it that I know of, but they were still prepared to suggest the threat.

    3. Re:Rights, in a school?! by makomk · · Score: 1

      Not in the UK. The students often have much more rights than the teachers. As a result, in some schools the teachers are powerless to effectively punish bad behaviour or expel pupils since the parents will use sort of Human Rights crap, which makes the local education authority overturn the decision, which in turn means that the school is stuck with the little bugger. And people wonder why the education system is in a mess nowadays.

      There's a certain amount of truth to that - except for the new privately-controlled (but mostly government-funded and classified as a state schools) city academies, which seem to be able to do pretty much whatever the hell they want. They have a much higher expulsion rate, I'm not sure if there's any way to challenge an expulsion from one, and apparently, unlike normal schools, they're still paid the Govenment funding for the expelled pupils for the rest of the year. (There's also interesting stuff like the ones which espouse the owner's evangelical version of Christianity in all lessons and assemblies).

    4. Re:Rights, in a school?! by ledow · · Score: 1

      An interesting fact-ette: The UK has no law which guarantees free speech and yet we don't get half as much rubbish like this. Legally speaking, the UK doesn't have half the "guarantees" like free speech that the US has.

      The nearest we have is European Human Rights (which are a relatively modern addition that the courts are still coming to terms with and are EU law rather than British, which means we are *suppposed* to follow them because we signed up to them but instead we just tend to argue that they don't apply to us), which generally have a bad name. Mention "Human Rights" to someone in the UK and you might as well be saying "Health & Safety" - it's treated with the same contempt. The EU don't have a good reputation among the British since they said our bananas were too bendy to be bananas and we couldn't buy brazil nuts in their shells any more (a very traditional Christmas-sy treat).

      In the UK, schools also has a slightly different meaning - I believe US "school" is approximately equal to our schools/colleges combined (in the UK if you were 17 or over and in full-time education you'd be in a college/"sixth-form" or, later on, university in all of which you are treated with as much respect as any other adult).

      A 17-year-old is basically treated like an adult. They may not be 18 (the legal age for legally-binding contracts, buying a house, getting a credit card, being legally/financially independent of your parents but not, strangely, having sex, drinking or smoking which happen at 16, or driving a car which happens at 17... no I don't know why either). A 17-year-old posting on a blog would be pretty much completely out of reach of any "school" they attended unless they were doing something libellous or otherwise illegal, in which case they would go to court. If not, the European Court Of Human Rights would end up getting involved at some point, no doubt. (BTW: If you ever hear of a UK legal case going to the European Court of Human Rights, it means a British judge has already told them to sod off).

      Additionally, although there isn't half as much "freedom" on paper as the US has, come to Britain and you'll notice that people say what they want without fear.

      The only case that comes to mind of a restriction of free speech is when a former MI5 agent tried to reveal that there was some "dodgy dealing" going down among MI5 (something which is no doubt national-security terrority anyway). He had to go into hiding in a foreign country for a while but even appeared, bold as brass, on a BBC TV satire quiz show (Have I Got News For You) via satellite link which went out on air without any problems at all. I don't see that happening in the US.

      I'm British, my girlfriend too as is her father. We went to America to visit him when he lived over there - believe it or not his American friends were SHOCKED by how she and her father communicated because they genuinely believed that they hated each other by the way they spoke to each other. Calling someone a bugger, or referring to them as a toerag or a rat, was so unheard of that the US friends could not grasp it.

      Poking fun at someone's size (even affectionately) was unheard of. Now saying such things to the general public I can see a problem with ("Oi Fatty!" isn't going to get you arrested but it's not a nice thing to say and if you harassed a workmate in that way, there's a case for dismissal), however two family members can say what they like to each other in the UK without anyone blinking an eyelid.

      In the US, he ended up making most of his friends dislike him for his behaviour (until my girlfriend stepped in and explained that nothing even slightly insulting was being said between the two of them).

      For years he ended up insulting people without even realising it because of the way he expressed his opinions, something which any Brit would take in their stride and see as harmless banter. The Americans referred to him as "that extremely rude Englishman". It's much easier to say something offensive to

  40. Re:Friendly piece of advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in: new findings suggest causative link between blogging and high-school shootings. Could YOUR school be the next Columbine?

  41. Let me clear something up for you... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 4, Informative

    A student of a school sitting at his computer at home has a right, the right to free speech as outlined in the First Amendment. This right does not come at the discretion of the school, but by the Constitution and is the supreme law of the land. The school can't come along and say, "Sorry son, we don't like what you're saying", as it occured during his own time off school property. I am too lazy to Google it, but I am certain that every school that has tried to discipline a child for speech outside of school hours and on private property has failed. There was a recent case of a teenager from Alaska that the school attempted to discipline for holding a banner during the 2002 Winter Olmypic torch relay that read, "Bong hits 4 Jesus", but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision saying:

    "Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court's opinion.

    The court also cleared the way for Frederick to seek damages, saying Morse was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated his rights.
    Courtesy of MSNBC.com. (OK, I did Google for that).

    The principal, Morse, was upset that the banner undermined the schools anti-drug message, among other things. The point being that a school, as a government entity, doesn't get to pick and choose what speech is permissible and what is not off of school property and not on school time.

    1. Re:Let me clear something up for you... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      A student of a school sitting at his computer at home has a right, the right to free speech as outlined in the First Amendment. This right does not come at the discretion of the school, but by the Constitution and is the supreme law of the land. The school can't come along and say, "Sorry son, we don't like what you're saying", as it occured during his own time off school property.

      The school is saying that the Columbine mention falls outside 1st Amendment protection as it is a threat, and that they are therefore perfectly within their rights to get rid of the kid.

      That said, they are somewhat undermined, as his mother pointed out, by their complete lack of action with regard to following up on this "threat" (not calling the cops, for instance).

    2. Re:Let me clear something up for you... by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      "Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court's opinion.

      So do schools have as much authority over home life as over school life? That part was unclear.

    3. Re:Let me clear something up for you... by TVmisGuided · · Score: 1

      Here's the full text of the Frederick v. Morse case...typical legalese, but it also provides links to the cases which set the precedents. IANAL, but my impression after reading the case decision all the way through is that Frederick's speech was considered protected under the 1st and 14th Amendments based on its political (albeit dumb-humor and ill-timed) message...a message which Morse took umbrage to because of who he was and where he was at the time.

      I don't think the courts will use the Frederick case as a precedent, but I'm pretty certain the kid's attorney will use Tinker and its precedents to support the case.

      If nothing else comes of this, though, I do hope the school unbends enough to shuck out for the kid's therapy. After this, he's definitely gonna need it, whether he needed it or not beforehand.

      Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a root beer or something...

      --
      All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
    4. Re:Let me clear something up for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This right does not come at the discretion of the school, but by the Constitution and is the supreme law of the land.


      Just to pick a nit, our rights do not come at the discretion of the Constitution, either. Our rights are inherent to us as human beings. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, recognizes those rights and protects them, but it does not confer, create nor provide them. Were the Bill of Rights to be repealed en masse tomorrow, courts should still protect them. The rights would still be yours as a human being, just the Constitutional recognition of that right would be gone.

  42. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by philask · · Score: 1

    There is a certain implication in the orginal story and the headline are that it's OK if it's a blog. My point being that I see a lot of stuff on blogs which would never have been published on a 'normal website', people appear to believe they have some form of protection because they're posting to a blog. The blog is just a publishing tool like any other. You shouldn't say or do anything in your blog that you wouldn't be happy to do in any public space or publishing medium.

  43. I'm confused by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell was a school official doing reading random a students xanga? Do these people have no lives at all?

    1. Re:I'm confused by linvir · · Score: 1
      My brother told me about an incident at my old secondary school (which he still attends). Some of the kids put together a MySpace in the headmaster's name, complete with a photo and fake blog posts. It became popular and word of it spread around the school.

      Eventually it reached the dickheads who people had avoided telling, one of which informed the head. He contacted MySpace, and they took the page down. Then he called a few dozen people into his office to lecture them on the dangers of the Internet, or something.

      (Hey, I wonder if anyone reading Slashdot recognises this story...)

    2. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a similar incident in my old secondary school (in the UK), about 5 years ago.

      Outside of school, one of my friends made a parody of the school's website. Word quickly spread among the students and eventually the staff found out. They withdrew his computer access for quite a while, despite the fact that he created the site on his own computer.

    3. Re:I'm confused by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      They think this kid is a threat. They jumped to the false conclusion that he was ready to shoot the school up. They think he threatened another Columbine (read what he wrote: it's an easy mistake to make.)

      My guess is this kid is already desperately antisocial and seems unbalanced (lots of kids who aren't unbalanced seem like they are when they're teenagers trying to fight the man.) My guess is one of his teachers thinks he's the next Son of Sam, and was watching his blog because other school kids who've murdered have posted on the net too.

      And when he wrote what he wrote, that teacher thought they were seeing the last-chance red flag, and acted. Honestly, I think the teacher had the right idea, and the wrong person. They're a good person trying to do the right thing, but they're also a total douchebag. We've all had this kind of teacher. Mine was an art teacher. Every goth in school she thought was sacrificing rodents in the bathroom, and she watched them like a hawk.

      Was she right to do so? Sorta. The thing is, there really are dangerous kids out there, and some people really can tell who they are. Douchebags have a tendency to believe they are those people, when in fact they are not. Is it right to watch a kid who's a threat? Hell yes: watching them isn't actually a problem. Is acting on a threat the right thing to do? Yes: several Columbine-like incidents were prevented after that shooting by vigilant people who knew that one child had real problems.

      But, a lot more kids were and always have been watched this way too. I was one of them. I never shot anyone with anything worse than a rubber band (though in terms of rubber bands I'm pretty much a mass murderer myself.) That said, I think the teachers were right to watch me, not because I was a threat, but because they thought I was.

      Does that sound weird? Maybe, but it's a question of perspective. I was blessed with the good kind of douchebag teacher. (Yes, there are good ones and bad ones.) The good kind of douchebag teacher knows that they have to read all the way through the post before deciding it's a threat, because kids suck at writing and don't hedge well at all. I wrote something way back in the day that I could see a douchebag reading as a threat, myself, and I hadn't intended it either.

      The reason my douchebags were good douchebags was that they read all of what I wrote, and realized it was just me being a bad writer rather than me giving off warning signs. One of them even came to me and explained that if someone misread what I was saying, yadda yadda yadda.

      This kid has a bad douchebag. And, you know, that person's trying to do the right thing. They really believed this kid was going to bust out an AK and ventilate his peers. If that was true, then what they did would have been exactly correct: get him away from these kids while you work on getting him help. Unfortunately, because this kid's douchebag teacher was a bad douchebag teacher, they jumped to conclusions, and the wrong thing happened.

      Hanlon's Razor, a correlary to Finnegan's Law and Occam's Razor, states to never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. This is essentially a truism of the human condition: the vast bulk of us mean well and just suck at life. We're good, dumb people. Once you come to accept that deeply, the world becomes a less horrible and more disappointing place.

      These parents were trying to do the right thing; they're just idiots. Don't hate them. Pity them. They want to protect their kid, they're putting in effort to try to protect their kid, except they screwed up, hurt someone else's kid, didn't protect anything, and caused a huge mess in the process. They aren't evil oppressive monsters trying to destroy the first amendment and censor some innocent child. They're a bunch of screwups who saw a kid with normal teenage angst and a really bad set of writing skills say something dumb, misinterpreted it as a threat, and overreacted at the speed of sound.

      If you understand the problem, it's easier to fix.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  44. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So any student mentioning the word "Columbine" is a threat? Use some critical reading skills befor blathering: He said that the Littleton, CO perpetrators were driven to their actions because of bullying. That's it. Find me a single study of the incident that does not attribute the attacks, at least in part, to Kliebold's and Harris' having been bullied. Plus, the district felt so incredibly threatened that they have not contacted a single law enforcement agency. Hmmm....

    This is all irrelevant because the innocuous comment you reference was posted AFTER the student was suspended. You can't site subsequent behavior as the cause of the original punishment. Time travel has not been invented yet.

    Use some common sense and think for yourself, don't just run screaming at the mention of the word "Columbine."

  45. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by yagu · · Score: 1
    I think you missed the entire point of his post. He basically said, "Look Mr. School District, it's not like I'm one of the columbine kids. I haven't threatened anyone, and you're still treating me like shit. WTF?!"

    Well, you've paraphrased what he said, with your interpretation. Directly quoting the student, and with virtually complete context the student actually said (emphasis mine),

    "..., I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ... "

    You say

    It takes a pretty drasticly slanted interpretation, diseased mind, or an obvious agenda to manipulate that into

    I respectfully disagree. Juxtaposed, "you bullying me", and "kids at Columbine did what the (sic) did because they were bullied" don't require slanted interpretation, a diseased mind, or an obvious agenda. Your interpretation is based on your paraphrase of the quote. I'm looking at the kid's words.

    I'm not endorsing rampant censorship and monitoring of students' outside activities, but I respect a school's initiative to recognize a potential problem before something happens. I'm guessing there are parents of about 13 high school students in Colorado who wished more attention had been paid to the postings of the Columbine students.

  46. Re:Friendly piece of advice by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

    Yep. Every annoying law can be traced back to some jerk who had to ruin it for the rest of us. Nice going, jerks.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  47. Newsflash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libel not covered by free speech.

    Film at 11.

    If you go around publicly saying someone is threatening you then you better have some solid evidence. I guess this guy gets to present his evidence in the expulsion hearing. For his sake let's hope he was telling the truth (or maybe not; if a school district really has a conspiracy to threaten a student that would be worse than a single paranoid delusional student.)

    1. Re:Newsflash by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Hell, even if he didn't have evidence, he sure does now.

    2. Re:Newsflash by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      "If you go around publicly saying someone is threatening you then you better have some solid evidence."

      That's the case in the UK. I'm pretty sure that, in the US, the person suing has to prove that 1. the claim was false and 2. the claimer knew it was false.

  48. sounds like vn boards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  49. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by egarland · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Schools impose all kinds of restrictions on students. Places of business impose all kinds of restrictions on employees. Owners of property impose restrictions on trespassers.

    Schools are government bodies and attendance is mandatory. All children in this country who don't have the means to attian an alternate education are forced to be subjected to public school's rules. That makes your exmampeles irrelivant. The appropriate analogous situation would be prison. We do not allow prisons to remove inmates free speech rights, why would we let schools.

    This is legal. Schools are allowed to have dress codes. Schools are allowed to decide what constitutes "non-disruptive" activity to the learning environment.

    These things are pseudo-legal and only involve behavior while within the walls of the school. To extend the schools reach to everything a student does all the time is pretty obviously wrong. You wouldn't think it was right for schools impose a dress code on kids when they were at home would you?

    Some people still don't get Columbine. The lesson there is trying to suppress issues and make them go away quietly is exactly the wrong thing to do. It makes things worse. The great thing is that lots of people did learn the lesson and started to listen to kids who didn't think everything was just perfect in their schools. Sadly this seems to be a school that has forgotten the lesson and is comfortable insisting students shut up and pretend everything is great.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  50. 1st amendment... by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "The First Amendment doesn't give an individual the right to scream 'Fire' in a crowded theater and say that is protected by First Amendment rights," Harper said.

    Yes it most certainly does. However, that crowded theater also has the right to kick you out for any reason it deems neccessary. Screaming "Fire!" isn't a threat directed to anyone. It's simply a disrupting comment. While I don't see any reason NOT to throw someone out of a theater who screams "Fire!", it's certainly not grounds for arrest.

    1. Re:1st amendment... by tempehop · · Score: 1

      You're allowed your rights as long as it doesn't affect another persons right, screaming fire (or bomb) could lead to several people being hurt (because no one pays attention during fire drills) and will get you arrested if you're doing it for fun.

    2. Re:1st amendment... by Omkar · · Score: 1

      It's more about the trampling in the rush to exit (so it is actually proscribable speech).

    3. Re:1st amendment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sure you can be arrested. Your action was reckless and endangered the lives of those in the theater (stampeded aren't fun for those who get trampled), free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want. Well you can but words have consequences, and it's those potential consequences that can get you arrested.

      If I made a voice controlled bomb then saying the command to have it go off would also get me arrested, not for the words themselves but for what they caused (or may have caused if my bomb was a dud).

    4. Re:1st amendment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, screaming fire is most certainly an unprotected case. It is not simply disruption, it is likely to cause injury and death, as people will (in all expectation) stampede for the exits.

    5. Re:1st amendment... by Tony · · Score: 1

      If I made a voice controlled bomb then saying the command to have it go off would also get me arrested, not for the words themselves but for what they caused (or may have caused if my bomb was a dud).

      Okay, just a quibble, but you would not be arrested for your hypothetical words to set the bomb off. You would be arrested for creating the bomb in the first place, and attempting to use it in the second place.

      But then your bomb wouldn't go off when you told it, anyway, because it would get all philosophical and start thinking about the meaning of life, and carrying on long rambling conversations about the meaning of creation, and then go off with the words, "Let there be light," all because you had to make a bomb that would understand the command to go off in the first place, DIDN'T you?

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  51. school+anything electronic=over reacting by E8086 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Being from NJ I'm outraged about this, and I though Plainfield was one of those rich towns where the kids always got what they wanted and no one ever got more than a day detention, maybe that's South Plainfield.

    What's up with schools and a fear of anything electronic these days?
    Force the kids into ibooks/laptops and expel/charge with computer trespass the ones who take the time to "explore" them. During a recent multi-day "field trip" my sister's class was banned from having anything electronic, but only 15 or so years ago I remember being encouraged to bring my GameBoy, even the teacher took part in our lunch time Tetris gaming. And anyone who used a "computer" to type their report got an automatic A, A+ if you added clipart/pictures.

    Yes, electronic toys are much more common now and there should some limits on their use, can't be used all the time. Those of us in our mid 20s grew up with our games and were mostly able to impose our own limits and balance how long we played(weekend) and how much time we spent on work(non-weekend). Have kids these days lost that ability?

    I once heard that there are two types of people who get involved in the administration of schools(not the teachers), those who really care about the kids and and those on a power trip(who would never be taken seriously by us rational adults)

    If you mess with the 1st Amendment you will lose.

    --
    F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
    1. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Twenty-five years ago I lived in Plainfield for a year. It was curiously mixed. One part was upper middle class, mostly Jewish professionals. The other part was poor, mostly Puerto Rican. I lived right on the boundary: in an apartment building occupied mostly by black people. The local newstand carried both El Diario and the Daily Forward.

    2. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is IL not NJ read the article and notice the source

    3. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by Tintagel · · Score: 1
      I lived in South Plainfield a few years ago and while it's solidly middle class, it's not rich. Rich is Warren, Bernards and the other towns north of 22, up in the Watchungs.

      As another poster said, Plainfield is part-large detached Victorian houses on wide leafy streets, and part-Newark. North Plainfield is pure Newark, i.e. a war zone.

      But none of this is relevant to the article since it refers to IL, as another poster said :-)

    4. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thought occured to me lately that adults in general, not only teachers, are often overly authoritarian with children, and pull stunts they'd never even try let alone get away with with another adult. I'm 20 years old and live with my parents, and am friendly with the kids (between the ages of 4 and 9) that live either side of me. The father on one side rarely says anything nice to his kids. He's never abusive, but if he opens his mouth, 95% of the time he's scolding them. "Put your shirt on, it's getting cold", "pick that up", "Don't do that", "look, you're making a mess of my sandpit" (*his* sandpit?). The parents on the other side aren't overly oppressive, but it seems a lot of what they tell their kids is "no", "can't" and "don't". Once when I was at this house, the daughter was being rambunctious and climbing on me as I sat on the couch, or was jumping on my back or something like that. I wasn't at all bothered by it (she was just playing after all) and gave no indication that I was, yet the dad felt it necessary to scream "don't!". She stopped and looked visibly intimidated, eyes facing up, head tipping down, mouth pensive. It was an unnecessary and over the top use of power, one that wouldn't have been attempted or taken without an argument with another adult. Now I'm not judging these people, everyone does what they think is right, given their view of the world, nor am I suggesting we dispense with discipline. But shouldn't we be treating our children as equals, with the respect and love and nice words we love to hear as adults, not with scolding and intimidation? Shouldn't we be instilling them with the confidence, courage and sense of equality they'll need to forge their own lives as adult individuals?

    5. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by festers · · Score: 1

      Funny to see someone on Slashdot describing the place I grew up in. =)

      --


      -------
      "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
    6. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      What's up with schools and a fear of anything electronic these days?

      Read what the kid said. He sucks at writing. It's really easy to misread him as threatening another Columbine, especially if you stop reading at the sentence where he says Columbine. Basically, he says he feels threatened, then says the kids at Columbine did what they did because they felt threatened. Later he does vaguely hedge that he's not making an actual threat, that it's just him trying to co-opt someone else's tragedy to make his personal grief seem more important, but frankly the way he wrote it, it's really easy to come to the wrong conclusions.

      This is the combination of a kid who needs writing classes and a smack in the head plus a teacher who overreacted and reported a threat that wasn't there. The school and the school board aren't the problem: if the information they had gotten about there being a threat was correct, what they did would have been appropriate - to remove the kid from being able to hurt the other kids while you work on getting him help. The problem is the person who thought what he wrote was a threat in the first place, and a child who was willing to take personal emotional credit for someone else's tragedy.

      Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." The teacher meant to do the right thing. They just don't understand kids. Can you honestly say there wasn't a teacher like that in your school too?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    7. Re:school+anything electronic=over reacting by Politburo · · Score: 1

      As pointed out in another thread, it's not Plainfield, NJ. Furthermore, your perception of the Plainfields is incorrect.

  52. The xanga site in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.xanga.com/Heckler3672bro

    Avoiding use of the name of "the student" doesn't help much when you quote excepts of a page on a site that's full indexed...

    (Anonymous for your karma-whore free enjoyment.)

    1. Re:The xanga site in question by lspd · · Score: 1

      Wow.... The school oficials really are cluless. The Metallica music and stolen images are more than enough to get his site yanked off the internet. Why bother with making an issue over the content of his rants.

      If you're going to be high and mighty about your right to free speech, you might want to avoid stealing the copyrighted artistic creations of others in the process.

    2. Re:The xanga site in question by Assassin17 · · Score: 1

      Heck, the fact that it's an eyesore (aside from the girlie) should be grounds for removal. I can barely read the damn thing.

      And note the image isn't actually on his site. It's a logo for a now-defunct Chicago radio station, and that logo is on their site.

    3. Re:The xanga site in question by lspd · · Score: 1

      And note the image isn't actually on his site. It's a logo for a now-defunct Chicago radio station, and that logo is on their site.

      Hehe... The other images are hotlinked from wmich.edu and amazon.com. I get nastygrams from lawyers for putting the words "state" and "farm" too near each other. How does Joe Random 16 year old get away with this kind of stuff?

    4. Re:The xanga site in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should be expelled just for thinking Miller Lite is delicious.

    5. Re:The xanga site in question by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That's a bit over-the-top. This looks almost exactly like any teenagers webpage I've ever seen. I've made sites just like this, my brothers have made sites just like this, my classmates have made sites just like this -- Eventually we grow up and realize they're stupid, but making badly designed sites full of stolen content is like a teenage meme. It's impossible to stop, and you'll make an ass of yourself if you try.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  53. So glad I'm no longer in HS... by Nightspirit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think I would be able to take it. Heck, one of my friends was a genius creative writer, chose macabre topics (murder, dissection, etc) and would hand out his writtings at school. Today he would be expelled. And who hasn't joked around about wanting a bomb threat to be called in so you could go home early? Now just talking about it would likely get you expelled.

    It would be like going to a prison camp, being afraid of what to do, how to act, and what to say for fear of suspension and expulsion.

    Thankfully my school had a program where you could go to community college instead of taking high school classes, so I didn't even spend my last two years at my highschool.

    1. Re:So glad I'm no longer in HS... by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      "I don't think I would be able to take it. Heck, one of my friends was a genius creative writer, chose macabre topics (murder, dissection, etc) and would hand out his writtings at school. Today he would be expelled. And who hasn't joked around about wanting a bomb threat to be called in so you could go home early? Now just talking about it would likely get you expelled.

      It would be like going to a prison camp, being afraid of what to do, how to act, and what to say for fear of suspension and expulsion."
      --

      Exactly the feelings I have. I am glad my schooling took place in the 1980's and early 90's, not today. No way would I ever have made it through without getting expelled in today's thought police world.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    2. Re:So glad I'm no longer in HS... by TexasDex · · Score: 1

      I remember in HS I was doctoring a screenshot in Microsoft Word to make Clippy offer to help you finish your suicide note when you typed in "Goodbye cruel world" and somebody saw and reported it to the teacher. Since I was in a good, sane school without any of that zero-tolerance bullshit it only resulted in a visit form the school counselor and a call to my parents. It didn't cause any permanent problems, heck after a few days it was just a memory of some dumb thing I did a while ago. I suppose I'm lucky, in a lot of schools I'd be suspended or expelled just for (admittedly dark) joke.

      --
      The Cheese Stands Alone.
    3. Re:So glad I'm no longer in HS... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      Back in the 80s in HS, I wrote a story about a guy who killed puppies and shot his landlord. It was an experiment in scene writing, and the point was to be shocking. I didn't turn that one in for an assignment, but copies made the rounds and brought me sliver of noteriety. A teacher got ahold of it and said, in spite of the subject matter, it was well written.

      Oddly, I grew up productive and law abiding and what one mught call financially successful.

      What would happen under today's zero tolerance rules?

    4. Re:So glad I'm no longer in HS... by Pojodojo · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean with the community college, I did the same thing my sernior year, Yet I was under suspicion from what we called "The Skipper Dude"(no one knew his real name) as we would leave halfway through the day to go to the CC. Since my school was closed campus, anyone outside of the building at any time was liable to be pulled into the administrators office for questioning, you could be given anything from detentions to suspensions, depending on the number of offenses, even if you were running to your car to turn off your lights(as I once did) it felt very much like prison, but at least they got some yard time.

      --
      arrrg, (like a pirate)
    5. Re:So glad I'm no longer in HS... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Similar situation with me too. I graduated HS in 98. In middle school, I wrote a story about a terrorist takeover of a corporate building and the drama that ensues (so I could probably claim prior art on "Die Hard" :-) It was fairly violent, with many grisly descriptions of killings and whatnot (plus lots of cussing in a story written by a seventh grader). However, when I turned it in for a writing assignment, my teacher was so impressed with my "engrossing narrative" that I was actually nominated and sent to the state-wide writing convention/competition! I have now graduated with a bachelors and have a good-paying job. Just your normal, tax-paying, law-abiding suburbanite.

      If I tried to turn in that story today in middle school, I'd be expelled seven ways from Wednesday and be promptly sent to the closest rehabilitation facility.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    6. Re:So glad I'm no longer in HS... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That would be ironic.

      "I'm feeling so alone right now. I think I'm going to kill myself because nobody understands me."

      "WHAT YOU SAY!! YOU'RE EXPELLED FOR BEING A DEPRESSED TEENAGER!"

      "FAREWELL CRUEL WORLD!!!"

      --
      It's been a long time.
  54. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEWSFLASH:

    As has now been mentioned to you 5-6 times, this comment was posted AFTER the suspension. You cannot justify a prior suspension by a subsequent action (unless the kid had been using a time machine.) And guess what? His comment is factually accurate! Find a single psych profile of the Littleton shooters that doesn't say they were bullied be both teachers and students. Repeating accepted facts is now "disruptive behavior."

    You might feel threatened, but no teacher, student or administrator in this case did. RTFA, my friend. Nobody ever called the police about this comment.

    Your bias and agenda is clear, but the facts simply do not support any of your suppositions. Face it, Ragu, you've had your ass handed to you!

  55. Haha, they're terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I keep forgetting about that 'never say Columbine' rule you guys have to follow in the US. It makes for a great source of emotions to toy with.

    Address of the school
    Plainfield South High School
    7800 Caton Farm Rd
    Plainfield, IL 60586-1687

    Address of local gun shop:
    Gun Shop Inc.
    23003 W. Lincoln Highway
    Plainfield, Illinois 60544

    I only hope there are no gamers reading this post...

    1. Re:Haha, they're terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and here are some rough directions! - the schools address wouldnt come up properly :(

  56. TA by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    All TA says about the start of the incident is that he wrote "in vulgar words" that he can write whatever he wants in his blog. Article does not say why he wanted to write this in the first place.

    Not a good journalism.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  57. New Jersey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think this actually occured in New Jersey. The article mentions Plainfield and Joliet which are two cities that are very close in proximity in Illinois.

    1. Re:New Jersey? by slasher999 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the link is to a Chicago newspaper's website. This certainly did not take place in New Jersey.

  58. You nailed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Some people still don't get Columbine. The lesson there is trying to suppress issues and make them go away quietly is exactly the wrong thing to do. It makes things worse. The great thing is that lots of people did learn the lesson and started to listen to kids who didn't think everything was just perfect in their schools. Sadly this seems to be a school that has forgotten the lesson and is comfortable insisting students shut up and pretend everything is great."

    This truly is the crux of the matter. Very, very well put. Yet we have "professional" educators and posters like yagu that want to make an example of this kid because he mentioned the word "Columbine" (after the suspension by the way) in a factually appropriate context.

    Bravo. You get it.

    1. Re:You nailed it. by mpe · · Score: 1

      "Some people still don't get Columbine. The lesson there is trying to suppress issues and make them go away quietly is exactly the wrong thing to do. It makes things worse. The great thing is that lots of people did learn the lesson and started to listen to kids who didn't think everything was just perfect in their schools.

      This is a rather bigger issue than just schools in the US.
      There are plenty of places (including the USA) where it is virtually impossible for certain issues to be discussed. Even some where not beliving some offical version of events is against the law.

  59. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Trifthen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I paraphrase, you quote out of context; to each his own, I guess.

    In either case, flying off the handle and jumping directly to expulsion doesn't even address the problem of an implied threat. At best, it removes the "problem", at worst, it exacerbates the issue. Maybe some counseling to make the kid think he's at least got the school's respect? Maybe they could pull the old, "Hey, we're just following the rules... we really are sorry. I'm sure there are more constructive ways to criticize the system. Would you like to attend a PTA meeting and see how this stuff works?"

    There is such a thing as basic human decency. Yeah, the Columbine kids were dicks ot the highest order. Sure, this kid made a giant mistake in invoking their names. Think about his age, though. Was he even in elementary school when Columbine happened? Does he really understand the impact? Haven't you ever gotten so frustrated you just shouted out the most shocking thing you could remember in attempt to make an impact?

    Here's an anecdote. Back in college, we got some new network administrators that were being asses about running services on the network, and were continuously port scanning to find offenders. I was on the college's webteam, so I had apache running, and got flagged. They told me to shut down. I told them, "How many people have to die before you notice I make the school's damn website, so I need a development system!?" Or something to that effect, I don't remember and it was quite a while ago. This was of course after they had taken away our keys to the lab we used to make the website, and imposed many other arbitrary elements that did not apply to previous years.

    Did I have any intention of hurting anyone? No. Was I pissed and just as equally an ass for reacting to their prodding? Yes. Could both of us handled the situation in a better manner? Hell yes. The point here, is that had they respected the students that they depended on, and I respected their abilities as administrators, there would have been no cause for frustration, and nobody would have felt bullied or threatened.

    People have their foibles, especially teenagers. I for one, am glad the admins and I later had a discussion and came to a mutual agreement, where I also apologized for blowing-up. Could they have expelled me instead? Maybe, but only if they were trying to prove some point.

    --
    Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
  60. Happened to me by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was expelled from an Illinois public school for an online speech related issue as well. I set up a web (cgi) based proxy at home, and then informed students at school that it could be used to get around the school filter's censorship of the web. You can read about what happened here:
    http://www.textfiles.com/uploads/incident.txt

    The public school system is used to maintain social control, not educate. No one will stand up for the free speech rights of young people, and these rights are necessary for an informed and free society. The only solution is abandon compulsory education. Kids would be better off without being forced to go. Access to public Libraries would allow them to read; (at my school "unauthorized reading material" was banned). Libraries or homes would also give us free uncensored access to the Internet. Many leaders in unions, business, and non-profits are more then willing to hold workshops and lectures for high school aged kids. Their real world experience could replace incompetent teachers. There is nothing wrong with using public resources to teach young people, but forcing kids to spend their days being coerced into memorizing minutia, and detaining or expelling anyone with the capability for independent thought, that just further perpetuates the sort of passive obedience that makes American workers and consumers so easily manipulated.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is, schools have the right to filter what you view while in school. As long as they provide a complete education on mandated topics, they are not required to allow you to access irrelevant sites. If a school decides to block site with flash minigames, they can. If they block out pornagraphic sites, that's their (good) decision. They have that right. By circumventing their authority willfully, you have disobeyed the school, interfered with their rights, and encouraged others to do so also. They therefore had the right to expel you for violating policy.

      In this case, on his own time, a student posted a concern about improper activites by the school in a media where others could view it. That's a right he has. For a school to even consider expelling him is rediculous. They should on the other hand be bringing him to a schoolboard meeting to use his complaints to fix their system.

    2. Re:Happened to me by mpe · · Score: 1

      I was expelled from an Illinois public school for an online speech related issue as well. I set up a web (cgi) based proxy at home, and then informed students at school that it could be used to get around the school filter's censorship of the web.

      I don't see the similarity here. You did something in school which was against the rules. Would you expect the school not to object if you flyposted noticeboards or set up a market stall on school grounds?
      Whereas in this case the student did something, perfectly legal, outside school which upset someone.

    3. Re:Happened to me by Assassin17 · · Score: 1

      The difference is, schools have the right to filter what you view while in school. As long as they provide a complete education on mandated topics, they are not required to allow you to access irrelevant sites. If a school decides to block site with flash minigames, they can. If they block out pornagraphic sites, that's their (good) decision. They have that right.

      Yes, and he has the right to put whatever he wants on his HOME computer.

      By circumventing their authority willfully, you have disobeyed the school, interfered with their rights, and encouraged others to do so also. They therefore had the right to expel you for violating policy.

      So let's say one high school student told another, "Hey, http://fictional-list-of-public-proxies/ has all sorts of anonymous proxies to let you bypass filters."

      Would that conversation merit an expulsion too? Unlikely.

      I don't see how the fact that the proxy machine belonged to the student matters ONE SHRED. It's not like his machine is infiltrating the school network or initiating any connection with it. Nay, students at the school are merely visiting the proxy as they would any of the countless other ones they can find on Google.

      Now actually making use of the proxy while at school? I can understand how that's a violation, and I can see how they could bust him for typing "file://" after the previous warning (though ten days is harsh).

      But simply alerting people to the existence of a machine, a machine whose purpose is readily duplicable? Come on.

    4. Re:Happened to me by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a dumbass. You intentionally bypassed the schools internet filter by setting up your own proxy server (dumb in and of itself). What's even stupider though is you told your fellow students about it. Lesson number one when you're doing something "wrong" is you don't tell anyone, especially kids. People will talk, and you'll get caught.

      I suppose you feel like the Chinese dissident, smashing the opression of the schools internet filter (i.e. "combatting censorship on the internet). Of course unlike chinese dissidents you can go home to an unfiltered internet and read whatever you want. The only thing you accomplished was thumbing your nose at authority by jumping the little kiddie fence they erected. Filters are in general a bad idea, and will always be able to be bypassed by people with minimal knowledge. But bucking authority isn't going to get that policy changed one bit. More likely it will only strengthen the resolve of your enemies.

      If you really wanted to change the policy you'd investigate what sites are blocked by the filter and started writing about it. Appeal to both sides. Does it filter out Planned Parenthood or the ACLU? How about Rush Limbaugh or the Christian Coalition? Many people hear filtering and only assume they're filtering out porn sites. A more stark comparison of the reality of filtering is far more convincing than hearing about some dumb kid who thinks he's smarter than the school administrators (even if that does happen to be true in the case of networking technology).

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Happened to me by potat0man · · Score: 1

      Troll, but I'll bite.

      First of all, I'm quite sure that there are several sixteen year old high school 'kids' who are more mature, intelligent and knowledgeable than several 25 year old high school teachers.

      Second of all your sig is: when you hear 'activist' you reach for a revolver and yet you call this kid dumb for taking action? You suggest he write letters as oppose to just circumnavigate the issue with a little research and implementation? His goal wasn't to change people's minds. How do you argue with unreasonable men? His goal was to beat back censorship, which he accomplished.

      I suppose the American Revolutionists would have been better off writing letters to the editor until they were blue in the face as opposed to taking up arms like a bunch of 'dumb kids' or 'crazy nut-jobs causing trouble'.

    6. Re:Happened to me by potat0man · · Score: 1

      errr, circumvent, circumnavigate, circumcision... same difference.

    7. Re:Happened to me by BShive · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but they're required to filter web content! Otherwise they can lose federal funding. It's a big headache for my wife, who run the tech dept. at a school, especially when they want to loan laptops out to the kids. Those have to be filtered as well.

    8. Re:Happened to me by zoephile · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Abandoning compulsory education is not the answer. What is really needed is sensible schools with sensible policies and sensible administrators (if they can be found these days). When I was in school the kind of things I read about happening in schools today did not happen. Expulsions were extremely rare. Detentions and suspensions happened but only for things like brutal fights or direct malicious vandalism. And even then it was only for a day or so and never made the papers. These days I hear stories about first graders being handcuffed and arrested in schools, kids being expelled for carrying a boy scout knife, fopr what they think or say outside of school and for countless other things that were considered non-issues years ago. O think we need to take a long hard look at the mindset of some of these people in charge of schools these days. Perhaps they are taking things a bit more seriously than they really need to.

    9. Re:Happened to me by SuperFunFunFun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      O think we need to take a long hard look at the mindset of some of these people in charge of schools these days. Perhaps they are taking things a bit more seriously than they really need to. The problem is how do you deal with a system that has more in comment with the penal system than the education system. My solution has been simple, send the kids to private school. The last thing I need is one of my kids lives being ruined over a spat in the cafeteria or by calling the wrong teacher a name. School has always been preparation for life - and I think we've given the schools way too much power over the kids. These people can't touch your kids if they are not enrolled.

    10. Re:Happened to me by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Spoken as someone who really doesn't like school (like most school students). This line is a mistake: The public school system is used to maintain social control, not educate. should read The public school system is used to maintain social control, and educate. You have clearly never looked at the system from anyside except the side of the students. Schooling a bunch of kids is not an easy thing to do, and while the system is not perfect, censhorship is not part of the problem. Schools legally have to employ censorship on the machines - this is for a number of reasons. You implemented a system to go around this. This puts students at risk - sure your punishment was perhaps too harsh, but one also needs to consider your previous record to make a correct judgement on this, one you will most likely not give.

    11. Re:Happened to me by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      You suggest he write letters as oppose to just circumnavigate the issue with a little research and implementation?

      Yes, or accept that actions have consequences. Quite simple, you break the rules (or law) and you get punished for it possibly. Odd how all you "freedom fighters" seem to not understand that little part, the founding father sure did (blood of patriots and all that).

      How do you argue with unreasonable men?

      Why was the school unreasonable, as was said in this thread they are legally required to filter internet access. They're only unreasonable to punk kids who think they're mommies special boy and everything they want should be theirs.

      His goal was to beat back censorship, which he accomplished.

      I wouldn't call what the school does censorship, more like liability limitation at this point. Schools are there to provide education, if unlimited internet access interferes with that then it should be limited. And in all honesty I've seen what kids do with unlimited access in schools, and "learning" is near the bottom of the list.

      I at least don't have some twisted delusions of fighting censorship about the crap I did in high school. I disliked authority and I wanted to play games (online) so I did various things to do that, probably should have studied instead. I wasn't stupid enough to get caught, even though the network admin knew I did shit.

      I suppose the American Revolutionists would have been better off writing letters to the editor until they were blue in the face as opposed to taking up arms like a bunch of 'dumb kids' or 'crazy nut-jobs causing trouble'.

      They spent quite a bit of time writing letter, protesting and so on before taking up arms. Only idiots go straight for the gun.

    12. Re:Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expelled? Seriously? When I was in high school, we had an uncensored web, played GTA and other games on the school's computers and many of the students (and possibly teachers) were seen on barricades and demonstrations all the time. In fact, the schools computer network was administered by students. And no, I live in a country that is regarded as one of the most safest and stable in the world. You should maybe check your freedoms, America?

    13. Re:Happened to me by lukestuts · · Score: 0

      What a dumbass. You intentionally bypassed the schools internet filter by setting up your own proxy server (dumb in and of itself).

      Only on Slashdot could bypassing network security by setting up a proxy server be described as "dumb".

    14. Re:Happened to me by man_ls · · Score: 1

      You deserved to be expelled.

      Your right to free speech does not trump the school's right to protect their computer network, or their legal obligation to provide a "safe" Internet experience for their students.

      "he real question comes down to this. If I make a proxy on my own computer,
                at my own home, outside of the schools jurisdiction, and if I use my free speech
                rights to talk about that proxy with another student, can the school, interrogate,
                suspend, and expel me?"

      They can't expel you for talking about it. But they can expel you for facilitating insubordination or any number of other things which arise from the use of said resource you've discussed. Just talking about any number of things, while it will quickly land you in the spotlight of some type of law enforcement, is unactionable unless you then go out and do it. And you did.

      Bottom line was that you encouraged others to break the rules, followed by them actually breaking the rules using a method that you yourself created.

      You weren't being expelled for independant thought; you were expelled because you were breaking the rules. There are enough other methods for reading and accessing the forbidden knowledge, including but not limited to, doing it on the 16 hours of the day you're not in school.

      Furthermore, education is compulsory, but public school education is not. There are any number of religious sectarian or private schools you could have gone to. Or you could have homeschooled. But instead, you stirred up trouble and got burned for it.

      Don't think I have no idea where you're coming from, either -- I did something very similar, and I got in trouble for it. But unlike you, I didn't make myself out to be some crusader, and I got a warning.

    15. Re:Happened to me by killjoe · · Score: 1

      According to your sig, if he raised a stink about filters and censorship you would have shot him dead right there.

      Is your post some sort of a "go ahead, make my day" statement? Are you trying to goad this young man into becoming an activist so you can shoot him?

      By the way what do you with the bodies of the activist you murder anyway?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    16. Re:Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only solution is abandon compulsory education. Kids would be better off without being forced to go.

      I agree. In fact, I want to abandon compulsion altogether. Of course, that would never fly with our political "leaders" whose business is founded on the principle of compulsion, or indeed, anyone who believes in government at all.

    17. Re:Happened to me by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      A private school has the right to censor the internet. A government funded school, with compulsary attendance, has a moral obligation to allow all constitutional rights to be exercised.

    18. Re:Happened to me by pushf+popf · · Score: 1

      I was expelled from an Illinois public school for an online speech related issue as well. I set up a web (cgi) based proxy at home, and then informed students at school that it could be used to get around the school filter's censorship of the web. You can read about what happened here: http://www.textfiles.com/uploads/incident.txt

      Congratulations on a valuable experience (notice I didn't say lesson).

      Here's the lesson: When you think you might be in trouble, don't admit to anything. Don't confim that you were "in the media center", that fire is hot, or that you know where the power cord plugs in to the laptop.

      And NEVER sign anything, and NEVER write anything and NEVER admit anything.

      This applies at school, at work and everywhere else. If you're in legal or semi-legal trouble, get a lawyer.

      If someone is trying to bone you, make them prove it. Chances are good that they can't.

      You're extremely lucky that this lesson was in the relative safety of school and not some actual legal trouble. All they can do is kick you out for a while.

    19. Re:Happened to me by zoomba · · Score: 1

      And a public school actually has no obligation to provide internet access period. They're not a telco, they're not a common carrier of information. There is nothing even close to a free speech issue with public schools filtering their net connection.

    20. Re:Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a government funded school is legaly required to use a filter. Failure to do this can result in the loss of some of that government funding.

    21. Re:Happened to me by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      You are correct, if it is a private school. However, a public school is the government. The government does not have the right to censor internet content, period. Under any condition. ESPECIALLY when participation is manditory. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. It is worthless if we make exceptions.

    22. Re:Happened to me by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Actually, a government funded school is legaly required to use a filter. Failure to do this can result in the loss of some of that government funding.

      Actually, nowhere in the constitution is the Federal Government granted the right to mandate any sort of requirements on schools. And nowhere is there an exception to the bill of rights given to government schools.

      Now, I understand we live in the day and age when U.S. citizens can be held indefinitly without trial as "enemy combatants", that the police can require law abiding citizens provide ID and papers at any time, and that a whole lot of authoritarian un-constitutional stuff goes on. I can't help that America is becoming a totalitarian dictatorship. But lets clearly catagorize this with the Gitmo style laws, and now with anything that a free and democratic society would find acceptable.

    23. Re:Happened to me by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Wel first off the bill of rights allows you to speak but doesnt require anybody to listen. Public schools are not manditory, schooling is be it private or home based. Schools should be allowed to restrict there internet access as the school board chooses (your localy elected leaders) either to protect there network or enforce there rules. A simple one might be no games or no porn. Now as long as this is getting decided at the local level whats the issue? Students still have whatever access there parents grant them to the internet and that is there choice, outside of school and those same parents should be able to influence the schools as well.

      As to the main sotry what they did was wrong any speech outside of school should be protected and the person that suspended the student should loose his job if not his teaching credentials for awhile.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    24. Re:Happened to me by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      You were expelled, but you haven't really learned anything, have you? You're too busy being a victim to think clearly.

      Your post reeks of the peculiar combination of egoism and sophomoric condescension found generally in the young. Particularly the young that are still living with their parents, so they aren't exposed to simple realities like rent, paying for food/car/utilities, or that - in for the rest of your life, in MOST CASES, other people* have a great deal of control over one's life. It's called "society".
      * people that don't care about you, your feelings, your 'rights', or your opinions

      Schools ARE an element of social control...what you call "control", most of the rest of us would call socialization. Yes, you HAVE to learn how to get along with others - most of life isn't posting anonymously on a web page, and in most of REAL LIFE (academia excepted, apparently) you will suffer consequences for your actions. Write in your blog about what a jerk your boss is? Then don't play the drama queen when he fires your ass. Tell everyone what a loser your coworker is? Don't be shocked when you find out in a couple years that he's screwed you royally behind your back.

      Oh, and your landlord won't give a shit about your 'rights' or what's 'fair'. If you don't pay him, you're out on your ass.

      Abandoning compulsory education - brilliant idea! Libraries can be used for reading ... why didn't anyone ELSE think of that? Oh wait: because it's stupid. Do you have any idea how much work it takes to educate a child? Do you think that if you plunk a 2 year old on the floor of a library, come back in 4-5 years they'll somehow automagically know how to read?

      I'll direct you to do some research on the German Kinderschule experiments in the 70's. Essentially, they let kindergarten or pre-school age kids 'learn at their own speed' (i.e. play) for up to 3 years (most were only 1 year, IIRC) - at the end, they found (predictably, in my view) that none of them had learned anything at all. [sorry no link, I'd read about this in my college days 20 years ago]

      I like your ideas of getting business and other resources involved in education, that's great and already is happening in more enlightened, opportunistic districts.

      But please, don't go through life depending on your own rationalizations: you weren't kicked out of school 'because you're capable of independent thought'. As necessary as that may be to your fragile self-image, the truth is simpler, even according to your own account: you acted like a classic, self-centered teen. You downloaded the SSH client - a violation, as you admit. Then you made an agreement, but you broke it (you neatly skip past that part). Who cares if they have a webfilter? Did you buy the computers? Your parents' tax dollars probably paid for them, yes, but then again their votes put in the schoolboard ... that wrote the policy that got you expelled.

      Last time I checked, you should be spending your time at school doing other, better things than thinking about how to circumvent a web filter. I may even AGREE with you that people should be allowed to read Noam Chomsky (if only to realize what an idiotic, hypocritical prima-donna he is). I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that if you'd researched your case, and made a PERSUASIVE (as opposed to 'petulant') argument, they'd have let you present your views to the school board, and you'd probably be HERALDED as a fine example of what an intelligent, clever kid could achieve. You might have even changed their minds. And ultimately, you have to look inside yourself and decide which is more important: making the change you CLAIM is your goal, or some pointless public ego-masturbation? Because your actions sure sound like the latter, not the former.

      You were impatient and impetuous. Those are the same two motivations that get raccoons killed on the highway - nobody calls them heroes, either.

      You're not a 'free thinker'. You're

      --
      -Styopa
    25. Re:Happened to me by zoomba · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech in regards to Internet censorship, even in the public school setting, only applies if the school is mandated to provide said access. Last I checked, there's nothing out there saying such access is a right or manditory. Much like you can't just run around saying whatever you like in school, you can't use school resources any way you like.

      Remember this particular thread is about a kid who intentionally put up a proxy to circumvent security and content controls put in place by network administrators and then distributed instructions to other students on how to use it to also circumvent said controls. He is acting all indignant over his freedoms being trampled when nothing of the sort happened. He misused school resources. He broke the rules. He tried to paint it as a rights issue that they were squashing his freedom to do what he wanted with his free time and free resources, neglecting to acknowledge that he then used them to mishandle school resources.

      Schools have a right to determine the terms of use for their computers and internet connection. They have a responsibility to do so to protect themselves too since they don't qualify as a common carrier and can be held legally responsible for what travels their wires.

    26. Re:Happened to me by phunctor · · Score: 1

      Further commmentors on the revolver might want to refresh their memory of the sayings of Hermann Goering.

    27. Re:Happened to me by idonthack · · Score: 1

      My friends and I something similar. Fortunately all they did was block our proxys. Too bad, because that link you gave is also blocked.
       
      But what we did is cause for punishment. Circumventing the filters and allowing others to do so violates the agreement we signed that allows us to use the computers. But it is definitely not reason for suspension or expulsion.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    28. Re:Happened to me by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Sun Tzu says you should seek victory first, the fight the battle. Those who seek battle and seek victory on the way will fail. In this way, you fight an enemy already deafeated.

      Installing a transparent proxy is a battle, but how will it achieve victory? The best case scenario is they'll ignore it until you leave, and the worst case scenario is they clamp down even harder on the internet and eliminate the troublemaker.

      The American revolutionaries had a plan for victory, obviously. There are countless other petty wars around the world which don't. They will last forever, as neither side knows how to win, only how to fight.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    29. Re:Happened to me by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      You're right, there is no actual law that says that schools MUST use filters, just like there is no law that says the drinking age MUST be 21. Unfortunately, we live in an age where most of the funding for the school systems comes from the federal level, and there are plenty of laws that say that if they DON'T use filters they WON'T get any federal money.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    30. Re:Happened to me by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The only solution is abandon compulsory education. Kids would be better off without being forced to go.

      Of course they would. I mean, just look at the career path of someone who drops out of high school at age 16 with that of someone who graduates...

      Some kids want to learn, some don't. It's in society's best interest that we try to force those latter kids to learn anyway.

    31. Re:Happened to me by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      MyBestGoldenShower.com is *not* a constitutional right.

      Now, I've alwasy come down on the side of preferring to allow my kids as many freedoms as myself. I believe *I* have the right to allow or disallow such a 'resource' to my own child. I think the school filtering it is completely appropriate; *at the school*.

      I don't believe any knowledge or experience with such a site my kid might have is at all relevent to the school, public or private.

    32. Re:Happened to me by stonecypher · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I was expelled from an Illinois public school for an online speech related issue as well. I set up a web (cgi) based proxy at home, and then informed students at school that it could be used to get around the school filter's censorship of the web.

      See, you need to RTFA, because what you did and what's going on here aren't even remotely related.

      This kid's getting expelled because some teacher thought he was threatening another Columbine. He's not, but to be frank he sucks at writing, and it's an easy mistake to make. You got expelled because you chose to facilitate the circumvention of school policy. There's a big difference. You deserved it and he doesn't.

      See, it's all well and good to pretend that your cgi is somehow this facilitation of free speech, that you're an epic crusader for the rights of good, and that any attempt to quash you is a 1984-style brain censorship which threatens the deep fabric of the nation. The problem is, it's nonsense. The fact of the matter is that school isn't your time. Teenagers seem to be unable to comprehend this. When you're on the job, looking at porn will get you fired. Why? It's not because of the porn itself; nobody can punish you for something protected under the first amendment and blah blah blah. Whatever.

      More importantly, you're fucking around at work. That gets you fired. You did the same thing at school, but not just personally. The better metaphor for what you did would be to distribute CDs full of porn to all your coworkers, and told them to watch it at work too. But, it's actually worse than that, because the school has custodial obligations, and you're also opening their interior network to threats like child predators and information/identity thieves.

      See, when you're at school, you don't need to be on boobfuck.net . It's really that simple. You didn't have the right to alter the school's network, and you did it anyway. And you know what? You deserved the expulsion.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    33. Re:Happened to me by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      You might not want your child to see a porn site, another person might not want their kid to see a site on evolution (because obviously god created earth in 7 days), another person might not want kids to view sites on Isreal (after all, they ARE the devil oppressing Muslims), another person might not want their kids to access military recruitment sites... in fact, if we censored sites that every parent had a problem with, there would be very little that wasn't censored.

      So implicit in your desire to censor the internet is the belief that 1) Your personal desires on censorship is the 1 true correct way to believe... and 2) That the schools will censor in a way that you approve of as a parent.

      If you want your kid to have censored internet, send him to a private school. If you can't afford one, then home school. If you insist that the same people who run FEMA and collect your garbage must also babysit your kid, then accept that schools are a government institution, and that they don't have the right to censor any more than any other government organization.

    34. Re:Happened to me by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      ah yes, killjoe, the man who still takes everything literally.

      --
      AccountKiller
    35. Re:Happened to me by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


      His goal wasn't to change people's minds.

      Then he's simply a selfish fool. Anyone that truly believes that filtering is wrong in HS libraries will work to change the policy, not trying to circumvent the filtering. HS is a pretty small place for a short period of time. You can circumvent the filter by simply going home, or waiting up to 4 years to graduate.

      How do you argue with unreasonable men?

      Find the unreasonable mens' bosses, and convince them. We still live in a democracy, so ultimately the bosses of the school administrators are the people of the district. You don't even have to convince anyone, just a small but vocal minority.

      His goal was to beat back censorship, which he accomplished.

      For what, a couple days? All he accomplished was getting himself expelled.

      Second of all your sig is: when you hear 'activist' you reach for a revolver

      Thank you for your literalist interpretation. I'll give it all the respect it deserves.

      --
      AccountKiller
    36. Re:Happened to me by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Since you are advocating for the murder of activists on your signature I naturally assumed that you had already killed a few. Was that a wrong assumption?

      Perhaps you are one of those people who cleans their gun everyday while harboring murder fantasies and hoping that one day somebody breaks into your house so you can kill them.

      People with murder fantasies to me are some of the sickest people on the planet. They think they want to kill but they don't have the guts to carry it out. They tend to be blowhard cowards.

      I suppose I should be glad you only fantasize about murder.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    37. Re:Happened to me by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      Actually, nowhere in the constitution is the Federal Government granted the right to mandate any sort of requirements on schools. And nowhere is there an exception to the bill of rights given to government schools.
      Right. And as soon as someone can convince the Federal Government of that, we'll be all set. As of now, they don't seem to think they law applies to them, and they have all the big guns.
    38. Re:Happened to me by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      How many joes have you killed Mr. KillJoe? You are certainly a joe murdering maniac with a name like that. Do you fantasize about killing people named Joe? You are one sick puppy.

      --
      AccountKiller
    39. Re:Happened to me by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I don't advocate murder in my sig. The name is simply a play on words.

      You on the other hand are saying that you murder activists. In fact you reach for your gun whenever you hear the word activist.

      It seems to me you are a mass murderer waiting to happen if you are not one already. People who fantasize about murdering other people will eventually carry out their fantasies.

      The only question is whether you will rape them before or after you kill them.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    40. Re:Happened to me by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      I don't buy into this "play on words". That's all subtltey they teach you in places like college. I believe the world is simple. Black and white, right and wrong, meat and potatoes, Martin and Lewis. You sir are advocating the murder of people named Joe, and I simply won't stand for it. I don't know what prompted your hatred for poor defenseless people named Joe, but I suggest you seek professional help before it's too late.

      --
      AccountKiller
    41. Re:Happened to me by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I think this is typical in people like you. You simply presume that everybody else has the same murderous instinct that you do.

      I certainly feel sorry for anybody who is antivist in your town. Let's hope you don't live in a collage town, I would hate to see young people getting gunned down by the likes of you.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    42. Re:Happened to me by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Don't try to hide behind false innuendo and the inability to spell the word college. I'm turning you into the FBI. I'm sure they'll be quite happy to find the serial killer that's been murdering poor innocent people named Joe. The world will be rid of Joe murdering bastards like yourself when they lock you up. Just think of all the people in prison named Joe that will be ready to gang rape you. You an only hope your new boyfriend will protect you from other people named Joe sticking you with a shiv.

      --
      AccountKiller
    43. Re:Happened to me by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I thought you would kill the FBI guys too. I mean they are activist of sort and didn't one of your republitard leaders once advise you guys to shoot for their heads?

      It's an interesting thing thogh why you decided to hate activists. That's the part that's a little puzzling. I mean did an activist get a clean water law passed and put you out of a job or something?

      Targetting activists for murder seems weird, why not pick of fags, niggers, or even your wife like all the rest of the repubtards do?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    44. Re:Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your abusiveness make you feel better? I get the impression you believe there is a hierarchy of abusiveness and because you believe someone below you in the hierarchy deserves abuse, you are entitled to deliver it. I hope that you understand you are the change you want to see in the world.

    45. Re:Happened to me by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      Scatological, calumniatory, raw porn is quite different from the philisophical issues you mention. There's no desire on my part mentioned in my post, just that I could not make a case for such a site being *not* blocked. "no constitutional right" is what I said. That's far different from expressing a desire for such filtering.

      I don't, actually, even filter here at home. Unless you count having my 13 year old son's computer in a public part of the house as "filtering" (I don't). I trust him. I don't think if he visited such a site it would cause the earth to tremble (IOW, he'd get out of it whatever he was ready for). And having the computer *not* hidden away in his room limits the amount of temptation.

      While you make some good points, they're really not applicable to me.

    46. Re:Happened to me by potat0man · · Score: 1

      Then he's simply a selfish fool.

      You say selfish like it's a bad thing.

      Find the unreasonable mens' bosses, and convince them.

      Say that they too are unreasonable. Which they obviously are if reason is on the kids side yet many HS's enforce internet censorship it would appear the bosses are upholding the decisions of the administration.

      Thank you for your literalist interpretation. I'll give it all the respect it deserves.

      Hardly literal. I used it to point out that the kid was taking action as opposed to getting endless, meaningless petitions signed much like the spirit of the sig. Given your inability to correctly identify literal interpretations versus analogies I'll give your words all the shit they deserve.

  61. school != education by DawnArdent · · Score: 1
    1. Re:school != education by tomjen · · Score: 1

      When you read his book it will sound paranoid. It did to me anyway but then I come here to ./ and see this, I remember the drug searches, I remember the Mac book incidend. So he may be unto something.

      Then I start to think - the only programming classes I ever took was VB6 where I concluded the teacher was wrong and did it like i should have been. However I learned Delphi from varius magazines, C from a book my father had and C++ from a book i brought. I learned Java from a tutorial on the net and a book in the (not so) local library.

      But you may say that I at least learned to read/write and do arimethics in school? So did I think until my mother said that it was her who teached me that - and she properly did, or at least gave me my passion for books.

      So Gatto might be unto something anyway.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    2. Re:school != education by DawnArdent · · Score: 1

      If you have proper motivation and a bit of personal integrity, you can learn anything - and do it fast.

      When someone asks me to teach them something, actually teaching them is the easier part. The hard part is removing their preconcieved notions, and school systems do a good job at planting such preconcieved notions with their directives: "learning = memorization" and "authority is right".

      The schools of today are much more about 'conditioning' rather than 'learning'.

      Gatto's book sounds paranoid because we're not used to looking at things this way. People may label it as a 'conspiracy theory', but there is no need for that: people talk to each other. That's all there is to it.

    3. Re:school != education by hotair · · Score: 1

      In principle I agree with what you say. However, I must call into question the claim that "it was her who teached me that - and she properly did." I'm glad she gave you a passion for learning and books. It is not clear fromt this post that you learned much grammar. If you did attend school, perhaps your post is an indictment of their teaching abilities.

    4. Re:school != education by tomjen · · Score: 1

      The grammar part could be do to the fact that English is not my native language.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
  62. Are you sure that's the real reason? by MarkByers · · Score: 1

    I bet your friend had got into trouble many times before they were expelled for a Mohican haircut. The reason given was probably just something easy that they can pick on and many people will support them without thinking for themselves.

    The real reason they were expelled (for being a brat, or perhaps a complete failure?) is more difficult to admit. Perhaps there was even something secret that you are not aware about. A blackmail attempt perhaps. Things are rarely as simple as 'I got banned for my haircut'.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Are you sure that's the real reason? by massivefoot · · Score: 1

      They were suspended not expelled. It's true that the head teacher didn't particularly like the girl in question, however the school staff explicitly stated that she was removed because her haircut had been considered "inappropriate."

    2. Re:Are you sure that's the real reason? by clifyt · · Score: 1

      "The real reason they were expelled (for being a brat, or perhaps a complete failure?) is more difficult to admit. "

      Back in the day, this is the sorta thing that happened to me...I'd routinely get in trouble for my clothing instead of my behavior. I was a smart mouth brat that thought better than anyone else in my school -- but close to failing each and ever semmester because I just didn't care to encourage the estabilishment.

      Or whatever I called it back then.

      I remember, I studied the rules to the point where I never stepped across the line -- I got right to the line and pissed off my teachers by letting them know I knew more where that line was than they did and could quote the student handbook.

      As for clothing, it was described in detail as to what the acceptable clothing was -- and that too was followed as little as possible. It, however, contained the "Or Disruptive" wording that could almost mean ANYTHING...if you came in with a suit and tie while all the others were in jeans and t-shirt, that could be considered disruptive (and I often did). Purple hair, wierd hair cuts, all that. And regardless of my behavior, it was the clothing that got me in trouble.

      Luckily, I had a principal that was extremely straight laced but for some reason liked me. Out of all the faculty, I had one on my side. It was the only reasons I didn't get expelled (though the assistant principle and other faculty tried to actually take the matter up with the school board when he didn't act...so I still had days off -- to 'cool down' even if I wasn't being punished 'for the good of the school').

      As an adult, honestly, I agree that clothing and otherwise CAN BE disruptive and I think my looks probably were. Having a purple mohawk or wearing a skirt to school just to complain that women were allowed to wear them but men weren't allowed to wear shorts (I miss the days of crossdressing for fun and profit -- and there weren't genderlines in the manual so I did it)...all in all, clothing and the way you look is NOT who you are. This is the fallicy of America -- Image Is Everything.

      But you are right, things are rarely as simple as a haircut -- if you are an honor roll student that gets along with teachers, even the most hardcore would probably laugh at the attempt to get attention and then ignore it.

  63. Here's his website by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Informative
    Warning, it's butt ugly - seriously, instead of expelling him, they should send him to design classes.

    Talk about over reaction though. Why not just bug the police to bust his ass for underage drinking? If that's what the district really wants. Or, why not just take this to its logical conclusion and expell almost every teenager for, well, being a teenager.

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    1. Re:Here's his website by Belgand · · Score: 1

      Expel? They need to get that kid into an intensive grammar class rather than trying to expel him. It's not just the terrible spelling and complete failure to use apostrophes (well, unless he's using them in an amazingly incorrect way), but he doesn't even bother to use question marks when asking questions most of the time or capitalize the first letter in a new sentence. I'll admit that my grammar isn't always perfect, but at least I always try to use proper grammar and spelling.

      The design, however, really is terrible. I couldn't even read it without highlighting the text.

      Reading it more this kid really seems like your standard punk teenager who's probably going to be suspended at least once for a legitimate reason. On the other hand it also reveals a bit more about what's going on. Apparently (at least, according to the blog posts) other students have been suspended over their posts on Xanga. Now since I don't know the full story I can't say for certain, but that seems to be where his claims of being bullied come from.

      At the same time since I don't know the full story the school may have had other reasons for suspending the students other than that they just mocked them online. I know at my high school anyone involved in any form of atheletics (in my case this was debate and forensics) was required to sign some sort of pledge that stated that if you were caught smoking, drinking, or doing drugs or showed up to a school event under the influence (I'm not, however, certain whether they tried to make it affect times when you were under the influence, but not in any way involved with school activities while it occured, but I believe it did) you could be temporarily barred from participating, kicked off the team, or suspended from school. This was not voluntary, of course, and you were required to sign a new one every year or else you weren't allowed to participate. As with all things enforcement was spotty: one of our best debaters wasn't allowed to compete for a few weeks after being caught smoking while another was a notorious drunk who showed up to competitions drunk was never even chided on it since she'd take first place almost every week.

      Depending on the school it could have (and I'm really stretching here) been an issue where a student who signed something like this was caught at it by posting about engaging in some sort of activity that would violate the agreement. The legality of such an agreement, of course, is another issue though.

    2. Re:Here's his website by hyfe · · Score: 1
      Warning, it's butt ugly - seriously, instead of expelling him, they should send him to design

      Well, the background picture makes up for a damn lot! Bloody hell, I'd like to .. erm.. date her :)

      On another note, how old are these kids? Shouldn't they have learnt how to avoid basic writing mistakes by now? I mean, that text reads basically like my english in high-school (or rather, our equivalent), and I'm bloody Norwegian :)

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    3. Re:Here's his website by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      My God, that's some of the worst design I've ever seen. Red print on black background, scrolling over pink background "objects" so that they're impossible to read?

      He doesn't need to be expelled, he needs to become a Slashdot website designer so his poor layout can wrench at the eyeballs of everyone!

    4. Re:Here's his website by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Funny
      they should send him to design classes
      Or a fucking optician.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Here's his website by ZzzzSleep · · Score: 1
      Quoth Antique Geekmeister
      My God, that's some of the worst design I've ever seen. Red print on black background, scrolling over pink background "objects" so that they're impossible to read?
      Which is why I love Operas "user mode" feature. It makes eye watering text readable again. Yay!
    6. Re:Here's his website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it can't be read with lynx, it's the sign of a wasted high school classroom and should be so maarked.

    7. Re:Here's his website by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Read it again, and pretend you're a 65-year-old who's completely lost touch with the social cues of youth. Imagine that you're scared in your job because of school murders, and that you're scared of specifically this kid because he wears goth gear and listens to Marilyn Manson or whoever this year's shock band is. Consider that you as this hypothetical teacher mean well, but have become a douche in your old age as so many do, and that you think this kid is sacrificing rats in the bathroom while reciting the necronomicon backwards in pig latin.

      Now, read what he wrote again.

      From that mindset, it is really, really easy to misunderstand this kid as meaning he's going to shoot up his school. Yes, you and I know that's not what he's saying at all. But it's an easy mistake to make, and that's what happened. The school thinks it's protecting itself from a child murderer.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    8. Re:Here's his website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From that mindset, it is really, really easy to misunderstand this kid as meaning he's going to shoot up his school. Yes, you and I know that's not what he's saying at all.

      There's no misunderstanding involved. The little prick was clearly making a threat. He deserves explusion, and his mother should serve some time in jail for raising the little shit bag.

  64. Gee, This Sounds Familiar... by JayBees · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hopefully the Plainfield School District will learn from the folly of the nearby Oceanport School District and end this before they, too, are forced to settle out of court with the student and his family for an exorbitant amount of money that would have been better spent on books and teachers.

    I actually was a student in the Oceanport School District not all that long ago, and lived not all that far from Plainfield; let me tell you, there's nothing unusual about these towns at all. They're your average run-of-the-mill suburbs. I point out just how normal these towns are to underscore that this kind of free-speech-violating-bullshit can and will happen everywhere unless we actually shout and scream and go out of our way to stop it from happening.

    1. Re:Gee, This Sounds Familiar... by Assassin17 · · Score: 1

      As several other posts have pointed out, the Plainfield in question is in Illinois, not New Jersey. Your "average run-of-the-mill suburbs" comment still applies, though. :)

    2. Re:Gee, This Sounds Familiar... by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      free-speech-violating-bullshit can and will happen everywhere unless we actually shout and scream

      To most people, free speech is not comfortable or natural. The concept is hard to grasp. This is especially true to those in positions of authority. The only way to preserve our rights to free speech is to diligently crush the toes of those who trespass. So long as we have the First Amendement, this will have to be the way of things.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    3. Re:Gee, This Sounds Familiar... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      RTFX(anga Post). This isn't opinion censorship. This is a bunch of people who thought this kid was threatening another Columbine, and overreacted.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    4. Re:Gee, This Sounds Familiar... by cballowe · · Score: 1

      Nearby, except for the small overlooked piece of it being Plainfield, IL, not NJ. Odd.... Sun Times -> Chicago, Joliet is in IL, Plainfield is right next to Joliet.

      Maybe someone from /. should RTFA and fact check before posting!

    5. Re:Gee, This Sounds Familiar... by JayBees · · Score: 1

      Well, I meant, uh...nearby on a galactic scale...yeah, that's the ticket.

  65. Anybody else seeing shadows? by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    Or, more properly, maskirovka? For your consideration: A student posts items in a blog his school finds objectionable: they *attempt* to bully him into submission, in a semi-clear, INCOMPETENT attempt at violation of his First Amendment Rights (note, ZERO law enforcement reporting/involvement). My prediction: The student will have a lawsuit filed on his behalf by the ACLU, they will win, and this event will be trumpeted across all of the news media for days.

    ONE case of a citizen's rights being defended and upheld, here, kids, watch *this* hand with the shiny coin!

    Meanwhile, elsewhere, Senior government officials are routinely breaking laws that, were a common citizen to be caught doing same, would land them in prison so deep they'd be piping in daylight on alternate Wednesdays...

    Now if y'all will excuse me, I'm gonna go look into Canada's immigration policies...

    One thing about the rats that manage to successfulyy desert the sinking ship: They survive longer than the ship does.

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    1. Re:Anybody else seeing shadows? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I hear Yellowknife is a good place to live.

    2. Re:Anybody else seeing shadows? by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. What makes you suggest it?

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    3. Re:Anybody else seeing shadows? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I've always said that once I'm done with the world, I'm going to move there. I suggest it because I enjoy cold weather and its in the middle of nowhere, both being qualities I enjoy.

    4. Re:Anybody else seeing shadows? by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      Cool, thank you. It looks like it has possibilities... peace, quiet... yeah.

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  66. The Sad Truth by a_peckover · · Score: 1

    His family might end up suing the school district or the school responsible, and they might just win. Either way, it will drain money that the school could have used for educating children and all because a small number of people think they can repress their students right to free speech.

  67. Eminem Lyrics? by PhaxMohdem · · Score: 1

    "freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold?"

    First thought that came to mind was this kid's been listening to too much Eminem :P

    Though his predicament does get my blood boiling a bit in his defense. My High School was very much the same way... My brother was also expelled for an off-hours Xanga post... but he's just a dumbass :P.

    --

    The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.

  68. Where are the posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could someone point me to the posts that kid wrote? I think it would be a great idea to read them before making any judgments... or you really believe freedom of speech means anything can be said? It's a good thing to be able to express your opinions, but at least we could expect people to forge an opinion before starting selling nonsense trolling as opinions. Not saying this is what happened here, but it might...

  69. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    must be a blowhard; what guy that writes a diary isn't?

  70. Re:Friendly piece of advice by poena.dare · · Score: 1

    Now I'm happy that I set fire to my school oh-so-many years ago, before it became trendy.

  71. everyone by SlashSquatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone in this case is taking themselves way too seriously, including me, for making this dumb post.

    Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust, and friendship.

    --
    Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
  72. 1st amendment democracy and USA ? by laplace_man · · Score: 1

    It's sad that something like that can happen in USA. I always believed that 1st amendment means something there. USA is turning into a police state just like Soviet Union under comunism. Except that there was police watching over public not fellow citizens. And the reason for such acts of stupidity is fear. If you still thik you have democracy in USA and if you still belive in your "way of life" and 1st amendmant please don't do something so stupid. I belive there is a lot of such blogs in our coutry and nobody ever says anything. Especialy not to 17-year-old student. I agreee it is something completly different if someone writes down something like "I will place a bomb in school tommorow" or such. In our schools we have psychologist on each school taking care of such things. The action that would be taken in our country for such act if any would be a long talk with principle and psychologist.If that wouldn't work they would transfer him to other school. Court ? Yeah make some more fear and more sheeps without brains....But still fear is cheaper then doing it our way.

    1. Re:1st amendment democracy and USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you should really visit some of the countries you're comparing USA to... i can't believe you're saying such things seriously. Say that USA isn't what it used to be, but don't make stupid comparaisons just because you want to dramatize something that isn't really a big deal. Free of speech? ok. The school is free to take it's own decisions? of course. Conflict? justice will tell...

    2. Re:1st amendment democracy and USA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work with someone who lived in Communist Poland, and he has made the same comments as the OP. Now he was refering to things like the NSA spying on US citizens, and the detention of people for years, but the point is one to consider.

  73. Same Here by shish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our high school had a student-run newspaper, run anonymously by students who were fed up with the bias in the teacher-run one -- one of the reporters was caught and threatened with expulsion unless the school was allowed to look over the paper and approve it before publication (which was agreed to, as long as all stories were still available in full on the website (seems to be down due to web host issues. web mania suck btw.)). Then they threatened to expel unless the editors made themselves known to senior staff (which was agreed to). Then they threatened to expel unless the paper was stopped entirely, which it eventually was :-(

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:Same Here by abb3w · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the students didn't pay enough attention to "Animal Farm" in English class.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  74. Re: Power to Vote by aralin · · Score: 1

    We live in a democracy. If you don't vote, you don't have any rights. Slaves, women, immigrants, childern. Its always the same thing. No vote, no power, no rights.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  75. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by sumdumass · · Score: 1
    not saying that anything you said isn't true but lets look at the columbine statment.

    "I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ... In my opinion you are the real threat here.
    there is alot of incinuations here.

    First, he is saying someone is a bully. Then he is saying somthing will happen because of that. Finaly he suggest what could happen or might be likley to happen by pointing to an example of somthing that already has happened.

    This is simular to a mafia guy trying to extort money from a shop keeper, saying you have a lot of expensive stuff in here that can get broke. You should pay us pretection money to ensure nothing accidently gets broke. The question is "is it likley that something will get broke. And the following question would be did that guy have anything to do with it getting broke.

    You can easily read a threat in there. It is empty enough that you might need to use your imagination a little. Curriously this was posted after the suspension. I wonder what his other posts actualy said.
  76. Teachers by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For some reason, teachers here think that they are gods inside schools. They consider themselves to have total authority, despite the fact that they take zero responsilibity for anything that happens inside schools. Consider bullying -- if you tried that at your workplace, you'd be lucky if you just got fired. More likely, you'd end up being sued into destitution or thrown in jail. And yet teachers do nothing to stop it, and spend their time expelling students who dare to complain about conditions in schools.

  77. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by lordperditor · · Score: 1

    So people are not entitled to post their own opinions in a public forum? uhmmmm okay then....

  78. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    Anything can be interpreted as a vague threat. When talking face-to-face, even a subtle change of voice can be sufficient.

    Where to draw the line, then?

  79. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by gkhan1 · · Score: 1
    It's not outrageous because he posted it on a blog, it's outrageous because this kid cannot express himself, like he has a constitutional right to, without getting punished for it by a government institution. We're not some crazy group of internet-maniacs that would have said "Ohh, it was in a newspaper. Well, then we don't care."

    It's actually fairly offensive of you to suggest that this story got extra headlines because it was in a blog.

  80. Similar event here in Georgia recently by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Informative

    Recently we had a story of a local student facing suit over his posting about his teacher. I figure that if schools cannot get to students on first amendment grounds they may follow the route of defamation of character if any names are mentioned in posting. The suit was eventually dropped but the threat was made known. Post something negative about a teacher and you can expect a bunch of grief.

    One other area brought up is that not only would the student have problems but as they are minors it is possible that the parents would have to bear financial responsibility.

    I wonder how long before public school students are no longer allowed to post on subjects that are not life threatening but school threatening like vouchers and such?

    Apparently not long...

    In Chicago, Community High School District 128 voted unanimously on Monday to require that all students participating in extracurricular activities sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by wvitXpert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I was in High School I was given an Internet Exeptable Use Policy that I had to have my parents sign. The document, besides all the normal stuff, contained a section that said that I would not view inapropriate material in or out of school (thats not word for word, but thats what it boiled down to). My mother refused to sign it, and went to the head of the school board. In the end she crossed out the offending sentence and initialed it. At the time I thought she was being crazy. I thought the text was just an oversight, but now I see it being used against students and I'm glad my mom did what she did.

    2. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by houghi · · Score: 1

      Post something negative about a teacher and you can expect a bunch of grief.

      That has always been the case. We (and I suppose everybody) had nicknames and stories about some teachers. We told them among our selves and never told that directly to any teacher.

      Putting it on a blog is like telling it to a teacher in his face. And it is irrelevant if these stories were true or not, although I still believe that "Gympie" really was 217 years old.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the fact that as minors students are unable to legally enter a binding contract? Wouldn't that make any contract that they sign null and void?

    4. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by WCMI92 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "In Chicago, Community High School District 128 voted unanimously on Monday to require that all students participating in extracurricular activities sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action."

      Such a "contract" would be as illegal as the paper that it was written on. No goverment entity (and public schools are government entities) can make you sign away your right to free speech, petition, etc on your own time on your own property. Also, without defining with specificity what "inappropriate" is, the thing would be too broad even if it were a contract between PRIVATE citizens.

      That would be the same as if your state passed a law requiring you to, when you renewed your drivers license that you refrained from "inappropriate" behavior on the internet, with the intent to sue people who criticize the idiots at the DMV...

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    5. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Back when I was in school they request the parents all sign a document before each school year. It said that they would neither let us ever drink alchohol nor drink any alcohol in front of us, even during holidays.

      It wasn't mandatory, but when the school directory (phone listings of teachers and students) were handed out at the beginning of the year it indicated who had signed the document and who hadn't.

      My parents thought it was stupid. They'd both immigrated here from Poland so a kid trying a sip of wine on Christmas wasn't taboo there. Likewise, why shouldn't they be able to drink wine during Christmas or their anniversary because of the flipping school?!?

      Honestly, if I were that guy's parent I'd find the best lawyers I could.

    6. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      If they are "required" to sign a pledge, it can be argued that they did no willingly sign the pledge, thus did not, in fact, pledge anything.

      The educational system in this country is fucked up.

    7. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about contracts with those in the minority, the minority party can step away from the contract without adverse penalty at any point up to their reaching majority.

      Besides, what school district in its right mind gets "consent" for ANYTHING through the students. I used to have to get a parental signature for crossing the street.

    8. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by Mo+Bedda · · Score: 1

      While I agree that "inappropriate" could be debated, I don't think this is as illegal as you think. You do not have a right to extracirricular activities and you are not forced to participate. So, signing this agreement is voluntary. I believe this is how they got drug testing into some school districts. State law may limit the type of "disciplinary action" could take, but I believe many districts already make students sign agreements which cover activities outside of school in order to participate in extracirricular activities, the Internet is just a new angle.

      The difference with attempting it through the DMV is the number of voters you impact. Most voters couldn't give a damn about school kids, or are coming from the "protect the children" mind set. As we have learned from the War on Terror, many people seem to think that protection is achieved by giving up your rights.

      I think it is B.S., but when growing and consuming a plant entirely on your own private property can be regulated as interstate commerce; I don't have much faith in the courts limiting the reach of government.

    9. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Signing the "agreement" is voluntary, however, a public school is a part of the government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, *may not* be violated by the government. You cannot sign away those rights, even if you want to. A public school policy governing what you can and cannot say, in or out of school, is unconstitutional, and hence, illegal. People are just so used to the government telling them what is right and wrong, that they don't bother finding out the truth for themselves.

    10. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Calling a teacher a dumbass to their face, outside of school grounds, should be no different than calling anyone else a dumbass. The very idea that schools have any power over someone after you walk off of their property is silly. extremely silly.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    11. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Such a "contract" would be as illegal as the paper that it was written on."

      What the hell kind of illegal paper did they write it on? Marijuana paper?

      Sorry to make a snarky joke about your serious comment, but I couldn't pass it up ;)

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    12. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by stonecypher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Such a "contract" would be as illegal as the paper that it was written on.

      1) That's not a contract, it's an agreement. They're very different things in the eyes of the law.
      2) There is nothing illegal about such an agreement, and that agreement is binding. The only agreements and contracts which are invalid are those signed under duress, those signed by people unable to represent themselves such as unemancipated minors, and those contracts which require the signator to do something illegal.

      Be very careful about the wording of #2. That doesn't say "those which require someone to do something that the law does not allow without an agreement." For example, I can happily sign an agreement with you such that neither of us wear green clothes which has a monetary penalty clause. Assuming the contract is signed by competant individuals outside of duress, then whichever of us first wears green clothes is liable for that penalty. It doesn't matter that a school can't expel us for wearing green clothes; we've entered into a binding agreement.

      The thing that's actually actionable here is that the school requires the agreement for acceptance, and that the clause regards someone's fundamental rights. Mind you, this sort of clause is actually common in the real world; one place where Slashdot is quite used to the idea is in the communication clause of a noncompete contract. If you work for WidgetInc, you can't give any tech advice to CommonControlCorp for a year, that sort of thing. The courts uphold specific obligations to personal topical censorship all the time.

      The problem is that the school district requires the students to sign the agreement. THAT is illegal. You cannot require someone who is already a member of a public service to sign an agreement to remain a member. (You can if it's a private service.) Furthermore, you can only require someone to sign an agreement to use a public service if there is another equivalent public service within reasonable availability to the person. That's how magnet schools add restrictions like dress code and behavior code to their system: if the kid doesn't want to sign the agreement, they're welcome to go to the normal public school.

      The issue, in the eyes of the court, is simply whether a person dependant on a public service has the option to use a public service without entering into agreements which they don't want. As long as there's one public school available to a kid which doesn't have asinine agreements, the others can require things like that all they want. They cannot, however, require that of their existing students; only their new ones.

      What the school is doing here isn't actually to curtail the student's rights at all. It's a misguided attempt at self protection. The school wants legal leeway so that if they see something they think but cannot legally prove is a threat, that they can act on it without getting bent over a crate. This is a common fear in current school systems, and principals ignorant of the law are frequently doing this believing they're acting in the best interest of the school's ability to keep itself safe. Were it not for the disasterous results of their misapplication, they'd actually be doing an admirable thing.

      The principals, unfortunately, are not apparently aware that they are able to expel a kid simply because they believe the kid is a threat. (Go ask a lawyer - it's true.) Once someone knows that, then this agreement becomes a horrible after-effect of the glad-handed attempt to seal the school up from liability. This sort of behavior is common in leadership which is more interested in being safe from liability than being safe from legitimate liability. The latter stance is important, but requires clueful legal counsel - something most public schools don't have.

      Be less angry at the school board. They're trying to do the right thing. They just don't know how. Instead of telling them how awful they are, gently and kindly explain why what they're doin

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    13. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by abb3w · · Score: 1
      You do not have a right to extracirricular activities and you are not forced to participate. So, signing this agreement is voluntary.

      Mayhaps. However, some civil rights cannot be waived; I'm not sure if this is such an instance or not. Furthermore, juveniles are considered unable to enter a contract; as such, unless it is the parent (or legal guardian) signing the agreement, the piece of paper is moot.

      Regardless, as public schools are effective an agency of the state, I'd consider speech and conduct restrictions inappropriate, save when such speech or conduct can be proven to interfere with the underlying educational mission of the schools. If they put that kind of limitation in the wording, I'd be willing to consider signing such a thing for my own kids, if I ever get any.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    14. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Well said, sir. Well said. And a "Score: 2" no less. Ah, the pleasant void that is Slashdot.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    15. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
      Then it looks like websites such as RateMyTeachers.com will be taken down soon then, eh?

      God forbid a student has an opinion and wants to express it.

      --
      Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    16. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by strike2867 · · Score: 0

      From what I remember, the signature of anyone under 18 in Illinois is meaningless in a court.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    17. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As we can tell by the grammer of your post.

    18. Re:Similar event here in Georgia recently by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      "grammer"

      well done....

  81. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by Vellmont · · Score: 1


    I would expect anything you publish on the web to be treated equally be it on the front page of Slashdot, the BBC website, a discussion forum or a blog.


    Well that's simply ridiculous. Both a blog and the BBC website are public spaces. No one should be complaining about anyone reading what they post in a public space. But comparing a blog to the BBC website isn't accurate. Obviously the BBC website has a MUCH larger readership than your average blog. That creates a huge difference on what's acceptable to post on a blog, and what's acceptable on the BBC website. There's a big difference between how widely dispersed the information becomes. Just because a non-public persona posts on myspace about their relationship problems with their spouse doesn't make it OK for the New York Post to pick up the story and print it on page two. (An odd situation I'll admit, but the point is there's difference between people in the public eye, and a random person publishing something on a blog)

    I don't know if my point really relates to the story, but I thought it was a distinction worth pointing out.

    --
    AccountKiller
  82. Abusing the law by ryanduff · · Score: 1
    "The district is going to take away the student's education for exercising his freedom of speech," said attorney Carl Buck. "I feel like they are trying to control his freedom of speech. ... He is saying, 'You can't bully people and we have a right to object and you can't throw people out of school for voicing their opinions.'"
    I'm not sure in this sue-happy world when people will figure this out, but I hope they do it soon. They're turning blogs and the web into weapons to win them money and abusing the legal system and our rights as Americans.
    1. Re:Abusing the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are you saying, that a) a PUBLIC school has the right to expel a student for exercising his 1st amendment rights outside of school on his own time, or b) that they were wrong but the student should simply accept his expulsion without a fight?

      Complain all you want about our litigious society, but this is a clear cut case of where a lawsuit is called for. Without it the student would have little recourse.

  83. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However I do object to the general sense of 'if its a blog its ok', people seem to think that if they say something in their blog they are somehow protected or that it's OK to say it there because it's their personal space...


    Did you even read the article? The student wrote: "I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold?" Clearly this student knew this wasn't private and anyone could view it. Beyond that, this is his personal space. He can write whatever he chooses. Had he decided to write it to his local newspaper it may have been published in it's opinions section.

    Fact of the matter is, he wrote his feelings and was punished for it. This is a clear violation of his rights protected under the 1st Amendment.

    In conclusion - don't hide behind your 'rights.'
  84. Re: Power to Vote by massivefoot · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I'm interested by your comment, as it's actually quite relevant to the UK at the moment. Are you suggesting that people should be given the right to vote at a younger age? There was discussion a short time ago in parliament about lowering the voting age to 16. I don't remember if it ever came to anything though. Personally I think 16 is too young to vote, but you can marry, join the armed forces, fly an aircraft solo and have to pay taxes by the time you're 16.

  85. Welcome to 1984... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are here and they are monitoring us. Quick pass the tin foil around.

  86. Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Everyone here seems to feel the student has the right to freespeech. Okay, does his teacher have the same rights? Does the school? Can they say anything they want about him? Put a blog up about how this kid pissed himself on the school trip and cried for his mommy?

    Tell the world he didn't bring a date to the prom?

    Freespeech always seems to be onsided.

    Frankly in this case I don't know what to think. I myself have once done a school project where we had to make a brochure about something. I parodied the school brochure but highlighted stuff like the fact the computer room could not be used outside class hours and other lacking facilities.

    Got called into the directors office but nothing major, he just wanted to ask wich of them were true, and they were corrected. Turned out that the stuff I found stupid were never intended to be that way but had just evolved over the years.

    Granted this was holland and nobody had heard of school shootings. Then again I used humor and didn't insult anyone.

    As always there is probably a fine line with the case of what people are allowed to say, I just wonder if all the people defending the right of students to insult teachers feel that teachers have the same right to insult their students. Cause I am pretty sure that if teachers were allowed they have some real cursing to get off their chest.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the teachers in my secondary school did (I go to the UK)
      He changed the names a bit, but released a diary to a national newspaper about the classes he taught and the pupils in it.

    2. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by etymxris · · Score: 1

      A teacher could probably be fired for badmouthing students on his blog, while a student should not be expelled for similarly disparaging remarks about his teachers. Why is that? Teachers can legally change professions. Students cannot legally quit school. Teachers are generally held to a higher standard of conduct and they should be.

    3. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor baby! Sounds like you had a poor education at best - you barely speak English, can't spell, and certainly don't have the skill to create a full sentence. No wonder you are angry at the US School system!

      "Freespeech always seems to be onsided." - Onesided
      "I myself have once done a school project ..." I had once done
      "he just wanted to ask wich of them were true, and they were corrected." - which.

      Case closed!
      Oh wait - you are in Holland (?)
      - so ... American Schools have nothing to do with you, you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by shish · · Score: 1
      Everyone here seems to feel the student has the right to freespeech. Okay, does his teacher have the same rights? Does the school? Can they say anything they want about him?

      If it was a student / teacher thing, in school, no. But the issue here is that the kid's being punished as a student for something that happened outside of school.

      Similarly, I support the right of teachers to bitch about pupils -- but only on their own time, not acting as school staff.

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    5. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      The employees have a right to freedom of speech, but that does not apply to things that they learned on the job serving their clients. Think of it this way, would you want to go to a bank where the tellers told everyone how much money you make? The clients can say what they want about the bank so yes it is one-sided but for a good reason.

      The employee has responsibilities to the school; information that they collect during their time there is related to the thier job not their social life or personal views. Students are not paid to go to school, it is a part of their life; they are the clients.

    6. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In either case, both should be legally free to post whatever they like about each other - bearing in mind that both can still be sued for libel if what they write is incorrect and defamatory. However, the teacher should, and probably would, face additional penalties if they posted something like that, as it constitutes unprofessional behaviour. For the teacher, the school is an employer like any other. The school can sack the teacher for the same reason any employer could. However, to the student, the school is not an employer, it is a representative of the government.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Teachers are paid employees of a school, so there is an expectation of privacy. If teachers don't like keeping things going on at the school secret, they don't have to be a teacher.

      On the other hand, children are legally compelled to attend government run schools by the government. Students are compelled to attend by law. This makes school closer to a prison than a private workplace. Therefore, public schools should allow students to exercise all constitutional rights, both in school and out.

    8. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, does his teacher have the same rights? Does the school? Can they say anything they want about him? Put a blog up about how this kid pissed himself on the school trip and cried for his mommy?

      Tell the world he didn't bring a date to the prom?


      Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

    9. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Freespeech always seems to be onsided.


      It may seem one sided but who has the power? The student can't expell/suspend a school (think sexual harassment -- one of the requirements is that the harasser is in a position of power)
    10. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the school or an instructor posted much of anything, you could sue the fuck out of them based on FERPA violations.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    11. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by khallow · · Score: 1
      Everyone here seems to feel the student has the right to freespeech. Okay, does his teacher have the same rights? Does the school? Can they say anything they want about him? Put a blog up about how this kid pissed himself on the school trip and cried for his mommy?

      The reason they can't is because they're in a position of power over the student. They have responsibilities which the student doesn't have. Further, a student, excising their right to free speech, is learning and hence, fulfilling their responsibilities as a student. Even insulting teachers on a blog is a learning experience.

    12. Re:Mmm, I wonder if the reverse is true by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, does his teacher have the same rights? Does the school? Can they say anything they want about him?

      As long as it's factual, yes. However, Slashdot has completely blown this out of proportion into a censorship and right to speech issue. That's not what's going on at all.

      This is a simple misunderstanding which has gone way too far. Read what the kid actually wrote: there's a point at which he says he feels threatened, then later there's a point where he says the Columbine kids did what they did because they felt threatened. Granted, he does vaguely hand-wave the threat away, but it's an easy mistake to make to believe this kid is himself making such a threat.

      The school board is reacting to some teacher who told them this kid was about to become a murderer. The problem isn't the school or the school board. It's that teacher going straight to the board, instead of talking to the school psychologist first. If a sober person who understood teachers had read that post, they could have stopped this whole mess right at the gate.

      It's not about the critcism. It's dumbasses who think he's threatening to shoot people.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  87. They proved his point at least by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    A 17-year-old student who posted on his blog site that he was being bullied and threatened by the Plainfield School District will face an expulsion hearing this week, a local attorney said.

    Hehe, his point is hence proven. ;-)

    I hope there's some intervention for this though. If schools can expel students that don't share their opinions, where's society going then? They have their duty to teach their students; no more, no less. But in corporate America, I suppose the PR machinery for schools are more important anyway...

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  88. Re:Friendly piece of advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ur welcome. glad to get some rekognishun...finally.

  89. I know two people by goldcd · · Score: 1

    who took massive pay cuts in their thirties to leave the occasionally soul-destroying world of IT to become teachers - with the intention of having a rewarding career.
    One lasted one term, one lasted nearly two before they quit and came back. It wasn't the children that were the problem, it was the teachers. Cliquey, paranoied and petty.

  90. Re: Power to Vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Too young? On what grounds? Not responsible enough? Why then let the mentally ill vote? Or the senile seniors? Why not stop the right to vote at certain IQ threshold? If you want to discriminate against someone, at least make sure you know why. I would give the right to vote to anyone as long as they are making the choice themselves. And the argument that parents would affect the choice of their childern does not hold ground for long if you really think about it.

    There might be some natural lower boundary to protect the innocence of the childern, lets say until they go to school. But that is as far as I would be willing to go. And honestly, I would give parents of pre-schoolers the extra vote so their interests are protected as well.

    Any society that does not put its childern first is doomed to fail.

    BTW I would be as radical as to deny a public office to anyone older than 50.

  91. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you make good points. unfortunately there is nothing definitive there. in fact there is so little that local law enforcement (though never contacted) isn't even interested. you also correctly poing out that this wasn't even one of the comments that brought on the whole brouhaha.

    i cannot read a veiled threat in his statement because everything the kid says is spot-on accurate. he did, in fact, have a public webpage and was punished for it. i'd call that bullying. the fact that this issue has reached national media attention and he is still suspended leads me to wonder (like the kid) where are the protectors of his 1st amendment rights. as for causing a "community backlash," i offer up 200+ /. posts in the middle of the night to support his assertion that this is likely to happen. finally, he is correct in saying that the columbine shooter were victimized by teachers and students leading up to the shootings. pretending nothing was wrong and ignoring the issue only increased the pressure on these disturbed young men, much like the districts administration is ignoring what is spiraling out of control in this case. we can't heap on even more punishment for him speaking the truth. these are indeed the types of issueds that lead to violence. (do you consider my last sentence a threat?)

    the problem with your flawed mafiosi analogy is that this kid is the one who has been strong-armed.

  92. I work at a high school by MadMacSkillz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I work at a high school as a Network Administrator and I have three things to say.

    1. The school can't suspend a student for what they say in a blog, UNLESS the student was using a school computer during school time to do the blog. If he wasn't, they can't probably legally do anything unless the student's charges are disprovable, in which case they could sue him for libel, maybe.

    2. It IS true that schools do NOT fully understand the Internet and they ARE afraid of it. In many cases they are overreacting to issues such as kids talking to each other on myspace. But part of the reason for that is that if a kid were to get into trouble outside of school because of something they read or did on myspace on a school computer, the parents would attempt to sue the school. Folks are really quick to point blame the schools for their kids making stupid decisions.

    3. It's popular to hate schools and teachers here on slashdot, and I didn't really think too highly of my high school education either, but really most of the people I work with care about their jobs, and they're good people. I feel sorry for them, because they teach all the students - not just the bright, well behaved ones but also the obnoxious surly defiant unthankful disrespectful teens who think they know everything and don't care about anyone but themselves. They know that this stage of life is notorious for testing boundries and rebelling against authority. And they come into work each day and do the best they can, most of the folks. Most of the people here on slashdot couldn't do their job for a week without running home and crying into their huggy pillow. Blame the curriculum, or blame the bad teachers, but please don't lump all teachers into that category. Seeing posts saying all teachers suck get moderated high makes those of us here who are mature just sorta shake our heads. Slashdot readers and mods will argue for logic in one sentence and fail to apply it in the next.

    --
    Music - www.richardmac.com
    1. Re:I work at a high school by SuperFunFunFun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the people here on slashdot couldn't do their job for a week without running home and crying into their huggy pillow. Most people, untrained for a job, would struggle to do it. So what. I think what you are trying to say is have sympathy for teachers - their job is tough. So is yours, so is mine. I also don't get summers off and a cush 7:45-3:30 work day with an incredible array of days off. My wife, a teacher, does. Come to think of it, when you factor days off into pay, teachers do OK there too. That said, most teachers are great human beings who achieve incredible results despite working in quite possible the worst environment ouside your local maximum secruity penitentary. Blame the curriculum, or blame the bad teachers, but please don't lump all teachers into that category. Seeing posts saying all teachers suck get moderated high makes those of us here who are mature just sorta shake our heads I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the /. community thinks all teachers suck. I think people are highly critical of school administrators and the culture in most schools where kids can't use computers that other taxpayers pay for as the public resource that they are. People are also highly critical of the education system as every year costs go up, results go down. People are also critical when their taxes go up because some administrator got his panties in a knot over someone calling him a petty dictator on MySpace and drags the school into a lawsuit they lose. People get tired of seeing where kids get expelled for bringing cell phones, ipods, wifi detectors, toy guns and swiss army pocketknives to school. We also tire of seeing the student shoots up school story of the week. People are sick of educators behaving like power crazed, egotistical nit-wits. We're also sick of seeing our kids treated like inmates.

    2. Re:I work at a high school by tgd · · Score: 1

      I work at a high school as a Network Administrator and I have three things to say.

      1. The school can't suspend a student for what they say in a blog, UNLESS the student was using a school computer during school time to do the blog.


      Funny, but how is being a network administrator at a school a useful thing to prequalify a legal opinion with? Thats like saying "I work at a hospital as a network administrator and the radiologist can't say that the results of that MRI indicate cancer."

    3. Re:I work at a high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Excellent post. I teach math and computer science in high school and agree wholeheartedly. So many Slashdotters who spew bile towards public schools were probably intelligent, motivated, and (possibly) well-behaved students, and would have been even without the rigid strucutre imposed by schools.

      Unfortunately, the majority of students are not this way - even my AP class has kids who are very smart but still lazy, undisciplined, stubborn, unmotivated, and/or more interested in gaming and browsing the web than doing things that could be considered "educational". And in my programming classes, this isn't because I force them to write programs that are repetitive and boring; we do games, things with graphics, have days off where I play LAN games with them, etc. At that age, and with parents that spoil them ridiculously, many of them just don't care or have no self-discipline.

      The majority of kids in high school are not mature enough to take responsibility for their own education, and the system is tailored to them because it has to be. It's unfortunate that the better kids can't get the freedom that they deserve. But don't blame teachers (many of whom bust their butt, day in and day out) for the way things are. Good students grow up into smart people and assume that schools are full of kids just like them, and that's nowhere near reality.

    4. Re:I work at a high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well gee you think someone who runs the networks at school might be just a little familiar with the rules and regs that go along with the students' usage of the computers?

    5. Re:I work at a high school by Intron · · Score: 1
      Perhaps imposing the same rigid curriculum on all students does not give the best result? Students interested in art but not science may enjoy learning to use a graphics program, but not enjoy programming a game. Don't you think its more important that we find the one interest that each student has, rather than forcing every student to memorize the presidents? There is certainly a requirement that all students need to share a set of core knowledge and capabilities. However, the focus on college preparation and standardized testing has flattened education into a uniform gray pudding of rote and boredom.

      My belief is that the common requirement could be made much smaller, and the elective portion much larger and more challenging, with no loss of civic responsibility or limitation on aspirations.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    6. Re:I work at a high school by JoeQuaker · · Score: 1

      You know, I agree with a lot of this... however, I believe the whole public school system in the U.S. should be mothballed. It simply doesn't cut it.

    7. Re:I work at a high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My belief is that the common requirement could be made much smaller, and the elective portion much larger and more challenging."

      Isn't that a description of college?

      Your high school might have been lacking in the elective department. Mine is not - there's a wide array of electives from which students can pick. It forces us elective teachers to aggressively market our classes, to (hopefully) capture students' interest.

      As for the core stuff, I see nothing wrong with expecting students to:

      1) Know the history of the nation (and world) in which they live
      2) Be a master of the language that their country primarily speaks
      3) Understand the scientific underpinnings of the world in which they live
      4) Be able to think logically and use math to solve problems

      Past that, barring stuff like health and gym classes, kids are mostly free to explore. To me, that's high school as it should be.

      Forcing kids to choose a major in high school - now that's nuts.

    8. Re:I work at a high school by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      1) Know the history of the nation (and world) in which they live
      2) Be a master of the language that their country primarily speaks
      3) Understand the scientific underpinnings of the world in which they live
      4) Be able to think logically and use math to solve problems


      Too bad the majority of people who graduate high school do not satisfy those requirements. Actually the vast majority of adults in the US do not satisfy them.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    9. Re:I work at a high school by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      The school can't suspend a student for what they say in a blog, UNLESS the student was using a school computer during school time to do the blog.

      Sure they can, and the misunderstanding that caused this is a great example. The school could suspend the student if on his blog he wrote the administrator password for the school's gradekeeping system. The school could suspend the student if on his blog there were photographs of him pouring paint on a teacher (say he didn't get caught but then he bragged on his blog.) The school could suspend the student if he gave the location of a communal drug cache. Don't laugh - this has happened several times on usenet.

      The reason the school is trying to expel the student has nothing to do with criticism, and that slashdot has tried to spin this into a freedom of speech issue is sad. What really happened is that this kid sucks at writing. First he says he feels bullied, then he says Columbine happened because those kids felt bullied. Now, what he's really trying to do is co-opt someone else's tragedy to lend credence to his personal emotions.

      However, the way he wrote it makes it very, very easy to misunderstand him to mean he's about to go shoot the shit out of his school. And, you know what? If that were true - yes yes, it's not, but if it was - then what they did would have been both legal and correct. If there really was a burgeoning murderer, the appropriate thing to do would be to get him away from the other kids while you arrange to get him help.

      This is a misunderstanding. In my school, it was an art teacher who watched all the goths, because she thought they were painting hymnals to Satan in each other's blood on the bathroom ceilings. This just got way out of control because this kid chose a horrible tragedy to make himself feel important, and because some teacher misunderstood and went to protect the kids without talking to the school psychologist first.

      One good sober hand could have prevented this whole mess. It's not about freedom of speech. It's about dumbasses trying to do the right thing and failing.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    10. Re:I work at a high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also don't get summers off and a cush 7:45-3:30 work day with an incredible array of days off. My wife, a teacher, does.

              Hi, honey. I hope you posted that on your break. Pick up some eggs on the way home, OK? I'm just worn out after my massage. Oh, and pick up some sunscreen, too. I might be a little burned after lazing by the pool all day.

                      XOXO

    11. Re:I work at a high school by tgd · · Score: 1

      No, but I think they'd believe they are.

    12. Re:I work at a high school by Vomibra · · Score: 1
      ...please don't lump all teachers into that category...
      Point made, but...
      Slashdot readers and mods will argue for logic in one sentence and fail to apply it in the next.
      It sounds like you're generalizing a little yourself here. In fact, it's almost a perfect description of your own post.
    13. Re:I work at a high school by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      I feel I must mention John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education again. Available free of charge on the web.

    14. Re:I work at a high school by Gobiner · · Score: 1
      As a former high school student, I have to say that most of my teachers were great. The problem with my school, as in this case I believe, is the administrators.

      My school got a bunch of money one year. I believe it was earmarked for capital construction. Know what got upgraded? The adminstration offices and the library. Not the classrooms where students spend 80% of their time. Not the computer labs where actual school work could be done. The library is forgivable, as you could theoretically use it to further your education though most students spend very little time there.

      But seriously, a huge renovation for the attendance and main offices? I think the administrators feel that the schools couldn't possibly run without them, when in fact if the main offices disappeared, my school probably would have run fine. They need it get it through their thick heads that their sole purpose is to further the education of their pupils.

    15. Re:I work at a high school by lorcha · · Score: 1

      In other words, the majority of kids want to be kids, and that pisses you off.

      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  93. Please, if you agree with parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may with to suggest to involved parties they view the following URL:

    http://dtrump.ytmnd.com/

  94. Re: Power to Vote by massivefoot · · Score: 1

    The mentally ill don't have the vote in the UK, on the grounds that they're incapable of absorbing a large amount of information and making a rational decision. The royal family are also unable to vote, I suspect for similar reasons.

  95. Your grammar is 'rediculious' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the spelling and grammar in your post indicates that perhaps *you* should have paid more attention in school... here's a clue: its == possessive, while it's == contraction of 'it is'...

    on_topic: the school is obviously wrong in this story, but considering the quality of today's parenting and education, i somehow doubt the student is without comparable problems...

  96. Colorful Metaphores by rsperry79 · · Score: 1

    I some how think we have said more "disruptive" things than the student. Sure we didn't use nearly as many colorful metaphores as spock would say, but the fact still remains he has the RIGHT to say it. Some say this is preperation for life, well yes and no. I were to work for a corperation, and on my home computer say bad things about them, yes I could face being fired. On the other hand this is a goverment org, and being so I can say the seattle police suck big balls. That thier average IQ is less than that of my turds and should face no issues. But yet, I have had police officers threaten to jail me because I said this fucking sucks. I had to remind them that I threatend them, the city, or anyone and therefore had a RIGHT to say it. And they have to listen to it, they are a trusted servant. If I were to make everyother word a colorful metaphore and make a scene, then yes they have the right to jail me on creating a public disturbance. More so how the hell does a kid saying he feels like some fucker at the school makes him feel bad, create a public disturbance? simple, they make a big deal out of it. We should be teaching our children, not only how to do math, but how to be a useful member of society. They should have had him see a school psych. They have them, how about showing him that instead of a blog, that there are more productive ways to say what he feels, jsut the same as we would goto a city counsle meeting if we had an issue with the city. Then again we know nothing about this student. they may have tried, they may have spent vast resources on him. He could very well be a pain in thier ass, and instead of wasting more time on him, use it on other kids that may listen. Let us not forget we see only a paragraph is slash, and not the whole story.

  97. Ivies love this crap by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    No, it is real life. If this kid gets expelled, he's screwed.

    No way. Assuming the story is as claimed - and he's being silenced by the school - him sticking to his guns and teh 1st Amendment is the kind of thing that schools eat up. I have no idea what his grades look like, but I'd say this *increases* his chances of getting into Harvard. He'll have to leave out the vulgar bits he posted, but a little creative editing never hurt anyone.

    1. Re:Ivies love this crap by chrismcdirty · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know if you've read his blog, but this kid definitely is not going to Harvard for schooling any time soon.

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    2. Re:Ivies love this crap by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. He's on the fast track to having a job with his name on his shirt.

  98. Why not try a different form of punishment? by ravee · · Score: 1

    Teaching is a very good profession. Infact there are very few professions which give the same job satisfaction as one gets in teaching. This is more so in higher education where the students are more mature and seriously want to learn.

    As far as school is concerned, the kids are more unruly and some dicipline is required. I remember when I was studying in school, we had corporal punishment. At that time, if we stepped out of line like flouting any of the school rules, we were sure to get cained. Those were the times when the dictum - spare the cane and spoil the child - was the norm. We were even made to kneel down on the hard floor for hours for as simple things such as not doing the homework or not coming to school in full uniform. I think the school concerned could take up a mild form of punishment like making the student sit for extra time in class or something instead of outright expelling the student.

    --
    Linux Help
    for all things on Linux
    1. Re:Why not try a different form of punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be saying that the kid deserves punishment for voicing a negative opinion of his school administrators in his own blog, on his own computer, on his own time - just something less extreme than expulsion.

      You are only half right. While it is true that part of this story is the ridiculously over the top punishment, the other part is the fact that the kid is well within his 1st Amendment rights to voice an opinion outside of school on his own time, and the school has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to punish him for this. The only exception would be if he were making threats of physical or bodily harm, or if any school officials feel they were slandered, in which case they have a legal recourse of their own.

  99. Re:A blog isn't any different than any other mediu by finkployd · · Score: 1

    Times, they have changed.

    Back in the early 90s (91 I think) we had a teacher's strike. They were making all kinds of insane claims in the media (we are doing this for the kids, to give them better quality education, etc) and I had an editorial published that basically tore their argument to shreds and was also critical of the school's administration in handling the strike. There were no repercussions with the exception of a few teachers who wouldn't talk to me after that.

    Now I imagine I would have been expelled for expressing my opinion outside of school. Weird.

  100. Lucky he did not link to there website by threeofnine · · Score: 0
    Otherwise he would be in court for that as well. ;-)

    So just for the hell of it, here is the website of Plainfield School District.

    Maybee a good slashdotting will bring them back in line.

    Oh, hang on, that would mean we would then become the bully.

    Look away, nothing to see here.

    Three of Nine.

  101. That's not all folks! by GeniusLoci · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Frankly, this kind of thing happens all the time. High Schools are becoming less an institution of learning and more an institution of mass propaganda, control, and, dare I say it? tyranny. In the country school I hail from, there are less than a thousand students, and almost ten employees at the school whose sole purpose is to keep the 200 students at a time who are at lunch under firm control. If I had a dollar for every time a "Nazi" as we call them told me to take off my presription glasses because of their tint (to reduce glare due to hours in front of a computer screen daily), I would most certainly not be pinching pennies to buy a car that fits the school parking lot specs. Recently, a pair of freshmen were suspended for two weeks for alleged homosexual promiscuity that managed to find its way to the net. As for the students being harrassed because of the closed minded opinions towards anybody who isn't straight and narrow, we more frequently get treated to disciplinary actions due to our responses in self-defense than those who harrass us (Even though there's a "Zero Tolerance" policy towards harrassment in our school manual).

    1. Re:That's not all folks! by l5rfanboy · · Score: 1

      I oten find myself wondering if all the HS BS is just a repetition of a cycle started long before any of us were in those institutions... then I see posts like this and the plethora of others in recent memory which makes me think it's less and less the students' fault.

    2. Re:That's not all folks! by stonecypher · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Frankly, this kind of thing happens all the time. High Schools are becoming less an institution of learning and more an institution of mass propaganda, control, and, dare I say it? tyranny.

      Oh, get over it, you drama queen. There are sixty five thousand highschools in this country. You hear about four doing bad things and suddenly the whole system is tyrranical mind control.

      The best part is that if you would read what's actually going on, you'd know that this isn't about censorship or freedom of speech at all. Slashdot has spun this horribly backwards. What's really going on is some kid who sucks at writing tried to co-opt the tragedy of Columbine to show how serious a kid's feelings of being bullied can be, and some teacher mistook him to mean that he was going to go shoot up his school.

      The school is acting on a false threat. It's not censorship. It's an attempt to do the right thing based on a misunderstanding. The problem isn't the school or the school board. It's the teacher who told them this kid was making threats.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    3. Re:That's not all folks! by GeniusLoci · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but get your face slashed open in a locker room sometime because of your sexual orientation (even though you're respecting your fellow patrons' privacy) and see how you feel. Apparently, this isn't an instance of "four schools" out of all of them if so many people are coming forward and saying "Something similar happened at my school." This is just a symptom of a much greater disease in America. We are giving up our civil liberties because there's some fantastically simple minded folks who vote without looking at both candidates seriously. For instance, in Michigan, a lot of citizens don't like Governor Granholm. So, they're deciding to vote against her. Note: they're not voting for the other guy, they're voting against her. However, what many people are doing is not looking into his stands. He's as right wing as they get, and yet, even those who are very left wing are going to be voting for him because they blame Granholm for our economic decline here. It's the nature of being uninformed and voting for somebody based on only one or two characteristics as opposed to the whole package that is threatening to tear us of our rights. In the words of Aesop: "We put our petty theives in prison. We put our dangerous ones in office."

  102. This makes me a sad panda. by Mr.+Ksoft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, it seems that nothing is mine. I guess that if I tell my parents that I don't like how someone is teaching a subject, and I'm overheard, they're going to kick me out because they're more worried about their jobs than any of us. They seem to think that if I'm a student and I do ANYTHING, they can take action. For example, let's say I am mean to my younger brother and get grounded. I tell a friend at school and a teacher overhears. They could expel me for being mean to my own brother. Nothing is sacred anymore!

  103. Bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not exactly the first time this has happened though. Especially not in private education where you have no rights.

  104. stupidity at its best by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If someone works for a company, then it's really no question that the person would not go unpunished if speaking derogatory or so about his company. Here we're talking about schools, schools' rights regarding controlling the children inside and outside of the school. Usually I wouldn't have anything against schools regulating children's behavior etc. when they are in school. Yet, I would not let any school or teacher interfere into my child's life outside of school, no matter what.

    Children need to learn, and they need to learn that hard, that they _have_ the right to speak their minds about anything. I know of many cases (RL, not bedtime stories) when people just didn't dare to voice their opinion about something - even if they were right - in fear the commencing trouble wouldn't worth the fuss. Children need to be taught so that when they will become adults they will think about basic human rights as being so natural to use as breathing.

    If a child learns that (s)he is not allowed to say anything bad about those in authority (and for a kid the teachers are such) that can become a real barrier later on in their lives.

    I know I'm possibly going too far with this, still, if a child wants to tell anything (s)he wants about the school, the teachers, etc. at home, for us or on his/her personal web page, I really think nobody should stop him/her unless it conflicts with some (general, social, family, etc.) ethics, but then again, that should be the responsibility of the family and of the parents, not of the school or of the teacher.

    I always thought that teachers should be "educators" and "guardians" and "signposts", and not some governesses, or self-appointed mind police officers.

    If a school would sue me or my child because spoke his/her opinion about them, I just wouldn't want my kid in that school any longer, let alone fear of some expel.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:stupidity at its best by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

      Here we're talking about schools, schools' rights regarding controlling the children inside and outside of the school.

      Since when do schools have the right to control what a student does when not on school campus?

      I don't know how things are in other states, but in Texas the schools can't even tell you what to do when your parent is present. I'm positive this doesn't cover illegal activities.

      Now, since this guy was posting during school hours, they may have a case. But they can't touch a student when its done on his own time. I hope his lawyer rakes the discrict over the coals.

      They've definitely over-stepped their boundries.

      --
      Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    2. Re:stupidity at its best by moracity · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed the part where he invoked Columbine to threaten the school. Game Over.

      As someone else mentioned, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence. If I am a tax payer sending my child to public school and a student of that school makes a veiled threat to the school, the school has a duty to remove that student from school and possibly file charges against him. If the school doesn't do it, the community should get involved and do it for them. This particular student obviously has issues and should be removed from the school immediately.

    3. Re:stupidity at its best by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Here we're talking about schools, schools' rights regarding controlling the children inside and outside of the school.

      No, we aren't. That's a bunch of Slashdot soapboxers who want to use this to make the case that schools are tyrannical mind control, who've spun this situation ass-backwards.

      What's really going on is some kid who sucks at writing wanted to talk about how serious it can be to a teenager to feel bullied. He used the most severe case he could think of: Columbine. However, the way he wrote it, it's very very easy to misunderstand him to mean he's about to go shoot up his own school.

      Some teacher was watching this kid's blog, presumably because they think the kid's unbalanced. We had an art teacher like that in my high school: back then it was Goths and Marilyn Manson, and if you showed up wearing black lipstick she thought you were crucifying frogs and trying to invoke Baalzebub. She too watched kids she thought were threats.

      The difference was, when she saw someone she thought was a real problem, she didn't go to the board. She went to the school psychologist. The school psychologist knows the difference between angst plus low writing skills and a kid showing warning signs. If the teacher who saw this xanga post had done that, the whole mess would have been averted.

      Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice what may adequately be explained by stupidity. These aren't monsters trying to quash some kid's right to criticize them. These are dumbasses overreacting to some kid they thought was going to shoot people. The world isn't horrible. It's disappointing. They meant well, and are simply failing at life.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    4. Re:stupidity at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merely saying the word "Columbine" is not indicative of a threat.

      Or are you one of these people who think we should pretend it never happened? Keep people from talking about "Columbine" and you don't actually have to try to fix any of the real problems, right?

  105. School systems empower the bullies by JumperCable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hands down, across the board school systems have always empowered the bullies. And anyone who is bullied who tries to do something about it gets victimized twice over.

    Schools, the press & the public are so concerned over issues like Columbine that they still just don't get it. These poor kids keep on getting abused over & over again. The teachers won't do anything, the principal won't do anything even when you bring it to their attention.

    Being at the bottom of the pecking order at school, no one ever told me it was OK to fight back (except for one gym teacher & that was later in my school career when. I was afraid I would get in trouble. Which I would have, but the end result would have been better. Back then I didn't have the perspective that a detention here or there would not have been that big of a deal. It certainly doesn't faze the bullies.

    If you are young & in school & being bullied. Here is what I suggest:
    1. First stop go ahead & tell a teacher & your parents.
    2. If that teacher does nothing, tell another teacher. Keep on telling all the teachers you have until one listens to you.
    3. If that fails, tell the principal.
    4. If that fails & you go to a religious school tell the pastor, rabbi, priest or whomever is in charge of the congregation. This is essentially going up the chain of command.
    5. If you are being physically assaulted in any way off of school grounds & the school does nothing call the cops. The cops might try to blow you off, but insist on filing an assault complaint. Do the same if the assault occurs on school ground and the school refuses do anything about it.
    6. Keep a log of the abuse. Who you told about it & what that person did about it if anything.
    7. If you have run through all these options, start fighting back against physical abuse. Yes. You will get in trouble. But bullies prefer to go after the ones who don't fight back. You will probably get pummeled. Just make sure you get in a good right hook. Try not to be a spaze. Bullies love to get a reaction out of you.
    8. Don't become the bully yourself. Fight back is defense, not offense.
    9. Consider some self-defense classes (For defense, don't become the aggressor). Bullies will pass you over for easier targets.
    10. Do something about your social awkwardness. Get involved with some clubs. Being social is a skill to learn. Bullies prefer victims who don't have friends. Boy scouts, soccer, gaming clubs, archery, swimming, find a way to interact with more people. You'll get better at it.
    11. Keep in mind that you will grow out of this. As people get older, they tend to appreciate other's differences. What made you the bottom of the gene pool in grade school will probably be really cool in college.

    1. Re:School systems empower the bullies by Churla · · Score: 1

      I'm going to let my lower-middle class upbringing shine through for a second and condense the above into how I handled being bullied when I was in school.

      I was always a tiny kid (only 5'5" as an adult, was always the short kid in school too.) This inevitably led to people bullying me because I was "easy to pick on", being a geek from age 9 didn't help either. In 4th grade I kinda snapped one day. Picked up a chair and waylay-ed the bully in question. Not so oddly I got in trouble with the principal, but afterwards I noted I wasn't getting picked on.

      Telling teachers, principals, parents, adults in general only then gets you called other names and picked on for not standing up for yourself.

      At least that has been my personal experience.

      --
      I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    2. Re:School systems empower the bullies by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      9. Consider some self-defense classes (For defense, don't become the aggressor). Bullies will pass you over for easier targets.

      I'd move this one up to #1. In my experience as a student, going through adults to deal with bullies never helped, and usually made things worse. They can't be around all the time, and you lose respect of other students. I'd go up to the adult level only if you think you can make it a police matter--for example--if somebody flashes a weapon at you, and try to do it anonymously.

      In terms of self-defense, I strongly recommend judo. It is the best equalizer if you are smaller, and being thrown to the ground or held down by a smaller person is very demoralizing, and hurts the attacker's status. I think that it feeds into instinctive domination/submission responses. I found that once they'd been thrown, bullies simply didn't want to mess with me, even if I didn't really hurt them. They'd bluster at me, but they wouldn't get within arm's reach. And if you simply take somebody to the ground and hold them down, it is hard to get blamed for escalating the violence--and if things do get nasty you can always break an arm or choke them out.

    3. Re:School systems empower the bullies by FoogyFoo · · Score: 1

      I'll chime in with a tip I got from a friend of mine:

      Hit back. In front of a teacher.

      Bullies operate in the shadows. They won't hit you back in the presence of a teacher or principal. It also forces the administration to do something about it if it's right in their face.

      Food for thought.

    4. Re:School systems empower the bullies by Surt · · Score: 1

      A followup: three cheers for getting the police involved. If the school won't fix your problem, getting the police involved will. Because the police cannot refuse to take a report, once the report exists, you now have an enormous amount of legal leverage to apply against the school in a lawsuit. As soon as the police report is taken, I think you'll find the school suddenly bending over backward to fix your problem.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:School systems empower the bullies by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Schools, the press & the public are so concerned over issues like Columbine that they still just don't get it. These poor kids keep on getting abused over & over again. The teachers won't do anything, the principal won't do anything even when you bring it to their attention.

      I feel bad that you were unable to get help in school; however the vast majority of my friends were in fact able to. This is the fallacy of Biased Induction, itself a special case of the Biased Sample, and is a very easy mistake to make; lord knows I do it all the time. The news tells us all the time about kids who snapped because they couldn't find help, or school systems whose students are failing because they can't get tutelage, or whatever. The thing is, we've got 65,000 schools in the country, and only enough examples to fill maybe one or two news slots a year on the topic. The rest of what we hear is them ruminating. Remember, the news will talk about an event like Columbine for three months. If you hear about it for half of the year - six months - that means it only actually happened twice that year. (Sure those numbers are made up, but it's the point of seperating immediate news from editorials which is germane.)

      The biassed induction is thus: you think all schools are failing to protect their students because yours did, and because the only schools you ever hear about are schools which failed. Nobody tells you about the schools which succeeded.

      Yes, there are a fair number of totally useless principals in the system. It sounds like you had one. The person who was made principal of my school the year after I left was another; I got out just in time. That said, the vast majority of them are in fact competant and caring people. Most teachers are teachers because they want to be teachers, because it's what they enjoy doing, because they see it as important, becuase they love children, whatever. They sure as hell don't do it for the pay or the job security. Principals represent the teachers who have done very well and who have shown bureaucratic skills. Yes, particularly in small areas or areas with damaged economies, there may not be enough people available that statistics can find a good one. Sure, sometimes the wrong person is chosen, or they were right for most reasons and just their protect-the-kid circuit is misfiring.

      But, by and on the whole, principals are good people who do good work. If you have a thousand teenagers, it's just not possible to be aware of everything going on, and a lot of bullying is kept secret over shame or fear of escalation. The number of principals who are aware it's gotten really bad and don't act, though, is actually very small. If it wasn't, you'd be hearing about this sort of thing a lot more than twice a year.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    6. Re:School systems empower the bullies by e40 · · Score: 1
      If you have run through all these options, start fighting back against physical abuse.

      I can't agree more. I was once hounded by a bully. It went on and one. Finally, I took him up on his offer to kick my ass. Well, turns out I got in a good punch and he didn't like it. He took off and never bothered me again.

    7. Re:School systems empower the bullies by Anitra · · Score: 1

      If the bullying is not primarily physical (if it is mental & psychological - this is typical with girls), your only solution may be to go to an adult. At the very least, they can help you learn how to deal with this kind of abuse.

      When I was about 10, I once decked a girl who had been bullying me for years. Since I had told my parents about this bullying in the past, they had talked to teachers/administration about it before this happened. I was punished (rightfully so - she instigated, but I threw the first punch); however, the bully was punished more severely than I. I was able to spend the rest of the year in peace.

      --

      Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
  106. Um... minors don't have freedom of speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I am missing something but last time I heard, the Supreme Court said minors do not have freedom of speech like adults. They have few, if any legal protections to/for freedom of speech. So, what the hell is this kid doing again other than being stupid? If he gets expelled then I guess he's serving as another reminder that minors are minors and society has said, they have to follow rules like everyone else.

  107. public schools are irrelevant by Yonder+Way · · Score: 0, Troll

    Public schools are just day care facilities for single parents or traditional families to allow both parents to work so they can afford all the stuff they need, like a $300,000+ home, $80,000+ worth of cars, the beach house, the big HDTV in the living room (plus a smaller home theater in the family SUV).

    Many administrators don't look at is as a position of compassion & opportunity, but rather one of protection and numbers. Protect the kids from killing each other before they graduate, and make sure they all score well on the standardized tests.

    I remember how bad it was when I went through, and see how much worse it has gotten. As a father of two now (three before the next school year starts) this is something I'm very concerned with. So what did I do?

    * I don't live in a $300,000 house. I bought $24,000 worth of land and $76,000 worth of house. $100,000. Huge yard, modest house. I bought the land outright and the house payments will be very modest.
    * I don't drive a new car. I have two running cars and one very small car payment.
    * I didn't buy any bigger a TV than I felt comfortable paying cash for. In fact, almost all of my big purchases are done with cash. Makes me consider how much I really need something.
    * I don't have a single credit card anymore.
    * My lifestyle is so inexpensive that my wife can afford to stay home with the kids.
    * My kids are homeschooled. My 4 year old could probably graduate Kindergarten right now and she's doing a great job learning to read and write. My 2 year old is learning a lot of things past what most people think a 2 year old should be learning because she watches her big sister and learns. Between the playgroups and the field trips and the playground time, she's getting socialized (if I had a nickle for every time someone raised that issue...). She's probably more socially adjusted than Kindergarten kids because while the Kindergarten kids are in school my kids are out in real society interacting with adults. When they want to buy things, they have to take the stuff they want up to the clerk and pay for it themselves, and they aren't shy about it.

    Public school is an antiquated system that is destroying our children. The public schools should be closed and/or privatized. The tax burden for subsidizing public schools should be relieved. People should pay for their own kids to go to school with subsidies available on a sliding scale based on real need. The public schools now are doing less and less with more and more money, to satisfy demands from the teachers to make better salaries for their 9 months a year jobs. How a teacher who works 9 months a year should make $70,000+ befuddles me. I'm all for a combination of homeschooling or private schooling with apprenticeships/mentorships. As a homeschooling parent I'd love to be able to contract with a private school for a la carte opportunities for subject areas that my wife & I are not well equipped to instruct in (like music).

    1. Re:public schools are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...administrators don't look at is as a position...
      You're obviously a fine example of what these "daycare facilities" produce.
      My kids are homeschooled.
      So, your poor children are going to be educated by someone like yourself that barely has a grasp on the English language.
      ...my wife & I are not well equipped to instruct...
      The only nugget of truth in your entire bullshit diatribe.

      You one scary jackass.
    2. Re:public schools are irrelevant by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but in Massachusetts, a $76,000 home is roughly the size of a 1-bedroom apartment and looks like shit.

    3. Re:public schools are irrelevant by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

      I live in the Raleigh/Durham area.

      If real estate costs are overvalued in your region, it is a big country. Get out there an explore it.

      I grew up in the Philadelphia area myself and agree that $76,000 wouldn't buy much there. Keep in mind that is the cost of constructing a house on an existing lot. I already own the lot. It's more like a $100,000 house if you take it all together.

      I looked around and found that I could move to the Research Triangle Park job market without taking too much of a pay cut. But the cost of living is dramatically less, especially real estate prices. My home is out in the rural countryside but if you want to live in a nice neighborhood like Apex, you could have a very nice home for your family in a safe clean neighborhood for $150,000.

      I wanted to have the room to have a managed woodlot, a garden, some livestock for family consumption, and a firing range for my gun collection. I can't expect to do that in the suburbs. So I bought 12 acres for myself, and family members bought another 12 each on either side of me, so we have a 36 acre family compound to share. But we're only a short drive from the city of Durham. It takes about an hour to drive to my big blue job in RTP.

      There is intelligent life outside the northeastern US. In fact, one of the best reasons to leave the northeast (especially Pennsylvania) would be the quality of healthcare. After spending a number of years living in North Carolina and then going back to Philadelphia for a few years, I made a vow to not engage in any high risk activities as long as I lived up north because the doctors and hospital facilities are so bad there. Just yesterday I had my 2 year old in for minor surgery at Wake Med in Raleigh and it couldn't have possibly gone better. Every single member of the hospital staff was kind, professional, and thorough. They were very compassionate and made an effort to spend time with my daughter to get her accustomed to all of the people she was meeting and make her feel at ease. I would have never let her have this surgery at any facility in Pennsylvania.

    4. Re:public schools are irrelevant by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      I don't think all teachers make that. My friend teaches 2nd grade and makes $24,000 AND she has to buy many of her own school supplies. Also, though she only works nine months a year, she has to arrive at school between 6 and 7 and spends the evenings doing lesson plans and grading. The principle there treats the teachers like shit because he is on a power trip. Where are these teachers that make $70,000 plus?

      I will be the first one to admit the public school system in many areas is completely broken and useless. I am a product of public school, and I had my fair share of teachers who, for whatever reason, were bullies or simply burnt out and ready for retirement. However, don't attack the teachers as a whole for the actions of a few. I knew many teacher who took their job seriously and actally worked to teach kids to think independantly. In my experience it is administrators at all levels that are mostly to blame. All the teachers who taught independant thinking were driven out by authoritarian figures on their respective power trips. I hear stories of pressure placed on teachers to pass students who aren't doing anything in class in order to receive full funding or even better, of administrators forcing teachers to teach to some standardized test so that the school can get more funding. This problem is very much not about teachers. It is about the people in positions of real power.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    5. Re:public schools are irrelevant by Pointy_Hair · · Score: 1

      Public schools are failing because parents don't get involved in the education process i.e. the daycare attitude. Your personal finance and quality of life choices are your own business. Kids with parents that are both employed and have lots of stuff, as well as those who have a single mom working at McDonalds and have nearly nothing, get just as much out of public schools when their parents take an active role and participate in that education.

  108. He does make an implied threat... by Warlock7 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied...
    He says this after claiming that he feels threatened and bullied and goes on to compare how he feels to a group of mass murderers. This is an implied threat against the entire school population. After reading this, it's quite obvious why the school district would take action against this kid. For all intents and purposes this kid is claiming to relate to a group that committed mass murder. He says that there will be a backlash. In this country, after Columbine, it's not a good idea to relate yourself to those kids and threaten that there will be a backlash.

    Come on, this kid will be lucky if he's only been suspended rather than just being expelled altogether. The first amendment does not allow for people to make threats.
    1. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Zrith · · Score: 1

      That's only a threat if you really want to look at it like one. It looks more like he's trying to get across that what they're doing has had some really messed-up consequences before, not that he's planning to go shooting up his school. It's likely that the part you quotes was written *after* the school district went out of its way (very far out of its way) to be overbearing. It's likely the kid is extremely frustrated by that point, and he's *right* that it might start a community backlash. That part doesn't even resemble a threat. Additionally, how old is this kid? 16? 17? Columbine probably happened when he was in elementary school; I doubt it has the same impact on him that it did on people who were in high school at the time. Even still, it just looks like he's making a point. Or trying and failing due to a lacking education in debate techniques.

      Furthermore, this was done *at home*, with no school equipment, persons, resources, etc. being involved. The school has no right to try to punish a kid for doing something like this. If they had gone to the police and they police had suggested it, it *might* be slightly more reasonable. Even still, it would be a matter for the police to handle then, not the school. Schools, even while I was in high school, were trying their best to overstep their bounds in and out of school, and they need no more encouragement.

    2. Re:He does make an implied threat... by kryptkpr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you read that, you saw a comparison to "a group of mass murderers".

      When he wrote that, he was making a comparison to a group that was pushed so far, and couldn't stand up for themselves in any other way, that they simply had nothing left to lose. I think this context is pretty clear in his words.

      Do you have any idea what it's like to feel that you're being opressed, and there isn't a thing in the world you can do about it? It grinds down your soul, until there is either nothing left, or you are forced to make a (often terrible) stand for what you believe in.

      Your interpretation of what he said says just as much about YOU (and the school district, which clearly took the same interpretation) as what he wrote says about HIM.

      The answer here is not to shut him up, it's not to expel him, and it's not even to suspend him. It's to properly address his complaints, preferrably in a public forum, until both sides are happy.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    3. Re:He does make an implied threat... by keyne9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first amendment does not allow for people to make threats.

      You mean, like teh teachers have done? The comparison is valid, if quite tacky, and it just goes to show that nobody in the school systems actually fucking care about bullied kids.

    4. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Mainusch · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea what it's like to feel that you're being opressed, and there isn't a thing in the world you can do about it? It grinds down your soul, until there is either nothing left, or you are forced to make a (often terrible) stand for what you believe in.

      Yes, I know what it feels like. I am, after all, human. We ALL feel that way from time to time. Sometimes, however, there are people who are in a position of authority over us who are charged with the responsibility of teaching us, and guiding our development. When I was in school, if a teacher or principal demanded that I modify a certain behavior, I basically had two choices. Be guided.... or be defiant.

      If a student makes it perfectly clear that they WILL NOT be taught, they have no real reason to be in school, and ought not be there to impede the learning of the students who are willing be taught.

      --
      Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
    5. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am separate from the user you reply to, however, I must state that I completely disagree with your post. The most important responsibility of the school system in the face of a known threat (implied or directly stated) is to do all that it can to prevent the act of the threat and so prevent injury and death of its students as it is charged with the safety of its students directly. The kid who wrote the comments should be expelled, as he has made a threat. I would further support requiring a psychological evaluation of the kid for the same reason to the extent of approving the enforcement by the court on condition that the evaluation finds for it and if it includes prescribed medication to ensure that the medication is taken correctly. Only on these conditions should the kid be allowed to return to the school given the threat that he has made. If there are violations of these conditions, prosecute the parents.

    6. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Mainusch · · Score: 1

      When did the teachers make veiled threats of physical violence. I must have missed that part.

      --
      Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
    7. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail....at life.

    8. Re:He does make an implied threat... by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      The Little Napoleon school administrators are the ones who need the meds. They think they can push people around with impunity.

    9. Re:He does make an implied threat... by jschrod · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you're not a troll, I can really see why the US school system is so seriously fucked up. There must be more morons like you, there.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

    10. Re:He does make an implied threat... by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      When I was in school, if a teacher or principal demanded that I modify a certain behavior, I basically had two choices. Be guided.... or be defiant.

      The actual choices this kid had were either "conform" and "stand up for what is right". It's a common error (especially in the US) to mistake "being guided" and "being forced into a cookie-cutter conformity lead by brainless idiots".

      When things are going on around you that you believe to be wrong, it is your DUTY as a member of the human race to stand up for yourself. We've made a lot of mistakes in the past (slavery, sexism, etc..) and it wasn't until someone stood up and said NO MORE that anything changed for the better.

      If a student makes it perfectly clear that they WILL NOT be taught, they have no real reason to be in school, and ought not be there to impede the learning of the students who are willing be taught.

      And if a student believes that what he is "being taught" is actually damaging to society (which is exactly what's happening in this case)? Where you see him impeding the learning of others, I see him improving the learning climate, and so ultimately assisting the learning of others.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    11. Re:He does make an implied threat... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      There is no point at which the teachers have threatened murder. Whereas I understand that this kid hasn't, the teachers who expelled him were making the same mistake as the post to which you replied did.

      It's not about censorship at all. It's because they're dumb and they think he's a burgeoning murderer.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    12. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Warlock7 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, was I unclear. Apparently I was. Let me restate.

      Threats of violence are not covered under the constitution. Whether or not you agree with the correlation, that's what this kid did.

    13. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Warlock7 · · Score: 1

      He could've made his point completely clear without making reference to the Columbine murders. If he would've said everything that he said without making reference to those unwarranted killings then he would have a case in complaining that his rights had been violated. But, instead he made a thinly veiled threat and he suffered the consequences of his actions.

      Since you aren't clear on this point, that's what happened at Columbine, regardless of their motivation a group of kids got together and went on a killing spree, they murdered their classmates in cold blood. They plotted and planned out what they did. They didn't take it to their families or the autorities at the school to fix what they saw as a problem, they murdered other people for teasing them.

      I don't give a rats ass what he was going through at the time. He wasn't being bullied physically by other students, he claims he was bullied by the administration. He had alternatives to what he decided to do, he could've taken it to the PTA or gotten himself a lawyer, which is what he's done now that he made a stupid decision. He certainly hadn't explored all of his options and his decision was a bad one.

      Being oppressed is hardly the same as being teased or being abused by your peers, which is what you are describing. Clearly you don't know the difference. A school administrators reaction to utter stupidity is not oppression.

      As for saying something about myself and the school board, I comprehend the fact that it's the school's initial and single most important priority to make certain that kids don't get severely injured or killed by other kids. I am also fully aware that a school is not a democratic environment where the students have much say at all in how the school operates. While ignorant children seem to believe otherwise, that's simply the way that it is. The school would have been remiss in not punishing this kid for making threats of violence. The answer is to get a supposedly unstable individual away from the rest of the shcool's population. The way to do that is to suspend or expel him. His complaints did not justify his actions, he was wrong to do what he did.

      Everybody gets hassled at one time or another and some get hassled much more than others, but the bottom line is that nobody has the right to threaten or commit violent retribution against another. Grow up.

    14. Re:He does make an implied threat... by Warlock7 · · Score: 1
      That's only a threat if you really want to look at it like one.
      Bullshit. If he would've made all the complaints that he made without bringing up Columbine then it wouldn't have been able to be perceived as a threat. He did make the comparisson and therefore he made a threat of violence.

      It makes no difference where he was or whose hardware he used. The school has a complete responsibility to the other students in that school to protect them from a threat of violent retribution from this ignorant kid. The welfare of the students is their primary responsibility. They are completely justified in their response.
  109. Censorship - what a wonderful idea (not) by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

    "Various organizations will have to be banned from acting based on any information obtained from them -- perhaps even banned from actively searching them out without legal cause."

    I agree that blogs may be legally construed as something betweenn public and private, but in the conext of what you are suggesting, what difference does that make?

    Here in the United States, if I find organizations (e.g. the media - and I mean that in the broadest possible sense of the word) being banned for actively searching out blogs for "solutions" or anything thing else, I'll be one of the first in line with a big fat check made payable to the ALCU. Any information posted in a blog that is true or not demonstrably false (short of posting state secrets, patents, copyrighted material and the like) is protected by free speech unless curtailed by a prior agreement with the blogger (here in the US anyway). Posting knowingly false information is another matter.

    Telling people they "shouldn't" visit certain sites is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinions, but actually attempting to punish them for doing so is probably censorship in most circumstances in the U.S. - and it sure seems that way with your decidedly shortsighted suggestion.

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  110. Retribution by sjonke · · Score: 1

    The kid has since beat up an even littler school district

    --
    --- What?
  111. Yet another one sided story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind that government organizations always have the "spin" disadvantage when dealing with situations like this. They are severly limited by what they can say to the press. Therefore you do not really know their side of the story until court. The article was very one-sided. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually threatened to cause harm to the school and that is why they are going after him.

    1. Re:Yet another one sided story by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      Shame on me for responding to a coward. That said, simply reading what was posted on his xanga site would have been sufficient to answer that particular question. Do your research, and next time log in.

      Virg

  112. Damn Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Plainfield Illinois (New Jersey? Why would you assume New Jersey if the story is from the Chicago Sun Times and refrences Joliet quite a bit) and just have to say to the district: Please don't waste my tax dollars on some stupid case that you are clearly not going to win. Perhaps it would be best to save it for a tornado fund for the future...

  113. 'The Man' hammers down again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all about politics, saving face and legal ass covering at this point. Happens everyday!

    The kid will be expelled and Slashdot (and the world) will move on other monocle-dropping injustices to entertain ourselves with. ::Yawn::

  114. I'll be Palestine, you be Israel... by StankyG · · Score: 0

    The other viewpoint is just SO wrong, and I am SO right.

    By my random reading of various posts throughout this thread (and very many other threads) it seems that this "they're SO wrong" is always a prevailent situation. I don't use the word 'always' lightly. How is it that so many of us have seemingly never learned to consider the other viewpoint, to walk a mile in the others shoes?

    I read very many "educators are a bunch of bullies", which is such an obviously broad an unfair generalization as to be ridiculous in my opinion. To those writers, I say that you discredit yourself when you attempt to discredit others in that broad and unfair way. Certainly there are people who abuse their power in all walks of life, always will be, and as many pointed out, perhaps this is a good lesson for the kid. But I doubt it; I think it teaches the kid that abusing your authority is acceptable, and that the real lesson will be overlooked, as it was throughout this topic and most of its threads. That lesson may be that respect is rewarded with respect, and disrespect in turn gets you the same.

    Not many people wrote anything like "in the absence of real and sustained parental guidance school districts are forced to attempt to act as surrogate parents, which, without any true authority, dooms the school district to fail. The result is disrespect between the institution and the student." Game Over. Seeing some of this kind of discourse would have made me think that those writing had considered another point of view.

    This lack of true discourse, this grouping of the 'other' side (republicans / democrats, big business / environmentalists, bike riders / auto drivers, teachers / students) absolutely prevents us from moving forward.

    --
    -STankyG
    People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances...
  115. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by crispy_one · · Score: 1

    While I do not know the whole situation here, I really think that, in general, kids (and quite frankly adults) need to seriously consider what they are doing when they post in a blog or anywhere else online. When a person makes potentially violent remarks regarding their school (or workplace), they should be looked at with a wary eye. How do we know what a person is going to do? The kids at Columbine were not justified. They killed other kids. How is that justified?

    Kids want freedom of speech, and they are given it under our Bill of Rights. The only thing that people really forget is that with freedom comes responsibility. The school district is in its full rights to protect the other students that go there. If I was a parent in that school district, I would back this decision. Expel him. The comments he made could have been construed as violent and/or potentially violent. I would be afraid of my child being in a school where someone like him was wandering the halls.

    Now, these comments are based on the post that he wrote. If he had used a more responsible tone, the school may not have overreacted, I would not be agreeing with a friggin' school district, and he would not be facing possible expulsion.

    The final thought is this: With freedom comes great responsibility.

  116. Not school's jurisiction by bemenaker · · Score: 1

    He was at home, after school hours. What he does is between him and his parents. The school has no right to say a word. Schools control over the kids exists only while kids are at school or a school function.

  117. Illinois, not New Jersey by cartman94501 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone notice that the article, from a Chicago-area paper, said that the incident occurred in Joliet, Illinois, not in New Jersey?

    1. Re:Illinois, not New Jersey by Mister+Mudge · · Score: 1

      Being from NJ myself, I noticed this right away.

      Not to say it couldn't have happened in Plainfield NJ, but in this case it didn't - it's in Joliet Illinois. It'd be nice if the posting were corrected to reflect that.

      --
      Mudge

      In theory, theory and practice are the same.
      In practice, they're not.

    2. Re:Illinois, not New Jersey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, its in plainfield illinois, not joliet illinois. cant anyone on this thread get facts right

  118. Since when.... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ....was unfiltered access to the internet a constitutional right? Wake up...it's not, however important the internet has become in our daily lives, it's not a right.

    --
    I am NaN
    1. Re:Since when.... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      ....was unfiltered access to the internet a constitutional right? Wake up...it's not, however important the internet has become in our daily lives, it's not a right.

      You wouldn't mind if your internet access is censored? Somehow I have a hunch that if the government decided to censor your internet connection, that you would be outraged.

      The government has no right to censor the internet. A very good case could be made that internet access falls under the first amendment, but even so the 9th amendment means that we have the right. Public schools are the government, participation is manditory, and should be held to the same standards as the police, courts, lawmakers.

    2. Re:Since when.... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

      Yes, I would be outraged. However, if that was the law of the land and there was no way around it then I would decide that my country was going down the pan and emigrate.

      --
      I am NaN
    3. Re:Since when.... by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      > You wouldn't mind if your internet access is censored? Somehow I have a hunch that if the government decided to censor your internet connection, that you would be outraged.

      Limiting access from the school does not equate to full-on cencorship of the Internet in any realistic (or legal) way. They're not restricting his access, they're restricting his access from the school's own connection. So sorry, but this isn't even in the same league as broad censorship.

      Virg

    4. Re:Since when.... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      No, the government has no right to censor the internet but you can be damn sure they have a right to set policies and controls on what you can and can not do with government equipment in a given setting. Hint, the computer is government property, as is the entire location of the computer.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  119. "Rights" only exist for adults, not children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, sorry, but adults have rights, children have whatever their parents say unless the state has determined otherwise. There is no right to free speech in public schools.

    With that understood, the school system has no legal case against the 17 year old kid - now for the parents of that child, they can sue for all kinds of things unless the statements made were non-fiction. You can't be sued for stating a fact (unless it is classified).

    Now if the parents are idiots - or free speech zealots and want to defend their position in court, then that is fine.

    1. Re:"Rights" only exist for adults, not children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I totally agree with you because it certainly says that children have no rights in the Constitution of the United States.

  120. Incitement to commit a crime... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...is still punishable. He wasn't just saying "here's this list of proxies", he was asking the other child to find out what sites he could get to by using his proxy, that's the difference and I can understand why as a younger person he found the distinction too subtle, but it is stil there nonetheless.

    --
    I am NaN
    1. Re:Incitement to commit a crime... by Assassin17 · · Score: 1

      "a crime"? So is it illegal, or is it just against school policy? You've got a curious definition of "crime".

    2. Re:Incitement to commit a crime... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

      I was merely using the word crime in the context of how incitement to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself (e.g. hiring a hitman). In this context, inciting the other student to break school policy could (and obviously was) viewed as being an infraction as well.

      --
      I am NaN
  121. My experience with Authority by COredneck · · Score: 1

    Over the years, I have always been an independent thinker and has many times got me in trouble with those in position of authority especially in the corporate world.

    Looking back on my education, I went to a well known Jesuit H.S. in Indianapolis back in the early to mid 1980's. It was the best education I ever had especially with the good teachers I had. At least 70% of the teachers I had encouraged you to think and question what was going on including the rules. The administration took the questioning in stride. But also in that day, we didn't live in a zero tolerance mindset either.

    I have been working in the corporate world for about 16 years. The people I have encountered there especially those "in charge" have not been so enlightening. These experiences are similar to those experiences when I went to public schools through 8th grade. In the job I had up until last October, I don't know how many times I have been called to my manager's office and taken to task for violating some ridiculous rule. I also got in trouble for things I have done outside the office even such as getting an out-of-state speeding ticket while on vacation or speaking against the Real ID Act.

    I got fired from one job for voicing my opinion on the Internet against political correctness back in the 1990's. The company will remain unnamed but it filed a lawsuit which helped break up the AT&T monopoly and it went bankrupt back in 2002 during the corporate scandals. It was a major telecom company.

  122. The world is flattening... by turlingdrome · · Score: 1

    and many traditional institutions can't figure out how to flatten with it. 5 years ago, a student might have published an editorial criticizing their school or teachers. How big an audience do you really think it could possibly reach? Nowadays, a student posts a blog and suddenly they are reaching a potentially massive audience.

    While I don't agree with teacher's and school's actions, I can understand the sensitivity and concern. The schools don't know how to deal with this new flat method of communication, and so in a time honored tradition of ignorance and fear, they are blindly lashing out. It is a real problem though... a blog post on the internet is a very different creature from a local newspaper editorial or any print medium.

  123. The whole story? by punkr0x · · Score: 1

    I find it hard to believe that his expulsion will be based solely on the two Xanga posts. How did the school find his website? I'm willing to bet he WAS posting to his site from school (anybody notice the timestamp on the second post, 2:49 on a tuesday afternoon?). He was obviously looking for trouble, and he found it. I would be very surprised if he didn't say or do something in school to warrant some attention. Bottom line, he knew he was getting himself in trouble, purposely got himself in trouble, and while it may be extreme, in the long run an expulsion from school is not going to ruin his life. He'll just wind up at a different school where he'd better behave himself. So stop acting like he's being oppressed, and it's his right to be a little hellraiser.

  124. Contact Info by DigDuality · · Score: 1

    Administration Center Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 15732 Howard Street Plainfield, IL 60544 Tel: (815) 577-4000 Fax: (815) 436-7824 Operations/Maintenance Office 914 N. Eastern Avenue Plainfield, IL 60544 Tel: (815) 436-7800 Fax: (815) 439-4830 Technology/Media Office 500 W. Fort Beggs Drive Plainfield, IL 60544 Tel: (815) 439-4567 Fax: (815) 439-3952 Email comments to: info@learningcommunity202.org Web site address: http://www.learningcommunity202.org/ Administration Center Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. John Harpers personal inbox.. (815) 577-4000 after 6 rings, the answerming machine picks up and asks you where you want to go select 1 to reach an inbox by name dial this in. 4277375646

  125. are we overreacting? by doxy224 · · Score: 1

    The thing is...yes it sucks. The boy was posting his personal feelings on his own time. However, with the school system watching students post we might be able to avoid other problems. The school might be able to stop a violent attack, sexual harrassment, theift, etc. Maybe we should stop and think about the perks of such intrusion. That being said, the intrustion should not merit expulsion but intervention.

  126. Shhh! Don't give them ideas by doublem · · Score: 1

    I went to Lutheran High School Westland in Michigan, and this sort of thing was going on there in the 1990's. There were some kids who were suspended for doing "something" at a party off school property.

    I never officially (as in no statement was released) found out WHAT the kids did to get suspended. Apparently one of the terms of their return to school was that they wouldn't talk about it.

    This being high school, there were a number of rumors that flew around. Some people said they got drunk at a party, other said that they were dressed in drag for a Halloween party.

    Fortunately for the student body one of the women sleeping with one of the suspendees knew what happened and talked about it quite freely.

    The girls on the suspension list were seen walking down the street in a nearby neighborhood. They were wearing their school letter jackets, and skirts that flagrantly violated the dress code.

    The guys were suspended for being with them at the time.

    The rationale? They were 'Damaging the school's reputation."

    All that's happened is that this kind of BS has migrated from the private religious schools to the public schools, and most people just don;t care, because it's not "their kid."

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  127. Links: by pimterry · · Score: 1

    The post they threatening to expel him for is here and the post that they apparently were threatening him to try and make him remove is here.

    Oh and the school's website is here.

    Enjoy. But even though the kid really shouldn't be expelled from his school, kicking him off the net till he learns how to design a page would be nice. Reminds me of geocities...

    Pim Terry

  128. Freedom from consequences by cluening · · Score: 1

    Once again we seem to have somebody who can't understand that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences". There's not really anything to see here - a kid wrote an open letter to his school using profanity and threats, and the school is pushing back. It doesn't matter if it was inside or outside of school. When somebody feels threatened by somebody else, they are entitled to do something about it.

    I for one am growing pretty tired of people doing stupid things and then saying "But, it was free speech!"

    --
    Posted from the wireless couch.
    1. Re:Freedom from consequences by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      Once again we seem to have somebody who can't understand that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "freedom from consequences".

      I strongly agree with the idea that people need to understand that freedom doesn't exist in a void of responsibility, and that there can be negative consequences for exercizing the rights granted by our Constitution.

      It remains unclear to me, though, whether this instance illustrates a violation of free speech rights, as opposed to the case you argue.

      There's not really anything to see here - a kid wrote an open letter to his school using profanity and threats,

      None of the articles I've read have mentioned anything more than profane criticism--which would not warrant expulsion, IMHO. The articles do quote a sideways mention of Columbine, but not from within a context that constitutes a clear threat of, or incitement to, violence.

      If you can cite any evidence of a threat, please do. I'm curious, and willing to be wrong.

      and the school is pushing back.

      And if there was a threat, they should squash it hard. No question. If they're just pushing back on a loudmouthed teenager who dared to call them to the carpet, then they're clearly in the wrong.

      It doesn't matter if it was inside or outside of school.

      Absent an actual threat it would, legally and otherwise. If he's actively disrupting a classroom in-session or any school-sponsered event in process, he could legally--and validly--be punished merely for speaking on any particular topic, no matter how benign. If he is not in a school-controlled environment, he has full Constitutional protection from government prosecution--and public schools are government bodies. In that case, he can say anything short of a threat or incitement to similar. Obviously threats are a different matter.

      I for one am growing pretty tired of people doing stupid things and then saying "But, it was free speech!"

      Yeah, I'm pretty tired of people saying and doing stupid stuff too.

  129. Columbine reference by gozar · · Score: 1

    As a person doing tech in the public school system, I see students making reference to Columbine all the time when they feel they are being limited (especially by the web filter). The feeling I get from them is that they throw Columbine into any argument because they know it will get them noticed. Students know that adults are scared to death of a school shooting, so it's an easy way to make an impact without thinking. Much like how profanity is used.

    --
    What, me worry?
    1. Re:Columbine reference by Proteus · · Score: 1

      The feeling I get from them is that they throw Columbine into any argument because they know it will get them noticed. Students know that adults are scared to death of a school shooting, so it's an easy way to make an impact without thinking. Much like how profanity is used.

      Or Nazis. The mention of Columbine in Middle/High Schools is the next generation's version of Godwin.

      Which makes sense when you think about it. Columbine was a massively-publicized event that highlighted how schools that turn a blind eye to how their students interact, and allow severe and continual bullying to go unchecked, contribute to really screwing some kids up. Any student who has been a subject of bullying since that time -- and has seen the school not only ingore it, but become a sort of institutionalized bully -- now has a frame of reference.

      Now, kids can say to schools "didn't you learn anything? You saw Columbine, you know how it happened, why are you still ignoring the problem?" Unfortunately, many of the kids who feel the need to make that point do not have well-developed rhetorical skill (another failing of our State-mandated cirriculum, IMO), and so go for the concise emotional outburst.

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  130. scared by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    only bad news coming from America these days. I'd be worried if I were you guys. maybe throwing some stones at politicians, burning some flags and smoking pot would do the country some good. the fuckers are really doing what they want and no one raises objection.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
  131. Re:Shhh! Don't give them ideas by rizzo420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if that was a private high school, they have every right to do so. public schools, however, do not.

    --
    please me, have no regrets.
  132. Harvard? by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Funny

    He need not write well. He just needs to learn to plagiarize.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    1. Re:Harvard? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm told he has. Supposedly there is a quote from Mettalica embedded in the web page. Since I don't listen to the band, I wouldn't recognize it, and since everyone is so *on* about the poor site design, I'm not going to bother to look anyway. But the report is that he *has* learned to plagerize. Now he just needs to improve in who he plagerizes *from*. (Ideally he would learn to plagerize from several sources at the same time, and thus be a researcher.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  133. Classical Literature by Ruke · · Score: 1
    I think that perhaps these schools need to do a little studying of their own. I remember a man once saying, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

    Freedom of speech isn't meant to protect the things that everyone can agree with. It's there to protect the mean, cruel, offensive stuff that we'd quite frankly rather not hear.

    1. Re:Classical Literature by Grimster · · Score: 1

      That's true, things said or written that you agree with (and that the majority agree with) NEED no protection at all, it's the crap you don't agree with that needs protection by the 1st Amendment.

      I also wonder how the school would have reacted were the blog post done by his parents.

      --
      --- www.f-theocean.com
  134. Re:Parents by nschubach · · Score: 0

    Apparently the parents have no issue here since I got modded offtopic. They are completely blameless and I am wrong. Glad to know.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  135. Worse yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Student at Cumberland University in Kentucky is being expelled for coming out gay in a blog post. It's a private Christian University, and they're claiming to be expelling him for breaking their rule about students not being allowed to have premarital sex, but they wouldn't being doing it if he wasn't gay.

    So, all in all, there's worse things in life.

  136. Oh, right... by The_Unforgiven · · Score: 1

    I'd like to thank the school district for reminding me to send in my yearly donation/membership dues to the ACLU. Thanks!

    --
    http://wsulug.org
  137. Public School System Mission Statement by doublem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You must have had one sad, empty childhood....

    Nope. He just read the mission statement for the public school system in the USA.

    You see, the schools aren't there to provide an education beyond minimal skills. They really are there to teach conformity.

    The goal of the school system is to provide workers who will do what their bosses tell them, and voters who will blindly tow the party line. The fact that only 39% of Americans support President Bush is going to be seen not as a failure by Bush, but as a failure of the school system to educate the other 61% into obedience.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Public School System Mission Statement by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ah. Yes. Ofcourse. Let me guess, it's all part of a Zionist conspiracy, right?

  138. Stuffed up the analogy by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    You've kind of left out how the teacher references the two teacher incident. If he said "This school is acting the way that triggered the two teacher incident", that wouldn't be bad at all. If he said, "You don't want another two teacher incident" he could be conveying a veiled threat. If he said "We should all be more like those two teachers" that would be bad.

    1. Re:Stuffed up the analogy by LegendLength · · Score: 1

      Good point, good point. You must come the other half though and agree that the columbine reference was ill conceived though.

    2. Re:Stuffed up the analogy by jdbear · · Score: 1
      The Columbine comment was ill concieved, but the way I read it, I still did not see a direct threat. If there was a question about a threat, then they could ASK the student directly.

      Administrator: "Was that some sort of threat?"
      Student: "No, I was just making the point that bullying students is a bad idea. Even though I would never consider violence against the school, there is evidence that some people do."
      Administrator: "So you are not now considering acts of violence against the school or any of the faculty or students?"
      Student: "Of course not. I would, however, like you to stop bullying me, and I will use my constituionally garanteed rights of free speach to complain about the current level of intimidation."


      Like I said, I don't think his reference was threatening, anymore than people's continuing comparison of people they don't like to Hitler is threatening. After all, we all know what happened to him, don't we? If someone suggested that "Bush is behaving like Hitler," can we view that as a vieled threat that the White House will be bombed and invaded by armed forces? That the President's body will never be found, and that the only indication of what happened to him is vague and unsubstaniated rumors of suicide?

      One can carry supposition of "veiled threats" too far.
      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
    3. Re:Stuffed up the analogy by rhendershot · · Score: 1

      >>agree that the columbine reference was ill conceived

      One might expect folks who are responsible for acedemic advancement of that student to understand the language and to have some capacity for reading comprehension.

      It's like that mention of Communism in another post to this article. Allegorically, it can only be viewed as successful or not, not threatening or not. It's clear that it was an example to illustrate a point. And if it were not clear, the student clarified his intention by stating that no threat had happened. It's a contrastual construct. Good/Bad. The kids of Columbine reacted in a manner, but nothing like that happens here...except maybe on your (the school's) part.

      And if it were not clear and there were no clarification, even then, an ironic allegory that puts the Administration in the place of the Columbine Students *still* is not actionable. Not if we want our kids to grow-up with a sense of purpose, a sense of some absoluteness to Right and Wrong.

      The factor of most concern that I've seen over the last 30 years or so is the continual sand shifting of our Responsibility to Law. The rules are constantly changing. Where we allow entrenched power to encroach on our ability to Act Within Our Own Conscience, we lose a little more of our blood-garnered Citizenship.

      Others have made hay with examples of parties, fights and harrassments. These are Actions. The only 'action' this student is culpable to is Expression. It is our core Right as Citizens, for without it none of our guaranteed liberty means a damn; not Assembly nor Worship nor Vote. How can you assemble without speaking? How can you worship without Expression of your personal beliefs? How can you vote without the former?!

      How can you seek to cause a change, or as a minor even hope to understand if a change is necessary, without free flow of ideas and expression of your viewpoint?

      While blogs on myspace and such are public in the strictest sense, the reality is that we blog to our constituents. It's less like a Newspaper than it is like a Newsletter. I doubt that the same contents would have aroused the school administration had they been committed to paper and circulated to friends and family. And yet, the readership of the blog is probably just that limited. If I drop my family newsletter and it is picked up, is then 'Johnny' liable to Publishing standards? If 'Johnny' blogs to a group of friends is that more public than the lost newsletter?

      Should we allow our kids' first experience with the Rule of Law in America to be of Fascist containment?

      Quite the contrary it must be a more flexible interpretation of their, admittedly immature, Expression and Speach that we allow. To Teach is to Guide, not to Control. Sadly, the NEA has lost its way in this.

      As a Parent I cannot allow such an obvious collusion to contravene my biological, moral, ethical and legal rights. In many localities it is legal to let my minor dependant smoke, consume alcohol, be nude, shoot a firearm... even wreck our car if driven only on our property. Within the law he may drive on public roads. But, apparantly, whoa be it if he has a bumper sticker that someone, somewhere, in the school finds uncomfortable. Or inconvenient.

      Did the administration sense a real danger or did they knee-jerkily react to inconvenience?

      FTA: "said Fred Hayes, deputy chief for Joliet Police Department. "Now, they can post it on a Web site. We are not seeing an explosion of new feelings or expressions from students."

      Back in the day we'd have just used the good old-fashioned telephone to advise our friends of our feeling. Or we'd have shared it while playing foosball or pinball at the rec. Or maybe bitched about it on CB radio. Or, god help the one who, wrote a letter to the school newspaper. Are any of those channels more actionable?

      Even with a reference to Columbine?

      Do we wish to live in a place wherein we can talk freely and openly.... so long as it's only about State Acceptable topics and content?

    4. Re:Stuffed up the analogy by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      We're talking about a person who was supposed to be taught to conceive well by the very people who are planning to get rid of him because he hasn't conceived well!

  139. Simple facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One is a paid representative of the state. The other one is forced to be there. Admittedly, they're also both private citizens, but that's hardly the raison d'etre of their relationship and dealings with one another.

    Which one deserves protection more?

  140. Bloggers and Rights by mgpeter · · Score: 1

    FWIW there is a very good page on EFF's website about the ins and outs of student blogging.

    And another one from Scholastic Administrator is also interesting.

    Also, in case you are wondering; yes I do work at a school part time as a NetAdmin.

  141. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by StankyG · · Score: 0

    Good post! I wrote something similar w. regards to respect. It has the subject "You be Palestine, I'll be Israel". It is all about mutual respect.

    --
    -STankyG
    People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances...
  142. What ever would they do? by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

    I wonder just exactly what response the school district would've had if it had been a parent that put up such a blog?

    What are they gonna do? Even though the activities were related directly to the school and the problems a student was having?

    They couldn't do shit.

    Just another case of a district trying to enforce its rules on a student when the activity was done off-campus.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  143. Sooo.... by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

    What exactly did he *do* that warranted the expulsion?

    From another story, he was apparently venting about his friend being expelled:

    His friend allegedly started a fire in an urinal in a bathroom at Plainfield South High School and later posted the incident on his xanga site, according to police reports. That student's case is currently in court. He was charged with reckless conduct. The school district said the student was expelled for two years.

    "Kids don't realize that if there is a connection with the school or has a potential of creating a disturbance to the school, they can be disciplined for it and they don't appreciate the personal threat to them for posting information on the Internet," Harper said. "It is our responsibility to educate kids and help them work through some of these issues."

    So the big question is, was he really exercising his right to free speech, or what he making threats or otherwise doing something potentially dangerous? Given his Columbine comment in TFA, he's obviously willing to make veiled threats ('The Columbine shooters were bullied, and now you're bullying us' seems potentially threatening to me)

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    1. Re:Sooo.... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      he's obviously willing to make veiled threats ('The Columbine shooters were bullied, and now you're bullying us' seems potentially threatening to me)


      Grow up. It's comparison, not a threat.

  144. 1st Amendment by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I recently made a post about first amendment rights, where it applies and where it does not.

    This is where 1st amendment rights apply. The school is being a bully. They handeled this poorly, and it leads me to believe they actually have treated this kid bad previously.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  145. The USA's love of expulsion is a complex thing. by doublem · · Score: 1

    One factor is racism and classism. There are a lot of people who think that "some people" don't deserve an education. Because of this belief, the "disruptive" students are seen as being beneath the norm, and thus unworthy of an actual education.

    The group that's seen as "disposable" varies dramatically from one school to the next. In some places it's a clear division along color lines. In others it's financial. In one school I attended the teachers enforced the student created cliques, so it was the geeks and nerds (such as myself) who always got the short end of th stick.

    Regardless, many administrators set out to reduce the head count of the "disposable" group.

    Then there's the issues around the point of the public school system.

    The public schools weren't created to be a benign benefit for the masses. They were created to create workers for the increasingly industrialized country. Teaching obedience and conformity to society is more important than teaching how to read or write. If you have any doubt take a look at all the athletes who get moved up through the school system despite never learning to read or write beyond a first or second grade level.

    When the point of the school system is to create obedient workers, anyone who is disruptive and failing to

    And don't underestimate the popularity games. A lot of teachers go into it not for the love of teaching or a desire to educate the next generation, but so they can stay in High School longer. They want to stay one of the "popular kids" and still love beating up on the nerds and geeks. The only difference is now they can do it with detentions and expulsions in addition to verbal abuse.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  146. The Kid's Lawyer... by makemineagrande · · Score: 1

    Is Carl Buck according to the news story. If he loses the expulsion hearing, perhaps Buck would take some Slash-bucks contributions to sue the school district over First Ammendment issues. http://www.rcklawfirm.com/ is where he practices. Email Carl cbuck@rcklawfirm.com

    1. Re:The Kid's Lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about sending money to the kid's parents instead?

  147. If you think this is bad by uniqueUser · · Score: 1
    --
    GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  148. Back-seat principals by Mainusch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once again, we take a legitimate concern like bullying, and overreact such that anyone who feels the slightest bit offended by something someone else does screams "I'm being bullied!" Bullying is a real problem. To shout "Bully!" when someone in a position of authority exercises that authority, however, diminishes the real cases of bullying.

    This kid made very public, albeit veiled threats of violence against the school administration simply because he "felt bullied." The threats were so veiled, I'm not really sure they cross the line. However, the administration has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the staff and student body in order to facilitate the primary mission, which is to advance student learning. They must, in many cases, use their best judgment in discerning what constitutes a threat of violence against the staff and/or student body.

    The principal knows this kid, and his history. We, the random readers of Slashdot, do not. The principal is in the thick of this situation, whereas all we know is what one reporter has written about it. The principal is charged with the responsibility of protecting the school. We are not.

    If this kid took it further, and actually did something to which he had been alluding, the argument would now be that the administration is inept for not taking action when he had clearly made threats. To prevent action simply based on the notion that the principal is "bullying" the kid is grotesque.

    Give the principal the slack his position deserves.

    --
    Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
    1. Re:Back-seat principals by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You know, people just like you, who misinterpet words, elected Hitler. In fact, Hitler himself was known for doing the same thing.

      So, is this a thinly veiled threat to kill 12 million people?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Back-seat principals by gawbl · · Score: 1

      The principal should "know this kid, and his record," and if the expulsion is justified by that record, I agree. But that's not what the article said; it said the reason for explusion is the blog. One of my own kids was expelled from elementary school; he was scapegoated for problems caused by others. I didn't fight it because it got him into a much better school nearby. My child moved from a school with a principal I did not respect, to another school with a wonderful, enlightened principal. In the new school, my kid was treated fairly, and he straightened right out. Today, nobody believes me when I say this child was expelled from elementary school. IMHO, the principal in this case has overstepped his/her bounds. Unfortunately, s/he won't be corrected unless this gets to court, and it's unlikely the parents have the patience to pursue that.

    3. Re:Back-seat principals by Mainusch · · Score: 1

      I'll just stick with my main point that you (the readers of Slashdot) know squat about this case, save what one reporter has written. And yet, so many here summarily condemn the principal, the administration, and even the teachers for "bullying" this kid, and/or attempting to squelch his free speech rights. I'm exceedingly happy that the actual justice system in this country does not operate like it works in here.

      --
      Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
  149. What public school does this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Not only are we teaching our students math, science, literature, and music, but we're also giving them experience with them the American legal system by inducing them to sue the F%$# out of us."

    Teaching students Math, Science, Literature, and Music? At a public school?

    That's crazy talk, man!

  150. Speaking of "broad assumptions".... by TheBlackSwordsman · · Score: 1
    Teachers typically do not give a rats ass about teaching and the administrators simply get "annoyed" when something is brought up to them for attention.


    Yeah, I'm sure everyone in the field of education is like that, based on your one experience.

    1. Re:Speaking of "broad assumptions".... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Boy, what an IDIOT you are.

      Most of us have CONSIDERABLE experience in this area since many of us were forcibly subjected to this system for our ENTIRE CHILDHOOD.

      It's not like we're talking about moon exploration here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  151. The School is Right .... sorta by Tyler2191 · · Score: 1
    I'm notorious for playing Devil's Advocate. I'm not going to say I agree with the school's decision, but lets just argue their case anyways since most of you guys won't.

    This boy is being a distraction to other students. He has already been warned that he needs to stop with this comments. The boy continue to post comments on this web site. Word starts spreading, kids begin reading more and more, and you have a potential uproar. The overall student population isn't knowledgable to know why the school does some of the things they do. They don't understand the politics and economics of some of the schools decisions. Sometimes the schools have to make decisions based on not what they want to do, but what they have to do, given by fiscal means or by pressure from city, state, government, or even other parents. This kid can not be allowed to distract other students and deprive them of their right to education. Nevermind the right to free speech, but how about the right to education. What does a teacher do when a child is being a constant distraction, you take him out of class. What do you do when he is being a distraction to the entire school .... ? Freedom of speech has its boundaries. You cross the boundaries when you begin to deprive other people of their rights.

    Now again I didn't say I agree with the school, but I will defend their side since most won't. So here is an open challenge. I challenge anyone who wants to side with the boy, but has to do so in an intellectual way, and not just -- "hehe, your stupid, your wrong."

  152. Selective law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police enforce criminal law.

    Only when they choose to. The police are very selective about who they press charges against when the criminal code is violated.

    Criminal law is used to put down those with political views or agendas that upset the apple cart of capitalist exploitation.

    If you have enough money and the right political views you will not be charged. I have personally observed countless cases of this.

    Justice is a sham.

    (Spoooky, the captcha I got for this post was "expelled"!)

    1. Re:Selective law enforcement by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot to sign your completely irrelevant post with "Free Mumia!"

    2. Re:Selective law enforcement by castoridae · · Score: 1

      Care to share any actual specifics -or better yet, some statistics? I work with police officers every day, and the vast majority of them care deeply & apply justice universally to the best of their ability.

      Sure, poorer people tend to be convicted of crimes a lot more. Especially minorities. But I posit that's not the police; there are two posibilities:
      1. Having less to lose, more to gain, and arguably coming from a less-"educated" background, they (on average) commit more crimes. Really, what's the incentive for a well-to-do capitalist to go out and commit crimes?
      2. The legal system is such that money buys the best lawyers, who can get people off the hook better. The police have nothing to do with this, other than perhaps the pragmatic issue of limited resources. If the police know that they have a weak case against a well-to-do offender who will get the best legal representation, they (along with the DA) may decide not to pursue a case they have no chance of winning in favor of keeping more officers on the streets doing their jobs.

      Or maybe it's just a conspiratorial plot by tens of thousands of individual (and truly independent) police departments across the nation to hold up the evil American oligarchy. After all, we all know that policemen are millionaire robber-barons, every last one.

  153. What The H#$$ is Wrong With This Country? by InsomniacMK5 · · Score: 1

    Capitalism is the devil, but not without a Republic. Where is democracy? Where has it gone? This gives me more and more reason to get out of the States to live and work overseas. This time it may be permanent.

    --
    Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no
  154. Tangentially, let's not forget the privact schools by Teacher's+Pet · · Score: 1

    ...from which one can be expelled for any number of "bad" things done outside of school grounds and hours, all on the basis of being a bad influence to others. Case in point: group of seniors at the home of one of the group, drinking beer, parent present. Word got back to the school. Group suspended, then expelled - no questions asked.

    I know - not the same thing, being a private school. But, it was a high school, and the school did have indirect control of actions outside of school.

    --
    I promise to be different...

    --
    I promise to be different...
  155. RTFA carefully by JetScootr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The deputy chief of police of Joliet said there wasn't a threat. The school was asked "If you thought there was a threat, did you call the police or FBI?". The school said they didn't contact FBI or Police. How threatened did the school admins really feel? apparently not much. Comparing your current situation to a past situation where something really bad happened is not threatening. It's a comparison.
    Regardless of the kid's history, the school has *no*frickin*authority* to control the behavior of kids outside of school. NONE WHATEVER, even if the kids are talking about school or using school books to do homework, or whatever.
    No level of government, from school teachers to the US president, has the authority to dictate to anyone what they put on their own website outside of school.
    And yes, this constitutes governmental bullying of someone with a dissenting opinion.

    --
    Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
    1. Re:RTFA carefully by Mainusch · · Score: 1

      If the school has "*no*frickin*authority* to control the behavior of kids outside of school", then they have no authority to assign homework. Your view of student rights decimates education entirely.

      --
      Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
    2. Re:RTFA carefully by Assassin17 · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is garbage for many reasons. To address one of them: it's not a necessity that "homework" be done at home; it can be completed during a study period. Insisting work assigned one day be finished by another day is NOT an example of the school having jurisdiction over the student's home life.

      In contrast, the school penalizing a student for posting from home and to a non-school website IS an example of the school trying to extend its jurisdiction.

      A deadline does not imply control of every activity that occurs up until that deadline. For example, my taxes are due April 15, but the IRS can't dictate whether I cry about my taxes on a website prior to submitting them.

    3. Re:RTFA carefully by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      If the school has "*no*frickin*authority* to control the behavior of kids outside of school", then they have no authority to assign homework. Your view of student rights decimates education entirely.

      That's complete--and rather bizarre--nonsense.

      There is no logical relation between educators setting deadlines for school assignments, which may assume students will need to schedule work time outside the classroom, and asserting authority over non-scholastic activities outside school hours. I have no idea how you're connecting the two concepts, but just stop because you're wrong.

  156. Absolutely NOT by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have not seen the blog --- did he write any libel (sp) information about people? If that is the case I could see that as grounds for expulsion. If he said his math teacher was a XYZ and said math teacher is not...


    Actually, I would say none of those activities are grounds for expulsion. Lawsuits, maybe, by the math teacher, but not expulsion.

    What's next? Kid cuts in front of their english teacher in the grocery store line and that teacher gets them expelled for it?

    Schools should only have jurisdiction over students when on their grounds or in their care, such as at school functions off-campus. Otherwise, it's not their problem nor their business.
    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    1. Re:Absolutely NOT by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would say none of those activities are grounds for expulsion. Lawsuits, maybe, by the math teacher, but not expulsion. What's next? Kid cuts in front of their english teacher in the grocery store line and that teacher gets them expelled for it? Schools should only have jurisdiction over students when on their grounds or in their care, such as at school functions off-campus. Otherwise, it's not their problem nor their business.

      Well that is a matter of opinion and why it is brought to a hearing. Personally I think it would be grounds for expulsion. Another example: If Person A sexually harasses Person B in the workplace....Person B not only can sue Person A, but Person A can get fired. This is not much different. Student writes false stuff about Teacher. Teacher can sue Student and school can expel student. See not that different from sexual harassment case.

      I wholely disagree with your last part also. When in school there was this bully. I met him through school. He would not beat me up before during or after school. He would wait until he saw me at the bowling ally on saturday night and beat me up. It is the schools business to help protect me, and I am glad they did.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:Absolutely NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't you just call the cops on him?

      It shouldn't be the job of the school to protect you when you're not at school.

      It shouldn't be the job of the school to police you when you're not at school.

      If you got a bully suspended from school, he's going to look forward to beating the shit out of you that saturday night.

      I know I would.

    3. Re:Absolutely NOT by thc69 · · Score: 0, Troll

      AC is right. The police would be the proper authority to protect you; also, it should be in the bowling alley's interest to disallow such activity at their establishment.

      That said, I would have found a way to defend myself. For example, did you consider applying a bowling ball to the bully's head? He'd never bother you again, except possibly to drool on you from his wheelchair...

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    4. Re:Absolutely NOT by RedneckJack · · Score: 0

      There are a couple of instances that I am familiar with. There was a kid who had problems with a given teacher. He saw the teacher someplace outside in public during non-school hours. The kid basically had some "words" with the teacher - called him an a-hole or told him to f*** off but nothing threatening. The kid got a three day suspension.

      Another instance, the college I went to, a year after I graduated implemented a "reciprocal agreement" with local law enforcement. If a student got in trouble such as MIP, DUI or even speeding, the student would have to appear before Student Affairs to "explain themselves".


      What's next? Kid cuts in front of their english teacher in the grocery store line and that teacher gets them expelled for it?

    5. Re:Absolutely NOT by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1
      If Person A sexually harasses Person B in the workplace....Person B not only can sue Person A, but Person A can get fired. This is not much different. Student writes false stuff about Teacher. Teacher can sue Student and school can expel student. See not that different from sexual harassment case.

      Yes it is. The key phrase is "in the workplace."

    6. Re:Absolutely NOT by masdog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wholely disagree with your last part also. When in school there was this bully. I met him through school. He would not beat me up before during or after school. He would wait until he saw me at the bowling ally on saturday night and beat me up. It is the schools business to help protect me, and I am glad they did.

      I wholely disagree with this. A school isn't there to protect me, from myself or others, when I am not engaged in school related activities. If the bully attacked me on school grounds, it would be their job to intervene and punish this kid before handing him over to the police. But since he attacked you at non-school functions off of school district property, they have no business being involved.

      Responsibility for your safety rests squarely in your hands. If the bully was attacking you at the bowling alley, drive in, or McDonalds, you need to report it to the responsible authorities - the management of the establishment and the police. You also need to learn how to defend yourself by taking martial arts or some other form of self-defense.

    7. Re:Absolutely NOT by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. The key phrase is "in the workplace."

      And the teacher working at a school is not in the workplace? Sexual harassment does not extend to just the work place. You can sexually harass your neighbor and be sued. The only difference is your place of business will probably not fire you (they actually may depending on the type of job and the public visibility of the lawsuit).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    8. Re:Absolutely NOT by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Responsibility for your safety rests squarely in your hands. If the bully was attacking you at the bowling alley, drive in, or McDonalds, you need to report it to the responsible authorities - the management of the establishment and the police. You also need to learn how to defend yourself by taking martial arts or some other form of self-defense.

      Except for the one key factor...I knew the school bully through the school. This is not joe-random guy i met on the street - this is a kid who goes to my school and only knew me because of the school. So yea it is the schools responsibility to intervene. Especially when you are talking about 8 and 10 year olds where the most will happen is the cops ask the bullies parents to dicipline their kid...and then the bully will pursue vengeance.

      You also need to learn how to defend yourself by taking martial arts or some other form of self-defense.

      Yes that is the answer, fight violence with violence. Yea there we go. I would rather my future children not know or need to fight - especially at the age of 8 years old.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    9. Re:Absolutely NOT by masdog · · Score: 1

      Except for the one key factor...I knew the school bully through the school. This is not joe-random guy i met on the street - this is a kid who goes to my school and only knew me because of the school. So yea it is the schools responsibility to intervene. Especially when you are talking about 8 and 10 year olds where the most will happen is the cops ask the bullies parents to dicipline their kid...and then the bully will pursue vengeance.

      It doesn't matter where you met him. You could have met him through school, church, the local sports league, or the YMCA. The minute you step out of their jurisdiction, its not their responsibility.

      If the bully continues, and there is documentation of him victimizing a person or persons repeatedly, he will be arrested and put into juvie.

      Say you only knew the guy through church, and he beats you up Saturday nights at the bowling alley. The church has no authority to intervene in the situation or to enforce a punishment. The same applies to a school.

      Yes that is the answer, fight violence with violence. Yea there we go. I would rather my future children not know or need to fight - especially at the age of 8 years old.

      And why not? Is defending yourself reall that bad of a thing? Or would you rather allow yourself to be victimized until someone with authority can deal with it?? And what do you do if that authority decides that the bully isn't doing anything wrong? Run to a different authority?

      If you don't fight back, you allow yourself to be a victim, and you open yourself up to more victimization. If you show that you're going to be a challenge and won't let them push you around, they will leave you alone.

    10. Re:Absolutely NOT by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      The church has no authority to intervene

      But the church does--- the church can kick the bully out of the flock. The school can do the same thing.

      If you don't fight back, you allow yourself to be a victim

      You need to be careful on this territory...there are many rape victims who could not fight back....they didn't allow themselves to be a victim, someone made them a victim. Just because you do not fight back does not mean you let yourself be a victim. If someone puts a gun to your head, are you going to fight back? Probably not...does that mean you let yourself be a victim, hell no.

      Fighting is not the way. If a person can defend himself then great, but at no point will I EVER fault someone who cant defend themselves --- why, because at one point in my life I could not do so. Not to mention - you may know how to fight, but you may encounter someone who is bigger, tougher and way more skilled then you...and when you try and defend yourself he will end up causing you more pain.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    11. Re:Absolutely NOT by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      the church can kick the bully out of the flock.

      ohh, scary, yea thats going to make the bully stop, just like kicking a bully out of school for a week. Just wait till he finds out that you got him kicked out!

      Just because you do not fight back does not mean you let yourself be a victim. If someone puts a gun to your head, are you going to fight back? Probably not...does that mean you let yourself be a victim, hell no.

      Huh, WTF are you talking about? If someone coherses you with a weapon 'You are a victim', its called assult with a deadly weapon where I'm from. If you pull out your 9mm, shoot and stop the assaliant, you are not a victim. To consider 'fighting' and defending yourself from and act of aggression equally wrong is foolish.

      And yes, calling the cops is an act of defense. Doing nothing is foolish, it denegrates a person to the level of a sheep, and there is nothing a wolf likes more then an easy kill.

    12. Re:Absolutely NOT by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1
      And the teacher working at a school is not in the workplace?

      Irrelevant. The blog is not in the teacher's workplace. Nor was the student when he posted it.

      The only difference is your place of business will probably not fire you

      Which is a pretty significant difference, and pretty much encompasses my point.

    13. Re:Absolutely NOT by etrnl · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. The key phrase is "in the workplace."

      Have you been paying any attention to what (in)Human Resources have been saying for the past 5 years?

      "In the workplace" is wherever two or more coworkers gather together.

      So, if my girlfriend and I worked at the same company (which we did at the time)... our bedroom was classified as "in the workplace". The D&D group that met on the weekend... was "in the workplace".

      HR's response to the first? "This is why we advocate that people do not date coworkers."

      Gotta love it. Yeah, I'm gonna give up my relationship of 4+ years just because a larger company bought us? Don't think so.

  157. Choices by Pointy_Hair · · Score: 1

    I'll surely catch some flames for this, but here goes..

    Free speech <> stupid speech.

    Just because you have a right to free speech in the U.S. doesn't necessarily mean you need to exercise that right without thinking about what you are freely sharing with the world (for all time) on your blog. This issue is less about civil liberties and more about using common sense.

    The school system is being made out to be a "bad guy" for punishing these kids for something they've done outside of school. Sure it's stupid and the system is probably going to back down at some point. These kids have as much right to post blogs like this one as any other socially unpopular topics.

    What's missing is the parents or the school system providing guidance instead of dishing out ridiculous penalties. Such as how impressed future prospective employers will find your pot smoking/underage drinking/naked pictures when they use your name in a search engine during a routine background check. Or, what are you gaining by posting this on your internet blog versus using some other method to make a point? Better yet, what are the potential consequences?

    IMO this here is as dumb as the kids that videotape themselves while vandalizing property or performing some other illegal act then get convicted or punished when the tape becomes evidence.

    1. Re:Choices by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is just like those rabble-rousers the founding fathers. If they got caught and executed for treason against the queen, it's their own fault.

      The british are being made out to be the "bad guys" here because they simply upheld the laws of the land.

      IMO, that was as stupid as the kids who wrote newspapers in China, then are upset when they're run over by a tank.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  158. Join the club by luckynoone · · Score: 1
    My school did something like this to me. About 5 years ago, when blogs and social sites were written by hand in code, I had one where I had posted and written on. Anyways, one day I come in and my parents are sitting down with the police officers and school administration to have a talk about my site. Apparently they didn't like it. Well, the whole issue kind of fizzled up, but not before a suspension.

    Now kids decorate their myspace pages with 420 and pot leaves all over them, incriminating photos and words. Sort of reminds me of kids 10 years ago (and still occuring today) filming their crimes and vandalism. Go ahead, hand over every deep dark secret to your local police department and future employers. Let them use the WayBackMachine to see who you really were before graduating. Good luck on that job interview.

  159. Supreme Court Says... by dgr9449 · · Score: 3, Informative
    There's been a lot of fuss and bother about this issue, but it this question (Do students enjoy Free Speech?) has already been decided. And been decided more than once.

    In fact, on such case was decided right here in Des Moines, Iowa, my home town.

    The Case was "TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=393&invol=503

    Let me quote a little of the decision:

    First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

    Looks to me as if the school board in this case should apologize immediately. Maybe they can avoid the law suit I see on the horizon.

    For those of you too young to remember, or too lazy to read the case notes: A couple of High School students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school suspended them. They sued. They took it to the Supreme Court which said it WAS a Free Speech Issue. The school lost, the kids won.

    Maybe the school board needs a refresher course in American History?

    1. Re:Supreme Court Says... by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but hasn't the Supreme Court changed a bit since 1969?

      --
      Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  160. Perhaps schools need less money? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
    Illinois state law says that schools are allowed to act in the best interest of a student, as a parent when the parent is not around (ie, during school days). It does not say schools can discipline students for their thoughts and actions outside of school and not during school time. However, schools are taking it upon themselves to do this regardless.


    You know, thinking about this, all this monitoring outside school time of students has to cost money. Maybe that's why our students are underserved? Maybe a law needs to be written taht school personel can only pay attention to students @ school and school functions, outside of that they don't get paid. Maybe cutting their funds 5 to 10% would get the message across? My bank account would certainly like that.
    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  161. Forget expulsion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kid deserves 40 to life in WWW maximum security.

    All the elements of bad design used to present unreadable text. WTF are they teaching kids these days?

  162. Outrage! by DesertWolf0132 · · Score: 1

    This poor kid has been denied one of the most basic rights, one that should be freely afforded every American! "The right to have a decent English teacher shall not be infringed." All of his previous ones have been dismal failures and should be fired immediately...

    Oh yeah, he should have free speech too...

    Otsde of skool evry1 shood hve teh rite 2 speek hw thy wnt...

    DAMN THE MAN! SAVE THE EMPIRE!

    --
    No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
    Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
  163. Intentional failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone considered that the school may WANT to fail? This would establish a precidence which would make it more difficult for ANY school to punish for blog posts. It will also undoubtedly bring more public attention to free speech issues. Perhaps this is the true intention of the administrators taking this action. Of course, they could just be overcontrolling.

  164. Re:Privately Run? by Macrat · · Score: 1

    How is this a solution? If anything, private schools are more extreme in matters like this.

  165. school = child storage by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    The public school system is used to maintain social control, not educate.

    My experience with school, is that it is child storage, not a learning facility. In fact, I didn't learn much after 6th grade -- some things I learned were so wrong that I would ask my teachers about it (blood cells cut themselves open on the jagged edges of broken bloodvessles to start clotting), they would say that this is what they teach, and this is what I have to learn. I found about half of my education to be wasted time.

    I also found school administration geared towards the mechanized stamping-out of completed students, rather than the the whole learning process. I found that my interests and creativity were definately not helpful in my scholastic career. In fact, after learning to program in Applesoft BASIC (from a school shrink!), I started to do more and tought myself. In high school, after voicing my interests in programming to my various teachers -- they then put me in learning-disabled classes, and disallowed me to take any programming classes.

    I think I learned more from my parents, and from watching Star Trek than I did in some of the years of schooling. Of course, that was about 15 years ago since I was last in high school -- I've moved well on from there. The teachers I didn't learn much from are still in the same slot.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  166. Re:Dumbasses (columbine ref makes the difference) by DenDude · · Score: 1

    /* Yeah, but in the next sentence he explicity states that he is in no way threatening any kind of harm. From what I can understand, this post was in retaliation to the administration coming down on him and his family for posts prior to this one.*/

    Yeah... so some guy runs into my back bumper. I tell him "The last time someone ran into my bumper and didn't have insurance, he ended up dead... Not that I'm threatening to kill you and bury in the desert. No, I'm not planning on slicing you open like a gutted fish, so don't worry. I'm just letting you know." Now what should a listener infer from that? It seems like a threat, even when I explicity tell the guy that it's not.

    By making the reference to the kids at Columbine, he made the veiled threat. Even when he qualified it after the reference, it could still be construed as a threat... eg "Columbine was a result of people being bullied... Not that I'll do the same thing, but keep in mind that *Columbine was the result of being bullied*."

    He was in the wrong, and he should at least accept that part of it. Besides, if anything happened after that, the school would be in a much worse position than if they did nothing. The school is just in a bad, bad position now.

    blah... This sounded much more clear when I was thinking it... need more coffee...

    --
    A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
  167. Business as usual by hausmaus · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, the public miseducation system in action. The government feels it should control your every action, whether or not you're actually in their clutches at the time of the "misdeed". I have yet to have anyone explain to me to my satisfaction where in the Constitution that it is explicitly said that the government is responsible for education.

    All the student did was say that he was being bullied and they're going to expel him - well, looks like someone's covering something up. Typical government reaction.

    Public school - the best our nation can offer.

    I hope this kid and his parents sue the pants off the school district and name names. I bet the NEA is gonna go beserk about this one.

    --
    Your email has been returned due to insufficent voltage.
  168. Some things of notice by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1
    First, I notice that there is information missing from the article. According to the Article, on May 1 this person posted an open letter "telling off the district, using vulgar words and saying he could put whatever he wanted on his site". Then, the next day he posted the letter which the school district felt was a threat and may get him expelled.
    • What prompted the first letter?
    • What prompted the second?
    • Why does he say he feels threatend and bullied?


    Second, many seem to think what was posted was not a threat. Consider the following:
    Bloke in Black Hat(BIBH): Hello, do you own this joint?
    Shopkeeper(SK):Why, yes I do.
    BIBH: I represent a group of concerned citizens. We are a sort of neighborhood watch.
    SK: Yes?
    BIBH: You have a nice shop here and there have been some incidents in the area. We are requesting donations for the local business to help guard against anything bad happening.
    SK: I don't know if I can really afford to donate at this time.
    BIBH: Really. You know, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to your shop. And, we can't guarrenty your shop will be safe if you can't help support us. We will spend our time making sure those that do donate are safe from vandals and the like.

    That is the standard protection racket shakedown. No direct threat, barely an implied threat.
    I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied.

    This sounds to me like the same strong arm tactics used by gangsters for decades. Mention an act of violence and then mention the similarities between the motives for that act of violence and how one feels at this time.
    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Some things of notice by Tyler2191 · · Score: 1

      Good post. In fact this article is missing some information that can sway the reader either which way. For instance, flip the article to say, "A boy was suspended for making Columbine-like threats against a school district." The school would site that they took preemptive action against this boy. I would like to know, WHY the first letter was written. What provoked him? Generally its the students that are bullies, not the school district.

    2. Re:Some things of notice by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I'm reading over the posts on his blog, and it seems to me he's a patriotic christian boy. I don't agree with much of the stuff on his blog, since I don't think the military is really fighting for any american freedom to speak of, but if all I had to go on was what he's valued and written about in this blog, I'd say he's probably a good kid, and as usual the school board is being run by despotic business school drop-outs.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:Some things of notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the kid wasn't a filthy pasta-sucking guinea dago then I really don't see the comparison.

  169. How about reading the article before submitting? by ostermei · · Score: 1

    From the submission: ThPhox writes "A student in the Plainfield School District in New Jersey [...]"

    ThPhox apparently didn't bother to read the article and notice that it's Plainfield, Illinois, not New Jersey.

    --
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
  170. What about the opposite scenario? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything wrong with a teacher or principal blogging on their own time about a specific student who he suspects is a cheater, a homosexual, and an all around bad choice for adminssion to a university?

  171. Email the school Board by TitsNbeer · · Score: 0

    http://www.plainfieldnjk12.org/Board/Members.htm

    I think I'm going to tell the school board exactly what I think of their actions. Most of their email addresses are posted here.

    1. Re:Email the school Board by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to tell the school board exactly what I think of their actions. Most of their email addresses are posted here.

      When you do that, be sure to sign your message "TitsNbeer" for full effect.

      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    2. Re:Email the school Board by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Hey, I knew it was Illinois without reading a word of it. What other screwed up state would waste such hideous amounts of taxpayer money on such a stupid endeavour.
      Of course it's Illinois. The same state that is wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars in an attempt to send my Dad to jail for accidentally killing one of the billions of "endangered" Canada geese that infest Illinois. It's in my journal if you are really interested in the story.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  172. Re:Dumbasses (columbine ref makes the difference) by Rifter13 · · Score: 1

    I think your example is a little flawed. Invoking the Columbine name was probably the dumbest thing he did, but I infer that he was frustrated at the system, and pointing out how the system had failed so badly before. I don't think it was a threat, it was making a very bad point. :-)

  173. Private schools are way worse by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
    You're wrong on this one.

    I went to a private school for a year, and there was ZERO privacy. There were drug tests, they monitored our activities outside of school, and from speaking with students from other schools it was a widespread phenomenon.

    Workplaces have been doing this as well, even going so far as to fire employees over their web presence, off-work activities, political and religious beliefs.

    Private industry has no credibility in protecting our privacy. Why can't we fight against invasion of privacy and erosion of rights without getting sidetracked by a misguided privatization push?

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
    1. Re:Private schools are way worse by Gattman01 · · Score: 1
      I went to a private school for a year, and there was ZERO privacy. There were drug tests, they monitored our activities outside of school, and from speaking with students from other schools it was a widespread phenomenon.


      Where was this? And how long ago?

      I went to a private highschool for 4 years and never encoutered anything like that! They did tell us, though, that bad publicity would lead to punishment. But no drug tests or surveillance at non-school events.

      The closest thing I can think of was after the Junior prom of course there were a few parties. One guy brought photos into school a few days later, another guy was holding a beer in one of the photos. One of the teachers saw the photo, and the student in the picture was given a couple days of detention.

      The party happened OUTSIDE of the school, but bringing the photos into the school forced the school to weigh in on it.

      Freshmen year there was a kid who threatened to blow up the school, he brought in playdoh and said it was C-4. He was taken away by the cops, and that was the last we saw of him.

      The only other event I can think of was a student who got expelled 2 or 3 weeks before graduation. He was caught selling weed to a Freshmen, in his car, in the school parking lot.

      That being said, I also think private schools aren't the answer problems like these. Kids will be kids, as the saying goes.
      Just speculation, but they probably want to make an example of this kid, but they turning him into a martyr for students rights.
    2. Re:Private schools are way worse by mjh · · Score: 1

      I went to private high school for 4 years. I'm absolutely certain that the level of privacy that I wanted was not the same as what the school allowed for. What I don't know is whether or not the level of privacy afforded by the school is different from the level that my parents wanted for me.

      However, in this case, it's clear that the parents are aligned with the kid in opposition to the level of intrusion the school is applying. Since it's the parents who pay, it's the parents that a private school will listen to. I don't think that private schools could get away with this kind of thing in opposition to the will of the parents and survive long.

      As far as workplaces, there is federal law that prevents discrimination on some of the things you are worried about. With respect to the rest, remember who the customer is: the employer is the one who's paying. If the terms of your employment state that they can fire you for those things, then they can. You accepted the employement on those terms.

      But employers have to be careful even without federal law. The most important and expensive part of almost every industry are human resources. Finding people and retaining people is hard. If a company is too unjudicious in their firing process, they will lose people that they don't want to lose. This will cause them to lose business.

      I would suggest this: if you believe that private industry currently pays too little to its employees in the way of privacy, then that means that there is a market out there which you could tap into to provide that level of privacy to your employees. If the demand is high enough, you might even be able to offer them slightly less cash incentive in order to pay them higher rewards in employee privacy... maybe.

      My point is that if you have a good idea to sell, you also have a great way to attract a LARGE number of talented employees away from your competition. Go do it! I guarantee that if incumbant company X starts losing all of their employees to you, they will change their employee privacy policies.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    3. Re:Private schools are way worse by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing you to attend a private school (outside of your family). If you and your family felt that the school was overstepping its, you could decide to attend another school. If you feel that your employer is overstepping its bounds by requiring drug tests, you are free to find employment elsewhere.

      However, if you are under the age of 18 in the United States, school attendance is mandatory. If your school or your school district oversteps its authority, you can't just go elsewhere.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:Private schools are way worse by mjh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, if you are under the age of 18 in the United States, school attendance is mandatory. If your school or your school district oversteps its authority, you can't just go elsewhere.
      In our current socialized education system, that's absolutely correct. But in a private system - even one that's based on public vouchers - if the school you were attending offended you and your parents' sense of privacy, you'd just switch to a different school that did a better job. If the privacy violations were too egregious, then that school would not last long.

      Privatization allows for choice. Choice allows for competition. Competition weeds out crap like this. Democratic/socialist systems only allow for crap like this to be weeded out at election time, and only if they become an election issue. In other words everyone has to hate it in order for it to get fixed in a socialist system. In a private/capitalist system, if you don't like it, you can fix it by exercising your options. It doesn't fix it for everyone. It fixes it only for those who really care about it. Which has the added benefit of making the solution cheaper since the scope of the fix is smaller.

      I remain undeterred in my belief that privatization would do a better job of preventing crap like this.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    5. Re:Private schools are way worse by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing you to attend a private school (outside of your family). If you and your family felt that the school was overstepping its, you could decide to attend another school. If you feel that your employer is overstepping its bounds by requiring drug tests, you are free to find employment elsewhere.

      However, if you are under the age of 18 in the United States, school attendance is mandatory. If your school or your school district oversteps its authority, you can't just go elsewhere.


      yes, but the thing is that I'm pretty sure (the article doesn't say) this is a public school. if i am correct, they are way out of line in this and they have no right whatsoever to be pulling this kind of stunt, as it runs completely afoul of the first amendment, which a public school has to follow as they are a government institution.

      if this is a private school, and this sort of thing was in the agreement between the parents and the school, then it is perfectly legal, though i still wouldn't like it.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Private schools are way worse by Talla · · Score: 1

      Enron.

    7. Re:Private schools are way worse by gumbi+west · · Score: 1
      Your post suggests that choice leads to pandering and this is a serious problem with privitization of social goods. There are many others. In reality, you have to select schools/private goods as a bundle (i.e. there won't be a million schools in your neighborhood) this leads to bad distortions, like in New York city where everybody I knew hated their local deli, but went there all the time because it was the closest one. here the only factor that mattered was location and there was essentially no compitition along this sole axis, the closest deli is the closest deli.

      BTW, this doesn't work for dinner spots, here people were willing to move around and there was huge compition and dinner spots were world class. Schools would probably start out with a few schools with large bundeling effects, but in places where they started out small and competing and a winner emmerged, it would quickly become a monopoly and 10 or 15 years down the line the people that made it a great school may have moved on, and you would be left with a monopoly that was accountable, but in name only. What's worse, you would have signed away the school board.

    8. Re:Private schools are way worse by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      Oh Hurray! the school board they'll save us! have you EVER been to a school board meeting? School Boards are the most utterly inneffectual, beaureaucratic autocracies on the face of the planet.

      I'm not sure what the solution is to public education. I'm not about to defend Private schools, for exactly the reasons you cite, but the public school system in america is obscenely broken. In my opinion the public schools now are probably about as about as bad private schools would be, or at least they will be within a decade or two (as Brown v. Board gets reversed through a failure of enforcement, which will hurt minorities in america EVEN more.)

    9. Re:Private schools are way worse by mjh · · Score: 1

      OK. But I would comment that Enron's stock price killed Enron much more quickly than the Federal Government. In other words the market is a much better mechanism for behavior correction than the Federal Government.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  174. Re:Dumbasses (columbine ref makes the difference) by Kintanon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, or it could be the kids clear concern thant the schools actions will drive someone less stable than he is into a shooting rampage. I think he's voicing his legitimate concern that the actions of the administration may cause some unstable individual to start shooting people and that he and his friends could get caught in the crossfire.
    I mean, if I see someone poking an alligator with a stick and tell them, "Hey man, you keep doing that and you're gonna lose an arm." am I threatening to rip the guys arm off?

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  175. Not New Jersey by jkabbe · · Score: 1

    The fact that the article is on the Chicago Sun-Times website should have been the first clue. A little research into the Joliet, IL police department backed up my suspicions. This story is actually happening in Illinois, not New Jersey.

  176. Amen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen brother, amen.

  177. we're losing our rights by bravo369 · · Score: 1

    This is just a case of us losing our rights yet again. RIAA, the government, school districts...everyone wants us to give up our constitutional rights for their benefit. I thought the constitution was written to protect the PEOPLE. they are going to push and push until someone pushes back. I hope this kid wins and forces the school district into a multimillion dollar settlement (i know that won't ever happen). You didn't have cases like this years ago because if someone complained about the school, who did they tell? a dozen people maybe a little more. but now with websites, his comments can be read by thousands of people and the school wants to stop it. Well it's not right and if the school doesn't back down, then hopefully the courts make the right ruling in favor of the kid.

    1. Re:we're losing our rights by pudge · · Score: 1

      I thought the constitution was written to protect the PEOPLE.

      It wasn't. The purpose of the Constitution was primarily twofold: to form a strong central government, and to preserve the rights of the *states* within that government.

      Many of the Amendments to the Constitution do protect the people, but that was never why the Constitution (except, of course, in protecting the people through protecting the power of the state, from the federal government).

      But, I think the real problem here is that this is a 17-year-old kid who can barely put two thoughts together on his web site. Did you actually read his posts? He should sue the school ... for failing to educate him.

  178. Revolver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His spit is worth more than her work
    Pass the purse to the pugilists
    He's a prizefighter
    And he bought rings and he owns kin
    And now he's swingin'
    And now he's the champion
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver

    A spotless domain
    Hides festering hopes she's certain there's more
    Pictures of fields without fences
    A spotless domain
    Hides festering hopes she's certain there's more
    Pictures of fields without fences
    Her body numbs as he approaches the door
    As he approaches the door
    As he approaches the door
    As he approaches the door
    As he approaches
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Yeah!
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Hey revolver, don't mothers make good fathers?
    Revolver!
    Revolver!
    Revolver!
    Revolver!
    Revolver

    Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

  179. Job Protection by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    The positions of school administration (especially in New Jersey) is political. This sounds more like the principal is worried about his job and felt threatened by the posts rather than worried about the school or students. What if some people read it and think he's doing a bad job?

  180. retards who run the schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems some schools are all to quick to just expel someone. My own school, I was expelled 2nd semester of my senior year.. for missing 5 whole days of school.. I was kicked out of my house and had to live at a friends across town. I called in and said i would not be in for a week, and spent the following week looking for an apartment and found one right next to school. When I returned, I was handed a slip saying I was expelled. When I asked for a reason I was given non. The more I thought about it the more angry I became so went back and confronted the principle. He then stated I 'dropped out'. When I asked him to show me something saying I had said I was dropping out, he refused to show me anything. This is the same principle that use to call me into his office every other week and insist I was skipping class. (when I wasn't). Actually being so arrogant as to say he didn't even need to look at the attendance records because he simply 'knew' I wasn't really going to class. (huh?) Why did all this happen? I later found it was because he got word I called him an arrogant ass for insisting he be titled "Dr." when he wasn't a doctor of anything at all, and posted it on a bbs forum at the time (outside of school).

  181. New Jersey by doomsayerxero · · Score: 1

    I think Plainfield and Joliet are south of Chicago not in New Jersey.

    --
    Don't screw up, don't throw up.
  182. New Jersey? Try Illinois. by camt · · Score: 1

    Where in the world did the submitter get New Jersey from? The article is in the Chicago Sun-Times (which doesn't in and of itself mean anything). However, the Plainfield in question is in Illinois, near Joliet (mentioned in the article). New Jersey is not mentioned in the article at all.

  183. What the fuck is wrong with your country? by Coleco · · Score: 1

    I went to high school in the early 90's in Canada and me and and my punk friends ran a 'zine' called C.U.M. in which we openly criticized the staff and fellow students in inflammatory terms and described techniques in vandalism. We ran a campaign for student government and put posters up around the school saying shit like "**** says: Solve the parking problem, burn more cars." and a picture of the dudes face. And all our weird-ass friends with mohawks actually got voted in, lol. We stole all the doorstops in the school and put up posters advertising 'doopstop mania' and one day set up tables and arranged all the doorstops artistically. My friend put on a dress and handcuffed himself to the principal's desk. I don't think anyone getting expelled was even ever in question. I mean I think people got fed up with the shameless cries for attention, but that's really what it was. It was satire and it was fun. If there was any disciplinary action for being a little weird and outspoken, it probably would have started a shit storm that wouldn't have been worth it.

    Remember, you live in a free country, you can do what you want as long as you're not hurting someone. Time to start stick up for yourself. I wouldn't be scared to.

    1. Re:What the fuck is wrong with your country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your country's no better. There's quite a few Americans stuck on your side of the border because they have "forged drivers licenses." No matter that they got *into* Canada with those licenses. They tried to keep us from taking our daughter back from a trip, saying we were trying to steal a Canadian child. Thank goodness we had extra paperwork with us, and they didn't even apologize. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

  184. Re:Depends...Conspiracy by SirLanse · · Score: 1

    This is where the extreme liberal and extreme skin heads meet. Liberals want communism and equal sharing of wealth, reguardless of person's value. Skin heads think it is a conspiracy, the jews, blacks etc are to blame for them being held down. Reality: Work hard, study, don't have kids until married. 15% chance of poverty. Have kids drop out 90% chance of poverty for whole life. Public schools warehouse kids for the most part. If you want to get better treatment, join the PTA. Volunteer. Public schools CAN teach better than private. They have the funds, they spend them on the few thoroughly engaged students. They give slack to the popular students. They give slack to the atheletes. They want peace and quiet from the rest.

  185. Sorry, but your employers are asses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3. It's popular to hate schools and teachers here on slashdot

    I had exactly three good teachers in public school (1958-1970). THREE. Fortunately, one of them was my first grade teacher, by the 2nd grade I was reading at a 6th grade level, and didn't learn a single thing afterwards, as I'd already read it.

    I had at least a half dozen teachers, mostly in Jr high and high school, who were complete and total brainless morons (and I'm being nice here). One high school teacher (I was only a freshmen) gave me an A on a paper because he couldn't understand half the vocabulary. Another flunked a paper because she thought I made up the word "heirarchy."

    Things didn't change a bit when my kids reached school, either. My oldest daughter's IQ is 130, and she always loved learning. She loved school until Jr. High, when she ran across the racism (from a black assistant principal) and sexism (from the same asshat) and general bullshit.

    She had been an honor roll student all her life. By her senior year she dropped out! Fortunately, I and her fiancee convinced her to finish, she graduates from adult ed next week.

    Educators keep bemoaning in letters to editors that "parents won't get involved in their kids' education." BULLSHIT!!!!! They don'y want the parents involved in anything but fund raising. Every fall I would go to open house, talk to the teachers, let them know what I as a parent expected. Never once were my wishes respected in any matter whatever, even when I asked that the teacher make sure I knew when one of my kids were doing poorly!

    The problem with the public education system is that it's full of witless, stupid, incompetent people with low IQs who don't have the vocabulary to read a 14 year old's paper, who don't have the intelligence to out think a child, who are yet so arrogant (I've noticed arrogance goes hand in hand with stupidity and incompetence, see "Bush" or "Brownie") that they refuse to listen to the adult who knows the student best.

    We have incredibly stupid and incompetent people teaching our kids because we as a nation don't value learning. If we paid teachers better, we would attract better teachers. If we paid less in administrative costs, we could afford better teachers.

    If we outlawed private school, you'd one HELL of an improvement in public schools, because the folks with money and clout would demand it.

    But the reason slashdotters hate public school teachers is because generally, nerds hate morons. As you work for the school district in a geek capacity, you must be well aware of what slackjawed idiots you work with.

    1. Re:Sorry, but your employers are asses. by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      During my job search over the past years, I decided to go to a "job fair" a college was holding for adjunct instructors (really it was just them collecting resumes and transcripts). All they did was verify that I had enough graduate hours in the subject I would be teaching, and they hired me on the spot.

      Now, I had never taught before. The most experience I had was some teaching assistant work that I did in college. When it came time for me to teach the class, they gave me the books for the class, the previous instructor's syllabus, and threw me in there with no further training.

      I'm pretty sure that they have slightly stricter rules for hiring public school teachers, but that's not saying a lot. If they require little more than that, then it's no wonder public school teachers don't excel in their jobs most of the time.

  186. Not New Jersy. Illinois by cetan · · Score: 1

    This Plainfield School District is in Illinois

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  187. Re:Not New Jersy. Illinois by cetan · · Score: 1

    And, of course, I spell New Jersey wrong...

    --
    In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  188. Re:Privately Run? by brouski · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There's also even less constitutional protection. As people so frequently need to be reminded, the First Amendment does not restrict private institutions from restricting free speech within their auspices.

    It would be interesting to see if that changes if a national voucher system is ever put into play, and the federal money starts pouring in.

    --
    Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
  189. Really? by GuloGulo2 · · Score: 1

    I read this and it got me thinking

    "You can not treat the people that run the schools as professionals because they typically are not. They shoot from the hip and make broad assumptions in order to make it a very easy day for them."

    That's a dangerous thing to do. If I were in charge of someone's education, as say a parent or teacher, I agree that making broad assumptions are a very bad idea.

    "Teachers typically do not give a rats ass about teaching and the administrators simply get "annoyed" when something is brought up to them for attention."

    "Public schools in America = lowest quality education you can possibly get for your child."

    And yet, right after hammering them, you do exactly the same thing. Have you taught your daughter what hypocrisy is, other than by modeling it?

  190. letter to Dr. Harper by sepharious · · Score: 1

    here's a copy of the email I have sent to the district, unfortunately I didnt have Dr. Harper's direct email:

    To Dr. Harper and whom it may concern:

    Given the current state of affairs in our country today, it is sad to see another example of government snooping and meddling in the personal lives of citizens. Now I will admit, I do not have all the facts when it comes to the matter of the student in question, but given the fact that there is no criminal investigation, it is somewhat concerning. Your post on the subject is equally concerning. " The district respects the First Amendment rights of our students, but not all words can be categorized as protected speech." Who makes this call? Who are you, Dr. Harper and Co., to determine what is and what is not free speech? And the otherwise vague excuse "Students can be disciplined for online postings if the message creates a disruption to the school environment" does nothing to clarify what constitutes an offense. And how is it a disruption? If this was a flyer passed out during school, perhaps it would be disrupting. If it was a threat, that would be disrupting. But this was a post on a public forum, created during non-school hours on non-school property (since apparently most of the social websites are blocked on school system computers). I, like many modern Americans, would care to know where your jurisdiction is in this case? And if the post resides on a computer halfway around the world, it becomes more difficult to support your posistion. If someone had not brought your attention to this specific case it would have gone unnoticed and unheeded, just like the other millions of blogs and email exchanged by young people across the world daily. What message are we sending to them? That the government is watching them? But I guess we can't avoid that reality these days. But I ask if we really want to continue down this road, because where it might lead could be far worse than any "disruption" or harm that the original offense could ever muster.

    Sincerely, A Concerned American

    --
    Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
  191. mods please check out this relevent post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  192. One Side of the Story? by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

    I admit I didn't RTFA, but I'm wondering if we're only getting one side of the story here.

    The student says he was bullied by the faculty. Now I realize some teachers have a power trip, but usually there is something that triggers it in the first place. What did this kid do, or write on his website, that got him targeted initially?

    He already admits to drinking excessively, doing drugs, and who knows what else. If a staff member saw that, I would *hope* that they would try to intervene through counciling and corrective discipline. He may very well percieve that as "bullying" or "blocking his free speech".

    It sounds to me like he is just trying to retailiate or call more attention to himself, or get people to feel sorry for him and his underage alcoholism.

    --
    -David
  193. That absurd reason is usually called "saving face" by heybiff · · Score: 0

    ...or more specifically "face maintenance." Woo hoo, AOD120 at work!

    Heybiff

    --
    Even the Sun goes down.
  194. Riddle me this....... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

    How exactly did the school find out about the blog?
    are they monitoring the activities of their students inside and outside
    of school grounds?

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  195. Re:Privately Run? by mjh · · Score: 1

    Except that the desire to retain funds that can easily be removed in a private system provides protection against first amendments rights far more effectively than the federal government does. Or, put another way, if Best Buy is violating your privacy rights, you don't need to get a federal subpoena to get it to stop. You simply purchase stuff somewhere else.

    If education were purchased instead of supplied by the government, education would work this way, too.

    --
    Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  196. He also said .. by apankrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Well, he did admit to drinking and he did ask to be suspended.

    He also said that Miller Light was delicious ?!!

    Not sure how this illness is called, but it damn sure has to be a brain disease.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:He also said .. by Reverend528 · · Score: 1
      He also said that Miller Light was delicious ?!!

      Based on that, I'd say the odds are good that he didn't actually drink it.

  197. FUCKING SCHOOLS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BEGIN RANT:

    I am SO FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of seeing schools try to control the behaviour of students outside of school or school functions.

    When are these idiots going to realize they are there to EDUCATE children, not to control their lives 24/7/365?

    What a bunch of idiots!

    Worse, we taxpayers PAY THESE IDIOTS to be this stupid.

    Geez...

    END RANT

  198. It's a paradox, all right! by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't it ironic that a song entitled "Isn't it Ironic" contains no irony? But that makes it ironic, which means it does contain irony. Which means that it isn't ironic...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:It's a paradox, all right! by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't it ironic that a song entitled "Isn't it Ironic" contains no irony? But that makes it ironic, which means it does contain irony. Which means that it isn't ironic...

      If we were being attacked by malicious robots, you could tell them that to blow them up. I'm glad you're around.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    2. Re:It's a paradox, all right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadians are very clever

    3. Re:It's a paradox, all right! by notnAP · · Score: 1

      So, the data within the song is not ironic, but the metadata for the song is...
      Damn... I need to get away from the computer more often when I start thinking in terms like this.

  199. Best years of our lives, MY ASS! by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't you hate people who look back on high school as "the best years of their lives?" They are either forgetting what it was like, or they were the bastards who made life miserable for the rest of us. I'm never going to tell my kids to cherish those years. Tough it out and get through them, because it gets better, that's what I'll tell them. Even with some of the rough shit I've been through as an adult, pretty much everything after high school was better.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Best years of our lives, MY ASS! by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Don't you hate people who look back on high school as "the best years of their lives?" They are either forgetting what it was like, or they were the bastards who made life miserable for the rest of us. I'm never going to tell my kids to cherish those years.

      My kids aren't going to have those years, and if "backward" means "less used to taking a beating from your peers," then by golly, my kids will be backward.

      Yes, it all gets better after high school. My parents told me the same dumb crap about how it gets harder. What a crock. It probably would have helped a bit if they'd told me it gets better, but it never occurred to them, because I'm sure that's what their parents told them.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    2. Re:Best years of our lives, MY ASS! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actualy highschool was some the best years of my life. And no i didn't go around making others miserable. I'm not trying to say thaT i had the best of time in highschool itself, just that the time around the age I went highschool was the best. School itself sucked but everything else was great! But that might have somethign to do about my size. I have always been big enough that most people would never screw with me and when they did, I only lost one fight.

      I'm not sure why others didn't have a good time. Getting laid, drunk, going fishing and doing things you'll get tossed in prison for nowadays. I remeber a teacher pissing us off and after school we picked thier MR2 up and turned it sidways between a streetlamp and a fire hydrant. We raced real cars (not these 4 banger import stuff), Went target shooting all the time, camping and hiking, strung cables across ravines just so we could glide across it for 5 minutes at a time. I havn't had time or money to do most of this stuff since those days.

    3. Re:Best years of our lives, MY ASS! by AME · · Score: 1

      I think that the correct phrase is, "Best years of our lives. So far." These exact words were delivered to us in a speech during my junior year. Now that I have a family of my own, I've found it to be profoundly true, at least for me.

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
  200. Sigh: The TXT messaging generation... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    if my website is a problem with you then dnt read it...its not for you...wat i do outside of school is my bissness n mi parents...they control me wen im not w/ u for 8 hours a day...u dnt lik me n i dnt lik u so go away...oh n i hope that u r readin this...cuz its not a threat...cuz i kno that u wuldnt want us to break into ur privte lives then dnt snoop in mine...any questions call mi mother...she is lookin forward to talkin w/ u...

    Probably typed this with her thumbs...on her cell (sigh).
    Man, the future looks bleak.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Sigh: The TXT messaging generation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick fact: Nothing important has ever been typed by someones thumbs.
      And I'll bet it doesn't plug into a printer.

  201. Rights of parents to receive speech by 2901 · · Score: 1

    There is a right to receive information. In the Pico case

    Writing for the plurality, Justice William Brennan reasoned that the First Amendment right to express ideas must be supported by an implied right to receive information and ideas.

    As a parent, a tax payer, and a voter I want to know what is happening at school. If I am unhappy about the tales that my child is bringing home from school, I would naturally ask other parents what their children are saying about what is happening at school.

    In the internet age I can also look at what other children are saying in their blogs. I know what I expect to see: age-appropriate humor, whining, angst, bad poetry, etc. As an adult I know how to read between the lines of what children are writing. If the children are complaining that the teachers make them learn things, that is good. If the children are complaining that the teachers are strict and punishing them for larking about when they are supposed to be studying that is good too.

    Conversely, if the children are complaining that they are bored because the lessons are too easy, that is bad. If the children are complaining that bullying is on the increase because the teachers are not strict enough that is bad too. I expect something to be done. Obviously I do not mean that the school should suppress the children's blogs in order to conceal the problem from me.

    As a parent, a tax payer, and a voter, it is unacceptably for government employees to be suppressing information that is useful to be me in assessing how good a job they are doing, and the constitution forbids them from doing so.

  202. Get the place straight by dpbaker57 · · Score: 1

    It was Plainfield Illinois not New Jersy. The kid mentioned Columbine a hot button for ALL school administrators. In this "Zero Tolerance" age we live in they are bound to do stupid things and over react. When did we go from a society of tolerance to a over zealous mono culture. These people need to read the Constitution, especially the "Bill of Rights"

  203. GOOD! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Said student shall learn now that posting crap on a blog is bad. So now when he gets a job, he'll not make teh same mistake twice.

  204. Clarification... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plainfield, Illinois not Plainfield, New Jersey. Not that it changes much...

  205. Dear Miles (the student involved): by thedarb · · Score: 1

    Saw your story on Slashdot. I've looked up the school district and called them. Left a message for their public relations director, I'm not surprised she did not answer, I suppose many of us on Slashdot are doing the same thing.

    I, and many others, are prepared to donate to your legal costs when you sue over the expulsion. I've told the district as much. I *politely* asked them to consider dropping the expulsion so as to avert a very well funded legal battle over it. Your first ammendment rights shall stand.

    I applaud your sticking up for yourself. One by one, schools across America are waking up to the harsh reality that they are open to scrutiny, and that trying to silence it will only cost them financially. Hopefully enough to disuade schools from pulling this stunt again. If a school or two had to close, or teachers had to be laid off, to pay for your the damages you are awarded by a court, that will send a strong message. Go for millions, kid.

    *Brandon Darbro

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  206. And to help him on his path to said experience... by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

    ... with the American legal system, here is what I wrote as a comment on his blog entry:

    Write the decision maker(s) a little love letter. Not a blog post... not an email... a real letter with an address and signature. Carbon copy the administrators, pertinent teachers, the school board, the PTA, your attorney, your parents, the newspaper, etc. etc. You must write, sign, and send this letter (via U.S. Postal Mail) after school hours to ensure the "action" stays "out of school." Here's a little text to get you started:

    [your name/address]

    [their name(s)/address(es)]

    Dear Sir/Madam, (or "Ladies and Gentlemen" if there's more than one)

    Thank you for your attention regarding my after-school blog posts on my website at http://www.xanga.com/Heckler3672bro/. I hope this letter sheds some light on the current situation regarding my recent activities on my website. The incident is now internationally known thanks to the power of the Internet. Words of support and suggestions of legal action are pouring in from around the globe on well-known websites like http://digg.com/ and http://slashdot.org/. Several individuals recently brought some very enlightening facts to my attention. Specifically, they were quick to point out that your idle threats of expulsion are baseless. Your feeble attempts to control my extra-curricular behavior are not only illegal from a civil law standpoint, but I have been instructed to investigate filing criminal charges against you for your ridiculous attempts to infringe upon my rights. As it turns out, I could wait until the school day is finished and stand across the street from the school with a big sign reading "I think principal [INSERT PRINCIPAL'S LAST NAME HERE] is a homo", and the principal's only recourse would be to paint a sign saying "I'm not a homo" and stand next to me. Any attempts to quell such activities would be in violation of my right to free speech.

    Luckily, this same protection of speech currently applies to the Internet as well. The website in question is my personal site, so I will post whatever I feel like saying. If I want to call the school system "bullies", I will. If I feel like one or more of my teachers or school administrators are acting in a manner unbecoming a professional educator in the employ of the public school system, I will gladly bring this topic to the public eye. Consider me the "National Enquirer" investigative reporter of the school. Regardless of how well I research and write my articles or posts, it doesn't change the fact that this method of expression is completely protected by my rights as a citizen of the United States. This is, of course, provided I do not post during school hours or from a school computer (which I do not).

    Since this situation has, until now, been controlled by you or your duly appointed representatives, I am writing to let you know that you are no longer the bully and thus no longer in control. From this point forward, I will be bullying you at a matter and time convenient to me. I will be controlling the situation from this point forward. Hopefully this will allow you more time to concentrate on what it is you're supposed to be doing at the school which is educating your students (as opposed to threatening them). I, after much deliberation and consideration, decided that I will not rest until I destroy the career and livelihood of every culprit involved in this atrocious attack upon my personal freedoms. Your actions will not go unpunished. I intend to seek competent legal counsel and instruct them to fight on my behalf until you, your family (or families), and the school system as a whole are financially destroyed and unable to support themselves. This letter is not a threat. It is simply a notice of what is to come in hopes that it will allow you ample time to prepare yourself and your conscience for the humbling you are about to receive. Please don't feel like any acti

    --
    -- Stu

    /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  207. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

    My reading is that the Columbine post was posted AFTER the school threatened expulsion, though the article is very unclear.

    Indeed, the article is unclear. The post which makes the Columbine remark is the reason for the expulsion, and it is in fact the case that they misread him as making a threat. This isn't about censorship. This is because they think he's going to bring a gun.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  208. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

    A threat must be direct and immediate for it to fall outside of first amendment restrictions. His "threats" are vague, indirect, and unlikely to result in any real consequences.

    This is both the smartest thing I've read in this discussion so far, and frustratingly short of view. You're 90% of the way there.

    The court is expected to make narrow readings of the law in this fashion. The school is not expected to have this skill, and has a priority on the safety of its students. Other than that this is blatantly obviously just bad writing, the school is essentially in the right to act.

    The problem is that their act is far over what it should be. The school's appropriate action would be to consult a psychologist to determine how real the threat is. (Mind you, that's what the court will do too.) Once the psychologist the school has hired has answered, if the answer is greater than or equal to maybe, the school should expel (and no sooner.)

    Then, the court acts. The court gets several psychologists of high caliber, some attorneys in each direction, and a judge who's been to school on the law for about a bujillion years together. His job is to say if the answer is less than or equal to maybe, then the kid's okay.

    See, the court and the school have to act differently on a maybe. Granted, the school acted prematurely; they did not seek a qualified maybe, and that was their fundamental error. If a psychologist had been involved, the answer would have been a clear "no," and the school would more likely have sent him to the school counsellor instead of gym one day to find out what's going on about the bullying.

    Let me be perfectly clear about this: the error that the school made was not to act. The error that the school made was that they failed to involve an expert in determining the legitimacy of the threat.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  209. This is not restricted to schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, this type of scenario is becoming common in more areas of 'adulthood.' Many employers reserve the right to fire you if you so much as light a cig- even if it is off the clock, at home, in the closet, under a friggin' blanket.

    A guy who has a security clearance (meaning he has passed at least 5 years worth of background investigations) can potentially have his clearance revoked if he -ever- gets a ticket speeding 20 over- thereby barring him from being able to work in the industry again, since it's on record that a clearance was revoked.

    Seems like people are free to say and do what they like, but the flipside is that someone else has the freedom to ruin them for it.

  210. truth is hardy irrelevant by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    if what you are saying is factually correct it is much, much harder for someone to press a defamation case.

    sum.zero

  211. Don't English classes cover Thoreau anymore?!? by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Here's the lesson: When you think you might be in trouble, don't admit to anything. Don't confim that you were "in the media center", that fire is hot, or that you know where the power cord plugs in to the laptop.

    The exception being when you are setting out to get publicly caught and prosecuted, and willing to accept the punishment that results as a form of protest against the misuse of authority. Cf Civil Disobedience, by Henry Thoreau. At that point, you want to operate in "a manner open, notorious, hostile and continuous" as much as possible.

    There are usually alternative methods of protest more effective in most circumstances. Civil disobedience should not be the first resort of any thinking citizen. However, sometimes there's no other tune to call... so be willing to pay the piper.

    As suggested by others, complaining about selected sites being blocked by the firewall might be more effective. If you insist on a cgi proxy server as civil disobedience, perhaps have one that only serves pages from sites you have approved of... and be willing to back those choices as essential free speech before the school board. (I wouldn't recommend Playboy.com, for starters.)

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  212. Metallica by Brown+Eggs · · Score: 1

    I don't what it is he said on the blog you linked to, but for some inexplicable reason I now have the urge to listen to some Metallica...

  213. Are you sure it's NJ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like Chicago area to me. Get your facts straight.

  214. It's censorship, "plain" and simple by fatalfury · · Score: 1

    Plainfield will never win in court. The kid did not state the school's name, and did not post it using school computers or during school hours. And they obviously did not feel it was a "threat" because as the kid's mother points out, they did not call either the Joliet police or the FBI. That makes it obvious they are simply trying to censor him.

  215. Right but still wrong by TLouden · · Score: 1

    Sure, I think we're all agreeing that the kid had the right to say anything outside school. However, he made the mistake of making public his negative view of the school without attempting to settle in school (or so I believe).
    When I found myself on the wrong side of abusive school personel it took a few meetings in order to clear things up. What I hoped for was an end to the problems and the payment of the contract which had been broken by the school. Because I went to the school BEFORE the media (print, broadcast, or otherwise) I got six times the financial compensation, stopped the problems dead in their tracks, and avoided any and all legal fees. Now, I don't know how well that always works, but at the very least it's worth the minimal time expended to try.

    --
    -Tim Louden
  216. Threatening or Threatened? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    ....The kid says he feels bullied, and later he says Columbine happened because kids felt bullied.... The school's wrong because it thinks what this kid did was to threaten to come into school and shoot the place up.....And frankly, the kid earned it by writing what he did. Alluding to Columbine is just goddamned stupid.

    Did he? Let's review Columbine for a moment.

    Two students began shooting inside Columbine High School yes. But look at the bodies. One teacher and twelve students died. It's clear from this and other incidents that it is students, not teachers, who are in the most danger from high school shooting.

    So was this a threat? Or a statement of personal safety concerns? Notice in the preceeding sentances the writer consistently refers to the community at large, others, not himself. He mentions a backlash, but in no way suggests that he himself will be involved. Is he angry, or afraid?

    For example, if these same words had been written by a disgruntled parent, and not a student, what would you infer from their meaning? That the parent was going to start a shooting, or was concerned about one?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  217. Re:Email the school Board....I got a reply..ha ha by ksjfhdsalf · · Score: 0

    Here's the email chain Starting off with my letter to a school board member that replied.

    To:Logan-Leach, Lisa C.
    Wow a reply. I didn't expect that kind of personal service from a FlameMail.

    I'll educate you a little on the Internet, while I have your attention.

    First of all your school system needs a better profanity filter if my original email even got through. Your system admin's throw away box should be getting stacked with emails like the last one by other "free speech advocates", because lets face it free speech advocates love the Internet and free speech advocates love to cuss. It should be obvious by now that your attack on one child's free speech elicited a backlash from an entire online community.

    By taking away the right of a child to have a public education like his peers because of something he wrote in his blog, you threatened anyone who's ever made an Internet post or blogged a blog. So you really have to ask yourself, why in fact you are being an ass sucking fascist weenie. You have to realize that this type of language has a time and a place, and that place is on the part of the Internet that is restricted from your school system's network. I and anyone else in this country has the right to say whatever we want about any elected official, politician or government office. In fact it's the first law on the books.

    I'm sorry if you don't like my opinions or how I express them, but that's cool because I don't like you either. I'll start liking you again if you find the person who suspended the kid and have him issue a public apology. He should probably have to take a class on digital rights and online sensitivity if he is going to keep his job. Either way someone needs to issue an apology. You should also work with the victim's family to have him re-instated in public school and do anything possible to insure that him or his family doesn't suffer any negative financial repercussions from the actions of a lone rouge administrator that didn't interpret school policy in accordance with the law.

    On 5/25/06, Logan-Leach, Lisa C. wrote:
    What is the point of using this sort of language in an email?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: TittyMcNippleFuck
    To: Cathcart, Lenny ; Brown, Tracey ; Cox, Martin ; Campbell, Wilma ; Logan-Leach, Lisa C.
    Sent: Thu May 25 11:18:20 2006
    Subject: Re: Letter to the School Board

    Oh yeah and fuck you, you ass sucking facist weenies.

    On 5/25/06, TittyMcNippleFuck wrote:

                  So I recently read about the harassment and intimidation of one of your pupils by your school system.

                  You can find the article here http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/03 10255&from=rss

                  I must say I am a bit perturbed by the fact that your school system under the guise of education, proceeded to punish a student for posts made on an internet site that has nothing to do with you, or your school system.

                  It's a ridiculous trampling of first amendment rights. What were you guys thinking. I think it's safe to say that you weren't.

                  I hate to see state coffers emptied in a frivolous lawsuit, but if you entend to presue this....DUH!!!! that's exactly what will happen. It's 1st amendment people!

                  I just wanted to let you know that you can quit attempting to control the internet, go that route and the internet will controll you!

                  I just wanted to let you know that I posted ALL of your email addresses on a technolgy legal forum that gets thousands of visitors a day I hope the rest of the internet gives you a piece of their mind as well.

                  Have a good day and good luck paying your teachers next year....you'll need it.

  218. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    In what way does a post on a website that probably can't be visited on school property disrupt classroom activity?

    Or, as my daddy used to say, "If there was a pile of shit in the middle of the road, would you walk over and sniff it?"

  219. Re:Dumbasses (columbine ref makes the difference) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    Yeah... so some guy runs into my back bumper. I tell him "The last time someone ran into my bumper and didn't have insurance, he ended up dead..."[...]Now what should a listener infer from that? It seems like a threat, even when I explicity tell the guy that it's not.

    No, that is a threat; your implication is clearly threatening. However, it is a bad parallel to the case at hand.

    A closer one would be: some guy runs into your my back bumper. He starts screaming and ranting and raving about how you cut him off, yadda yadda yadda. You stay cool, try to calm him down; and you tell him "Look, buddy, you have to be careful how you react to these situations; letting tempers flare up after a fender-bender is dangerous. A few years ago across town, there was a similar accidient, the drivers argued, and somebody got shot. So let's just be cool about this, huh?"

    By making the reference to the kids at Columbine, he made the veiled threat.

    No. He brought it to the school's attention that 1) students felt bullied, and 2) students feeling bullied can lead to Columbine-like situations. This is a concerned warning (though perhaps less that articulately expressed), not a threat.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  220. Freedom of Speech != Freedom from Consequences by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

    I get so tired of children complaining that they say something then have to pay the piper. Freedom of Speech doesn't guarantee that you don't have any responsibility for your own actions. If you need any proof, I suggest you look into the libel/slander laws of this country.

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  221. Re:Shhh! Don't give them ideas by drsquare · · Score: 0

    What advantage is there to not letting public schools have the same disciplinary standards as private schools? If you ask me, the kids from poor families who go to state-funded schools are the most disorderly and ill-behaved, and therefore need HARSHED discipline, not less.

    The world's gone mad.

  222. Re:Dumbasses it's about oaths and being used by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Did you know that teacher have to take oaths to swear to uphold the US and the president? I found out about that not too long about, by happenstance when I saw one form laying around somewhere.

    Seeing that form gelled why two teachers in early 2002 cringed when I told them that if **III*** were a teacher I'd tell MY students you don't support any idiot in a position and you don't support a position for an idiot. You don't invade countries and NOT expect "blowback" or bad karma.... These teachers were immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. THEY SHUDDERED, as if I were as spy testing their "loyalty".

    So, I can see how a school, somewhere (what better place than starting in "Old America"(east coast, that is) for trial results...) and just "unleash" the education system on unsuspecting or pliant parents.

    Now, this is (or may be) the price non-vocal teachers, lazy parents, and a complacent country pay. It will be VERY interesting to see the 20-30 yo immigrants compare the USA of today to the lands their parents supposedly fled. Well, assuming this country is hell-bent on becoming a police state.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  223. One Word: SUE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, sue them. Violation of rights to education, free speech, intimidation.

  224. Re: Schools don't offer rights per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From my experience in US public schools, those in authority generally do not care about anything. They have good unions, so it's hard to fire them. Examples: In 4th grade, I was beaten up on the bus. Repeatedly. This was reported to the principal, who proceeded to interrogate me and dismissed the case because the other person claimed I stepped on his binder. In 5th grade, a lunch monitor claimed that I beat him up after he had declared that "tag" was illegal. In reality, one generally tends to support oneself when someone weighing 3x as much as you is leaning on you, restraining you from "tag." Because of that, I was given a year of detention. Also in 5th grade, I wrote a short essay critizing their math program (COUNT WITH BLOCKS IN 5TH GRADE), and was then given a C in math despite never getting anything below a 95% on tests/assignments.

    Public schools don't care about anything, but as soon as you criticize them, your grades mysteriously drop, or in this case, you get suspended for no good reason. There is no reason to initiate disciplinary actions because you are criticized, but those in power will generally attempt to keep their reputations so that they remain in power.

  225. Re:schools don't offer "rights" per se. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because heaven forbid a kid should learn how to use a FREAKING POETIC DEVICE.

    All those who support this explusion, please report for chemical castration immediately. We don't need your kind here. (And besides, it's in our best interests according to us, so people like you must support it...)

  226. Re:Shhh! Don't give them ideas by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

    there is no advantage, but parents whine that schools are mean to their kids (taxpayers speak loud) and teachers don't want to do more than the minimum (unions speak louder).

    --
    please me, have no regrets.
  227. Re:Shhh! Don't give them ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if that was a private high school, they have every right to do so

    I know, after all, you're paying them.

  228. Re:Shhh! Don't give them ideas by willie3204 · · Score: 0

    Hey I went to DC in Dearborn. Nice to meet you.

  229. Meet "The Man" by Jerim · · Score: 1

    He has been around a while. He has a lot of power, and if you get in his way, he will screw you over.

    The point here is that in life, you will always have to take crap from someone. You can't go through life constantly "raging against a moral injustice." Even if we were somehow able to wipe "the system" from the face of the earth, we would only live in paradise for all of two seconds. Until some guy finds a way to control his buddy, and thus a new "the man" would be born.

    Sounds to me like this the kind of kid who mouthed off at school, and they threatened to suspend him so he decided to take his speech off campus. The school sees it as a threat to their stability, as one complaining kid can cause a disruption in the education of others. He is purposely challenging the school, as an adolescent who taunts you just out of reach. This kid wants to spend his time in school, not learning, but being some sort of crusader for free speech. Believe it or not, no one is going to learn under a system where every child gets to express themselves. That is what art class is for. When it comes to other classes, you sit there and listen. You can't accomplish anything if people are bucking the system. Express yourself in an orderly fashion, not a disruptive fashion.

    This kid needs to build some character and learn when to just keep your mouth shut. Speak up if someone's life is in real danger, but just because you don't like meat for instance, is no reason to cause a riot on sloppy joe day.

    Myself, I was a crusader in my younger years. Spent more time fighting the system than anyone. Guess what? No one cares if you somehow win a moral victory over some small school in some small town in some small county out in the middle of nowhere. It doesn't change the world. All his classmates will go on to be doctors,lawyers or /. posters, because they were more interested in learning than in fighting. He will probably wind up a washed-up 30 year old who thought he was going to change the world, but finds himself changing sheets at the local Holiday Inn or worse yet, a lawyer.

    Everyone has to take crap from time to time. Imagine what the world would be like if we all fought against any "injustice" we perceived.

  230. Re:Dumbasses (columbine ref makes the difference) by lgw · · Score: 1

    Even when he qualified it after the reference, it could still be construed as a threat... eg "Columbine was a result of people being bullied... Not that I'll do the same thing, but keep in mind that *Columbine was the result of being bullied*."

    Can you understand the difference between a threat and a warning? This is like saying "the last time someone ran into my bumper, my car exploded a minute later - you might want to run for cover". The student makes it clear that he is not making a threat, and that instead he's warning the authorities that they have created the same dangerous situation that led to the Columbine shootings.

    Of course, the student was wasting his breath. The administration is clearly uninterested in any such warnings. It sounds like the administration is being pretty irrsponsible here. If there were to be a Columbine-style incedent at the school next year, the administration will find that the plantiff's laywers notice that they have ignored public warnings about the danger, always good for a tripling of the damages. Let's just hope the kid is wrong about the danger.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  231. Out of school by sita · · Score: 1

    Common sense dictates that they can only sanction you for what you do/say in school. If they feel their image has been affected they can sue you. If they feel threatened they can notify the authorities.
    However, they should not be able to unilaterally act as judge and jury of your actions outside the school.


    Yes and no. An employer can sanction you for what you say or do outside of your working hours. You have a loyalty duty, by virtue of contract or the law (depending on your local legislation). You can't slur your employer and have the protection of the law. Normally an employer doesn't have to go through court to terminate you for disloyalty (but you can go to court to challenge termination if you feel it is unfair).

    However, a school kid cannot enter contracts, so they cannot be held responsible for what they do in breach of a contract (real or implied).

  232. Dam!!!!1 by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    When you post stuff like that, don't post as AC. That was hilarious!

    Bookmarked!

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  233. shouting fire in a crowded theater. by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    The "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" analogy was used to stop the distribution of flyers opposing the draft during World War I. The decision was that the flyers were illegal because they interfered with military operations (illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theater
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=249&invol=47

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  234. Plainfield, New Jersey? by gekman · · Score: 1

    New Jersey can't take the fall for *this* foolishness. The Plainfield in question here is in Illinois, which is another state altogether. You could look it up...

    --
    Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn...
  235. why are you looking at your students blogs, anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who just uttered a long stream of curse words when I read about this. Even if they bribed the judge they couldn't win this case if it goes to court.

    Also, does it seem strange they were reading this kids blog anyway? What do they do, google each kids name to make sure they aren't doing anything bad.

    Well you great school, your decision was doubleplus good!

  236. Re:Shhh! Don't give them ideas by mctk · · Score: 1
    and teachers don't want to do more than the minimum (unions speak louder).

    I'm sorry, but as a teacher, I have to call you on that last one. I totally agree that teachers' union often do not act in the best interest of the education system, but to say that teacher's don't want to do more than the minimum is as silly as saying that all software developers are happy to release buggy code.

    I daresay that few, loud teachers don't want to do more than the minimum. The rest of us are arriving early, leaving late, working weekends, and investing our souls into this

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  237. Re:Dumbasses (columbine ref makes the difference) by DenDude · · Score: 1
    I must admit that my previous post was totally incorrect. After re-reading his entire entry, it seems the only two things that were mistakes were
    • Bad judgement in using the Columbine reference (although again, it's obvious that he meant no threat, veiled or otherwise)
    • Admission of guilt in using alcohol.
    --
    A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
  238. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, DELETE this primitive capitalist propaganda crap from your hard drive and find something more plausible that passes basic bullshit test.

  239. Re:taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > have to pay taxes by the time you're 16

    No taxation without representation!

  240. Unfortunately true. by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    The gradual infantilization of the American public, especially through 13 years of forced labor in the government reeducation camps, has ensured that the individual remains functionally illiterate for years after a man or woman would have been a functional adult at any other time in history. "Look-Say", "New Math" and other atrocities are just the methods for retarding the natural learning processes.

    Any rational "teacher" would be overjoyed that his student was writing, and suggest different topics and help the student with his grammar and punctuation on the blog itself. I'm sure you can grasp the concept, it's called "taking an interest in the student".

    Just reading the blog is enough to demonstrate the waste of time that the public schools represent. The writer writes as he speaks, and he speaks terribly. My three year old reads at a second grade level. That's not special, that's because the public school grades are designed to make learning as slow and boring as possible.

    If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to get your kid(s) out of the clutches of the "public" schools. Then get a book that will teach them to read easily at an "accelerated" rate: http://www.righttrackreading.com/

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
    1. Re:Unfortunately true. by Descalzo · · Score: 1
      "If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to get your kid(s) out of the clutches of the "public" schools. Then get a book that will teach them to read easily at an "accelerated" rate: http://www.righttrackreading.com/"

      I have to respectfully disagree, at least in part. If you have any interest in improving education in America, the first thing to do is to take an active interest in your child's education. This means it starts at home, as soon as possible. This means reading every day (every single day, no matter what) with your child as soon as possible. This means helping them solve their own number problems. Taking them out of public schools may be a step, but not the first step.

      My opinions on public schools: they are there, use them, but don't rely on them. It has been my experience that the children who excel in the public schools are the students whose parents teach them at home (the public schools are like a supplement for these kids). I am all for backing off public education (getting away from federal control, toward district control, and so forth), but I am not ready to say it's time to get rid of it altogether.

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  241. Something I learned in school: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    1. Re:Something I learned in school: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only one minor glaring detail: Local governments != Congress. The Constitution does not prohibit city governments from censoring you.

    2. Re:Something I learned in school: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again.

      All rulings of local laws can be appealed to the Supreme Court based on a challenge to the constitutionality of the local law. There are numerous S.C. filings that are based on the idea that state and local laws cannot be in opposition to the Bill of Rights. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1869, reaffirmed 1938

  242. surprisingly by zen-theorist · · Score: 1
    it sad that all da comments here izz talkin about dem schoolz not purtecting rite 2 free spch and dem students not bin allowed to rite waht they wanna rite.

    it sad that none realizes dat dem students shud never be pushed into sayin such things n dissin their schools.. and that dem schools should attempt to deal with it through forgiveness and persuasion than retaliation n lawsuits. dis only gonna lead ta kids pullin em triggers..

  243. ARGH!!` by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    *brain.... *overload*...*can't process*...*convulsions*

    Obligatory Austin Powers joke: "oh crikey... I've gone cross-eyed"

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  244. How often are people called Nazis? by The+Monster · · Score: 1
    It may be slander, and it may be outrageous and stupid, but people do call others Nazis as an insult all the time
    I just googled George W. Bush Nazi and got over 10 million hits. That doesn't even count the 17 million Bush Hitler hits.

    Apparently, those on the 'left' politically consider Nazism on the 'right', while their opposite numbers say that Socialism/Communism is on the 'left'. Therefore, a political figure perceived to be on the 'right' can be branded a Nazi, or a Hitler, while those on the left have to settle for mere Stalinhood.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  245. #2 is right, even in a +5 Funny comment by Myria · · Score: 1

    You do have a right to party, it was called "peaceably assemble". Minus the marijuana and underage alcohol though. As much as those should be legal, there's nothing in the Constitution that makes it illegal for states or the feds to ban it.

    Melissa

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:#2 is right, even in a +5 Funny comment by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      You gave me an idea for a pick up line for the next time I meet a cute consitutional lawyer.

      "Wanna come back to my place later and peacefully asemble?"

      Yeah, I know, pick up lines don't work in general.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  246. Damn.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish getting expelled had been this easy when I was in high school 25yrs ago! Back in those days, the only way they'd expel you was if you committed a serious crime on school property.. and I wasn't up for being a criminal.

    Now you can get expelled from the comfort of your own home! Cool!

  247. Yeah. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    My parents told me it would all get better, but it was cold comfort at the time. I wish Why Nerds are Unpopular had been around at the time; it would have made it all so much more bearable if I had know why it was bad then, and why it wouldn't be that way forever. Wouldn't have been so damned hopeless at the time.

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  248. AC for obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work at a school south on 55 and We have had issues with students, but the administration (I was not involved) forced them into counseling (which they needed, but not the point) I am sure we would all support a student against these bullies, and have a nice link http://www.learningcommunity202.org/PSHS/0506email .htm I can neither confirm nor deny that you can "go nuts" on these people, but finding the perpetrators on such a list is hampered only by crappy formatting. Remember, if you do not threaten them, you have the right and duty to let them know how you feel without fear of repercussions.

  249. How I dealt with being bullied... by UriahZ · · Score: 1

    I was a fat kid, and thus I got bullied. I was a smart kid, and thus I got bullied. I was a poor kid who didn't have the 'right' clothes, and thus I got bullied. And as I became more and more bullied, I turned to food to allieviate my growing depression, which just made me fatter and fatter and more and more bullied. I faked being sick to get out of school whenever possible. I never did my homework (why should I when I could get an A on the test without it?) and so I always got poor grades, and learned a poor work ethic that has contributed to my current financial situation, because I was never challenged. What's worse, my fiercely independent parents taught me to respect only authority that deserved respect. Hence the no-doing-homework thing. I was socialized very early on fairly exclusively through intellectual discussions with intelligent adults, and so I found the stultifying lack of stimulation in school to be unacceptable right from the start of middle school. I was never excluded from 'adult' topics as a child, whether it was sex or politics or watching action movies. I learned from the first ten minutes of Alien that I didn't like horror films, and so I didn't watch them if my parents put one on. I was treated as an intellectual adult according solely to the quality of my argument my entire life.

    I consider this to be a mixed blessing. Because while I could never bear to submit myself to any authority who did not clearly earn my unmitigated trust and respect, there are many who believe that one should accord respect according to one's given station in life-- a position I would gladly argue against as being patently unamerican. Nonetheless, that belief is rife within our society, and our society will more than happily enforce its unconscionable rules against you without mercy, and with a strange sort of zeal, a lesson I finally learned the first time I was systematically harrassed by the police as an adult. Unfortunately, our government is a highly effective tyranny of oppression, and that reality infects our society at every level, like a sort of malignant tumor.

    So, I may have been a weird fat kid, but I also happened to be 6" taller than most of my classmates, and when pushed to the breaking point, I was a spaz. I'd start crying, and with the tears would come pure rage, against which no bully was capable of withstanding. Spazzes get picked on a fair bit, it's true. But honestly, the picking would stop for a while after beating a kid's head off the radiator a dozen times or so, until the bullies would slowly forget the very real consequences of their actions. Fighting back is not always a permanent solution, though. But what is?

    As I became larger and stronger and more capable of permanently injuring my tormentors, I began to be called into the principle's office to be punished for my actions. My parents would be called in, and if the principle was unfortunate enough to have my father come, he would receive a vociferous tongue-lashing and I'd walk out shaken but vindicated. If my mother came, despite my claims of self-defense (in that I'd never lose my shit until someone physically assaulted me), it would usually transpire that there would be some sort of compromise where I'd serve a single detention or two and the bully would serve a slightly greater sentence.

    Nowadays they expell kids for less. I was in high school in the mid-90s. Ten years later, a enormous amount has changed. Zero-tolerance policies likely would have found me kicked out of school before reaching high school.

    Honestly I would have received a better education if I'd been kicked out-- and I went to one of the best public schools in the state.

    Parents, don't kid yourselves. Schools both public and private are not appropriate places for children, not because they are in danger of being exposed to harmful influences, but because they encourage some very dangerous mindsets, those of the herd mentality, those of the blind servant of tyranny, those of the hard-working but ultimately unintelligent indentured s

  250. irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the free and the home of the brave? NOT.

  251. It's not New Jersey, it's Illinois by DrProton · · Score: 1

    The article is published in the Chicago Sun Times. It mentions Joliet. There is no Joliet in NJ AFAICT. There is a Plainfield, Illinois which is contiguous to Joliet, Illinois.

    --
    "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
  252. Don't be absurd. There's no Zionist conspiracy. by doublem · · Score: 1

    There's no overall master plot involved here, so kindly leave story book entities like the "Illuminati" and random conspiracy theories out of it. You would do well to research some of the actual history of public education in the US. It's based on the formalized vocational training that started in Germany in the late 1800's.

    There's no conspiracies here. The simple fact of the matter is most politicians are funded by large business entities, and it's in the best interest of those entities to have a pool of workers who have the skill necessary to be useful.

    It's also in the best interest of society for there to be a thriving economy, which requires literate and skilled workers.

    While the enforcement of conformity was part of the original German model the USA adopted, it has survived here in part because it's easier to teach basic skills to a group of well behaved students than to a collection of anarchist free thinkers.

    But kindly leave the loopy conspiracy theories out of it. I'm talking about basic history and human nature.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  253. Time to Sue Some Assess Off by FishinDave · · Score: 1

    I hope this kid's lawyer has read the recent "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" appellate ruling. The principal, the school board members, and everyone involved in this blatant violation of Constitutional rights can and should sued in their personal capacities. They know, or should know, that the law is crystal clear on this matter.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11767029/