School Official Sues Over MySpace Page

SoCal writes, "How much legal liability do parents have for what their kids do online? A lawsuit filed in Texas by a high-school assistant principal may give some answers. Some students she had disciplined set up a fake MySpace page in her name depicting her as a lesbian (which she happens not to be). In its coverage, Ars Technica notes that 'What sets this case apart from many other lawsuits filed over the content of blogs is that it doesn't target only the teenagers who created the site. It also argues that the parents were guilty of negligence by failing to supervise their children, and that they bear some of the responsibility for the defaming site.'" The article links the Media Law Resource Center's resource tracking more than 50 cases now in the courts nationwide, in which bloggers have been sued for libel and related claims.

Comments

... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Vinnie_333]

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Lazbien]

Especially if they are depicting her as a .jpg

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is nothing wrong with lesbians, they're great! I'm a big fan, I have all their video's!

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[LordNimon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outing_(Seinfeld_ episode)

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[LWATCDR]

But you don't have the right to pretend to be someone else.
That IS NOT covered by free speech.

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Maxo-Texas]

And they are absolutely subject to libel laws just like anyone else who knowingly publishes falsehoods without clearly noting it as parody in some fashion.

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Firehed]

More importantly, it is covered by tort law - libel, to be specific.

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[budgenator]

Well concidering that it happened in Texas, at least the kids had enough restraint to have not claimed she was something really bad, like an athieist!

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[fyngyrz]

You might look really cute in a hat, though... :-)

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[fyngyrz]

While I hate to bring up the old cliché of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one

Good; because that cliche isn't valid, and never was. There is no harm in yelling fire. There is no harm in filing out of a building that isn't burning, There is no harm in filing back in. These are the acts of reasonable people. In fact, the practice would do people some good. We used to do it all the time in school. The fire alarm would go off, and out we'd go, not knowing if there was a fire, or not. No one ever got trampled. The theatre owner has, as an owner of a private business, the option to no longer serve that customer. Of course, should one patron fail to file out reasonably, and in the process trample another, then a crime has been committed, that of assault by that patron upon another. The idea that it is acceptable for people to trample one another — or that it somehow "isn't their fault" — is just one of the things that is wrong with the cliche, aside from the initial, completely incorrect, idea that one could not yell fire — or anything else — in a crowded theater. It's socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, it'd be the last time you ever got in the door, but other than that, there you go. Free speech trumps all. Every time. That's the basis of liberty.

Can speech lead to secondary consequences? Sure. Those consequences may be actionable, and reasonably so, but the speech itself is not, and cannot be.

An example of secondary consequences: A fire truck is called. The person who called the truck is liable for the expense. If there is no fire, then there you have it. Worse, if the fire truck is not available for a real fire, then the person who called them is liable for issues there if it appears that the presence of the truck in the wrong place is complicit in the damage. You can't request a service and not be liable for the consequences. You're making a contract, albeit a verbal one.

The problem with the US is that the idea of responsibility has gotten very, very twisted.

While it's been a while since I last read the Constitution, their meaning of free speech was with regards to criticism of the government; that's to say, you're Constitutionally guaranteed to be able to speak of your hatred of the country's leaders without fear of legal action being taken against you.

Well, it's been about five minutes since I last read it, and you are wrong.There are no caveats, limitations, etc. It says congress shall make no law. That's it. Nothing else. No "except whens", no "other thans", no "only in the case ofs", etc. No law. Until or unless this is changed, using the only procedures allowed to change it, that's the only legitimate position for the government. No law.

Tort laws (specifically those in regards to slander and libel) are designed to prevent this.

No. They're a complete waste of paper giving lawyers something to do. Pay attention now: If people decide to run me out of town on a rail, there are laws against that already. That's illegal, and rightfully so, because I am entitled to a fair trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Anyone can say anything they like, it does me no harm at all. Running me out of town does me harm, but as I say, there are remedies for morons who would undertake such an action. There is no need to limit speech because morons might do something bad. What you need to do is control the morons.

If you care to find me a case where a libel or slander accusation was thrown out on the basis of the law being unconstitutional, please let me know, because I can promise you that this isn't the first libel case ever made, and won't be the last.

I'm not claiming the courts do the right thing here, I'm just telling you what the right thing is. The courts are long out of control and need

Apparently you don't have children

[XNine]

But you cannot monitor EVERYTHING your child does. You have to work to keep the child clothed, fed, and sheltered and keep up with home maintenance and other every-day social tasks. It's impossible to keep an eye on a kid ALL of the time. I'm sure these kids are probably over the age of 12, which by then they should probably know right from wrong. I'd say give these kids 120 hours of community service and let them learn from their mistakes. Having their parents "sued into the poor house" seems a little extreme to me.

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[MankyD]

But you cannot monitor EVERYTHING your child does.

Whole heartedly agree. I don't think anyone doubts this.

I'm sure these kids are probably over the age of 12, which by then they should probably know right from wrong.

If you're children are 12+, supposedly know right from wrong, but still think posting defamatory material about someone is "right", then you should seriously question your parenting skills and, if you ask me, should thusly be held liable for your childrens' actions.

Until they reach the age of 18, (or whatever age the courts decide is adult,) their actions should be as good as your actions.

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[hugzz]

My parents raised me right, but as a kid I still did some bad things

I dont see why they should be held liable for my actions when they took every reasonable step to make sure I had a good set of morals in place and that I was responsivle. I acted out sometime, Kids will be kids, boys will be boys. It's not their fault.

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[Phisbut]

Heck, I'm 35- and I think that people posting defamatory information are saying more about themselves than the person they are defaming. To that end, why would I ever sue over my enemy making himself look like a big fat idiot?

True. However, can you spot the difference between :

• Hey people, did you know that MarxistHacker42 is gay and likes to have sex with animals?
• Hey people, I'm MarxistHacker42, I'm gay and I like to have sex with animals.

A reader who sees the first ones can easily understand that somebody thinks you are gay and tries to defame you. The second one howerver, is different in that you seem to be coming out of the closet yourself, and you might be sending an invitation for people to bring their dogs at your place. Saying something about someone, and posing as that someone saying that same thing can have tremendously different effects on that person's reputation.

Re:One step closer

[aeonex]

Myspace shouldn't receive any punishment because of things like this. Only the people who abuse the service should be sued/fined/restricted.

Similar incident at another Texas school...

[PFI_Optix]

I recently learned that something very like this was happening at the school district where I work. Several teachers learned that someone had assumed their identities on MySpace and were posting defamatory remarks. My suggestion was to have the district's lawyer informally contact MySpace asking that the sites be taken down, and follow up with a C&D letter a week letter if they didn't comply.

No word concerning a lawsuit against the student(s) responsible.

Punishing ignorance

[mangu]

Such lawsuits will eventually have a Darwinist effect on the web. Those who know how to cover their tracks will never be sued.

People should get used to the fact that lots of info one gets from the web is fake. So what?

And who cares about MySpace anyhow? A high-school assistant principal doesn't seem to be in the right circle of social relations to be harmed by that page.

If I were in the jury, I would propose a verdict "guilty but harmless, throw away".

Re:Punishing ignorance

[IflyRC]

And who cares about MySpace anyhow?

Actually, employers have started checking out prospective job candidates via MySpace, Google and other online resources to see if there is anything that may stand out as a conflict with the company. Read about it here.Now, sexual orientation used a reason not to hire someone would be considered as discriminatory however if other information was posted such as someone bragging about the $3000 they stole from X company while they weren't looking could cost someone a potential job.

So, obviously someone does care about MySpace.

Parental responsibility required

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Folks, if you keep pitbulls, you have a responsibility to train them, fence them in and keep them muzzled in pullic places. If you're going to breed, then you have a responsibility to make sure your offspring are behaving properly until they are adults. If you give them the car keys, make sure they behave properly with the car or take it away. If you give them an internet connection then make sure they behave well online. Sure, kids will try to test their limits - that's how they learn - but ultimately if a kid screws up you should be there to take the heat.

Raising kids is hard work (got 2 me'self), and it is **your** work, not the state's or school's work or myspace's work!

Re:Parental responsibility required

[Chosen Reject]

If I say to my friend that the principal is a lesbian it's between the two of us and we know what the context is (that is, we know I'm upset at her and am calling her names for no other good reason). That's not the same as me pretending to be my principal on myspace and acting like a lesbian. Two major things are very different: scope and representation. In the first scenario the scope is a friend, and I am representing myself. In the second the scope is potentially the whole world (including employers, family, friends, etc.) and the I am pretending to represent someone who I am not.

Hope that helps you understand.

Re:Parental responsibility required

[Vellmont]

Thanks for the typical comment that gets cheered on Oprah. It doesn't really tell anyone anything we didn't already know though.

This case isn't about parental responsibility however, it's about parental liability. How are parents supposed to be held liable for not stopping their kids from posting a fake Myspace page? Are parents supposed to act like little police states, spying on their kids at every moment? I could see the parents being held liable if they knew about this whole fiasco before it got shut down by MySpace. But what about the far more likely case that they had no idea?

Re:Parental responsibility required

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Are parents supposed to act like little police states, spying on their kids at every moment?

If that's what's necessary to keep their children under control, then yes, absolutely. Of course, if they need such draconian steps, they've probably already been failing as parents for a long time.

People need to understand that kids are not adults. That's why they're kids. They have not yet learned to behave responsibly as an adult should, and they have not yet earned the rights and freedoms we give to adults. In an ideal world, as children get older and become more responsible, their parents (and society generally) would confer on them increasing freedom in return, until they transition naturally to adulthood with full rights and full responsibility. But respect is earned, and with freedom must come responsibility. If a child doesn't behave appropriately, they don't deserve the privileges, and that includes luxuries like computers in their room, Internet access, and the freedom to combine them unsupervised.

Not really

[mrcparker]

These kids, for whatever reason, posted information that they knew to be wrong to hurt the teacher. This sounds like libel to me. Does it really matter why they put up the information?

Re:Not really

[Eli Gottlieb]

Have you ever thought about turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids and hitting them?

Re:Woohoo! Hold those parents accountable!

[garcia]

I think if parents started being charged with involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide when their kids go on school schooting rampages, you'd see more parents suddenly taking an interest in their children's lives and activities.

While I agree wholeheartedly that parents should be held accountable, should be responsible for the proper upbringing of their children, and should be involved with their kids' lives I don't believe that it would change the fact that there are some seriously fucked up kids out there that think killing/harming others is the answer.

I'm somewhat divided

[TubeSteak]

Draker's lawsuit says that the parents have a duty to know what their children are up to--especially in light of both students' past run-ins with Draker at school.

"Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes such as the ones alleged above," says the suit in accusing the parents of "negligent supervision."

On the one hand, I don't have a problem holding the kids accountable for what they did.

I'm up in the air about making it the parents' fault.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the idea that "Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes"

Claiming negligent supervision over the kids' use of the internet.... that creates an incredibly high burden for any parent. Unless the kids have done this before, I can't imagine that the "obvious and unreasonable danger" charge is going to hold up.

Re:I'm somewhat divided

[irregular_hero]

Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes.

I once saw a court case centered around this particular notion flame out after one exceptionally bright young attorney asked the jury, "Could YOUR mother do it?"

Deliberation didn't even take that long.

Re:I'm somewhat divided

[elsilver]

I'm up in the air about making it the parents' fault.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the idea that "Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes"

It would be a really great defense if the parents could show that they monitored their children's activities at home, and the myspace page was made from school. Then the assistant-principal would have to sue herself.

A wake up call for parents

[gbulmash]

I've seen a number of news stories over the years where parents had a rude awakening when their out of control teens did something really bad and they ended up on the other side of a lawsuit.

The end result seems that common law holds, by precedent, that parents have a legal duty to teach their children right from wrong. Unless it can be proved, by reason of obvious mental defect, that the child is incapable of learning this, then why not hold the parent liable when the kid does something bad enough to warrant criminal or civil proceedings?

Kids will be kids, to be sure, and there's only so much you can do. But the bar of "only so much" is one it seems many parents fail to clear. Wrapped up in their own issues, they don't stop and say: "I'm responsible for this kid and I need to put a few of my needs on hold so I can make sure this kid turns out okay."

The negligence that caused these kids to end up doing what they did was not recent, but systematic. I hope the principal wins a significant judgement, it holds up on appeal, and that the kids spend the rest of their lives being reminded how their own selfishness (likely learned from their parents) ruined the lives of their families.

- G

Re:A wake up call for parents

[Software]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if it turns out these teens actually set up this MySpace riff on the asst-Principal from the school. What's the school to do then, sue themselves?

Newsflash: being at a certain location when you perform a defamatory act does not absolve you of the liability for that act. If I write a defamatory MySpace page from a library's computer, I can't use "but I was at the library" as a defense to my actions; I'm still liable. The library may, hypothetically, have contributory negligence and be named as a party to the suit, but I'm not off the hook. So in TFA, the fact that a school computer may have been used does not absolve the student of anything; it just gives the school one fewer party to sue. Or do you think the student could use, "the school should have prevented me from doing this on their computer" as a defense? Good luck with that one.

If indeed there was defamatory content on the page, I think this case is a slam dunk. Parents are civilly liable for the actions of their minor children; there are probably thousands of cases on this. The "should the parents have been spying on them? huh?" argument is basically worthless. The answer is, "Whether the parents spy on the kids or not is up to them, but if the kids screw up, the parents are on the hook."

Re:Bout time

[Anonymous Cowpat]

what? becoming a parent means you have to look over your children's shoulders 24/7 until they're 18 (and heaven help you if you have more than 1 child, they'll just have to share a bedroom so you can deny them both privacy at once) because you have absolute responsibility until they turn 18?

It seems to me that that is what you're proposing, and it's the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time.

You send a pretty poor message about personal responsibility to kids by punishing their parents until they turn 18.

Re:Bout time

[everphilski]

The principal's blaming the students for supposed 'improper' behavior, and the students' retribution for it are really part of the same problem.

Yeah. The problem is, the kids got disciplined and instead of taking it like young adults they went and screwed around on the Internet, calling their teacher a lesbian (among other things). Sounds like some snotty brats that either haven't been properly parented or need some community service or something to redirect their energies.

Re:Woohoo! Hold those parents accountable!

[rolfwind]

And it is not the role of the public at large.

It takes a tribe......

I think all sides bear a responsibility.

Holding the parents responsible in all cases is not good either. I have to admit, I was involved in shit my parents never got wind of between my 13th and 18th birthdays. And they were good parents.

And here we are, at a geek forum, with many posters regularly poo-pooing the idea that their mother ever could use any flavor of linux because it's too hard, yet they should be savvy enough to know every website their kid inhabits and every thing they post.

And that's figuring the kids aren't smart enough to swipe the cache.

I have a feeling that routers/modems with harddrives that log everything that goes through them and presents the data in a easy to adminster HTML format may be in demand soon...... and I have no doubt the 13 year olds will pwn those things in short order.

We need to make up our minds ...

[LaughingCoder]

On the one hand the government is continually taking more and more control away from parents (for example, if a young girl wants an abortion she can get one without having to obtain parental permission; children are routinely taken away from "unfit" parents; parents are not allowed to prevent their children from being exposed to school material they find objectionable). Then on the other hand we want to blame parents for their kids' actions. There is no denying that there has been a steady erosion of parental rights in the past few decades. You can't have it both ways. If it takes a village to raise a child, then it is the village that is responsible when that child commits a crime, not the parents who's authority has been, in many cases, usurped.

Proposed kindergarten curriculum

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Sharing is bad: Intro to Copyright Law
2. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but libel makes me call my lawyer
3. Sit down and shut up: Intro to Democracy
4. Why did those mean men take mommy away? Homeland Security for kids

Re:Should be fired right now

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

At no time is she in any danger by this myspace page, and any judge will recognize that. It's all completely harmless. At no time is she at risk for a financial loss by the page, and she won't be in the future. Nobody can prove any harm was done whatsoever.

What makes you think this? Did her husband leave her because of this page? Do you know? Did her boyfriend break up with her? Did her mother cry after reading it? Employers have been known to check myspace before hiring people. Did a school pass on offering her a job as principal there because they did not want to deal with the controversy surrounding hiring a lesbian? Again, do you know, or are you just assuming?

I would pull my kids out of the school immediately (whether they have anything to do with this or not), and/or go to the superintendant and complain.

Great way to teach them to take responsibility for their actions. They broke the law. If you, as a parent, failed to teach them ethics, such as the ethics about lying, maybe you should be held legally responsible for any damage that causes to society until they are old enough to make their own decisions. For that matter do you even know if the parents were approached before the lawsuit? Supposedly these kids had caused problems before. Maybe legal action was the only way she felt the kids would actually be taught a lesson given the lack of response from the parents. You don't know. I don't know. Maybe then, you should stop making assertions until you do know.

Re:One step closer

[aeonex]

It's a free community allowing people to pretty much advertise theirself in a sense. They can upload a small biography, their pictures, and now their video. It's a community/network of people. It in my opinion is a service. If people misuse the 'service' by posing as people they are not then it is the person(s) who are at fault for illegal conduct, not the site. The content posted by the students is indeed degrading and deserve to be punished.

Re:Woohoo! Hold those parents accountable!

[bunions]

> It takes a tribe......

exactly. Parents are not exclusively responsible for their childs behavior, because parents do not raise their children in a vaccuum. A society that rewards bad behavior can't really blame parents and parents alone when their kids behave badly.

Re:One step closer

[FLEB]

The only ones being sued are the kids and their parents (as far as the article says). The expected "sue anyone within 10 feet of anyone who has anything to do with this" reaction is notably absent.

Re:Woohoo! Hold those parents accountable!

[GreyPoopon]

...but the issue here is less a criminal matter than a civil one. It's not "involuntary manslaughter," it's "involuntary libel"... or "negligent defamation". Is that really something we want to introduce as a matter of law?

I would think it's already a matter of law. In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff generally seeks the biggest pool of available funds to go after. So for example, if there's an injury and the defendant has an umbrella policy, the plaintiff's attorney will go after the umbrella policy because it has a larger pool to draw from. In the case of children, their legal guardians are held at least partly responsible for their actions. If my child was throwing rocks at cars and ended up causing an accident, you can bet that I would be the one held responsible for the damage. It should come as absolutely no surprise that libel, slander or defamation suits work in the same way.

I mean, would YOU enjoy it if someone brought suit against you, personally, for not restraining or even becoming involved with what your brother or sister said about someone? Although the legal responsibility is different from parent to child, it still takes a "personal" civil offense and makes it a "group" offense. I find that scary.

As you said, the parent/child legal responsibility is different than that between siblings. If my brother did some horrible thing to someone, the victim wouldn't dare try to sue me unless I was somehow complicit in what my brother did. While it would be perfectly legal to open a lawsuit against me, such would generally considered to be frivolous and could be countered with a harassment suit. But as a parent or guardian, I am responsible (at least in part) for my child's behavior while he or she is a minor. That's part of my responsibility and accountability as a parent. If I were named legal guardian of my brother, I would expect similar issues (although complicated by the fact that my brother would treat me more as a peer than a parent). Do I find this scary? Just scary enough to make me do my best to raise my children right.

Re:Should be fired right now

[everphilski]

At no time is she in any danger by this myspace page

According to the court filing, Ms. Draker has been harassed by others accessing the web page ... I guess I would count harassment I did not provoke as "danger." It is also a matter of libel, which is why she is taking the matter to court. The wide dispursal, beyound just a few students and the class... kinda like defending a trademark, if you don't do something about it your name loses its innocence. Sure, some bloggers are committing libel, but that's not the same as calling somebody a lesbian.

More to it than that. It isn't that simple.

Re:Why use the courts?

[planetmn]

Seems like all school administrators these days are requiring the LAW to teach students.

This is because the parents have made it this way. You wouldn't believe how much the hands of administrators and teachers are tied when it comes to disciplining a student in a public school. I wouldn't last a day without a lawsuit.

Case in point. My wife is an elementary school teacher. She had to take "restraint training" and I asked her what that was. It's training to "restrain" an unruly and potentially violent student. But here's the thing, she's not allowed to touch the student! The student can physically assualt her and the other children in the classroom, but she can't grab him by the wrist. Remember the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? Well, the students are the only ones allowed to have sticks and stones. Administrators and teachers can't even use words.

The best that can be hoped for is that the parents will take care of the situation, that's it. You can't punish a student anymore. You can't expel them. Parent's will sue, district's will give in. Basically, the unruly kids with poor parents have won. They can do whatever they want without any recourse. Which is why I hope this lawsuit succeeds. It's about time that the parents and courts agreed that sometimes kids need to be disciplined.

-dave

Re:Bout time

[harryk]

Except that now you're trying to say the parent's aren't responsible for the children's actions.

The point here is that its the responsibility of both. Its just like when you're under 18 and you get a speeding ticket (we'll continue to use Texas as the example). Atleast in Harris County a parent, or legal gaurdion, is required to attend the hearing with you, its a matter of punishment to both the child and the parent. The child is embarassed and (hopefully) is required to pay the offense, and the parent is punished enough that they continue to drive the message home at home.

I haven't yet had a chance to read the article, or understand the details, but I'm guessing that the parents are indeed responsible of (at the least) neglect in the fact that they aren't policing the child's activities on the net. And if you are about to tell me that its an invasion of privacy, then you are far to liberal for me.

Similar incident in my school...

[Kemanorel]

Having been on the receiving end of similar incidents involving students at my school (I teach Algebra in a Jr. High), I have found MySpace to be very quick to delete profiles that are fraudulent or defamatory when they are notified. They are even quicker when you say that the students involved are likely to be under that magic COPA age of 13. Being a US company, they take the federal online statutes quite seriously. Had the pages in question been truly harmful, I would have taken further action of finding out which students were involved, contacting their parents, and pursuing further avenues as needed. There have been other students in my district that have been suspended, transferred, or outright expelled for things they have posted on MySpace. Hazing, bullying, and libel can very much extend into the digital realm and have repercussions in the offline world. Young and old need to be aware of that and treat it the same as they would someone making harassing phone calls, passing out flyers in a neighborhood, or taking out an ad in a newspaper.

I'm glad MySpace is not getting sued in this one. I didn't RTFA, but I have to wonder if the Vice Principal tried to resolve this with the parents before escalating it to a civil case. It is quite possible that she did and got a response along the lines of, "kids will be kids," or worse yet, "it couldn't be my child, you have no proof, I'm not going to do anything, I'm not listening, la-la-la-la-la-la-la."

Ok, enough rambling. Time to sleep.

Kids will be kids

[freeweed]

No kidding. Kids do stupid things all the time, some of which we should be concerned about, some of which are just "kids being kids".

These teens didn't exactly post shocking confessions about how they were abused by this person, and make claims of pedophilia. They claimed she was GAY. Maybe it's just me, but BIG FREAKING DEAL. I think the reactions here reflect more on the posters than on the teens - apparently being gay is such a horrible thing to most Slashdotters that accusations of it amount to libel. Sad, really.

Next, we'll see some 5 year old sued because they called their ex-best friend a "doodie head".

Lighten up, folks. It's a harmless teenage prank. Don't any of you remember being kids? Give the kids some community service. The parents are probably pretty damned embarassed. But a lawsuit against them? You'd think these kids had gone on a shooting rampage.

Yeesh.

Re:Bout time

[Phisbut]

What is the precedent? In earlier days, if students started passing around notes about this teacher, were the parents held responsible?

In earlier days, if students started passing around notes about this teacher, the teacher wouldn't receive obscene phone calls as a direct result. FTA: a few were individuals Ms. Draker did not recognize, that lived near Clark High School, and had made suggestive, lewd and obscene comments based on the content of the webpage.

Passing around notes about a teacher leads to a bunch of kids laughing and goofing around, pretty easy for a teacher to get over that. Posting a fake profile leads to local perverts contacting and maybe stalking the teacher, that's quite a different situation.

The correct response

[fwarren]

This is the correct response.

Parents are generally held responsible for their children's actions. Be it destruction of property, driving without a license and having an accident, someone getting hurt with a firearm, theft, and so on.

We don't need better firewalls. We don't need some intelligent filter at myspace to catch this stuff.

Hold the parents responsible for what their kids post. Even if I think my 13 year old should drink, and drive, and sell their body on the street, well, shucks, society and the law holds me responsible for their actions till they are 18. So I make sure that they are not drinking, or driving without a license, or prostituting themselves out. After a few parents pay some big fines, well heck, they will want to know what web pages their kids are working on.

This nonesense will all go a way in another generation. When the kids who don't remember what life is like before the internet existed grow up, they will watch their kids. They will not cop out and say they don't understand computers, or that their kids could do that. Life should be interesting once that generation of pirates and scallywags have kids of their own.

Re:One step closer

[Sj0]

I applaud your well thought out, articulate reply.

Well, I would, if your reply didn't amount to "Is not!"...