Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Prosecutor Now Targeting Free Speech
Virchull tells us about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, in which former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a rude banner off school property. The banner read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and it got the student suspended. He and his parents sued the school board for violating his First Amendment rights. The case is nuanced: while the student did not display the banner on school property, he did do so during a school function. Starr is said to be arguing the case for free.
Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a rude banner off school property.
What's up this guy's ass about personal liberties? anti-free speech, anti-free love; the only thing he seems to like is all the free attention he gets.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
There was a time when Republicans worked to lower taxes and respect individual right.
Now, it seems like Republicans are for spying, big-government & 7 trillion dollar debts (which can only be paid for by cutting services WHILE raising taxes). Honestly, what does the party even stand for anymore? "Sacrifice the future for the next election".
Maybe I was just stupid and Naive to know any better, and Republicans were always fascists in disguise.
First, this was not a school function. Second, I have no idea why this submission makes a deal out of who is representing the school. Oh, and on the subject of the stupid slogan, being in Alaska, we had heard of this already. My mother read the line and didn't understand it. She asked me, I explained it, and she still didn't understand it. It took a few more readings, and even then she wasn't sure if the guy was advocating people take hits in Jesus' name, or that Jesus needed a hit, or if there was some other meaning that was intended. Those comments are right in line with what the appeals court ruled, that the banner was nonsensical.
What I never understand is why people get demoted over things like this. The principal was the one that went over to him and destroyed the banner. She still works for the school district in some capacity, but not as principal. She stated that she knew it was probably a violation of his rights when she did it, so she was found by the appeals court to be personally responsible, should a suit wish to be filed later naming her individually (usually individuals acting on behalf of an organization can't be named separately when acting in accordance to that organization's rules). If the district agrees she was so wrong, why not just fire her? They are knowingly keeping a civil rights violator on staff. Even if she is not the one that does it next time, if anyone else does it the district will be open to much more liability for "supporting" people that violate civil rights.
Learn to love Alaska
American public education must be stopped.
It depends on what kind of end result is desired from the system. I want smart, scientifically literate, people to walk out the doors. But, that would also call for 'huge' changes in the way western countries work. Can you imagine what the world would look like if the majority of people simply had an understanding of scientific methodology and the basics of logic? I think an alien invasion would cause less change.
I dunno, from the FA, it sounds like a school function to me. The kids were let out of class, in the form of entire classes trooping down to see the Olympic torch go through, and with teachers present and supervising. Afterwards, they trooped back to school. Sounds like a school excursion to me, just like if they were on a field trip to go to a museum or a national park.
I'm pretty sure the judge will see it the same way, in which case the kid is going to lose. I'm not even sure why a big gun like Starr would bother with this.
As for uniforms: schools have the right to require uniforms, and the power to enforce that right. Not all schools choose to, but that doesn't stop the right. Courts have repeatedly ruled that students, while at school, have limited rights to self-expression (which includes free speech). This is nothing new. Heck, if the worst your school is doing is requiring a uniform, feel good; your grandparents probably faced flogging as a form of punishment for failure to wear uniforms. Get some perspective.
Finally - the printer thing? If your teacher didn't back you up by pointing out he asked for the network to be hooked up, then he's a dick. If the school official who suspended you did so after being told that the teacher requested it, then she's a dick. Lots of people in this world are dicks, so in this respect it's good exposure to the realities of life - it's unfair and people are dicks. But remember - it's not the school that is taking this action. The school is a building, probably made with bricks. It just sits there. What you are seeing are the actions of a few individuals, probably reflecting the attitudes of the local school board - a school board probably elected by your community. Most high schools in the US have senior students eligible to vote. Very few of them bother (the 18-21 age group is the least likely to vote, and across the board people vote less in local elections than any other). Don't like what they do? Organise your fellow students - the ones old enough to vote, certainly, but don't ignore the younger ones. They can work on their parents or their older siblings (who are only a few years removed from the situation). There's a good chance your school board got elected with only a few hundred votes total. Even if you lose, you'll show them that they can't treat you like a carpet.
In other words - stop bitching, and start fixing.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
That's all very well if you have good parents, but you'll be completely screwed over if your parents are too indifferent, fucked-up or poor to provide you with an education. You may not have thought much of your schooling, but at least you've been given the basic start in life. Take away public schooling and some will be left without any chance of improving themselves in life at all.
Surely that's part of the 'American Dream'; that anyone can make it, irrespective of the humbleness of their beginnings. If you deny the most disadvantaged even a basic education, what chance will they have?
"Public schools are a mess. Parents have no leverage. Abolish public schools, quit taxing property to pay for schools and let the parents be responsible for their children's educations."
This is just shocking. I know public schools can be a mess and are certainly in need of reform (AND more funds) but abolishing them? How exactly are the underprivileged supposed to send their kids to school? I thought America was supposed to be about everyone being able to make something out of themselves? Well, without basic level education that is fucking hard.
Just to inform you, public education works pretty well in a lot of countries. It may have flaws everywhere, but in most countries it provides a decent level of education no matter your income, thus making it possible for even the under priviliged to work their way out of poverty.
I'm sorry that the US public school system is so appallingly broken. I would like to point out, however, that being public is not the reason it is broken. There are many publicly funded education systems around the world that are doing just fine. Take a look at Finland for example, who finished first in a study of math, science and reading skills of students in industrialised countries. You might also note the other countries that did well, such as South Korea, Canada, and the Netherlands all have public school systems. Public schooling need not be a recipe for poor quality - the fact that public schools are so poor in the US is clearly due to something else, possibly political, possibly cultural. If it is a cultural problem then abandoning public schools is not going to fix it. I would suggest you stop making excuses and start working out exactly why it is that the US school systems sucks so badly.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The theory is that to have a decently functioning democratic society you require a reasonably educated and well informed populace. To ensure that the average citizen is at least reasonably educated and capable of getting him or herself suitably informed on any issues you need to have a basic minimum standard of education that everyone is guaranteed to recieve. Thus, in some senses, funding a public education system is about paying for a efficiently functioning democratic society. Even if you opt out of the basic minimum education and seek education at a private school or get home schooled (which, note, is still monitored to ensure it meets basic minimum standards), you are still taking part it, and gaining the benefit from, the democratic society - and it would therefore not be unreasonable to expect you to help pay for that. If you want to opt out of the society altogether you are welcome to do that - leave the country and (at least in theory, some countries will tax you even as a citizen permanently residing overseas) they won't expect you to pay any taxes. None of this precludes pointing out the fact that the particular implementation of the basic minimum level of education is inefficient, and ineffective, or quite simply broken. The question you should be asking is how to fix it - given that there are excellent public education systems in some countries it must be possible. And no, removing the minimum standard of education altogether doesn't fix it. As far as I can tell the US is already wavering perilously close to haing an insufficiently educated and informed populace: just look at the crap both major parties get away with before distracting the public with "wedge issues" and shiny toys just before the next election - do you really want to make it worse?
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I would soooooooooooooooooooooo love to see a citation backing that claim
OK. I'd settle for opt-out then. What really gets me is that money is forcibly taken from people for services which they do not use. I have a friend with five kids. All of them go to private school because he thinks that the public schools are crap. It is not right that he is still required to pay astronomically high property tax in order to support the failing public schools where he lives (among the worst in the country). He is basically forced to pay twice to get his kids an education. Let people who want to send their kids to public school pay the taxes and let the people who want to send their kids to a private school (where they can do simple things like fire underperforming teachers) not pay the taxes to support the system they don't use.
I Know the USofA reasonably well but am a Dutchman and by consequence are better aware of our systems.Basic education paid from the general taxation is in my opinion a must for any society that looks at the future.
The amount of trouble you'd have due to an uneducated underclass would in future be a much bigger drain on your friends finances than the 'forced' payments he's making now.
If he'd be truly worried about the public schools he needs to get off his lazy but and get politically active to get things sorted, surely he's not alone with this problem in his city.
In The Netherlands we have a system where all schools are getting per pupil a comparable amount of money from the national government.
But parents, churges etc. are allowed to set up a school (and school board) themselves, as a result a lot of schools are not 'public' yet are still paid for by society as a whole.
All schools have to comply with minimum requirements re. the levels of education but if the parents (through the board) would for example give the schooling a catholic or muslim slant that is fine. When parents want to make extra financial or other contributions that's also possible.
Only from the left we hear complaints that the 'real' public schools get the burden of receiving the majority of problematic pupils.
A strange argument as the schools with a private board generally cannot refuse entry to any pupil.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
While yor statements are patently absurd and would only serve to create a permanent underclass incapable of competing in the world economy, you did inadvertently hit one interesting point: The use of property taxes to fund primary and secondary education. You're right. That should be abolished, or at least majorly reformed. The tax revenue should be moved into a central pool and then divided equally on a per student basis and then distributed to the school according to enrollment. Afterall, it is an obligation of the state (read your state's constitution) to provide an adequate primary and secondary education to each resident under 18.
I grew up in an economically depressed part of the state. I've seen what lack of property tax base does to the education system. Roofs leak. Repairs go undone. Out of date textbooks. (My high school world history textbook in 1992 ended with the Camp David Accords. Yes. The book was 14 years old, and it looked it.) Meanwhile those luckily enough to be born in the weathy Chicago suburbs got everything. Up to date textbooks. Fully stocked science labs. Multi-million dollar sports complexes. It's obscene, and it should be stopped. Of course it won't because they don't want their tax money being used to pay for someone else's school bus. Then that same suburbanite wonder's why the schools in the innercity and the rural parts of the state don't have any money to buy new desks.
So, which portion of my tax dollars do I get back if I don't have children? Can I now opt out of my real estate taxes and about 1/2 of my state income taxes?
You see, the tax dollars you spend goes to a basic need. If you choose to not use it, you are still free to do so, but your tax money gets spent to create the infrastructure and keep the machine running. The government doesn't pay you to buy a Segue just because you're not using your portion of the automotive roadways. You arean't going to get "book vouchers" or "internet service credit vouchers" if you choose not to go to your local library. And you're not going to raid public education funds to send your kids to private school - they money doesn't magically reappear if you take your kid out.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
An American Public school IS government-run. When the principal punishes a student, that IS government punishment. When a public school censors a student, that IS government censorship.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
This kid was on a school trip, supervised by school faculty. IANAL but I'm pretty sure "In Loco Parentis" applies. So the kid unveils the banner and gets suspended for breaking school policy for "promoting illegal drug abuse". Once could also argue he crossed the line on the separation of church and state by promoting his religious views during school time.
Separation of church and state has no bearing on this issue. Students are not barred from promoting religion on school grounds and never have been. The ban is to prevent state entities from promoting religion. Students are free to practice as they choose.
The argument that the kid was on a field trip is, in my opinion, bupkus. Regardless, I think that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" could be easily construed as political speech or parody/satire, both of which are protected even on school grounds. But that's not ultimately for me to decide.
But yeah, you can't make the argument about separation of church and state.
So this is what passes as insightful on this site nowadays. It's more like libertarian utopianism. Your main contradiction is that threats limit other people's freedom (of speech. movement, whatever): If someone threatens to kill you under certain conditions, then they've already succeeded if they scare you sufficiently to do as they say, not when they've finally murdered you. That's not a civil offence.
English is easier said than done.
It is mind-boggling to me that the very people who make arguments like this poo-pooh supply-side economics. Does anyone doubt that a program that gives thousands of parents the means to choose where thousands of government dollars go will encourage good teachers, stymied by the Byzantine rules of the public schools, to start schools?
I do the s/voucher/food stamp/g thing to make the point that the decision to have government funding for some good or service does not require that the government doing the funding directly provide the good or service in question. Another reason I do that is to show the idiocy of the argument that parents shouldn't be able to use vouchers at religious schools. Nothing prevents the use of food stamps for kosher or halal foods, or requires vegetarians to purchase meat. Those are choices left to the consumer.
Even without vouchers to help them out, parents vote with their wallets. In Kansas City, MO, the government-run schools are so bad that a federal judge took over the district and imposed tax increases. A Jesuit school in KC, Rockhurst High School offers arguably the best education in the entire state, at a tuition rate roughly 2/3 the per-pupil cost to the taxpayers in the government schools.
In the few places where vouchers have been tried, the public schools have also shown improvement, for the same reason why having a McDonald's and a Wendy's across the street from each other makes them both provide better service to their customers. But even if none of this happens, there's another alternative....Two members of KCLUG home-school their kids. One of them fits the stereotype; a very conservative Christian. The other is a leftist atheist. They seem to agree on very little other than their right to choose things like how their their computers and children will be educated. They can choose what sorts of rules their children will have to follow, and there's no need for a court to decide what those rules are.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Slashdot really needs a -1 dumbass moderation. I have mod points but there wasn't an option appropriate for the idiocy of the parent post.
The canonical "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is a proxy for any behavior which creates grave, immediate danger of irrepairable harm to others with little or no benefit to self. If civil courts had the power to take your life and/or remove your body parts and organs and give them to the people you killed or maimed with your reckless actions then perhaps that would work for your victims. It still would not represent a significant deterrent as if you'd thought about the consequences of your actions prior to taking them you wouldn't have taken them. We use the criminal justice system to deal with such persons because either because they are incredibly reckless, representing a significant, persistent threat to others or because they are sadistic psychopaths who take such actions becuase they enjoy inflicting the inevitable pain.
The parent post neither understands the function of our criminal and civil systems nor the underlying reasoning behind their function.