Cyberbullying Laws Raise Free Speech Questions

Chad_DeVoss writes "States across the country are working on laws to rein in cyberbullying, claiming that electronic harassment has led even to the suicides of some children. But what about the First Amendment? Surely schools can't control what kids say to one another? It's an easy argument to make, but the reality is more complicated. From the article: 'The issue is further complicated by questions about whether cyberbullying takes place on school property or not. School officials do not generally have control over what students do outside of school, but, as the First Amendment Center reports, even this issue is complicated. Students who threaten or harass other students using school equipment or during school time can most likely be sanctioned, but even students who do such things from home face the possibility of school discipline under the 'substantial disruption of the educational environment' ruling from the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case from 1969.'"

Comments

School Censorship

[eldavojohn]

Surely schools can't control what kids say to one another?

I don't know about that.

When I was in high school, I was blatantly told that I didn't have the full rights of an adult until I was 18. I don't know if this is true or not. I actually still don't know if this is true. But let me relate the events that I witnessed and took part in while attending a small town high school in Minnesota.

The grade ahead of me was full of punks. I don't mean 'punks' in the derogatory term, I mean punks that accepted anybody, didn't drink much, tried to skateboard, talked about anarchy, didn't cause too much trouble but liked their music loud and fast. Now, the grade before me had access to an industrial copying machine via one of their parents. What resulted was a 'zine. A punk zine for a school that was often folded 8 1/2 x 11 pages stapled together with images, music reviews, articles & basically anything and all things punk. Including, but not limited to, taking it to the man. The zine was fifty cents to cover copying costs.

I loved these people, everyone else was a tightly knit clique of 'in' crowds where the punks didn't care if I listened to The Beatles & read Sci-Fi Fantasy & lived in the country.

The zine was considered contraband by the teachers. If they found it on your person, they gave you detention. One of the articles in an early edition criticized the entire student body of the school. Foul language was not omitted in this underground publication. First amendment right? The teachers didn't think so.

Lastly, the T-Shirts that people would try to wear were often banned. You were made to turn them inside out or go home with detention. Shirts that said "F You" or even "I hate this hick town." were grounds for detention. In the end, the punks made artwork and screened it onto shirts where it looked like a cool design but if you hooked your thumb and forefinger in it and pulled it down to cover up the inner four inches or so, it said "FUCK YOU." That way, they could choose to display the image whenever they wanted to and a teacher wasn't around. They weren't threatening people with it or harassing people, it was just their response to life and everything. The teachers found it offensive (and some of the dimmer students probably did too) so it was censored.

So to answer your question about schools censoring what the students can say to each other, I experienced that prior to being 18 quite a bit.

Re:School Censorship

[SatanicPuppy]

Sure, In Loco Parentis..."In place of parents" means they can do whatever your parents can do to you...On school property.

The real issue here is whether or not they have the right to go after you for things that you're doing off school property. In my mind, that's a definite no; their power relationship is governed by their location. At school, sure. Out of school? What's the theory behind that, and where does it end?

You're moving into a serious nanny state if you allow your educators to effectively assert control over your kids outside of a school environment. I understand why they feel the need...Lot of parents aren't holding up their end, so the schools feel like, in order to get something done, they have to do it themselves. I appreciate the frustration. However, it's a hugely bad precedent.

Re:School Censorship

[Paulrothrock]

I think you story goes to show that schools can't control what kids say. Your friends were able to publish and distribute a zine and wear shirts with profanity on it.

So the schools shouldn't stop "cyber bullying," but try to make a system that discourages bullying in the first place. I read somewhere that people end up bullying when they've got nothing better to do. Give these kids something productive, and they'll be too busy to worry about who smells or who slept with whom.

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of the Tinker decision referred to in the original blurb: "Constitutional rights do not stop at the schoohouse gate". That case dealt with wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam war. Subsequent cases have somewhat restricted free speech (no swearing at high school graduation speeches, for instance), but by and large, they can restrict "time place and manner" of speech but not content. You can also restrict "obscene, libelous, and profane" or activities/content that might "incite a riot, disturb the peace, etc." However, mere suspicion that a disruption may occur isn't sufficient.

But perhaps what you were told wasn't exactly "rights" but "privileges".. you don't get the privilege of being shot at in a war or voting until you're 18, and in many states you don't get to buy alcoholic beverages until you're 21.

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it can still happen to you when you are over 18. See Morse v. Frederick. The Supreme Court looks like it might interfere in a Federal court ruling upholding the student's free speech rights. Hearings are March 17.

Re:School Censorship

[russ1337]

>>>> The real issue here is whether or not they have the right to go after you for things that you're doing off school property

Thanks for the tip on In Loco Parentis, I looked it up on Wikipedia and the excerpt below demonstrates a court case that disagrees with your point of view. I agree with you and don't believe the school should have this power, unless you're representing the school i.e. in school uniform. I added the bold for emphasis:

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), when the Supreme Court decided that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

Re:School Censorship

[Alchemar]

My nephew was written a ticket by a police officer for cursing when he ran his knee into the corner of the desk because "using inapporpriate language in school is illegal." They are no longer even pretending that children have any rights in school. The problem that I have with this is that the children then grow up thinking that this is how things are suppose to be, and don't complain when they get their rights taken away as an adult. The schools are there to eductate. I keep hearing paid advertisements on the radio about teaching the children by example as well as what you tell them and make them read. Either the schools think they are magically exempt from this principle, or someone is trying to teach people how to comply.

There are laws about threatening people. Let the police use them. Don't give the school the authority to proscecute criminal behavior based on "policy." If they want to give a kid extra homework for cursing that is one thing, but to give them a ticket?!? To give a kid extra homework for threatening someone life ... also not real productive. The schools need to seperate policy from law. Don't give teacher the power to punish for crimes without a trial, and don't give the justice system the power to proscecute for not following policy.

Going into a school is now harder than entering a military base. When I had to enter a military base, they checked my ID and then gave it back. The school takes your ID and refuses to return it as long as you are on campus. When I asked what they were doing with my ID, the lady that was carring it off, told me "not to worry about it", and another one said "they have to have it." When I stated rather loudly that I was making a formal request to know what they were doing with my ID card and my personal information, another teacher pulled me aside and said that they were faxing them to the police station for a criminal background check. I live in one of the few states where it is illegal not to have your ID on you. I am very uncomfortable with they keeping possession of it.

I was told by another teacher that school policy overrulled state law because it was to protect the children. On further questioning, she told me the same applied to the Bill of Rights. My solution was to not go to the school. Now they are trying to pass a law making a request for a parent teacher conference the same as a court supeana, if you don't show up, then you get a $500.00 fine, and a criminal record.

I was told that I had to fill out a notarized statement about residence. Then I was told that I had to use their notary, and that she was only available from 8am - 11am and 2pm-3pm on two days during the middle of the week before school starts. The whole purpose of getting something notarized is to veryify that you are the one that signed it, why does it have to be done in person, and why can't they set it up so that people could do it before or after work, or maybe even during lunch?

When started making calls to the school board I was told the the Principle of the school gets to decide how she wants things done. How is that for a democracy. The schools make up there own rules as they go. When I asked to see this policy in writting, it took two weeks to get an email back. When I asked what law gave them the right to enforce this policy, I was told it was because the school had too many people from out of the district trying to get in the school. They were completely at a loss when I explained that there is a difference between a law or ordinace granting them power, and a reason as to why they want to do it.

The teacher routinely send home letters requesting that the children send money the next day, that have very generic descriptions about what the money is for. They say things like we are having a party and need money for snacks. Then at the bottom ask the kids to also bring a drinks and cookies for the party. They make sure that they tell the kids that if they don't bring the money they don't ge

Re:School Censorship

[bigdavex]

In the end, the punks made artwork and screened it onto shirts where it looked like a cool design but if you hooked your thumb and forefinger in it and pulled it down to cover up the inner four inches or so, it said "FUCK YOU." That way, they could choose to display the image whenever they wanted to and a teacher wasn't around. They weren't threatening people with it or harassing people, it was just their response to life and everything. The teachers found it offensive (and some of the dimmer students probably did too) so it was censored.

Isn't the whole point of a shirt that says, "Fuck you" to offend people?

Re:School Censorship

[PhxBlue]

A punk zine for a school that was often folded 8 1/2 x 11 pages stapled together ...

That's pretty impressive. I don't think I ever got my school folded down smaller than poster size.

Re:School Censorship

[Subsound90]

Schools can definately do things to kids for whats done outside. I know in any of mine any sort of violent infraction (assault, threatening, etc...) kids were expelled without discussion, property crimes (B & E, graffiti, etc) they were suspended for a week, and repeated harrasment the harrasser was sent to anther class (if there was only one class and they needed it they were sent to the remedial class). I think it's more of a harrasment type thing. If some one calls you something who cares, but if they put up a website devoted to your fat butt covered with derogatory terms or repeatidly harrass in any medium then the laws should be strengthed. My sister in law had a online harrasser and we had to go to the kids parents to threaten him that if he continued we would get a restraining order and call the cops to bother them everytime the kid posted another comment (imagion the school trying to accomidate a restraining order between 2 students.....). The school would do nothing itself, even though most of it came from school equipment to a school email/BB or verbal/physical things on school property. I consider school more of a work type arrangment, and if they want to continue coming they need to abide by the rules of conduct. Kids may not be 18, but they are there to learn and are intelligent enough to know it's not the right behavior. If parents won't step up to the plate to show kids the correct behavior, schools are usually the next held responsable so they should have the power and the responsability.

Re:School Censorship

[darkstar949]

Yes, but one of the items addressed by Tinker v. Des Moines was if the conduct would create "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Or in other words, if the school can enforce something either isn't protected by the First Amendment, or would create a major distraction or disorder in the classroom which likely falls under the same principle of not being allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Bulling someone online may create a distraction or disorder in the classroom, but that cannot be assumed by default because first you have to prove that the other person would have found the information - just because something is posted on "johndoesucks.com" doesn't mean that John Doe is ever going to visit that site. A better case could be made for infringing on the rights of other if the site contains libel, but you can bully someone just as well with the pure (but sensitive) truth as you can by making things up and the school can't act as a third party to enforce libel issues.

So now you are back to where you started with good intentions, but no real practical way of enforcing such an issue off campus - odds are the safer route for the school would be to just blanket cyberbullying under the misuse of school computers (i.e. accessing, or posting such material on school grounds) and leave it at that.

Re:School Censorship

[HTH NE1]

materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder

Of course the schools don't understand adjectives like "materially" or "substantial", so they apply more Zero Tolerance so that any perceived infraction no matter how small that they think could disrupt or cause disorder gets blown way out of proportion so that it actually does, thereby justifying their action.

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they are trying to pass a law making a request for a parent teacher conference the same as a court supeana, if you don't show up, then you get a $500.00 fine, and a criminal record. Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea.

If some knucklehead pops out kids that they aren't prepared to care for, they should be held responsible for every random act of stupidity that the little twit engages in. If you're too busy to show up at PTA meetings, you're too busy to properly care for your kid. Since someone else is stuck picking up the slack, $500.00 per infraction sounds like a good starting point.

CAPTCHA says "penalty"; is that ironic or what?

Re:School Censorship

[tourvil]

What state do you live in so that I know never to move there?

Re:School Censorship

[tinkertim]

Thanks for the tip on In Loco Parentis, I looked it up on Wikipedia and the excerpt below demonstrates a court case that disagrees with your point of view. I agree with you and don't believe the school should have this power, unless you're representing the school i.e. in school uniform.

I think schools are getting increasingly frustrated by a lack of parenting. I think parents are getting frustrated with economic circumstances that cause a lack of parenting, and I think kids are getting increasingly frustrated with the whole mess, especially kids from grade 8 onward.

Some schools are falling into a nasty triage. Assess quickly those who can adapt and excel, and figure out how to keep the rest of the kids from preventing 'hopefuls' from succeeding. I hate this condition but understand it.

Schools are divided into districts. Where you live in play is a very, very good indicator of what school you attend, unless of course you attend a private school. This means, no matter where you are, you *do* represent the school as once you and I represented a product of our parent's parenting.

This can and in some cases does give the school authority to monitor off campus activity and intercede if they feel they must be proactive to accomplish their goal of maintaining what little grip they have over not only the educational process, but raising other people's kids.

I don't, at all agree with this practice - but a solution to the problem is rather hard to come up with. My daughter was born Abroad, where we still reside. My immediate solution is to be present, parent her, and not put her in US public schools when the time comes. But that's only *my* solution and I realize that I have a responsibility as a citizen and parent to help come up with a more proactive and broader solution.

Some of the problems :

* Suggestions fall on deaf, jaded ears.
* There is not enough money.
* You are almost never successful telling other parents they can or should be doing a better job.
* Unemployment is growing.
* Teen culture is becoming increasingly violent as media and lack of parenting de-sensitizes them further.
* Reclusive, anti social anti empathic behavior is celebrated by media (ever see a reality show?).

I am only naming a few.

We're treating the problem in the typical western style, symptomatically - instead of as a whole broadly because the resources available to solve the issues aren't being focused and concentrated. We're nit-picking and nibbling around the edges of something that is growing bigger and bigger with every school day.

Its very difficult to change someone's thinking. Its very difficult for parents to examine everything they should be doing differently as the guilt you feel knowing you are screwing up your kid is inedible to say the least. Coming from outside of the home, such a suggestion often drives people to violence against whoever suggested it. At the least, again, deaf jaded ears.

So, how do you make being a good parent popular culture? How do you make credit card companies and banks holding otherwise effective parents at bay under a financial thumb decide that the functionality of the next few generations should userp their desire for profit? How do you convince an idiot in Washington that what he wasted on Iraq was 100x more than what would be needed to at least (start) fixing the problem?

Most importantly, how do you get people SCREAMING the same questions I just asked?

Please research those things, instead of case law. Human social networks are just like any other small world network, we are quite capible of distributed problem solving and should be employing it, especially where our children are concerned.

Please don't mistake my reply as antagonistic, it was not my intention to seem hostile.

Re:School Censorship

[Sobrique]

No no, clearly it's an ironic commentary on the prevailing social culture.

Re:School Censorship

[Alchemar]

I will be happy to attend a parent/teacher conference if they will quit treating me like a prison inmate in order to see them. If they will treat it like any other business meeting instead of trying to pull rank I will be happy to see them. Now the kicker -- it isn't my kid, and I have no legal resposibility to care for this child, except that school "policy" has dictated that since I was kind enough to give her and her mother a roof over their head, I am now required to be the one to show up in person and take care of the paperwork.

Why does not being able to go to meeting with a teacher at a time the teacher dictates, on a day the teacher dictates, and forfeiting your civil rights because you "voluntarily" entered the premises, automatically mean that you do not have enough time for your kid? I know a lot of people that work swing shifts or non-standard hours that do not get their work schedule until 2 days before the start of the work week, including this childs mother. The kids get out of school at 2:30pm, I would love to have to work until only 2:30 in the afternoon so that I can make meetings the teachers have set up at 3:00, but even then I have a 45 min drive, and would be late and subject to criminal proscecution under this law. Parents should be involved with their kids, not neccessarily the kids' teacher. If the teacher wants to act like a dictator, then I refuse to bow down and worship them, if they want to treat me like a human being or better yet, a citizen, I will return in kind. If they want to ask me when a good time for a meeting is, and provide a reasonable schedule from which to pick, then I will accomidate.

One strike again knucklehead popping out kids, one strike for being to busy to take care of a kid. Do you have any constructive arguments to add to this discussion?

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

There are laws about threatening people. Let the police use them. Don't give the school the authority to proscecute criminal behavior based on "policy."

I'm happy to say that the school district I work for has the same attitude. We block all access to myspace.com and the technology dept. is regularly asked to unblock it because someone (a teacher, principal, etc.) wants to confirm that something was said/posted by one student about another student.

I believe that the response by district administration has been "no" in each case except for the liaison officer from the local police dept. The posting wasn't done at school. The posting wasn't read at school. We aren't police and shouldn't try to do their job. There are laws about libel and harassment.

Before flames start about how we are not protecting little Johnny from a big bad bully think about this: A bully threatens Johnny in your local convenience store, claiming he is going to "get him" after school the next day. The threatened kid tells the principal. Should someone from the school head down to the store and demand a copy of their security video? Should they interview everyone who was a witness to the threat in the store? Should they take Johnny's word and suspend the bully? Or should they involve the cops to track down the facts and make sure that Johnny makes it home after school without getting pummeled?

Re:School Censorship

[Bryansix]

It sounds like the administration in the school district you are in have gone off the deep end.

Re:School Censorship

[Bryansix]

Yet another dumb AC. I agree that in a Utopian society at least one parent should stay at home all day and be available to take care of the kids and be involved in their education. This is the real world though and sometimes parents divorce and so your only parent has to work full time. This would be the stupidest law ever if it was enacted. Why can't they find some positive reinforcement to persuade parents to get more involved?

Re:School Censorship

[cparker15]

It sounds like you should be retaining a lawyer and/or having the school investigated. Go to the (real) media. Write/call your local government.

Does your nephew's mother have the option of enrolling him in an alternate school, or are all schools in your area like this?

The very fact that the school is treating you like you're your nephew's legal guardian is most certainly illegal (note: IANAL).

Re:School Censorship

[dr_dank]

Now they are trying to pass a law making a request for a parent teacher conference the same as a court supeana, if you don't show up, then you get a $500.00 fine, and a criminal record.

Great, so the single parent struggling to put food on the table can choose between missing work and getting fired, or missing a demand appearance at school and being slapped with a fine and a conviction.

Some choice.

Re:School Censorship

[size8]

Concerning whether this will contravene the First Amendment. I'm from the UK, so have very little knowledge of US Constitutional matters. So maybe someone can tell me: in the USA, can't an organization say that if you want to join the organization, you must give up some rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? For example, if you want to join the size8 society, the society rules state basically that you must give up the right to free speech - "You can't say size8 seems nasty, you must constantly state that size8 is akin to a god on earth". And if you don't like the idea of your freedom of speech being taken away in society business, then hey, don't join the society! My example is frivolous, sure, but the underlying point is anything but. So you don't like some of the rules of the local high school because they contravene the Constitution - so don't send your kid to that school. There are more than one high school in the vast majority of American towns, I'm sure. So, whether you agree with what I'm coming out with here... am I, in general, correct in this? (By which I don't mean it's okay for schools to do away with their students rights - I mean that strictly speaking, the schools have the right to say to parents "You wannaq send your kid to our school, you gotta accept our draconian rules". Am I right in thinking this? After all, I'm sure the KKK has some rules that are not constitutional... don't klansmen have the right to know that the other guy with a bedsheet over his head is opposed to desegregation? (And I'm not a KKK sympathizer!)

Re:School Censorship

[PachmanP]

They are no longer even pretending that children have any rights in school. The problem that I have with this is that the children then grow up thinking that this is how things are suppose to be, and don't complain when they get their rights taken away as an adult.
But that's the plan. They're educating them. The priorities are just different. You and I think they should be taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, but they want to teach how to be a "good citizen".
*end tin foil hat rant*

Re:School Censorship

[cayenne8]

But, all the examples you gave...were physical things ON school property. Yes, they can control things that might be disruptive to the school like publications, tshirts...heck, hairstyles.

But, in your example, a teacher that saw you on Saturday, on a street not at school, could not come over and confiscate your underground publication.

What they're talking about here...is the schools reach for 'censorship' not only being things on school property, but, on private websites run off campus by students on their own time.

Re:School Censorship

[Agripa]

There is statutory law at both the state and federal level that protects certain civil rights from private party infringement but the application of constitutional rights to common law is more nebulous. A good example are the statutory protections against discrimination by race or sex.

The law blog "The Volokh Conspiracy" has a recent discussion on a court case involving an employer, United Parcel Service, firing an employee for having a firearm stored in his car which was not on company property:

http://volokh.com/posts/1172173543.shtml

Re:School Censorship

[Altus]

For the most part, in America, towns only have one school... some have less than one (a large geographic area might have a single high school for a bunch of towns if the population density is low enough). Even in larger towns, where you live determines which school you go to. There are ways to switch schools and different states/districts have different rules, but generally speaking you at least have to jump through hoops to send your kids to a different high school unless you go with private schooling.

How does it work in the UK?

Re:School Censorship

[gsslay]

What are we doing to stop this blatant restriction on teenagers' rights to have sweary words on their clothing, and to bitch about, well, just about everyone, and rebel against, erm, everything? One thing's for sure; they didn't ask to be born!

It's just so unfair!

Re:School Censorship

[cayenne8]

"in the USA, can't an organization say that if you want to join the organization, you must give up some rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? For example, if you want to join the size8 society, the society rules state basically that you must give up the right to free speech - "You can't say size8 seems nasty, you must constantly state that size8 is akin to a god on earth". And if you don't like the idea of your freedom of speech being taken away in society business, then hey, don't join the society!"

In general.....the answer is yes.

The constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech...basically state that the government cannot suppress your speech/expressions. You pretty much always free (excluding the fire in a movie house examples) to say what you want, and the govt. can't stop you. However, you can be shunned by public, as can be seen by the often stupid "political correctness" we see in current US society.

If you join a private society/club, they may indeed wish you to restrict words or actions if you want to stay a member.

The trouble with the discussion above, is this is a PUBLIC school...run by the govt. I'll give a clear example of the difference. In a public school...they cannot force you to pray or study the bible. If you are in a private school, say a catholic one....they can force you to study the bible, attend mass, etc as part of the curriculum. If you don't want to...you can quit that school and go back to public school.

I hope this helps....

Re:School Censorship

[cayenne8]

"I live in one of the few states where it is illegal not to have your ID on you."

Pray tell, what state is it that makes it illegal for you to go out in public without an ID?!?!!??

I know of no state in the union that requires this of a US citizen....please can you provide some links or something to back this up? If this is somehow true...that is pretty fscking scary...

Re:School Censorship

[oyenstikker]

All the more reason to home school. Teach your kids yourself. They'll probably get a better education, and won't have their rights taken away.

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be happy to attend a parent/teacher conference if they will quit treating me like a prison inmate in order to see them.

Where my son goes to school - D.C. Everest high school in Schofield, WI - they put all of the teachers in the cafeteria at their own tables and parents have to wait in line for their turn to talk to the teacher. So you get in line for the teacher you most need to see and fight the urge to go talk to another teacher with no line who you also want to see... because if you leave the queue you probably won't be able to talk to the one teacher you really *need* to.

When my son started last year this free-for-all method of meeting the teachers was confusing as hell. No instructions were given. Just a "the teachers are down in the cafeteria." Even with one year under my belt, the fact that there is nothing indicating where you are supposed to line up makes it hard. I stood in line for 30 minutes to talk to his Spanish teacher just to realize that I was in line for a different teacher and it happened to wind past the Spanish teacher's desk.

While talking to a teacher you also know that several other parents will be privy to any type of confidential details you might need to discuss. You know this because you can hear the discussions of the parents ahead of you while waiting in line. I am pretty sure this actually violates some privacy law or another but I don't know how to prove it.

You probably won't be able to see all the teachers over the course of 3 hours so you'll have to come back for a 2nd night. If your child is doing poorly in several classes... well good luck talking to them all. In fact the odds are that at least one of your child's teachers will have better things to do than show up for the conferences during at least one of scheduled nights so you might as well plan to attend both evenings if you actually want to be a good parent.

Scheduling a PT meeting for a fixed time doesn't seem to be an option in high school. In earlier grades it was, however, most teachers couldn't/wouldn't restrict the ten minute meeting to a fifteen minute block of time. This meant that you had to wait in the hall longer and longer as each teacher was further and further behind schedule. Then you'd get to that rare teacher who actually was on time with his schedule. That means you don't get to see them because you were an hour or more late for your alloted time. All because the first three teachers you talked to think their time is much more valuable than that of everyone waiting in the hallway.

Both the high school and the lower grades seemed to think that 3pm to 7pm afforded everyone a four hour window to meet with the teachers and that this covers everyone's needs. Never mind that most people I work with can't get out of work until 4:30pm or 5:30pm so by the time you get to the school you may have less than an hour.

I own a local business. If I treated my "customers" like this I wouldn't have any.

I'm posting anonymously for the same reason I and the other parents I talked to who hate this ridiculous way of holding "conferences" don't say anything. Because my kids still attend school in this district and I fear that they'll be singled out if I speak up publicly. I was told once that the principal says that parents like it done this way. All I can say about that is that none of the parents I have talked to agree with him.

Re:School Censorship

[Alchemar]

Did a little more research, and found that in Texas where I live, it is a matter of police over interpreting Texas penal code Sec. 38.02.

Failure to Identify.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

I have been told directly from several officers that if you are over 16 you are required to carry your id. I think the interpretation is along the lines of ... if you don't show id, then they must suspect that the information you have given them is wrong.

I had them arrest a roommate once for auto theft because he left his wallet at home, and could not prove he was the person that was named on the registration.

Brown vs Texas ruled that an officer could not demand you identify yourself unless there was reasonable suspicion of a crime, which for some reason the school system thinks they are immune from following because it is to "protect the children"

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't. Your parents can give you alcohol if they want. Your teachers cannot.

Re:School Censorship

[alphamugwump]

They were screwing with you. School administrators invented the word "arbitrary". After all, when you're a principal, everyone starts to look like a kid.

Re:School Censorship

[pipingguy]

...looked like a cool design but if you hooked your thumb and forefinger in it and pulled it down to cover up the inner four inches or so, it said "FUCK YOU."

Ah, the old Mad Magazine fold-in trick, eh? Good to see that things haven't changed much over the past 30 years.

Re:School Censorship

[pipingguy]

We're treating the problem in the typical western style, symptomatically - instead of as a whole broadly because the resources available to solve the issues aren't being focused and concentrated.

This is because doing so would be considered socialism.

Re:School Censorship

[ThoughtPhreaker]

One thing I find disturbing about the draconian policies being applied to both parents and students alike is that while parents complaining to others will often be recognized as valid complaints by other adults outside of the school system, similar complaints heard out of the mouths of a student will be ignored by most adults, and recognized simply as part of the education process offered by public schools. While understandingly, many of these adults may have a lot on their minds already, I fail to see how it'd be difficult to find room for their own children. Particularly with how, as stated by Alchemar, this is the future generation of our country being dealt with. If they're taught to unquestioningly accept these rules, it will likely get them used to the concept of their rights stripped away one by one.

Re:School Censorship

[tinkertim]

This is because doing so would be considered socialism.

Socialisim is a description not an act. By your logic any concentrated effort is an exercise in socialisim.

Resembling and being something are relative, depending on the degree of resemblence in any small world network where what things are have no bearing whatsoever. How they relate to eachother does.

Thers is a razor you can apply to gauge the efficiency of a real world network such as the one we live in. The same razor in fact used to demonstrate that we are a small world network. Because the coefficient agrees, we learn that our society does indeed resemble a small world network to a degree that we can call it a small world network.

Likewise and opposite of that, we're still called a society not a small world network, but that doesn't change a damn thing :)

So more simply, call it what you want, it does not effect the fact that we lack efficiency in solving the problem. This is not a good reason for ignoring it. :)

Striving for efficiency in solving problems is not socialistic, its simply common sense. :) I can't explain it any clearer than that.

Re:School Censorship

[ultranova]

Yes, they can control things that might be disruptive to the school like publications, tshirts...heck, hairstyles.

Since anything might be disruptive, this means that they have absolute power over everything. I guess it's only natural that they'd follow the US Congress's example of abusing the interstate commerce clause...

But, in your example, a teacher that saw you on Saturday, on a street not at school, could not come over and confiscate your underground publication.

What's stopping her ? Can you fight back physically ? If you can and do, who will the court side with ? And if you complain to the police or anyone else, who - if anyone - will they side with ?

Your president was right in one thing: the US Constitution is just a piece of paper. Have enough people agree that it doesn't apply to some group, and those "inalienable rights" have been effectively stripped away.

Re:School Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember some silly teacher warning a student never to wear a "no-sleeve" T-shirt again.

And then there was our math teacher. One day, some japanese filmcrew came to our school, to study our school system or something. Our class'es local metalhead had to come to the front of the class (so in view of the camera) and make some math exercises on the schoolboard. Our teacher didn't mind that he was wearing a T-shirt with a naked, bleeding female being crusified upside down (or something near to that scene, I might have "stored" that scene a bit inflated).

I guess "intolerance" and "misuse of authority", are distributed unevenly over teachers. I always respected the un-authoritive, tolerant teachers more, I even learned more from them, because I didn't need to rebel against them.

That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[maynard]

Laws regulating conduct cannot possibly be enforced in an anonymous public sphere. What's needed is a trusted computing system that tracks who uses a computer, when, and what they're doing. Then software could limit activities to what's legal and appropriate! We're almost there...

- Unique hardware identifiers on all CPUs and motherboards

- Laws that make it illegal to circumvent security systems

- Laws which force ISPs to track customer communications

Don't worry. We'll make the Internet safe for you and your children. And the SonyBMIMicrosoftUniversalMGM corpglomerate.

Re:That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[Apocalypse111]

I know your above statement was made in jest, but the solutions to the problems posed by your above "advances" have been around for years.

Older hardware running Linux, Tor, and encryption. A firewall wouldn't be a terrible idea either.

Re:That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[maynard]

You'll have to use a Pentium II or less. You should also avoid any commercial UNIX workstations as they've been embedding CPU IDs since the 1980s.

Re:That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[mikael]

Or you could always pin a message up on the school noticeboard.

Re:That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[shotgunsaint]

Just be sure you don't print it out on your printer, as it's traceable.

Re:That will never work with an anonymous Internet

[Chmcginn]

Only if there's a record of you purchasing the printer, or the printer is seized as evidence.

Not for the courts

[pubjames]

Surely bullying should be dealt with at the level of teachers/parents? Putting these things into law just seems like asking for trouble - potentially making the minor incidents of growing up into major issues that will scar children for life.

Re:Not for the courts

[silentounce]

Exactly, just like the ridiculous zero-tolerance weapons policy at some schools. The elementary school I went to had a kid pick up one of those little plastic cocktail swords on the playground (who knows why it was there) during recess. The teacher saw him with it and he was suspended. The parents fought it with the school board and lost. Does that making any sense whatsoever?

Re:Not for the courts

[aadvancedGIR]

Well, as long as the bullies don't plan to go to Canada within the next 200 years, it should pose no problem.

Re:Not for the courts

[skoaldipper]

Not for the courts? I disagree.

"Kylie Kenney explained how some kids at her school had created a web site that called for her death, then harassed her for several years with phone calls and e-mails, even after she transferred schools."

Death threats? Something seriously wrong with local police departments allowing death threats to continue like this for years.

Re:Not for the courts

[Turn-X Alphonse]

News flash : This is NOT "minor incidents".

In the current "switched on era" you can be harassed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Kids can make you live in fear constantly, torture you and basicly give you scars for life all through cell phones and e-mail. Maybe you should speak to some of these people who got put through hell and tell them to "get over it".

As technology grows (and the youth of today grows up faster) we should be starting to deal with this stuff sooner.

Re:Not for the courts

[Anonymous Cowpat]

if death threats are illegal anyway, you don't need new laws. If death threats aren't illegal anyway, why should they suddenly become illegal for the specific case of them being propagated through the internet?

Re:Not for the courts

[aplusjimages]

But there is already a law that prohibits death threats. This doesn't sound like a school issue, it sounds like a law enforcement issue.

Re:Not for the courts

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"As technology grows (and the youth of today grows up faster) we should be starting to deal with this stuff sooner."

And why is this behavior not covered under existing harassment laws?

Re:Not for the courts

[tomstdenis]

Since when do you need a cell phone? And why do you have to give out your number?

Seems if kids just want to avoid needless distractions they shouldn't be carrying pagers, beepers, cellphones and talking on phpbb boards during school. And besides, kids are assholes. It's what they do. Just realize that the "popular" bullies usually end up serving you subway when you're finished your degree.

AND YES, I WANT IT TOASTED!!!

Tom

Re:Not for the courts

[koreaman]

The discussion isn't about whether severe harrasment should be against the law. In my opinion it should, others may feel differently, but that's not the point here.

The point is that we already have institutions dedicated to enforcing laws, namely the legal system and police force. The school system is dedicated to educating, not protecting, its students. Anything that directly affects or is directly related to this education falls under its authority. Anything else doesn't. If something is truly harmful then it should of course be illegal and should be prosecuted by our legal system. The school system shouldn't be involved.

Re:Not for the courts

[penguinbrat]

Who cares if they are 'seared' just as long as they are protected right? At least this is the way that this BS seems to be going.

Re:Not for the courts

[Paulrothrock]

I had something similar happen recently. I went back home and ran out to get the pizza we ordered. Behind the counter stood someone from my high school graduating class. Back then, he was top dog. All the girls fawned all over him. He had a nice car and went to all the parties.

Now I'm the one with the nice car. I'm the one who's got a beautiful wife and a baby on the way and a great new job. And he's still working at the pizza place, still flirting with high school girls, and driving his now old, beat up car.

Re:Not for the courts

[tomstdenis]

Always pays to be modest though. I never mock or belittle my former 'peers" when I see them in those roles. Inside I may laugh a bit, but to be honest I think they know how much they fucked up. Plus, never piss off the dude making yer food :-)

Was kinda funny though, in my classes [in the advance stream] I was always the person people felt wouldn't make it, yet I was the one doing international talking engagements and working before even finishing my degree. w00t.

Actually, the best was when I met up with one of the former peers who was always kinda a brainer. I had just got back from a business trip to France, [while still in college]. I asked her what she was studying, "international business." Oh that's nice :-)

Tom

Re:Not for the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Remember that.

The youth of today do just need to get over it. People make fun of other people - have since the dawn of time, will until the end of time. Suck it up.

If you're unwilling to make that simple effort, then learn to use the Block feature of almost all communication systems. Electronic communication makes dealing with bullies easier, not harder.

Re:Not for the courts

[skoaldipper]

> if death threats are illegal anyway, you don't need new laws.

Yes, you do. Or at least consider a careful re-examination of the old ones. FTA,

"On the other hand, most student speech is protected, even if insulting or hurtful. Courts have gradually increased the protection for student speech over the last 100 years"

Which is what I tried to infer in my first post. Something is broken here. Do you really think local law enforcement municipalities are ignorant of the law, allowing this to occur over several years? The article even addresses at length the complications between freedom of speech issues (taken on school grounds, which this example had) and law enforcement. In case you missed it FTA, students were using the school internet here.

Re:Not for the courts

[Anonymous Cowpat]

so your argument is that we should reconsider allowing students the right to say insulting and hurtful things as free speech because they choose to exercise that more than any other section of society? ("you can only have rights so long as you don't use them").
If they're using the school internet then the school can regulate it with school rules, you don't need laws for that (other than to make the school rules legal, but that doesn't raise the severity of the issue as making the action criminally illegal would). If they're using their own internet then the school can keep it's nose out of it. If it is illegal that's a learning experience for bullies - mollycoddling them into thinking that anything they do, ever, will only be a breach of the school rules does not discourage them from doing it. On the other hand if it's not illegal then it's a learning experience for the 'victim' that nanny school rules won't always be there to protect them.

Re:Not for the courts

[skoaldipper]

Since several states are considering this tells me the distinction between law enforcement reach and Freedom of Speech issues at school is blurry. Neither the police or school quite know how to address these internet cases; apparently, even the Supreme Court has yet to deal with such a case.

Maybe this will shed some light on my concerns:

"More than a year before the April 20 massacre at Columbine High School, police and school officials were warned that one of the gunmen, Eric Harris, was detonating pipe bombs and talking about killing people on his Web site.

But no charges were filed because investigators could not locate the Web site. And even if they had, it is apparently not illegal to post threats on the Internet, said Lt. John Kiekbusch of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department."

* My concern is that even after some 8 years of high profile cases like these, it is still occurring (as this article points out with the little girl). Apparently, law enforcement and schools are still equally confused here. Still believe no changes or review of existing laws are necessary?

Re:Not for the courts

[pubjames]

News flash : This is NOT "minor incidents".

News flash: These are children. At school.

I expect everyone here on Slashdot can recount something that happened during their childhood that was not a "minor incident"... We all did stupid things when we were kids. But overreaching to that stuff, or reacting in the wrong way, can do more damage than the incident itself.

I'm not saying this isn't serious stuff. But parents, teachers, and the kids themselves are usually able to deal with serious stuff in the correct way.

Re:Not for the courts

[Sobrique]

I'm fairly sure 'bullying' is also covered already too. But that doesn't stop it happening, or even make action particularly likely.

Re:Not for the courts

[Lane.exe]

It is; what these laws attempt to do is to give the schools greater leeway to punish these infractions. You have to understand how the criminal justice system works -- prosecutors are overworked, underfunded, and have "bigger fish to fry." By statutorily authorizing schools to deal with these problems, it provides for a more fitting scholastic punishment for the bullies while freeing up the regular criminal justice system to deal with other crimes.

Re:Not for the courts

[nkv]

I don't think you should stop at bullying. This whole "free speech" thing is getting out of hand. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for it but if you grant something like that to a bunch of immature, irresponsible people, you're going to get into a mess. It's fun to stir up some controversy and then go to court to settle it while overlooking whether it was the humanly decent thing to do but that sort of thing will kill "society" faster than suppression of free speech and turn it into a dog eat dog jungle where the courts protect the right to eat and encourage people to be dogs.

Re:Not for the courts

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"By statutorily authorizing schools to deal with these problems, it provides for a more fitting scholastic punishment for the bullies while freeing up the regular criminal justice system to deal with other crimes."

And moving the prosecution/punishment into a realm where there is an often inconsistent appeals process that guarantees no rights and is arbitrarily applied by the school board. No, this doesn't work in my opinion.

Re:Not for the courts

[cayenne8]

"if death threats are illegal anyway, you don't need new laws. If death threats aren't illegal anyway, why should they suddenly become illegal for the specific case of them being propagated through the internet?"

I guess for the same reason that people pass 'Hate Crime' laws. I mean, does it make it worse to kill a person because of their race rather than because you just don't like them or an action they've done in the past?

Either way they are still dead....murder is murder no matter the reason. But, laws like this have been passed....so I guess they'll eventually pass what you mentioned above....*sigh*

Re:Not for the courts

[Dan Slotman]

You advocate the sort of ideas that lead to "decency" laws. You basically are saying that someone should only be allowed to speak freely when they have proved themselves mature and responsible. However, the courts would decide whether someone fulfilled these criteria. If we are going to end up in court either way I will always choose the path of free speech. Just because someone is offended by what another says does not mean that the speaker should be censored. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:Not for the courts

[Lane.exe]

Nah, you could always sue the board (at least under mandamus) if nothing else avails you. It doesn't take away your right to an Art. III or state court, and there's nothing that says you can't subject a cyber-bully to criminal proceedings, school punishment and a civil suit in tort (IIED, probably, but I suppose if there was any physical contact or apprehension of it assault and battery as well).

In other words, you're not losing out on the prosecution and punishment by the local authorities; you're just providing another avenue. In the big scheme of things, that's all good juju. The more causes you have, the better.

Re:Not for the courts

[nkv]

You advocate the sort of ideas that lead to "decency" laws.
Why is it that everyone thinks in terms of "laws" and "enforcement"? I don't think it's possible to enforce decency. I do however think and insist that people should be more decent.

You basically are saying that someone should only be allowed to speak freely when they have proved themselves mature and responsible. However, the courts would decide whether someone fulfilled these criteria.
No I'm not. I'm saying that if we have to think of laws that protect these sort of things and enforce them, the society has diseases more serious than "suppression of free speech".

If we are going to end up in court either way I will always choose the path of free speech. Just because someone is offended by what another says does not mean that the speaker should be censored. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
In the same vein, I have the right to be an annoying person. I don't want laws that allow or deny me this right. But I still think that society should have less annoying people. Enforcement and laws are not the only things that society is built on. Voltaire's quote is becoming a Godwin's law of sorts these days. I don't really care about allowing or denying someone to express his point of view. I think society has bigger problems that need to be addressed which can only be handled at an individual rather than a collective level (which is the best that legislations can do).

Re:Not for the courts

[Dan Slotman]

I misunderstood you to at least some extent. I thought you were saying we should get rid of free speech because of the controversy. In my opinion, free speech is exactly the right to be annoying. There is another quote I like, by Potter Stewart, "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." I think our society suffers from a tremendous lack of confidence on the individual level as well as the collective. I agree that just as we cannot effectively legislate decency, we cannot effectively legislate politeness, common sense, and empathy either.

Re:Not for the courts

[nkv]

I think our society suffers from a tremendous lack of confidence on the individual level as well as the collective.
That's an interesting idea. I never thought of it in such a way. Thanks. Free speech I suppose can get annoying but it's only annoying when you lack the maturity to give and receive criticism in the proper way.

I agree that just as we cannot effectively legislate decency, we cannot effectively legislate politeness, common sense, and empathy either.
Exactly. And as long as these things are not there in society, you can have as much free speech as you want and it won't (atleast in my opinion) do much good. That's not an argument to eliminate free speech.

I suppose I could sum up my argument (although not completely) by saying that I think free speech is necessary but not sufficient and that it plays a smaller role than advertised these days in the building of a healthy and prosperous society.

Re:Not for the courts

[Dan Slotman]

Free speech doesn't help people get along with one another, but there are some things we shouldn't get along with. Free speech allows us to criticize these things. Free speech is best used in critique of concepts and actions than of people.

Re:Not for the courts

[nkv]

Free speech is best used in critique of concepts and actions than of people.
I agree. And you need an informed cultured public to use free speech in this fashion. That's my point. Without such a public, free speech becomes a sham.

What's the issue?

[koreaman]

Why can't they just use whatever standards they've always used, if any, to regulate off-school speech? THe fact that the speech occurs online shouldn't change anything.

Freedom has layers

[pzs]

1st Amendment rights is one thing, but a variety of laws restrict freedom of speech if it slanders, intimidates or incites others. This is true in the real world and probably, as has already been pointed out, this applies even more in schools where you're trying to teach children to be responsible citizens.

That's the problem with trumpeting "freedom" as a great virtue. Too much freedom means that you would have to legalise a variety of evils such as child abuse and racial discrimination. Freedom to do something needs the proviso that it does not restrict the freedom of others, which is a bit more of a subtle concept.

Peter

Re:Freedom has layers

[DanQuixote]

Hear hear! Absolutes are ALWAYS wrong, even absolute freedom.

It must be balanced by respect for neighbors... including granting each other rights. For example we give each other the rights to life and property, otherwise there would only be the quick and the dead!

More to the point, we must be free to complain that the school district / principal is doing things wrong... but that does NOT mean we must allow abusive children to reign with terror.

Re:Freedom has layers

[mooingyak]

Hear hear! Absolutes are ALWAYS wrong, even absolute freedom.

Ahem... ALWAYS?

Re:Freedom has layers

[bky1701]

Slander is something left over from a bygone era and is now being used to suppress legitimate speech. It existed in a time when saying something about someone could have a massive effect because there few comparatively few people who could reach the masses and the fact those people were normally trusted.

We live in the information age, not the medieval age. Anyone can say anything and have it reach millions. Most reasonable people don't believe everything they read on the internet. The real "slander" gets by using legalese and the little guy gets tossed in jail for saying "mayor bob is a crook!".

Any suppression of communication belongs in the dark ages where it was invented. We are better than that. Not by much, but we ARE.

Re:Freedom has layers

[pipingguy]

I misread your subject line to read, "Freedom has lawyers." Sorry.

Sounds like just a bunch of...

[DJCacophony]

...rebels without a cause.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[utopianfiat]

And what would you do when given a bunch of doublespeak bullshit about "critical thinking" and yet asked to respond to authority as totalitarian as stalinist russia (without the shootings and disappearances, of course). It's a bit of an exaggeration but you'd be surprised at what kind of authority schools have over kids- and when they're in high school and just beginning to explore the world of being an adult, the rules become little more than an annoyance. They think "Why am I wasting my time sitting in an office for something that could be resolved with a slap on the wrist and a detention slip?"
Schools need to learn how much control over their students is acceptable. Having happy and safe students is more important than excellence. I speak from experience when a lot of my graduating class now pops meth to deal with their classes and skip days of sleep at a time.
The schools try so hard to get their grades up, they end up ripping out the kid's soul.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[DJCacophony]

That's what high school is supposed to be - it's supposed to prepare the kids for the real life, and not just in terms of knowing how to do math. High school is hard at first because the kids are starting to realize that they don't get to just do whatever they want, whenever they want. It's always hard dealing with a controlling boss, but high school prepares you for that by giving you a controlling teacher. Life is hard, and high school is supposed to bridge the gap between life and an ideal, predictable, structured environment.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[DeadChobi]

There's no one person who can be blamed for that. It's the institution itself that's broken. The reason the teachers have to be the way they are is because they're legally responsible for each and every one of you from the moment you set foot inside the school until you're a mile or so down the road. First amendment rights are different though, and the GP and the punks should have stuck up for their rights. I agree with you about the rules. Some of them are pretty retarded.

As for control, parents need to learn that they need to be responsible for their child because the school is obviously not doing as good of a job.

And yeah, having happy and safe students is important, but it's possible to have happy, safe, well-educated children too. I'm not saying that the baseline for the education system is to create that kind of environment, because it sure as hell doesn't, but I believe it's possible if everyone really wants it. That's the ideal we should be aiming for. Excellence with a cheesey smile.

To GP: When I was in high school a friend of mine got expelled because his nickname from Counterstrike was Terrorist. We had a petition with about 200 signatures and names on it that we were submitting to the office. If it had gone far enough we were going to walk out.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[fourchannel]

What the fuck ever. Public Education is dying a pathetic death in the name of pragmaticism. It doesn't prepare you for the 'real life'. The life you experience in school is real, there is no fabrication of reality.

Our society has painted a picture of an industrial and business run economy, and education is just to fill the gap?. Well fuck, let's go tell our ancestors thanks for burning on the cross for opening up the minds of people, but unfortunately your views on reality don't fill the gap, so we're gonna brush past your teachings in school so we can live as slaves to business.

All the bright minds of the past, who dreamed of Humanity finally trying to shoot for the stars, would be so proud to see life today. We're doing the same shit we were 600 years ago, but with more advanced technology, and the same pragmatic attitude towards it all.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[DJCacophony]

If you're so concerned about not being "a slave to business" which I assume is code for "working for a company", then you're free to not pay attention in class, skip school, not go to college, and spend your life begging for money as a starving artist. The rest of us are happy to learn what we can in school, learn even more in our off time, go to college, and get a good-paying job we enjoy. If you ever expected public education to inspire creativity, or do anything creative at all, then the fault is yours for having high expectations. Creativity doesn't thrive in such a stifled, structured environment, and this is news to you? Some people are simply uncreative, they are the people who perform the uncreative jobs. Those who possess creativity don't get it from school. They feed their creativity and curiosity in their off-time, or in college, or both. Pragmatism is necessary because some people don't have anything else. Those that do will simply transcend beyond it anyways.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[cayenne8]

"If you're so concerned about not being "a slave to business" which I assume is code for "working for a company", then you're free to not pay attention in class, skip school, not go to college, and spend your life begging for money as a starving artist. The rest of us are happy to learn what we can in school, learn even more in our off time, go to college, and get a good-paying job we enjoy."

That's not the only 2 choices you know.

Many of us form our own companies!! Either for external business (face to general public), or for consulting and contracting. It IS very nice to not have to answer to 'the boss' (unless you like talking to yourself), you don't have to play office politics. You get to manage your own money....retirement...etc.

Independence is very underrated in today's society...it does take learning and paying attention as you alluded to, but, it also takes some 'balls' and self motivation.

The old saying "You'll never get rich working for someone else" still holds true today.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[fourchannel]

The rest of us are happy to learn what we can in school, learn even more in our off time, go to college, and get a good-paying job we enjoy. The rest of us? So you're speaking for everyone else, and everyone else is happy with education...amazing, I don't get that feeling at all.

If you ever expected public education to inspire creativity, or do anything creative at all, then the fault is yours for having high expectations. Fault? What fault? That's like saying If you ever wanted to make a difference in this fucked up, chaotic world, then it's your fault for being a hopeful douche bag. If you're going to 'blame' me for wanting things to be different, then fine - blame me. Point your finger and accuse me of defying the norm. Drive your anchor deep into the ground and hold me back with your traditions. The future is coming and progress follows it. Things will be different. You can point your finger and show the world how times are changing and all the evil that follows it. You could also do what you can to make that change happen in your lifetime.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[DJCacophony]

Fault? What fault? That's like saying If you ever wanted to make a difference in this fucked up, chaotic world, then it's your fault for being a hopeful douche bag.

No, it's more like saying "If you ever wanted an apple to be an orange, then it's your fault for wanting an apple to be an orange". An apple is an apple. It has always been an apple, and it was never supposed to be anything other than an apple. Similarly, public education is what it is because it is what public education is, by definition. It has never been different, because if it was different, then it would be something else. Expecting public education to be something it's not is entirely your fault.

Also, quit trying to hard to be a martyr.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[russotto]

Without the shootings, with the disappearances. At least when I was in HS, kids too far from the norm might not come in one day, vanished to an "alternative" (i.e. reform) school.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[Sj0]

Fuck that. I can do whatever I want now that I've got a real job. I'm union, so I can tell my boss and co-workers to go fuck themselves if I want, and I won't get fired as long as my work is good.

High school was shit. It was the worst of both worlds. On one hand, you've got this lawless environment where you can get the shit kicked out of you by some fatass with an inferiority complex, and on the other you've got zero tolerance rules that tell you to take it or you're expelled, and on a third hand (where'd that come from?), zero tolerance doesn't count if that fatass has an influential or difficult to deal with parent.

Read ZeroIntelligence.net for more information on what you claim represents the 'real world'. You'll realize how wrong you are.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

on a third hand (where'd that come from?), zero tolerance doesn't count if that fatass has an influential or difficult to deal with parent.

That would be the gripping hand, and it describes how things work. Lean to subvert it or suffer the consequences.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[fourchannel]

I got off of work, smoked up, read my previous response, and have no idea why I wrote it like that. That kind of hostility is uneary to read, and I'm sorry I overreacted to you. I now see what you are saying, and yes we have an ideal we can't seem to be able to meet. It would be nice to see it happen but practical reality sets in, and the imporobable is obvious. But, my bad for being an ass. I don't hold a grudge against you, and don't know why I was so aggressive.

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[jenxdigital]

Not to sound trollish....but, science is getting close. We have the Graple. (Pronounced Grape-l). It's only a matter of time before we have apple flavored oranges or orange flavored apples. Plus, Graples actually taste pretty good. So, I say, Screw the Norm!

Re:Sounds like just a bunch of...

[Sj0]

I went a different path. I realized that nobody mattered, that their little struggles didn't matter, that my little struggles didn't matter, that I was stuck wasting my life in an unreal world until the law released me.

Life is a war, and in war, a wise strategist will win the victory first, then fight the battle.

In NC it's considered terrorism

[gelfling]

In North Carolina if a minor screams something out which is offensive, inflammatory or threatening to more than one person it's considered terrorism or making a terroristic threat. For 16 yo and above it can be charged as a felony and while it's not often charged as one, it's not unheard of. So one can extrapolate and guess that making threats online is also terrorism or making a terroristic threat. Free speech be damned we're talking PATRIOT act here. And what better group of people to apply it to than people who can't vote but who are charged as adults in the first place?

Re:In NC it's considered terrorism

[east coast]

Free speech be damned we're talking PATRIOT act here.

Funny. In Pennsylvania we have the same exact thing. And it is called terrorist threats too and was well before 9/11, the Patriot act or the Unibomber.

Re:In NC it's considered terrorism

[east coast]

In Pennsylvania we have the same exact thing. And it is called terrorist threats too and was well before 9/11, the Patriot act or the Unibomber.

Sorry, that should be "terroristic threats". I wanted to correct myself before someone jumped up and down on my ass.

Re:In NC it's considered terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

And what better group of people to apply it to than people who can't vote but who are charged as adults in the first place?

What I'd like to know is how the same group of people are treated as such, taxed as well, and have no means of any real representation.

Granted the only ones I can immediately think of that they may pay are income tax and sales tax.

Children don't have rights.

[Skylinux]

To loosely quote the comment my English teacher wrote on one of my papers: "In the USA, children have no rights."

Re:Children don't have rights.

[illegalcortex]

To loosely quote the Supreme Court of the United States - "She's wrong."

Re:Children don't have rights.

[ScentCone]

To loosely quote the comment my English teacher wrote on one of my papers: "In the USA, children have no rights."

Did your teacher also write down, "In the USA, children also don't have the same obligations or liability for their actions as an adult." ?

Children are presumed to be lacking the judgement and experience to understand the relationship between rights and accountability. That's what their parents or guardians are there to provide, and is one of the reasons that many jurisdictions find parents to be liable for some of what their kids do (or don't do!).

Of course the "children have no rights" notion is BS. Trying to look at behavioral rules applied within a publicly funded school as if they are the same as when a kid is in his front yard or with his parents at the beach is nonsense.

Re:Children don't have rights.

[computational super]

Yet, ironically, our elected officials consistently cite the "rights" of the children as their reason for eradicating the few remaining rights that adults still have.

Depends ont he schools

[shirizaki]

I went to a private high school and due to things posted on a non school affiliated forum that was owned by one of my classmates about the school he was expelled our Senior year. It was taken to court and my school said that since we signed the code of conduct it included provisions that allowed them to enforce their rules while we were at home.

I don't know how this applies to public schools, but they have to follow mandates and laws setup byt he government, since their funding comes from the government. So yes, they can do this. Just like the government defines libel, hate speech, and etc.

But I stand for the bullies on this one. I was bullied throughout my early years, and it taught me to stand up for myself and to not pay attention to people who need to belittle me to make themselves feel better. Having the government involved only pets the egos of bullies.

There's also block lists, email filters, etc. for those who feel really harassed. I mean, come the **** on, this is supposed to be the tech generation, and they can't block bullies?!

Re:Depends ont he schools

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you cant block, filter or firewall bullies in the school yard or on the way home from school.

Usurping Parental Role...Again

[blueZhift]

While it may be perfectly legal for schools to censor students and sanction them on school time and with regard to school equipment, they should keep their noses out of what students say and do beyond the campus. Clearly, off campus issues are the realm of the students' parents and family. When schools start trying to assert authority outside of the school, it is just another intrusion by the state on parental authority and responsibility. And with respect to free speech, speech that makes direct threats against another person is not protected anyway. We already have laws covering that as a form of assault. There is no need for new and likely unconstitutional laws on this matter. Enforce the laws already on the books and let parents do what they are supposed to be doing.

Re:Usurping Parental Role...Again

[PhxBlue]

When schools start trying to assert authority outside of the school, it is just another intrusion by the state on parental authority and responsibility.

The problem here, IMO, is that too many parents are all too happy to give up their responsibilities and authority. Look at the parents who sued MySpace because they didn't know what their daughter was doing online.

Re:Usurping Parental Role...Again

[blueZhift]

You're quite right, too many parents are being lazy and shirking their responsibilities. But the government shouldn't be making it easier for them to do so. If parents are negligent, there are already laws that address that too, we need to not only enforce those laws, but create a culture of self-empowered responsibility and individual initiative. Right now, we, in the US at least, seem to be doing just the opposite. The parents who sued MySpace are just giving parents a bad name. Heck, I don't know everything my daughter is doing online, but we talk and I understand that it is my responsibility to ensure her safety and well being. I may screw up from time to time, but raising my kids is my job, not the government's.

Bullying?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Would you let another adult verbally torture someone? I don't think so.

Bullying is at best abuse and at worse it is outright torture. If we force children to goto school (and hence come into contact with kids who will bully them) then we must accept that we are in a sense damning these children to things none of us should ever have to face. Your "free speech" bullshit ends the moment you start using your free speech to put someone through complete hell for kicks.

I say the second any kid is caught bullying another he is sent to a prison for children. We're way past the stage where it's a bit of verbal abuse when we constantly hear kids are carrying knives (and even guns in some cases). These people are the bullys and by the time they're 13-14 they are acting like adult criminals. So lets make them act like adults and slap them in a prison the second they cross the line between "being kids" and "outright torture".

Internet or in the real world. Bullying is torture of another human being, it should be seen as such and not "just kids messing around".

Re:Bullying?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you "verbally torture" someone ? I'm sorry, but I don't get it. How can you compare a simple verbal threat with breaking someones fingers one by one or burning their skin with a piece of red hot metal ? During my military service I had to endure things probably far worse than any bullied kid had to endure... And I didn't even call that torture.

I'd like to know what is worse : saying "I will put a nail under each of your nail"... or actually doing it. Which one do you think is worse ?

Re:Bullying?

[Torvaun]

Well, you certainly have some strong feelings on this subject. I'm going to assume that you still carry a grudge against your group of bullies.

You seem to fail to realize that the major issue here is psychology. Children do not have the ability to empathize with the people around them. They do not feel the pain of others, that's a later development. In this respect, children share some of the major tendencies of adult sociopaths. You advocate treating them like adult sociopaths. That's all fine and dandy, but consider what prison does to people, what it will do to people during the aptly named 'formative years', and the fact that you are punishing them harshly for something that they will not understand the problem with for at least a couple more years, assuming an environment that is conducive to such learning.

You state that bullying is akin to mental torture. Perhaps in your case it was. But in other cases, it's a useful tool for teaching kids that you can't always get what you want. A necessary repression of the id, if you will. Otherwise, you get kids that spend all their life never having been forced towards social norms of any sort. The kid who picks his nose and eats it is getting bullied because of it? Good. Maybe he'll learn to stop before he hits the real world. I'll agree that bullying needs to be monitored to stop things like 'the kid who is vastly smarter than the others is getting bullied because of it,' but in most cases, being bullied is an important learning tool.

Re:Bullying?

[Undertaker43017]

Did you go to high school in the US? Bullying has been going on in high schools forever, "cyberbullying" is just adaption for modern times. Unfortunately most school districts have largely ignored it for decades. BTW, bringing knives to school is not a new problem, bullies have always brought knives (and other weapons, bats/2x4's were a favorite at my HS) to school.

While I agree no one should be subjected to verbal or physical abuse, sending the bully to prison won't work. Removing the bully from the learning environment is not the right solution, that just creates more criminals.

The problem is huge, and had school districts not ignored the problem for so long and developed effective ways of dealing with it, we wouldn't have this problem. Bullies are not getting their needs meet in some way, either the school is not challenging them enough and they are bored or they find it too challenging and are attacking kids that are "smarter" then they are. I don't believe most bullies are actually criminally psychotic and deserve to be locked up. The schools need to do a better job of meeting the needs of all students and give up on the "all size fits all model".

Re:Bullying?

[Suriyel]

School is a prison for kids. It takes the innocent or non-violent offenders, tosses them in with the hardcore lifers, with only the occassional inmate actually learning something beyond skills useful in a life of crime after their mandatory sentence.

Re:Bullying?

[Kwesadilo]

So lets make them act like adults and slap them in a prison the second they cross the line between "being kids" and "outright torture".

That's a hard line to draw.

Re:Bullying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's dumber than that. "Mental torture" is basically a very fancy and stupid way to say "name calling".

A common example would be something like "you'd have to be retarded to think that mental torture is simply threatening physical torture - ever manage to move to shoes with laces on them or are you still stuck with loafers, because even Velcro was too hard for you?"

Feel the torture!

The best part is that the "bullies" who do the "mental torture" are frequently the type of people that no one really cares about their opinion anyway.

So you've got some loser saying nasty things to some thin-skinned wimp, and the wimp manages to claim it as "mental torture".

If ever you wanted proof that America is becoming a nanny-state, it'd have to be people trying to create laws against name calling.

Re:Bullying?

[CDarklock]

> Would you let another adult verbally torture someone?

It's called a "job interview". Here's a real world example from a recent interview I had.

1. You have five minutes to write a test plan for this large web site.
2. You have five minutes to tell me where this landscape photograph was taken.
3. You have five minutes to write a trouble ticket for this system boot failure.
4. You have twenty-five minutes to build a dynamic web site attached to this database.

None of the above is in any way related to the actual duties of the job for which I applied.

In general, a job interview is socially accepted torture. You can't determine anything from it. You can't get any real feel for someone's ability to do the job. You mostly just poke the applicant with a stick and see when he jumps.

Amusingly, when you look at it this way, the bullies in school tend to end up in jobs like auto mechanics and security - where there is no real interview process. You fill out a piece of paper, and they say "can you work weekends?" and you say "yes" and you're hired. The bullied, on the other hand, end up in jobs like engineering and management... where the interview process is long and arduous and significantly more torture.

It would be interesting to examine whether this is a development where the bullied suffer in school as preparation for the job market, or where the job market bullies applicants because it's how they think you select people. Either way, bullying isn't going away.

Re:Bullying?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

No, kids from the age of 4-5 do have a basic grasp if pain and hurting others. Once you realize being hit hurts and hitting others hurts you have the basic concept nicely down.

No, not "in my case" in all cases. It is not a "natural" thing, it is infact abuse allowed because "they are kids". You cannot say "oh he deserved it for picking his nose" and then "oh he didn't deserve it, he's just smart". You either condone 100% abuse or you don't, it is THAT simple.

Re:Bullying?

[Jaysyn]

You're out of your gourd. You are absolutley deluding yourself if you think that highschool aged kids "do not have the ability to empathize with the people around them" or that "They do not feel the pain of others". Apparently you went to school with a bunch of monsters, but your experience isn't the same as mine, or I'm sure many others.

Re:Bullying?

[Asic Eng]

What is it with the US and double-speak these days? Words have meaning, why do they need to be re-defined until they become empty shells?

Bullying can include torture. Verbal abuse is just that: verbal abuse, and it's not torture. The next thing is that children are by defintion not adults. If there are seperate laws for children and for adults, then children can never ever be convicted as adults.

On the prison thing - this is the typical knee-jerk "law and order" approach. The US has an absurd number of adults in prison already (higher than any other western country), and still it's crime rate is higher than any other western country. It's easy to advocate "get tough on crime" policies, but experience has shown that these do not work. I don't blame anyone for thinking in the first place that this might work - it's not an unreasonable assumption. However once you've seen it fails you got to think of something else, you can't repeat the same thing and hope the results will change.

Re:Bullying?

[computational super]

How can you "verbally torture" someone ?

Oh, I feel verbally tortured every time I read some of the idiotic opinions on Slashdot threads (for instance, reading the post you replied to was pretty painful).

Re:Bullying?

[metamatic]

Removing the bully from the learning environment is not the right solution, that just creates more criminals.

The bullies I knew were already small time criminals, shoplifting and stealing bikes. I say jail the fuckers.

Re:Bullying?

[Undertaker43017]

Either way you pay for them. At least paying to try and make them a productive member of society has the potential benefit of them giving back to society in some beneficial way.

Most of the bullies I knew where small time criminals as well, but most of them were that way because they had no influence in the lives showing them a different direction. It usually wasn't hard to figure out how they got they way they were, once you meet their parents...

Re:Bullying?

[Undertaker43017]

What about the "preps" and the "jocks", who largely don't get bullied, and actually may be the bullies. These groups often go on to careers in business and management, in fact probably more so than the bullied, who largely end up in science and engineering, where they continue to get "bullied" by management. ;)

I do like your job interview analogy though, but to expand on it, school is a preparation for life, in more ways than most people realize. Like it or not, life has a social order, and many people find out their place in that order in school.

One of the arguments used against home schooling is you loose the social aspect of school. One response to this is that the social aspect of school, in many ways, is a negative. Of course life, as an adult, often mirrors a lot of these negative aspects, and lacking this "experience" could prove to be a detriment. Then one needs to ask, is adult society just replicating everything we learned in school?

Re:Bullying?

[CDarklock]

> These groups often go on to careers in business and
> management

Where they do the job interviews! See, it's training for them! QED. ;)

> is adult society just replicating everything we
> learned in school?

More or less. It's very regimented. Kind of sad, really.

Re:Bullying?

[pipingguy]

Children do not have the ability to empathize with the people around them.

That's pure nonsense. Where did you get that idea?

Re:Bullying?

[shiftless]

I agree, and I'd like to expand on this from a different angle. Excuse me for the profanity but seeing this sort of bullshit pisses me off. Humans beings have been around for years, and surprisingly enough we have developed some pretty effective methods of dealing with bullies, but these new age metrosexual hippies want to throw it all out the window in favor of some retarded "SEND THEM TO PRISON!! AND COUNSELING!!!1" heavy handed bullshit. The real solution, the one that works every time and causes the least amount (none) of psychological/permanent damage to anyone, comes in the form of your hand curled into a fist.

The fact is, I was bullied ALL the time in elementary school. My dad was in the Air Force and we moved around a lot. I started school in Arizona, then in 3rd grade my dad left the Air Force and we moved back home to Alabama. Well, it was quite a culture shock for me. There's a big difference between an on-base elementary school populated with kids from all over the country with different backgrounds who respected one another, to an Alabama back woods school populated with kids who grew up hunting and fishing with each other, where outsiders were not welcome and if you said the wrong thing to someone you got your ass whooped. Compounding the problem was the fact that I was a nerd (not to brag, but WAY smarter than 90% of the folks I went to school with), a "yankee" (had a non-southern accent even though I was born in Alabama), I'm a smart ass, I'm hot headed--but not an experienced fighter, AND I was thrown into a completely unfamiliar social culture which I didn't fit into well at first.

So yeah, I got bullied all the time. It didn't help matters that my parents were fighting and going through a divorce, plus I hated the people and climate and was having a hard time adjusting. As time went on I withdrew more and more into books and computers, got a little chubby, and that made matters worse.

One day we were all out on the playground playing soccer and I started getting bullied and made fun of as usual. It kept getting worse and worse with more people joining in. I started getting angry and talking shit back, then one guy knocked me down and jumped on me and started hitting me. This time instead of covering my face and crying I swung at him, punched him in the nose, and he started bleeding. He stopped for a second, felt the blood on his face, and was shocked. All the fight in him was gone. I pushed him off me and he didn't resist me. Everyone around was in shock. Then people started running up to me, laughing and congratulating me, people that were making fun of me minutes before. The (male) teacher in charge of the playground came over and winked at me and said "good job." I never felt so happy in all my life. Everyone RESPECTED me now and NOBODY fucked with me for a long time after that, even though I didn't really do anything all that amazing. I just fought back and stood up for myself. The best part is 10 minutes later me and the guy I fought with were shaking hands and laughing about the fight. He used to bully me all the time, but from that point on he never messed with me again, and we were even sort of friends.

Jesus Christ people, WHY doesn't everyone understand that this is THE time-tested, tried and true method for dealing with bullies? It is the BEST solution. Everyone wants to overreact and come up with some "ZERO TOLERANCE" bullshit that does nothing but make matters worse. What would have happened if all the people who bullied me had been thrown in prison? They would have turned into fucked up sociopaths and I would still be a pussy. But instead I grew a backbone and I'm a way better person for it today; and all the people who bullied me are now normal, good-hearted adults who I would be proud to call friends. Kids are inclined to be bullies and cruel to one another; that's just the way it works. But they grow up to be normal, good people most of the time.

Such a thing as too much freedom..

[fantomas]

I know that "Freedom" is something all good citizens of the USA hold dear but I think freedom needs to be moderated in some cases. It's a great thing when you're the biggest kid in the class and can say what you like including intimidating and harassing the little kids. Not so great when you're the small kid who's being bullied. Some kids are better than others at arguing their point, standing up for their beliefs/rights/ etc and need help when they are not able to do so.

The strong will always be able to look after their own interests, I think we should judge a society by how it looks after its weak.

Re:Such a thing as too much freedom..

[dcskier]

I see your point, but is legislation really the answer? Teachers/Parents still retain the option to punish kids, as they should and have been doing for years and years. We need rules against bullying (online and off), but I don't think we need to have laws against it.

Bullying is often by omission.

[Glowing Fish]

If the bullying is a clear threat, it should be treated like any other threat. Making threats against people is a crime, in any form.

But on the other hand, smart bullies (and most bullies are smart, at least when it comes to hurting others), often bully other ways: through put-downs and cruel comments that are not direct. So if someone posts a comment on the internet that makes an indirect comment about someone's clothing or habits, can anything really be proven? And when is a remark about fashion or hairstyles go from being just an expression of opinion to being a form of persecution?

Bullies often also work through exclusion as much as anything else. How can that be stopped?

So, if the law is just meant to stop threats, that is one thing. But to stop the hydra of bullying, targeting specific expressions is both very hard, and perhaps not right at all.

CS takes care of cyberbullies...

[Anonymous Coward]

"BOOMHEADSHOT!!! stop camping, BOOMHEADSHOT!!!, you lamer... ... BOOMHEADSHOT!!!"

Works also in real life (according to infotainment).

No control off school?

[spune]

> "School officials do not generally have control over what students do outside of school,"

Who wrote this and when was the last time they were inside a school? In the past several years, nationwide it has been reaffirmed that schools can punish kids for whatever the school wants. Smoked something over the weekend? That's the school's business. Made fun of your teacher on MySpace from your home computer? That's the school's business again. School officials do have control of students outside of school, and increasingly have sweeping powers that are rarely even contested.

They threw babies out of the incubatorsI

[gd23ka]

"Kylie Kenney explained how some kids at her school had created a web site that called for her death, then harassed her for several years with phone calls and e-mails, even after she transferred schools."

I call bullshit! Come on! Kids with an attention span of less than thirty seconds harass a girl
for years after she left the school??! Get real and spare us the "They threw the babies out of
the incubator"- PR-spin.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.htm l

Odd place to start

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't take care of the bullying going on inside the school so why should they start on the web. When a rumour is started inside the school how do they control that? I hope some of the kids getting harassed are hacker geeks. Talk about some cyber retaliation. Just defile their myspace page or render their pc useless.

Here's a novel thought...

[DoctorPepper]

Make the parents culpable for what their nasty little whelps do. The vast majority of this stuff goes on either because the bully's parents don't know, or they just don't care. Either way, the parents aren't doing their job properly.

Perhaps if these parents had to pay some hefty fines and/or do some jail time for their offspring's indiscretions, they might be a bit more inclined to pay more attention to what their kids are doing.

Was I bullied? Yes, mercilessly. I was one of those skinny, geeky kids back in high school (science nerd), as were, I suspect, quite a few other Slashdotters. I am just thankful that was back in the 1970's, before computers and the Internet revolution. At least I was safe in my own home.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[Paulrothrock]

Well, nowadays the geeky kids are the ones who have the power. It would be so easy to hack someone's system to put kiddie porn on it and get them charged with a felony, especially the mouth-breathing troglodites that bullies usually are.

Heck, they probably already have something on their computer that they could get in trouble for. Just hack in, find the evidence, and submit it anonymously to the police. Problem solved.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[duflar]

"nowadays the geeky kids are the ones who have the power"??? are you kidding me? Parents who let their children run wild are letting their kids run wild. That's it. Knowing what your kids do is part of PARENTING. Parents have the initial and potentially the strongest influence on the behavior of their children. Everything their children do from before they are 1 week old until long after they have their children is heavily influenced by what their parents chose to do and chose to NOT do.(and how they do it.) It's pathetic how people look for other excuses to cover their own mistakes. No one ever said parenting was easy, but society grants so many rights to parents that it'd be nice if they actually had a responsibility or two along the way. Contrary to what lawmakers seem to believe, there's more to parenting than not murdering your children and not explicitly commanding them to commit crimes. There are plenty of other ways that they can (and do)screw up. If your kid kills himself/herself because of online harassment, one of the first reactions should be to investigate the parents of the deceased to see if they need to have their surviving children removed from them.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. I'm a librarian at a public library, and we banned a local student for a month for vandalism and harassment. He just kept coming. We kept throwing him out and then calling the cops to escort him out, but until the director finally agreed to press trespassing charges, he (and his parents) didn't care. After he was socked with four trespassing charges, the associated fines, and the threat of a juvenile detention facility if he received one more charge, his parents suddenly started making sure he didn't visit the library anymore while he was banned.

It's too bad it went that far, but we'd sent two letters home and the director had called and talked to his mother on the telephone, and the police had also had some words with them. They had plenty of warning.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Make the parents culpable for what their nasty little whelps do.

If I have a dog, and it bites someone, I can be held accountable. If I have a cat, and it keeps defecating in someones petunias, I can be held accountable. If I have a pet rat, and it escapes and starts breeding, I can be held accountable.

But if I have a child, and I let it run amok, harassing, assaulting, stealing, you name it... I am not held accountable at all? For that matter, neither is my child. So we have crimes being comitted here, for which no one is being held to account. Well, there's one thing I can guarantee. If there are no consequences for an action, that action will be committed.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[Sobrique]

Sadly true. I have a parent who's 'in teaching' who's seen a lot of changes over 25 years of it. To the point where they have children biting and kicking them in class, and there's really not a lot they can do about it. Their parents are the only ones able to discipline the children, and all too often they're unwilling to.

There's a lot of parents who aren't prepared to take responsibilty for their children, which leads to what is essentially feral behaviour. At which point, there's really not a lot of options open to the teachers, short of expulsion or legal action.

We're actively building a 'split culture' where we have a 'middle class' who are working hard and not having many children, and a subclass who don't care, and are breeding because more kids = more benefits. Their children, whilst there are exceptions, don't have the kind of start in life that's really needed to actually achieve much.

The answer? Well, lets start with holding parents responsible for children's behaviour whilst they're under the age of majority. Lets also add in some kind of parenting test. You can't drive a car without a license, and that's far less complicated than bringing up a child. And hey, if you run someone over and mess their life up, then there's consequences to be faced.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[DanQuixote]

There is significant clinical evidence that abusive behavior is passed down through the generations.

Your idea has merit since in many cases it can help disrupt that cycle by getting the parents to introspect instead of just compulsively passing the abuse on down.

Or maybe I'm dreaming, since a fine may just be an opportunity for the parent to teach the child to be angry (and abusive) at the system... avoiding introspection at all costs.

(sigh...)

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[chuckymonkey]

I can relate to that, now what's funny is that I'm the one laughing. I was told several times "You'll never make it in the Army...yada yada" Not only did I make it, I excelled at it. Now I'm out, 22 years old, and am far more successful than any other person in my graduating class. I'm a UNIX systems admin in a very very large company and I even have disposable income. I look at all those kids who told me that I would never make it or bullied me and laugh because there they are working in a deadend job with no future, however I do respect them at least they make an honest living unlike a lot of people these days. I for one will always teach my kids the values of kindness, morality, and equality that I was raised on, however I will also teach them as my dad did me that they need to stand up and fight for what they believe in and never believe anyone when they tell you that you can't do something. After all this skinny little geek who was mercilessly bullied and downed grew up to be a 6'1" 180lb success story of a small hick town. The administrators at my school have even asked me when I go to visit if I would speak to the current students at the school.

On topic a little more, my parents when I was young always payed close attention to what I was doing. If I screwed up and did something that I knew was wrong (all kids do it) their punishment was swift and harsh, but there is one key thing they did also, they explained to me why what I did was wrong and also made sure that despite what I may think that they do love me. That seems to me to be the major problem with kids growing up these days. Their parents just don't spend time with them or relate to them in any way. I will always take time to play with my kids and participate in things they enjoy doing because I will enjoy just spending time with them. I have no use for people that reproduce and see their kids as burdens and or are too busy with their "life" to spend time with their kids, I fucking hate that with all my being. I grew up so poor that we could barely afford food, but at least no matter what my parents work never ever got in the way of spending time with us kids.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[dragonsomnolent]

I could not agree more. I have a neighbor across the street whose 13 year old has (in the last 18 months they lived there) has been kicked out of school twice (once for throwing a chair at the school's principal), and has had the police over there for various fights in the neighborhood at least every other week. The police won't do anything to him (the theory is that they don't want to lock him up for fear he gets worse), and the parents won't do anything to him (because they are really bad parents). I feel very sorry for this young man, because he has no good role model to teach him what is acceptable and what isn't, but at the same time, I think he needs to go to juvee for a while, maybe get bullied around himself. All in all, I do blame the parents, but I fear that by this late stage in his childhood, there is nothing anyone can do.

Re:Here's a novel thought...

[Mdaian]

The problem is a fine would probably just make the parent angry/angrier at their kid. If the child is being abusive it is likely they learnt that abusiveness is an acceptable way of dealing with adverse emotions or problems in their life. If the parent is abusive towards their child, we don't want to give them another reason to abuse them. I don't suppose to know what the solution is here. Some sort of community program to enlighten parents as to how their actions influence their kids - mentally, socially, and emotionally? To be honest, I can't imagine why a program like this hasn't already been devised.

Bill of Rights

[hsmith]

I'd like to know where in the bill of rights there is a qualifier that says you must be above a certain age to have your god given rights given to you. Yes, they may be under age but they still have every damned right that adults have. This is just the govt's way of creating submissive idiots that don't understand their rights. "We never were able to say what we wanted" will continue into adult hood. Much like how recent high school graduates thought the 1st amendment gave "too much freedom"

Public schooling has created a nation of "do what my gov't says" lemmings.

Re:Bill of Rights

[chuckymonkey]

I for one welcome our new politician overlords...oh wait nevermind.

First amendment has little to do with it

[sesquipedalian_one]

Free speech, what a crock! Not all forms of verbal behavior are covered by the first amendment. Is sexual harassment licensed by free speech? The real issue hear is the scope of the school's powers. Clearly, they are entitled to try to stop bullying that occurs on school property. We would be outraged if they didn't, whether that bullying was physical or verbal. The real question is to what extent they have they right to take action when something occurs away from school.

Re:First amendment has little to do with it

[computational super]

Is sexual harassment licensed by free speech?

Well, if anybody ever needed an example of the slippery slope in action, this would be it.

This is rediculous

[DJ Jones]

This kind of over protection of our children is getting out of control. I am convinced this is why the U.S. is falling behind in math and science. We shelter our kids from any possible mal treatment or "bullying" or OMG "letter grading systems" that could "traumatize" them for life. Let me tell you, someday these kids, maybe your kids, are going to grow up and they are going to have to know how to deal with mean people and real life situations.

Because in reality, life is tough. When these kids grow up they're not going to have their school board or the American court system to save them. They're going to have to learn how to survive in the real world, a globalized world that competes on a much higher level. A world where grown-up "bullies" exist as well and they're going to have to learn to deal with them.

I got my ass kicked as a freshman in high school, I got put in my place and I truly believe I am a better person today because of it.

The purpose of "freedom of speech"

[Caspian]

Freedom of speech exists so that the powerless are allowed to criticise the powerful without fear of retribution, not so that the powerful are allowed to torment the powerless without fear of retribution.

Re:The purpose of "freedom of speech"

[ThomsonsPier]

Except that when school bullying is being discussed, there is no way to ensure that retribution upon the powerless will not be forthcoming.

Re:The purpose of "freedom of speech"

[Caspian]

You can't really "ensure" ANYTHING in life. But you can make it much harder to get away with bullying. I remember that in school, bullying was virtually ignored by the school authorities; they pretty much turned a blind eye to the whole thing, both on-campus and off. If that changed, so would bullying.

nothing wrong with the 1st ammendment

[FudRucker]

along with freedom of speech comes being responsible with what an individual says, why do people forget this simple rule...

Cyberbullying usually violates a lot of other laws

[PFI_Optix]

It can be considered stalking, harassment, terroristic threat, and (if other people read what is written) libel. The problem is that the authorities don't take it seriously until a kid gets his hands on a gun and someone gets hurt.

Let's just apply the law as it exists and slap the bullies around when they break the law. If they're posting lies about someone they don't like, charge them with libel. If they're making threats, put them in jail and explain you don't get to do that. We don't need more laws to make this work.

Oh yeah, and also teach the "victim" how to use the ignore button. More often than not bullies get their fun because their target talks back.

So

[Anonymous Coward]

"Out of school? What's the theory behind that, and where does it end?"

So what does the school do if kid "a" gets a restraining order against kid "b"?

You can't have a kid threatening to kill another one outside of school and then legally force them to attend the same school all day. But then maybe the actual laws that are already on the books should be enforced instead of looked over.

"You're moving into a serious nanny state if you allow your educators to effectively assert control over your kids outside of a school environment."

Really? Because it used to be that educators had actual power and respect where they were almost second parents to the kids. It isn't the nanny state that is the problem, it's the parents who have removed educator's power by undermining every bit of their authority that is the problem. So no-tolerance laws are put in place because parents sue when the educators are allowed to make choices.

Re:So

[DeadChobi]

I agree with you completely. One of the things that is broken in our system is that the parents undermine everything, sue over everything, and don't accept that you're a professional when you teach.

When my dad was in school if he got in trouble at school his parents would give him trouble at home. Now it's "I'm going to go in and have a talk with your teacher to try and straighten this out."

Re:So

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm not arguing that the parents shouldn't be doing their damn jobs, just that trying to make up for it by allowing a greater range of power for people who are not parents is a poor solution.

Not only is it not their job, it's also not their responsibility.

Re:So

[professionalfurryele]

Of course the problem is that most teachers are incompetant when it comes to matters of discipline. We barstardise the justice system in school and punish the useful children because they have something to lose.

Until the way school's approach discipline reflects the desirable characteristics of children rather than a half arsed effort to be fair you will always have this problem. Can you imagine being the parent of a smart child, who is bullied at school and told not to hit back? When they get detention for beating a child shitless to ensure the other children know thier place, what would you do?

Ender's Game gives a clear picture of the mental processes of a mature child. In order for useful children to survive school, they have to become the ring leaders, and that can only happen if schools turn a blind eye to their ascension, the way that a blind eye is turn to the ascension of the rich parents children, or the big children.

We have to pick which children we want emerging as leaders. At the moment, we pick the worthless.

Re:So

[DeadChobi]

Do you know why they're told not to hit back? It's not because of fairness. It's because if they were allowed to hit back then the bully's parents would sue the school. Ascension? What the hell are you talking about? That seems rather crackpot. If you're suggesting that it's okay for the smart kid to beat the crap out of people he doesn't like as part of his "ascension" then you're no better than the parents of the children picking on your kid. I dare you to spend a week shadowing a teacher in your school district. Then spend another week interviewing all the people who work for your school about how they have to handle discipline because of the way the laws are written. Then come back and tell me that teachers are incompetent.

And how dare you call anyone worthless. That's the cry of the jaded and bitter child.

Re:So

[professionalfurryele]

You are failing to see my point. The law should not protect the worthless. At the moment the police offer me no protection. People can harrass me, steal from me, heck even kill me and will probably get away with it. I on the other hand can do none of these things. Why? Because the circumstances under which I wish to do these things constitute taking the law into my own hands, and if there is one thing the police hate, it is people busting in on thier monopoly.

For example, I've had several bikes stolen from me, I've been beaten up in the street. Nothing has been done. I've had companies take money from me that wasn't thier's to take. But if I were to defend myself from an attack and kill my would be assailant, you cant bet your arse I'd be in trouble.

Now school is just imposing the law by proxy. Only in school it is even worse because the rules effectively target the well meaning well behaved children. I think the perfect system in a school would be one that is just. But we cant have that, so lets have the next best thing. Lets ensure that those children who will actually grow up to be useful members of society are the leaders. Lets crush those who are ignorant, lets put them in their place. Why? Because the only alternative we seem to have so far is to let the violent, the worthless and the ignorant rule the roost, and that results in chaos.

I don't need to shadow a teacher, I've been to school, I know schools are hell on Earth. The difference is instead of saying "gee, thats hard, what to do", I'm saying "lets do something useful". I know the law is an ass, but I also know that most teachers are incompetant. Out of 16 teachers through high school I would say 2 were actually able to do the job. Most of my teachers were stupider than the top 5% of the students.

Now I'm not saying I would do a better job. I would never become a teacher precisely because I would be crap at it (well I do teach, but at university which is a whole other ball game, there you are an educator, not a baby sitter). However, that doesn't excuse the half arsed job most teachers do. Besides which, I'm saying we need to change the law.

If we cant fix the system to make it fair, lets fix the system to make it useful, and to ensure useful people aren't damaged by the useless.

Finally, I will call people who are worthless exactly that. People who make no contribution to society have no worth. About 5% of children in school fall into this catagory, yet they make life unpleasant for 50-60% of other students at one point or another. The system ensures that it is the most violent, the ones with the least to lose, who get away with their crimes, while ordinary decent kids suffer. I say if we cant fix the system, we at least make it work for society instead of against it.

too many selfish replies

[Anonymous Coward]

It truly is incredible to read some of these posts, selfish motivations to discount anything that restricts any aspect of your lives. I can't wait until some of these people have their own kids this age and get to deal with it.

net id

[twitter]

You'll have to use a Pentium II or less. You should also avoid any commercial UNIX workstations as they've been embedding CPU IDs since the 1980s.

So? The OS does not have to return it to the net, does it? Binary blobs for network cards and "smart" networks bother me more. Everyting else should be able to return something random.

Freedom demands responsibility

[bcharr2]

I am constantly surprised by the number of Americans who have grown up and enjoyed the privileges, protections, and liberties of the wealthiest and most democratic society that humanity has ever seen, only to constantly complain about how bad they have it, how terrible their country is, and how oppressed they and their freedoms are.

To people throughout most of history, the inability to have an active voice in their government, and the strong possibility that they would be imprisoned or killed for voicing dissent with said government, was oppression.

To many Americans, seeking to discipline young people who attempt to belittle and humiliate their classmates with impunity shielded by the anonymity of the internet, is oppression.

If the one thing children learn from these laws is that freedom is not given, but must be earned (even if it was the previous generations that paid the price) and that therefore it demands a certain amount of vigilance from its benefactors to steward their freedoms in a responsible manner, instead of merely exploiting their freedoms for personal satisfaction, then all the better.

Re:Freedom demands responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right people (for the most part) aren't getting dragged off to the gulag for political speech, and the whole point of complaining about this is to make sure that never happens. Boston is good recent example of what happens when well-intentioned, but out of control public officials are not held firmly in check by constitutional protections.

This is about an agency of government, in this case public schools, attempting to assert more and more control over the lives of it's citizens because someone fortunately was thinking of the children. The government is trying to train young people to accept an authoritarian state with constant surveillance and control over all aspects of their lives, so that when they become adults they think that this is normal and won't question the constitutionality of what the government is doing.

I could care less if people weren't able to call someone names, but who gets to make the decision about what is allowed or not. While these things start out well intentioned, they inevitably are abused by political and social interests to limit debate and push their own agenda.

improper 1st amendment interpretation

[Robocoastie]

the 1st amendment historically and quite clearly is about a relationship between the people and the government, not between people. That is why you can be sued for libel, wrongful _x_ and so on.

That being said though I feel common sense should kick in and say that anyone that lets it go so far as to "cause them" to commit suicide had a problem to begin with and the other party does not bear the whole responsibility at all.

There's a simiple solution to so called "cyberbullying" - put the stupid computer in the living room or kitchen NOT in the kids' bedroom so they can be observed, put a more secure OS on the computer and learn to fracking use it parents so you can monitor the computer and even have it automatically filter and/or shut down. STOP pretending your kids are miniature adults, - the psychobabble people are WRONG, kids are children, NOT mini-adults so stop listening to those quacks and do your f-ing jobs parents!

Blanket laws a bad idea

[TheWoozle]

Even here on Slashdot, we see a range of reactions to this issue from "Childhood bullying is just a part of growing up" to "Any bully should be thrown in prison".

Reasonably, the response should be proportional to the offense. One child pushing another on the playground should provoke a different response than one child sending death threats to another.

As with any issue like this, blanket laws tend to remove the ability of those involved to deal with the issue in a proportional manner - instead requiring a Procrustean approach to determining what a violation is and handing out punishment.

While I share the concern over the increasing levels of school violence, and I acknowledge that children can be cruel to one another (I endured my own share of being bullied), I would caution against passing laws that remove the power of the responsible authorities (the parents and school administrators) to deal with the situation in a sane and appropriate manner.

Free Speech?

[Ogive17]

Yes, you have the right of Free Speech protected under the First Amendment.. until what you say infringes on the right of someon else, which makes your speech unprotected.

Threatening another person, in my opinion, infringes on their rights and would not be protected under the First Amendment.... even if it's done on a myspace page.

But you also can't throw the book at every kid who says something.. kids will be kids. It's definitely a fine line to walk.

Re:Free Speech?

[bky1701]

Threatening another person, in my opinion, infringes on their rights and would not be protected under the First Amendment.... even if it's done on a myspace page.

What 'right' are they losing by being "threatened" on myspace? Uhh the right to not be threatened on myspace? Sorry, no.

Obvious

[Renraku]

Should be obvious whats going on.

Get the young children used to being oppressed, their shoulders used to being looked over. If that's all they remember they won't try to fight for anything better.

I missed the good old days when schools wouldn't try to flat out control you. It wasn't until middle school when they decided we couldn't wear 'gang colors' (in the middle of suburbia, where most kids couldn't name the name of any gang in the world). Anything red or blue was banned and grounds for suspension.

That lasted all of a week, because some people organized a mass walk-out. All of the students simply didn't return from lunch. We all stood in the courtyard. They threatened, yelled, etc. Some kids cracked and went back inside. But most everyone was outside. The police basically said, "Nothing we can do here." It sent a very strong message to the decision makers who then actually issued an apology for being dumb.

Educators have been neutered

[Yaddoshi]

My parents are both educators, and based on their stories about work, I've come to the conclusion that today's public school system, at least in New York state, is all about avoiding a lawsuit at all costs. All children pass every grade level, regardless of their academic achievement or ability or willingness to learn. Teachers are no longer permitted to so much as speak in anger while reprimanding a student, much less yell or put their hands on students. They have absolutely no control over their classrooms, and once the students figure this out, daily classes turn into chaos.

This is not fair for the students who actually have a desire to learn. Try learning something in a class where the students openly mock the teacher sometime, and see how much is accomplished in that short 30-40 minute period. It's like trying to be a Microsoft network administrator with a staff that downloads viruses and porn to their computers daily and expect you to fix it - nothing ever gets done. I've been told this issue is not just in New York, but other places as well, especially in the major cities.

How is it remotely possible for an administration that has been effectively neutered by mainstream society to stop cyber bullying?

On top of that, how many parents understand computers enough to be able to prevent their children from committing these deeds. After all, they are the only ones left with the authority to do so short of the local police.

...and people wonder why my wife and I are homeschooling our children.

Re:Educators have been neutered

[Sobrique]

"It's like trying to be a Microsoft network administrator with a staff that downloads viruses and porn to their computers daily and expect you to fix it." What, you mean it's not supposed to be this way?

Re:Educators have been neutered

[Big_Al_B]

I too have a father who taught middle/junior and highschool mathematics for over 40 years until recently retiring. I had him for a teacher at one point and watching him work was amazing to me. By everyone's account he was an outstanding teacher. At reunions I have had both our class valedictorian and our class "discipline case" both seek me out to find out how my father is doing, and to tell me he was the best teacher they had.

So maybe that colors my perspective a bit. But, based on observing my dad and listening to his stories, I would argue that the ability to control a classroom is less a matter of instilling discipline than it is a matter of refocusing the right kids' energies.

Even if you dropped my dad in a brand new classroom environment, it would only take him several minutes to figure out which disruptive kids--there are always a few--he needed to deal with to keep control of a classroom. He would quickly gain control by engaging them immediately in whatever the lesson was, and by then having them play a key role in what he wanted the class to do.

For example, if the concept was "Averages", then he would perhaps create a lesson where everyone's shoe size was measured, and then they'd note the mean, median and mode shoe size and then even go on to correlate that with height or age or whatever. He'd split the class into groups, and then get the otherwise disruptive kids to each take resposibility for compiling the data for one of the groups. They always went for it, because it gave them the attention and control over their environment that they craved. With them on his side, it was easy to keep the whole class on task.

He very, very rarely had discipline problems of any sort, because kids never acted out much in his classes. The discipline case I mentioned from my own class specificly told me that he never gave my dad grief because my dad made him *want* to do well in his class.

I frequently apply what I learned from my dad's classroom skills in my professional life. I recently finished managing a large network deployment that involved people throughout our business. To get it done on well and on time I had to engage several people who have a well-earned reputation for hindering productivity. I gave them near-complete ownership of some aspects of the project, and they did a great job for me.

And, frankly, I do wonder why you're homeschooling your kids. You can't convince me that they are getting the education they need and deserve. Sorry.

Re:Depends on the schools

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon...
Its great you developed a "doesn't bother me" attitude while still in grade school, but a great many kids don't develop their mental "thick skin" so quickly -- some not even at all. I was teased and tormented, physically and emotionally, at school myself -- just at school, mind you, as the pervasive connectedness of the internet was still years away. And even so, had I had access to a firearm on just the wrong day, Columbine might have happened years ahead of when it did. (I was certainly only half an emotional breakdown away from being in the right mindset.) I shudder in horror at the ways bullying can literally follow some unlucky victim around (any location or time of day) these days. Still, I don't think a specific "law" necessarily needs to be drafted just because bullying has moved online. I also don't know what would really "help" the victims, though, either.

This is silly

[Pig Hogger]

Teach kids not to give a rat's ass about what others say.

I went to a french private school, where everything was imported from France, up to the teaching methods.

One of those was that, whenever you screwed-up, the teacher would encourage other kids to laugh at you. So, under those circumstances, you quickly learned not to give a shit about what others said of you.

Re:This is silly

[dvicci]

"Teach kids not to give a rat's ass about what others say."

Far better to teach kids to respect each other. It's a real short trip from not caring what they say, to not caring how they feel. Children can be cruel enough as it is w/o encouraging that. Teach them compassion and respect, a sense of community and belonging, rather than apathy.

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom to bully...

[kinglink]

It's been seen time and time again, freedom of speech is NOT absolute freedom. Threatening someone still is a crime. Going up to people and saying "I'm going to kill you" will still get you put in jail.

Slander and Libel shouldn't be possible if we have true freedom of speech, but of course just because you've the freedom of speech, doesn't mean your speech should take away other's rights or make them fearful.

Re:Freedom of speech is NOT freedom to bully...

[Creepy Crawler]

Lets take the example what we talk about.

Amendment 1

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.

Ok. Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. So, you can say whatever the fuck you want and know that your speech isnt "banned". However, you take responsibility for what you say. Common law has always seen "bad stuff" in person to person crimes (Murder, Rape and Robbery.. real crimes in which somebody is the looser). If you claim to say that you'll do those actions, you're gonna pay for the consequences.

Bullshit

[iceperson]

I hear stuff like this all of the time and I can say that in the real world you don't have to put up with teasing and bullying. Lastly, bullying doesn't make victims stronger. It scars them, and many times it causes lasting trauma that can affect the victim's ability to function in the workplace. In fact, many people who have suffered long term abuse from bullies can't even have a real relationship with another human being. Not everyone is you, stop projecting your experiences and your abilities to cope on everyone else.

non-school bullying in Korea and Japan

[peter303]

I've heard people will make allegations agaisnt one another in the blogoshere in the these countries, then thousands will harass the allegee to point of suicide, divorce or job loss. Its often hard to track down who made the original allegation and whether there was any truth to it.

There is also some net vigliantism in the USA. The Dateline - Perverted Justice team come to mind where they post identities of pedophile stalkers. But there have been allegations of mistakes in the past, and a suicide of a defendent on NBC this week.

To me this sounds like a potent weapon. I wonder if the mobs or the government have the wisdom not to abuse it.

Direct Involvement as a last restort

[dws90]

Schools should have the ability to intervene, but only when the parent option has failed. If a school notices that one of their students is bullying another off of school grounds and disrupting the student's learning, then they should call the parents of both kids. It's then up to the parents of the offending kid to get him (or her) to stop. That's the ideal world. But this world certainly isn't ideal.

hile that would work much of the time, there are some pretty pathetic parents out there - parents who won't care or who actually encourage that kind of behavior ("It's all part of growing up"). The parents of the victim, of course, have absolutely no control over the offender (unless they lived in Texas, in which case they would just go over and shoot the son-of-a-*****), and so nothing can be done. This is where the school comes in. It does have power over the offender, and by now the offender is becoming a major disruption to the learning environment. If the parents aren't doing anything, it's the schools duty to step in. If the bullying happened on-campus, of course, then the school should always be able to step in. On campus, it's god.

Think about the big, grown-up person version of this: an adult is facing "bullying" via the internet from someone that they know IRL. It gets so bad that they can no longer get their job done. The first step, of course, is to contact the offender, and tell him (or her....then again, all women on the Internet are men, so that point's moot) to stop. Of course, this doesn't always work, and there's nothing that the victim can do to stop it himself. Instead, the next step is to either file a lawsuit or contact the police. The courts and the police are the adult version of the school in this case - they intervene when the victim has exhausted every other option that he can do on his own.

Notaries Public

[querist]

I do not know in which state you live, but here in South Carolina a Notary Public is technically an officer of the court. The whole purpose behind the concept of Notaries Public is that they are appointed to serve as the verification point for such things.

In theory, at least here in SC, all notary signatures are equivalent. In other words, they could not require that you use any particular notary for anything. Again, the whole purpose behind a notary is that the notary is the trusted neutral party. (that is why in many states - but not SC - you cannot notarize family member signatures)

("disclaimer" I bave been a South Carolina Notary since 1994, my mother has been one in Mass. for over 40 years, my sister is a notary in Mass, etc. Having notaries in the family and as friends is really handy at times.)

Notary Trivia: In South Carolina, a Notary is allowed to sign marriage certificates along with a judge, a justice of the peace, and an ordained minister.

Re:Notaries Public

[Alchemar]

I am in Texas, and was previously under the belief that any notaray was the equivelent of any other, hence the purpose of getting something notarized. All I can get out of the school board is that is is "official policy" that it be done in front of the principle. When I did take off work to show up at the appointed time, the principle was not there, the notary made a comment about me showing up 10 min before her time to go home and expecting her to drop what she is doing to fill out an affidavit. When the school did get back to me on this policy, it is not in any of the written policies, but if you go to the schools web site and follow several links, it "clearly" states in the print at the bottom of the banner on top of the webpage that affidavits must be filled out in person.

Re:Notaries Public

[Alchemar]

They have changed up the website a little, and have more clearly worded the request, and have put it towards the bottom of the page since registration at the begining of the year. Still states it must be notorized at the school. They also changed it to state the parent/guardian had to pay for false enrollment. The affidavit I was required to sign clearly states the property holder is required to pay the fees if residence was changed without notifying the school. Hear is the link:

http://www.pasadenaisd.org/studentsvcs/frame.htm

Then click Enrollment on the top menu, because you can't even link directly to the page.

How common is cyberbullying?

[yuna49]

The arstechnica article reports that, according to "Fight Crime: Invest in Kids," one out of every three teenagers is the target of cyberbullying. I found this figure so implausible that I had to track down the source, which is a survey conducted on behalf of that organization by Opinion Research Corporation. Here's the actual question which I suspect is the basis for this "one in three" claim:

In the past year, how many times have any mean, threatening or embarrassing things been said about you or to you through email, instant messages, websites such as MySpace, Friendster, etc., chat rooms or text messages?

All told, 178 of the 500 (weighted) respondents, or 36%, answered affirmatively to this question. Of those, 114 (or 64% of those responding affirmatively) said this happened only once or twice in the past year. Kids have been saying "mean, threatening or embarrassing things" about one another since humans walked upright. Nowhere in the survey were these kids asked about whether "mean, threatening or embarrassing things" were said to them in any other venue besides online. Perhaps one in three teens would say they had heard similar things said to or about them in person, on paper, on blackboards, above urinals, etc. Perhaps the rate would even be higher than one in three, but we won't know the answer to that from this survey.

I'm certainly opposed to bullying, but wacko statistics like this one make it harder to take these people seriously.

I'd have to say that the arstechnica editor didn't do a very good job here either. Not only is there no link to the data supporting this claim, but the report simply cites this statistic unquestioningly.

This is not a good idea

[AxemRed]

Targeted harassment, even if not directly threatening, is already illegal. The only thing that this law could cover, that others do not, is general "bad-mouthing." The problem is, talking bad about someone is acceptable in some cases and not acceptable in others. I have a feeling that, if enacted, this is going to turn into another zero-tolerance-type mess where good kids are going to end up with criminal records even though they didn't do anything wrong.

Re:This is not a good idea

[AxemRed]

Here's how "harassment" is defined by Indiana's law:

"Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.

That already prohibits pretty much all cyber-bullying.

Re:This is not a good idea

[Captain Sarcastic]

...turn into another zero-tolerance-type mess ...

From what I've seen, "zero-tolerance" policies usually ends up as "zero-intelligence" policies.

social agreements backed up by legislation

[fantomas]

I agree, I think social agreements are the most powerful means of getting everybody to buy into a way of working and living together. You don't need to resort to laws where everybody agrees what the social norms are. The most adhered to 'laws' are those which people adhere to because they believe in the values: don't punch small kids, show respect to old folks, etc. However when people don't subscribe to those values they may be more likely to break the 'laws' whether legislated or not. As you note you would then hope that such offenders will modify their behaviour when told to by figures of authority such as Teachers or Parents. Unfortunately, sometimes that is not effective, and for people who won't listen to this broader establishment, some further regulatory procedures are required.

What happens, for example when a teacher tells a kid not to bully other kids, and the kid tells the teacher to go away, and the troublesome kid is backed up by his parents who don't care /think it's funny/ encourage him to bully the other kids? Some level of escalation is required such as excluding the bully from school. Ultimately there may need to be recourse to legislation, perhaps if the excluded bully then attacks the other kids outside the school.

I think we're in agreement - legislation needs to be a last ditch answer, but unfortunately, I'd suggest that not everybody buys into societal norms and in a minority of cases it is required.

Re: mod parent UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandparent wrote:

I live in one of the few states where it is illegal not to have your ID on you. ... Now they are trying to pass a law making a request for a parent teacher conference the same as a court supeana, if you don't show up, then you get a $500.00 fine, and a criminal record.

Parent wrote:

What state do you live in so that I know never to move there?

Seconded. Also, mod grandparent down if he doesn't name the state. If someone makes a claim like that, they better be prepared to prove it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This Stuff End Up Being About Homosexuals Etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Schools will let bullying get out of hand so that parents and others will get desperate and accept any rules - which will include not being able to disagree with homosexuality and other left wing bandwagon issues(it will be considered hurtful - awwww). Its already happening in the UK. This sort of Hegelian dialectic is what these groups practice quite often. They let streses build and then offer people a solution that seems needed but advances their fetid agenda and makes things worse. I don't know how people let their kids go to public schools - they fail teaching and excell at "re-education".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/12/12/nchurch12.xml

Re: mod parent UP

[TheSkyIsPurple]

OP could always SAY they are from a state, but how can we trust that.

They need to get their address certified by my notary friend before I believe them =-)

Re: to be or not to be

[Anonymous Coward]

OP could always SAY they are from a state, but how can we trust that.

Whether or not they actually live there is irrelevant. Once they name a state, we can independently attempt to verify the claims made by the GGGP.

Won't somebody think of the children's karma!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haw haw, you got modded down, it made you suicidal and now your dead. Haw Haw.

If only there was some kind of law, to stop people saying hurtful stuff to other people that makes them unhappy. But the law should only deal with it online, because then we have another excuse to regulate the internet. Which is our real aim with these 'protect the children' laws.

Oh lord, wont somebody think of the children's karma!!

American schools

[metamatic]

I volunteered to help with a Black Family Technology Awareness Week thing at a public school, showing city kids and their families computers, trying to get them interested.

I had naturally read endless horror stories about American schools. I was somewhat surprised when I turned up and found that there were no metal detectors I had to walk through. There was no bullet proof glass on the doors. I wasn't asked to hand over federal ID or submit to an anal probe. They didn't require a lengthy background check.

So I guess the question is, where do you live that the schools are that bad?

Re:American schools

[GregNorc]

The suburbs. I've had the unique chance to go to a very dangerous school and a very rich upper middle class school. For some reason they were jumpier in suburban Upper St. Clair than in the ghettos of Pittsburgh.

when parents fail, someone should step in.

[duflar]

I don't think I would object if school systems individually had uniform codes of conduct for acceptable online behavior that included online harassment. I would, of course, have very strict rules about enforcement. For example, in order for a student to face consequences, there has to be a complaint from another student(or teacher), a specific set of published rules that have been violated, and a chance given for the person to simply stop or retract. Having the city, state, or national government regulate this sort of thing is way over the top. My initial feeling was that it's the parents' job to do this, but I think I agree that schools need to pass rules when parents fail. It already happens with schools that send food home with students who have parents that don't feed them over the weekend, I suppose this could fall along the lines of that logic. When parents make mistakes, all of society pays. Since so many parents make so many mistakes, it's a viable and correct solution for schools to step in and do what parents should have done.

Workplace sexual harassment analogy

[scardina]

If one employee repeatedly makes unwelcome lewd remarks to another outside of work, it could create a hostile environment in the workplace. It doesn't matter that the actual harassment was outside the workplace. Well for students, school is their workplace. The Supreme Court says if conduct outside the school has an impact inside the school, then school authorities can take action. I see a lot of examples posted of schools abusing their authority, but the principle is sound and would be completely appropriate in many cases I can imagine.

Bullying job interview

[brouski]

I had one of those job interviews once. "Goodnight, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. Goodnight, ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding."

First Amendment only restricts federal government

[Tuxide]

I am not a lawyer, but when I read the First Amendment, I see it as a restriction on the federal government and not the states. The first two words of it are The Congress. It is amendments such as the Fourteenth that makes the states (including public schools) obligated to protect students from cyberbullying.

The 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.

"Will you take us to Mt. Spashmore?"

[HTH NE1]

How can you "verbally torture" someone ?

[Homer asleep on the couch, drool dripping out of his mouth]
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No!"

[following Homer walking down the hallway]
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."

[at the dinner table]
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No!"

[as Homer watches television with a beer in his hand]
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No."

[as Homer takes a shower]
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"No!!"
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"NO!!!!"

[as Homer tries to get some sleep]
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"NO!!!!!!"
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"NO!!!!!!!!"
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"NOOO!!"
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"NOOOOO!!!"
[Marge pulls her pillow over her head]
"If I take you will you two SHUT UP AND QUIT BUGGING ME!"
"Yeah!"
"Of course!"
"Well?"
"Will you take us to Mt. Splashmore?"
"YES!"
"Thanks, dad!"

on the internet, everyone knows

[PMuse]

People are always trying to make new rules for online activities when we have perfectly good rules for regular activities.

Why treat cyber-bullying any differently than in-person bullying? There is no need for separate rules. Surely, bullying is less threatening online than in person. Presumably, there are rules about what in-person behaviors are punishable bullying. Nothing more need be punished online than is punished in person. Indeed, since there is a level of detachment in the online experience (distance, physical safety, etc.), the range of online behaviors that merit punishment should probably be narrower.

Similarly, schools limit their supervision to school grounds and school activities. The same limitation can be applied online. If a school computer or school account wasn't used, then the incident is not the school's business.

Actually, the big difference online is that there is always better evidence available of the behavior in question. Bullies are less likely to get away with bullying online. (Of course, this is why the knee-jerk crowd gets so worked up about cyber-anything. Unlike when Bobbi may or may not have yelled threats at Suzi on the playground, in the online world, we have a copy of the offending email.)

Homeschooling

[Dan Slotman]

And, frankly, I do wonder why you're homeschooling your kids. You can't convince me that they are getting the education they need and deserve. Sorry.

I think both your post and the parent's post are excellent. I have one tiny quibble though. Homeschooling is a superb way to educate in a "reading, writing, and arithmetic" sense. However, it is very poor at teaching interpersonal skills, teamwork, and empathy. Homeschooling enables a child to learn to the upper limits of his or her ability, limited only by motivation (either personal or exterior)—what many people don't realize is that a homeschooled child is basically teaching themselves. In my experience as someone homeschooled from first grade through high school with significant exposure to many other homeschoolers, homeschooling works best academically for very bright or very dim students. Bright students will learn far more simply because they will cover more material than a class which needs to wait for slower students. Similarly, dim students benefit from the self-paced environment and increased personal attention available.

I got an excellent and broad education, and you would be hard-pressed to convince me that it was inferior to that of a public school. Learning from a textbook is much harder for me that learning from a lecture (particularly for the hard sciences), but homeschooling was still extremely successful. To reiterate my previous point, the disadvantages of homeschooling are not educational. They are interpersonal.

Mom!

[PPH]

They keep moding me down!

Let the kids deal with it!

[kir]

Let the kids deal with it. Bullying is part of growing up. It's how many of us learned to deal with conflict. In my day, if you were the target of bullying, there were three things you could do -- 1) continue to be bullied 2) fight back or 3) tell the teacher/principal/parents. Only one of these usually gives you a positive outcome (ummm... it's number two BTW).

I was once the target of a bully when I lived in Germany. There was this kid "God Damn it Jamie" (because that's what his Mom always yelled from the balcony -- "God damn it Jamie, get your ass in the house", "God damn it Jamie, I told you not to get into a fight", etc.) who would beat my ass daily on the housing complex playground. Initially, I just let him whoop me hoping he'd eventually get bored. When that didn't happen, I told my Mom. She told me I needed to deal with it on my own -- that she wouldn't always be there to intervene. I cried and cried because my Mom wouldn't help me. What was I to do?

Well... everyone knows what's next. One day I snapped. I got on top of "God Damn It Jamie", grabbed two handfuls of his curly locks, and commenced to bashing his head into the pavement. My Dad had to pull me off of him.

Needless to say "God Damn It Jamie" never messed with me again. But there was another great benefit to my cracking his melon... I gained confidence in myself. Because of this gained confidence, I put off a different vibe -- one that was not as compatible with being bullied. Now, this isn't to say I was never again the target off bullying, but I knew I could fight back and that knowledge probably kept me out of the sights of more bullies than I know.

Look... life is hard. If cyber-bullying is the worst thing a kid in school has to worry about, he should consider himself lucky. We Americans are becoming incredibly soft. A law to protect kids from cyber-bullying is not only ridiculous, it's dangerous (insert slippery slope reference). Let the kids deal with it. They're much stronger and smarter than we give them credit for.

The problem is

[Sycraft-fu]

Too many people think of freedom on narrow, selfish terms. To them freedom means that nobody tells them what to do. Ok, fair enough, but that is too shallow a definition of freedom in a society. I mean there are countries out there like this. There are African nations that have effectively no government at all. There's no cops who are going to tell you it's illegal to do or say something. So that's real freedom right? Well the problem is that it only applies to the powerful. You get a bunch of guys with guns to listen to you, you have the ability to inflict your will on others. If you don't, well then one of those guys with guns is going to inflict their will on you. They will take away your freedoms, even though they are the cops.

So what you come down to is that to truly have a free society you have to try to maximize everyone's freedoms. You want everyone to be as free to do what they want as possible. That, of course, means limiting them from doing things that would limit others. That ultimately leads to everyone being more free, than if you just said "Well let people do as they please" in which case only the powerful are free.

That's just not something a lot of people understand. The take a very selfish view that freedom applies to them only.

Laws already exist. Lazy cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

Threatening someone with bodily harm is already illegal. So why not just enforce the law that already exists to punish those that threaten?

Yeah, right.

[Mark of THE CITY]

#2 (fight back) was advocated by my dad, but as far as the school was concerned, made me "just as guilty." Swearing back at them was out too; it was too unfamiliar a behavior to be an effective weapon. Walking (or running) away was essentially impossible; they'd follow me and hit me in the back.

School is like prison: the authorities only think they're in charge. I know better, and many others do, too.

Re:First Amendment only restricts federal governme

[Mark of THE CITY]

True, however, state constitutions can restrict state government and its sub-entities in identical fashion.

Yes and no

[FishinDave]

Yes, schools have the SCOTUS' blessing to regulate student conduct and speech that "materially and substantially disrupts the educational environment". The meanings of the adjectives "materially" and "substantially" is the subject of much debate and overreaching interpretation by schoolers.

IMHO, "materially" should be interpreted to mean, "the disruption can be observed objectively by a third party". A student's reaction to a spitball in his ear is an easy example. But what about a student who claims he can't concentrate on his studies because of something another student allegedly said to or about him (on or off campus)?

First, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in compliance with the Bill of Rights, that the alleged disrupter actually said substantially what the alleged victim claims was said.

Second, one must look to the alleged victim's material performance (things teachers record, i. e., grades, class participation, on-time homework, etc.) before and after the alleged disruption. No degradation, no material disruption. A student's mere claim that the alleged disruption "makes it harder" to maintain his performance level is not material in and of itself. (It might rise to materiality if before-and-after records of hours spent on homework, papers crumpled and redone, and other objective metrics of effort are kept. But who keeps such records?)

Third, one must establish beyond reasonable doubt that what was said or done was the critical cause of the observed degradation in performance. That is, the material and substantial disruption would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged offense. The defense can raise doubt in the form of other factors that may have caused the degradation... unless those damned privacy laws prevent such discovery.

The SCOTUS has ruled (not in these words) that "substantially" means "more than an isolated and very transient" disruption. A student cannot be punished for a single fart that cracks up a whole class for a few seconds. But repeated farting substantially and materially disrupts teaching and learning. (How to respond to repeated farting involves the questions of intent and control.)

"The educational environment" also has vague boundaries. They have been expanded beyond the walls of the classroom, reasonably encompassing all school property and school-sponsored events - but including the rather questionable category of purely social rather than educational events (dances, bowling leagues, football games, etc.) Still, the physical boundaries of school authority are pretty well defined.

The boundary between what is "educational" and what is none of the school's business is a major bone of contention. "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" highlights the question of whether drug policy is a matter of education or politics. Are t-shirts promoting Insane Clown Posse banned out of legitimate concern for student safety (substantial and material fights between rival fan groups within a specific school's physical boundaries) or because school board members don't like the music and want ICP banned district-wide, even where no material and substantial disruption has occurred?

I believe that out-of-bounds conduct or speech which causes in-bounds disruption of education falls within a school's purview. The point is not from where you mail a letter bomb; the principal crime occurs where it explodes (or is discovered and causes disruption). Again, substantial, material disruption and critical causation must be established beyond reasonable doubt, without violating the Bill of Rights.

have described the ingredients of justice as it is defined in the U. S. Quite obviously, schools are abysmal failures at dispensing justice. Schoolers lack the necessary training, resources, and most importantly the INCLINATION to dispense justice. When presented with a problem, they are only interested in making it go away as expediently as possible. As J. Edgar Hoover said, "Justice is in