Slashdot Mirror
PA Appeals Court Weighs Punishment For Students' Online Parodies
crimeandpunishment writes "Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline? A US Appeals Court in Pennsylvania heard arguments Thursday on a case that could have far-reaching implications. The issue involves the suspension of two students, from two different Pennsylvania school districts, for web postings they made on their home computers. The students posted parody profiles on MySpace that mocked their principals. The American Civil Liberties Union argued on behalf of the students."
The school district should just give these kids laptops with cameras that the school admin can activate anytime! Viola! Problem solved.
People still use myspace?
She used her principal's photograph and described him as a pedophile and mentioned a sex act. The girl later apologized, took down the page and was suspended for 10 days.
OK, it's one thing to parody, it's another to accuse someone of a crime that will ruin them for the rest of their life. I think those kids shouldn't be suspended for parodies but when they are using actual images and making false accusations along with them, that's another matter. That fake profile could have gotten that principle murdered. There are many vigilantes out there who would love to knock off a child molester. Then there's the whole social stigma and ruining his life.
Those kids went way too far - they went beyond parody.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
"Teachers might say this is a teachable moment," McKee said.
And the lesson is hide and deny. Honestly, how long will it take kids to convert to anonymous attacks or posting under some other person's name?
...between humor and malicious behavior. We don't excuse a schoolyard bully if he claims, "I was just having fun." Neither should we ignore malicious false statements merely because someone claims, "I was just doing a parody."
Accusations against teachers and principles of sexual misconduct against their students are typically taken very seriously (with good reason). So how is a student who makes such statements, apparently in retaliation for being disciplined at school, that different from a student who retaliates by pulling a fire alarm?
If something happens on school grounds or using school equipment, the school can discipline.
If something happens off school grounds and not using school equipment that is damaging or may be illegal, involve the criminal justice system or sue.
Why is this so hard?
side note: Homeschooling parents are looking pretty smart, aren't they?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I'm glad that Taco never learned about my FakeBook page for him where I say he's fat and likes to poop a lot. He really could take me to the cleaners on that one.
and:
It’s a tough one. The courts have found repeatedly that children don’t enjoy complete constitutional rights, especially within the context of schooling. However they do have some degree of first amendment right – as long as that doesn’t prove to be a disruption. The court is supposed to apply the Tinker Test (derived from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District which can be found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) – which comes down to an assessment of whether behaviour “"materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” There are subsequent cases that further refined the Tinker standard, which can be read about at the wiki page, but they all repeated the general rule that students do not enjoy unabridged free speech.
So the question for us really is whether the creation of those fake profiles could be counted as disruptive to discipline in the operation of the school. There are, of course, compelling points on both sides. The question of defamation and the extreme damage accusations of paedophilia causes are also relevant.
A 14-year-old Blue Mountain student who had been cited for a dress-code violation created a fake profile of a principal purportedly from Alabama. She used her principal's photograph and described him as a pedophile and mentioned a sex act. The girl later apologized, took down the page and was suspended for 10 days.
That is pretty disgusting for anyone to do to any other human being, especially to anyone that makes a living from working with kids - but I don't think the school should be doling out any punishment. This should be a matter purely for the courts.
which is totally what she said
If we can make fun of the POTUS, we can make fun of a principal.
Seriously. You're in charge of a bunch of angsty teenagers. You aren't nearly as badass as you think you are. People talk smack...get over it.
Living With a Nerd
There is a general rule of law in the United States based on the concept of a "reasonable adult". Each of the first ten amendments of the American Constitution (and their analogues elsewhere) comes with the unwritten assumption that a reasonable adult will use these freedoms for the betterment of the community. The right to bear arms does not grant me the right to murder my neighbor because I don't like the car he drives. The right to peacefully assemble and protest the actions of government does not grant me the right to riot and destroy the property of others. In this case, the right to free speech does not grant the right to make false accusations. Despite a more liberal interpretation of law in recent years, slander and libel are still criminal acts, not protected by the first amendment. Would a reasonable adult consider J.L.'s parody to hold any truth? Probably not. Would a reasonable adult consider J.S.'s fake profile to hold any truth? Considering the forum on which it was placed, I would have to say yes, as there have been numerous instances of principals and teachers creating just such a profile. Therefore, the issue isn't whether schools have a right to police students' activities outside of school; but rather if actions taken in the world of cyberspace can or should be held to the same standards as those taken in print or public discourse.
The clear intent of both students was to harass the teachers and cause disruption by undermining their authority. The publication was targeted at an audience (their peers), and the effect was felt inside the school.
At this point, I could be describing: posting on the intartubes; putting up posters near the school with the same content; waving a placard outside the school gates; standing outside the window and yelling.
In each case, the action was done outside the school, but the effects were felt inside it, and that is the salient point.
Schools must be able to respond to actions that effect them by disciplining or excluding the student. That's independent of any civil or criminal actions brought against the students by the libelled individuals, and the police and prosecution services.
Can we seriously countenance that a school can discipline or exclude a student for standing up in a classroom and yelling that Principal Peterson is a kiddie fiddler, but that it can't take action if the student moves three feet and yells the accusation in through the open window?
If so, then schools might as well hand out copies of Lord of the Flies as their conduct rules.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
A person has every right to the freedom of speach. Damn it. The right to dicipline never made it to the constitution. The constitution is the highest law of all in their jurisdiction, and mine too. So they have the right to freedom of speach. Just like Robin of Locksley was told, "Kings will rise again until sheep become lions". Is there not a modern day society that reconizes this fact? Eventually, someone will get pissed off enough to start a revolution. I will not be afraid to be that person.
I agree that there is a line between libel/slander and using free speech to mock someone. I also would like to know exactly what constitutional rights children do and do not have. Everyone loves to rush to first amendment, yet every state (understandably) has a minimum age to own a rifle (2nd amendment) which no one rushes to overturn. There's also an ambiguous term called emancipation. This term is often used in conjunction with the 'age of majority' which removes parental control. It is my understanding that before this age, one is still a minor and therefore not entitled to the same protections under the constitution as someone who is. Example: a minors parents could have their child committed against their will in a mental health facility without court order. This action, to an adult, would constitute imprisonment without due process.
my question is this... Do they really have rights under the constitution and if so which rights do they have and which ones do they not have? Without rights the whole concept of standing comes in play here.
Calling someone a criminal (pedophile who actively preys on children in this case) without any proof and with what appears to be great malice of forethought is not a parody. None of the definitions of parody fit the bill for what she did. It is libel. Pure, unadulterated, libel. The girl and her family should have been sued into the ground by the principle instead of her getting suspended.
Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline?
;) :) :D
Well, first lets break it into two continuums*. The Students right to free speech and the Schools right to discipline. On the Students their main focus is to learn. On the School their main focus is to teach. Branching between these two continuui is a complex network of social interaction and possible ways the structure of transferring knowledge from one party to the other could proceed. Precedence is on success so it is favored that the Student will learn. Schools seek the most efficient method to process large numbers of Students successfully. Meeting these criteria in a mutual way requires allowances for each others constraints. Students should take shit and Schools shouldn't give it. Disproof?
* With this definition: Continuum. Complete set of all information. The totality of a symbol. Totality means everything that was, is, and will be. To sum up a continuum, logically organize top-down into pieces. Discard all variation or take the set. Sets contain no duplicates. Interrelate unique pieces into theories. Train theories in your mind using mnemonics. Map sequences of action or consequences through the network of relationships between theories. Result quality matches theory quality.
Shh.
The girl who called her principal a pedo was 14 years old. That puts her in high school.
A pedo principal will not seek employment at a high school. He'll go to an elementary school or younger.
Unless, of course, the girl doesn't understand (just like the mainstream media frequently misunderstands) the definition of the word "pedophile".
What we have here is a teachable moment. The kid deserves an "F" on this vocabulary test. Somebody make her write on the chalkboard 1000 times: "Dictionaries are good. Using words without understanding them is bad."
IMHO:
Ok, the first one that the girl did about the Principal being a pedophile is just mean spirited and cruel.
The second one the guy did about the Principal being a drunk and a pot head kinda paints a funny picture...
I completely agree with that is clearly beyond parody, but the real question is "Can schools punish students for web posts?" not "Can people be punished for [inflammatory] libel?".
In a sense, these kids got off easy. They could have had real legal consequences as opposed to a school suspension.
But also let those who are parodied beat the crap out of them, if they can. There was a time where people learned restraint out of fear getting into a fight. Since we've taken that away people have lost any form of restraint, hiding behind their computer. Allowing a little bit of fisticuffs would go a long way in adding responsibility for ones actions.
Outlawing mockery makes a mockery of the law...
The courts should be no place for rude people to be educated, or for those who hold grudges to get satisfaction.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Can we seriously countenance that a school can discipline or exclude a student for standing up in a classroom and yelling that Principal Peterson is a kiddie fiddler, but that it can't take action if the student moves three feet and yells the accusation in through the open window?
Can we seriously countenance that Pennsylvania can execute a man for murdering someone inside Pennsylvania, but that Pennsylvania can't take action if the man moves three feet over to commit the murder inside New York instead (that same 3 foot move also takes execution out of the set of potential punishments)? YES.
If so, then schools might as well hand out copies of Lord of the Flies as their conduct rules.
The geographically-limited ability of States and Municipalities to enforce the rules each sets hasn't had that effect yet.
Actually, the most important difference between Americans and radical Muslims is that only radicals have beliefs like this:
Muslims and their supporters don't count as Americans... if anyone else is thoughtful enough to kill Muslims...
The beliefs of most Americans are no less toxic, and have scarcely caused less harm in the time both have been around. The point of America is that you can be an American, no matter what your personal belief or superstition, and we don't tend to kill people merely for their beliefs. People like you are every bit as much a threat to the American ideal as the most hardcore Sharia supporter.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
What is the "right" to discipline? We give schools the PRIVILEGE to discipline. That PRIVILEGE does not outweigh a person's RIGHT to free speech. How about the Right to due process? Seems the schools have no problem violating that, either.
If the individual members of the school board had a problem with something a student did outside of the school's jurisdiction (whether this particular case or any other you care to name), they should have handled it through the police or the courts just like any other private citizen. Otherwise, they can STFU and DIAF.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
creates children who are not very well socialized
it's also usually the realm of parents who want to indoctrinate their children into a fringe ideology. so you're creating these little brainwashed robots who, without any real peers, can't make up their own minds and put into the proper perspective the bullshit their parents are ramming down their throats
if your ideology is sound, you have no fear of your children comparing your beliefs with the beliefs of others. putting them in isolation to form their beliefs automatically betrays the fact that you fear exposure to other ideas. exposure to other ideas can only strengthen your own ideas. so sheltering your children, sheltering them from exposure to other ideas is a form of weakness, and automatically flags your ideas as suspect
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Satire/parodies are protected speech. Weigh punishment for administrators violating these peoples' rights to public education and free expression.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
For reasons beyond my ken, schools tend to deal with matters internally in lieu of using the courts where legal action could be taken. Granted the courts, IMHO tend to be much too lenient on youthful offenders. This is not parody, defamation of character, possibly criminally negligence, libel, etc. could all apply.
I don't believe the school has overstepped its bounds or authority by suspending the students, they could have been prosecuted. The school may have done them a favor.
The students don't need to 'just' be talked to about hurting someones feelings, they need to be punished, they need to learn to think before they act and that their actions have, sometimes severe, consequences.
Relying on internal discipline in lieu of referring violations of the law to the legal systems is not the right choice when http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-99/campus.html colleges try to hand out internal discipline to rapists in lieu of turning them over to the cops.
Nor is it the right choice when police departments try to limit punishment for illegal beatings, shootings, etc to internal-only discipline measures instead of letting the guilty cops be taken into the court system.
The principle has no power outside of school. If say, his ex-wife made such a post, there would be little he could do about it other than sue.
If say, some anonymous trolls on 4chan made such a post, they would probably get off scot-free.
The principle is obviously abusing his power, by using it to punish for acts outside of his jurisdiction. That would be like punishing children in order to coerce their parents into doing something.
The students need to learn how to do this stuff in a way they can not get caught!
Use anonymous e-mail address to register the account, walk down the street with a laptop and find an open wifi router to use so that it can not be traced back to your house, send anonymous e-mails and texts to let everyone know it is there.
If you do it right the school can not trace it back to a given student. As my kids ;)
if you are getting a public education, you are, obviously, getting exposure to the dominant ideology
if by projection you mean that a public school education means you are indoctrinating your children into a fringe ideology, what is there to say about that?
you believe the dominant ideology is the fringe?
that says a lot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
proper homeschooling doesn't isolate children from outside influences or their peers
step outside your neonazi bunker and experience the world
Back in the bad old days high schools used to set a distance from the school grounds where a student could smoke a cigarette. That included while driving in one's car to the school's parking lot. The excuse was that the sight of a young person smoking gave a delinquent image to the school.
That was unfair then and still is. Schools should not be allowed to reach out and control the community under the banner of making it easier to control students. As a matter of fact, to some degree, it is the absolute responsibility of educators to teach young people to decide when they should allow authorities to control them.
It does no harm if the kids come to school after viewing a mock up of a teacher dancing with a pig or whatever. People get a giggle. No one is harmed, unless they have emotional issues, with being mocked or teased. It is simply part of life. As a matter of fact reading anything on the net including hard core porn is a lot better than the hordes of students who are shooting dope or shooting each other. Their are communities in America where living to be old enough to graduate is a serious challenge.
"step outside your neonazi bunker and experience the world"
which is exactly what homeschool children need to do
go to a school, you have peers. schooled at home, what peers do you have? what more proof do you need of the plainly obvious?
homeschooling deprives children of peer contact. you can talk about pluses and minuses all you want, but disputing a simple truth just makes you look defensive and desperate
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Take the anti-school anti-government arguments to their logical conclusion: A student shoots another student across the street from the school. That's attempted murder, it's a criminal matter. But, the school has NO jurisdiction, right? We don't want it turning into fascism where the principal of a highschool is the absolute ruler of the country, right? So, then, they have NO right to suspend this student? While he's out on bail, he HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND?
At any rate, accusing the principal of being a pedophile is defamation per se. Now, the supreme court has allowed a parody defense for defamation against a public figure, which I guess maybe a principal is, now? But, not if it's done with malice. The student was pissed off and so forged evidence that the principal was a practicing pedophile. That sounds like malice to me. Everybody who is saying that the school should have used legal channels instead, is saying that the principal should have sued, and almost certainly won, for hundreds of thousands. (Per se means you get statutory damages without having to show measurable harm). Yeah, it seems much more reasonable to bankrupt the student than give them a ten day suspension and ask for an apology. What the fuck is wrong with all of you? Are you utterly and irredeemably insane?
Oh, and in 17 US states, making false accusations of crimes is criminal defamation. Not in PA, but it's not true in GENERAL that making false accusations can't get you in prison.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
In a sense, these kids got off easy. They could have had real legal consequences as opposed to a school suspension.
I disagree. Real legal consequences need not be overly onerous. Legal consequences could very appropriately been a few hours of community service and a record expunged at 18. I don't know how if there is a minimum sentence, but certainly the law is capable of having a light hand?
-- "Oh. This guy again."
what any of those complaints have to do with homeschooling versus public schooling, i have no idea
that you think your various gripes with society have their root, somehow, in homeschooling versus public schooling reveals a malformed ability to understand cause and effect on your part. that you think homeschooling is somehow a solution to your complaints is, ironically, a better commentary than anything you have explicitly written about a lack of socialization
you have a low social iq: your ability to reason about the makeup of society and why it is so is not very bright
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I can't believe that this kind of bullshit actually makes it all the way to an appeals court. The adults are acting like children.
Making insulting remarks about principals has been around since, well, since principals have been around. I imagine one of Aristotle's students scrawling, "Aristotle is a lover of goats" with charcoal somewhere in Lyceum.
No one should take such comments seriously. It's not like the students were making death threats. In a couple of days the whole thing is forgotten, even by the student body, and if it continues it gets old and banal pretty quickly.
And what's with this quote? "It's not a matter of where you throw the grenade, it's where the grenade lands." Leaving out the fact that "where you throw the grenade" is the same as "where the grenade lands" (making this a completely stupid statement) comparing such antics to throwing grenades is the height of hyperbole. At worst it is the equivalent of a water balloon, but really it's not much worse than writing "Principal is a butthead" on the bathroom wall.
Truly, if you are a principal, and you DON'T have any students insulting you, you're probably doing something wrong.
Proverbs 21:19
The legal consequences are a civil court procedure. The consequence is not guilty until proven innocent. If a normal person saw the fake homepage, would they believe it? If not, no damage was done.
You have a low logical IQ. You claim, without substantiation I may add, that home-schooled children are not socially well-developed. So, clearly, you believe that public schools do better in this regard.
well let's see: if i place a child in a social environment with his peers for months and years, a public school, as opposed to isolating the child without any peers, at home, one can logically conclude that the home schooled child is not as socially well-developed as the public school child. what other logic and substantiation do you need? i'm not understanding the basis by which you believe a child immersed in a social environment of his peers has the same social development as one who is isolated
and if the home schooled child does have some sort of social exposure: church groups or hunting clubs, for example, why do you assume that these peripheral, once weekly or once monthly groups are somehow equivalent to a daily immersion in a large group of peers? i seriously wonder on what basis you believe isolation for the majority of the week has social development equivalence to immersion amongst peers for the majority of the week. you seem like you are in a lot of denial about the simple and obvious truth here
However, it is patently obvious that the majority of people are NOT socially well-developed, despite having been through a public school system. Being socially well-developed certainly includes understanding and accepting (if not necessarily agreeing with) another person's position, having mutual respect, and exhibiting kindness and empathy --- as opposed to being narcissistic, greedy, and indifferent to other peoples rights, wants, and needs.
and again, we have the irony and the hilarious meta-commentary: you are demonstrating a low social iq here. the social assumptions are numerous:
1. that mutual respect, kindness and empathy are valid yardsticks for judging social development. there are about 30 different other variables you can easily consider as far as social development is concerned
2. that the home schooled child is going to somehow come out ahead in terms of mutual respect, kindness, and empathy, even if that were the valid yardstick. because isolating a child makes these social skills stronger? how?
3. that the various complaints and gripes you have about general society are valid. i find plenty of mutual respect, kindness, and empathy in my dealings with general society. this throws into question your ability to accurately gauge the state of society, which points to some form of social isolation on your part
and finally, and most ironically and hilariously, you display a colossal unexamined narcissism: "everyone out in the wider world is inferior and me in my isolated bunker is superior." a narcissism of self-derived superiority which creates the desire for, and is the creation of, homeschooling. with homeschooling, you have this self-perpetuating fringe of outsiders, who assume they are superior, for a whole arbitrary set of reasons that are not solved by, and in fact are increased by, homeschooling: lack of socialization
now excuse, me, i've overdosed on irony for the day
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We keep hearing in the news of people being fired or disciplined at work, both private sector and public sector employees in that category, based on some dumb thing they posted on Facebook.
What do you think would happen if one of the president's staffers got caught posting a fake Facebook page mocking the president and using obscenities?
In the best case scenario, they would be politely asked to step down.
So if adults are subject to this, what is the justification for students to have stronger free speech protections than the rest of the public?
I'm not sure why the parent of this post is getting so many replies.
Obvious troll is obvious. Obviously.
Well, maybe not. Parent is a wholly deadpan post making it hard to tell if it, perhaps, could have been meant as an ironic comment on the state of our society. Or it could simply be the case the drinkypoo is stupid and really believes that the all-too-common usage of the word as applying to any male who looks for more than a split-second at any teen is actually correct.
But I think the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. Bravo, drinkypoo, on your well-executed troll.
"as such I support this principal in putting a stop to it as quickly as possible."
Agreed, and I'm shocked at the parent's reaction: "The student's mother has said punishing the girl should have been left up to her.
Wow: your daughter is very publicly (shouting it in a classroom is publicly, posting it on myspace is very publicly) accusing school officials of being pedophiles, and you want to send her to her room without dinner? So, I guess next time she falsely accuses a boy of rape she gets no TV for a week?
The student should have definitely been sued, and I'm disappointed the ACLU is defending them, because if their defense is successful my kids will be going to school with teachers and principals that are pedophiles, rapist, murders and drug dealers... or at least that's what it says when I do a google search if the ACLU gets their way.
Oh and the "did this at home doesn't count" excuse doesn't fly: when you tell the whole world your actions you're doing it at school too. 20 yrs ago this would have been the equivalent of coming to school and passing out flyers to every student and staff member.
These kids definitely should have been suspended for their off-campus online actions, because when they get to the real world and create fake myspace profiles of their bosses they'll get a lot more than 10 day suspensions.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Unless I am missing something that case still limited the school's jurisdiction to 'school sponsored events'.
the supreme court has ruled...
in which those with poor social skills continue to put forth hilarious opinions about socialization
teenagers self-socialize. in fact, the "guidance" you refer to is often the first thing to be deconstructed and ridiculed in a teenage peer group
exposed to a large group of ideas, teenagers can sort out and figure out for themselves what are good ideas and bad ideas. this is the way it has always been, and always will be
the alternative you refer to, raising a teenager in social isolation, exposed only to a tiny subset of ideas (his parents) results in a teenager unable to compare and contrast with other social ideas, good or bad
now, plenty of adults have bad ideas. those teenagers with a parge peer group are able to see other social ideas, examine those ideas passed to them by their parents that might be bad, and wind up with ideas superior to that of his parents
but some parent have really, really bad social ideas. in fact, those with the most reactionary and wrong ideas often get very defensive about them, and isolate themselves, and their children: home schooling. now they are perpetuating those bad ideas in children they have purposefully isolated in a monoculture of ideas that the teenager has no ability to derive alternatives to, without any peer groups
so yet again we have the hilarious irony that some people, like you, actually believe the ludicrous: that social isolation results in better socialization. home schooled children have a colossal case of unexamined narcissism, an assumed sense of superiority. this is what home schooling results in: people with large egos and a large sense of superiority, of bad ideas formed in isolation, without any intellectual and social criticism of those mostly reactionary and self-isolating ideas in their formative years
homeschooling is a way for reactionary, narcissistic, antisocial and isolated parents to recreate the same malformed social skills in their children
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline?"
I'm sick to think that I live in a country that actually needs to ask this question. The first amendment plainly spells out the right to free speech. The fact that anyone is even considering limiting it is absurd. "right to discipline" I don't see that anywhere in the constitution, why the hell should it even be compared to the right to free speech? It's not a right. It's just something that the schools have been doing for so long that people somehow believe that it's necessary.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
I'm not saying that libel or slander shouldn't be punishable when done by students, to the same extent that it's punishable when done by adults and with all of the same defenses available.
However, that should be done through the court system, where there's an opportunity for an equitable defense, rather than through the "private court" of the school's disciplinary system.
He can sue for libel assuming he can prove the accusations are false, but the school district should not get involved.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
"20 yrs ago this would have..."
100 years ago I guess this would have been the equivalent of personally going to everyone in the village and repeating these statements?
20 years ago a LOT of shit would have been different. We're not talking about what happened 20 fucking years ago before the widespread use of the internet.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
if you develop your social skills in a social environment, amongst your peers, you are well socialized. i'm sorry this is an incredibly controversial concept to you. truly, i am waaaay out there with that assertion (snicker)
but if you are isolated during your social formative years, and spoonfed preformed ideas by your parents, that you have no ability to examine or criticize (because you are not exposed to any other ideas), then you are not well socialized, your intellectual gifts are stunted (if your ideas aren't challenged, your mind doesn't develop), and you have become an unexamined narcissistic isolated troll who assumes they have a superior understanding of the world based on completely arbitrary disconnected signifiers (40% failure rate in marriages... solved by homeschooling! pffffffft)
i'm glad to see that the fringe continues to barricade themselves in isolation with their assumed sense of superiority. unexamined and uncritical of themselves, only critical of an outside world they don't even fully experience, surely this will preserve some exasperatingly awful ideas for generations to come! yay!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sounds like the school did what was best for the student, and is now being punished for it.
Oh well in that case it's business as usual isn't it?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
the sky is blue?
do i need to prove the sun will rise tomorrow?
do you really need proof that socializing with your peers develops social skills?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It wasn't *criminal* impersonation. Your assertion makes it seem like it is the impersonation that is criminal. Nope. If you commit a crime impersonating someone (e.g. getting freebies by impersonating someone who works at an establishment) then that is criminal impersonation.
What should appen is that
1) the school principal gets NOTHING as a school principal.
2) the school principal AS AN ORDINARY CITIZEN gets to sue for defamation AS AN ORDINARY CITIZEN
End Of Case.
So, taken to the extreme, you support the idea that some murderer can get away with killing someone because the school has put them in detention as punishment.
No, what happens is that the school gets the police in for this criminal matter.
What happens in the case of these PA kids is that the defamed person takes them to court.
What DOESN'T happen is that the school acts as judge and jury and dole out punishments when it's a standard civil or criminal matter.
I'm sorry but i don't believe children should be protected for what they say on line to school officials,adults,other children, if it is bulling,disrespectful,just plain nasty. There CHILDREN,not adults. They haven't earned or learned the right to have adult rights yet. We need to stop treating our children like adults,because they are not adults,not even close.
Jack of all trades,master of none
leads to social skills
that you need something that obvious "proved" means, at best, that you are simply blindly stubborn and are continuing to argue because you don't know when to admit when you are wrong
more likely, you are just trolling the hell out of me, in which case, congrats, i fell for it
for a moment there, i actually believed there was someone out there who was actually as daft as the deluded fool you were play-acting for the sake of a troll
again, congratulations, i actually believed you were real for a moment
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Your idea won't work with mandatory education.
You have raised the issue that is a big part of the problem, but it can be worked around.
A high school teacher of mine explained to the class that given the law which forced mandatory attendance, it was understandable that there were students in his class who had no interest in being there. He made a deal with them: as long as they did not interfere with the efforts of the students who were there to learn, they could do whatever they wanted and he would give them passing grades. If they were disruptive, they would immediately be given a failing grade. The rules required that he take attendance and he would, but he, personally, did not care if those students showed up for class or not.
Two or three times during the first few weeks the teacher told a student or two to either be quiet or leave. That was it; nothing more. For the first couple of weeks a couple of the students showed up for attendance to be taken and then left. In a surprisingly short time, that stopped. One of those students stopped bothering to come at all; the others came and stayed quietly through the class.
That was one of the most disciplined, productive high school classes that I had. And some of the students who would otherwise have been disruptive in class actually started to pay attention in class, and worked for the "C" that they got. Some, a few, even got better than "C".
This is a case where, if someone didn't know the individual, may well have believed the information on the web page. This is pure libel considering the subject matter. He should sue these kids simply to set precedent that parody DOES NOT include false information for the sole purpose of injury . Paradoy is reserved for comedy, where the Larry Flint case was completely humorous smeared with sarcasm. This has none of that, and was done purely to hurt the individual.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Islam if applied in the US would result in a theocracy.
So would Christianity. What's your point?
've been to the Middle East and see how they roll.
And I've met Muslims here -- not all are from the middle east.
there is ONLY reason to tolerate beliefs that are tolerant and SECULAR themselves.
No. No. Freedom of speech means freedom to believe and say whatever crazy shit you want.
It's not the beliefs you should be intolerant of. It's the actions.
I'm not saying you have to like their beliefs, or even respect them. But if you don't at least tolerate them, you're no better than they are.
Tolerance for Islam benefits only Islam.
How shortsighted of you.
Tolerance of all religions, indiscriminately, benefits all religions, and all people, whether they're religious or not. Again, I am speaking of the beliefs here -- no one is asking you to tolerate someone killing in the name of their religion.
an abstract ideal that "everything is everything so we dare not judge anything or resist an enemy",
I said neither of these things.
I'm not saying you can't judge. I'm not saying you can't resist.
I'm saying you must tolerate. That's all.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of the two doors described, I'll go for door number 3.
Your door number 1 is clearly a loser for having the student learn anything much.
Your door number 2 seeks to bankrupt the student's family and seeks to make the student's life a living hell in return for the student making the principle's life a living hell. I find that both cruel and counterproductive. It might arguably be the thing to do if the student was an experienced adult, but not as a minor.
But neither should the student nor their family be excused from this damaging attack with a mere suspension.
In the best of all possible worlds, my door number 3 would have the student mandated to do some work after school to think about and rectify the situation. The page which is a cruel defamatory hatchet piece on the teacher would have to be modified to make it clear it was a prank which went wrong, a prank that is now regretted by the author. And the student should have to create their own page (if they do not already have one), prominently describing how the student went astray, regrets the fruits of the wrongdoing, and seeks now to make amends and conduct themself as a decent citizen.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh and the "did this at home doesn't count" excuse doesn't fly: when you tell the whole world your actions you're doing it at school too. 20 yrs ago this would have been the equivalent of coming to school and passing out flyers to every student and staff member.
Except that they were not at school when they did. Try perhaps equivalent to posting objectionable material on public billboards in town in a manner which would, given benign material, be considered fine. School property is the limit of a principal's jurisdiction except when children are away on school activities and in that case does not extend to rights over visited property but remains limited to the students and school property (e.g. buses).
The important thing to remember is this suit is not about the contents of material the children posted, but about the school trying to exercise power beyond its mandate. The ACLU is acting within its definition in defending them against a principal overstepping the bounds of his authority. This is to my knowledge the only type of case where they step in, regardless of the politics of the accused, which is why they get so much hate-mail. People fail to ignore their own politics and focus on who is being defended, not why.
If this were a slander suit the ACLU would not be interested unless the first amendment was a central issue and the kids might deserve to lose. It's a tragedy that authoritarians have fanned so much hatred against an organization which more than most any other respects and seeks justice under the constitution. Until they do handle such a case, quit bashing the ACLU for no good reason. It's a very good thing those prejudiced against them are not judge and executioner and hopefully not often jury either.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Amen. The principal should have no more control over what a student says or does outside of school hours and off school property than he does over any non-student. By all means he should complain to the student and the student's parents. Hell, sue 'em if he wants to. But I think it's an abuse of his authority to punish the student academically, any more than it's his job to suspend the kid for shoplifting from the local Kwik-E-Mart. It's outside of school, so it's outside his jurisdiction.
If the student posted the same fake MySpace page about some third-party unknown to the principal, would the principal be justified in suspending the student? If a non-student posted the fake MySpace page about the principal, would the principal be justified in taking some sort of personal revenge?
FWIW, I say this as a parent. My own son graduates high school next week and I'd be pissed if his principal meted out punishment for something like this. Of course, I'd also be pissed at my kid and would take appropriate action. If the principal came to me first I might even agree that suspension was an appropriate part of the punishment, depending on the exact circumstances. (Though frankly, I think kids see suspension more as a reward than a punishment.) But I don't think it's appropriate for the principal to punish the kid for something done outside of school. That's my job as the parent, or the court's job if the offense is serious enough.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Yeah, but you're an idiot, so of course you'd think that.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
What if the child had done the same thing to someone on the city zoning board? Would that mean he could use his power and influence to punish the child? Ridiculous I know but rezone the child's home. Would that be proper punishment?
What if the child had used a picture of a principal from somewhere else for the fake Alabama principal? Would her principal be entitled to punish her?
The problem of course is that what is published on the net by "children" (or for that matter many "adults") does not come with an attribute for accuracy and many people don't have the sense to assign one for uncorroborated info from the net. That plus we assume guilt from little or no facts.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Actually, there is a reason why there are courts. Because we as a society decided that allowing lynching / vigilantism is bad for us all. Which this essentially is.
The schools should be forbidden for punishing them themselves, and either have gone to court (real legal consequences, but not big ones. remember, the point is to teach for betterment. not to introduce them to a life of crime!), or STFU.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
There, now it's not a lie.
The ACLU is not defending their actions, they are defending them against inappropriate punishment. There is a difference.
Had the school referred the matter to the parents, or the "injured party" filed a civil act against them, the ACLU would not have been involved. Instead, the school instituted an administrative punishment, which affected the student at school, for actions that were not taken within the school's jurisdiction.
For those who do not understand the difference: You leave work (where your boss is a Carrie Nation fan*). You stop for a libation on the way home. You are then docked half a day's pay for that action. If you are not on call (and therefore not on the company's time), should you pay the penalty?
*For those who don't understand the reference, think "Prohibition".
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
As another has commented, if the defamation occurs on school grounds, while the student is in your charge, suspension might be appropriate. If you wish to have the authority to impose discipline for a students actions, you have to be prepared to take the responsibility that goes along with it.
You are free to pursue civil charges against the student (and their lawful guardian), but you are not free to insert yourself into such actions.
And if you are not prepared to handle it or incapable of doing so, you are in the wrong profession. What you describe is specifically related to your ability as a teacher.
It does not matter that the "speech" is "accessible in school (although your school might want to look at it's policies), it is that it is not expressed on school grounds.
And who left it up to you to decide who is a good parent? Do you have that list of qualities to judge by? Or are you just advocating something similar to Mr. Justice Stewart regarding pornography: "I know it when I see it"?
You seem to think that your job is simply teaching morals. Your job is not to decide what is right and what is wrong (especially when the conduct is out of your sight and control). You are not the keeper of the compass.
If you are wronged in any fashion, there are legal remedies. You seem to advocate bypassing them and acting as the arbiter of morals, even when you are not given such authority.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
But PA isn't one of them. A Colorado man was convicted and sentenced to 23 years for criminal libel he committed on the internet. Internet libel is a felony in Colorado.
Clearly, the girl committed what is called "libel per se". Hence the principal could have sued over it, regardless of how public or famous he was. It's an urban legend that if a libel is so unbelievable or the person famous or public enough they can't sue and win libel laws. Libel that implies criminal conduct is always actionable. There are other exceptions to the rules that protect certain libel from prosecution.
suspending the student may or may not have been appropriate, but libel isn't protected speech. Parody is. Once you cross the line you lose that First Amendment right. Remember not all speech is protected First amendment speech. For one If I say, "I'm coming over there with a bat and I'm going to bash your skull in with it", that's not protected speech. But saying, "I think you need to be taken out to the shed and given 50 lashes of Licorice", probably is.
Doing a a simple google search on "porn gorilla suit" returns over 45,000 hits. Bizarre sex is out there. So, I'd find it very believable of just about any kind of crazy sex act you could dream up as a parody. But, since you're apparently ignorant of the law, I'll educate you. Accusing someone of a notorious crime is always considered libel. It's not considered parody and is not part of protected speech. You can't hide behind parody to commit libel. There are some very clear lines you can't cross even when claiming parody.
To see the complete definition, markup, of Continuum see: Here.
Bill.
Shh.
Wrong. Your power as a teacher ends at the school, unless you want to be held liable for all the actions of the children you've ever taught? Because that sword cuts both ways.
Power to discipline for certain acts germane to the teaching environment relevant to other students vs. the responsibility to discipline for all immoral behavior in perpetuity are quite different things.
In any event, "Your power as a teacher ends at the school" would make it impossible for any child to be marked down or receive detention for failing to do their homework.
I see this case as a very delicate and interesting one to try; both sides have some very good arguments behind them. One thing I think is important to keep in mind is that the school should have some latitude to apply it's punishments for actions which demonstrably effect the school, regardless of whether they were perpetrated on school grounds or using school resources.
If a child leaves school and waits just outside school grounds to bully other children, it may be within the School's right to bring a case against the child or their family legally, but this may also be too heavy handed to have the intended effect. It could potentially be expensive to the school, fruitless as the family is judgement-proof, and too much broohah for the child to properly learn that their behavior was wrong (instead, they might be encouraged by the uproar they cause among the adults. see: Trolling)
If the school instead decides to bring their own disciplinary measures to bear, suspending such a child from school because their actions disrupt school operations instead of because of the location or resources involved would level an appropriate class of discipline against the child with a greater likelihood of allowing the child to learn the error of their ways and to separate the errant child from those whom they are disrupting for a brief period, and without tying up the legal system.
Such action would not preclude the parents of one of the accosted children from leveling a lawsuit, so this is a totally different animal from "police departments under-reacting to serious internal matters" that other posters have brought up.
Let's put this another way: If schools cannot punish for actions outside school grounds, then how can they discipline children for truancy? I say that a mandatory-enrollment public school should have the latitude to distribute internal punishment to students who both use school resources against policy and who disrupt normal school operations in a demonstrable fashion even when not using school resources to do so.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
I don't suppose you might be able to provide a response that, y'know, addresses any of the parent's (or grandparent's) points?