Students Suspended, Expelled Over Facebook Posts

An anonymous reader writes "Two students have been suspended, and one student has been expelled, over negative Facebook postings they made about a teacher. The individuals are in seventh grade at Chapel Hill Middle School, meaning they are either 12 or 13 years old, according. The children are accused of violating a portion of the school code that is a "level one" offense, the worst possible: 'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."

Comments

They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Against making executive decisions based on Facebook posts. It's getting ridiculous.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[rainmouse]

Against making executive decisions based on Facebook posts. It's getting ridiculous.

What these students did was a jailable offense if only they were old enough. Doing things that would land an adult in jail is a fairly good reason to expel someone.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[RobertLTux]

I hate to be the one to do this but it is in fact already illegal to publish such things about a person and yes the kid should be expelled (and then sent to a boarding school).

Slander/Libel is illegal and in this case you can be sued over it.

Facebook 15 years ago would have been a Bulletin Board at the local arcade/kids hangout.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much. We keep pointing out that there is no difference between doing something and doing something *with a computer*, and now you want to create another law that makes this useless differentiation.

If they had posted fliers with the same content, they would have gotten into trouble too.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Collapsing Empire]

What these students did was a jailable offense

Maybe in North Korea or China. In America something like this is at most a civil tort of libel.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[mangu]

Public school teachers only work/teach half as much as they did 25 years ago.

Who will sue them for STEALING an education from students for their own personal comfort/laziness?

And you think the right punishment for being lazy is being jailed on a false accusation of pedophilia?

Tell that to your boss next times he catches you reading Slashdot at work.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[PreparationH67]

Public school teachers only work/teach half as much as they did 25 years ago.
Dictators and hoolums like Gadaffi, Obama, politicians and public servants can walk the straight and narrow path or have their wanderings reported by the people ,for the people. I mean, damn , it's either that or bloody revolt. Whadda you want?

I didn't know viewers of Fox News were smart enough to post on slashdot, or use a computer for that matter.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[pwizard2]

Based on what my grandparents told me when I was growing up, 100-150 years ago, teenagers were far more capable than they are today simply because more was expected of them and they were given actual responsibilities. (and there were consequences for failing to fulfill them) If teens acted like they do today back then, they would have been looked at as being childish and feeble-minded. Even as recently as 70-80 years ago, you would have been disgraced as a parent if your kid did most of the "normal" stuff that teens do today. I'm not convinced that our modern culture of extending "childhood" until age 18 is the right thing to do... it certainly didn't happen a century or more ago and more of often than not people were better off for it.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Noughmad]

Even as recently as 10-20 years ago, you would have been disgraced as a parent if your kid did most of the "normal" stuff that teens do today.

FTFY.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[BizzyM]

I was about to side with the kids on this until I read TFA. They called him a pedophile... screw these kids, expel 'em!

2 things you never throw around lightly: Pedophile & Rape.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[cheekyjohnson]

they would have been looked at as being childish and feeble-minded.

I'm fairly certain that they already were looked at like that no matter how they acted (or at least they definitely are now). Some people seem to view it as 'insulting' when they receive legitimate criticism or information from a child, evading it by insulting them based on their age.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[das3cr]

Have to agree. These schools Vs student facebook postings are ridiculous.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they actually accuse him of being one or did they just "call him a pedophile on the internet".

There's a big difference between calling someone names and actually accusing them of something.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Shadow99_1]

lol, where have you been? Both of those are tossed around all the time and for little or no reason... Now formally saying that to say... the police, doens't happen nearly as often as people accuse others of it in public.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[ancientt]

Sosa is currently drafting an apology to her teacher. At the same time though, she said her school principal, Jolene Morris, violated her privacy by ordering her to log into her Facebook account at a school library computer.

Where exactly is the line on this? If the students had made the statements verbally at a city park should they have been suspended after being ordered to repeat the conversation? If they'd emailed each other from home, should they have been ordered to show their emails by the principal?

What if they'd called the teacher "a very irritating person" on Facebook and the principal had ordered the child to log into her Facebook account. They probably wouldn't have been expelled or suspended, but wouldn't people have been up in arms over the invasion of the right to privacy?

On the other hand, if Sosa had "forgotten" her password at school and deleted the posts at home, would there have been any evidence of the libel? Should she have been suspended, if there was no evidence, for "forgetting" her password?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[ComputerGeek01]

Calling people on their failings is fine. But if Obama decided to skip work for a day then someone reported him for being a "seal-killing lobbyist-appeasing-warmonger" then that report would still be wrong, and it would be less then half as serious as what these girls did.

What these kids did wasn't the same as calling someone a jerk or an idiot on a public forum. They accussed him of being a pedophile, probably the worst false accusation you could have leveled against you and if any inquiry were made then it wouldn't matter if he was found guilty or not this teachers career would be over right there and then. This would be like calling someone a communist 60 or 70 years ago.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[sortius_nod]

Agreed, now get off my lawn!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[countertrolling]

2 things you never throw around lightly: Pedophile & Rape.

Cultural hysteria as a pretext to conduct witch hunts against "undesirables"

Leave the speaker alone. Kill the listeners...

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Even as recently as 70-80 years ago, you would have been disgraced as a parent if your kid did most of the "normal" stuff that teens do today.

Even as recently as 20 years ago, you would have been allowed to discipline them in public. Now some busybody will call the cops if you raise your voice to your child in public or threaten to withhold some privilege.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

>>>something like this is at most a civil tort of libel.

For an adult. For kids it's school expulsion, which they deserve. ----- Also free speech is unlimited but you still have to pay the consequences since most State constitutions read, "...shall be responsible for abuse thereof."

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

they would have been looked at as being childish and feeble-minded.

I'm fairly certain that they already were looked at like that no matter how they acted (or at least they definitely are now). Some people seem to view it as 'insulting' when they receive legitimate criticism or information from a child, evading it by insulting them based on their age.

You really shouldn't project like that; people with a basic grasp of written English might think that you're bitter.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

The line is pretty obvious:

NOBODY who is a government employee has any business reading private facebook or emails w/o first obtaining a warrant issued by a judge, and naming the reason for the search, backed by articulatable evidence why said person is a suspect.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook 15 years ago would have been a Bulletin Board at the local arcade/kids hangout.

True, but the kids back then would have been smart enough not to sign their post on the bulletin board calling the person a pedophile. It would have been an "anonymous post". These kids were stupid enough to do the equivalent of signing that post on the bulletin board.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[contrapunctus]

they should pass a law against starting a sentence in the subject and completing it in the message. It's getting ridiculous.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

2 things you never throw around lightly: Pedophile & Rape.

You forgot: terrorist (eg. "I saw blue, purple and green LED's in his trunk!!11!!one!!")

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[digitig]

screw these kids

If you try, I suspect you will be the one labelled a pedophile.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[digitalchinky]

And 200 to 300 years ago people would have made the same comparisons with distant generations previous to that. Kids these days huh! :-)

The same deal with music.

They don't make 'em like they used to.

And so on and so forth.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[captain_dope_pants]

...They called him a pedophile... screw these kids...
Haha

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Spazmania]

Libel is a civil tort in Georgia where the school is. You can be sued for it. You can cough up a lot of money to compensate your victim. But you can't go to jail.

Unless the actual postings were substantially different than describe in the article, they were pretty clear cut libel.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

I was about to side with the kids on this until I read TFA. They called him a pedophile... screw these kids, expel 'em! 2 things you never throw around lightly: Pedophile & Rape.

If you read the other article, they not only called the teacher a pedophile, but also a rapist and bipolar.

The sort of damage that could do to a teacher's career is unbelievable. And the parents are saying "my children shouldn't be punished so harshly." And threatening to sue the school.

Maybe the parents need to do some parenting. Or get a dose of their own medicine (set up a fake facebook page accusing them of being a pedophile and rapist, and see their reaction).

And maybe a more appropriate punishment is NOT suspending kids, but making them stay LONGER in school. Wash some of the graffiti off the lockers, etc. I could never figure out how suspending a kid was a punishment.

Princpal: "You skipped school yesterday, so we're suspending you today"
Student: "So what you're saying is I have permission to skip school today too? Works for me!"

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[mwvdlee]

It this is starting to happen all the time, perhaps all the more reason to start being more strict.
Problem is that these accusations are often taken as truth by the public, despite it being one of the worst things you can call another human being.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tinkerghost]

What these students did was a jailable offense if only they were old enough. Doing things that would land an adult in jail is a fairly good reason to expel someone.

What they did isn't jailable in any case. It's libel & slander, which are civil claims. If they had filed a police report saying they had been abused by the teacher, that would have been 'filing a false report'. Depending on the district, that's usually a fine & possibly community service.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

The line is pretty obvious:

NOBODY who is a government employee has any business reading private facebook or emails w/o first obtaining a warrant issued by a judge, and naming the reason for the search, backed by articulatable evidence why said person is a suspect.

Get over yourself. The courts have already held that not only are facebook posts are public, but also that even deleted posts can be turned over. Besides, you agree as part of your terms of use that facebook can reveal all sorts of crap. Don't like it - don't use facebook.

And having at least a dozen other students posting comments shows the posts in question were far from a "private communication" (who knows how many other students viewed the posts w/o commenting).

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[penix1]

You are joking right? There is NOTHING private about FaceBook! It's a damned website designed to be viewed, searched, etc. Don't post there if you don't want others to view it. I never did understand this fascination with people posting every drib and drab of their pathetic lives there... And worse, expecting it to be "private" when they have friended everyone under the sun. If you don't want something leaked, then don't post it there plain and simple.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

What these students did was a jailable offense

Maybe in North Korea or China.

...and pretty much everywhere else in the world except USA.

Which, IMHO, is one of the root causes of your problems.
It is amazing that from a nation of the most amicable, friendly individuals comes the most ruthless, cut-throat, dog-eat-dog community.

Some day I will summon up my courage and actually visit the USA.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tibit]

Insightful? You've got to be kidding me. Since when is libel a jailable offense in the U.S.?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[crath]

In today's legal and social environment, what these school kids did is sufficient grounds for the slanderred adult male to be fired, jailed, and be barred from contact with their children; all without any presumption of innocence (on the part of the justice system). In this case, the principal intervened and instead of the male teacher being persecuted the school children were punished.

Society has to make a choice: adults accused of sexual crimes against children must either be presumed innocent until proven guilty; or, those falsely accusing others of such crimes must be severely punished. At the moment, society is chosing the latter course; and so, explusion of the child is the minimum punishment one should expect.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[crath]

Actually, in the eyes of the law, there is no difference. I wish there was a difference, and 25 years ago the difference you point to did exist; but, that has all been discarded in recent years.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Fulminata]

Even were I to admit that teachers teach half as much as they did 25 years ago (which I don't), it would only be to point out that it's because they have twice as many non-teaching responsibilities as they did back then. As budgets have been cut more and more non-teaching responsibilities have been put on the shoulders of teachers. Janitorial services in many districts have been cut, making teachers responsible for cleaning their own classrooms, and sometimes even common areas. Lower level administrative services in many districts have been cut, making teachers responsible for filling out paperwork that used to be handled by school secretaries. Special education programs have been cut, making regular teachers responsible for handling special discipline problems that were previously handled by specialists so that the regular teachers could get on with teaching the regular students.

Of course, class sizes have increased, making the amount of teaching per student go down significantly, but that's not the teachers' fault, and gives the teacher a bigger workload in terms of grading and the like, without any positive return for the students.

Stop blaming teachers for the failure of our educational system and start putting the blame on those responsible: politicians and voters that set policies and refuse to allocate adequate funding.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[chaboud]

State constitutions cannot remove rights granted to individuals by the US constitution. We have Supreme Court rulings on this matter going back 100 years.

Deserving a school expulsion? Hardly. Kids make pedo jokes all the time, and an accusation on a limited forum like facebook, where a student must be compelled to login to provide evidence against him/herself is *hardly* the same thing as a formal or otherwise serious complaint. The overwhelming majority of content on Facebook is self-aggrandizing partial (if any) truth. Does nobody remember what a little braindead idiot they were when they were 12? Middle schoolers are stupid.

Besides, there's no issue with being a pedophile. Being a *practicing* pedophile... well...

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Duradin]

Since children are incapable of lying and are not devious, malicious, vile, evil little bastards it must be true, think of what it means if they were lying! Our little crotchfruit wouldn't be perfect!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, parents of 10-20 years ago would say the exact same thing, and so would the parents of 10-20 years before that, and so on.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[chaboud]

We're ruthless and dog eat dog for having free speech and privacy rights all these years, or for removing them over the last 20 in the name of thinking of the children?

Of course, if people would stop thinking of the children, we wouldn't have these concerns...

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[JabberWokky]

However, a claim of certain acts -- including pedophilia (and domestic abuse, etc) -- instantly initiates criminal proceedings, starting out with separation and investigation. They are engaging in acts that do have very serious immediate consequences that involve law enforcement and the courts. These procedures are increasingly mandatory in many locales, with an assertion of "I made it up" being insufficient to stop investigation and/or prosecution. For example, had they made these claims against their parents, they might well have been removed from the home by the courts (and almost certainly would have been in California, according to a child care worker I just IMed this link to; she notes that forwarded communication is a fairly common reason to start investigations, and removal is a precautionary measure).

These are serious accusations that typically *do* initiate law enforcement and both family and criminal court involvement (and that investigation and court involvement will encompass the children). Brushing it off as "at most a civil tort of libel" is not quite a complete picture.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

State constitutions cannot remove rights granted to individuals by the US constitution. We have Supreme Court rulings on this matter going back 100 years.

Then maybe you should read the Supreme Court ruling (1968)

The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.

Wearing an armband calling for the end of the Vietnam war was held to be legitimate free speech - falsely calling someone a pedophile and a rapist isn't, and the Supremes have already ruled that the school has the right to act.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[chaboud]

And the only thing dumber than these kids is the nature of our societal reactions aimed (theoretically) at protecting these kids. Pulling the plug on kids who may need a bit of institutionalized rearing is a ridiculous response brought on by a systematic disease.

Handing a 12 year old a remote detonator and then jailing them for pressing the button is roughly the shape of it. This whole carnival ride that we call America is packed to the brim with oversensitive morons.

1. Presumption of innocence.
2. Sticks and stones, losers. Sheesh.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[stonewallred]

If they'd been smart, they would have bought a pre-paid phone with a camera, took naked pictures of themselves at school and sent them to the teacher, then throw the phone away.

And anonymously report the teacher for having child porn. When they were identified they could say the teacher took naked pictures of them at school and threatened to fail them if they did not cooperate.

Which is something I am surprised that doesn't happen more often.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Restil]

It's not so much about punishment, but about removing them from the environment so their influence doesn't encourage other children. You don't want to leave those children in the school so they'll be free to make more serious accusations in the future once they have more of a firm grasp on what those words actually mean and the severe damage they can do to someone if the story sounds plausible. At least, at their current age, they can get a royal beatdown from their parents over the issue... or worst case, at least they'll be some other school's problem.

Of course, had the parents actually done some parenting, this could have been avoided.

-Restil

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[HeLLFiRe1151]

It's more than a name, especially if it is your teacher or caregiver you're talking about. It doesn't take much to ruin someones career given that a lot of kids have more than 1k "friends".

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[betterunixthanunix]

No, not "screw these kids." More like, "screw the society that hears 'pedophile' and immediately sends in the SWAT teams."

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[betterunixthanunix]

The sort of damage that could do to a teacher's career is...

...a sign that society is in desperate need of reform. The kind of damage that a Facebook post by a disgruntled student could do to a teacher's career should be nil. We are not talking about an official record of court proceedings, or a police report, or a doctor's report on the examination of the students, we are talking about a post made on Facebook.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

So please post your real name, address, and other contact info, along with a way to verify that it is really you, so we can put your theory to the test.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[betterunixthanunix]

Learn the difference between "should be" and "is." My only point was that this incident highlights a broad problem in America that is not being addressed in any meaningful way.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[turbidostato]

" It doesn't take much to ruin someones career given that a lot of kids have more than 1k "friends"."

No doubt. But where the problem is? In boys callling names to an adult, or a society so ill that it will make this adult life's a living hell without a skeptical research on those childs assertions?

This society where *just* calling someone "turrist" or "child molester", can ruin one's life, where Interpol calling on Assange is of higher level than the one over Gadaffi, remembers me of other times: "she's a witch, a whitch I say!". Surely a significant part of this society miss those old sweet days.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[sumdumass]

Well, who is more acclimated to state if someone is a pedophile, the kids who are in contact with someone on a daily basis or adults making accusations?

Here is the difference, when kids make the claim, society assumes they have some first hand knowledge as in they are the victim since the crime is about underage kids. when an adult makes the claim, there isn't really any first hand assumption outside of people already vested in their integrity believing their word. But because the child is the subject of the victimization, often an investigation is conducted on their behalf at the accusation.

It's something that is completely different when a kid makes the claim verses when an adult makes the claim.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Totenglocke]

Exactly - based off the biased summary I was thinking "Yet another instance of schools being assholes" - until I read the post. Kids are well aware that even so much as calling a teacher a pedophile or rapist without proof can not only get them fired and barred from teaching ever again, but can also lead to jail time.

These kids are getting off very, very light.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[surmak]

However, a claim of certain acts -- including pedophilia (and domestic abuse, etc) -- instantly initiates criminal proceedings, starting out with separation and investigation. They are engaging in acts that do have very serious immediate consequences that involve law enforcement and the courts. These procedures are increasingly mandatory in many locales, with an assertion of "I made it up" being insufficient to stop investigation and/or prosecution. For example, had they made these claims against their parents, they might well have been removed from the home by the courts (and almost certainly would have been in California, according to a child care worker I just IMed this link to; she notes that forwarded communication is a fairly common reason to start investigations, and removal is a precautionary measure).

That is problem. We have a justice system set on a hair trigger for certain crimes. We should not throw out the constitution, or limit what school-aged people can do outside of school. Instead, we should stop going on witch hunts at the mere hint that someone may have done a certain act. Yes, child molestation is a terrible crime, but so is ruining someone's life with to a false accusation. The pendulum has swung far too far toward protecting the victims of these horrible crimes, at the cost of not protecting those falsely accused.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Totenglocke]

No, the line is pretty obvious - when a kid blatantly lies about a serious crime in order to get a teacher into trouble merely because the kid is a shit student, the kid needs to be expelled.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[fahrbot-bot]

I could never figure out how suspending a kid was a punishment.

In my school district, miss more than a certain number of days on a year, and you automatically fail a class. I believe there are some workarounds for kids with long-term illnesses, but they're pretty strict otherwise.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[rossjudson]

I think what we fail to do is convey to children just how serious a false accusation is. Chances are, the kids who did this wouldn't dream of, say, stealing computers from their school. They know that's wrong, and if they did that, we'd expect (and the child would expect) an expulsion from the school, and criminal proceedings.

A computer is just a computer, though. Such serious, false accusations could follow a teacher around for the rest of his life. So how have we arrived at a place where a child knows that stealing is wrong, but doing massive damage to a teacher's life is bad behavior, but perhaps in a grey zone of some kind. It's because too many adults (their parents included) think the same way.

If the child's parents proceed in a lawsuit against the school, it's only fair that the teacher be allowed to sue the parents. They are responsible for their children's behavior.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[demonlapin]

had the parents actually done some parenting, this could have been avoided

Do enlighten us with your recipe for perfect parenting. I'm not aware of any foolproof method for making tweens never be jerks.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Unkyjar]

Well, when you have to force a student to log in, in order to view the post and the comments, that seems pretty private to me.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[adamdoyle]

The article says one of them was expelled for calling her teacher bipolar. If that's all she called her (the article is really vague, though), then it is completely ridiculous for her to be punished at all - let alone expelled. IANAL but I would go as far as to say that it's a first amendment issue. Calling a teacher a rapist or pedophile is definitely more serious, though. I think an argument could be made that "locker-room talk" (facebook) is conveyed in a certain tone (similar to that you would see on a comedian like Letterman or Leno) and that a serious allegation of rape would not be posted on facebook but instead directly to the police. (and if they did post it on facebook they would not use those words - they would make it sound more serious). Nobody reading the post would even for one second interpret it as an actual allegation of rape. If David Letterman were to put that as his facebook status it would be fair game.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Unkyjar]

I'm not sure how damaging a post that requires the principal to force a child to sign into her account in order for it to be viewed, can be.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[slackbheep]

The "punishment" side of suspension is assumed to be meted by out by the parents. Or at least that was always my understanding of the system. On the schools side of things I'm sure they're just happy to have the little bastard out of their hair for the moment.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Belial6]

Agree with you for the most part except that institutionalized rearing is the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution. How many hours a week do you think these kids spend under the care of the state as opposed to the number of hours they spend under the care of their biological parents? You can bet that they are already getting more institutionalized rearing, as are most kids in America.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[adamdoyle]

IANAL but I think there is a difference. From what I've read on the subject, it appears you have to prove that your reputation has actually been damaged. It's not likely that anyone who reads some kid's facebook status saying "Mr. Teachername just gave us a pop quiz - she's such a pedophile" and interpret that as an actual allegation of pedophilia. Now if the kid had said "Mr. Teachername raped me the other day and nobody believes me. Please help me." or something like that, then I think the teacher would have a case (assuming the allegation really is false). But the problem is that from the article we have no idea what the actual status was and so we clearly can't reach an educated conclusion.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[dkleinsc]

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly, all youth are reckless beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and impatient of restraint.

Hesiod, circa 700 BC

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[SvnLyrBrto]

Fine.

Then the facebook posts should have been procured only as part of a criminal investigation by the police after justifying the reason for the search, only with articulatable evidence why said person is a suspect, after a *subpoena*... instead of a warrant... is issued, and Facebook has had an opportunity so consult with the subject and determine if they want their own lawyers to fight it.

For a public employee to abuse his position of power over someone to demand that they log into their personal... instead of private... account without proper judicial oversight is intolerable. Actually, it's also intolerable for a private party to do so as well. But it's especially abusive for a public employee to do so; and beyond the pale when said public employee is one who is placed in a position of care and authority over children.

No matter what the facebook TOS says, what this school did was entirely out of line.

If I were the parent of any of these children, I'd *already* be lining up a lawyer to sink his talons into every vermin involved... the teachers, the principal, their various supervisors, the school district as a whole... everyone. They all need to be brought down over this.

And that's not even considering that schoolkids have been griping about their teachers and calling them names amongst themselves since time eternal. And if children calling you names behind your back is going to get your panties all up in such a wad; you're in the wrong damn profession in the first place. Adding "with a computer" or "on Facebook" to these children's so-called "offenses" doesn't change that.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[unrtst]

Agreed.

I think it's a signal to noise ratio issue. Example - tons of my classmates used to refer to their teachers as jerks, or say they were out to get them, or that they were boring or rude... but EVERY teacher got those complaints from someone, and not every teacher could possibly be the same.

Rather than create fake facebook accounts to call the kids names (as another post said), do it to call ALL teachers in the state - every last one of them - a pedophile and rapist. If they're all labeled that way in facebook, the value of a post stating that goes down significantly and would blend into the norm.

If there is a real problem, they should report it to a responsible adult (their parents, a teacher they do trust, the police, etc) and make a formal complaint. Facebook should not be considered a formal complaint, and should not be seen as some sign that gets a teacher in trouble... so make that happen by drowning them out.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Travelsonic]

I guess you missed privacy settings, as in my profile requires me being logged in, or the person trying to view it be my friend before they can //see// it. Granted not everybody uses it, but it is becoming increasingly used.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Doctor Faustus]

I was 14 20 years ago, and I don't see a whole lot of difference in what's expected of teenagers.

Also, my son's 13, and his peers seem to be a whole lot nicer than jr. high kids in 1989.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[S.O.B.]

Because clearly the school encouraged these kids to call their teacher a paedophile.

What a load of crap. Kids don't learn this type of anti-social behaviour in school. They learn it from bad parenting, other kids with bad parenting or celebrity role models with bad parenting.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Aryden]

You're retarded. TFA specifically states the students involved are all honor roll students. Not only that, but people all over the world say things all day long that aren't true and we call them metaphors.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

No, the Supreme Court backs up schools taking action independent of any police activity.

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."

This is with respect to the schools right and duty to act in loco parentis - in the place of the parents. What they did certainly invaded the rights of the teacher, etc. It also threatened to turn the school environment toxic for all the students.

So, when you write:

If I were the parent of any of these children, I'd *already* be lining up a lawyer to sink his talons into every vermin involved... the teachers, the principal, their various supervisors, the school district as a whole... everyone. They all need to be brought down over this.

... you're totally, TOTALLY, in the wrong. And you'd deserve to have to waste money on a lawyer to explain to you that you're acting like a jerk. These kids should all have been expelled, and the parents given a restraining order keeping them from coming within 1,000 feet of the school, or any public comment.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[numbski]

screw these kids

Um...hello...pedophilia?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Thing 1]

And maybe a more appropriate punishment is NOT suspending kids, but making them stay LONGER in school. Wash some of the graffiti off the lockers, etc. I could never figure out how suspending a kid was a punishment.

Princpal: "You skipped school yesterday, so we're suspending you today" Student: "So what you're saying is I have permission to skip school today too? Works for me!"

Reminds me of the Simpsons, where Homer asked for Friday off; Mr. Burns: "If you don't come in Friday, don't bother coming in Monday." Homer, cleverly demonstrating not getting the point: "Woohoo! Four day weekend!"

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[MoonBuggy]

And having at least a dozen other students posting comments shows the posts in question were far from a "private communication" (who knows how many other students viewed the posts w/o commenting).

A comment restricted to a certain group can be just as 'private' as something restricted to a certain individual. Would a payroll spreadsheet on a company's server, restricted to only certain levels of management, also be considered public to you? If so, what's the difference between that and a Facebook post?

I know not to expect privacy on Facebook because I've seen too many stories like this, but that's a quite separate issue to whether a reasonable person should have some expectation of privacy for their posts. It's also quite different if there's a subpoena involved, which there clearly wasn't in this case.

Just to be entirely clear: I think the kid calling the teacher a paedophile (assuming the accusation was indeed unfounded, as it seems to be) was, at best, dangerously flippant or, at worst, a malicious little shit. Thing is, there are two issues at hand here: the child's wrongdoing in saying things that could quite easily ruin someone's life, and the teacher's wrongdoing in invading the child's privacy.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Thing 1]

However, a claim of certain acts -- including pedophilia (and domestic abuse, etc) -- instantly initiates criminal proceedings, starting out with separation and investigation. They are engaging in acts that do have very serious immediate consequences that involve law enforcement and the courts.

I like to think that if enough kids start doing this type of thing, the hysteria will be reduced: the children are pointing out to the adults, "Hey, you've set the consequences for these actions wrong, and here's how the system can be gamed." Hopefully this will teach our authorities lessons in setting proper consequences. And, yes, I also live in a world where logic triumphs over e.g. Gadaffi...

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[The Archon V2.0]

Sadly not the first time I've heard this. A co-worker had to leave work early and go to school because his son had accused someone of being a pedophile: A fellow 10 year old classmate. She'd apparently been teasing him so he decided to get back at her by getting her in trouble, and he'd heard that got people in a LOT of trouble.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[index0]

Replace Facebook with washroom stall and think about what you just said. Do you really take what you read on the washroom stall as the truth? If the kids had went to the police or filed some kind of official statement that was false, then their expulsion would be understandable.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[index0]

Facebook 15 years ago would have been a Bulletin Board at the local arcade/kids hangout.

Facebook page, bulletin board, washroom stall, wikipedia article with no citations ... why would anyone believe what is written in one of those locations.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[snowgirl]

I was about to side with the kids on this until I read TFA. They called him a pedophile... screw these kids, expel 'em!

2 things you never throw around lightly: Pedophile & Rape.

The two students that were suspended used those two words, but the one who was expelled just called him "bipolar". WTF? How can calling someone bipolar be worse than calling someone a pedophile, or rapist?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Quiet_Desperation]

You can reform society about as easily as you can milk a unicorn.

Society is in need of reform? What does that even mean? You have access to alien mind altering rays?

The kind of damage that a Facebook post by a disgruntled student could do to a teacher's career should be nil.

Welcome to reality. We can make pragmatic laws that recognize it, or we can sit around waving magic wands and shouting "Societus Reformio!"

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Totenglocke]

Really? I'd love to know what you think "pedophile" is a metaphor for.

Also, honor roll doesn't mean you're a "good" student. Most schools honor roll levels are so low that as long as you put out a mild level of effort and have an IQ over 50, you'll get on the honor roll.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[runningduck]

The difference is that in 6 months the Facebook terms of service will change to make the payroll spreadsheet public. Anything posted to a social network is effectively public. There are other circumstances where freedom of speech and expression are not protected when the statements are false. Take for example making statements to a police officer. You cannot claim that you accused someone of rape just because you were pissed.

One thing to consider is that the principal did not randomly sit down students and have the students display their private posts. The information was already effectively public and the source was already known. This rant was long from private. The principal simply confirmed the source and investigated the veracity of the accusation.

Think about if the situation reverse. Has an act of pedophilia occurred and the principal had knowledge of the rumor, would the principal have some level of complicity if they did not drill down to understand the source of the accusation and accuracy of the statements?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[SumterLiving]

The "Doing more with less" mantra has been around since the 1980's for most companies too. So stop blaming and/or expecting more from the taxpayers. Blame the parents who need to be a big part of fixing the education system in the US. And by fixing I don't mean going to school board meetings. This mean giving your kids some extra learning opportunities at home, enforcing good behavior and instilling a good work ethic. But of course every time I say this, I get the same old shit like "what about the parents who work 2 jobs". As a cold hearted SOB...my reply is, someone has to get an "F".

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Z00L00K]

However by suspending or expelling them you are sending the completely wrong signals. What these students need is either more education or (horrible thought) they may be right in their statements.

Sometimes adults fails to understand that kids do put the rules that the parents sets to a test now and then, and it's important to act the right way to mark firmly when they are exceeding their bounds. The major problem here is a parenting problem. (Parents and Teachers share a responsibility here).

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

The courts have already decided that facebook posts - even deleted ones - aren't private. If you don't want it public, don't post it on a social network. ESPECIALLY don't post it on facebook.

Even back in 2007. ( Facebook Isn’t Private, and 7 Other Things You Should Know ) this was understood from the facebook TOS

[W]e cannot and do not guarantee that User Content you post on the Site will not be viewed by unauthorized persons. We are not responsible for circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures contained on the Site.

Please keep in mind that if you disclose personal information in your profile or when posting comments, messages, photos, videos, Marketplace listings or other items , this information may become publicly available.

And yes, the guy who wrote that is a lawyer.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[russotto]

No, the Supreme Court backs up schools taking action independent of any police activity.

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."

You're taking that bit of dicta from Tinker v. Des Moines completely out of context. The phrase "in class" is a reference to the classroom as opposed to the larger school campus, not a reference to at the school rather than completely off the grounds of the school. Here's the whole paragraph:

The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. [note 6] This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student's rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on [513] the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without "materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school" and without colliding with the rights of others. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. But 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:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

Replace Facebook with washroom stall and think about what you just said. Do you really take what you read on the washroom stall as the truth? If the kids had went to the police or filed some kind of official statement that was false, then their expulsion would be understandable.

Did they write it in a washroom stall? No.

Stop trying to minimize what they did. Expelling the three of them would have been the minimum I would expect.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Xtifr]

"Horace and Aristotle have told us of the virtues of their fathers and the vices of their own time, and authors down the centuries have done the same. If they were right, men would now be bears." -- Montesquieu

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[rainmouse]

What these students did was a jailable offense

Maybe in North Korea or China. In America something like this is at most a civil tort of libel.

Though I know nothing about US law, I do know that in the UK if it is a minor or non-damaging infraction it would be seen as 'Malicious Communication' and the perpetrator likely given a first-time-harassment warning but if continued becomes a 'Pursued a Course of Conduct' offense which amounts to harassment which can give jail time. However if the initial communication is genuinely damaging or career threating then it can be immediately considered harassment and therefore jail worthy.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

And you're ignoring the last part - But 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 - which is much more unrestricted. There is specifically NO restriction on the place.

Student goes out to the mall, pulls a Columbine, they have every right to bar him while he's awaiting trial despite the fact that he was not on school grounds, because the place the behavior occurred is, by law, irrelevant.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

had the parents actually done some parenting, this could have been avoided

Do enlighten us with your recipe for perfect parenting. I'm not aware of any foolproof method for making tweens never be jerks.

You do realize that there's a difference between "could" and "would", right?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also designed to let you choose what is public and who can see it. You could create an acct. and make everything private unto yourself and only view your "friends" posts, or play games, or use it as some personal journal. Your usage metrics and things you "like" would still be recorded for facebook to sell, but other than that. It would be private.

But still, the kids got what they deserved.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

I'm not sure how damaging a post that requires the principal to force a child to sign into her account in order for it to be viewed, can be.

There's a lot that I understand as a 40-something that I didn't not understand as a 20-something (though as a teen-something I actually did think that I understood more about "life" than my grandparents).

As much as a love my kids (who are just a year or two younger than these GA fools), if they ever pulled a stunt like this... well, there would be hell to pay.

No matter how sorry they hopefully would be, they would need some "memorable" object lesson in the destructive nature of such conduct.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

The "punishment" side of suspension is assumed to be meted by out by the parents.

Except that in the bizarro country that we live in, the parents sue the school.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

I think what we fail to do is convey to children just how serious a false accusation is.

I just used this as as "teaching moment" on the consequences of making false accusations...

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

I'm not convinced that our modern culture of extending "childhood" until age 18 is the right thing to do...

The Democrats just effectively extended childhood to 26.

My (grand) parents weren't bad or mean, but I still couldn't wait to leave after HS. The thought of going back after I graduated Uni was *completely* absurd.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

Tomhudson:

You're the same kind of dick as those who said, "Yes it was appropriate for schools to send laptops home, turn on the camera, and spy on kid's bedrooms."

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

30 years ago. (Time really flies, doesn't it!!)

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

What the kids does was wrong, but I find it interesting that two different students came up with accusations of a sexual nature. At the least it makes one wonder about the teacher's behavior toward his students. Especially two honor roll students. Granted they may have been upset at possible loss of honor role status due to a bad grade on a key test or paper. But did he make "suggestions" on how they could address that issue?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

I had a 6th grade teacher who was a "pedophile" and said so on a public forum. He used to rub his hands over boy's chests in an erotic fashion (never did it to girls though - guess he figured that would get him in definitive trouble). The only difference is I and my friends discussed it on a Public BBS instead of facebook, and back then the government/school never monitored BBSes, so the "crime" went un-noticed.

I put crime in quotes, because if kids have suspicions of a teacher (and we did), they should be allowed to talk about it. Free speech and whatnot.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

If they'd been smart, they would have bought a pre-paid phone with a camera, took naked pictures of themselves at school and sent them to the teacher, then throw the phone away.

Wouldn't that mean that the pics are in his email folder not his "pictures" folder?

Anyway, if I got such pictures, the third thing I'd do (after panicking and saying the Litany Against Fear) would be to go straight to the police and show them what I received.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

>>>State constitutions cannot remove rights granted to individuals by the US constitution.

That's true.
Now try READING the constitution. It says CONGRESS may not limit speech (or press or religion). It says nothing to stop State Legislatures from doing so. That's why state constitutions were updated to include additional protections.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

Except that (guys) locker room talk is more in the line of "he's a bastard, sucks donkey dicks, married a toad", etc, etc.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[dwillden]

But as the Principal was acting in her position. She was thus acting as an agent of the government, thus to require the student to login to show her the posts, a warrant is required. If the Principal could login to her own account or someone else voluntarily logged in and showed her the posts all would have been okay, but the caselaw is clear here, requiring the student to log into her own account to access the posts was a violation of the girl's right against self incrimination.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nutria]

mark firmly when they are exceeding their bounds.

What the hell do you think that suspension and expulsion are?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[dwillden]

But in order to obtain the evidence of the suspected crime, the school still has to follow due process, ensuring full protection of the student's rights. Your example is inapplicable because "Pulling a Columbine at the Mall" would be a publicly available incident. Whereas when the principal required the student to login to her own account in order for the Principal to read the posts, it was a blatant violation of the student's right to privacy, and right against self incrimination.

Or don't we care about the 4th and 5th amendments anymore?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullocks. The poster above is right. Kids have been calling their teachers names behind their backs as long as there have been kids and teachers. If someone can't abide that, they have no business being a teacher.

I can't condone clogging up the legal system with excessive litigation. But the teachers and administration are entirely in the wrong here. They should be diciplined (not sued, not fired*) and required to publicly apologize to the kids; who should be reinstated with no black marks upon them. And that should be the end if it.

* Though if they really are so thin-skinned as to overreact in this way to kids insulting them amongst themselves; they really should reconsider whether or not they've chosen the correct profession.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[dwillden]

How public facebook posts are is irrelevant. The problem is that to obtain the post the Principal required the student to login to her account, thus requiring the student to incriminate herself. The principal could have accessed that posting via any other facebook account with little or no problem, but in requiring the student to login the Principal violated the 4th and 5th amendment rights of the student. The student was forced to self-incriminate by accessing her personal papers (i.e. her login password). All without a warrant.

And what facebook MAY change the privacy settings to mean in the unknown future is also irrelevant. As it currently stands a post that is limited as to who can see it is private, especially if the suspect is to be forced to login to access it. You are correct that it really isn't all that private in that if the principal had accessed the post through any other voluntary allowed facebook login it would be fine. But by requiring the suspect to access the post, the Principal overstepped the law.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[omglolbah]

I'd love to see this case as I usually do when postings on the net blow up...

But come on. Posting that someone is a pedophile or rapist (FTFA) is way beyond just mere "stupid" or "expressing yourself".

Being one of the kids who was bullied quite a lot in school, and had quite a lot of hate towards some of the teachers... I wouldnt do this kind of shit. Come on... it will just bite you in the ass...

10-day suspension is a bit much, 2-3 days would be plenty to send a strong signal that this is not accepted behavior. I guess the teacher in question could file on the issue too if he wants.

Here in Norway this would most likely be handled like a legal case between the teacher and student. Unless these posts were made while the kids were AT SCHOOL the school rules and regulations do not apply. The law does however which is the right way to go in my eyes.

And I say this as the child of a middle-school teacher and a kindergarden teacher... They both work they arse off and get very little other than shit for it... meh

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[omglolbah]

You cant address it. If you try you get swamped with the "homg unpatriotic" or "homg americahater" (if you're foreign :p) accusations.

To a large part of the world the US is now a train speeding towards a ravine. There is a small stopper that will prevent a catastrophe but only if the train slows down enough before hitting it...

When discussing the issues of society and trying to find solutions becomes a "danger" or "unpatriotic" you have a whole lot more problems than a few kids being kicked out of school for doing something stupid :(

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Fulminata]

Thanks for supporting my point that teachers aren't the problem.

I disagree that because parents are part of the problem that it lessens the responsibility of society/taxpayers/voters, but I'm at least glad that we can acknowledge that it isn't all the teachers' fault!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[im_thatoneguy]

I'm not disagreeing, but on the other hand 30-40 years ago if a teacher had been molesting a student they wouldn't have gotten in much trouble.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Belial6]

The school didn't tell them to do this, and their parents didn't tell them to do this. BUT, it is at the school that they most likely learned the kind of behavior that lead to this particular instance. Institutionalized rearing mostly involves something resembling Lord of the Flies. You didn't address who you thought was the primary care givers of these children. The biological parents or the State.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

But in order to obtain the evidence of the suspected crime,

Stop right there. The school doesn't have to follow "due process" any more than you do, if you're not law enforcement.

For example, a parent doesn't need a search warrant to enter their childs' room.

Or to search their backpack for drugs.

Or a trial by a judge and jury to ground them for a week.

The school is acting in loco parentis. This isn't just the school's right - it's their duty and obligation, both to the child and to the parent.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

Wrong. Only law enforcement needs a warrant.

Also, the student complied when asked. If the student had refused, you might have a case.

You could try to argue that the school principal represented an "authority figure" and the student felt intimidated .... and you'd ALMOST win. Almost, because the school, in acting in loco parentis, has the authority of a parent figure.

Call me back when a parent needs a verdict in a trial by judge and jury to ground their kid for a week.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

You're the same kind of dick as those who said, "Yes it was appropriate for schools to send laptops home, turn on the camera, and spy on kid's bedrooms."

[citation needed]

Which you won't be able to do, because you're lying.

The last refuge of the true scoundrel.

BTW - it was the parents rights that were violated in that case. The parents have the right to run their kids lives in the privacy of their home, without the school monitoring them or their children.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[pandrijeczko]

Actually, it teaches the kids one of life's important lessons that many of them seem to lack these days - namely that before taking action, make sure you've done your best to work out the likely consequences of that action first.

The one thing that separates a child from an adult is (one hopes) being able to act responsibly.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[stonewallred]

Read up on the laws on child porn. Possession is the crime. And how you came into the possession is not relevant or considerable in a court of law. Some arcane legal speak, which I can't recall at the moment, but basically if you have it, you are a criminal.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[jrumney]

In today's legal and social environment, what these school kids did is sufficient grounds for the slanderred adult male to be fired, jailed, and be barred from contact with their children; all without any presumption of innocence (on the part of the justice system). In this case, the principal intervened and instead of the male teacher being persecuted the school children were punished.

How do we know the children weren't right? It seems now that instead of the teacher being prosecuted, the children have been persecuted without any presumption of innocence.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

First, the school is neither law enforcement nor the courts. They were NOT conducting a criminal investigation, and you only have 5th amendment rights in a criminal trial.

Additionally, as for unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), neither parents, nor those acting in their place, require a warrant to access the personal papers of the children in their care and custody. The school principal was acting in loco parentis, had legal care and custody of the student at the time, and facebook account posts are not private - even deleted facebook posts are discoverable.

A student caught passing a note to someone else during a test can't say "it's personal - you can't see it." Same reasoning applies to the right of schools to search students lockers, again without a warrant.

Students are not adults, and as such, do not have the same rights as adults.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what is your major malfunction?

Really... Just where the heck did the giant chip you have on your shoulder against these kids come from?

Were you called names in school? And are you so mal-adjusted in life that you're still butt-hurt about it now?

Are you some cranky old coot who's forgotten what it's like to be a kid; and therefore everything that "kids these days" do is evil?

Or are you just so self-centered that because you're not a kid anymore and you obviously have none; that it doesn't matter when they're trampled upon?

Whatever it is, you've got problems.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[russotto]

And you're ignoring the last part - But 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 - which is much more unrestricted. There is specifically NO restriction on the place

You're still taking it out of context. That whole paragraph is referring to conduct which takes place on school grounds. Conduct not taking place on school grounds was not even being considered in Tinker v. Des Moines.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[SvnLyrBrto]

Well, there was Jerry Fallwell's lawsuit against Larry Flynt; who had portrayed Fallwell as, IIRC, being in an incestous relationship with his own mother. (This in a national publication, not just a friends-only facebook thread.)

I think the reasoning was that because the "accusation" was so obviously an untrue case of mere smack-talking that there was no libel.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Nyder]

.... I could never figure out how suspending a kid was a punishment. ...

You should talk to the step mom I had growing up. One time I got suspended for 3 days she made me wheel barrow dirt around during school hours. It was pretty evil. Because it was wet, seeing as it was raining.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[JohnRoss1968]

A parent is not an Agent of the US Government. A teacher is.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[JohnRoss1968]

Teachers and other school officials are agents of the US Government.
If we go by what you are saying , why bother with Police Officers investigating anything, just have teachers look into it. Saves time a dn effert getting search warrants.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

Teachers and other school officials are agents of the US Government.

No they're not. They're hired by local school boards as teachers, not peace officers.

If we want to stretch it your way, then someone on unemployment or welfare or a government pension or in prison or a foster home is an agent of the US Government. After all, they're all supported by tax dollars.

Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The Supreme Court has already laid the ground rules - kids are subject to the authority of their parents, and their teachers. The parents and teachers owe the kids protection and a safe environment, free from disruptive behavior, as well as reasonable discipline and instruction. A safe environment includes one where the other students don't have to worry that maybe those lies the students were spreading might be true.

If the kids aren't happy about being called to account for spreading lies, too bad - they should grow up. Even a 12-year-old should know the difference between right and wrong.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[bdo19]

They are middle school students!! 90% of their generic catch-all insults are "of a sexual nature." I'm guessing that, in their minds at the time, without having thought things through completely, they thought that calling the teacher a pedophile was no more serious than calling something they don't like "gay." IMO the conclusion you jump to is completely unfounded.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[JabberWokky]

Oh, I agree completely. But saying "the problem is that there are major ramifications" isn't invalidating my point that there *are* major ramifications for such charges.

Personally, I think there should be much more discretion given to individual law enforcement officers in assessing the situation, with the voting public giving a swift boot to the rear of any Sheriff or Police Chief (or their appointer) who looks the other way in cases of bad decisions by his officers. We don't need less discrimination -- we need wiser discrimination.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[JabberWokky]

I like to think that if enough kids start doing this type of thing, the hysteria will be reduced:

Probably not the best mechanism, given that some of the assertions are actually true. But as I said in my other reply... the cause for the reaction is certainly hysteria. But that doesn't mean that these particular people involved today weren't doing things that have major ramifications at the current time.

Stashing cocaine on people randomly (another form of accusing the innocent) to protest the drug laws is an interesting idea[1]. It's also going to wind up sending at least some of the people to jail. I agree with the goal, but rampant accusations of the innocent is not the best mechanism for chance.

1 - I chose this example because, if you're protesting drug laws, unlike pedophilia where there would be actual abuse cases being lost, you probably don't think anybody who is either breaking the current laws or not is guilty of anything. Basically, even with eliminating the "real cases get ignored" aspect, you're still screwing over innocent people.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[cyn1c77]

There's a big difference between calling someone names and actually accusing them of something.

Are you referring to the difference between (1) slander and (2) wrongly accusing someone of a felony?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[lgw]

Why is a facebook post in any way more credible than grafitti? In order for harm to be done by any statement, that statement must be believable and taken as serious in intent by a reasonable man. A reasonable man does not believe what he reads on the internet. Therefore, no harm was done.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[EllisDees]

>The sort of damage that could do to a teacher's career is unbelievable. And the parents are saying "my children shouldn't be punished so harshly." And threatening to sue the school.

Yes, but there is still nothing criminal about it at all. Libelous, sure, but not a crime.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[mrchaotica]

You keep talking about "in loco parentis," but the real problem here is that your interpretation of in loco parentis goes way too fucking far! So the Facebook post was about the teacher -- so what? The kid didn't do the posting at school; the account wasn't created at the request of the teacher or as part of some kind of school project; the account wasn't officially sanctioned or associated with the school in any way. Screw issues of due process; the principal was out of line because the act in question was never in the school's "jurisdiction" (for lack of a better word) to begin with!

There's no such thing as "in loco parentis" when the parents are there themselves!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[mrchaotica]

So, you're saying that society's insane predilection for witch hunts is the kids' fault?!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Aryden]

I don't know what schools you went to, but to get on honor roll of any of the public schools I went to, you had to carry an A average AND your behavior was taken into account as well.

Also, I say metaphor because people say things on a daily basis that may not mean what they intended or don't intend it to be what it comes out as. "That's gay" is one that I hear a great deal.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[hab136]

They are agents of their various state and local governments. They are specifically not employed by or empowered by the federal government ("the US government"), unless they happen to work on a military base or in Guam or Washington, D.C. or something.

The school acts in loco parentis (as a substitute parent) during the school day, and as a parent, has greater rights and responsibilities than a normal person, just as your own biological parent can search your room without a warrant. These greater rights and responsibilities are not absolute; they are restricted to maintaining the welfare of the students and the continuing operation of the school (for example, preventing disruption). Most of the time (as in this article), the arguments are that the school is trying to prevent disruption of the school, while the affected children argue that their behavior did not disrupt the school. Unfortunately it's not clear-cut what constitutes "disruption", so we have these fights every so often.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

BOTH parental and minors' rights were abused. Parents have a right to privacy, and minors have a right to not be spied-on by School laptops while they are undressing in their bedrooms.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[commodore6502]

>>>The courts

Yes precisely. THE COURTS. Not random government employees demanding your facebook password, but a *judge* issuing a warrant, which lists probable cause. Not random searches performed by cops or gov't agents.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[slackbheep]

While I can't offer a citation I'll point out that Canada isn't really any better and I have my doubts about the rest of the world. Parent's are only too happy to see their crotchblossom as perfect.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

What part of "any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior" don't you get.

If they had wanted to say "on school grounds" they could have. They didn't. Instead, they carved out a VERY broad rule - "any reason". "Any reason" means what it says - it is not just related to school grounds. They then go further to qualify "any reason", by saying it doesn't matter the time, place or type of behavior. They did not say "any reason - whether it stems from time or type of behavior, on school grounds."

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

A parent is not an Agent of the US Government. A teacher is.

Your tin-foil hat is on too tight :-)

Also, you're factually wrong.

Teachers are hired by the schools, funded by the individual municipality, school board, or state - not the feds.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

Why is a facebook post in any way more credible than grafitti? In order for harm to be done by any statement, that statement must be believable and taken as serious in intent by a reasonable man. A reasonable man does not believe what he reads on the internet. Therefore, no harm was done.

So, if someone goes and sprays swastikas on doors, "no harm done"? If someone sprays "rapist lives here" on your door, no harm done?

False accusations of this nature are very serious, not only because of the harm they do to the person falsely accused, but because they make it harder for someone who IS a victim of a pedophile or rapist to be taken credibly.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

>The sort of damage that could do to a teacher's career is unbelievable. And the parents are saying "my children shouldn't be punished so harshly." And threatening to sue the school.

Yes, but there is still nothing criminal about it at all. Libelous, sure, but not a crime.

First, some states have criminal libel laws.

Second, the school wasn't conducting a criminal investigation. They have every right to kick the kids out. I wouldn't want my kids hanging around with kids who would make such stupid false accusations, and neither would most parents.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

There's no such thing as "in loco parentis" when the parents are there themselves!

Your claim that the parents were present when the kids posted the false accusations is interesting - if you have any proof, I'm sure social services would be VERY interested.

The parents were obviously NOT there themselves ...in more ways than one, unfortunately.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

Schools have the right to search student lockers, with or without a warrant, with or without the student present, with or without their knowledge, with or without their permission.

So what next, are you going to say that a parent or other parental authority can't search their kid's room without a warrant? Or ground them without first being found guilty by a jury? Or that a school can't expel a kid without first having a trial? Nonsense. Get over it, already. The courts are a separate issue.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[S.O.B.]

You make a blanket statement that they learn this type of behaviour at school and then provide not a single example, flawed or otherwise, to support your claim. Typical right wing rhetoric, all sound bites no substance.

And by the way, Lord of the Flies was about how kids behave without adult supervision. So thanks for making by point that proper adult supervision prevents this type of behaviour.

And I didn't address who I think the primary care givers of these children are because that was not my point. My point was that the school, as you suggested, is not to blame for the behaviour of these kids.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

" It doesn't take much to ruin someones career given that a lot of kids have more than 1k "friends"."

No doubt. But where the problem is? In boys callling names to an adult, or a society so ill that it will make this adult life's a living hell without a skeptical research on those childs assertions?

This society where *just* calling someone "turrist" or "child molester", can ruin one's life, where Interpol calling on Assange is of higher level than the one over Gadaffi, remembers me of other times: "she's a witch, a whitch I say!". Surely a significant part of this society miss those old sweet days.

Back under your bridge troll.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[shadowknot]

You may be (and from the above posts, probably are) legally correct but I have an enormous moral issue with forcing someone to log in to their Facebook account against their will. There could be all sorts of private or personal information exposed and it is extremely abusive for someone in a position of power over children to do this. Yes they are acting in loco parentis but they are not the child's parent and have no right, IMHO, to have access to the ins and outs of the personal lives of students. What these kids did was dumb, bratty and by no means justifiable and I agree that they should be punished for their actions but the means by which the school went about collecting the evidence should not stand up in court. As someone who has worked in digital forensics I can say for certain that if we or the police collected evidence in such a way it would be thrown out immediately and rightfully so.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Z00L00K]

A free pass to drift around on the streets. For some of them that's actually not a punishment.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[shadowknot]

Replace Facebook with washroom stall and think about what you just said. Do you really take what you read on the washroom stall as the truth? If the kids had went to the police or filed some kind of official statement that was false, then their expulsion would be understandable.

Did they write it in a washroom stall? No.

Stop trying to minimize what they did. Expelling the three of them would have been the minimum I would expect.

That's an over reaction, they should be punished but destroying their lives (an expulsion on their record could severely hamper their future) is not a fitting punishment for them _almost_ destroying this teachers life. The washroom stall analogy is not applicable because you do not have to log in to a washroom using private information you are compelled to use (a password) to view the offending message and while one can be accused of writing something like "Mr Whoever is a bi-polar pedophile rapist" there is no name likely to be associated so proof is hard to come by. Could someone have logged in to this girl's account and achieved the same goal? absolutely but this still does not forgive the teacher abusing their position as a care giver (in loco parentis goes both ways) by forcing the student to log in to her account. Again, what they did was wrong and they should certainly be punished but the issue of their privacy still is a moral factor even though it may not be a legal one.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[lgw]

In all of your replies to this story you seem immune to one simple idea. Here it is. The internet is not a credible source of information. To conflate a kids facebook post with malicious vandalism shows you're just intent on igoring this key idea.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't want my kids hanging around with kids who would make such stupid false accusations, and neither would most parents.

Then you'd be homeschooling your kids.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[shadowknot]

Which, IMHO, is one of the root causes of your problems.

I couldn't disagree more. As an immigrant to the USA from Europe it is these freedoms and the positive and negative responsibilities and consequences associated with these freedoms that attracted me. The fact that in my country of origin (the United Kingdom) I could be prosecuted for saying something the government du jour considers hate speech or libelous even though it is stated as an opinion (not the case with these kids, I know) is a key reason why the US is more advanced in cause of individual liberty than the vast majority of the rest of the world. Yes, freedom can be scary but give it a try, I am certain you'll like it!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[russotto]

If they had wanted to say "on school grounds" they could have.

They did. They simply said it several sentences before the part you keep quoting at me. The whole paragraph is discussing activities which take place on school grounds. The court enunciates a general rule that when a student is on the school campus "he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects". Then it carves out an exception to that rule, which is the part you quoted. That exception does not exceed the scope of the rule for which is it an exception.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[mrchaotica]

If the kids were at home -- or really, if they were anywhere except campus, the bus stop, or a sanctioned event/field trip -- then they should be assumed to be in the custody of their parents.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

The police are held to a different standard, since they investigate criminal acts. This was not a criminal investigation that the principal was conducting. And in a case like this, where the safety of the other students is also called into question (after all, if it's true, the school would be negligent if they didn't investigate, and if it's not true, the school would also be negligent for not investigating), it's justified.

The school already knew - there was no "collecting evidence". It was more like "See those posts of yours? Delete them NOW." and finding out who else was involved.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

Expulsion does not "destroy their lives." It means they have to attend a school that is capable of handling kids who act lower than trailer trash. Would you want your kids attending the same school as these brats, learning the same tricks, and the teachers having an "us vs them" attitude?

Expulsion, an apology posted on youtube (so they can see just how nasty posting crap on the internet can be), and community service sounds about right to me. The punishment should fit the deed.

And while we're at it, send the bill for all the wasted time to the parents.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

In all of your replies to this story you seem immune to one simple idea. Here it is. The internet is not a credible source of information. To conflate a kids facebook post with malicious vandalism shows you're just intent on igoring this key idea.

You're missing one simple idea - people tend to not check facts.

Just look at all the idiot birthers screaming Obama isn't American, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, dopes who feel that *their* marriage is threatened by letting same-sex couples get married, or that the military will somehow fall apart if gays and lesbians serve openly, or who believed the lies that housing always goes up in value, or think Sarah Palin would be a good president.

And that's not counting the people who would give their password for chocolate (okay, I can sort of understand that, chocolate is a girl's second-best friend), or who continue to use Windows because they don't want to invest a day learning another environment, even though all they do is check email and surf the web.

Your idea isn't a "key idea" - it ignores today's social reality. Individuals might be smart, but people are DUMB!

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

If the kids were at home -- or really, if they were anywhere except campus, the bus stop, or a sanctioned event/field trip -- then they should be assumed to be in the custody of their parents.

[citation needed]

Stop making things up just for the sake of argument, please.

To the contrary, there is no legal assumption that they are in their parents custody, even when they're at home. Otherwise, it would be perfectly fine to leave kids alone at home instead of getting them a babysitter while the parents go to work or a night out.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[Thing 1]

Uh, the US government stashes cocaine on its citizenry daily. It's not entirely random, though, as the citizen must be carrying paper currency... But I agree with the rest, and I also understand that my world of logic will fade like Archimedes's circles when he asked the gentlemen to please not disturb them.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[flyneye]

Peds? No one said anything about peds or their punishment.
Different subject.
Notice you did get brownie points for mentioning it though.
The publc seems ready for some new anti-pedo laws too.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[flyneye]

K, I'll admit it, I caught Charlie Sheen posting on my account.
Seems to have a good head on his shoulders, whats your problem?

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[flyneye]

I think I'd investigate a bit more deeply with a lot less bias if he were accused of brownie poaching.
I remember a teacher at my old school was singled out for bullying and called a pedo, later on it proved true anyway.
Strange world, I'd be following up on that pretty carefully. Teachers, cops and other regularly corrupt scumbags tend to have a demographic of legal misbehaviour all their own.
This is not like calling someone a communist. Implications of political stupidity mean nothing compared to implications of being a child predator.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[flyneye]

Yeah, yeah, budget whining and other superfluous" excuse me"s.
When you show me a middle school that teaches verb conjugation, sentence structure,spelling, teaches actual algebra,fractions beyond simple addition and multiplication,American History that gives DETAILs without hiding inconveniences or promoting modern agendas,Science classes that require reading,writing and rigor, and phys ed classes where sweat is produced through most of the HOUR, then we can talk about just how much kids are losing out on because of teachers personal and political agendas over the last 25 years. I suggest cutting ALL non academic money and funneling it back to education till they get their shit straight. We as Americans have the worst schools in the world. Guess why? It isn't money. Private schools operate on much less and produce much more. Evidence that whiney union public teachers are a bunch of overpaid lazyasses. When you actually earn money, you are due money. When you just put in your hours, you need a pay cut equal to the output of your effort.Just like everybody else who isn't a stupid union baby, raising the cost of goods and services for you and I by their greed.
Chew on that a while.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[psm321]

The lockers are school property. Would you also claim schools have a right to search a student's locked chest at home? To force the student to bring it in and unlock it so they can do that? What if there were rumors that the student's diary locked in that chest had records of accusatory conversations they had had with other students? Or even just requiring a student to bring in their diary so the principal can look at it? That's effectively what they did, forcing the student to provide access to their personal facebook account that had absolutely nothing to do with the school. It is absolutely disingenuous and total nonsense to compare searching property the student has voluntarily brought to school with this. Should they also be forced to log in to their e-mail? Bring in all of their personal letters and correspondence? Nonsense. Get over it, already.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

I would suggest you take your own advice and "get over it already."

What these kids did is criminal behavior. Their parents should be more concerned about that than anything else. So please, swallow a chill pill or do some deep breathing exercises or whatever it is you do when you need to gain some perspective, and realize what's really important here.

The principal didn't need the kids logging into their facebook account to take any action - all facebook postings are discoverable - even deleted ones. All this did was speed up the process of dealing with the issue. Now, before you go on about "cutting corners gathering evidence", the principal is not a law enforcement agent, and was not "gathering evidence" they were dealing with disciplining the students who they already knew had made the posts (otherwise, how would they have known who to single out, Sherlock?) .

The students in question were given the opportunity to delete the posts and apologize, rather than be expelled forthwith. If you have a problem with that, then you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

Personally, I would have just expelled them. Problem solved. They need to be in a school that is better equipped to handle sociopathic brats (the parents who are screaming about lawyering up) and their "oh so special" offspring.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[lgw]

I like the way you label all of your core political/religious beliefs as "facts", then complain that people don't check facts. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid or poorly informed, and eveyone who agrees with me agrees with that!"

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

I like the way you label all of your core political/religious beliefs as "facts", then complain that people don't check facts. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid or poorly informed, and eveyone who agrees with me agrees with that!"

I'm glad you like it! :-p

BTW - what "core religious beliefs?" I'm a hard-line atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is in direct contrast to theism, which is required for a "religious", aka superstitious, belief. I think Richard Dawkins is wishy-washy on the subject. There is no god, and no possibility of god, in this universe. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that other people should become atheists - they have every right to be wrong on something that's of a personal nature. They just don't have the right to tell anyone else that they must live their lives in accordance with their "god" or they're going to hell.

Since this is slashdot, time for a bad car analogy. Saying I have a religious belief because I'm an out-and-out atheist is akin to saying someone has a favorite car because they only take public transit.

Or that someone with no eyesight has a preferred color for their guide dog. Or that someone who doesn't believe in the "supernatural" believes in ghosts.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[psm321]

So please, swallow a chill pill or do some deep breathing exercises or whatever it is you do when you need to gain some perspective, and realize what's really important here.

Read your own multiple posts repeating the same (debunked) points over and over again and misinterpreting supreme court rulings, and then read my single (well, now 2) clear post that you conveniently ignored all the points in, and then consider taking your own advice quoted above.

Anyways, since it seems pretty clear from this post and others that you either hate kids as another poster suggested above, or are a teacher/principal who likes to abuse authority, I'm done here. Have fun stewing in your hatred of "sociopathic brats". (Also, this is clearly a situation of http://xkcd.com/386/ on both sides so no point wasting my time).

P.S. Amongst all your hate, you do have a somewhat reasonable point (though I still think it's a overreaction) if indeed it went down like you suggested and the article is lying (principal offering deletion as alternative to punishment, as opposed to principal forcing login+deletion)

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[tomhudson]

As I pointed out, it was obvious that the school already knew who the culprits were. Doesn't take any great brains to figure it out, if they only asked the specific students to log into their accounts.

Of course, that would require people to be able to not only read, but to think ... and obviously, from all the knee-jerk responses, most slashdotters aren't exactly great thinkers.

There is no way I'd want my kids in the same classes as these kids. Schools need to be prepared to take disciplinary measures, not only to protect the learning environment, but also to make sure that other students see that this sort of activity is not tolerated.

Only the utterly clueless and the irresponsible would try to portray that as "hating kids".

But that brings us back to why is it that most people read the article, and didn't question HOW the principal knew who to confront? Simple answer - too many slashdotters are into group think, whether it's from Faux Newz, or Apple/Microsoft/Linux fanboi-isms, or Neocons/fundies/terr'rists/global warming deniers ... very shallow pseudo-intellectuals.

The facts were clear from the article. The principal didn't confront the whole school, but rather, , started with the student whose facebook account had the posts. But don't trouble your head with facts and ideas and concepts such as teaching kids to be responsible for their actions, or critical reading. Just bail the kids out - after all, everyone else is getting bailed out. It's the new New NEW economy.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[lgw]

Atheism is a religious preference, not a religion (and that's why gov't forms should ask "religious preference").

Global Warming is a religion (it might be true, but then the Mormon belief system might be true, fucked if I know), complete with othodox gospel, high priests, condemnation of sinners, condescension towards non-believers, scorn piled on heretics: all the trappings are there (OK, the fire and brimstone is a bit tepid - surely one can do better than "a few degrees a century"). What's really needed is some good gospel warming music! But then, I haven't checked the nerd-core scene, maybe there is some.

Re:They are going to have to pass a law

[mrchaotica]

[citation needed]

Stop making things up just for the sake of argument, please.

What part of "should" do you not understand?! The statement is a goddamn opinion, so take your "citation needed" and FUCK OFF.

Good. Deserved.

[Manip]

Called someone a "pedophile" in this age of crazy parents, vigilantism, and indefinite search engine indexing they deserve at least to be expelled. Such accusations could very easily result in that teacher losing their job or worse having some moron fire bombing their home. It is exactly this kind of thing which is driving male teachers out of education in droves.

Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[data2]

Maybe I need sarcasm-tags, but seriously? Please look at the age of the children and think again about your comment.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[superslacker87]

Wait... pedophile + rapist = suspension, while bipolar = expulsion? Where is the logic in that one?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucking damn well knew better at their age than to say lies like that in public about *any* adult, let alone teachers.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[mangu]

Wait... pedophile + rapist = suspension, while bipolar = expulsion? Where is the logic in that one?

Maybe the teacher was a pedophile in the manic phase and a rapist in the depressive state?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[poetmatt]

Are you that dense?

This has to do with freedom of speech and the internet. It has to do with how facebook ties into that and absolutely ties into slashdot. These kind of things do impact network admins, who wouldn't need excessive filtering (they'd still need porn/malware but not a controversial filter) if it wasn't for shit like what the school is doing.

If the teacher loses their job, that's the school doing a horrible job and opening themselves to lawsuits. Hear of something bad about your employees? Is it worth investigating? If so, do so. If not, welcome to a new lawsuit. If a teacher's home gets firebombed, as extreme and generally unlikely that it is, it's unfortunate. But some people are stupid enough to do that over anything, let alone fake pedophilia claims.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Levelling 'paedophile' against a teacher is insanely damaging. They work with kids. As soon as the accusation is made it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. The media latches on to child abuse cases like leeches and while they'll say 'alleged' a lot you can guarantee the public won't think much of that teacher afterwards.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[91degrees]

They're at an age where they really need to learn that you can't throw around the pedophile accusation.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[geekmux]

Wait... pedophile + rapist = suspension, while bipolar = expulsion? Where is the logic in that one?

I was thinking the same thing as well, but then I realized how illogical ALL of it is. It might as well have read bipolar = 12 lashings from a monkey.

And yet again, my sig speaks volumes...

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it has tons to do with facebook. Ten years ago, if you said this in an IM convo, it wasn't public like it is with facebook. Technology has changed, but people use it the same old way. Kids need to learn that facebook is a lot less private, so they should be a lot more careful with what they say

Re:Good. Deserved.

[mallydobb]

yeah, that one eludes me. The school had no grounds to get involved, this should have been a civil matter between the teacher and the children making the statements (libel, defamation, etc). Now, that the school did get involved I don't see how claiming someone as bipolar is worse than claiming they're a rapist and a child molester. Were I the student in question and the principal asked me to login to facebook for him I'd just refuse. What the children did was wrong but the school took it too far.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[geekmux]

Called someone a "pedophile" in this age of crazy parents, vigilantism, and indefinite search engine indexing they deserve at least to be expelled. Such accusations could very easily result in that teacher losing their job or worse having some moron fire bombing their home. It is exactly this kind of thing which is driving male teachers out of education in droves. Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /.

Nothing to do with Facebook? Yes, you're right. It has to do with all social networking sites, websites, blogs, etc. and our ability to exercise free speech. Perhaps you would realize how close this hits to home right here on /. with that, for one of us could be targeted next.

It might frighten you to discover a similar anti-defamation policy buried deep on page 174 of your employee manual that you never knew about, or perhaps it will be an amendment to said manual next month because of this.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely see your point, but there are arguments on both sides here, with the legal precedent creating a profound and rippling effect on IF social networking (or true free speech for that matter) would continue to survive.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[flappinbooger]

Called someone a "pedophile" in this age of crazy parents, vigilantism, and indefinite search engine indexing they deserve at least to be expelled. Such accusations could very easily result in that teacher losing their job or worse having some moron fire bombing their home. It is exactly this kind of thing which is driving male teachers out of education in droves.

I know, there ought to be a law! Not about facebook, but a law that says all male teachers have to be chemically castrated eunuchs! That way the kids can never say they were pedophiles! That would fix the whole priest thing too....

Ridiculous? Yes. It is ridiculous! Of course, there have been many instances where young female teachers have sex with underage boys.... Does anyone call them pedophiles? No, because subconsciously all the male lawyers and judges are quietly saluting the young boy - "Score, dude, she's hot! Wish I had been so lucky when I was your age! WAY TO GO! Gimme a high five!"

Seriously though, I agree - any FALSE claim of pedophilia, incest, rape, molestation, etc is truly libel whether it's though an electronic media, speech, print or the bathroom wall.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[data2]

And suspending them for a few days is all good and well, although a parent-teacher conference was really intimidating for me back then, and frightened me enough. Point is: When you are 12, do you really necessarily know what a pedophile is and that is not just another name you can call someone to piss him off?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Luckyo]

Freedom of speech is about being allowed to say "pedophiles should be hanged".

False testimony/libel is saying "mr. teacher x is a pedophile".

Former is legal. Latter is not. Do not mix one with the other. Location the libel is irrelevant - internet is governed by same laws as everything else.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Teacher gets called paedophile
2. Media gets interested enough to contact the school
3. (Optional): Teacher is pissed off about the whole affair and makes some comments in anger, whether about the media, the state of the world today, or the behaviour of young people today
4. Media latches on to this as a potential scandal
5. Media starts referring to "the controversial teacher" or "the conflict surrounding the teacher" with reference to the several articles highlighting possible problems with the teacher (articles they have just written themselves)
6. Media starts speaking to parents who have never met the teacher but lets them read the articles about a controversial teacher accused of being a paedophile
7. Media harvests parent reactions
8. Parents and media confront the school
9. Teacher resigns, either voluntarily or being forced
10. Teacher will never have a normal life again

The only way the teacher can come out clean in this situation is if both the teacher and the school completely stonewalls the media so that over time they simply don't have enough information to milk for new controversy. That is a lot to ask for, because many people will feel justified at defending themselves at length if media comes to them with accusations.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Culture20]

Actually it has tons to do with facebook. Ten years ago, if you said this in an IM convo, it wasn't public like it is with facebook. Technology has changed, but people use it the same old way. Kids need to learn that facebook is a lot less private, so they should be a lot more careful with what they say.

Chances are that twelve year olds didn't use IM ten years ago, and that Facebook is their first communication medium.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[91degrees]

Well, kids know that it's an extremely hurtful thing to say... I don't know if they know why. Probably not. Kids are cruel. They just pick up on what's going to be most hurtful.

I sort of agree with that suspension is a pretty heavy handed response, although borderline acceptable. Not quite sure whether the school has jurisdiction here. Still, the kids need to know that this sort of thing is not acceptable behaviour.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Manfre]

I guess the principal is stating that the teacher is in fact a pedophile and a rapist. The comment about being bipolar must have been factually untrue, warranting the more severe punishment.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Cederic]

It might frighten you to discover a similar anti-defamation policy buried deep on page 174 of your employee manual

No, it's on page 3 of my employment contract. Not a surprise, and something I do take seriously.

Of course, my employer has to be careful what it says about me too, which feels fair.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[countertrolling]

Levelling 'paedophile' against a teacher is insanely damaging.

Only in an insane, hysterical society that encourages witch hunts. Blame your culture, not the words.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoo, wait a minute, women have gone to jail for that, so don't lump your stupid stereotype in with reality.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[ComputerGeek01]

The school had no grounds to get involved, this should have been a civil matter between the teacher and the children making the statements (libel, defamation, etc).

This is called "Postering" if the school administration shows that they don't back their staff then the kids see two smaller bodies each with their own self interests in mind instead of the single large machine. It would undermind the already poor level of authority that modern teachers assert over their classrooms if the school district didn't get involved in matters like this. Otherwise leagally speaking I agree with you 100%, I just thought I would point out why this is occuring.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Kijori]

This isn't a free speech issue and it isn't a threat to posters on Slashdot. It's a centuries-old rule being enforced in a way that accords entirely with common sense: making false allegations of extremely serious crimes can completely destroy a person's career and life, especially when it's an allegation of pedophilia against a teacher. Teachers have been murdered or committed suicide over exactly these sorts of allegations. The ability to spread malicious falsehoods about people is not a protected category of free speech; it is in fact a type of speech that has been prohibited for centuries.

I really can't imagine it will surprise anyone to find that they are not allowed maliciously to claim that their coworkers are guilty of exceptionally serious criminal conduct. Not only has it been in every employment manual I've ever had it's also actionable at law without any employment manual being necessary. And even if it were not, does anyone seriously expect to be able to claim that their boss is a pedophile? The idea is ridiculous.

Legal precedent with a profound and rippling effect? This is a violation of a school's code of conduct, it will almost certainly be settled out of court and even if it goes to court it will be decided at the lowest level and create absolutely no precedent with no effect whatsoever. Even if it did go to the supreme court the only way the ruling could be in any way surprising would be if they did not hold a person responsible for malicious defamation.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sosa is currently drafting an apology to her teacher. At the same time though, she said her school principal, Jolene Morris, violated her privacy by ordering her to log into her Facebook account at a school library computer. "

"Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /."

Actually, this does. If the student had to log in to let the principal read it then it wasn't public, was it? And if it wasn't public then the student was forced, without warrant, to submit to a search and seizure. /. has a "your rights online" section for just such news. There is nothing different than a group of kids in the park bitching about their teacher. We did that back in the dark ages when I was in school, but the principal never had the ability to force us to prove we said it. Actually, they still don't.... hence the news worthiness of the post.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /.

So we should be restricted to "news about Facebook; stuff that doesn't matter"? If anything it's crap about Facebook that I'd ban from Slashdot.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Amorymeltzer]

The two who called the teacher a rapist and a pedophile were on the honor roll. There was no mention of honor roll for the one who made the bipolar claim. I think that child has a really good case to be reinstated, as that looks like some major discrimination.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a parent of a 13 year old, yes they do know, and if they don't know better what is acceptable and what is not, then maybe it's time to make the kids *and* their parents take some responsibility. Is expulsion overly harsh? Maybe, but then the kids were behaving like complete idiots, and just maybe now they will think before making idiotic decisions.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[b4upoo]

So when I say that George W. Bush rapes little boys in public restrooms you feel that I should be punished. Then there is one huge issue yet mentioned. Since when do schools have any right at all to control kids at home? Do they claim they made these posts on school grounds?
              Then there is the free speech issue. There are teachers who have serious mental problems which they hide. Some of them hate children and deliberately do things that they know will upset kids. I know one that bragged about tripping students in the stair wells that he did not like in front of a class. Yet school administrations will often hide these closet abusers. Sometimes kids will protest by putting forth false allegations. The other kids understand that the stated complaint is only a sort of bid to invite others to join them in hope of relief.
                One positive relief would be to have a panel not connected to the school or school system that investigated school employees and had the ability to dismiss rogue employees.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Jawnn]

Nothing to do with Facebook? Yes, you're right. It has to do with all social networking sites, websites, blogs, etc. and our ability to exercise free speech. Perhaps you would realize how close this hits to home right here on /. with that, for one of us could be targeted next.

It might frighten you to discover a similar anti-defamation policy buried deep on page 174 of your employee manual that you never knew about, or perhaps it will be an amendment to said manual next month because of this.

...which are all good reasons to not post stupid shit like that "on the Internet".

Re:Good. Deserved.

[mallydobb]

true, but the child was in no way obliged to open her account and let the staff look at it. I agree the principal needs to back his staff, but if it were me at that age I would have told him to stuff it...politely.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[digitig]

Twenty years ago I knew a kid who would threaten to accuse her parents of being pedophiles whenever they didn't let her have her way. Kids might or might not know the details (I think nowadays almost all do) but they certainly know how damaging the accusation is.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[mangu]

There is nothing different than a group of kids in the park bitching about their teacher.

Yes, there is a big difference. No one has ever been sent to jail because a bunch of kids bitched about him in the park. It's the consequences of the act that matter, people at seventh grade should know about that.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[isorox]

False testimony/libel is saying "mr. teacher x is a pedophile".

How about "I think mr. teacher x is a paedophile"?

Or howeabout a newspaper headline stating
Mr teacher x is "is paedophile"

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there is one huge issue yet mentioned. Since when do schools have any right at all to control kids at home? Do they claim they made these posts on school grounds?

Um... is that not the entire purpose of schools? To teach children? To make them better citizens? You can't selectively pick arbitrary geological positions, times of day or topics of teaching to do this - it would undermine the entire process by cultivating a mentality of indifference.

And *if* a teacher truly is a menace to kids (be it of any kind), it is *not* libel if you report on true stories or quotations from the teacher. But yes, it is not as much fun to stick to the truth as it is to spice up the stories a bit.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Idarubicin]

...our ability to exercise free speech.

Your ability to exercise free speech does not absolve you of responsibility for the content and consequences of that speech.

Calling an innocent teacher a "pedophile" and a "rapist" - which is what these kids did - is the educational world's equivalent of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. Spuriously accusing someone else of any crime is bad enough; falsely accusing someone of being a child molester is beyond the pale; leveling such an accusation at a teacher - who would tend to face immediate suspension during any investigation, followed by dismissal and blacklisting, not to mention torches and pitchforks - is appalling behavior. Many jurisdictions have zero-tolerance, zero-discretion policies for responding to these types of claims, and school board officials have no choice about whether or not to investigate and take immediate action.

It might frighten you to discover a similar anti-defamation policy buried deep on page 174 of your employee manual that you never knew about, or perhaps it will be an amendment to said manual next month because of this.

For the reasons I mention above, there's no need to mention these things in the school's rules for these actions to be punishable. If anything, I suspect it's in there to try to protect the students and manage expectations -- if they get an explicit reminder that this type of defamation has serious consequences, they might be less likely to go ahead and do it without thinking.

By the same token, if your coworker falsely accused a manager of raping one or more of his subordinates, how well do you think that would go over? Would your HR department shrug it off as a bit of harmless fun if it was just because "I was mad that day because of what he [did]" (in the words of one of our students). To take a less emotionally-charged crime, if someone accused the company accountant of embezzling funds, would that be okay? Really? Is there so little maturity and sense of personal responsibility that every company now needs to add "You shouldn't baselessly accuse your coworkers of serious criminal acts" to their handbooks?

Parents need to remind their children that the Internet isn't some special place unattached to reality. That glowing box connects you to real computers operated by real, physical people in real, ordinary places on the physical planet Earth. Actions taken on the internet have repercussions offline, and vice versa. Defamatory statements are not magically protected just because they appear on 'teh internets'. Disappointingly, it seems that certain Slashdot posters are also unaware of this reality.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[CadDr2]

But the youth did log into facebook and did post horrid comments, this just shows that the youth is a child, too ignorant to know her rights and one could argue too naive to know the consequences of her actions...hence she needs to be taught.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Manip is a pedophile.

The problem is people confusing random baseless accusations with fact.

That problem is not solved by attempting to censor all random baseless accusations.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[cob666]

It's the culture that defines the meaning of the word, there is no functional difference.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[crackspackle]

Called someone a "pedophile" in this age of crazy parents, vigilantism, and indefinite search engine indexing they deserve at least to be expelled. Such accusations could very easily result in that teacher losing their job or worse having some moron fire bombing their home. It is exactly this kind of thing which is driving male teachers out of education in droves. Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /.

I disagree. It does belong on Slashdot and your post clearly points out why. When I was 13 many years ago and well before ready access to the Internet, we would not have ever thought to call our teachers bipolar, rapist pedophiles. At that age and time, few would have been familiar with the terms let alone think to use them as a way to slander a teacher at whom we were mad. We did stupid things like put dissected frogs in their desk or glue on their chair. These were as or more wrong in one sense, but at least they didn't carry the permanence and destructibility of being called a pedophile by children on the Internet.

As it is today, children do have access to more information than they are mature enough to handle. Combined with ready access to social media and the general irresponsibility of their age, things like this will continue to happen. That begs the question what if anything should be done to address it ? Most of us are free speech advocates here and we also tend to agree the advent of the Internet has been a great boon to mankind, something we talk a lot about here, but events like this point out some the sticky issues on both counts.

As for me, I think what the kids did was terribly bad, but expelling them at this point is unfair. Such things might be covered in the school rules to which they are required to adhere, but I doubt any of them have been educated about the dangers of these sorts of comments nor understood the real consequences of their actions. Until they are given that, expulsion is plain wrong.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[drosboro]

Most of the time, disciplinary decisions aren't made in a vacuum. One would need to know what else the kid who made the "bipolar" statement has been disciplined for lately to make decisions about the fairness of the punishment. It could be, for example, that the kid was on a "behavior contract", and this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It could be that the other two kids were "first-time offenders", hence the less severe punishment. Without knowing the full history, worrying about whether individual punishments were fair or not is a waste of time.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[houghi]

What we learn from 'news stations' is to say it in the form of a question. "Teacher X a pedofile?"

Re:Good. Deserved.

[tomhudson]

There is nothing different than a group of kids in the park bitching about their teacher.

It's VERY different. Facebook postings aren't available just to the people standing there at the time.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I sort of agree with that suspension is a pretty heavy handed response, although borderline acceptable.

No, not at all acceptable. Suspension nor expulsion go near far enough to teach these kids about the life altering actions they just attempted.

What is needed is up to 30 days in jail. Not long enough to cause any horrible mental scarring since they are just being stupid kids, but long enough to remember what it feels like and to learn they just about caused the teacher to go through that for much much longer than 30 days. In fact the teacher would go through that for years, and afterward the teacher would Still be treated the same way out side of prison for the rest of their life.

Perhaps being torn away from their home, family, friends, and everything nice in life for a tiny short time might just do that.

Claiming someone is a pedophile has life altering ramifications that can not be undone.
The effects last forever. Just like killing some one does.
These things are no where near acceptable and clearly no one has taught that to these kids yet.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to do with freedom of speech and the internet.

I'm glad you think that. And now to exersize my 'right' as you just claimed I have the right to say without any consequences:

POETMATT IS A PEDOPHILE WHO RAPES LITTLE CHILDREN!

POETMATT HAS TOUCHED 5 YEAR OLD BUYS AND 6 YEAR OLD GIRLS BETWEEN THE LEGS

POETMATT IS A CHILDMOLESTER

I happen to live 3 houses down from poetmatt and have witnessed him fondling children through his front window.

poetmatt was BRAGGING to me about the extensive nature of his child porn collection on his computer too! Someone needs to look into that to see if it's true!

<font size='1'> The above is fictional writing, granted by written permission given from poetmatt </font>

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

If all they get is suspended or expelled they are getting off light. These are some serious allegations that need to have some serious consequences if made falsely.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Levelling 'paedophile' against a teacher is insanely damaging.

Only in an insane, hysterical society that encourages witch hunts. Blame your culture, not the words.

The insanity of the culture is not an excuse for doing things that are harmful, even if they are only harmful because of the insanity. For example, suppose our society made it a capital offense to drive with a bumper magnet. Now, suppose some douchebag pisses me off, and I get back at him by putting a bumper magnet on his car. That would be serious misdeed on my part, even if in a perfect society it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[91degrees]

This isn't an actual accusation. Nobody actually considered this to be anything other than kids using the meanest insult they know.

Has anyone, for an instant, considered it possible that this teacher is a pedophile or a rapist? They didn't and they wouldn't, and there was no intent to suggest that. It didn't affect anyone's life. I think we should have a little more restraint than that.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

The principal forced one of the students to log in to their personal Facebook account on a school computer, which is somewhat parallel to issues adults are facing in the work place. I'd like to know about situations happening at schools, because if we don't stop them, the kids will grow up thinking this is appropriate.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, it's a private post between friends. The student had to "log on" to allow the teacher to read it. ie: Somebody tipped off the principal.

Secondly, it's none of the schools business what happens off campus. If the teachers in question feel they were 'slandered', that is what the civil court system is for.

In this day and age, there is absolutely no reason for our failing school systems to be acting as judge and juror in anything, let alone things that happen off campus. This is *exactly* why our school systems are failing ... they teachers/administrators don't get it ... they are not surrogate parents ... heck, they are not even good at their jobs cause of the unions don't allow for competition for the jobs or meaningful disciplinary actions.

If teachers are good, then student respect them ... if teachers are bad, then they get facebook postings them .. heck, the one kid was an honor role student. I wonder just how bad of a teacher you have to be to get a honor role student that pissed at you huh?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

False testimony/libel is saying "mr. teacher x is a pedophile".

Unless they are of course.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[westlake]

Levelling 'paedophile' against a teacher is insanely damaging. They work with kids. As soon as the accusation is made it doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

In the mail box this week:

Perverts welcome at [your suburban high school]

When a male teacher was in the mood for a little sex between classes, militant teacher [Jane Doe] was happy to help out, by writing a hall pass for a female student.

The School Board disciples of militant preacher [John Smith], are very proud to jeopardize your children with their forgiveness and rewarding of deviants.

The poster was identified by one eyewitness as former school board member whose association with an anonymous scandal sheet helped grease the skids for his departure in our last election.

"Smith" is the pastor of a mainstream Protestant church.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[kevinNCSU]

You can't selectively pick arbitrary geological positions, times of day or topics of teaching to do this - it would undermine the entire process by cultivating a mentality of indifference.

Indeed, the schools official geological positions should be limited to where there's majority consensus in the current state of research in the field. As soon as schools start just randomly picking positions on geology put out by any crackpot the entire process of education is undermined.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if said teacher IS a pedophile? Should any student accusing them be expelled THEN?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Mr Teacher X]

How about "I think mr. teacher x is a paedophile"?

Or howeabout a newspaper headline stating Mr teacher x is "is paedophile"

I don't think I'd like that very much :-/

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think it's kids like this that are in the greatest need of an education? Removing them from school seems like the exact opposite of what will change their behavior.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[jjohnson]

Legal definitions of privacy don't respect arbitrarily drawn circles. You don't get to declare a "privacy zone" composed of only your friends or members of your sekret club who know the password. You can have private communications with your spouse, your doctor, your lawyer, and your priest, and that it's, as far as "violation" having any legal weight to it.

Otherwise, it's just "waaah, he read my sekret note!"

Re:Good. Deserved.

[rtb61]

They are being taught another lesson. Once you make a foolish post on facebook, either admit it is false and get punished or make up a story and the teacher gets punished.

The school has not reach beyond school grounds, excluding school covered excursions and sporting events. Attempts by schools to censor children beyond school grounds should be targeted at parents and not at the children. Facebook is obviously not an appropriate social networking site for minors and Facebook management should be censured for allowing children to sign up with out parent consent and supervision.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[damicatz]

In order for it to be libel three things have to be demonstrated : 1.The statements were false. 2.The author of the statements was negligent in their research of said facts or, in the case of a public figure, the statements were made with actual malice. 3.The subject of the libelous statements suffered actual damage. Hurt feelings do not constitute actual damage. Loosing your job constitutes damage. Loosing customers constitutes damage. A damaged reputation that is *demonstrable* could be considered actual damage. Suffering extreme emotional distress *could* be, under certain circumstances, be considered actual damage. I don't see any actual damages here unless it has been omitted from an article. All I see is a bunch of snooping teachers looking on their students facebooks and not liking the fact that people said mean things about them. This is not sufficient cause for a libel suit.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "I think mr. teacher x is a paedophile"?

Or howeabout a newspaper headline stating
Mr teacher x is "is paedophile"

First, don't slip the word "think" into it in order to try and bolster your argument. You turned potential slander into an opinion which is not slander. Legally, that's apples an oranges.

Saying "Mr teacher X is a paedophile" is potentially slander. Potentially because it will depend on whether or not people heard you say it and if they did, whether or not they know who you're talking about and how much damage it would cause the individual if they believed you.

A newspaper heading is the same thing but is libel and much much more likely to land you in trouble as it is much more public and being a newspaper heading, more people are likely to believe it. Otherwise, there's not that much difference.

The kids were idiots, libelled a teacher in a public forum (nothing on facebook can be considered private as they keep on retrospectively making "private" things public) and did so by calling the teacher a paedophile. This could destroy the teachers career and life. Being expelled is a perfectly reasonable punishment for such a nasty act. If the kids didn't realise then this is a failing of the parents and the school is now making up for this poor parenting. I just hope that the kids involved get the message and learn from their mistakes.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

I guess they're learning that it's not just another name you can call someone to piss him off, aren't they?

I'm not sure why people seem so forgiving of this. The kids shot their mouths off, and made comments that could be very damaging. They are now bearing the consequences of their actions.

Seems like this is pretty much how we expect the world to work, isn't it? You mess up, you're punished, you learn & grow?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

I bet the school board had lawyers review the actions. It's possible that they may just know more about the situation than we do.

My guess - kids who made the "pedophile" and "rapist" are identified as Honor Roll students, and probably have no history of disciplinary issues; Thus, they were given suspensions, because this was probably the first-or-worst thing they've ever done.

The kid who made the bipolar comment *probably* has a history of infractions and disciplinary problems, and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

If it looks like "some major discrimination" to a random reader, imagine how glaringly obvious it would be to the school district's legal counsel. I think it's safe to assume that there are more details to the situation that haven't been reported.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Oligonicella]

The restraint is they are *not* being taken to court. Being suspended or expelled is the lesser result (libel can be a felony). They broke the law and libeled someone. They knew they were doing it, but didn't spend any time thinking. Just like most law breakers. They knew what the term meant and knew what it could do. They're not six, they're twelve. Hell, the schools themselves have been telling them about pedos for years. You can tell all this because they're admitting it, not acting bewildered. Too bad they caused themselves problems with their actions. That's an education.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Oligonicella]

Well writ.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

Does anyone call them pedophiles?

The DSM defines pedophilia as, "a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty." Prepubescent is generally considered to be age 13 or lower.

Go scan through this list of women, and consider whether or not the definition applies.

In some cases, the definition does not, because the victims are older than 13. In some cases, it absolutely does - and I suspect that you'd find a fair majority of the male lawyers and judges who would be fine with calling these women pedophiles.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Kijori]

I'm not a US lawyer, I'm a law student in the UK. That said I'm not sure that you're quite right about libel law.

First, it looks like US law matches English law in not requiring proof of damage for certain allegations (known as allegations actionable per se). One of these is allegations of criminal conduct punishable by imprisonment.
Second (and this is only relevant if for some reason the first point I made doesn't apply), I think you might be overstating the requirements by saying "extreme emotional distress". In general in order to be actionable psychological injury doesn't have to be "extreme", it just has to be medically recognised. There is also (at least in the UK) plenty of case law in support of the proposition that harassment or bullying at work as a result of a tortious act is sufficient to constitute actionable harm. I suspect that the reason the student's Facebook account was being checked anyway was that the harassment was not confined to cyberspace.

In any case I think the question of whether there was any legally recognised harm is rather beside the point. I was responding to the GP's claims, which suggested that this was a novel incursion on freedom of speech. Whether or not in this particular case they could prove enough harm to support a civil action is irrelevant to the fact that maliciously accusing people of serious criminal conduct is generally neither protected nor tolerated by the law.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

If your school code of conduct included "falsely reporting that George W. Bush is a child rapist" on its list of Level 1 offenses, then yes, you should be punished, and probably expelled or suspended, just like these kids are.

What purpose does it serve to create rules, if they are not enforced? What purpose does it serve to tell kids to follow the rules, and then allow them to ignore the rules with no penalties for doing so?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Travelsonic]

I did - 2001 I used AIM [and AOL >_] and I was 11.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[mewshi_nya]

Well, in the interest of being true to the actual meaning of "pedophile," I should point out that having sex with someone who is underage does not make one a pedophile. If the victim has hit puberty, that's a different paraphilia (which, for the record, is only a paraphilia because society has moved away from 20+ year old men marrying 13 year old girls).

Also, I should point out that, contrary to modern usage standards, child molesters and pedophiles are 2 distinct groups that just happen to have some overlap. Some child molesters are pedophiles, and vice versa; that's it.

Anyway, what you said reminds me of that episode of South Park where Ike is being molested by his teacher. The perceived double standard is honestly vaguely annoying, even if you don't have a real stake.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Thing 1]

Chances are that twelve year olds didn't use IM ten years ago, and that Facebook is their first communication medium.

And furthermore, if you're 12, aren't you violating Facebook's terms of service if you're using their service? Based on some stupid federal law, corporations can't collect information on people less than 13?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."

But if the student validates, represents, adds or correctly reports allegations of inappropriate behaviour by a school employee toward a student, everything is all right, irrespective of whether the allegations are true or false

I just had to.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[russotto]

This isn't a free speech issue and it isn't a threat to posters on Slashdot.

It is to any who are still in the hell we call the primary and secondary education system.

The ability to spread malicious falsehoods about people is not a protected category of free speech; it is in fact a type of speech that has been prohibited for centuries.

It is, but there's more to the question than that. For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.

Furthermore, there's the question of how much control a school has or should have over a student's life outside of school -- including posting on Facebook. To assert that the school has the power to require a student to show the principal the contents of the student's facebook account, and further to require the student to delete any offending posts, is going way too far, IMO.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[91degrees]

Hmm... If there is criminal libel in this jurisdiction, it's unlikely that it would apply. Normally that would require intent to defame someone.

As for whether they libelled someone, that's a legal question, and not one that the school can arbitrarily decide. It's completely unfair to have the plaintiff and the court to be the same body.

Now then, for it to be actionable libel as a civil claim, the teacher would have to demonstrate that damage was done. Actual damage. Not hypothetical potential damage. Nobody believed that accusation, so there's no injury and no recourse.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Culture20]

You misunderstood; I was referring to people who are twelve now (two years old ten years ago).

Re:Good. Deserved.

[coolsnowmen]

While many agree with you, it is part of an effort to encourage good conduct outside of school (no fights, drugs, etc). If it is brought to the schools attention that while outside of school you are undergoing bad behavior of certain natures then the school may attempt to punish you. This is brought to the kids attention as part of the "SR&R" (student's rights and responsibilities). It was this way at my HS. It seemed ridiculous at the time, but take a second to understand- most of these bad kids don't strong parental involvement. If they did, they wouldn't even get into this situation.

Some teachers will tell you that through middle school, you can tell just about how well a kid will do in your class at parent teacher night. (i.e. Parental involvement at young ages is imperative.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[russotto]

Calling an innocent teacher a "pedophile" and a "rapist" - which is what these kids did - is the educational world's equivalent of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

No, it really isn't. Not that the case in question was a paragon of wise Supreme Court decisions anyway. What's missing is the emergency nature of shouting "fire!" -- those hearing the cry must respond immediately, without time for critical thought or investigation, or risk serious harm from the fire. In the case of calling someone a pedophile or rapist, no such emergency is present; while often enough those hearing the cry do fail to engage in critical thought or investigation, it is not because there is any compelling reason they cannot.

Spuriously accusing someone else of any crime is bad enough; falsely accusing someone of being a child molester is beyond the pale; leveling such an accusation at a teacher - who would tend to face immediate suspension during any investigation, followed by dismissal and blacklisting, not to mention torches and pitchforks - is appalling behavior. Many jurisdictions have zero-tolerance, zero-discretion policies for responding to these types of claims, and school board officials have no choice about whether or not to investigate and take immediate action.

But no such accusation was leveled. Rather, this was mere trash-talking among a group of students. There's a difference between making an actual accusation and throwing accusatory words around, even if both are wrong. For instance, I might refer to a co-worker as a "thief" because he keeps taking pens off my desk, but the fact is that I'm not actually accusing him of committing the crime of larceny when I do so.

By the same token, if your coworker falsely accused a manager of raping one or more of his subordinates

Was any such specific accusation made here? From what I've read, he was called a "rapist" but no more specifics were given.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[poetmatt]

Really? What part of libel is there with claiming someone is a pedophile. Luckyo is a pedophile! That's not illegal. The latter is absolutely legal if it's an opinion. Also where's the proof of damages?

You can claim the word is illegal, but you'd be laughed out of court in an instant. Get your shit straight.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Kijori]

It really isn't a threat to anyone. Unless students were previously labouring under the misapprehension that they were free to tell people that their teacher was a paedophile because he had told them off this changes nothing. Everyone was aware of this rule anyway, and no-one had any trouble following it because it is absolutely common sense: you can't accuse people of serious sexual offences in order to get back at them.

What I think you have to bear in mind is that this wasn't the start of the investigation - I don't believe for a moment that it was a random Facebook raid by the teacher in question. This will almost certainly have been the end of the teacher's investigation after the allegations had been communicated to parents or to other children and had then come to the teacher's attention in the form of either harassment from students or concern from parents. At that point - where the teacher is either being harassed at work due to the allegations or has had his ability to act as a teacher called into question - there can be no doubt that an action in liable would lie. As I read US law (as I posted above I'm a law student in the UK not the US and have no in-depth knowledge of the US system) this would be a candidate for punitive damages. The question then, for all the people who say that the school acted unreasonably by using its internal disciplinary process when the Facebook posting was made outside school, becomes whether you would prefer that they had sued the student and forced him to pay substantial damages and hefty legal costs.

This sort of behaviour is wrong. What's more the student must have known it was wrong. The fact that it came to the teacher's attention shows that it had the potential to cause serious harm even if in this case it didn't - all it takes is one student or parent to take it seriously and school policy will normally require that the police be called and the teacher be suspended. I can see no problem with imposing serious punishment where students have knowingly, deliberately and maliciously broken the rules.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

These kids shouldn't be punished for societal problems. They are just words. The real underlying problem is that we allow people to excuse actions based on certain claims without merit. Nobody should be terrorising others as society has allowed. The news and politics is the majority of the problem. Not one two kids created.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[russotto]

It really isn't a threat to anyone. Unless students were previously labouring under the misapprehension that they were free to tell people that their teacher was a paedophile because he had told them off this changes nothing.

We don't know why the students said the teacher was a pedophile, actually.

What I think you have to bear in mind is that this wasn't the start of the investigation - I don't believe for a moment that it was a random Facebook raid by the teacher in question. This will almost certainly have been the end of the teacher's investigation after the allegations had been communicated to parents or to other children and had then come to the teacher's attention in the form of either harassment from students or concern from parents.

My guess -- and it's a pure guess -- is the statement got back to the principal because one of the students' friends' parents found out about it. But it doesn't matter whether it was a random Facebook raid or a targeted one; the raid was still outside the school's authority. Unlike, say, a locker, a Facebook account is not part of the school.

The question then, for all the people who say that the school acted unreasonably by using its internal disciplinary process when the Facebook posting was made outside school, becomes whether you would prefer that they had sued the student and forced him to pay substantial damages and hefty legal costs.

The school could not have sued, because the school was not libeled. The teacher would have had to have sued. And I doubt damages would have been substantial; the fact that clearly no one took the students' statements seriously (note that the reaction was to punish the student, not to suspend the teacher) would mitigate them. The legal costs are happening anyway; as the school overreached, they prompted a lawsuit.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Lost Race]

The ability to spread malicious falsehoods about people is not a protected category of free speech; it is in fact a type of speech that has been prohibited for centuries.

Many many centuries, millennia even. From the code of Hammurabi, the earliest known code of written law: If anyone brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[SumterLiving]

Until the culture changes I'll blame the mouth that utters the words. Now lets start the cultural revolution so I can start blaming "words".

Re:Good. Deserved.

[one cup of coffee]

Mod up.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[SumterLiving]

When I was 10 years old or 40 years ago, I called an "old lady" an "Old Bag". Said old lady told my dad what I said. I was not whipped or yelled at. Dad just calmly apologized to the lady and said he'd handle it at home. I had to dress up in paper shopping bags for a week. Never uttered those words gain. Fully expected a whipping but never got it but the lesson was learned. Maybe a good dose of extreme humiliation and a sincere apology is in order for these punks?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Jafafa Hots]

"I bet the school board had lawyers review the actions."

Really?

I was suspended from school many times. The FIRST time I was suspended it was for skipping a class led by an ACTUAL pedophile in order to avoid said pedophile because I was his chosen target. There was no "investigation" whatsoever. Teacher made claims, I was suspended. End of story.

Another time I was suspended was because my schedule on the FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL was screwed up, and I went to the wrong last period class. Realizing what had happened, with the school day over, I went home thinking "first thing in the morning I'll go to the office and get this straightened out."

Well, first thing in the morning I WAS in the office, having been called down right from homeroom. I politely tried to explain what happened, expecting that the helpful school staff would assist in getting my schedule corrected.

Nope. The moment I opened my mouth, before I even had 5 words out, the principal said "Oh we have a debater here huh? Well, not for long!" and I was immediately suspended. Second day of school.

THAT was what made me walk away from the whole damned thing. Never went back in that building.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[AK Marc]

Calling someone a pedophile isn't a violation of the school rules. Neither is calling someone bipolar. Neither are "Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student." False defamatory statements aren't covered by that policy. Being "bipolar" isn't an action. The one that called the teacher a rapist was suspended, but not expelled. They did actually break the rules. Rape is an inappropriate behavior. "Bipolar" isn't a behavior, thus can't be an inappropriate behavior.

I sense a lawsuit coming, and the parents will win. When the schools hide behind zero tolerance rules and one-strike penalties, they need to make sure they follow those same rules they claim to follow blindly, and unless there was more to the statements than here, they didn't.

And the other thing is that the school, principal, and teachers are legally culpable for their actions, the children aren't. Why not? Because the only real action that should be able to be taken against them is libel. And even an incompetent lawyer could argue that teens whining about a teacher and attaching negative labels in obvious name calling is not believable and that there was no harm to the reputation done by the comments.

Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /.

If you believe that, then you believe that 99% of things posted under YRO are inappropriate, right? This is a case of someone saying something online, then having their future trampled because of it. That's more a YRO issue that most everything posted under that tag.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[AK Marc]

Malicious defamation isn't illegal at all, if the otherwise libelous statement isn't believable or doesn't harm someone's reputation. A bunch of teens whining about their homework and calling the teacher names isn't something I'd run out and fire teachers over. Add to that the code of conduct bans false accusations of "inappropriate actions" and being bipolar and being a pedophile aren't actions (they may imply actions, but in no way actually indicate a specific action was taken).

So I agree with you that it won't make precedent or get past the lowest level of judicial review. Just maybe not for the same reasons you do.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[cgenman]

Sure, suspend the students that accused him of being a pedophile and a rapist, if the allegations are entirely unfounded. But according to the article, one of the students was expelled for claiming he was "bipolar." Considering the vast number of people who are entirely or somewhat bipolar, and how it has little or no social stigma attached to it, how is that somehow worse and deserving of more punishment than calling someone a pedophile?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[AK Marc]

Ah, but in this case, they are not enforcing the rules. The rules require that there be a claim of "inappropriate action" and being a pedophile or being bipolar aren't actions. As such, if they were so interested in the rules, they'd just warn them and only punish the one that did claim an inappropriate action, rape.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the fact that Facebook is a bit like a toiletstall wall in the sense that any idiot can write anything about anybody else on it, wouldn't it have sufficed to make these kids scrub the loo and post an apology?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Called someone a "pedophile" in this age of crazy parents, vigilantism, and indefinite search engine indexing they deserve at least to be expelled.

You should be complaining about 'those crazy parents, vigilantism and indefinite search engine indexing'.. by expelling them, you're just creating another level of that insanity.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Okay, fine, they're ephebophiles. It's still really illegal, but they tend to draw much less social condemnation and punishment.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[dancingmad]

I'm a US law student studying in the UK. While I'm not specializing in tort at all, UK and US libel laws are pretty different.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

Is it too much to ask that people at least read the summary before they chime in with their opinion on it?

From TFS, the code of conduct prohibits "'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."

"My teacher is such a pedophile." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.
"My teacher is such a rapist." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.
"My teacher is bipolar." Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.

Unless the teacher *is* a pedophile, a rapist, or bipolar, the publication of statements that he is one of those things are false. Therefore, the students who made the allegations are in violation of the code of conduct, which specifically prohibits these actions.

The only reason people are even remotely defending these kids here are because somebody threw the "FACEBOOK" word into the article. If these kids got up during a school assembly and said, "Mr. Smith is a rapist" "LOL NO, he's a PEDOPHILE!" "LOL NOWAI He's just BIPOLAR!" They would be disciplined in the same way.

The statements - and the students have retracted the statements, saying they were "just angry" - are false. If they haven't learned that there are repercussions for lying and using words carelessly, then it's about time they started learning that.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Nutria]

Maybe I need sarcasm-tags, but seriously? Please look at the age of the children and think again about your comment.

Maybe you don't understand the permanence of the Intarweb?

Yes, *maybe* the kid has matured and realized the errors of his ways. Or... maybe he's just a malicious bastard.

The Uni or business that the now-grown person applies to Googles the name and finds the false allegations. Rejected. Same with a prospective boy/girlfriend Googling the name. Maybe even a landlord or bank deciding on an lease or loan.

Few will take the chance.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling an innocent teacher a "pedophile" and a "rapist" - which is what these kids did - is the educational world's equivalent of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

No, it really isn't. Not that the case in question was a paragon of wise Supreme Court decisions anyway. What's missing is the emergency nature of shouting "fire!" -- those hearing the cry must respond immediately, without time for critical thought or investigation, or risk serious harm from the fire. In the case of calling someone a pedophile or rapist, no such emergency is present; while often enough those hearing the cry do fail to engage in critical thought or investigation, it is not because there is any compelling reason they cannot.

Spuriously accusing someone else of any crime is bad enough; falsely accusing someone of being a child molester is beyond the pale; leveling such an accusation at a teacher - who would tend to face immediate suspension during any investigation, followed by dismissal and blacklisting, not to mention torches and pitchforks - is appalling behavior. Many jurisdictions have zero-tolerance, zero-discretion policies for responding to these types of claims, and school board officials have no choice about whether or not to investigate and take immediate action.

But no such accusation was leveled. Rather, this was mere trash-talking among a group of students. There's a difference between making an actual accusation and throwing accusatory words around, even if both are wrong. For instance, I might refer to a co-worker as a "thief" because he keeps taking pens off my desk, but the fact is that I'm not actually accusing him of committing the crime of larceny when I do so.

By the same token, if your coworker falsely accused a manager of raping one or more of his subordinates

Was any such specific accusation made here? From what I've read, he was called a "rapist" but no more specifics were given.

Your equating this to a timescale makes no difference. You've quite obviously missed the point. He is saying *It's the equivalent* nothing more.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Nutria]

The problem is that while it's mean to call an old lady an Old Bag, it's multiple-life destroying to be accused of pedophilia or rape.

The (to one degree or another) affected parties:

1. The man, who is suspended, be forced out of his job and who will always have the aura of "pedophile" around him, thus being virtually unemployable,
2. the false accuser, who's name is now "stored" forever in the Internet as a false-accuser (people Googling them will see it and not want to take a chance hiring him/her or accepting him into Exclusive U, dating him, loaning him money, etc),
3. the man's wife, who can't help but wonder if maybe he *is* a pervert, probably divorces Him,
4. the man's kids, who get taken away by the state and teased mercilessly by other kids,
5. the accuser's parents, who's savings will be drained suing the Accused, or defending a libel suit filed by the Man, and shunned by others as Bad Parents,
6. the accuser's siblings who are stained with Guilt By Association.

The younger you are, the more you'll think I'm full of shit. Oh well.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Nutria]

I knew a kid who would threaten to accuse her parents of being pedophiles whenever they didn't let her have her way.

When a young parent, I thought of what I'd do in this scenario. I decided that I'd call her bluff by driving her to the police station and daring her to put up or shut up.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it's not a false claim. Has any effort been made into investigating the claims made by the students? Two honor role students make claims about the same teacher? Probably false, but have they made sure?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[BitterOak]

Freedom of speech is about being allowed to say "pedophiles should be hanged".

False testimony/libel is saying "mr. teacher x is a pedophile".

Former is legal. Latter is not. Do not mix one with the other. Location the libel is irrelevant - internet is governed by same laws as everything else.

No. False testimony would be saying "Mr. Teacher X raped me." or "I saw Mr. Teacher X raping a fellow student." Saying "Mr. Teacher X is a pedophile" is a general, vague statement of opinion unless there is a specific incident to back it up. No school board would fire a teacher based on a general statement like that. There'd need to be an accusation of a specific incident.

As to your final point about location being irrelevant, that is simply not true. There is a difference between publication and private conversation. The former is subject to liable laws, the later is not. (The latter may be subject to slander laws, but there are other requirements that must be met for slander to apply). Since the comments were posted on a Facebook wall which was NOT publicly accessible (the principle had to coerce a student to log into his/her Facebook account to even SEE the comments), I would suggest that this speech is better described as a private conversation rather than a publication.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[mywhitewolf]

Is no one else alarmed that 2 honor students made an accusation against a teacher with no history of previous infringement? what if its not just slander but kids that are being punished for alerting the masses of poor behaviour? clearly approaching the school to inform them could end up in suspension. There is good reason to believe that the kids may inform their peers without informing authority, especially considering the authority would be the infringing party in the first place.

regardless i hope there is an investigation into the allegations to show the students the seriousness of the matter and to ensure this isn't just a cry for help.

i know they apologized for their actions however one could argue that the "guilty response" they provided would have been under duress and threat of expulsion.

something just doesn't sound right.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[AK Marc]

"My teacher is such a pedophile." - Falsifying allegations? Absolutely. Erroneously reporting allegations? Absolutely.

Allegations of what? you were the one whining that people didn't read TFS, but you didn't read it yourself.

"'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."

If you call the teacher a vegetarian with the intention of impugning their reputation, you can be sued for libel, but you didn't violate the rules of the school because there had to have been some "inappropriate behavior" reported. Veganism isn't a claim of any actual action. Neither is "bipolar" or "pedophile." There may be some implication of a desire for relations with someone under age. However, there was no allegation of an actual inappropriate act toward a student. As such, it doesn't meet that definition.

If these kids got up during a school assembly and said, "Mr. Smith is a rapist" "LOL NO, he's a PEDOPHILE!" "LOL NOWAI He's just BIPOLAR!" They would be disciplined in the same way.

Having been in a school assembly with similar things shouted, I can assert with 100% certainty that you are wrong. Everyone in the room would know it was a joke. Even if the joke was inappropriate, it would be dealt with as an inappropriate joke, and not a falsified police report. The policy is not a bad one to deal with anyone who makes a false claim of an inappropriate conduct in a "regular" manner (telling the principal, the police, etc.). But this is more like putting sound recording devices in the bathrooms and expelling students for talking amongst themselves regarding their dislike of the teachers. They didn't intend to "make an allegation" and in most of the described cases, didn't actually make an allegation. They wanted to complain about school, the way students have for thousands of years. It's just now, what's considered by the students to be hallway jibes are recorded and used against them.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[91degrees]

Was the man suspended? Did his wife leave him? Were his kids taken away?

The only reason the false accuser is known is because of the punishment. The only people considering suing are the parents who feel the punishment is too extreme.

So really it seems the punishment is worse than the crime here.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[FlatEric521]

Parents need to remind their children that the Internet isn't some special place unattached to reality. That glowing box connects you to real computers operated by real, physical people in real, ordinary places on the physical planet Earth. Actions taken on the internet have repercussions offline, and vice versa. Defamatory statements are not magically protected just because they appear on 'teh internets'. Disappointingly, it seems that certain Slashdot posters are also unaware of this reality.

Fully agreed. I think this is core to the problem at hand. Just deleting the comments won't fix anything either. The internet is self-archiving in many ways. Think carefully before posting. Don't do anything on the internet that you wouldn't do in the real world just because you can delete it later.

I also find it interesting that not a single quote in the actual article even has one of the kids saying "I'm sorry." They say they wish they hadn't done it or didn't want to hurt his reputation, but not that they are sorry about telling such horrible lies?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

You are aware that words have specific meanings, yes?

You are aware of the definition of pedophilia, yes?

You are aware that making the claim that someone exhibits "primary or exclusive sexual interest towards prepubescent children", especially for somebody whose job is to work with children all day, is an allegation of inappropriate behavior, yes?

I'd like for you to explain exactly how one can make the claim that someone "is a pedophile" without having witnessed behavior that suggests that the person is, in fact, a pedophile, and exhibits sexual interest in prepubescent children? Either it's true, in which case the school MUST take it seriously, suspend the teacher, and inform the police, or it's false, and the kid is making a false allegation. Either way, it's a valuable lesson for children to learn that words have specific meanings, and that they should learn to choose their words carefully. If they MEANT to say, "Mr. Smith is a big mean awful person and he makes me so angry," perhaps they'll say that next time, rather than claiming that he's a pedophile, or a rapist.

You're trying to split semantic hairs in a ludicrously fine fashion: "I said he was a murderer, that isn't an allegation of wrongdoing, it's just a description of his condition!"

Re:Good. Deserved.

[SvnLyrBrto]

But did these kids actually and falsely claim to be victims of, or witnesses to, pedophilea and rape? Or were they just kids PO'd at their teacher, engaging in the usual behind-their-back griping and smack-talk that kids have been doing about their teachers since forever, and just using the most vicious and hurtful words in their arsenal?

See, for example, Jerry Falwell's (ultimately unsuccessful... ultimately, as in went all the way to the SCOTUS) lawsuit against Larry Flynt.

Or even my own childhood example: For some reason. my fifth grade teacher decided to take a disliking to me, and gave me a level of grief, that year, unmatched by any teacher I had before or since. By halfway through the year, I hated that man's living guts. And to this day, recalling his name makes me bristle with a bit of loathing. Amongst my friends and behind his back, I engaged in the usual little-kid griping, fantasizing about how I'd get even with him, and name-calling... up to and including calling him a nazi.

Now, do you imagine for a moment that I was actually... seriously... suggesting that he was a war criminal left over from WW2, who had escaped justice, was hiding out in an elementary school in the Untied States, and needed be taken away by the Mossad? You're completely daft if you do. I was just a kid who felt put upon by an awful person, who was lashing out with the nastiest word I could come up with at the time.

And I would bet good money that, in this case as well, there's no real intent to falsely accuse anyone of a crime... that this is just kids being kids and calling their teacher names and using the most hurtful ones they can conjure. "With a computer" or "on Facebook" doesn't change that. And the teachers, the principle, their supervisors, and the school district if this is allowed to stand; are all entirely out of line, and all need to be brought low for this

Re:Good. Deserved.

[curmudgeon kate]

Yeah, that makes no sense. It doesn't even fit the cited rule -- "bipolar" isn't inappropriate behavior.

Sigh.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Ol Olsoc]

What freakin' universe do you live in?

The mere accusation or "trash talk" or exercise of free speech in which a person is associated with pedophilia is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life.

No trail needed, merely the mention. Your so called "trash talk" is all that's needed to destroy a person. It isn't right, but it's how it is.

And your "thief analogy is an massive failure. How's about sharing with co-workers that the "thief" is say, cheating on his wife, or maybe the boss is boinking his secretary. Hey, it's just water cooler talk, no harm, - you were just sayin'. I doubt you're married, but you would be cool with someone telling your sig other you were fooling around a bit, calling you a rapist, but not really accusing with details?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[wisty]

Other analogies:

* The bank you work for was about to collapse.

* The restaurant you work for captures stray dogs, and serves them to the guests as "chicken".

* Your commanding officer was sending files to wikileaks.

* Your boss took bribe from a supplier.

Really, some shit needs evidence. Especially if you are in a position to know.

I'm all for "Anonymous Cowards" claiming strange things about presidential candidates, but you know to take them with a grain of salt. If somebody with inside information starts speaking, they better have, well, inside information.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[AK Marc]

You are aware that making the claim that someone exhibits "primary or exclusive sexual interest towards prepubescent children", especially for somebody whose job is to work with children all day, is an allegation of inappropriate behavior, yes?

Uh, no. That's not a claim of inappropriate behavior. It's not a claim related to behavior at all. Pedophilia is a desire. Someone who desires to go to the moon isn't an astronaut. Just because they desire sex with minors doesn't mean they have had sex with minors. And even if they did, there'd have to be a claim of that sex with minors to be with an actual student. As asserting they are a child rapist of kindergarteners (and you are in a high school or jr high) would not violate the stated rule.

That you can't tell the difference between a "desire" and an "action" doesn't mean that everyone else is so confused.

I'd like for you to explain exactly how one can make the claim that someone "is a pedophile" without having witnessed behavior that suggests that the person is, in fact, a pedophile, and exhibits sexual interest in prepubescent children?

Irrelevant to whether the claim of pedophilia is a claim that the person in question performed an inappropriate act with a student. No accusation of an act was made. Even if there was an accusation of an act was made, there was no student identified or implied.

You're trying to split semantic hairs in a ludicrously fine fashion:

Yes, I am. If they are going to apply the rules with "zero tolerance" then they have to actually apply the rules as written. If they pretend they have no option but to suspend/expel because the rules were technically broken, then one must examine the technicality of the rules they cite.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Called someone a "pedophile" in this age of crazy parents, vigilantism, and indefinite search engine indexing they deserve at least to be expelled. Such accusations could very easily result in that teacher losing their job or worse having some moron fire bombing their home. It is exactly this kind of thing which is driving male teachers out of education in droves.

Also, this story has nothing to do with Facebook and really doesn't belong on /.

And where in the article does it point to the fact that school principal, Jolene Morris, did any investigation of the validity of the claims before they started violating student civil rights concerning out of school activity? How do you punish someone for making false statements if you haven't at least done due diligence to prove the statements are false?

You talk about male teachers leaving education in droves but do you have any idea of how many young girls, and adult women, never report an assault because they fear they won't be believed. To lot of these females the punishment of these students without any mention of an investigation of the allegations just looks like the school principal rushing to cover something up!

Will you be standing by your post if somewhere done the line it is found that said Teacher was a Bipolar Pedophile but wasn't caught earlier because the school expelled, or suspended, any student who made an accusation?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[EllisDees]

>Former is legal. Latter is not.

How so? What criminal law is being broken by the latter?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't be arsed to RTFA, but one good thing has arisen out of tort law that I think, judging by these comments here, /.ers can appreciate: sue the fuck out of the kids' families when they call you a pedophile. If you lose your job, sue the fuck out of them some more.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're 12-13 years old - what would they know of crazy parents, vigilantism and indefinite search engine indexing, why would they imagine that someone might firebomb the teacher's home. At that age they will not necessarily have learned the degree to which words have consequences (i.e. they will not have appreciated the potential impact on the teacher) and they won't see facebook as anything other than an extension of the playground. Thinking back to my childhood all sorts of things were said by kids in the playground about one another and the teachers at that age, they were still in the process of maturing/learning about the true impact of words, empathy, etc - they should know about the impact of physical harm, but it takes a bit longer to get the other stuff. That these kids have done this I think shows they need educating about the impact and about facebook's public nature. Maybe a brief suspension coupled with explaining to them the reasons is a good way to communicate the gravity of an accusation of pedophilia to them and to others. Expulsion, unless perhaps it's a second offense of the same thing, seems way too harsh - it could screw up that kid's life sending them down the wrong track rather than helping them get back on the right track.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Kijori]

There's a difference, surely, between calling someone a Nazi, which has no connection to their job and is (as you said) pretty far-fetched, and calling a teacher a pedophile? Writing on Facebook that a teacher is a pedophile creates the very real chance that someone could see that allegation and take it seriously (obviously this depends on the exact context that is was written in); all it takes is one parent who sees the posting on their son or daughter's facebook and is worried enough to think that their might possibly be some substance in it and school policy will see the teacher suspended and investigated by the police.

Moreover, what is there that could actually be objectionable about this? A kid accuses his teacher of being a pedophile to get back at him, that accusation makes its way to the teacher, doubtless through the accusations being continued at school, and the kid gets suspended. More succinctly: a student knowingly breaks the rules and gets punished. As you said, the fact that it's "on a computer" doesn't make a difference (although I suspect the "on Facebook" part does, since it allows the accusation to be broadcast to hundreds of students, akin to putting up a sign in the common room) - it's a breach of the school rules, it's a breach that the child knew or should have known was serious and it had sufficiently serious consequences that the teacher found out about it. I know when I was at school I would have expected to be suspended if had called my teachers pedophiles - this is hardly a shock or an unfairness.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Americano]

Tell me, how does one exhibit signs of something, if not through their actions? The claim is that the teacher "is a pedophile." How would one know that someone is a pedophile, unless they had witnessed the person behaving as a pedophile, or had admitted to someone that they were? We are not talking about the teacher's desires - we are talking about a student's claim to knowledge of what those desires are. There is no way for me to know your secret desires, unless I see you behaving in such a way to achieve them, or you tell me that they are your most secret desires. If you do neither, then I am doing what is colloquially know as "making shit up," or "lying."

Irrelevant to whether the claim of pedophilia is a claim that the person in question performed an inappropriate act with a student. No accusation of an act was made. Even if there was an accusation of an act was made, there was no student identified or implied.

Not irrelevant at all. Either one is, or one is not, a pedophile, by your own definition. If the claim is true, then the student is claiming to have witnessed, or been told of, acts which would identify a person as a pedophile: i.e., exhibiting signs of sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If the claim is false, then the student is lying, and "falsely reporting" inappropriate behavior. Either way, the school needs to take these comment seriously, because the school has a legal and moral obligation to protect the students in its care. A child naming someone a pedophile, when that person has a role as a primary caretaker of children cannot be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think.

Yes, I am. If they are going to apply the rules with "zero tolerance" then they have to actually apply the rules as written. If they pretend they have no option but to suspend/expel because the rules were technically broken, then one must examine the technicality of the rules they cite.

And in true slashdot armchair lawyer form, you're focusing on the semantics, and saying that calling someone a pedophile isn't specific "behavior," while ignoring the fact that in order to determine whether or not that claim is true, one needs to have witnessed *actions* that would suggest pedophilia to be an appropriate term for the person. You cannot truthfully be said to "be something," without exhibiting behavior that would match the description of something. If someone makes the claim that you are, they are also making the claim that they know something about your behavior that would suggest that their description is a reasonable conclusion. In other words, if I call you a vegetarian, one would reasonably conclude that you avoid meat, and perhaps all animal products, in your diet - that you take, or have taken, specific actions that would lead others to conclude that you are, in fact, a vegetarian. If I call you a vegetarian and somebody observes you tucking into a nice rare steak, then it's pretty obvious that I'm not correct, and perhaps even LYING, about your behavior.

No, if you want to question the application of this rule, the word you should be zeroing in on is "reporting" - does a Facebook post count as "reporting" something? Unfortunately, many courts seem to be ruling that it does. The purpose of Facebook is, after all, *sharing* information. It's not a private online journal, and there are no guarantees of privacy or control of your information.

So now, let's flip the script and look at the opposite situation: Let's assume that children ARE being abused by a teacher. Should the school refuse to take action because "it's just a Facebook post, and that's private! And besides, he's doing it outside school hours at his own home... so why should we take any action on this?" I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single reasonable person who would suggest that it's fine to leave the teacher in the classroom, having daily contact with dozens or hundreds of students, even if they "only abuse kids on their own time." So if the merest hint of impropriety is enough to endanger someone's entire livelihood, reputation, and standing, isn't it entirely appropriate that people who make *false* claims should be punished as well?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Courageous]

It is, but there's more to the question than that. For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.

Except when the libel is libel per se.

Don't know about a kid. But if an adult put a facebook post up referring to another adult as a "pedophile," the poster could very well not have a house after.

There's just certain kinds of statements one ought not make.

C//

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a US law student studying in the UK. While I'm not specializing in tort at all, UK and US libel laws are pretty different.

Yep, especially as theres no such thing as UK libel law. England & Wales has libel laws, dunno about N Ireland, Scotland does not.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[ikeman32]

While I agree that this not a free speech issue, but rather a defamation of character issue. But at the same time I think the school over stepped its authority here. If the middle school is like any other school in the country that specifically blocks social networking sites on their networks, then the postings we done off of school property and therefore the school has no authority to hand out discipline for a rule infraction that occur off campus and out side their sphere of influence/jurisdiction. This whole issue is a civil matter and not a school matter. In my opinion.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Luckyo]

So, breaking a civil law = not breaking a law in your book?

Not to even mention that most civilized countries count purposeful and damaging libel against government officials as a criminal offence, but that's not here or there as we're talking about USA here.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Luckyo]

In which case it has to be backed up by some SERIOUS evidence, and facebook posting among friends doesn't really count as one. In addition, it's clearly stated in TFA that "student is sorry for groundless accusations and is drafting an apology letter" which strongly implies that student in fact did not mean anything other then to do standard teenage bitching by it without realising the seriousness of the offence committed by it.

The fact remains that sometimes a bad line thrown in anger can cost someone else their life which is why there are legal limiters placed on free speech, fully in-line with US constitution. This is one of those lines in modern society when aimed at a teacher, and even a teenager has no right to destroy someone's life for the sake of hormone-induced bitching. Some basic rules of behaviour should have been already taught at that age, and as it's apparent that they weren't, the school was perfectly within their rights to act.

In fact if they weren't, the country would probably be the worst place in the world to teach. Because it would mean that every time a student is pissed at a teacher, then can accuse him of anything they want and watch the crowd of "my darling can do no wrong" parents and clueless pedohunting activists burn the innocent teacher at stake as the "darlings" watch giggling and thinking who they will target next, reveling in the power as teenagers naturally do, being in the age of expanding the boundaries. And EVERY SINGLE STUDENT will be pissed off at his teacher several times a year at least. That's natural.

So please, stop pretending that this is something bad happening. It's not. You may even be able to find rules that school broke in the process, but in this case, you'd be killing the spirit of these laws, as well as the spirit of the constitution granting freedom of speech.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Luckyo]

It is not a matter of opinion if I'm a teacher and you're my student. It may be a matter of opinion if you're obviously generalizing and don't even know who I am.

Even so, I could sue you for the statement above, and probably win. There are several examples of such cases in both US and various West European jurisdictions.

Proving damages is the easy part. Simply bring up every case of where teacher was accused of pedophilia to court as proof, and run the horrifying life-breaking consequences by the judge/jury. At the end of the several months it will take you, judge and jury will be ready to hang the kid for trying to force an innocent to go through that.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[OffaMyLawn]

I wouldn't have been polite about it. Even at that age I was a prick to those who deserved it. There is a line between respect for authority and just plain you can go to hell in my book.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[AK Marc]

Tell me, how does one exhibit signs of something, if not through their actions?

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't know and I don't care. The accusation isn't one of actions, therefore isn't in violation of the school rules. Why aren't you arguing this with the bipolar example? After all, one could exhibit bipolar behavior without inappropriate behavior, and they were expelled for that one. I've had more than one bipolar teacher (one started on medication after I'd had her for a few years) and there was no exhibition of inappropriate behavior to students. Yet that accusation here resulted in expulsion.

Is your problem that you are so uptight about "pedophilia" that you can't look at the situation dispassionately?

If the claim is true, then the student is claiming to have witnessed, or been told of, acts which would identify a person as a pedophile: i.e., exhibiting signs of sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

So what? There's no accusation of inappropriate behavior with a student, even if you incorrectly assert that it must have existed to be able to make such an accusation. Further, you are assuming the accusation to be true for your example, when there's no punishment for true statements. So you are assuming a case that can't be covered under the rule noted as an example regarding that rule. That too is logically inconsistent.

So now, let's flip the script and look at the opposite situation: Let's assume that children ARE being abused by a teacher. Should the school refuse to take action because "it's just a Facebook post, and that's private! And besides, he's doing it outside school hours at his own home... so why should we take any action on this?"

Again, so what? That's irrelevant to the school rule in question. The rule in question doesn't deal with pedophilia teachers. So crafting the rule to cover such situations is silly. That's like hiding laws against murder in the speeding statutes. This is a question of whether falsely accusing someone of having a preference is the same as having accused someone of committing an act consistent with that preference, and not only that, having done so with a student. Neither of those is met. Just because you think it should be covered doesn't make it so. And no "but they had to have been molested to know" arguments will change the fact that how they know is irrelevant to what they claim. The only thing that's against the rules is false claims of inappropriate behavior with a student. And no such claim was made.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[russotto]

The mere accusation or "trash talk" or exercise of free speech in which a person is associated with pedophilia is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life.

So the teacher in question has been fired and blacklisted and/or is dead?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Kijori]

I'm not sure I agree - the postings concerned the school, and I would say that that was enough to justify them taking disciplinary action. But that's not the main point here.

The main point is, I think, this: would you prefer a world where the recourse of schools on encountering this sort of conduct is a civil suit? A student who defames his teacher or his school may well incur civil liability. Depending on what he says and who he says it to damages could range from nothing, to fairly low (as, I suspect, they would be here) to enormous. In any case he would end up paying hefty court fees and costs.

While in some cases schools acting over matters that take place outside school hours will result in punishment for conduct that otherwise would go unpunished in many cases it allows for a disciplinary system that doesn't involve the civil or criminal courts, doesn't impose large fines or costs orders and doesn't expose the student to the coercive powers of the state, like contempt orders, injunctions or imprisonment. That surely is a good thing?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Ol Olsoc]

Do you argue by deliberately misinterpreting statements?

People have lost their jobs because of false accusations:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/11/bc-false-accusation-harrison.html

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_4_7.htm

There are plenty more, google is your friend in this.

I have experience not in false accusations, but in the area of trying to get fathers involved in kids sports. As the president of a youth hockey league, I needed coaches. We - myself included, had to undergo a State Police background check, as part of the process. But it is an excellent and quick way to lose volunteers, in my experience, most men are terribly afraid of an identity error, or some other mixup. One told me it just isn't worth it, and even if he declined the background check, there were people who would see that as some sort of proof of guilt. But he said that it was simply not worth the risk. And that was the only one who would talk to me about it. The others just were "too busy" after finding out about that requirement. It's a real threat, and hopefully you will never be falsely accused.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[ikeman32]

I'm not sure I agree - the postings concerned the school, and I would say that that was enough to justify them taking disciplinary action. But that's not the main point here.

The main point is, I think, this: would you prefer a world where the recourse of schools on encountering this sort of conduct is a civil suit?

While in some cases schools acting over matters that take place outside school hours will result in punishment for conduct that otherwise would go unpunished in many cases it allows for a disciplinary system that doesn't involve the civil or criminal courts, doesn't impose large fines or costs orders and doesn't expose the student to the coercive powers of the state, like contempt orders, injunctions or imprisonment. That surely is a good thing?

Point well taken, I can see its merits and I am inclined to agree. But I do try to see things from different perspectives. Taken from the perspective of one of the affected students or perhaps even their parents that might disagree with the school's actions, it might be a valid venue for challenging the school. Although it would be better to count their blessings and move on, the country does tend to be civil suit happy.

Is it me or is Facebook becoming the world wide forum for people who do stupid things?

Re:Good. Deserved.

[russotto]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/11/bc-false-accusation-harrison.html

Goes directly to the point I was making. This was an actual accusation, to the authorities, not just trash-talking.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_4_7.htm

And so was the case study in this one.

You claimed mere association with pedophilia "is death to a person's career, and in some cases their life". Yet the teacher smeared here is still alive and still employed. Furthermore, the examples you gave contain more than mere association; they contain specific, false, accusations made to the relevant authorities.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[russotto]

It is, but there's more to the question than that. For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.

Except when the libel is libel per se.

That it is "libel per se" does not mean damages will be large; it merely means damage need not be proved for there to be a cause of action at all.

Re:Good. Deserved.

[Courageous]

This is basically true as a matter of judicial precedent.

It's worth noting, however, that the technical wording of the law in many states does not require proof of economic harm. Which is to say, the law is worded in such a way as to favor the defamed party on both terms and damages. I would take this to mean that it's rather risky to get on a blowhorn (or facebook) and call someone a pedophile. I'll go out on a limb and say that if the statement is "convicted pedophile," be ready to polish the house keys for handing over. Yes, the statement is exaggerated. But not really that exaggerated. To wit: would an attorney advise in no uncertain terms to avoid making public statements of that particular type? One certainly would.

As a final point, the case history isn't so clear as the issue is entirely settled. "Maybe" isn't something to hang your house on, is it?

C//

makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student."

This is a SERIOUS offense. For a student doing this to a teacher, it's no wonder he's expelled. If an adult falsifies or erroneously reports serious allegations like that, it's a felony! I'd say the kids should go to juvenile detention if they lied and said a teacher did serious stuff to kids.

Re:makes sense

[shentino]

What the hell business does the school have exercising jurisdiction over a facebook posting anyway?

Did the student use a school computer to make the post?

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the school administration should just call the police, or maybe the families of these people should be sued for slander. Sorry, no excuse.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! These people are governmental employees. We simply cannot allow people to make verbal or written statements about government workers that are not 100% true. Chapel Hill, you rock!

Re:makes sense

[Luckyo]

Why is that relevant? Student commits a crime against school employee. Location of the crime is irrelevant - relevant is that crime by student had a school employee as a target.

Re:makes sense

[jopsen]

I'd say the kids should go to juvenile detention if they lied and said a teacher did serious stuff to kids.

We're talking about 12-13 year old kids... I think that's a bit extreme...

We can all agree that false accusations is a serious offense, but there's a difference between writing accusations on the frontpage of a newspaper and yelling them in the a school yard... The real question is where does facebook fit in on this scale?

Re:makes sense

[Dhalka226]

It's a crime if they report something false to police.

If they, oh, I don't know, post it on their Facebook wall it is, at best, a tort -- an entirely civil matter.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt they understand the scope of their actions. Perhaps more importantly, why do 12-13 years old have public Facebook streams? They should be set to 'friends only' for anyone under age in my opinion.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the kids should go to juvenile detention if they lied and said a teacher did serious stuff to kids.

We're talking about 12-13 year old kids... I think that's a bit extreme...

10 days in juvenile might, just might, get it into their heads what they almost caused a teacher to go through for years, and effectively for the rest of that mans life.

Killing a person has effects that last the rest of the victims life, and we do not tolerate murder NOR attempted murder, specifically due to the changes being so permanent.
Why should we tolerate an attempt of this instead?

Lets be honest here. To prisoners, even the worst of cops/guards running the place are still not below a pedophile.
In prison, each time you defend your own life, that fighting just adds on to your sentence.
He might go in with only 20 years, but within the first year he will be forced into so many situations of defending his own life, his sentence can easily get expanded to life, with a chunk of that time spent in mind-torturing-and-destroying solitary confinement.

Most likely he will get out of prison only in a body bag, or if somehow he beats the odds and survives, he will make it out a twisted and tortured animal instead of still being a human being.
On top of it, in the back of his mind, he will be the only one (Other than these two kids) who knows he went through all of that undeservingly because he was innocent.

Is that really the type of person you want to create and then unleash on the world?

Re:makes sense

[index0]

But these kids didn't make any official reports that their teacher(s) were doing these things. These kids made some postings on a website that only a limited number of people could see, like a washroom stall or a personal journal. A teacher forced a student to login to their facebook page to verify the these statements.

Maybe instead of punishing these kids, society in general should be educated that baseless accusations of rape or cheating should not be treated as the truth.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

A facebook post that was public enough to generate a decent number of replies insinuates that it was a very public accusation. Public accusations of this type need to either be based in truth or punished severely. The teacher was accused of not yelling at kids, not hitting kids, not spitting on kids, but sexually molesting them. This places the accusation on a whole different level. These kids should all be expelled from the school, perhaps the school district, and be required to not just write an apology, but write a public apology.

If the parents sue the school district, I would hope that the teacher and district would counter sue the parents for defamation of character, libel, slander, or whatever they can make stick.

Re:makes sense

[rainmouse]

We're talking about 12-13 year old kids... I think that's a bit extreme...

These kids are above the age of criminal responsibility for their actions. (UK its 10 and USA it varies per state between 6 and 12)

My Cousin Posts Stuff Like This

[superslacker87]

About her math teacher. I think that it is dumb for the very same reason that these kids got in trouble. But, in retrospect, I'm 31 and she is 13 and I certainly wouldn't have made the connection that saying my math teacher was stupid on the Internet would have major ramifications at that age either.

Re:My Cousin Posts Stuff Like This

[Anonymous Coward]

The posts in TFA are a little worse than that. If your cousin is falsely accusing adults of diddling children, pull her aside and beat her senseless before she ruins someones life.

Re:My Cousin Posts Stuff Like This

[TheRaven64]

Calling your teacher stupid is fine. It's a subjective judgement. Accusing your teacher of rape is not (unless they actually did it, of course) - it's slander / libel.

Re:My Cousin Posts Stuff Like This

[Americano]

There is a significant difference between, "ZOMG Mr. Smith is such a dummy! SO MUCH HOMEWORK LOL!" and "Mr. Smith is such a pedophile! NO A RAPIST! LOL!"

Re:My Cousin Posts Stuff Like This

[index0]

What about if I write that my teacher is a pedophile in my diary that I keep locked away? What about if I write the same message but the message is only visible in my house and only visible to the guests of my house?

These kids were forced to login to their facebook page so that a teacher could verify what was said. How would you feel if the Government forced you to open your diary and inside you wrote you wished the president dead?

Re:My Cousin Posts Stuff Like This

[BitZtream]

Yes, you would have. Kids know the difference between right and wrong long before that. Sadly, your 13 year old cousin is apparently smarter than you and probably fully capable of manipulating you into doing whatever she wants since you apparently can't grasp that children aren't stupid.

They deserved it

[rainmouse]

Posting on the internet that someone is a paedophile can have some very serious repercussions even at the wild accusation level. Why is there shock horror at the decision to refuse to allow a pupil that falsely the staff paedophiles to attend?

Re:They deserved it

[mallydobb]

the children deserve consequences and you are right that their allegations were quite dangerous. Unless the postings happened at school (and even that issue is questionable) the principal had no authority to make the student open her facebook page in front of him. Best case, this should have been a legal issue between the children and teacher in the form of a lawsuit.

Re:They deserved it

[geekmux]

Posting on the internet that someone is a paedophile can have some very serious repercussions even at the wild accusation level. Why is there shock horror at the decision to refuse to allow a pupil that falsely the staff paedophiles to attend?

How is it that we as a society have become to treat anything posted online as the gospel? It kills me that people stand there and laugh at the "nonsense" that is on the front page of the National Enquirer or The Sun these days, and then go home and believe everything they ever read on Facebook because well, a "friend" said it.

Bottom line is people need to stop being so fucking ignorant of what is posted online, and perhaps at least TRY and assume some wild accusation is false before perpetuating the lie like wildfire. And I'm not talking about 13-year old kids here with their gossip, I'm talking about adults doing the same damn thing.

I mean hell, innocent until proven guilty is only the cornerstone of our legal system...

Re:They deserved it

[Dhalka226]

I honestly don't mind the suspensions, but an expulsion is well beyond reasonable punishment for something that never went beyond speech, didn't take place on school grounds, and there was no particular reason to believe was true (even if it is).

Children should be punished for inappropriate behavior as a means of teaching right from wrong. An explusion is something that is going to follow her around. It's going to screw her family, who now has to try to find another school to take her in, which may or may not be anywhere near where they live, and may have no recourse but homeschooling or one of those schools for "troubled students." It will probably affect her ability to get into top colleges going forward even if she is otherwise completely deserving. In short, it is going to have a significant harm on her life and her family's.

Expulsions exist, and should be exercised, only to protect the population. If she's bringing weapons to school, an expulsion should be considered. If she is consistently getting into fights or disrupting her classes and previous, less severe punishments have had no effect, an expulsion could be considered. "I said my teacher was a pedophile on Facebook one day" should have never even entered consideration, much less actually had it applied.

It's like a life sentence for libel. Yes, libel is a problem and yes, it deserves a punishment, but not nearly one that severe. I hardly ever say something like this, but I think it's time for the family to lawyer up.

Re:They deserved it

[Dhalka226]

And, ironically, the students who called the teacher a pedophile and a rapist were suspended -- the student who was expelled called him bipolar.

Re:They deserved it

[espiesp]

You are missing a big point here. Saying somebody is a pedophile or rapist in ANY public forum whether it be the internet or a posting on the bulletin board at the local grocery store, is a VERY serious accusation that can cause lasting repercussions for the person. If that person happens to be a teacher it makes it greatly more amplified. The internet hasn't changed that, just made it easier to spread the word.

Something else the internet does is remove a lot of plausible deniability. If you scribble it on a bathroom stall wall, it's much less likely to come back to bite you - and is also less likely to be taken seriously because well, it's anonymous. If you post it on your password protected facebook wall? Prepare for the pain train.

While I'm generally on the side of freedom of speech and lack of censorship on the internet, there are still some lines that can be crossed. This is one of them. And these kids need a lesson in what not to say to blow off steam about a teacher or your school.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that we as a society have become to treat anything posted online as the gospel?

Because 'online' is still a relatively new thing in a cultural sense. It takes generations for a 'community intelligence' to evolve.

Why do you think snake oil peddlers where so successful way back when?

Re:They deserved it

[Xyrus]

A child accusing someone of being a pedophile WILL NOT be treated lightly. Nor will it be ignored. There will be an investigation, even if the allegations are wildly false. The teacher's reputation will be damaged, and the school will most likely have to fire the teacher to appease the torch-and-pitchfork crowd.

It's not a matter of legal justice. It's a matter of popular perception. In cases of children accusing teachers of being pedophiles (especially if the teacher is male), it doesn't matter whether the allegation is false. It doesn't matter if the teacher is found innocent. Their reputation is destroyed and they will forever be overshadowed by the suspicion of possibly being a pedophile.

So while I agree with you that an accusation such as this shouldn't have any impact unless proven true, that is not how our society works. Even being accused of pedophilia can destroy your life to the point where you have to move, change your name, and possibly your profession.

Expulsion is going light on these idiots.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the irony of your use of ignorance. Sure you spatted this out for the ideals of internet use but at what point does the general public follow the ideals. It is very ignorant to expect the sum of internet users to stop being so fucking ignorant of what is posted online . Just think of how many times you read something on the internet and have been influenced by it without investigating it to the point that you have proof.

Re:They deserved it

[LocalH]

Right, that would work well. So the headline would be "Alleged Pedo Teach Sues Student" so now, not only is he an asshole for diddling kids (in the public mindset), he's an asshole for suing kids. Do you like to encourage suicides or something?

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point...

This wasn't a 13-year old saying, "my teacher is mean and smells funny" to her friends. This was a student making a false accusation against a teacher... perhaps the WORST possible false accusation at that.

In 10 years, when everybody has forgotten about the story, and this teacher's future employer searches his name. What do you think finding the word "pedophile" associated with his name will do for his employment chances? Even if there are 1,000 links to stories about how this was a false accusation, that one blog page that takes the comment out of context could ruin this teacher's career.

Put another way, if you were a high-school president and you had to choose between two applicants, one of whom had been previously accused of being a pedophile, what would you do?

Re:They deserved it

[cowboy76Spain]

Wow!

You see an article about two girls falsely accusing the teacher of being a pedophile, and you say: "it should be obvious the girls were lying".

The father of one of the girls sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious my daughter is lying"? And at least he knows her, and can ask her first about if it is real.

The father of other girl at the same school sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious that girl is lying"?

A police officer of the town sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious that girl is lying, I won't go to the teacher house to ask about this?"

A familiar of the teacher sees the posts. Do you think he says: "it is obvious that girl is lying"?

And so on.... Note that I do not state that everybody will take the opposite reaction (i.e. "the girl is right and the teacher is a pedophile"), but even the doubt ("is there some truth behind that?") is damaging enough. Put in other words: Would you mind if I put adverts in your local newspapers stating that "Geekmux might be a pedophile"? It is way milder and leaves it to the common sense of you neighbours think if you are or are not, so I take from your words that you will not mind if I do.

At any rate, I wish to compliment in your optimism for believing that everyone that uses FB and sees a post like that will always be able to know if it is slanderous or not, and what is the truth behind me (Myself, I only know they were slanderous because I have found an article about them).

Re:They deserved it

[tomhudson]

the children deserve consequences and you are right that their allegations were quite dangerous. Unless the postings happened at school (and even that issue is questionable) the principal had no authority to make the student open her facebook page in front of him. Best case, this should have been a legal issue between the children and teacher in the form of a lawsuit.

Wrong.

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."

There's no "freedom of speech" issue, and no "right to privacy" in such a case.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

"I mean hell, innocent until proven guilty is only the cornerstone of our legal system..."

Actually, that's only in "criminal" cases. ie: Government vs the People. In a civil matter (such as slander, libel, etc), it's a preponderance of the evidence. Besides, the school system should not be involved since it happened off campus for one as well as it being a matter of speech. It's for the teachers PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to sue the kids in question.

Re:They deserved it

[mallydobb]

Facebook isn't on school property so I fail to see how in loco parentis would work or be held up in this situation. Sure, the issue is causing problems for the school community but it is off-site, where the principal has no authority.

I am not saying what the children did was right, they have done something that could negatively impact the lives of a teacher and his family, personally and professionally. They need to be held accountable and given consequences. The right thing would have been for the administration to notify the parent and get their consent...better yet, get the parents to come in and watch as the child logged in to her facebook account. Better accountability and openness that way, makes it easy to avoid the children and parents bringing suit for invasion of privacy (just wait, it will happen).

Re:They deserved it

[westlake]

How is it that we as a society have become to treat anything posted online as the gospel?

I think it was Francis Bacon who made a case for the prosecution of witches.

Not because he believed in their magic.

But because they were driven by malice. Hell-bent on causing mischief. Playing on people's fears. Disturbing the peace.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

> Expulsion is going light on these idiots.

Wow, you go at lengths describing how completely broken society is and then you call the _children_ the idiots, and require to basically beat them till they learn to adapt their behaviour to the idiocy of others.
I am tempted to ask for a law that anyone believing wrong accusations must go on their knees and beg forgiveness of the one wrongly accused, that would do more to punish the guilty than going "zero tolerance" on children doing something idiotic,

Re:They deserved it

[tomhudson]

Reread what the Supreme Court had to say - ALL student conduct, whether in class or out of it, falls under the schools' is unprotected under those circumstances.

Re:They deserved it

[Americano]

If she is consistently getting into fights or disrupting her classes and previous, less severe punishments have had no effect, an expulsion could be considered.

And what makes you think this is the first such punishment the expelled child has had to endure? Do you really think that the school district's lawyers were not involved in reviewing these actions, and wouldn't have questioned the disproportionate response you picked up on in about 5 seconds of reading a summary on slashdot?

The child who was suspended very likely has a history of getting into fights, disrupting classes, and previous less severe punishments that have had no effect.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't trust wikipedia, but they trust facebook? Wikipedia has public logs and references, facebook has... what? I guess parents will believe everything they hear on the playground as well.

Re:They deserved it

[Travelsonic]

But who says the Supreme Court is always right, how can you presume their word is never changed? That ruling is 42 years old, back before the internet, computing, existed as we know it today, before the issue was revisited in a more relevant scope.

Re:They deserved it

[flogger]

I mean hell, innocent until proven guilty is only the cornerstone of our legal system..

Sure that is well and good, but we are not talking about legal system. This is a "Bible Belt" reactionary system we are talking about. No teacher is treated as innocent in the Community after an accusation of pedophilia/rape/touching/kissing/inappropriate glances/etc. First the administration is going to give the teacher administrative leave. Basically the teacher is fired before they actually have the school board meeting. The incident will be looked into, but the school board will not give the teacher a classroom again. They schoolboad cannot take that risk. What if the teacher might do something inappropriate in the future? There would be so many lawsuits against the school district because they retained an accused predator. But if the school board stood by the teacher, the parents would have that doubt in the teacher, it would breed feelings of doubt, animosity, and distrust. All of which undermine schools. The parents would demand that their kids not be allowed in the teachers classroom. So the school board lets the teacher go and the teacher will not be able to get a job anywhere else, in or out of education. The teachers career is ruined because some punk student vented and spoke wrong.

May as well go back to the 1950s when we were reactionary against Communists or back to the 1860s when we were afraid of chinks or back to the 1690s when we were afraid of witches.

In this sexually repressive sex crazed culture, there is no win-win scenario when people lightly throw around words like pedophile/rapist.

Re:They deserved it

[geekmux]

A child accusing someone of being a pedophile WILL NOT be treated lightly. Nor will it be ignored. There will be an investigation, even if the allegations are wildly false. The teacher's reputation will be damaged, and the school will most likely have to fire the teacher to appease the torch-and-pitchfork crowd.

OK, if you are insinuating that the "right" thing to do is fire an employee (teachers ARE employees too, protected under the same rights) in order to appease a bunch of idiots, then we might as well abandon our legal system altogether, because apparently the legal system is no longer relevant at all. Pitchfork-toting idiots believing and perpetuating lies are. Is that really what the employment sector has been reduced to? I would hope not.

It's not a matter of legal justice. It's a matter of popular perception. In cases of children accusing teachers of being pedophiles (especially if the teacher is male), it doesn't matter whether the allegation is false. It doesn't matter if the teacher is found innocent. Their reputation is destroyed and they will forever be overshadowed by the suspicion of possibly being a pedophile.

So while I agree with you that an accusation such as this shouldn't have any impact unless proven true, that is not how our society works. Even being accused of pedophilia can destroy your life to the point where you have to move, change your name, and possibly your profession.

Expulsion is going light on these idiots.

Then perhaps we need to learn to fight fire with fire. Expulsion can have a significant impact too, especially if it happens in the four years of high school when the student is critically looked at for scholarship opportunities, which in many cases determine if the student can even attend college. I say put these kids in front of the 6 o'clock news for the next two weeks, every night. Make them apologize (not the parents, faculty, lawyers, or anyone else) to appease the pitchfork-toting neanderthals. Reputations CAN be recovered. People are falsely accused all the damn time, and we do still have a legal system and laws in place to protect them in the future.

And if the neanderthals and their rumor mill want to continue spreading bullshit, then perhaps they should be introduced to Anonymous...see how it feels to have the shoe on the other foot.

Re:They deserved it

[Xyrus]

No I wasn't implying that the right thing to do is firing the teacher. I was stating what the likely result would be because of the pitchfork-and-torch crowd. And it's not so much the employment sector, rater it is the jobs that put men (who are always potential pedophiles according to society) in proximity with kids.

I like the idea of public apologies in front of millions, but it won't work with the way our society treats kids. It would be "too traumatic" for them. Those poor, innocent children. They didn't know any better. Which, of course, is a load of crap.

Re:They deserved it

[index0]

The accusation is a serious thing, but the source of the information is not creditable. Why do you give so much credit to what you read on a facebook page, washroom stall, or an un-cited wikipedia article. If these kids went to the police and these accusations were on a police report and these accusations were found to be false, then these kids do deserve some kind of punishment.

Re:They deserved it

[winwar]

"...the student who was expelled called him bipolar."

Did you ever consider that this might not have been the first disciplinary offense for that student?

Re:They deserved it

[tomhudson]

But who says the Supreme Court is always right, how can you presume their word is never changed? That ruling is 42 years old, back before the internet, computing, existed as we know it today, before the issue was revisited in a more relevant scope.

Until someone brings it up again before the Supremes, it is the *ahem* supreme law of the land.

Additionally, the "internet" doesn't have anything to do with it - it would have been the same if they had posted it on handbills and pasted them around town.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that we as a society have become to treat anything posted online as the gospel? It kills me that people stand there and laugh at the "nonsense" that is on the front page of the National Enquirer or The Sun these days, and then go home and believe everything they ever read on Facebook because well, a "friend" said it.

The problem there is that when it turns out the allegation is false, the "save the children" crown can already have the lawyers on the doorstep accused, picketting his front gate and generally making his life hell. All because some kid was told to sit the fuck down in class. I bet that if the teacher went and psted that the student was, say, homosexual and wasn't, there would be an uproar about it. Bottom line: Some allegations ruin lives, even bereft of proof.

Re:They deserved it

[kronosopher]

No, GP really isn't missing the point. The repercussions are justified when the accuser can prove without a shadow of a doubt that such accusations are in-fact true. Doling out punishment simply based on an accusation is not justice. Not to mention that witness testimony itself is known to be incredibly unreliable and inaccurate. And regardless of how serious the accusation is, it is important to incessantly question everything, assume everything is false, and be SKEPTICAL.

If I say, "The moon is falling," this is a VERY serious accusation against the moon, as it might mean the inexorable extinction of every organism on the planet. After making said statement, you then look up at the sky and see doubtless proof that the moon is in-fact still in orbit and ultimately conclude that my statement is false.

Given that scenario, am I then to be hauled off to jail and charged with a felony?

In lieu of a proper education system, our gov't instead "protects" the people from themselves by doling out fines and punishments for inane and pointless bullshit, like making wildly inaccurate and idiotic statements. Oh no, this is super serious because it involves pedophilia - think of the children. Please. These kids are stupid for what they did. The school administrators are stupid for how they responded. And last but not least, society is stupid for blowing defamation out of proportion. Are we all really so narcissistic that someone baselessly calling us names warrants their exile, incarceration or financial ruin?

Re:They deserved it

[BancBoy]

How is it that we as a society have become to treat anything posted online as the gospel?

We read something online that told us we should?

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there shock horror at the decision to refuse to allow a pupil that falsely the staff paedophiles to attend?

WTF does that mean? Seriously - I read it, re-read it, and I can't make heads nor tails of it. More importantly, how does it get modded up as Insightful when it's incomprehensible? Apparently there are a few moderators that understand gibberish, maybe they'd care to translate?

Re:They deserved it

[geekmux]

No I wasn't implying that the right thing to do is firing the teacher. I was stating what the likely result would be because of the pitchfork-and-torch crowd. And it's not so much the employment sector, rater it is the jobs that put men (who are always potential pedophiles according to society) in proximity with kids.

Sigh...yes, I do see your point, but I honestly hope that the presumptions of men working within the proximity of children isn't quite as bad as you've painted societies viewpoint on it. If it is, I can only assume that teachers will soon be forced to obtain huge insurance policies akin to doctors malpractice insurance, just to try and cover their ass when some student chooses to voice their opinion with wild accusations. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes this this. Car, life, health, home, renters, malpractice, liability, etc, etc., we've become so deadlocked with fear of litigation we damn near go broke trying to avoid it.

I like the idea of public apologies in front of millions, but it won't work with the way our society treats kids. It would be "too traumatic" for them. Those poor, innocent children. They didn't know any better. Which, of course, is a load of crap.

Well, to be honest, chances are the only people that would have the right to sue under the guise of "traumatic stress" would be the parents, and if I were this child's father, I would probably be calling up the news station myself as an alternative to expulsion. Sometimes the best lessons are those brought forth from within the home. If the parents are OK with it, then I say make them the "stars" they want to be, and give them their well-deserved spotlight.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing a big point here.

You don't even know what was posted yet you are already up in arms. What if the student simply posted "you're a fag"? Is that a very serious accusation with lasting repercussions for the person for eternity or just a troll?

All these technophobes that have started using the net need to get out more.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that the additional irony of expelling and suspending a student from school for using that terminology, the disruption of which potentially harms and can destroy the lives of students in the same way that pedophiles and rapists do..

"Whats this I hear? You have implied some harm might come to you? Thats it, now I'm going to harm you for sure! To teach you a lesson that harm accusations are srs bzns! If your life is destroyed, well too bad - you should have used the accumulated judgment and wisdom of your 13 years of life to think before doing or saying stupid things!!"

Insanity is the new normal.

Re:They deserved it

[xclr8r]

It's not the legal system one has to worry about. If a parent checks on their kids FB page and sees another kid's comment about a teacher acting out of line you can bet the parents will be coming out with torches and pitchforks. The judgment of the masses can be cruel swift and misinformed.

The kid in question should have refused to the forced log into the FB page in the library. Parents need to teach their kids what is acceptable for Faculty/Staff to request of them. If there is a question about it the kid should just say "call my parents before anything progresses". (especially the aspirin strip search girl)

Re:They deserved it

[Kyusaku Natsume]

The difference is that sexual crimes, specially against children have a very negative connotation. After all, even after serving their time in prison, sex offenders in many USA's states have to be in a sex offender registry. If a student calls his teacher pedophile and some parent reads the accusation and sees that the school doesn't do nothing against the accused teacher he could try to take the matter in his own hands legally or illegally.

Re:They deserved it

[Anonymous Coward]

Although in theory I agree with you but for an immature 12-13 year old child to simply type something which I am certain they wish now they hadn't on a social networking site is hardly grounds for ANY forms of repercussion from the School. I think this is where a lot of the younger generation differs from the older generations. They see a social media site as seen a simply just that, a social media site. Using inappropriate verbiage to describe scenarios seems to be common place amongst teens and tweens alike. If the school or the teacher took offense to the comments made then they should have engaged the appropriate authorities.

I have to agree largely with Geekmux. In addition in the schooling system which up until at least two years ago outright refused to accept Wikipedia and other online references as a valid option for source material. Their reasoning was that it was an internet based option which was unreliable. How can they have a complete 180 degree stance on mere banter which never claimed to be a legitimate source of data and a widely recognized data repository.

Re:They deserved it

[ploxiln]

the problem is this:

if someone says, "my teacher killed a student and buried her in his backyard", the typical response is something like, "wow, you really don't like your teacher huh"

if someone accuses the teacher of child molestation, for some reason it can't be treated with the same due skepticism

I consider it a societal problem

Cellphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe next time they can record audio/video of said allegations. Wouldn't be the 1st time that would show the kids were right on their claims. Then again if it's just audio they could still claim its falsifying the teachers voice or something of those lines of thought.

Furthermore, if it is more than one kid claiming bad behaviour from the teacher part, i believe the chances of being true claims are quite higher.

Re:Cellphones

[mangu]

Maybe next time they can record audio/video of said allegations. Wouldn't be the 1st time that would show the kids were right on their claims. Then again if it's just audio they could still claim its falsifying the teachers voice or something of those lines of thought.

Furthermore, if it is more than one kid claiming bad behaviour from the teacher part, i believe the chances of being true claims are quite higher.

It's people like you who make the draconian decision by the school necessary.

People's lives have been destroyed by false accusations. Hysterical parents who should never have had children, greedy lawyers, those are worse than pedophiles, because they can cause more harm to more people.

The punishment against a false accusation should be at least as severe as the punishment against the crime itself.

Re:Cellphones

[DigiTechGuy]

Well in many states it's illegal to record government employees in public places. It's possible the kids recording the teachers could result in a bunch of legal issues for the kid.

Re:Cellphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, children would never agree to lie about their teacher to get them in trouble! Never!

From TFA

[gaspyy]

Alejandra Sosa said she regretted posting a Facebook status calling her teacher a pedophile. She has been suspended for 10 days. “I was just expressing myself on Facebook, because like I said I was mad that day because of what he [did],” Sosa said in a statement. “So, I mean I had no intentions of ruining his reputation.”

The case will be very important in deciding what falls under free speech and what the school can discipline students for

So irresponsible name-calling because of a low grade or something is now expressing oneself and an example of free speech? Nice.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

So irresponsible name-calling because of a low grade or something is now expressing oneself and an example of free speech? Nice.

Yes, it is such on both accounts, they were expressing themselves...
unfortunately showing very little intelligence and eloquence in
doing so. And their speech is protected.

However. Free speech cannot trump someone else's rights. And
if their free speech happened to entail libelous statements, well
they get to meet what is in Justice's hand opposite the scale..,
the sword of justice.

Plus since it wasn't factual, they broke the school rules.

Bad decisions. I think everyone failed in this case, parents, kids,
teachers, school, administration.

-@|

Re:From TFA

[das3cr]

So irresponsible name-calling because of a low grade or something is now expressing oneself and an example of free speech? Nice.

When did it stop being free speech?

Seems to me the school needs a huge helping of common sense fed to them. "Out of the mouths of babes" ... maybe there should be laws to prosecute kids for what they say .. NOT.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes actually. That is an expression of free speech.

e.g. westboro church.

Re:From TFA

[MickyTheIdiot]

I agree, but courts have basically removed all the rights of kids at the schoolhouse door and created fiefdoms for the administrators. It would have to be a very egregious circumstance before they got slapped for overstepping their boundaries.

Re:From TFA

[FlatEric521]

When did it stop being free speech?

The instant libel and slander laws were enacted. We are not free to call the teacher a pedophile, and neither are the children in question. By their age (13) they know enough about right from wrong to know not to lie about people. This student went ahead and no only lied about her teacher, but made a false claim about her teacher behaving in a criminal way. If she had gone to the police, it would have been the criminal act of filing a false police report. As it stands, expulsion for something potentially is libel seems appropriate.

The only thing that I had a problem with in the article was that the school administrators forced the student to log into her Facebook account. That seems, as the article claims, to be a gross violation of privacy.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

When did it stop being free speech?

When it became this:

FACT: Roderick Fikel fucks underage girls.

Re:From TFA

[Quakerjono]

Wait, how did the teacher fail in this case? The students clearly failed because at age 12 and 13 you should know enough to not tell lies about people just because you're angry.

School district may have failed by actioning on a Facebook post not made on their computers. That's up for debate, but it is perhaps understandable that they acted to both protect the teacher and their reputations and send a message to other students that this level of name calling is not acceptable.

Parents definitely failed in not monitoring their children or teaching them appropriate impulse control. If you're going to turn control over your children to a school, then you can't act shocked when the school disciplines your child. It's great that some of the parents are considering getting lawyers and giving their children a chance to experience how the legal system works, but perhaps had the parents shown this level of interest in their children to begin with, it wouldn't have happened.

But the teacher here was just doing his job teaching students. Call a teacher stupid? Well, I suppose, although even that shows a distressing lack of respect for an authority figure who, by all accounts, hasn't done anything to warrant it. Call them a rapist, a pedophile and accuse them of mental illness? All of those are career enders for teachers (again, generally because of parents who are only involved in their children's lives when they smell a payday with a lawsuit) and, unless the student has a legitimate accusation, should require consequence.

So I see student fail, school fail and parent fail, but how the hell did the teacher fail? The teacher was maliciously and slanderously attacked for doing his job. Seriously, we've gotta stop treating teachers as second class citizens. Just lumping everyone into the blame game to seem fair or even handed is bad critical thinking and neither fair nor even handed.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...yes?

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes? Just as FOX news, lying on tv, is free speech. So is calling your teacher a "faggot" or "pedophile". Speech doesn't need to be erudite or even reasonable to be a form of expression.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/02/134194791/supreme-court-sides-with-westboro-church-on-funeral-protests

yes

Re:From TFA

[tomhudson]

The school had the responsibility to check. Or are you going to say that if the school is aware of a kid being, say, beaten at home, they should just turn a blind eye, because the beatings didn't happen in school?

The school serves in loco parentis, and as such, has more responsibilities, and also more ability to act, than uninvolved bystanders.

Re:From TFA

[Geekbot]

Alejandra Sosa said she regretted posting a Facebook status calling her teacher a pedophile. She has been suspended for 10 days. “I was just expressing myself on Facebook, because like I said I was mad that day because of what he [did],” Sosa said in a statement. “So, I mean I had no intentions of ruining his reputation.”

The case will be very important in deciding what falls under free speech and what the school can discipline students for

So irresponsible name-calling because of a low grade or something is now expressing oneself and an example of free speech? Nice.

Maybe the parents feel they need to go on the offensive to avoid problems, but I'd be seriously grateful to get out of it without getting sued for slander. I work at a school and I've always worried about this. Even completely baseless, those kind of accusations can ruin someone. I'd be beating my kid over that kind of stupid behavior. Of course, if the parents cared enough to raise their kids right it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

And THAT is how free speech rights get eroded.

Sigh

Re:From TFA

[FlyingGuy]

The same time yelling FIRE in a crowded theater did.

Perhaps you have been living under a rock?

Calling anyone a pedophile is a serious charge but calling a teacher one in a public forum can have the most serious of consequences.

That teacher is lucky he was not arrested, finger printed and booked on suspicion of that offense. Once that happens that teacher will be forever in the system and I don't care what any judge says about factual innocence or any bullshit like that. Local LEO computer systems update state systems which then update federal systems and after that that teacher is just fucked for the rest of their lives.

From then on when that teacher applies for a position and they do a background check this shit will pop up and there is not a school district in this country that will hire him.

Those kids deserve to be expelled from that school and never be allowed back into that school.

Re:From TFA

[kevinNCSU]

those kind of accusations can ruin someone. I'd be beating my kid

Priceless

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"So irresponsible name-calling because of a low grade or something is now expressing oneself and an example of free speech? Nice."

That's a matter for the civil courts to decide. If you feel somebody has stepped over the line and broken a law (slander, libel), then you sue them. That is the proper action and that is why we have a civil court system. This is not to mean that people should be "sue happy" ... but by no means should the school system be judge and juror in something like this.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Speech can also be Libel and Slander depending on what was said. I personally wonder why more people do not sue Fox News for Libel and Slander.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, yes it is.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

What if that "or something" was the teacher making a lewd comment or gesture towards the girl? Assuming it was simply a bad grade is pretty naive. I know it would likely be included in a story, but these days with the level of reporting/editing on the web, who knows.

Re:From TFA

[Quakerjono]

The school checked, found the claims to be baseless and simply a fit of pique by the children in question. Did the school have the right to force the children to log into their Facebook accounts on school property to see the messages? Debatable, but again, the teacher in this case has done nothing wrong. So saying that "everyone failed" and lumping the teacher in is wrong-headed ridiculousness.

Re:From TFA

[tomhudson]

You're absolutely right to say that the teacher shouldn't be lumped in with the "everyone failed" crowd. I also don't believe the school principal failed. The parents of the kids, on the other hand ...

Re:From TFA

[epyT-R]

uh yes.. it is.. since when is free speech defined by those who think said speech is unacceptable? since seriously? is society that overly sensitive nowadays? wow.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Alejandra Sosa said she regretted posting a Facebook status calling her teacher a pedophile. She has been suspended for 10 days. “I was just expressing myself on Facebook, because like I said I was mad that day because of what he [did],” Sosa said in a statement. “So, I mean I had no intentions of ruining his reputation.”

The case will be very important in deciding what falls under free speech and what the school can discipline students for

So irresponsible name-calling because of a low grade or something is now expressing oneself and an example of free speech? Nice.

Replace "because of a low grade" with "because of voter polling", and have this involve politicians instead of school children, and you have your answer.

It definitely does seem to be an example of free speech. In fact, the politicians do it blatantly and in the public arena!

Agreed...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the age of Zero Tolerance I'm 100% ok with this decision. Brats need a tough lesson when they act out. Otherwise it will be the Police who are babysitting your kids instead of the TV.

You wanted this for your fucking brats.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who sow the wind.

I hope kids these days appreciate their thirteen year mandatory sentence. This is exactly what the snot-nosed bastards deserve - one might think, if one wasn't aware that they're only snot-nosed bastards due to a complete lack of parenting.

My kingdom for genetic testing and mandatory training classes before any random jackoffs are allowed to bump uglies with intent to produce a kid.

Re:You wanted this for your fucking brats.

[Anonymous Coward]

My kingdom for genetic testing and mandatory training classes before any random jackoffs are allowed to bump uglies with intent to produce a kid.

Who said any of them intended to?

My kingdom for everyone surgically sterilized before puberty with a second surgery required to reverse it and make them fertile again. Oh yeah you know what the second surgery would absolutely REQUIRE? The signature of the father.

Re:You wanted this for your fucking brats.

[isorox]

Oh yeah you know what the second surgery would absolutely REQUIRE? The signature of the father.

Too bad if your father was a fireman who died saving kids from an orphanage.

you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the one who posted the parent to this... You are right, the school shouldn't have the right to do anything if the posts weren't made on school grounds BUT the law has to do something about the offense and lock the kids up....that's even worse than being suspended/expelled.

question

[shentino]

How does the school district even have jurisdiction in this case?

Was the offending facebook post made from a school computer? During school hours?

It might be libel, but unless the school actually has jurisdiction this suspension and expulsion is a load of crap.

Re:question

[TheRaven64]

Schools don't have jurisdiction over anything - they are not law-enforcing entities. However, when a crime (in this case, libel) is committed against a school or a member of the school staff they may choose to punish the student for the violation of school rules (e.g. one saying 'don't do illegal stuff') and not press charges. Beyond that, the school may punish students in any manner that the parents have agreed to for violation of school rules and may (usually) withdraw its services (i.e. suspend or expel the student) without agreement of the parent.

Re:question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hope that a school district can refuse to allow a child convicted of murder to enter the premises of a normal (not special) school.

Spreading libel about a school teacher creates a hazardous working environment for the teacher and the students.

There are some basic rules like "Don't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater" [1]. And then there's The Boy Who Called Wolf [2].

There's an article on the subject [3], but you might want to consider what the EEOC has to say [4], it basically says that the teacher's employer (the school system) has an obligation to investigate (which it seems they did) and take action.

> What will my employer do if I report harassment?

> Once your employer knows that you are being harassed, it has a responsibility to correct
> the situation and protect you from further harassment.

> Your employer should promptly and thoroughly investigate your claim.

check

> This may mean that your employer will interview you, the harasser, and any other witnesses.

check

> If your employer determines that you were harassed, it should take steps to stop the behavior
> from continuing, such as transferring the harasser to another location.

a suspension or expulsion does this, check

> Your employer also must make sure that you are not punished, treated differently, or harassed
> for reporting harassment.

this is harder. if the school has enabled you to be tarred and feathered by parents, then it's now in trouble. but it basically has an obligation to explain the law to the parents and tell them to grow up and teach their children a bit of the basics of our society ([1] + [2] would be a good start, but some Respect for others would be a nice addition).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
[3] https://law.asu.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fsKXtzndrRo%3D&tabid=1122
[4] http://www.eeoc.gov/youth/harass2.html#Q5

Re:question

[shish]

How does the school district even have jurisdiction in this case?

Maybe it's just the school I went to, or just this country (England), but when I started high school we had to sign some sort of contract thing essentially saying that if the school is involved in any way (with "actions committed while wearing the school uniform" as the example) then the school has jurisdiction in addition to the regular authorities.

Re:question

[Anonymous Coward]

Libel is not a crime, it is a tort.

Re:question

[Frosty Piss]

Libel is not a crime, it is a tort.

You've never had my wife's pastries. They are absolutely a crime against all common sense.

Re:question

[Idarubicin]

It might be libel, but unless the school actually has jurisdiction this suspension and expulsion is a load of crap.

In many jurisdictions, school officials are constrained by zero-tolerance, zero-discretion policies when faced with these sorts of accusations; they are compelled to investigate whenever these sorts of claims - however spurious or implausible - arise.

Consider the alternative-history headline to this story: "Students identify teacher as pedophile, rapist; School declines to take action--says cannot investigate reports made after hours".

Re:question

[tomhudson]

How does the school district even have jurisdiction in this case?

Was the offending facebook post made from a school computer? During school hours?

It might be libel, but unless the school actually has jurisdiction this suspension and expulsion is a load of crap.

They have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court says they do:

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."

The case in question was whether the school could ban the wearing of armbands demanding the end of the Vietnam war. The Supremes held that the armbands were not disruptive, and a legitimate form of expressing an opinion. Posting lies about someone being a pedophile and rapist would meet the standards of material dirruption and invasion of the rights of others. So the schools definitely are acting within the legal framework.

The parents need to go back in time and learn effective birth control so we don't get yet another generation of the clueless.

Re:question

[Americano]

Does this mean you can't be let go from your job for doing drugs, as long as you're not doing drugs on the job site? Does this mean you can't be let go from your job for murdering someone, as long as you have the decency to murder them outside of work hours?

Engaging in offenses outside of work hours, outside of work property, certainly can (and often does) have ramifications to your current (and future) employability. The kids are learning a valuable lesson about how the world works.

Re:question

[Travelsonic]

The case in question is antiquated, surely more modern examples of the Supreme Court's take on the issue of schools dictating what goes on in a child's private time off campus exist.

She accused the teacher of being a pedophile

[Anonymous Coward]

This has direct impact not only on the reputation of the guy, but on the school , and the adminstration of the school, principal, etc... So yeah, the school had cause to act, at least check the accusation, and if wrong then at the very least suspend the student , potentially also going into libel lawsuit for the school teacher agaisnt the student.

own fault

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like someone could not protect his profile..

Re:own fault

[TheRaven64]

Even if the student had protected their profiles, the information would still have been sold to advertisers. Next time the teacher logged in, he'd get targeted ads aimed at pedophiles...

Public school?

[DigiTechGuy]

I'll assume this is a public school, in which case they don't have any choice but to follow our Constitution, namely the First Amendment. These children said these things out of school, it's none of the school's business. If they go snooping and find out, then they can't do anything about it.

Bottom line is kids say things about teachers they don't like. They always have and always will. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech will only cause further resentment towards the school and teachers which will result in more severe verbal bashing of the institution. Not surprisingly, the article doesn't mention what the teacher did that may have resulted in this type of reaction from the students.

Re:Public school?

[Frosty Piss]

First Amendment, blaw, blaw, blaw... These children said these things out of school, it's none of the school's business.

Did you "read" the article? No, of course not.

They made false accusations of serious criminal activity. Is that sort of thing protected by the First Amendment? I'm not a lawyer.

Please get off your soap-box and live in reality. These children's little prank could have had (and possibly still can have) serious life-changing consequences for their falsely accused teachers.

Re:Public school?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Sosa is currently drafting an apology to her teacher. At the same time though, she said her school principal, Jolene Morris, violated her privacy by ordering her to log into her Facebook account at a school library computer. Morris then reportedly read the offending post and ensuing responses from friends before ordering Sosa to delete the posts.

Context is everything. The admin forced the kid to delete to posts. Are there actual copies of these posts anywhere? People are assuming its criminal without knowing the context or what was actually said. Without knowing what was written this is all assumption. If the kids said "Teacher X raped Student Y" I tend to agree, but what if they said "Teacher X acts like a rapist." Or "Teacher X leers at me like a paedophile." Is that libel? I am just saying that the administrator's actions sure give him a lot a latitude to say "the post said this."

Re:Public school?

[Registered Coward v2]

I'll assume this is a public school, in which case they don't have any choice but to follow our Constitution, namely the First Amendment.

The first protects your right to free speech, however you are still liable for any consequences of exercising that right. It does not grant you any immunity from being punished for what you said.

These children said these things out of school, it's none of the school's business. If they go snooping and find out, then they can't do anything about it.

They can - schools have the right (and responsibility) to provide a safe working environment for students and staff. If something is said or done off campus hay can certainly take action as a result of what was said.

Bottom line is kids say things about teachers they don't like. They always have and always will. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech will only cause further resentment towards the school and teachers which will result in more severe verbal bashing of the institution.

Maybe they'll learn that their free speech rights come with responsibilities as well.

Not surprisingly, the article doesn't mention what the teacher did that may have resulted in this type of reaction from the students.

Yea, it's probably something as horrific as giving them a bad grade because they didn't do their work or separate them in class because they were talking to each other.

Re:Public school?

[russotto]

The first protects your right to free speech, however you are still liable for any consequences of exercising that right. It does not grant you any immunity from being punished for what you said.

It most certainly protects you from being punished by government agencies for what you said. Without that, it's meaningless; Congress could pass a law specifying you be executed as a consequence of speaking against the government. The school is a public school, hence an arm of the government.

Re:Public school?

[Registered Coward v2]

The first protects your right to free speech, however you are still liable for any consequences of exercising that right. It does not grant you any immunity from being punished for what you said.

It most certainly protects you from being punished by government agencies for what you said. Without that, it's meaningless; Congress could pass a law specifying you be executed as a consequence of speaking against the government. The school is a public school, hence an arm of the government.

No it doesn't - it protects you from prior restraint; you are still responsible for what you said and it's results. As for your strawman; a court might decide such punishment is de facto prior restraint and hence unconstitutional but that does not mean that you are exempt from any consequences, whether civil or criminal, for what you say.

I did RTFA, but...

[MickyTheIdiot]

...remember that there is no violation her if what the kid says is true.

I know, unlikely in this case, but it's something to think about. Seems like a way that "policy" could be used to cover something up since kids are usually assumed wrong at school until they are proven right (at which point the administrator starts to ignore them).

At any rate, in the U.S. we've given school admins the right to pretty much create law by creating a "policy." I am not comfortable with that. It can and has been used as CYA too many times.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

and child publicly admitted her wrongdoing and that she pretty much lied there.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[MickyTheIdiot]

And kids can't be pressured to say or do something by an authority figure? Again... no way to judge if the posts are deleted.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is any truth to the accusation, the children's parents should persue it. There's no way to cover it up, in reality, without first silencing the parents.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which kid? One says rapist, one says pedophile, and another says he's is bi-polar. I ask again, which is it? This points up the danger of treating this behavior as childish and unimportant. Many people are stupid. Intelligent people see three claims by three different students and know that the claims are untrue. Stupid people blame the teacher, spread rumors, and eventually a nutcase with a gun does what he thinks is right and the community applauds the death of an innocent man.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[HungryHobo]

and if it's demonstratively false then the fact that people are so much more willing to believe it's true makes it only more serious.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but wonder how much, or little, coercion it took to "make" the child admit that.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course MickyTheIdiot brutally raped his nextdoor neighbor's kid back when she was 8.

I know, unlikely in this case, but it's something to think about.

- Guilty until Proven Innocent in the Public Court of Fox News

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[mywhitewolf]

Especially coming from 2 honor students. somethings a little fishy.

Re:I did RTFA, but...

[mywhitewolf]

i would do the same thing too regardless of how true things are to avoid being expelled, or have my name posted all across the school as that "kid" that got molested by a pedophile.

how would someone acknowledge a false accusation? its normally child word against adult. if i were the child i would have just said "i don't want to talk about it". unless the kid admits to making shit up they would have gotten away scott free without enough evidence to investigate further.

Also, what the fuck is with the article posting the names of the students who made the accusations? kids that kill others don't get their named published, why the exception here? they are kids, they do dumb shit because they don't realize the full impact of their actions. There is probably a whole bunch of things that i did when i was 12 that could be taken out of context to prevent me from getting hired

For kids? Really?

[naetuir]

Kids, much less adults, understand the repercussions of 'inking' something on the internet. This is why it's so important for their parents to step in and stop them from such things. Yes, kids need censors for some of the stupidity that they perpetrate while they are (gasp) children! That doesn't mean you suspend or expel. You take corrective action, and smack down the parents for not doing their job. Yes, their JOB. Having a child is a JOB. I get so tired of people that try to blame schools and governments for childrens stupidity. If their parents didn't allow it, it wouldn't happen.

On the flip side of this, I think that there is a majority of adults who don't understand the implications of 'inking' something on the 'net, either. The root of the problem isn't even the ink. It's the social contract tat people hold themselves to. Just saying "rape" with someones name connected to it can ruin their life, and that is crappy as hell.

Re:For kids? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Children, especially in their early adolescence, tend to rebel against their parent's influence and do the exact opposite of what their parents say; it's how they eventually discover their own identity. There is only so much control that can be exerted before that control is abusive.

Your blanket statement is a disservice at best.

suspending - yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspending for a afew days - good enough punishment. Make public case for other pupils - it is good punishment.
Expelling, nah i don't think its appropriate.
What makes me amazed, such young child makes such allegation, how could they even think of RAPE? So perhaps expelling wasn't such a bad reason. Parent's obviously failed to educate children of what responsibility is. If kid knows what rape is, it should also know how damaging it is to reputation of person he/she badmouthing. Punishment is definitely deserved.

Re:suspending - yes

[MickyTheIdiot]

They might have just been using it a slur... we will never know because we lack to context. I was wondering, for instance, if any of the posts called the teacher "Gay." How many times has that been said in a schoolyard without the kid knowing exactly what it meant?

The beginning of the end...

[geekmux]

"...We’ll definitely be hearing more about this one as Facebook and other social networks continue to grow in popularity."

Grow in popularity? Uh, no, I doubt it. This is yet another nail in the liability coffin that is Facebook.

Not long ago I read how Facebook is being used to decide who should be selected to sit on a jury, with potential jurors being "coherced" into befriending the court in exchange for free wi-fi service in the courtroom, allowing the court to "see all".

Also not long ago, I read how Facebook is responsible for quite an alarming number of cases of infidelity, leading to divorce, with divorce lawyers practically drooling over getting their hands in their opponents juicy Facebook tidbits.

Schools. Potential employers. Current employers. What's next, will Military background investigations be done from an office chair instead of getting out in the field and actually interviewing someone, relying on social network "profiling" instead?

As more and more people realize that social networking is a liability in their lives, they'll realize it's not worth it.

Then again, with the air of ignorance around the law these days, maybe people won't give a shit until they have to hire a lawyer to defend what they've posted. Free speech...isn't free.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[Fnkmaster]

I guess the question is why, with all the liability issues, and potential for use against you in any variety of ways, do people still overshare on sites like Facebook? I have a Facebook account, which I keep locked down. Nobody can post on my wall, nobody can see my photos unless I explicitly share them with them (whether they are my "Friends" or not), nobody can see anything more than the briefest of information about me.

The first thing I'm going to tell me kids (my wife and I are expecting our first presently) when they are old enough for online access is that you never, ever post anything online anywhere that you wouldn't want your own children, your boss, your teachers, and your friends to all know about you.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[Reemi]

I really hope you are right.

The other scenario is even more scarry. In order to be hired for that new job, you are required to have at least 100 friends and a wall full of messages.

Sounds strange? It already happend with the credit rating. You are forced to have debt in order to get a positive rating.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been so many stories about people being in trouble for Facebook stories lately that I'm wondering when their membership will start declining.

You would have never heard about this story before Facebook. When I was that age (15 years ago) another student actually wrote a song claiming that a substitute teacher whacked off under his desk and passed it out to students. I know he didn't get suspended or even kicked off the basketball team for it.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're forced to have a credit history before you can get a rating. If you've never taken out credit (borrowed money) then you can't show any positive or negative history about how responsible you are about paying it back. Yes, you have to borrow money before you can change your credit rating but that doesn't mean you can't use a credit card to buy your shopping, walk into your bank next door and pay off that debt strait away. No one is forcing you to get into large amounts of debt or even wait long enough for the interest to kick in on what you owe.

And who cares if you have to have at least 100 "friends" and a wall full of posts. Just set up a second account and get some people to post something equally boring on your wall, or set up multiple accounts and fill up your own wall. No one can force you to have a great social life and your prospective boss is unlikely to know the difference. Or you could just avoid companies that are crackpot enough to make this a requirement for employment.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[epyT-R]

maybe what's needed are some strong privacy laws? if we make every avenue for expression a liability pit like you say facebook is, then we've effectively killed free speech.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds strange? It already happend with the credit rating. You are forced to have debt in order to get a positive rating.

That's true. During the dot com days, I had impeccable credit. Then, I went broke so I paid off my loans. etc, and lived on a cash basis for eight years. Then, I needed to get a loan (in the midst of the credit crunch) - I had the hardest time getting financing. The banks insisted I am not creditworthy because I have never financed anything (bullshit). One of the banks I went to had financed two friends of mine, who had multiple repossessions in their credit history and yet they got financing without problem. Granted, it was a high rate they are paying, but that same bank that said I am not credit worthy just financed a new Audi for one of them. When I mentioned those names to the rep, he said "but they have credit history." So I asked him point blank: "So, so you mean to tell me that a poor credit history is better than a nonexistent or limited credit history?" He said "Yes." WTF?

Ultimately I got financing through a credit union (at a decent but not great rate) and opened two credit cards. And, unlike my friend who financed an Audi, I have not missed any payments.

The credit system is bullshit. It rewards excessive debt.

Re:The beginning of the end...

[jwhitener]

As with any new communication medium, I think it will just take a full generation, or generation and a half, before the average person is fully aware of the potential pitfalls and changes their behavior accordingly. Also, it may take a decade or two before enough law suits are brought and decided before there is ample precedence about what problems one could run into using pervasive social media.

I don't see the average person ever deciding that social media is not worth it, but I do see the average person using more forethought about what parts of their lives belong on certain types of social media. There are a lot of people using Facebook now, who probably were raised by parents that have never used, and have therefore never cautioned their child about it. The next generation raising the next set of kids is going to be teaching their children about privacy in the online world as a matter of daily life, and/or restricting and overseeing social media use to varying degrees as their children mature.

I know if I had a 12 year old, I might consider letting them use facebook, but a requirement would be that they had to 'friend' me and I would know their user/pass. I would certainly want to read everything they were posting/reading daily. If I saw my kid make a potentially damaging or stupidly offensive post, they would be punished in the usual ways that a 'real world' posting would be punished. For instance, if my kid spray painted a wall with something dumb, they'd A) Lose privileges, and B) clean it up, and C) potentially pay for or make good on the situation. So in the case of 'spray painting something stupid on facebook', they'd A) Have their account deleted (immediate cleanup), B) be able to make a new account with a sorry message on it only, and C) lose the privilege of being on any social sites for some length of time.

presumed guilty

[scotts13]

I'm 100% on board with the seriousness of this, but not with the schools reaction. It's a matter for the courts, not the principal, unless the posts were done on school grounds with school equipment. And being "forced" to log onto the account while at school? That should be right out. When a libel case comes to court, the suspect has the opportunity to defend themselves; they MAY have reason to believe the person actually IS a pedophile, rapist or suffer from bipolar disorder. Seems unlikely, but you never know - and now we never will.

Re:presumed guilty

[MickyTheIdiot]

We've made administrators lords of their little fiefdoms and all rights away because they are watching after kids and somehow children are sub-human. I don't see anyone would be surprised by any of the administrators behavor in this. The kids did something wrong here but we'll never know to what extent because the administrator made sure of it...

Re:presumed guilty

[cheekyjohnson]

But I thought that kids were sub-humans! Abuse isn't abuse anymore if it's done to a child. The same goes for sexual harassment. Somehow, that makes complete sense. Besides, attempting to evaluate someone's worth based on their behavior, not their age, is completely out of the question. Administrators should just do as they please.

Re:presumed guilty

[tivoKlr]

I haven't seen anywhere that this was the only copy of this libelous speech posted on Facebook, and I'd imagine some conscientious 12-13 year old (yes, they apparently exist) probably provided a screen shot of the conversation to the Principal for investigation.

God think like 1 step ahead here people.

Likewise, adolescents are total little shits, and if a school had to provide them with the full range of rights given to ADULTS then the low performance of our schools now would be completely eclipsed by their crappiness if every administrator and teacher had to worry about little Billy bitching to his parents about how Mr. Smith was mean to him at school. Sheesh, none of you must actually have adolescents.

I had this 9 year old (not mine) lipping off to me on the chairlift yesterday and if it hadn't been so high in the air I might have just pushed her off (of course into the soft fluffy snow near the top of the lift)...

Re:presumed guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

If a student has reason to believe that a teacher is a rapist or pedophile, the correct response is to tell an administrator, parent, police officer, or other adult authority figure. Making a pseudo-public accusation of a felony crime without merit is criminal behavior. This concerns a school employee and a student at the school. Therefore the school has every right to involvement. If your argument was in any way reasonable, the courts would have struck down laws preventing sexual offenders of living within some prescribed distance of a school. School is more than a building. You demonstrate the danger of what these students have done in slandering this teacher. You immediately assume without any evidence whatsoever beyond the attack of children on an authority figure that that authority is probably a pedophile, rapist, or suffers from bipolar disorder. There were three separate claims from three different individuals. Which one is it?

Re:presumed guilty

[cheekyjohnson]

adolescents are total little shits

All of them? If so, that's quite a nasty generalization. If not, then you should be judging them on an individual basis.

if every administrator and teacher had to worry about little Billy bitching to his parents about how Mr. Smith was mean to him at school.

Why would they have to worry about that? Being "mean" to someone is not a crime (not only that, but words themselves are almost never valid evidence).

I had this 9 year old (not mine) lipping off to me on the chairlift yesterday and if it hadn't been so high in the air I might have just pushed her off (of course into the soft fluffy snow near the top of the lift)...

You could say the same thing about any person who is insulting you, not just children. Age doesn't change this one single bit. It is unfortunate for those who cannot control their anger, however, that assaulting others is generally not accepted behavior.

Re:presumed guilty

[HungryHobo]

Things which happen outside of school bounds can still warrant actions in school.

If a student physically attacked a teacher outside the school grounds it would be perfectly reasonable to expel them.

Similarly if a student was found to be sending death threats to a teacher or firebombed their house expulsion would only be the least of their worries.

for criminal penalties it absolutely should be a matter for the courts but for penalties within the school like suspension or expulsion not everything has to go through a courts.

Re:presumed guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 100% on board with the seriousness of this, but not with the schools reaction. It's a matter for the courts, not the principal, ...

Ever thought that the principal is "punishing" (read protecting) the kids to avoid having the kids suffer criminal proceedings?

Re:presumed guilty

[tivoKlr]

adolescents are total little shits

All of them? If so, that's quite a nasty generalization. If not, then you should be judging them on an individual basis.

The vast majority of them. I see them every day at work or out on the hill, etc. Clarified that for ya.

if every administrator and teacher had to worry about little Billy bitching to his parents about how Mr. Smith was mean to him at school.

Why would they have to worry about that? Being "mean" to someone is not a crime (not only that, but words themselves are almost never valid evidence).

Read TFA. Teacher does something student doesn't like, student retaliates by libeling the teacher as a pedophile, rapist and as being bipolar. This is not an appropriate response to being "mean."

I had this 9 year old (not mine) lipping off to me on the chairlift yesterday and if it hadn't been so high in the air I might have just pushed her off (of course into the soft fluffy snow near the top of the lift)...

You could say the same thing about any person who is insulting you, not just children. Age doesn't change this one single bit. It is unfortunate for those who cannot control their anger, however, that assaulting others is generally not accepted behavior.

I could say the same thing about any person that is insulting me, or offending me through their disrespectful, inflammatory and completely obnoxious behavior, as this little shit of a 9 yr old was yesterday, but unless you're an adult I'm not going to knock your block off. If you are, well we'll see who wins the fracas. Not all /.'rs live in their parents' basements and don't see the sun, let alone have had enough stress over the past say, decade, to have lost tolerance for assholes, especially ones that are not even old enough to drive. Honestly, as this child lives in the same valley where I live, and as I was asked to accompany her up the chairlift by her instructor, I should have waited until the instructor got to the top of the mountain to let him know how horrible his student's behavior had been on the lift, and given him my phone number to pass along to her parents. Life in a small valley can be a real bitch...

Re:presumed guilty

[cheekyjohnson]

The vast majority of them.

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I'd say that the vast majority of people in general are exactly like that. Not that I have any proof beyond anecdotal evidence and the way that the world currently works, of course.

Read TFA. Teacher does something student doesn't like, student retaliates by libeling the teacher as a pedophile, rapist and as being bipolar. This is not an appropriate response to being "mean."

Yes, but when you stated that, you were saying that if we give children the rights that adults have, being "mean" to them would have consequences. In this case, I do not see what this has to do with giving them the same rights as an adult would have. The situation has already happened and they do not have those rights.

but unless you're an adult I'm not going to knock your block off.

A quote comes to mind: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I don't think that harming someone merely because you have a differing opinion is acceptable. If you resort to such barbaric measures, you probably don't have a counterargument, can't coherently express your counterargument, can't accept that other people have opinions that differ from your own, or a combination of those.

Not all /.'rs live in their parents' basements and don't see the sun, let alone have had enough stress over the past say, decade, to have lost tolerance for assholes, especially ones that are not even old enough to drive.

Even if that were true, that does not excuse illogical, barbaric behavior. It can, however, indicate that you may be biased.

Re:presumed guilty

[tivoKlr]

It's ok, I didn't push the obnoxious brat off the chairlift, and I was pleased that my four year old was with me rather than my six year old, who might have caught on to how bad the 9 year old's behavior really was, and might have opted to behave similarly at some point, to my consternation. There are good kids and bad, it does not mean that I have to tolerate the bad behavior of the latter.

Re:presumed guilty

[cheekyjohnson]

it does not mean that I have to tolerate the bad behavior of the latter.

I suppose not. You could always work out a solution with them logically or enact some sort of peaceful deal.

Re:presumed guilty

[tivoKlr]

Right. I mostly ignored the obnoxious child and didn't buy into her attempt to bait me into confronting her on her level, and I didn't push her over as we got off the chairlift, as tempting as that would have been in hindsight.

Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[jjsm]

Alejandra Sosa, an honor roll student, said she regretted posting a Facebook status calling her teacher a pedophile. She has been suspended for 10 days.

William Lambert, also an honor roll student, had the same feelings as Sosa after he was reprimanded for calling the same teacher a rapist. He has also been suspended.

Taylor Tindle was *expelled* for posting that the same teacher is bipolar.

OMG, Really?

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[ScentCone]

So, you've got a kid lying, saying that an adult licensed to teach and professionally tending to the education and safety of children is mentally ill. This leaves a stain on that person's reputation in their field, and could make it difficult for their career. Or, perhaps the teacher actually is bipolar, but has it well under control through medication, and you've got a kid spreading private medical information online, in an attempt to damage that person. Either way, you're dealing with a kid that has decided it's within his rights to deliberately and publicly try to damage the reputation of a person who makes a living working with kids. The kid was expelled for exhibiting real malice, and showing the willingness to act on it, publicly, to hurt somebody's career. Good riddance.

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[Registered Coward v2]

*expelled* for posting that the same teacher is bipolar.

OMG, Really?

Sure. Since we do not know the disciplinary history of this involved it may have been the next step in a series of punishments.

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[Zelucifer]

You're kidding me right? You honestly believe that this child was sophisticated enough to come up with a targeted, motivated attack with the intent of irreparably damaging his teachers reputation?

Be realistic here, it was a kid calling his teacher a epithet in what he believed to be a private forum.

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[spedrosa]

Since when 12 year old kids are qualified or considered an authority to assess a person's medical condition?

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[Skidborg]

You haven't been a kid recently have you. By the age of 12 many children are fully capable of carrying out a simple plan like that. Most are also wise enough not to do such a thing.

I'm not claiming that this such a case, but you shouldn't fall into the "kids are stupid" trap.

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[Oligonicella]

Point one: No kidding. I raised a daughter. Well within her bounds by age ten, much less thirteen.

Point two: Tough. Wrong epithet. One the kid knew was very wrong. Also wrong on it's being a private forum. Anyone logged on or looking over a shoulder can read it.

This is slash-dot, right? Was it encrypted? If not, noobs or not serious about privacy and deserving anything dished out, right?

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[russotto]

Or, perhaps the teacher actually is bipolar, but has it well under control through medication, and you've got a kid spreading private medical information online, in an attempt to damage that person. Either way, you're dealing with a kid that has decided it's within his rights to deliberately and publicly try to damage the reputation of a person who makes a living working with kids.

Sorry, you can't have this one. If the teacher is bipolar, calling him bipolar isn't libel as truth is an absolute defense for libel. If the student discovered this through observation of the teacher's behavior, or because the teacher left his lithium prescription in plain sight in the classroom, the student has no duty to keep the information confidential.

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[ScentCone]

Right. So we'll just stick with it being malicious BS meant to permanently harm the person's career.

Re:Expelled for calling the teacher a bipolar?

[alexo]

Being bipolar has both negative and positive aspects.

Geez, could you at least put the accusation

[NotSoHeavyD3]

In the original posting? I mean I was all ready to type up how terrible this was and a school over steping their bounds but then I actually read the article. There's a world of difference between saying things like I hate my teacher or he/she is a moron and he/she is a pedophile.

Re:Geez, could you at least put the accusation

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that school suspensions are sensible, the one expelled student called the teacher "bipolar". The two 10 suspensions were for calling him a "pedophile" or "rapist". Explain to me why a 13 year old's psychiatric diagnosis is more "severe" than two criminal accusations? No one should have been expelled.

Interesting response

[gratuitous_arp]

This was a response to the article on zdnet, written by "stevey_d":

Lawyers make every argument adversarial. This is unethical and divides people whereas they should learn to live better with each other.

Children often talk in terms like this about teachers, it's normal. What isn't normal is for the teacher to overhear it (or, if they do, they have the nous to develop bad hearing). This is the same for management in an organization. The only thing here is that the kids didn't figure any adults would intrude on their personal conversation.

The school and the teachers have been ill advised here, someone could have quitely taken the kids to one side, explained the public nature of the chat, and helped them make it hidden or deleted. (enforce privacy).

This whole case is ridiculous. Kids are kids, they don't always know how to behave, they make mistakes. The adults in the situation were clearly not mature enough in their response. Adversarial relationship no, should very rarely have anything to do with school/kids.

Re:Interesting response

[qengho]

Children often talk in terms like this about teachers, it's normal.

Except this isn't analogous to talking about a teacher during recess, it's more like posting flyers on telephone poles near the school.

Re:Interesting response

[Zelucifer]

Is it? I'd argue that it's more in line with passing a note among friends. If you post flyers, anyone can see it. If you post it on your facebook wall, only people who have you as friends, or people who directly search for it will find it.

Re:Interesting response

[FlatEric521]

This whole case is ridiculous. Kids are kids, they don't always know how to behave, they make mistakes.

Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked. If the children didn't know right from wrong, that would be one thing. But they were all 12-13 years of age, which should mean they already know that lying about their teacher being a pedo/rapist is wrong. Once you have gotten past the point of knowing right from wrong, we move to the step of teaching the consequences of doing the wrong thing. That is the punishment step. The kids did wrong, they know it, and they were caught. Now they get to face up to the consequences. Hopefully this will teach them further how to behave in the future, since simply knowing right from wrong wasn't enough in this case.

Re:Interesting response

[gratuitous_arp]

Except this isn't analogous to talking about a teacher during recess, it's more like posting flyers on telephone poles near the school.

I half-agree with the analogy, because the effect of posting such a thing on Facebook is agreeably far wider-reaching than schoolyard chat. However, I think making a facebook comment is as off-hand as a child saying such a thing at recess.

This is what I mean: If facebook and so on were not around, I don't really think the kids would have posted their thoughts on fliers on telephone poles near the school. Do you? They would have said it at recess or in the halls or on a note, like most normal children have been doing for years and years.

Global communication has traits of both... it's incredibly easy to create a huge audience.

Kids should be expected to use their brains about the ramifications of powerful technology, but it won't always happen. The question is how to deal with it. Expulsion is the response that says: "I don't want to deal with it." I think that is very rarely an acceptable answer for a system which we expect to educate our young people. It should only be used when someone's little snot has repeatedly interfered with other children's lives. Off-curriculum social lessons are far more influencing and important to the rest of a person's life than any subject covered in seventh grade.

Throwing the rule book at a student does not take the place of guidance. Use it when guidance repeatedly fails.

Re:Interesting response

[qengho]

...I think making a facebook comment is as off-hand as a child saying such a thing at recess....If facebook and so on were not around, I don't really think the kids would have posted their thoughts on fliers on telephone poles near the school. Do you?

Probably not, and expulsion was too harsh. Kids need to be taught that the internet has power beyond their little cliques, and the parents are the ones who should have been taken to task for this.

Re:Interesting response

[drosboro]

Really? "Kids are kids" is the reason why it's okay for one to accuse a teacher of being a pedophile? Really?

I overhear (and see) a lot of student conversations. "Mr. So-and-so is a loser" isn't that uncommon. "I hate Mrs. X" happens fairly regularly. But "Mr. Y is a pedophile" is and should be in a whole different category (e.g. a criminal one).

Re:Interesting response

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still a difference between going to the authorities and saying Mr. X is a pedophile which amounts to an accusation. But calling someone a hurtful name is not the same as an accusation. Now, if you can prove that the child is making an accusation, then throw the book at her.

If her intent was to vent amongst friends in what she thought was a private conversation, then I would say she didn't intend to make any accusation, let alone go to the authorities.

Re:Interesting response

[gratuitous_arp]

Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.

The poster is not saying don't punish the kids; the point is that the execution is misguided.

A 12 year old child does not have the same knowledge of right and wrong that a respectable adult has. Most 12 year old's knowledge of right and wrong is essentially this: was I told to do this, or not. This is an opportunity to help the kids understand *why* something is right and wrong, because they just screwed up big time and you have the time to make a point that they will actually listen to. This is what it means to be an educator, whether you are a teacher or a parent.

Punishment is just a first step in helping a child learn from their mistakes. If that's where the guidance ends, one had better "hope" they don't do it again, because praying is the only chance there is. They'll just learn to not get caught.

What is happening here is worse than all of that -- one student is being expelled, which is another way to say "it's not our problem." The rest are being threatened with expulsion or movement into a school for people with behavioral problems if they try to escalate the issue. This is not the way to help kids grow.

I'd love to see the teachers step in and say something behind the scenes to actually turn this into a lesson that these kids can learn from. The teachers need to resolve this with the children in a stern but loving way. That's what conflict resolution is. That's what children need to grow. The way the rulebook is getting thrown around is absurd, there is no need for it. Shame on the teachers, principals, and parents for how they handled this -- I hope they *learn from it*.

Re:Interesting response

[gratuitous_arp]

"Kids are kids" is the reason why it's okay for one to accuse a teacher of being a pedophile?

No, to take that away as the message is to miss the argument.

The children behaved wrongly and should be helped to learn as much as they can from screwing up like they have. Part of this is punishment. I think the suspensions are fine, though three days is plenty.

What the children would really benefit from is an off-line discussion with the teacher about their actions, then they can use the suspension as time to let it sink in. Do you think the teachers are going to sit down with the kids and help to cement a valuable life lesson, like real educators and mentors? I doubt it. Same goes for the parents.

Re:Interesting response

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? "Kids are kids" is the reason why it's okay for one to accuse a teacher of being a pedophile? Really?

As long as you frame things as "it's okay!" or "it's not okay!" you are not looking for a rational discussion nor a reasonable punishment/deterrent.

Kids tend to pick up things from various places, such as adults.

What's that I hear every so often but is forgotten just as fast...that family members are the most likely offenders...

While a child may have sparked this, the firework factory they're inside was built and will be rebuilt by adults.

I find it sad and hilarious that kids picked up the adult skill of ruining someone's existence with baseless accusations. This is a necessity in many fields of adult life, using the common adult "logic" that "if we don't do it, someone else will" or "everyone else already does it, we will only lose if we don't stoop down to the same level."

"Kids are kids" does not make it okay, but you are blithely ignoring the fact that if the kids were mature enough to be treated as adults, why are they in a compulsory education system?

I overhear (and see) a lot of student conversations. "Mr. So-and-so is a loser" isn't that uncommon. "I hate Mrs. X" happens fairly regularly.

What makes this "is a loser" talk excusable?

Insensitivity and numbness tend to compound.

That talk is a clear warning sign right there.

But "Mr. Y is a pedophile" is and should be in a whole different category (e.g. a criminal one).

Criminal is fine, but there's different criminal categories between an x-year old kid and adult.

If adults punish these children by treating them as if they were adults, that just makes the spirit of the kids' claim true.

I will save the "when adults make marriage and family and having children intertwined with financial incentives and social standing they encourage shitty people to have children" argument for next time.

Re:Interesting response

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? "Kids are kids" is the reason why it's okay for one to accuse a teacher of being a pedophile? Really?

I don't agree with the GP's reasoning, but the comment he quoted does NOT claim that it was "okay" for them to accuse teacher of anything. It merely stated that kicking them out of school over these comments was the wrong way of dealing with it.

It's like when you've got someone in court for the first time, someone who didn't do anything illegal before, who's still young, who's naive and inexperienced and so on; your goal as a judge, then, will typically be to make sure that this person understands that what they did was wrong, and that breaking the law is no small matter even when the offense seems trivial. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have throw that person in the slammer. Depending on the circumstances, a stern warning may be enough to cause them to think things through and come to the right conclusions.

As I said, given the seriousness of the allegations, I am unconvinced that this is true here, but - long story short, you didn't read what the GP said and instead projected your own biases into his comment when you found that you disagreed with it.

Re:Interesting response

[FlatEric521]

A 12 year old child does not have the same knowledge of right and wrong that a respectable adult has.

I would agree to that.

Most 12 year old's knowledge of right and wrong is essentially this: was I told to do this, or not.

Now I've stopped agreeing. I believe by age 12 most kids recognise what would best be described by "levels" of wrongness. If they take a cookie after Mom or Dad said no, maybe they miss dessert or have to go to bed early. If they lie about their grades maybe they don't get internet for a while or lose the allowance or similar. If they lie about the teacher doing criminal acts..... I think you get the point. They had to know if they got caught that the consequences were going to be more severe.

This is an opportunity to help the kids understand *why* something is right and wrong, because they just screwed up big time and you have the time to make a point that they will actually listen to. This is what it means to be an educator, whether you are a teacher or a parent.

Punishment is just a first step in helping a child learn from their mistakes. If that's where the guidance ends, one had better "hope" they don't do it again, because praying is the only chance there is. They'll just learn to not get caught.

And we are back to agreeing. Hopefully there are a lot of explanations occurring to indicate why this kind of act is so bad (lasting effect on career, potential incarceration of an innocent man, etc.). But I don't think that means to don't give a level of punishment appropriate to the crime. As I said before, they should recognise the levels of wrongness. If you let them off easy while saying its a really, really bad thing they did, it presents a mixed message because the punishment didn't fit the crime.

What is happening here is worse than all of that -- one student is being expelled, which is another way to say "it's not our problem." The rest are being threatened with expulsion or movement into a school for people with behavioral problems if they try to escalate the issue. This is not the way to help kids grow.

And having looked at the article again, its not the kid who said pedophile or the kid who said rapist getting expelled, its the kid who said bipolar. That may seem weird, but we don't have the school records. Maybe that kid getting expelled is a repeat offender who has received multiple warnings. Maybe he was on his last chance. We don't know. For us to make judgements on if the punishment was appropriate would probably require more information that the school can't legally give us about the background of the kids in question.

Also, my response to the original post was more trying to make the point that this was punishment, not bullying by the adults. It may very well be stronger punishment than it should, but it might not. I personally think the expulsion may be over the top as well, but I can't say for certain the child didn't deserve it in light of their past at the school that we don't know about.

Re:Interesting response

[HungryHobo]

I'd disagree:
I remember there being schoolyard comments about one of my highschool teachers who had a habit of leaning uncomfortably close to people, particularly pretty girls.

Never heard any stories of actual abuse, he just ended up with a reputation for being the creepy old possible-pedo because he seemed to have no conception of other peoples personal space.

Re:Interesting response

[epyT-R]

Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.

it only works when the punishers are not blatant hypocrites themselves. in fact, most disrespect towards an authority figure or organization comes from its own hypocritical behavior. lose the respect, and lose the control. lose the control, and people start dissing you. don't want to lose the control, don't lose the respect. don't want to lose the respect? don't be a hypocrite. most school policies are highly hypocritical. I fail to see the justice in a policy that says "lying about a faculty member's behavior is punishable and faculty gets to decide what is a lie and what isn't." The policy at my highschool was written this way.

ut they were all 12-13 years of age, which should mean they already know that lying about their teacher being a pedo/rapist is wrong.

so the answer to everything nowadays is expulsion? shitty reductionist reasoning like this is going to end up making every offense, real or bogus, punishable by death.

That is the punishment step. The kids did wrong, they know it, and they were caught. Now they get to face up to the consequences.

as will the punishers have to face the consequences of their own actions: expelled kids will end up on the street where they cause more harm to society and/or they'll be unemployable so we'll have to fund their unemployment checks...all because of all this excessive lashing out that was caused (probably) by a teacher behaving hypocritically in these kids' class.

Re:Interesting response

[hey!]

Well, I think this is a situation where going straight for the dichotomy (either it's "okay" or "it's a crime worthy of the strongest punishment in our power to impose") maybe isn't such a great idea.

We should recognize the terrible potential such accusations have to disrupt an innocent teacher's life, while at the same time recognizing that children at the age of 12 or 13 bear less culpability for their actions than an adult would. The brains of children this age are less capable of impulse control than an adult brain; and children this age don't have an adult understanding of the consequences of their actions in any case.

The knee jerk urge to go for the maximal punishment available mirrors, in an ironic way, the childish impatience with restraint and reflection. I would suspend the kids, then make them get up in front of a school assembly -- or better yet an assembly of parents and students -- and issue a public apology and retraction. Then I'd set them to a rigorous program of lugubrious public service by way of restitution. That would be a better solution, leaving all involved better off.

Re:Interesting response

[oreaq]

Punishment is an accepted step in teaching children how to behave, last I checked.

It is accepted but it doesn't really work, neither in animals nor in humans. This has been known for a couple of decades and has become mainstream knowledge in the last couple of years. Check Wikipedia for example: "In experiments with laboratory animals and studies with children, punishment decreases the likelihood of a previously reinforced response only temporarily, and it can produce other "emotional" behavior (wing-flapping in pigeons, for example) and physiological changes (increased heart rate, for example) that have no clear equivalents in reinforcement."

Re:Interesting response

[jmcvetta]

Maybe if supposedly-mature adults didn't go batshit crazy every time they hear the word "pedophile" - and immediately throw out all the skepticism normally reserved for wild & unsupported accusations, as well as concern for the rights of the accused, due process, and innocence until proof of guilt - this draconian overreaction would not have occurred.

But hey, if we Americans don't go on a good witch hunt every now & again, the terrorists will win!

Re:Interesting response

[jwhitener]

Expulsion does seem fairly harsh though. I would have thought that an in person apology, facebook account deletion, and some suspension would have been more appropriate.

It isn't like the whole world could see the conversation. They only found out when a principal ordered a student to log into their account, and read the thread. And in one case, "Taylor Tindle was expelled for posting that the same teacher is bipolar. " So "I think my teacher is mental" in a private thread between kids is grounds for expulsion? Harsh.

I'm not sure where Chapel Hills Middle School is, but if it is a small town with one school, expulsion would be a very impacting sentence.

Suspension? Yes. Expulsion? No.

[perlith]

Previously if you were caught writing such a message on the walls , you would have to erase it and then were suspended for 10 days for the action. Now if you do it on Facebook, apparently you get expelled, rather than having the opportunity to redact such statements and make a public apology / amends for it.

People should be allowed to be young, make mistakes, face consequences of their actions and learn from them. It's called growing up. This is not the way to go about it at all.

Facts v. Opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Had the kids posted opinions - IE: "My teacher sucks" - No biggie, and totally protected.
Instead, they posted factual allegations.
"My teacher is a pedo/rapist" is Libel, which is not protected, and clearly actionable.
It also has consequences. Erroneous accusations like that ruin careers, and send people to jail. A few hundred years ago it was "Witch, Witch!" Today it's "Pedo, Pedo!"
If you want to see scary, look at the OP comments - "That teacher should be investigated, the cops should be all over his house!" is the meme there.
Finally, for those saying "not the school's place to get involved." Actually, it is - the school has standing to take unilateral action here in order to protect itself and its employee. Period.These posts were retaliation for official acts. Left unaddressed at the institutional level, it becomes an effective method of blackmail. Yeah, the teacher can sue too, but then you've got the boatload of issues that come with litigation that I for one would never want to entertain. For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be Cost Effective. Cheap harms are best countered by cheap deterrents, otherwise students have an incentive to hedge, and kids are intuitively good at gaming incentive structures. Besides, I can just hear the whining now -

"Teacher sues for being called a pedo on the internet."
Comments:
Litigious bastard, he's probably a pedo.
Why's everybody suing all the time.
etc, etc

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[Zelucifer]

One of the most important parts of libel, and one that you overlooked, is that libelous statements have to be believable. Would anyone in there right mind believe that this teacher is really a pedophile, based on a bunch of students calling him a "pedophile", "bipolar" and other statements in that vein?

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[Skidborg]

How exactly do you think they catch the allegedly real ones? If it started to grow out of control I'm sure the students could come up with some convincing lies about why they accused the teacher of that.

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[HornWumpus]

Right mind, no. Parent of pre-teen, yes.

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[tivoKlr]

Well, he does work with kids, which gives him an ample supply of victims, so yes, I'd say the possibility of the pedo claim being believable and plausible to be true. The kids should be run up the flagpole. I'd freakin' go nuclear on my kids if they pulled this kind of behavior.

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[Duradin]

You could stop at "he" for the possibility of the pedo claim being believable and plausible to be true.

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[Maow]

One of the most important parts of libel, and one that you overlooked, is that libelous statements have to be believable.

Depends on jurisdiction. For Canadians, and likely many other Commonwealth nations, this is decidedly NOT true.

From https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law:

At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[1] The perspective measuring the esteem is highly contextual, and depends on the view of the potential audience of the communication and their degree of background knowledge. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame.

Re:Facts v. Opinions

[nigelo]

I'd say it looks pretty out of control.

What is the difference

[Bucc5062]

While I do agree that what these students said was wrong, I don’t believe they should be punished for what they did. They need to be disciplined, sure, but the school should not have a right to get involved. This is a very fine line we’re talking about.

So somehow discipline is not punishment? Tell that to my Mom when I did something stupid like talking back to her. Soap on the tongue sure felt like punishment to me.

Having read TFA, the issue I find most jarring is that the parents of these children are considering suing the school for their actions. Really? Now that's a grand way to teach children right and wrong. "Gee Johny, you called your teacher a pedophile and got suspended because it was a false claim? Lets sue the bastard instead.". I don't see the argument as being over whether the school had the right or not, the core issue is that kids now feel free enough to use words, to "ink" words like pedophile, rapist, bi-polar as weapons. "Ha, you can't touch me because I am protected". Instead of taking the school to task for taking action to protect their employees, how about we take to task the parents that create children with little to know awareness of basic respect to adults. I may not have liked my English teacher in high school, I certainly may have said to friends, I cannot stand that lady, but had I called her a rapist, my parents would have applauded the school and added further "discipline" to make their "punishment" seem kind.

Re:What is the difference

[cheekyjohnson]

to "ink" words like pedophile, rapist, bi-polar as weapons.

The reason they are viewed as "weapons" is because many in our society seem to be such imbeciles that they would believe any unvalidated claim that came their way.

how about we take to task the parents that create children with little to know awareness of basic respect to adults.

I'd rather that we ask everyone in general to respect one another. This trait is not lacking just in many children, but in many adults as well. The person's status doesn't matter.

Re:What is the difference

[meatspray]

Sure, they're going to sue. It's one of our core values you know? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the Ineffable right to drag anyone you disagree with though court, beat them up with your abundant supply of money and time until you get your way or they give you a fat check to make you go away.

It's the schools job to keep the place safe and clean and educational. That means they need to kick out asshats and verified wolf criers, and they had damn well do their job or they'll end up with a wholly different six-pack of lawsuits when then fail to kick a real pedo teacher to the curb.

My favorite part is where they're saying the principal violated their privacy by making them log in to facebook at the school. You posted a severely damning lie about an agent of the school on a pseudo-public social website and now you're worried about your privacy?

Suspended for 10 days is a puny slap on the wrist. Yes Honor Roll students screw up too, and just because they generally do the write thing doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished, people need to wake up, children need appropriate and sane levels of discipline or they turn in to jack-asses later in life.

Re:What is the difference

[Zelucifer]

You're right, middle school students should be expelled for calling there teacher bipolar. I'm sure any reasonable parent would applaud a school district willing to expel there student for being disrespectful! /sarcasm

Not only did the school overreact, I firmly believe it overreached. To claim that actions taken outside school, that have no reasonable impact in school, are actionable is ridiculous. These are the very same things kids say about there teachers to there friends and even if it was posted in a semi-public forum, no one with any logic would believe that any of the children were stating facts.

Re:What is the difference

[the eric conspiracy]

What should have happened is that the teachers or their union should have sued the parents for defamation.

Re:What is the difference

[sjames]

It's amazing to me. Finally we have a case where it actually is reasonable for the school to take action and then they ruin it by over-reaching.

One student is already expelled for calling the teacher bipolar! That's not even an accusation. the other students have received 10 day suspensions (normally reserved for repeat offenses after a 3 day suspension) and may yet be expelled in an upcoming disciplinary hearing.

I am fine with the school taking some action here against the kids who made the accusation of pedo and rapist. They're plain stupid for expelling a kid for calling a teacher bipolar. The current actions are already on the severe side of the reasonable responses but they're considering doing expulsion or reform school (for an honor student). The parents probably got lawyers as a preemptive measure before the school board dusts off the pear of anguish or the rack.

A more reasonable approach would be public apologies from all of the students involved and staying after school cleaning up the teacher's classroom for him for a while and whatever the parents care to add.

It's a shame that the school has taken such a potentially valuable teaching moment and corrupted it into a battle between parents and school that as you point out, sends entirely the wrong message. All the school had to do is fulfill it's RESPONSABILITY to take a fair and balanced approach to discipline to avoid all of this. Perhaps the student's actions are, in part, a reflection of being subjected to the whims of the adult children running the school.

Re:What is the difference

[fermion]

Parents and students are a single unit. A student behaves, mostly, as the parent does, even if the parent claims otherwise. If a student calls a teachers a pedophile, I would guess the parent regularly calls their boss a terrorist and the medical staff that takes care of the kids murders. There is no point adking about the parents, as the behavior of the child most likley illustrates the behavior.

In any case the response of the parent has done more damage to the child than the suspension. By telling the news outlets, and this is not something any school official would have done, they have invoked the Streisand effect. Now anytime this students wants to get into a top school, a top grant opportunity, a top summer program, a top college, a simple search will show that this kid does not respect teachers. Top schools don't want teachers worrying about disciplining students. They want the teachers to teach. Furthermore, competative parents are always looking for way to cut the competition facing their kids.

By putting this on the news, the parent has condemned the kid to be known as the kid who called their teacher a pedophile, and who wants such a kid in the school. This is likely not the first kid to call the teacher a pedophile on facebook, and probably not the first to be suspended over it. Other parents were probably intelligent enough to take it as a learning opportunity, with no real damage done. At the very least they could move and get into another good school who did not know of the incident. It is too bad these parents were not as rational.

Re:What is the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you on pedophile and calling the teacher directly a rapist being beyond the pale, but it all depends on context "I got raped by that test" or similar is by no means uncommon usage by students. As to bi-polar, student usage is probably analogous to "he's nice to you and then screws you over on tests" or "one day he is nice and the next he is riding you hard". At a guess, a better response would have been to call in the parents and have them see to the removal and explain why "this is never to happen again". Also, suspension for non-endangering activities is a rather silly punishment - it makes sense if it is protecting general student safety if it is for fighting, weapons, etc. but after school detention is much more of a punishment for most kids as they lose free time rather than gain it.

Re:What is the difference

[winwar]

"They're plain stupid for expelling a kid for calling a teacher bipolar. The current actions are already on the severe side of the reasonable responses but they're considering doing expulsion or reform school (for an honor student)."

Why? Why is it okay to use bipolar as a slur and not pedophile and rapist? As for the length of suspensions, did you ever consider these honor students may have previous disciplinary problems? Good grades does not mean they are nice people.

Having said that, it would be nice to have a rational discussion about the role of school discipline. Unfortunately everybody seems fine with zero tolerance or invasive restrictions until "good" kids are involved. Perhaps the adults should think about and question these policies before they are put into place. They aren't a secret and they may be applied to your kid.

Re:What is the difference

[shentino]

All punishment is discipline.

Not all discipline is punishment.

Re:What is the difference

[epyT-R]

My favorite part is where they're saying the principal violated their privacy by making them log in to facebook at the school. You posted a severely damning lie about an agent of the school on a pseudo-public social website and now you're worried about your privacy?

she shouldn't have been able to do that.

Suspended for 10 days is a puny slap on the wrist. Yes Honor Roll students screw up too, and just because they generally do the write thing doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished, people need to wake up, children need appropriate and sane levels of discipline or they turn in to jack-asses later in life.

depends on the character of the discipliner. Most discipliners these days are hypocritical jackasses themselves who are really just bullies with a badge. No one breeds contempt for authority faster than people like this. the faculty has most of the power so therefore they have most of the blame for the situation in school. if honor roll students are calling a teacher such a name, I'd say there's more going on here than simple asshattery.

Re:What is the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

the issue I find most jarring is that the parents of these children are considering suing the school for their actions. Really? Now that's a grand way to teach children right and wrong. "Gee Johny, you called your teacher a pedophile and got suspended because it was a false claim? Lets sue the bastard instead."

Agreed. Unfortunately I think we can all agree that the parents have so far done a poor job at teaching ethics to their children. It would be nice, but unrealistic to expect them to suddenly become good parents.

Re:What is the difference

[mywhitewolf]

A more reasonable approach would be public apologies from all of the students involved and staying after school cleaning up the teacher's classroom for him for a while and whatever the parents care to add.

slashdot logic: if you accuse someone of being a pedophile you should be forced into spending time alone with them to do "cleaning".

this is a serious accusation which should be dealt with OUTSIDE of the school. Regardless of if the claims were false or true, its in the schools best interest to "silence" the students and protect the teacher. if it was found to be false then I'm sure the police has the ability to scare a couple of 12 year old kids who don't normally get into trouble or force some sort of punishment. its not necessary for the school to get involved with punishment. but you don't let the victims be in charge of the punishment, they can have their say, but they are not to be in control.

Re:What is the difference

[sjames]

I didn't say it was OK, but honestly it's not much of a slur. Relatively speaking, most anyone, especially a teacher would rather have people think them bipolar than pedophile. Nobody ever got killed by an angry mob or forced to live under a bridge because they were accused of being bipolar. I simply cannot see such a silly slur being grounds for immediate expulsion. I would be perfectly fine with detention and an apology to the teacher (since it was disrespectful even if not slanderous). Perhaps a nice essay on what bipolar disorder really is would be good.

Good grades may not mean they are nice people, but honor students usually manage to at least fake it well enough to not get suspended.

I am firmly against the various zero tolerance (and by extension zero thought) policies, no matter who is at the wrong end of it. No codification can possibly cover all circumstances adequately to ensure fairness. A school of all places should not hold up action without thought as appropriate.

Of course, some of this stuff is effectively a secret based on what most people would consider unlikely definitions. For example, I wouldn't have necessarily considered 'bipolar' to be an allegation of misconduct at all, much less towards a student, but we have a student expelled here for "Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student". Other cases have included weapons charges for a stick propping up a hatchback (most don't consider that a weapon unless and until actually used as one).

Re:What is the difference

[sjames]

Utter and complete nonsense. They have already admitted that the charges were just name calling with no basis in fact. They should spend the time with that particular teacher because he is the one they have wronged and must make things up to. The purpose here is not to scare the students, it is to educate them and correct their bad behavior.

This is exactly the sort of kid stuff that should be handled internally. The last thing we need is for kids to get Tasered to death under the tender care of the police.

Re:What is the difference

[mywhitewolf]

and if the teacher was in fact a pedophile?

And i don't think that accusations of pedophilia should ever be handled internally, that's the logic the catholic church uses and its just plain wrong. its a serious charge and should be handled by the police. who aren't stupid and easily "duped" into believing pedophile stories. and considering they deal with this sort of thing on a daily bases, maybe its best left to the professionals?

read: the school and the teacher in question has everything to gain by miss-representing the details of the investigation, that's why they shouldn't be the judge, jury and executioner, there is no oversight.

a couple of dodgy things to the story though.
why did the principal delete the evidence of the infringement before pursuing action against the individuals unless its obviously in jest, in which its not legally punishable slander is it? especially when just discussing in between classmates?

Re:What is the difference

[sjames]

He's already cleared of any accusations and the students have admitted to their parents, the school, and the press that the accusation was untrue. We have moved on from there to dealing with the students making inflammatory accusations online. The school system has gone overboard currently by suspending 2 and expelling 1 student. The parents are apparently contemplating a lawsuit.

I fail to see how piling on more punishment from the police will help this mess in the slightest.

Consider the infamous McMartin preschool trial. They actually ripped the place up right down to (and below) the slab and ultimately found nothing, all based on rather fantastic stories of being molested in a hot air balloon over Disneyland and being flushed down giant toilets into an elaborate underground complex. Given that, I'd say the police are the last organization that should look into a few idle comments made by children on facebook.

If the children maintained a credible claim of actual molestation it would be an entirely different matter and I wouldn't imagine it would be the student's being disciplined. In fact, I'm sure the parents would have already taken it directly to the police themselves and the school would have no say in the matter.

Mp>Do you also believe the teacher should be put on lithium now that a 12 year old has diagnosed him with bipolar disorder on Facebook?

Re:What is the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite part is where they're saying the principal violated their privacy by making them log in to facebook at the school. You posted a severely damning lie about an agent of the school on a pseudo-public social website and now you're worried about your privacy?

Yup.

Re:What is the difference

[mywhitewolf]

I fail to see how piling on more punishment from the police will help this mess in the slightest.

because i didn't say piling it on top of how the school is punishing them. I'm saying instead of the school punishing them, IMO it should all be handled outside the school, it wasn't even said in school or using school resources and because the school is affected most by it how can you expect a fair reprimand against the action?

my problem is that the school is too close to the issue to be expected to judge fairly on crime and punishment, its the same reason why an independent judge decides a punishment, not the victim. it also sets a negative precedent of handling issues like this "internally" which leads to abuse eg. catholic church and alter boy issue.

Also there is no evidence of the teacher being investigated by police and the fact that the "evidence" was only accessible through a student before it was removed indicates to me that the police weren't even alerted.

Re:What is the difference

[sjames]

So, instead the police should investigate making sure the teacher will never get the stink of pedophilia off of himself guilty or not? Then we can suck the kids into the system? Sounds like lose-lose to me. You must have a LOT more trust in police and judges than I do!

When it comes right down to it, a bunch of kids called a teacher names behind his back as children have done forever. They messed up in two important ways (making it too public and making very serious criminal allegations) and MUST learn why that's so bad and to never do it again. That is all. There is no sane reason to bring police or judges or suspensions or any such thing in to this. In a fair world, the school officials would be sitting in detention right next to the students on this one. They have messed up about as badly and are old enough to know better.

I'd say that if the parents are satisfied that the accusation was false, that's good enough. I'm sure that if they felt the police should be involved they would have called them.

Re:What is the difference

[mywhitewolf]

and MUST learn why that's so bad and to never do it again.

ideally without ruining their future.

instead the police should investigate making sure the teacher will never get the stink of pedophilia off of himself guilty or not?

or, if he is found innocent then nothing more would happen? i doubt the police would have even have been required to speak to the teacher after talking to their parents and the students in question. also just because the public over-react to certain labels doesn't mean the company should handle things internally.

What actually happened: principal found accusations (regardless of how meaningless he thought they were) towards one of his teachers and then removed the accusations and punished the accusers.

Re:What is the difference

[sjames]

also just because the public over-react to certain labels doesn't mean the company should handle things internally.

If it keeps an innocent person from being branded with a scarlet letter and driven out of town, you bet it does!

What actually happened: principal found accusations (regardless of how meaningless he thought they were) towards one of his teachers and then removed the accusations and punished the accusers.

And had that punishment even vaguely fit the "crime" (and didn't harm the childrens' futures) there'd be no problem. Currently the parent's only concern seems to be the crazy overreaction on the school's part. I agree w/ the parents. Unfortunately, the only thing getting the courts and police involved could do is cause an even crazier overreaction with even less hope of legal recourse, likely doing even more damage to the childrens' futures. Again, I feel certain that if there was any truth to the allegations the children would

i hope

[bball99]

the parents have lots of money for good lawyers and appropriate umbrella insurance coverage...

Re:i hope

[tivoKlr]

You just pointed out one MORE reason for my umbrella insurance. State Farm *hearts* bball99.

Shut up

[findoutmoretoday]

Business as usual,  like 50 years ago,  it is not done to " ... reporting' allegations of inappropriate behavior by a school employee toward a student" but now it is official.

The teacher was the first victim

[mangu]

the suspect has the opportunity to defend themselves; they MAY have reason to believe the person actually IS a pedophile, rapist or suffer from bipolar disorder

And the teacher has no opportunity to defend himself?

Do you mean that if someone accuses you of a serious crime, his right to defend himself against a libel charge comes before your own right to defend yourself against a criminal accusation?

Re:The teacher was the first victim

[Anonymous Coward]

well I don't see scotts13 deny being a nazi concentration camp guard anywhere - so the man probably got a point.

Re: they knew full well - and got off lightly

[fygment]

They knew full well what they were up to; they didn't say "potty head" or "stinky pants". You're naive. The kids had already had years of indoctrination about the dangers of pedophiles and the serious badness of 'inappropriate touching', etc. Obviously you don't have kids. What is sad is that their characters are so twisted at such a young age. Scary.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a former teacher myself (I left so I could make actual money doing something else), I had fellow teachers who took unprofessional to a whole new level. Getting into relationships with students. Calling students "stupid" in front of the class. Screaming at the principal for refusing to publicly endorse one of the school's former teachers for election to school board. Not only do the other teachers and principal cover all this up, but I learned (fortunately, not the hard way) that doing the ethical thing and ratting out your fellow teachers...will cost you your job and/or teaching certificate. Just like cops and the "blue wall of silence".

Given this wall of silence, I would not put it below some teachers to take legal or disciplinary measures to intimidate and silence students who post true statements about them on Facebook, especially since going to the principal about such things will land at the same dead end as going to Internal Affairs about a bad cop.

Just my $0.02...

Re:Suspension? Yes. Expulsion? No.

[ScentCone]

Previously if you were caught writing such a message on the walls , you would have to erase it and then were suspended for 10 days for the action

You can't possibly be so obtuse as to not recognize the difference between something on a wall that a small number of people might see, and which can be removed, vs. an online posting that can take on a life of its own and become essentially permanent in a venue accessed by billions of people.

witch hunt

[cthlptlk]

Watch the documentary Witch Hunt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/ , it is on netflix streaming) to see how incredibly destructive these kinds of claims about pedophilia can be, even if the facts in the accusation are completely absurd. (In another case not covered in the movie, very young students claimed that teachers used a system of underground tunnels to get to a secret dungeon, and this was accepted as fact.) Communities can very easily enter into a kind of mass hysteria and put innocent people in prison. Given the history of things that have happened to teachers in this country, the school policy is not unreasonable.

Re:witch hunt

[PPH]

Kids need to learn the consequences of their speech. Had the "pedophile" remark fallen into the wrong hands, it could have made its way to the authorities. And that can easily lead to an expensive investigation, not to mention a ruined career. OTOH, if kids start throwing the term "pedophile" around too easily, we could see a situation of 'the boy who cried wolf'. Someone will confide in a friend about a situation involving real abuse and it will get written off as some kid with an axe to grind.

I wish people had put policies in place to handle rumors of abuse back when I was in high school. The grapevine contained numerous stories of teachers dating students (women dating boys as well as men dating girls). And a girl I dated for a while had been molested by her dad. But as he was a big shot in the local church, that was a situation the community (and police) didn't know how to handle without generating a shit storm. So they dropped it.

Re:witch hunt

[RewriteQuran]

Will they arrest a patient if he comments about a bad doctor?

what happenend to the spanking?

[PJ6]

A while ago these students would get the switch, or a spanking, or whatnot, and everyone would have agreed that it was an appropriate punishment. Now we have everyone getting their lawyer. I know on the face of it one could argue that we're teaching them to use the legal system instead of violence... sounds reasonable, but it just seems wrong to me. It all seems so much more, well... juvenile.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[cheekyjohnson]

It was likely declared to be a barbaric practice. I'd say that abusing someone else to get your way is far more 'childish' than the alternatives. If your argument is so weak that you're have to use violence to defend it, then you have already lost.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[PJ6]

If your argument is so weak that you're have to use violence to defend it, then you have already lost.

Tell that to law enforcement.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd tell that to anyone, regardless of their status. Unless you're actively defending others (or yourself) from incoming physical violence, there is absolutely no need to resort to such barbaric and illogical actions. It merely proves that you have no argument or that you're too incompetent to express it.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[zippthorne]

Tell that to the IRS...

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[spedrosa]

There's nothing illogical about that. You are using instincts to teach someone - that works even against whatever rational barriers the subject has constructed. Pain = bad and can't be ignored. The problem is that people used to abuse it so much that any sort of physical punishment got banned.

Plus, are you a Vulcan?

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[PJ6]

Your comments are like your sig; taking a point of view you know is wrong and arguing that it is true requires far less work than formulating a good-faith rebuttal. It's always but... but... but... it never ends. Some people make a sport of it, practice for years, because exasperating people entertains them.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[cheekyjohnson]

So... where's your response to my actual argument?

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[cheekyjohnson]

You are using instincts to teach someone

How is it not illogical to succumb to your anger (which in itself is illogical) and harm others because you disagree with them rather than attempting to talk it out?

Pain = bad and can't be ignored.

Yes, and inflicting pain upon others rather than being rational and discussing the problem can instill within them feelings of hatred (not to mention that it fails to ever address any actual reasons).

Also, pain doesn't necessarily have to be viewed as bad. It does mean that you are being wounded in some way, but not everyone views it in a negative light.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Skidborg]

If your enemy is lying about you in a public forum instead of arguing with you, then I don't believe trying to argue with them is a worthwhile strategy.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[cheekyjohnson]

But abusing them is? Reveal their lies for what they are: unvalidated claims. As far as I know, abusing your opponent for things you could take them to court over (if you can't, then attempt to get that fixed) isn't exactly accepted practice (even though I disagree with the actual practice anyway). They used words, and nothing more. If people are willing to believe such unvalidated claims (and, in this case, absolutely no one that I know of is), then the problem is with those people.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure you thought this through:

"I'm not a pedo, and I'm going to spank this kid... ummm... why the pitchforks?"

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you've already lost, unless you win with violence...

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spanking is one thing, if done by the parent only. To agree to have a stranger hit your child with a switch or paddle is just sick and wrong.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[sjames]

It does seem rather juvenile. The school lost my support in this when it went so very far overboard as expelling a student for calling a teacher bipolar and threatening to expel the other two (that threat is still pending). A spanking and letting that be the end of it would be much more reasonable as would a few days detention and public apologies. The school practically forced the parents to get lawyers. Perhaps if the school officials would act like grown ups, the kids would follow their lead.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they got a spanking now, they'd accuse the spanker of being a pedophile...

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you prove that you aren't a pedophile? That isn't an accusation of something you've done, it's an accusation of something you are. Is there any possible way to get that idea out of peoples heads once someone has put it in?

If people are willing to believe such unvalidated claims (and, in this case, absolutely no one that I know of is), then the problem is with those people.

Yes, in America, words like "pedophile" and "molester" stop all thought. Especially for parents, who are idiots. Check the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteria

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[cheekyjohnson]

How can you prove that you aren't a pedophile?

You're forgetting that someone is innocent unless/until proven guilty. I believe that any sensible person knows this. Otherwise, you'd likely have to go around refuting every inane claim that people spew forth.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[epyT-R]

these punishments were banned because they were heavily abused by hypocritical bullies. most people have trouble with handling power justly over prolonged periods of time. even the most fair of teachers will statistically succumb to abusing it because it's the quickest way to get the behavior they want now at the expense of a balanced adult later on.

If we were to bring corporal punishment back, then I think it's only fair that the kids have a shot at hitting the teacher should it be shown that he was lying about their behavior. of course, no one will support that. The real answer is just to throw misbehaving kids out of class. beatings aren't necessary. nor are other forms of bullying that probably resulted in these kids labeling this teacher a pedo out of revenge.

Re:what happenend to the spanking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could just get boned repeatedly for their loud mouhts

Children's help for such situations had been long neglected, their claims discounted as making up stories, labeled by Sigmund Freud as "projection", and described by concerned caregivers as "just imagination" in too many cases. According to the listing at Wikipedia on child abuse:

> In North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.

The references are compelling. This means that the actual abuse is *quite* common, and the children need to feel safe to speak out when there is abuse. So let's be very, very, very careful that anger about a fraudulent case doesn't frighten away a child who is abused, but who can be pressured into silence by their schools, their fear of stigma or further abuse, or by the person with social or physical power who has already raped them and is likely to rape again.

So even in this case, before all the Slashdot Net.Libertarians scream about the rights of the teacher, let's make sure the kids were lying. I've read the article, and I don't count suspension by the school of the named teacher as demonstrative that the teacher is *not* a pedophile, nor tears to the media at *this* stage clear proof of anything.

Undeserved

[findoutmoretoday]

Calling him a rapist was not a serious problem,  it was the bipolar allegation that triggered an expulsion. Surprisingly as bipolar is a perception where raping is an offense.  Sounds bipolar to me.

Dont leave records

[Saint Stephen]

The most important thing to teach kids is : don't leave records of what you say. I'm sure kids have done this forever and "everybody" knew they said it, same as when you post on FB; the difference is here is something someone can use as evidence.

Something terribly wrong with a society

[countertrolling]

that can ruin a reputation with mere hearsay.. Just another indication we're really not very advanced.

Re:suspending - yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone gay != calling someone a pedophile or rapist, as far as libel goes.

Also, the armchair lawyer in me wants to point out that calling someone a pedophile (i.e. sexually attracted to prepubescents), while libelous, doesn't constitute "falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting allegations of inappropriate behavior" -- not all pedophiles act on their sexual impulses. "Rapist", of course, does fit.

Anyone wish to do a response comparison?

[SmallFurryCreature]

A while ago, this story: Teacher-Suspended-Over-Blog-About-Students.

Gosh, didn't a LOT of people claim this teacher had been wrong and been violating the privacy of the students and what not. Wonder how the responses from the same people compare with their response to their story.

Re:Anyone wish to do a response comparison?

[mywhitewolf]

Students PAY to be in school.
Teachers get PAID to be there.

Not a new thing

[kno3]

A few years ago, just after I left my school, a few students ended up suspended after setting up and commenting on a facebook group called "Bring back Mr.Bla" ("Bla" not being the name of a previous principle) in protest of a newly appointed school principal. Their comments were not as slanderous as these, they mainly commented on the poor management decisions made by new principle and one person called him a "twat". It was ridiculous, especially seeing as the majority of members of staff agreed with everything that had been said on the page. But it was considered perfectly legal and correct. Crazy!

No Union = No Representation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "only" because the students don't have their own union. :)

And everyday events make it plain that dictators, autocrats and the like dislike (and now fear) facebook et al. And are incapable of graciously accepting (or dealing with) criticism, disaproval or dissent from others (but, that was already quite plain). Their answer is power and intolerance.

That's what the children learn. Children (and adolescents) soak up what they see and experience. Intensely. Unreservedly (almost). Historically, they are being exposed to ever more arrogant use of naked intolerant deaf self-serving autocratic unmitigated unhesitant power. As a culture and everyday practice.

It is amazing how fearful and brutal "educational" authority is of childhood and sudents in general.

Merely another instance of this, in the U.S. Interesting, however. Very interesting. Specially these days.

Not crap at all.

[westlake]

How does the school district even have jurisdiction in this case? It might be libel, but unless the school actually has jurisdiction this suspension and expulsion is a load of crap.

This example is from Conneticut:

You asked what authority a local school board has to expel a student from school for conduct off school grounds. You were especially interested in whether a school board may expel a student for a sexual assault that occurs away from school.

Connecticut's school expulsion law provides for both mandatory and discretionary expulsions for out-of-school conduct (CGS 10-233d (a) (1) and (2)). School boards must expel students for carrying a weapon, or selling or distributing illegal drugs, whether the activity occurs on or off school grounds. For other types of conduct, including sexual assault, a school board has the discretion to expel a student from school.

In order to impose a discretionary expulsion for out-of-school conduct, the law requires a school board to show that the student's actions not only violate a publicized school policy but are also "seriously disruptive of the educational process.â In 1998, the Connecticut Supreme Court construed the latter phrase to mean that, to warrant expulsion, the out-of-school conduct must (1) have a direct connection to the school's operations and (2) "markedly interrupt or seriously impede" the school's daily operations.

Within these requirements, a school board may expel a student who has been convicted of an out-of-school sexual assault. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, a hearing officer upheld the Trumbull Board of Education's expulsion of a high school student convicted of sexually assaulting another student at an unknown location outside of school. The hearing officer found that, based on the facts of the case, allowing the convicted student to attend school would severely disrupt the educational process in the school.

EXPULSION FOR CONDUCT OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL

Re:Not crap at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, how is that remotely relevant? All those examples involve being convicted of a CRIME. Not engaging in legal activity the school doesn't like.

And yes, joking around in poor taste on facebook may not be something people should be doing, but it's certainly not a crime

Re:Not crap at all.

[westlake]

All those examples involve being convicted of a CRIME.

No they don't.

The law is framed much more broadly than that.

And yes, joking around in poor taste on facebook may not be something people should be doing, but it's certainly not a crime

Defamation is not a joke. In 17 U.S. states it is a crime.

In most states, false accusations of sexual perversion or sexual crimes are libelous as a matter of law. You do not have to prove damages to be awarded damages.

Get out of school free

[heydan]

You mean that's all it takes to get out of school? Some kids will do it on purpose!

Witch hunt

[presspass]

What the kids did is wrong. However, The reason it is *so* wrong, is the hysteria surrounding sexual offenses.

Accusing anyone of this offense may have dire consequences even though no charges are pressed. We are so far past reasonableness when it comes to accusations of pedophilia that I had a moment of hesitation when I googled pedophilia for spelling.

When a person can be required to register as a sexual offender for "peeing in the bushes", (yes, I'm exaggerating), none of us are safe. A witch-hunt mentality seems to have taken over.

On one hand, The kids did a horrible thing, even worse than posting a sign in your front yard that so and so is a pedophile. On the other hand, it's horribleness is a direct consequence of the witch-hunt mentality. I'm so confused.

--
pass

corepirate nazi freemasons install identity chips?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's reference in many of the manuals about this process. many bips have been unable to escape the alterations (& they do complain of just that; 'being altered', same with the dreaded 'vaccines', as mentioned in the list of intentions), due to (hopefully) their parents' lack of awareness. sad. what a service oriented 'society'? what an organization of unnatural alterations? who needs 'time out' in this behavioral nightmare/fairytail?

Internet Awarness Class

[Anonymous Coward]

Pupils should have an Internet Awarness Class by the age they start using internet alone, where they would learn it is different to say something in Recess and publish it on the net.
Many ignorant adults also publish offending content on the net (and lose their jobs or spouses). There is nothing obvious in the general population, about the deceiving nature of certain social networks and the consequences of using such accounts. How could we expect more from children than from adults, without even providing them appropriate food for thought?

First determine if he as a pedophile.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of my high school biology teacher who knocked up a student. All the kids knew he was a perv, only the adults were oblivious.

Re:First determine if he as a pedophile.

[mewshi_nya]

Hey, obviously, the student who got knocked up needed a little object lesson in biology, that's all.

Criminal Libel In The States.

[westlake]

Maybe in North Korea or China. In America something like this is at most a civil tort of libel

It is never safe to generalize about U.S. state law.

Colorado is one of 17 states with a criminal libel statute, which is different from the civil libel laws in all 50 states that allow victims of allegedly defamatory statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory statements.

Former high school student pleads guilty to criminal libel [2006]

Seriously?

[Posting=!Working]

This was not an accusation. This was not public. This was a private conversation between friends outside of school. The teacher had to force a student to log on to his facebook to even see them. If you really think the kids need to be punished over this, you've got to seriously think of the crap you've said in private conversations even in your early twenties and decide if you should have been punished for everything you said. I'm pretty sure everyone I know would be in jail for life if that applied. And these kids are 10 years younger.

They're 12 years old. They call teachers names. The vast, vast majority called teachers names when you were 12. How the hell we've regressed so far as a society that we think every single thing we say or do should be punished and the perpetrator used as an example is mind-boggling.

Yes, they called him a pedophile. No, this wasn't an accusation, it was a facebook conversation amongst 12 year olds. In 2nd grade, it would have been poop eater. Their vocabulary has increased, but not the intent.

The correct response would be the following conversation between the kid and the parent:
"Why did you call Mr. Johnson a pedophile?"
"Because he's a jerk and he won't let me text during class!"

It takes 5 seconds of conversation to tell it's not an accusation. Why do we act like there's a magic force field around a statement that can never be clarified? The only reason the teacher and pedophile can be connected publicly is his insane overreaction. It was a private conversation. They weren't going to the police, there was no story.

The only lesson the kids will learn from this is that adults are assholes and no matter how hard you work to achieve in school, they do not care about you in the least bit and will use the rules to humiliate you any chance they get. No matter what lesson you think you're teaching them, the reality from their perspective is exactly that. This will not help the kids in any way, shape or form.

As a side "benefit," these kids have also learned that every conversation being monitored is normal and expected. Great job!

Re:Seriously?

[Theotherguy_1]

Very, very much agreed. I can't believe the sentiment I'm seeing in the majority of comments here. Mod parent up!

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're teaching kids in school these days the fact that posting something on a system like Facebook is not "private conversation". Perhaps you need to go back to school.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a clear case of defamation of character. Private conversations are also covered by the idea of defamation of character. The child committed a crime. The child should be punished, but punished as a minor.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deeper problem. Everybody should be punished. But realistically, *facebook* should file suit against the school, as should their resident DA.

About the kids not having the intent in question--you're right...but...let us presume...the kids should be brought up on libel charges and possibly acquitted. It's pretty much like the south park episode where the kids call everyone fags.

2) The school, despite presumption of inlocoparentis--did NOT inherit the 'contract' of the facebook ToS from the children, or the children's parents. Why--read the freaking ToS--they couldn't. I don't personally believe ToS are or should be legally binding, but the long arm of US law does.

So the school used authority to compel the students to turn over something which they were not allowed to as a matter of current law...to do so. It's the definition of abuse of power.

Unauthorized access (1). Impersonating a person... (identify theft statutes (2) ? Attempted destruction of evidence (3).

Now, *had* the administrator not intended to expel everybody or press charges within 'their system'...maybe I could see everything but the first issue being dropped.

But as it is, the actions of the teacher to compel a student to produce a password, delete a comment over which they still intended to punish her, and otherwise effectively retract her speech in guise as her character...

Yeah...the right thing for facebook to do in this case is make an example of the school. There's a lawful process for these things for a reason. If the school didn't want to invoke the law, they should have contacted the parents and let them do it.

This is also the right thing for facebook to do for their shareholders. Yeah, it might look slightly bad--but they have a product--their customers. They need people to keep using them to sell it. To do so, they need to continue trusting the system and not flock elsewhere. The best way to do this is to beat the hell out of people that circumvent it.

Re:Seriously?

[Posting=!Working]

The conversation was restricted to friends only, which is why the teacher had to force the child to log on to see the comments. No amount of searching would pick this up if you're not on the friends list, this was for all intents and purposes, a private conversation. Perhaps you need to go to facebook.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook isn't private, chum.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is "private" conversation??? So, if I go into an auditorium with 500 people and then lock the doors, and then proceed to accuse somebody of being a rapist, that is private? Since I don't open the door and the let the accused person into the auditorium, then they don't have a right to hear that accusation? Wow...I as others originally read the headline and thought that the school was being overly paranoid. Then I read the accusations the students were making. They need to learn a lesson about what libel is and this is their opportunity to do so. As long as people have 500 facebook friends, there is nothing "private" about it. It is a public forum for all intents and purposes.

Re:Seriously?

[Dachannien]

This was not an accusation. This was not public. This was a private conversation between friends outside of school. The teacher had to force a student to log on to his facebook to even see them.

Do you actually know what kind of messages these were? Were they really private messages from one student directly to one other student? Or were they posted on the student's wall, and the student's privacy settings were such that only their friends (however many hundreds of people that is) could see them, and they hadn't friended their principal?

Your argument might hold up if the former were true. But if hundreds of people can see it - even if nobody outside their friends list can - you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that it's not public.

And as it turns out, one of the articles linked from TFA suggests that these were indeed wall posts and subsequent comments:

"[The students] said there were approximately two dozen posts by as many as 15 children."

Can't be absolutely sure, because Facebook does have settings for sharing comments only with certain portions of your friends list, but there's a good chance that far more than 15 people (and possibly not all of them students at that school) had access to the comments.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook is not private. No communication is ever private. As soon as one person - one parent - knows, the whole community might know. How many thousands might hear that a certain male teacher is a pedo? Just one loose cannon is all it takes to end the life of an innocent man. Are you willing to take responsibility for his death? These children are dangerous criminals and should be treated as such. Your comments are, at best, un-American. With Americans like you, it's no wonder there are few male role models in our schools. It's far too dangerous for a man to teach.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a side "benefit," these kids have also learned that every conversation being monitored is normal and expected. Great job!"

As much as I enjoy sarcasm on the internet, this seriously is a benefit. Everyone should know this.

Re:Seriously?

[richlv]

if somehow that chat would be exposed to the public, what would happen ?
first stop the hysteria over "pedophilia" (which many don't even know what that word means - citing wikipedia, "sexual interest in prepubescent children"). somehow stories of persons in late teens exchanging their own photos being accused of creating pedophilic material doesn't show that happening.

a link to the movie "witch hunt" was posted before - i haven't seen it, but i think i'll put it on my "to see" list (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/)

Re:Seriously?

[Posting=!Working]

To many responses used the exact same argument, so I'm responding here.

What would happen if this conversation went public?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. A 5 second conversation with the kids would settle it, there would be no police involvement, no community outrage, no accusations and no consequences for the teacher. How can I claim this? Because that's what actually happened.

Theorizing on what would happen if it became public that these kids called the teacher a pedophile is pointless, because it is now very public and none of that happened. All of those arguments are proven in this exact case to be false.

Re:Seriously?

[Posting=!Working]

Ack! I meant the first word to be "Too."

Re:Seriously?

[rainmouse]

This was not an accusation. This was not public. This was a private conversation between friends outside of school. The teacher had to force a student to log on to his facebook to even see them.

It was most definitely not a private conversation. 15 Kids involved and the average facebook user has 130 friends. A quick calculation shows this conversation was potentially in front of almost 2000 people not to mention the default Facebook settings leave profiles public.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so naive. This was a post on facebook. This was not a private conversation. The teacher who told the child to log in to their account already knew about the posts, which is why they wanted confirmation. Teachers do not find out about private school yard conversations. Since the teacher already knew, it's reasonable to think that this was now pretty much public.

Normal kids do NOT call their teachers rapists and paedophiles. They call them stupid bastards, bitches, jerks and state how much they hate them. This was not normal name calling and had the potential to ruin the teachers life. If you think that this is just an escalation of normal name calling then disciplinary action is long over due as these kids have already taken way too many steps over the line.

no, the lesson that the kids will learn from this is actions have consequences so take a minute to think about what your doing before you ruin someone else's or your own life. This is not a bad lesson to teach them.

Unfortunately I doubt this will mean anything to you though, as you appear to be one of the people who never learned this lesson yourself.

Re:Seriously?

[mywhitewolf]

Because kids are expected to know that in facebook land their privacy isn't actual private.

Hell, i have enough trouble convincing adults of this fact. my wife posted the other day "got the house to myself all night" which took far to much convincing to get her to take it down.

i doubt the student even though it was possible that this conversation was going to go outside their group of friends.

so when granny gives out all her personal information to a stranger on "facebook" because she thought it was secure "granny was just taken advantage of", yet 12 year old kids are expected to know better.

Re:Seriously?

[Pointed Stick]

I respect your opinion. You seem like a thoughtful person. However, some accusations are so severe, no amount of retraction can ever fix them in the eyes of some people. For example, a poster (xenobyte) further down has this opinion.

"So we actually don't know anything about what made the kids post stuff like that (pedophile, rapist, bipolar etc.) but if several honor-roll students feel the need to post stuff like this I think something is seriously wrong at that school and with that teacher... Let's give these kids the benefit of the doubt - odds are on their side."

Even if you are innocent, public outrage over accusations of pedophile can never be stopped.

Re:Seriously?

[Posting=!Working]

It's not an accusation, and 5 seconds of asking the kids will stop it from ever being an accusation.

"Pedophile" is not a magic word. The fact it is uttered or that someone called someone else one does not make it an accusation. You need more than a word, you need a specific account. None of these scenarios presented have any chance whatsoever of ruining anyone's life, no chance at all of prompting community outrage, and absolutely no chance of being taken seriously. I can't walk into a police station, point as someone, call him a murderer and have him arrested without a hell of a lot more information.

Double Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand Teachers caught red handed making false accusations against students don't get as much as a slap on the wrist. This I know from personal experience at one particular ISD.

Just name-calling, not accusation

[blue l0g1c]

I'm going out on a limb here because I don't exactly what was posted, but I suspect that in context it was apparent that it was simple name-calling and not an accusation of a crime. If he would've called his teacher a goat fucker, would you really take it seriously? No. Kids at that age try to pick the most hateful thing to say to elicit a reaction. And you know what? Kids of this age already have coping mechanisms in place for when someone calls them a hurtful name.

To be honest, I think this is an overreaction by a vindictive teacher and a staff looking to make an example out of someone, and these kids will suffer a punishment that stretches far into their lifetime for a moment of expressing their frustration to their peers.

This is a rare case where I do think the parents should lawyer up. Don't fuck with a kid's life because you had your feelings hurt when you saw something you were never intended to see.

Re:Just name-calling, not accusation

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

I'm guessing you've already read the rest of the comments and have already figured out how wrong you are but in case you haven't and you're waiting for the email notification to tell you someone replied to your rediculous ignorance...

The kids posted that their teacher was a pedophile/rapist. That is libelous and CLEARLY grounds for harsh punishment. These kids deserve to be expelled and much much more for the damage they can do to a teacher's career over claims like that from his students.

Could have been worse

[Nidi62]

Just this past week, at my girlfriend's university, someone sent a professor a letter with a white powder in it. They had to shut down the building and decontaminate 3 professors. Is an F on a test really worth going to prison(especially federal prison) over?

Re:Could have been worse

[shentino]

And that is something that DOES fall under the school's jurisdiction. Unlike a facebook posting made from a non school computer.

Not so much as crying wolf...

[Hylandr]

now if these children ever have to report a real event they will be less inclined to do so.

And what if the allegations are true? What's his buddy principle covering up?

- Dan.

Re:Not so much as crying wolf...

[Skidborg]

If they aren't punished, who will believe them if one of the teachers actually turns out to be one?

...

Oh right, this is americans we're talking about. Carry on then.

Re:Suspension? Yes. Expulsion? No.

[RichM]

vs. an online posting that can take on a life of its own and become essentially permanent in a venue accessed by billions of people.

Which (and stating the obvious here), is exactly what has happened.

Why the misleading story?

[ph0rk]

One of these students called their teacher a pedophile, the other called a teacher bipolar. If tossing around a statement like that isn't criminal when it isn't warranted, then I'm not sure what libel and slander are.

They deserve the full might of the disciplinary hammer in this case.

Re:Why the misleading story?

[nedlohs]

But it wasn't at school so the school shouldn't be doing the disciplining. Sure the teacher could sue, if they think they can convince a Jury that a 12 year old should be punished for it.

And seriously you think that a 12 year old calling someone "retarded", or "schizo", or "bipolar", or "crazy" is criminal and warrants expulsion from school? Might as well expel everyone right now.

Re:Why the misleading story?

[russotto]

One of these students called their teacher a pedophile, the other called a teacher bipolar. If tossing around a statement like that isn't criminal when it isn't warranted, then I'm not sure what libel and slander are.

Torts, in most states, including Georgia. Which means that the statement isn't criminal.

Re:Why the misleading story?

[shentino]

Correct.

They deserved to get whacked, but the wrong hammer was used.

And letting the school punish off campus behavior sets a dangerous, easy to abuse precedent.

What boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

A 5-digit ID that doesn't know how to use a comma?

He is either a kid using his dad's login or a thief with someone else's computer.
Either case, probably never had to do a day of "honest work" in his life.

Re:What boss?

[flyneye]

Sticky comma,(click) there ya go...m(click) and n(click) seem to have gotten somthing vaguely adhesive under them as well...

Falsifying and misrepresenting

[Anonymous Coward]

'Falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or erroneously reporting' These are traits we should insist upon from our politicians.

you dont call an innocent teacher a pedophile...

[Anonymous Coward]

violating privacy really sucks, there's few things worse - and unfortunately a public-enough posting as onto facebook calling a teacher a pedophile is one of them. There are plenty of knee-jerk idiots who would take such a posting at face value and then that teacher would be labelled for life and their careers ruined.

so yeah, fucking idiot pissed off kids deserve everything they get.

you're absolutely right

[Iamthecheese]

you're right but I'm not sure this is the right way to deal with it.

Imagine: you're a 12 year old asshole with parents that don't properly care for you and you're presented with the following choice

A) Admit your accusations were lies and everyone is pissed off at you and your parents punish you and you get expelled.
B) keep lying your lie and you get sympathy, "free" days off school, everyone makes a big deal of you, you get 15 minutes of fame, and your hated teacher goes away.

Which would you do?

Re:you're absolutely right

[tomhudson]

you're right but I'm not sure this is the right way to deal with it.

Imagine: you're a 12 year old asshole with parents that don't properly care for you and you're presented with the following choice

A) Admit your accusations were lies and everyone is pissed off at you and your parents punish you and you get expelled.
B) keep lying your lie and you get sympathy, "free" days off school, everyone makes a big deal of you, you get 15 minutes of fame, and your hated teacher goes away.

Which would you do?

Freddy Got Fingered

Green plays a 28-year old slacker/cartoonist named Gordon "Gord" Brody, who is pursuing his ambition to obtain a contract for a TV show. After being told that his ideas are stupid and make no sense, he decides to move back home and rethink his future. When Gord's father (Rip Torn) questions Gord's life goals, Gord has his father arrested on falsified charges of sexual molestation, destroying his parents' relationship and his family's reputation in the process.

Hearing before the school board?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically by law a suspension of longer than five days requires a hearing before the school board. The board would then have final say on if the duration was appropriate. I don't see anything in the article that indicates this happened in this case.

Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[MoldySpore]

When I was in high school about 11 years ago the internet and creating web pages was still pretty fresh and under the "amazing you can do that!" category with many adults. I learned in middle school how to write some basic HTML and by high school I was able to create some pretty nice web sites. I also learned that if you registered a domain name back then and said "bill me later" and then didn't pay, the domain would stay up for about 6 months before it was closed.

I took it upon myself to create a website that was all about a specific teacher at my school. He was widely disliked by teachers, students, and parents alike. He also disliked me and my friends a lot more than others, as we always let him know that he was a bad teacher and that everyone else thought so too (and yes, to this day he was the worst teacher I ever had, it wasn't just a rebellious teenager thing). I created a simple web site that had a picture of him on it (which he LET ME TAKE in the classroom) and then a short paragraph about why he was such a bad teacher, followed up by anonymous quotes from teachers, students, and parents about what they thought about him. The bottom of the page contained an e-mail link to the superintendent, the e-mail for the principal of the high school, and the teacher's e-mail.

Long story short, about a week or 2 later, I was called down to the office. The principal was in there with his "IT Specialist" who had printed out a page of another web site I had created with no relation to the site about the teacher. They said they were able to trace back my email address that I registered the fake site (by using "covert computer tricks", as the IT guy told me, to find out who had made the site about the teacher. I didn't deny anything. I said it was me and that I was sorry but the site was done in good taste and it was free speech. They disagreed. They called my mother to pick me up and put me on 2 weeks out of school suspension. Luckily, it was my birthday the next day and all it felt like was a present from the administration of my school. I later found out my parents hired a lawyer because there was nothing in the student hand book to cover what I did! The next year, the student code of conduct contained a provision similar to the one they used against the kids in this story. Added just for me. A lot of my better teachers started referring to it as my "clause" by name.

The students and teachers rallied behind me. Students were allowed to put up posters in the school to "free" me and writing "FA" all over chalk boards (which was short hand for Freeing me). Some of my friends who had parents on the PTA and faculty tried to get me off suspension and my parents hired a lawyer, beyond their monetary means, to try and get me back into school so that I didn't fall behind. It was all met with deaf ears and that was over a decade ago.

My point is this is nothing new. There is nothing surprising anymore about people's free speech rights being trampled upon in this day in age. The time to try and stop it was back when I was being punished for it, not now. Now it has become acceptable for people to be punished for making light of other people's short comings or commenting on a boss or teacher who they think is acting or performing negatively. Sure, is registering a web site with false information and making a site about a teacher the wrong avenue? Perhaps. But just like these kids, I was young and naive and it was the best outlet I had being a tech savvy young'n. This kids should be praised for not standing idly by and NOT saying anything about a bad teacher.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[orphiuchus]

I think we can all thank the teachers union for keeping horrible teachers like that in the classroom.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

The time to try and stop it was back when I was being punished for it, not now.

LOLZ!! You actually think *you* were the first? Please.

You chronicled your incident like it was something original and witty but the fact is that this has been going on for generations. Given the age of the web, it's highly unlikely that you're the first or even in the first 100 to do it with a web site.

Stop patting yourself on the back like some revolutionary and join us back in the human race.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[mewshi_nya]

The reason for the contractual difficulty in firing teachers arose from the fact that, without that, if a teacher didn't give some snot-nosed lazy bastard a passing grade that he didn't earn, the school would be sued and the teacher would be fired, often without any proof that the teacher did anything wrong. At least, that's what my aunt (a teacher who just retired after 35 years in the classroom -- and, coincidentally, was my best friend's dad's sixth grade teacher) told me.

Is the policy abused? You better believe it. But lots of policies are abused. Look at the Westboro Baptist "Church". Bunch of inbred pricks hide behind free speech even when they know they're spouting hate speech and targeting people for outright harassment.

Point is, the policy is really more of a symptom of the real problem -- people thinking their precious little snowflake shouldn't get what he actually earned, or threatening the school just because a teacher is "different" or doesn't agree with their child.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[BitZtream]

I have the distinct feeling you're full of shit.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[MoldySpore]

Well your amazing intuition is apparently wrong, because it's a 100% true story.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[MoldySpore]

Never said I was the first. Just saying, this has been happening for over a decade. Nowhere did I assume I was the first, or even close.

Re:Nothing New, Here is My Experience...

[klchoward]

I can verify MoldySpore's story (since I went to school with him and witnessed the events), so please apologize. Thanks.

Of course, paedophiles never get jobs as teachers.

[Anonymous Coward]

... no sirree...

I mean, it's not as if a paedophile would apply to work with children, is it!

And he must be a really wonderful teacher if MOST of his students hate his guts...

But LOL at the 'holier than thou' Slashdot 'intellectuals' siding with the adult. What a joke.

A more pressing question...

[Greatbarron]

Here is my question that no one seemed to ask in that article... But how were these comments discovered by the staff members of this school?? I would certainly hope that the teachers there are not friending their students. I do have a funny feeling that someone at that school was looking up student facebook pages and that disturbs me much more to think about as a a parent myself.

Re:corepirate nazi freemasons install identity chi

[Skidborg]

Stop using so many 'quote marks'. It makes you look like an 'imbecile'.

I don't care what these kids did outside of school

[guibaby]

This is not a school problem. Sure, kids who do things like this deserve to be arrested, sued, publicly flogged or whatever. But, it is not the schools responsibility to punish children for things that happen outside of school. That is a job for either their parents or the judicial system, It is their job to educate them (very large period here) Allowing schools to make decisions based on actions outside of school is a very slippery slope, for both the children and the schools. If these same allegation were made against a neighbor, is it now the schools responsibility to punish the person who made them? If they don't are they now liable in some way? School is not a punitive government entity. We already have those.

Blame your culture...

[Anonymous Coward]

Levelling 'paedophile' against a teacher is insanely damaging.

Only in an insane, hysterical society that encourages witch hunts. Blame your culture, not the words.

...blame the words, blame the TV... prosecute the word-slinger.

Oh... wait... you were talking about a philosophical point? Well, how do I put it.. fuck that.
Real life case here.
Kids did a bad thing.
They should suffer the legal consequences.

Parental discipline is called for here :

[Anonymous Coward]

These school kids are making false claims which could ruin someone's life.

They know their claims are false. They ( obviously ) thought they could make
such claims with impunity. Good on the school authorities for correcting that
mistaken notion.

If they were my children, they'd be on the receiving end of some discipline
they'd remember for the rest of their lives.

As for you people who are claiming this is a "free speech issue", you're clueless idiots
who have no grasp of the law or the issues at hand. There are laws against libelous
speech for good reason, and if these kids were adults they could be facing lawsuits which
might well bankrupt them.

Re:Suspension? Yes. Expulsion? No.

[PRMan]

The kid who apologized and realized the gravity of a false rape accusation was only suspended. The kid who refused to admit they were wrong was expelled. Seems simple.

MOD UP

[tivoKlr]

Mod up insightful please.

Did anyone ask

[stealth_finger]

What the teacher did to prompt these comments? Like someone said you shouldn't throw around stuff like pedo or rapist but no one takes it seriously untill it's gone to the police. And on facebook, seriously?

Children's rights and guardianship at school

[rich3rd]

Children do not have the same rights as adults under most legal systems. Additionally, while they are in school, the school is usually given some form of guardianship-by-proxy over the children, so that some adult is always in control of, and has responsibility for, those children. This probably explains why the school administrator felt justified in coercing the child to log in to her facebook account from school, even though the postings in question were probably not made from school grounds. Regardless from where the postings were made, the fact that these children felt entitled to make slanderous statements in response to perceived slights shows a profound lack of judgement and an obvious failure of their parents, and the educational system, to instill in them a sense of propriety, decency and common sense. As usual, I weep for the future.

As a father, I ostly agree with that quote

[brokeninside]

Although, I do disagree with it not being normal that the teacher overhears. I know full well that my daughter calls me a buttmuch, asshat, jerk, tyrant, petty dictator, and worse when she's with her friends.

But that's quite different than if she calls me a pedophile. Were she to do that, it opens the door to a good many consequences that calling me a buttmunch does not.

What's New Is Only Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids have been doing this for centuries. They gather after school at some meeting place, like a pizza parlor or soda shop, and villify the teacher if the teacher had happened to do something that caused them consternation. It never goes any further than mere words and usually the sentiments "blow over" in a few short days to be forgotton by all.

But currently a favored gathering place is Facebook and in this venue the whole world has the potential to eavesdrop on the meaningless and harmless venting of a small group of juveniles. In this kind of situation, the otherwise frivolous rant can assume monumental and lasting proportions.

What should be done about this? Should children be encouraged to restrain their perfectly natural boistrousness when they participate in these on-line forums? Or should mature adults be educated to simply ignore the inconsequential mutterings of innocent, though impulsive, juveniles?

I would propose the latter.

Principal may have committed a felony

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no fan of what these kids did...HOWEVER, the principal not only had no right to force them to login to facebook.... she actually may have committed a felony. It would be pretty easy to charge her for "unauthorized access to a system" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Parents, if you want to keep situations like this from happening you need to talk to your kids (who WILL do stupid things). Tell them that they should never submit to a search, login to an account or do anything else similar when asked to by a school administrator or teacher. Instead have them tell the school to call YOU and/or your husband/wife. If that had happened in this case the parents could have found out there might be something on facebook and then deal with it THEMSELVES (by deleting the posts and then punishing their kids) instead of letting this escalate WAY out of control.

It seems to me the parents should have been involved much earlier here. The principal has no business forcing a kid to login to anything, and as I said that may be a felony

Re:Principal may have committed a felony

[scotts13]

Look, I WORK in schools (computer support). I see and hear of all kinds of stuff, personally, like the recent and very famous "laptop webcam" scandal. My kids are out of high school; but a few years ago when they were, each got a briefing from me about dealing with school officials. Clam up. Make no statements about guilt, innocence, or involvement. Politely refuse to co-operate in, and verbally protest, computer searches, physical searches, or drug tests. Ask for witnesses. If a recording device is available, attempt to use it, even if you aren't ultimately allowed to. CALL ME. Call the police yourself, if necessary. Given the unprecedented power school officials have taken upon themselves - to damage your child's life and future prospects, with little hope of appeal, it's the only way. You must be on the defensive at all times. Isn't it wonderful that we've made this kind of attitude necessary?

Re:Principal may have committed a felony

[PPH]

That might be a bit of a legal stretch. The principal doesn't appear to have gained control over the Facebook accounts in question. She merely demanded that the kids delete the content in question. That may be no more serious an offense than requiring a kid to scrub their objectionable graffiti off a building. And probably less humiliating.

This isn't necessarily new

[Anonymous Coward]

You are free to post whatever you like on facebook so long as you understand that libel is a real cause for tort action. It's always been this way.

And as for people looking to the court to set some kind of precedent here, you are sorely mistaken. The court has long enforced a school administration's rights to invoke all kinds of powers to ensure honor codes are enforced and that distractions are minimized. Whether it happened on campus or off is irrelevant so long as the relationship in question revolves around a school employee. And personally, I would be stunned if this were the first time a facebook libel suit had been brought forward concerning a school district.

My bet is that the expulsion and related punishments will be upheld if only to protect the rest of the student body from unnecessary distraction from academia. However, the district may be instructed to allow attendance at other schools a reasonable distance from the plaintiff's residence.

Both children and their parents will expose themselves to additional liability by suing the district as the depositions will reveal the extent of libelous actions and thus plant the seeds for district counter-suit.

This is blown way out of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the difference between this and being caught spraypainting "Mr. Gonoflokis is a fag" on the dumpster by the cafeteria? This is just as bad, it just doesn't involve defacing property.

What is the difference between this and getting caught passing a note in class that says "Mr. Donawinkus is a pederast?" Nothing at all.

These kids should be appropriately disciplined. End of story.

Time for an externally-originated investigation

[TVmisGuided]

Sounds like the school is kangaroo-court convicting the kids of libel. Unfortunately for the school, there's an absolute defense for libel: truth. A bit of poking around should determine whether or not the kids were telling the truth in short order.

Meanwhile, why is the school acting as the Internet Police? They have better things to spend their time and money on...for example, teaching kids.

Just my two cents' worth.

Fair's fair

[igb]

For the rest of their lives, Alejandra Sosa and William Lambert (that's Alejandra Sosa and William Lambert) of Chapel Hill can have the fame when Google'd for that they're the sort of fools who go around called people paedophiles. So that's a sort of retribution. And now everyone knows that their parents are the sort of lumpen "my child is always right" entitled types that lawyer up when their children are caught misbehaving. Not being American I have no idea what an "honor roll" student is, but it appears to encompass stupidity, illiteracy and bad parenting.

Aside from anything else, were I to learn that a child at my children's school was wont to make public accusations of paedophilia and rape of adults, while their parents stand behind them and support them, I wouldn't have those children in my house, and I would raise serious issues with the school governors about those children being present in any place where I had to go (for example, performance, concerts, parents' evenings). Children who behave like that are like loaded handguns, and until their parents can teach them some decent behaviour (rather than lawyering up for a payday), being around them is a serious risk to other adults.

Re:Fair's fair

[mywhitewolf]

Aside from anything else, were I to learn that a child at my children's school was wont to make public accusations of paedophilia and rape of adults, while their parents stand behind them and support them, I wouldn't have those children in my house, and I would raise serious issues with the school governors about those children being present in any place where I had to go (for example, performance, concerts, parents' evenings). Children who behave like that are like loaded handguns, and until their parents can teach them some decent behaviour (rather than lawyering up for a payday), being around them is a serious risk to other adults.

I guess because a kid made the accusation only sudo-privately (read: publicly) they should be shunned regardless if the accusations were groundless. And heaven forbid that their parents support the kids accusing a teacher of sexual assault, what sort of world do we live in?

not only that, but i just fucking love the fact that your slandering a 12 year old girl (by name no less) to prove a point on how wrong they are making a publicly slanderous statement. hypocrite much?

also, an honer roll student is normally one that is a straight A student who participates in extra credit activities etc. 12 seconds of googling would have made you look like less of an idiot.

stoo-pid school.

[Anonymous Coward]

i coukd care less what some kids think about a teacher. those students are protected under the 1st amendment on that are theyy not. if i want to bad mouth a person i will i want to. no school code can gevern an open internet and free speech advocation . is there any debate on this or is that crappt school so crappy tha they got to take out their poor teacher frustrations on the kids and instead of looking art what made the kids say the thing they said. ther is always an underlined cloud or total reason for something kiddos dont just do things with out push factors. this is all my opinion.

For more information

[igb]

Read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2683272/posts

The parents quite clearly can't see any problem with their children's behaviour, so presumably this is another case of bad parents making bad children. Which is a shame, but there's no reason why the school should have to put up with it. And Alesjandra is quite the moron, isn't she: she thinks that if she goes to another school she might start to make bad decisions. Has she looked in a mirror recently and considered how her recent decisions have gone?

And by the way, unlike I suspect a lot of slashdotters, I've got 12 year old children. If mine behaved like this, a lot of things would happen. But lawyering up and demanding my child's first amendment rights to call named people rapists wouldn't be one of them (because, aside from anything else, it isn't protected speech, and might indeed constitute fighting words). Oh, and isn't the minimum age for Facebook 13 anyway?

Re:For more information

[mywhitewolf]

The parents quite clearly can't see any problem with their children's behaviour,

I'd just like to point out the following text from the link that YOU provided.

"I'm afraid for my daughter," Maria Sosa said. What her daughter did was wrong, she said. "I know that was not right, but she's 13 ... . The punishment is hard."

Re:For more information

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the mother:

"This is too harsh," said Taylor's mother, Stephanie Lamb... "These kids are not going to be able to bounce back from being in alternative school. You might as well say, ‘Be in a gang and do drugs.'"

The lawyer has an interesting point, though, that that the kid's statements might be construed by a court as hyperbole rather than slander.

Overall, it's a good thing - I think, if parents and schools can use this as a case study for discussing ethical online behaviour.

For the love of god!

[Blackajack]

And I'm an atheist. Is there a better way to say 'yup, i'm a fascist and in power, so fuck you.' without having gas chambers? And yes, I know I just pulled the Godwin one. Once in a while there comes a time when you CAN legitimately hit the table with the nazi card.

Re:presumed guilty (punishment does not fit)

[Anonymous Coward]

These students who are describing a teacher as a pedophile, a rapist, or bipolar should be asked to explain why they are saying these things. If they are accurately describing the teacher, then follow up on the accusation. If they are saying these things because they are "mad" (angry) with the teacher, the students should receive punishment and discipline for saying these things in line with their ages. Expulsion does not teach students anything except to regard the administrators as being over-reactive twits (which is pretty much the behavior that got the students in trouble). The administrators should figure out a more fitting punishment.

The business with reading the follow up facebook posts seems to be a bit of a witch hunt by the administrator. I do not know how he reacted after reading the posts, but simply agreeing with the original post is not on the same level as making the original statement.

EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing is done everywhere else with EULAs, contracts, and yes, policies too. Even the president gets to make up his own rules. Why not everyone else?

Re: they knew full well - and got off lightly

[russotto]

You're naive. The kids had already had years of indoctrination about the dangers of pedophiles and the serious badness of 'inappropriate touching', etc. Obviously you don't have kids. What is sad is that their characters are so twisted at such a young age. Scary.

Perhaps it's those years of indoctrination which results in them being twisted. More likely they're just cruel little brats reaching for the worst thing they can find -- which their indoctrination has taught them is "pedophile".

Anyway, for once we have a story where the students are actually being punished for something punishable (at least through a civil penalty) for adults as well. But, again, the schools went overboard and exceeded their authority: "At the same time though, she said her school principal, Jolene Morris, violated her privacy by ordering her to log into her Facebook account at a school library computer. Morris then reportedly read the offending post and ensuing responses from friends before ordering Sosa to delete the posts."

Facebook is not part of the school. The principal does not have absolute authority over the student, nor any over Facebook.

This is hilarious...to the point of being serious.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fucking ridiculous. First of all, facebook is not entirely public (unless made so). Will a student get expelled from school by venting to their friends about how pissed off they are because their teacher did something they didn't like? Seriously man. That's fucked up.

And by the way, that student should not have been forced to log in to facebook (violation of privacy). etc. etc.

The allegations, yeah, they're serious. And yeah, they can cause a lot of harm. But rather than ruining the kids' lives by suspending them, throwing them to alternative schools, or fucking them up to be more angry, cause depression or whatever, why not actually explain the seriousness of the situation? Have them publicly apologize, work with the teacher. Fucking ridiculous.

TFA completely omits what made them post

[xenobyte]

So we actually don't know anything about what made the kids post stuff like that (pedophile, rapist, bipolar etc.) but if several honor-roll students feel the need to post stuff like this I think something is seriously wrong at that school and with that teacher.

Now, we can always discuss whether they went overboard in the content here, but there can be no doubt that students must have the right to criticize a teacher, especially if this teacher does something not right. It is very important that students have a voice and are able to question authority and especially authority abused, as it unfortunately often is when power goes to the head and megalomania ensues. This happens every day in both homes and schools, but these days the abused can fight back using social media, and while it sometimes goes too far, it's often both justified and right.

Let's give these kids the benefit of the doubt - odds are on their side.

Re:TFA completely omits what made them post

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

“I was just expressing myself on Facebook, because like I said I was mad that day because of what he [did],” Sosa said in a statement. “So, I mean I had no intentions of ruining his reputation.”

I expect that actual paedophilic actions would cause a different reaction than the student simply being mad.

Has anyone else thought

[Warhawke]

what the F#$% a 12 and 13 year old are doing with Facebook accounts? NOTHING I had to say at that age was worthy of public forum. I miss the days when you had to be in college to have a Facebook account; at least it raised the bar a modicum above middle school antics. My parents would have banned me from electronic devices entirely if I had tried to have a public page at the age of twelve (not that that's normal, but it kept me from doing stupid sh** like this, which I probably would have at 12 or 13). At least what we're seeing is a return to normalcy that childhood is not this carefree wonderland to be cherished and preserved by adults. Kids are naive, amoral, and sometimes downright cruel, and the job of parents is to teach them good, unselfish values that make them understand their actions resonate far beyond their own sheltered environments.

Interesting discrepancy

[Anonymous Coward]

The young woman accuses the teacher of being a pedophile. She gets a suspension. The young man accuses the teacher of being Bi-polar, and gets expelled.

There seems to be a discrepancy in the punishments. In this day and age, calling someone bi-polar is not much of an insult, and it certainly doesn't make for much of an accusation. While at the same time, calling someone a pedophile can have very serious consequences. In fact, doing so falsely is a crime in many places.

I can't help but wonder, is the difference in punishments related to the obvious difference between an honor roll girl and a boy that isn't? Or is there another level of information we don't have? Does it even matter? If I were the teacher, I'd be pressing charges on ALL the students involved. (slander/libel)

Investigate

[Anonymous Coward]

The sister of one of the students has made a statement calling for the investigation of the teacher. Should not their be an investigation of the teacher and, if he is falsely accused, shouldn't the parents of the students be held accountable for their lies?

Maybe is IS a PEDO-Rape gootime fun kinda' Teach?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well? I gota' say, as usual, the most important part of the story was missing..
WHY did they say it? What was the context of the facebook conversation?
Were the posts only to private friends or were they posted publicly?
First, sounds like they were private.. Also the principal, if what they were saying was 'libel' ordered the destruction of evidence, so I don't see how he can even get them in any trouble.. No evidence, no crime.

My guess, using the words that they did.. The teacher was probably a guy, and as a guy who knows other guys I can assure you he is SOME kind of perv.
Not sure exactly what kind of perv he is.. Pedo, shoes, furry, scat... Maybe specific.. He just loves fat woman in leather? No clue.
BUT, on a purely rational and pragmatic level the statement of "Mr. (x) is a perv!" is always correct no matter the value of (x).. :P
To follow, I would wonder if perhaps he IS a pedo and that the context of the conversation surrounded leering (as I saw teachers do in Jr. High), and/or perhaps favoritism to a 'teachers pet' who flirts with the teacher and exhibits signs of physical attraction to him.
Maybe a even something like strong rumor that he put the moves on a girl.
Maybe she put the moves on him? Does not matter at that age, rape is what the law calls that kind of contact.
Or one of the girls actually had it happen but now after all of this is embarrassed/ashamed and has no proof of the truth
And as all involved were immediately punished, as opposed to the 12 year old's accusations being investigated? What would she do? An honor roll student no less.

I just got to say, back then I would have used lots of things like douchbag, dick face, etc. If I was pissed at a teacher.. I would never even think of saying pedo or rape... Unless the guy was a perv and I thought he tried to rape someone..
Then I would have said it.

What about you?

Now... if this is a Woman teacher they were saying this about...
Obviously a woman cannot be a perv (see Twilight fans over 15,That's OK. They buy shit and are woman), nor can she rape (Where were teachers like THAT when I was your age! You lucky little bastard.)

Bla. Bla. Sarcastic comments not allowed..

Eroneously Reporting ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the school overreacted. The policy that they are cited to have violated is "falsifying, misrepresenting, omitting, or eroneously reporting allegations". Since the only way the Principal read the comment on facebook was to force the student to login to her account I find it hard to argue that the student could be viewed as reporting anything. How could it be considered filing a report if the authorities to be reported to can't actually read it.

I do think that it is likely the student was using pedophile as a way to call her teacher a nasty name, and that doing so should not go unchallenged, but there are much better ways to deal with it; for example, sit the students down and explain that calling someone a pedophile is a really big deal that has legal implications for them, the school, their parents and teachers. Let them know that although their post wound up on facebook, anyone who sees that post is required by law to report the possibility of child abuse and that they have no choice but to investigate it, etc. Then do a student reeducation and use it to also promote safe avenues of reporting child abuse. There was a real lost opportunity to do some good with the way this was handled.

Pedophile, Rapist, Bipolar

[dcollins]

According to the article, the three students in question called the teacher (a) pedophile, (b) rapist, and (c) bipolar. While many commentators have emphasized (a), I actually think (b) is a lot worse (asserts actual violent/sexual action, as opposed to mere predisposition).

The thing that does bother me here is how the students who did (a) and (b) are honors students and were merely suspended. The student who said (c) -- the least serious accusation -- was not an honors student, and was expelled. The article also says this: "At least two of the students’ families plan to hire attorneys." Let me guess, that would be the first two students' families, because they're more wealthy and have the support to produce honors students, right? And that latter student is from a family without wealth, expelled with no legal resources, and is shit out of luck, right? (Just a hypothesis.)

This bodes well for pedophile teachers...

[Anonymous Coward]

The pedophile teachers must be very excited at the prospect of students being cowed into letting them act with impunity.

*Good* system this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Create a platform for people to incriminate themselves and them incriminate them when they use it. This is the same as selling someone a gun, they might *Actually* use it.

Private conversation on Facebook? No such thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this (ignoring the Facebook connection):

Several children talking in playground:
Kid 1 - Mr X is a peodphile
Kid 2 - Yeah, and a rapist
Kid 3 - ...listens...

Kid 3 - tells 3 friends what he heard
Kid X - tells parents he's heard bad things about Mr X
Concerned parents tell Principal

Principal confronts Kid 1 and finds out it was a false accusation
Principal expels Kid 1 and 2, suspends others for spreading false accusations
(meanwhile Mr X is getting odd looks, hearing whispered conversations etc)

Considering that most children will have upwards of 30 friends on Facebook, it could never be considered a 'private' conversation.
The only difference is that in this case the Principal would be able to see the whole conversation on Facebook rather than rely on hearsay.

Schools have a responsibility to protect their teachers from things like this.
Students have always had the option of learning from their mistakes - that is what suspension and expulsion is for.

Re:Public?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off sense when did a "Facebook" page be come a public forum? Unless the CHILDREN involved made their pages open to everyone, (which I doubt,) the pages in question would ONLY be viewable by friends. And there for PRIVATE...

Yes, I know that what one friend reads will be repeated all over, BUT as someone else here has stated, when did ANYTHING posted on the web become unquestionably true and accurate? Also, something posted on a Facebook page would fall under the heading "In my OPINION".

One can only hope that their parents would to the right thing and check on what their children put on those pages! God knows I check my kids pages regularly.

Secondly when did this country decide that all issues are ONLY, (forgive me for using this term,) BLACK OR WHITE and never shades of grey. Remember these are children, (probably no older than 14,) we are talking about. Children even at 14 are still learning what is appropriate and what is over the top. Yes, I disciplined them when they were that age for calling my names but kicking them out of the house PERMANENTLY, (and that the equivalent of what the school is doing,) is not discipline. That's just throwing the the children away so they become somebody else's problem... i.e. Not my problem any more.
So when did we go from disciplining, (to teach them they did wrong,) to just giving them the MAXIMUM, (the equivalent of shooting someone for a first offense of spitting on the side walk!)

Re:Suspension? Yes. Expulsion? No.

[mywhitewolf]

i guess the lesson here is if a teacher is acting in a manner that makes you feel like they are unstable then just put up and shut up.

go columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

you can whine all you want about the title but last time i checked life for nerds got wayy better after columbine, that being said these kids should be allowed to call them whatever they want, what if the guy was a pedo, you would ALL feel like shit for lettin it slide. If the majority of techers and principals were hard working honest people, i would say the kids should be punished.... but i dont feel this is the case. (anyone else notice that the bipolar comment got the kid expelled, but saying pedo pedo gets a 1 day suspension..

Yeah this is a pure example of abuse of power.

oh and if you were ever a teacher that let your fav's run around doing what they want, while the nerds get punished for sneezing wrong you deserve to be shot in the face columbine style, twice... you bipolar pedophile

A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing

[westlake]

For instance, in libel law, one is not eligible for more than token damages if nobody who read the statement took it seriously.

The Wikipedia makes it plain enough:

Defamation per se

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se.

In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proved.

"Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":

Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"

Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)

Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)

Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)

Defamation in the United States

To assert that the school has the power to require a student to show the principal the contents of the student's facebook account, and further to require the student to delete any offending posts, is going way too far, IMO.

To assert that the school has the power to require a student to show the principal the contents of the student's facebook account, and further to require the student to delete any offending posts, is going way too far, IMO.

There are times when a school has parental authority over a child. There are times when it can and should act quickly and decisively.

Re:suspending - yes

[BitZtream]

And thats the thing, we never know.

In this case however, we do know, and that changes things, like it or not.

Had it never been found out it wouldn't matter as there would never be a possibility of any damage to the teacher.

This is why you don't write shit on the Internet that you wouldn't say in public and to someones face.

What if the children were telling the truth?

[silentphate]

It doesn't say anywhere what actually inspired these children to post these comments in the first place. These allegations must have come from somewhere. Now I do admit, it is highly likely that the children were exaggerating but I hope that someone is looking into the events the transpired prior to the facebook comments being posted.

Re:What if the children were telling the truth?

[JSBiff]

But what if they weren't?

"These allegations must have come from somewhere."

What, are you saying kids never tell mean, viscious lies? I was a kid once, I know better than that (not that I told any such lies, but I certainly heard my share of them). They were old enough to know what a pedophile is - that means they are old enough to lie about a teacher they are mad at for *some other reason*, as being a pedo.

  I certainly hope someone made a thorough inquiry into the situation, though. As you say, there *could* be something behind the claims, but I would presume that someone *did* investigate the claims before any decision was made to suspend the kids.

But, see, this is what makes the allegations so bad . . . if they aren't true, everyone will always still wonder. . . "What if the children were telling the truth" unless it can somehow be shown conclusively (not sure how you can), that he is innocent.

There's a reason that our justice system is based upon the presumption of innoncence - because it's almost impossible to really prove innocence, but guilt can usually be proved.

That's fine for the courts, but when it comes to people, they aren't always so rational. This issue will, I'm almost positive, continue to haunt this teacher for years, as people continue to have lingering doubts.

Assuming the adults in this situation came to the correct conclusion, that the allegations are false, then the kids are lucky to just be getting 10 days of suspension. If the allegations were true, then a good inquiry should determine the truth of his guilt.

Re:Suspension? Yes. Expulsion? No.

[GofG]

The kid who apologized and realized the gravity of a false rape accusation was only suspended. The kid who refused to admit they were wrong was expelled. Seems simple.

The kid who refused to admit they were wrong was the kid who accused his teacher of being "bipolar".

The kids who threw the words "pedophile" and "rapist" around were obviously wrong. This third child, however... the label "bipolar" is much more complicated than the label "pedophile" or the label "racist". Who is to say that they're wrong? It would require a lot more investigation first.

What if a couple years down the road, the teacher gets a psych evaluation for whatever reason and discovers he is bipolar? Is it still libel? Is it still a false accusation?

I just thought I'd state....

[scurvyj]

....that this is patently ridiculous and the school should be kicked repeatedly in the gonads.

I know its obvious, but just in terms of numbers games we are, folks, here finding ourselves up against not only Tools but Trolls, and it is good to add some shout to the voice of reason.

Re:I just thought I'd state....

[unixfan]

It is interesting how things are accelerated out of proportions. The fact that schools have the idea of pushing kids out of school, which only increases the odds that these kids becomes criminals and a menace to society, I find astonishing. Talk about dropping their hat.
Kids needs positive guidance. School is supposed to redirect their misdirected actions into something positive. Show the proper way, but oh no, instead here we hit whenever we can.
On top of it they like to suppress free speech. In fairness I've not read what they wrote, but I don't care what it was, expulsion is never the right thing to do. Kids need to complete school and have an equal chance to succeed or society will suffer.
Punishment does not work either, as our over filled prisons shows. Simple observations demonstrate that more caring is what's needed, not more force.
I had an incident when my daughter was in school, where another girl stood up in the bus and hit her from behind. The bus driver stopped the bus and called the police. Six patrol cars surrounded the bus when I arrived on the scene.
I was immediately informed by the office in charge that I can press charges. I thanked him but said that it looks like enough force has already been applied, what we need is to figure out what occurred and see how we can handle the situation without any more force.
While i performed my interviews to establish what had occurred, officers kept informing me that I can press charges, probably six times during the 30 minutes it took.
In the end the other girl had realized that her misdirected aggression was potentially a lot more damaging to her than any peer pressure of being seen as "tough" could be. The two girls had shook hands, with proper display of recognizing the errors of her ways with forgiveness from my daughter. Never mind the relief on the other girl and her grandmother who cared for her.
the whole situation was resolved with communication and care. No additional force was applied and the situation was resolved in a way that helped everyone.

interesting standards

[Anonymous Coward]

They can expel the fuckers for facebook posts, but they can expel other fuckers for disrupting class and preventing others from learning.

school is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because parents often overreact and people believe way too much of what they hear, doesn't mean the school has any right to punish the kids.

If the teacher wants to press charges for libel or something then he can.

That a school is punishing kids for making up lies about someone on the internet is insane.

If I write that my teacher is a pedo on facebook, and then all the parents think he's a pedo and he gets run out of town, then the problem is with people behaving like jackasses and running the poor guy out of town without a trial.

You've got to start listening to reason at some point, otherwise gut reactions will always be in control and you've got a ruling mob mentality.

Kids are just emulating adults

[FrankHS]

The kids were just doing what they see adults doing. If you don't like the president, call him a nazi or a communist. It damages his reputation and makes it difficult for him to keep his job. It turns people against him. The kids used the same strategy against their teacher. They called him the worst name they could think of.

Perhaps what we need to do is to set a better example for the kids.

Opinion dragnet...

[WaffleMonster]

Pedo, bipolar, rapist.... All I want to know what really happened with this teacher? ...Obviously the students were upset or tweaked by something.....what was it? How can they leave such details out of TFA??!?!?

Teach your children well!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, teach your children to only use what are clearly opinions and not libelous statements of fact. Say your teacher is "In my opinion, a worthless sack of filth who should throw himself in front of a train to spare the rest of humanity his disgusting presence" rather then saying they are a pedophile, suffering from a medical condition or some other objective problem.

Re: they knew full well - and got off lightly

[yakovlev]

As far as the privacy violations go, kids need to learn something to say something that very few do because of fear:

NO. Call my parents.

It's amazing how many examples of an over-reaching school could be significantly reduced by the student steadfastly refusing whatever injustice the school is perpetrating, and getting their own adult advocate (in the form of their parents) involved.

Unfortunately, most children are afraid of the "second punishment" that will occur once their parents get involved, and so usually try to keep the discipline confined to school. However, when the school oversteps its bounds (like requiring you to log in to your facebook account) it's time to get the parents involved FIRST.

Either the principal had evidence already or was fishing. If the principal already had evidence, then punish the kids who you have evidence on. If s/he's just fishing, then once the parents get involved, they can decide how to handle it. My guess is that the principal had evidence on the primary poster, but was fishing for more names that they could punish.

That said, as a student's parent I would accept action from the school ONLY with a written covenant not to sue from the teacher. In this case where no actual damages occurred suspension may be appropriate, expulsion is not. If expulsion got me a covenant not to sue I still might take it, but it's over-reaching for just mouthing off. The moment the kid is fraudulently telling law enforcement (or even trying to convince a school administrator) that the teacher is a pedophile, throw the book at them. At this age, the most appropriate response would seem to be explaining just how bad of an accusation pedophile is, along with an appropriate punishment to make it clear that it won't be tolerated.

Now, we don't have the actual facebook post. If it was of the form: "how can I accuse Mr. D of being a pedophile so that I can get him fired?" and other students were "helping," then now you have a conspiracy to commit fraud, and the punishments start to look more appropriate. I doubt that is what is going on here, based primarily on the number of punishments doled out for multiple independent infractions.

If my child went to that school, I would make very clear to them that the administration were a bunch of jerks, and that saying anything against them would likely get you severely punished, and have potential repercussions against them in the future. I then might explain to them what are appropriate complaints, and how to express them: up to and including peaceful protest of an overbearing school administrator.

Fuck the principal, fuck this teacher

[bedouin]

If I had known how irrelevant school would be to my future I'd do my best to be suspended each day. Well, that tended to happen anyway.