Slashdot Mirror


Teachers, Students Fight To Be Facebook Friends

An anonymous reader writes "State Governor Jay Nixon recently signed Senate Bill 54, making it illegal for students and teachers to be friends online as of later this month. Now, a Missouri teachers group is fighting the state's new law that prohibits them from being Facebook friends with their students by filing a lawsuit. From the article: 'The Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) filed a lawsuit on Friday, challenging a new law. MSTA is specifically asking the Circuit Court of Cole County to determine the constitutionality of the law’s social media portion.'"

286 comments

  1. Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?

    1. Re:Anybody else? by Seumas · · Score: 1, Troll

      Aside from that, I can't help but wonder who in the hell wants to friend their teachers on a social network. Even if I can tolerate you until the school bell rings at 3pm or 4pm, that doesn't mean I ever want to have anything to do with you outside of class. You're a teacher; not my buddy.

    2. Re:Anybody else? by izomiac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not so much freedom of speech as freedom of assembly. Either way it's a first amendment issue.

    3. Re:Anybody else? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Drama teachers. Always hotties. Always.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't call it friendship (as in a true sincere friendship like), but several teachers from the University definitely got into my social circles. It seems that again some of you are misunderstanding the meaning of social networks. You really don't have to go daily to have a beer o talk by phone to someone to consider having eventually contact with him/her, either physical or online contact.

    5. Re:Anybody else? by edumacator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many teachers use Facebook as a means of communicating with clubs, teams, and even classes. Since ninety-five percent of the students (a guesstimate) are on FB, it's an easy form of communication. Even more students have email accounts, but they never check them.

      This wouldn't be such an issue if the term wasn't "Friend," but rather something without the same connotative value. But then, it wouldn't make us feel as warm and fuzzy if I had 5,000 associates instead of 5,000 friends.

    6. Re:Anybody else? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      there's "friending" and there's "acquaintancing". And there's "making up a group to share photos and stuff from our drama/gym/science/photo... club.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    7. Re:Anybody else? by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      but it's nice to have 5,000 people in your circles !

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    8. Re:Anybody else? by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aside from that, I can't help but wonder who in the hell wants to friend their teachers on a social network.

      You might not, but it's still important to defend your freedoms.

      Even if I can tolerate you until the school bell rings at 3pm or 4pm, that doesn't mean I ever want to have anything to do with you outside of class. You're a teacher; not my buddy.

      Facebook didn't exist when I was at school, but there were several adults I knew that I might have added on Facebook. Some of them happened to be teachers -- parents of my friends. They were much more friendly towards me outside school.

    9. Re:Anybody else? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?

      Why, does it stop you from mumbling when you're browsing Facebook? ...

    10. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Actually, I see this as a great way to shake things up so that we all start to realize how terrible Facebook is. The problem with the law is that it had to be a law. Teachers and students are bound by the bonds of academia. Academia is surely suffering greatly when education isn't enough to make one realize the sheer absurdity of social networking. Kudos to Missouri for leading the way in this pointless struggle!

    11. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United States of America - the land of possibilities and freedom. Haha.

    12. Re:Anybody else? by delinear · · Score: 2

      Might work both ways too - a teacher might find it easier to engage and meet the learning needs of students if they understand more about what's happening in their life outside of school. Maybe there's some game or show that's popular and the teacher can hook into that to make class work more relevant. It feels a little odd to me as I'm from the generation that enjoyed privacy and the idea of a teacher being able to see my movements and social interactions is a little creepy, but for kids who have grown up in the current environment there are a lot of potential advantages.

    13. Re:Anybody else? by edumacator · · Score: 1

      Oh, having big circles is something else entirely.

    14. Re:Anybody else? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?

      It'd take some fairly tortured logic-chopping to argue otherwise; but the "Won't somebody think of the Children?" card is in play, so the court may or may not be sharpening its best logic choppers as we speak...

    15. Re:Anybody else? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Funny

      We keep states like Missouri around to remind us that Federalism has its price...

    16. Re:Anybody else? by vlm · · Score: 1

      And there's "making up a group to share photos and stuff from our drama/gym/science/photo... club.

      My former college ham radio club has a "wait and see" attitude toward having the academic adviser join their FB group, or not. Really weird situation.

      Then there's my former employer, where a former coworker was hired to teach some classes I had just taken at night school before I finished off my degree. Luckily he was never my instructor; that would have been awkward enough without being legally required to "unfriend" each other on linkedin.

      One of my cousins is a former public school teacher... should she be "permitted" by big brother to friend everyone, or does she have a permanent scarlet letter brand now? She teaches music, piano lessons, I believe, would it be legal or illegal for her to friend her students?

      Finally my sister in law is a public school teacher... does that mean her niece and nephew are not legally allowed to friend her upon penalty of jail? That's just bizarre.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:Anybody else? by Marillion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does anyone know if the law has a parenting exemption? Some teachers are parents. I believe that it's a responsibility as a parent to periodically look at how his or her children use social media. As the parent of two teens, I know several other parents of teens who happen to be both a fellow parent and a teacher at the high school where my kids go. I believe those teachers should be able to "friend" their children just as I've "friended" mine.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    18. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe teachers can friend former students, at least in my state. I became Facebook friends with a few teachers after graduation.

    19. Re:Anybody else? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Aside from that, I can't help but wonder who in the hell wants to friend their teachers on a social network.

      People who are genuinely part of the same social circle as their teachers. That's particularly likely in small communities but can happen in larger ones.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    20. Re:Anybody else? by jelle · · Score: 1

      Social Networks are not just for 'buddies', they are a way for people to communicate, and apparently quite a popular one. I can see it useful for kids to ask their teacher questions on-line, or for a teacher to notify or remind their students of something. Yes, there are other things for that such as forums, email, and chat, but there are social networks for that too, and (gasp) some people like them (probably because it both integrates a lot of the on-line methods and communication and removes things such as needing to update a contact because they switched email addresses). Don't get me wrong, I mostly use email myself, but that might just be 'legacy' or 'habit'.

      Now, many students wouldn't want their teacher to see everything they do/say on the social networks, but that's what google plus has those 'circles' for. You can even let people you don't like be 'in' your social network, you just put them in a 'circle' that doesn't see anything (and vice-versa, the on-line version of fake friendlyness).

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    21. Re:Anybody else? by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, I don't think it's a violation of free speech. Violation of freedom of association, maybe. But the courts don't believe the latter is a constitutional guarantee in all cases (for instance, they can order convicted criminals not to associate, even after incarceration)

    22. Re:Anybody else? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually i'm torn on this. Yes freedom of speech is great but as someone who was hit on by a not very attractive female teacher at 14 as well as watched a friend trade sex for grades with said teacher there is actually sometimes where you DO need to "think of the children" because one forgets how much power a teacher can wield over a student.

      So lets not lose sight of the fact WHY bans like this have been put it place. it isn't like these school boards have gone "Oh its Tuesday, we need to be douchebags" it is because time and time again we have seen both male and female teachers use their position to have sex with their underage students.

      While there are plenty of truly awesome teachers out there (Thanks Ms Edwards for being a great teacher that inspired my lifelong love of science!) there are also some VERY sick puppies out there that are using the profession for their own sexual gratification. So I'd say this is one of the VERY few cases where one actually does need to "think of the children" when weighing and deciding this.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:Anybody else? by lemmis_86 · · Score: 1

      Yup, but mainly incursion on freedom. If I want to be friends with someone, god damnit it's up to me to decide, and no one else's business! Does this mean that the teacher cannot be friends IRL? Example: I took a math course at the university where my cousin was the teacher. We are friends and facebook friends. Are we criminals now? Better come and get me.

    24. Re:Anybody else? by lionchild · · Score: 1

      SB54 doesn't actually restrict a teacher from assembly with current and former students, as teachers can still have 'fan' pages, which are fully open. What it restricts is a teacher from having communications with a student that are hidden from parents and administration. Social Networking where there is no private communication between student and teacher is perfectly acceptable. Thus, they're allowed to 'publicly assemble.' If there is a matter that a student doesn't want to disucuss in a public setting, then they're still able to have 'old fashion' face-to-face contact with their teacher(s).

      However, all this said, it doesn't change the fact that you could easily have someone pretending to be a teacher and friending a student, nor does it give quick or simple avenues to verify that inappropirate things are going on between students and teachers on social networking sites. In the case of a parent accusing a teacher of inappropriate communications with a student on a networking site, is the teacher innocent until proven guilty, or does it play out some other way? The logistics of this law are way too grey and undefined.

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    25. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling? Anybody?

    26. Re:Anybody else? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Your 95% guesstimate is probably quite incorrect, given that at least 30% of households currently don't have a computer of any kind. Now, schools in relatively wealthy suburbs are more likely to have a high Facebook participation rate, but a teacher at a public school isn't supposed to be expecting that a student necessarily has access to those tools because of the financial burden of getting and keeping Internet access.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    27. Re:Anybody else? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      This. Kinda surprised it took this long to get to the point: the law is saying high school children can't be friends their teachers on Facebook or any other form of unmonitored electronic communication like texting. Um, ya, makes sense to me, considering all the teachers having sex with high school student stories that have come out in recent years. Any law that helps prevent teachers sleeping with children is alright with me. Somehow I graduated high school before Facebook existed and I'm not sitting here thinking "if only I could have had Facebook when I in highschool so I could have had my teachers as friends!" Not really sure I wanna know what they did on Friday nights. And doesn't this help the teachers? They don't have to worry about some brat reporting to their parents and principal that mr anderson likes getting high. Figured the teachers would be cheering for this law.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    28. Re:Anybody else? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Law doesn't apply to university or college since you're an adult, only high school and younger.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    29. Re:Anybody else? by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's some game or show that's popular and the teacher can hook into that to make class work more relevant.

      Yeah, since teachers are surely out of touch with what's hot and what's not. Like Lady Gaga is totaly relevant, Shakespeare is not.

    30. Re:Anybody else? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Have you never seen lines for computers at a public library (all for email or facebook)?

    31. Re:Anybody else? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      FTFA - no it does not, the way it's written it makes it illegal for teachers whose children are students in the same schools where they work to be facebook friends with their own children.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re:Anybody else? by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      A decent teacher should be able to draw on some aspect of a child's life and be able to crow bar in popular culture references to update a lesson plan or two. If they are going to be teaching for a few decades then they only need to do it once, as the pop world is a cannibalistic recycle bin.
      I just googled "lady gaga to shakespeare" and felt sad.

    33. Re:Anybody else? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Actually i'm torn on this. Yes freedom of speech is great but as someone who was hit on by a not very attractive female teacher at 14 as well as watched a friend trade sex for grades with said teacher there is actually sometimes where you DO need to "think of the children" because one forgets how much power a teacher can wield over a student.

      Oh bullshit. This is possibly one of the dumbest things I've read here in a while - which says a lot!

      You mean people should think of the children but YOU can't think of yourself and your friend? You see, this is one of those cases where you publicly admit you're really fucking stupid.If you can't be bothered to think of yourself or your friend, then by your own admission, no one else should be thinking of yourself or your friend.

      By your own admission, the situation was of so little consequence that on one should give it a second thought but its so significant EVERYONE's free speech should be destroyed.

      I'm guessing you have some sort of mental illness.

      This wonderfully illustrates what's wrong with people these days. ITS YOUR FUCKING JOB TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. PERIOD!!!! If you can't be bothered to take person responsibility, especially about something which affects and tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of society, they why the fuck should the entire world suffer because you're too fucking stupid and/or lazy to do the right thing? Oh I see - perhaps you're just too fucking dumb and lazy, which at the end of the day means you should go fuck yourself until you figure out that first and foremost, YOU are the problem. I bet if YOU and people LIKE YOU fixed the problem, the entire problem would go away. But nooooo - its easier to be dumb and lazy and make everyone else suffer for your stupidity.

      God bless America and dumb fucking selfish piece of shit people like you.

    34. Re:Anybody else? by dlingman · · Score: 0

      Van Halen?

    35. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Youre both being stupid, no offense. They have direct face to face contact, day in, day out. Banning facebook will do sweet fuck all.

    36. Re:Anybody else? by trum4n · · Score: 2

      Mine was a 68 year old gay man. He was AWESOME, but not really my type...

    37. Re:Anybody else? by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      I have three words for you:

      Anger Management Class

    38. Re:Anybody else? by trum4n · · Score: 1

      My PreCalc teacher was 5 years older than me, looked young for her age, and was drop dead gorgeous. A football player literally cried in class when she announced she was engaged. Yea, i'd friend her. Every night.

    39. Re:Anybody else? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      If they'd have called it anything other than "Friends" there would be no problem. Like Google+ calls it "Circles", no-one would get offended by a student having their teacher in their circle. Well... maybe.

      The problem is "Friends" denotes a specific type of relationship between Family and Acquaintances, and even Acquaintances doesn't really describe a Teacher (since you see them every day, and get to know them reasonably well), despite us, as geeks, seeing "Friends" as merely a synonym for "List of people you know" (Since we know all a Facebook "Friend" is really just an integer in a database and the label is convenient) and there is really no other word that comes to mind to replace "Friend".

      The problem comes from people who don't see it from that perspective, from the Government, and the parents, who don't understand the technology, all they see is "My kid is now friends with their teacher" and, today, in the west, there is a deep lack of trust of Adults and their behaviour around kids.
      If it wasn't "friends", or indeed, if Facebook allowed you to group people together into other groups (like G+) then "My kid now has their teacher in a group and can share what they want with each other" there would still be some murmurings about whether or not that teachers having a direct, unfiltered, (and most of all) unmonitored access to their child outside of class is a good or bad thing.

      What I'm saying is that if Facebook weren't the biggest, and hadn't called their list social graph "Friends" I doubt we'd have quite the hoohah we have at the moment.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    40. Re:Anybody else? by Canazza · · Score: 1

      Van Allen? *Zaps with Cosmic Rays*

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    41. Re:Anybody else? by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      I don't have to deal with this just yet; but in 5-6 years time this will have moved on to another issue. With all the stories of cyber bulling you see in the press and certainly all the porn you can get. I don't see the internet as a "social" place. It's a pub and in a pub you watch what your child is doing and who they are talking to. You watch watch you say as you never know who is listening.
      No previous generation has had to deal with this. My parents didn't know about the 16 colour strip poker Amiga filth I had, and the few porn mags, well at least they had some censorship. Growing up thinking extreme gape porn is common rather than hilarious, can't be good either. But the porn isn't the problem. Children need to be brought up to mistrust how / who / why / when / where their information could / can / is being used. Personal data is extremely valuable. Now that loads of them have been locked up for posting incriminating evidence against themselves on Facebook after going rioting in the UK. They may start to get it.

    42. Re:Anybody else? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      How about something like this:
      We all know who Lady Gaga is right? Well her job is to entertain, that is what she gets paid for.
      Shakespeare was paid to entertain as well, and it is interesting to compare what people pay for now, versus what they paid for then.

      (or some other tripe)

      I would have friended two of my teachers on FB when I was in high school. My ceramics teacher, and my photography teacher. That said, there would then need to be limits placed on the schools for trying to police children's activities when not at school. As long as schools can expel or suspend a child for something he/she has claimed to have done (even if there is no evidence other than a boastful claim) while outside of school, then I think having teachers and students be 'friends' may be a poor idea.

      Also:
      Please remember that teachers are "mandatory reporters". There are many things that they are obligated to report if they see them happen*, even if not in school.

      -nB
      * or see evidence of them happening (i.e. suspicious bruises)

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    43. Re:Anybody else? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      HA!
      Yet more proof that those who make the laws are the least qualified (even though we elected the sods).

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    44. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe those teachers should be able to "friend" their children just as I've "friended" mine."

      Tell Granny and Peepaw to friend them too, best way to drive them off Facebook.

    45. Re:Anybody else? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Since when is the truth trolling? /sarcasm

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    46. Re:Anybody else? by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Ok. but you can turn that around. A child who used to post lots on FB starts to post out of character things. A teacher with experience and training may see this as signs of abuse.
      A story then - This teacher for the purposes of the post, was always too busy in class to pick up on "the" signs as the ADHD child on the other side of the room need looking after constantly. Perchance in the wee hours of the night, whilst marking papers, the teacher saw an old post from the student timed at 2am. That's too late the teacher thought and decided to take a look back thought the history of posts going back weeks and months. This child is near suicide! they exclaim. The matter raised, the child saved, an arrest made. If it wasn't for FB this child would have ....
      It happens every day. /proof reading of the above to be done never..

    47. Re:Anybody else? by jitterman · · Score: 1

      Not to be mean to her, but you haven't met my baby sister. I love her, but I think she could dispute your assertion without saying a word.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    48. Re:Anybody else? by jitterman · · Score: 1

      To back up your statement with a short anecdote - my eighth grade math teacher was simply the single coolest adult I and many of my classmates knew then (this was in the 1980s). I wish I knew where he was (or even if he's still living) as I would love to be able to let him know what a positive impact he had on many of our lives. He's not on FB, and of course I don't know if that's because he's no longer with us or just doesn't use it.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    49. Re:Anybody else? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I played Doom online with my vice principal when I was younger.

    50. Re:Anybody else? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      The problem is people are knee-jerking all over the place without bothering to actually read the law. If they did, they would discover that it is worded so as to criminalize having "secret" communications with students (and former students) via online means (web forums, social networking sites). Basically, it isn't permitted if the communications are not available to administration/students parents.

      This is a bad law in that it is an attempt to appear to be doing something about improper teacher/student relations without actually adding anything. This is a bad law in that it is aimed at technology when its purported purpose is to prevent improper teacher/student relations. The former is just plain useless, the latter would seem better addressed by a law that targeted improper relationships without specifying the specific means for facilitating those relationships.

      In the end, it will most likely never amount to anything unless it is used to prop up local LE income via not-quite-entrapment scenarios similar to how various laws ostensibly passed to "protect the children" are used.

      But don't take my word for it: http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?BillID=4066479&SessionType=R (meh, since last week the PDF of the full bill seems to have gone missing -- try google cache)

    51. Re:Anybody else? by gsmalleus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I worked with a teacher who ended up having an inappropriate relationship with a student. None of the communication between the two happened on facebook or email, or even phone calls. It was all done with hand written notes. So lets ban pencils and paper from schools. Digital communication is so much easier to trace. I would rather have a log of emails exchanged, or Facebook conversations than having handwritten notes.

      I myself am an educator, and work with multiple school districts. I have worked in districts where they have a policy of not friending students, and I happily comply. I had one district which wanted me to completely delete my FB and Twitter accounts, I declined that position. I have way too many friends that have moved or I don't talk to as much as I would like and Facebook is the only way to keep in touch with them. Other districts don't have such policies and I have accepted friend requests from students or made pages where all the students can get up-to-date info on changes in assignments and such. I must say that when I have the ability to communicate with students via Facebook, it makes life a whole lot easier. I also teach extra-cirricualr activities and if there is a change in schedule or place that we are practicing I can get the word out quickest on social media. I keep my FB profile clean, I don't have any pictures that would reflect upon me in an unprofessional manner. I also expect the same from any students who friend me. I have reported a few students who posted pictures of themselves drinking.

      I live in a small town, and many of my students go to the same church as I do. I see students as I am running my errands around town, many of them are employed part time at restaurants and other businesses that I frequent. Passing laws to prohibit students and teachers from communicating outside of school is just plain stupid.

    52. Re:Anybody else? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      No... the law doesn't make it illegal. The law simply says that schools must write school policies to govern what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable online interaction between students and teachers, and lists some examples which would become the framework on which the school policy would be drafted. Violating a school policy != violating the law. And the school policy could and hopefully would be written to include exemptions for common-sense scenarios such as teachers who are related to their students.

    53. Re:Anybody else? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't anyone think of the OTHER children; the ones who will be deprived of social contact? Kids need to be shown how to do things by adults. Kids need to feel like they belong. To deprive them of that is psychological abuse. On a case by case basis, it may not be as devastating as sexual abuse (or whatever they're playing the "Won't somebody think of the Children?" card on) but on a number of cases basis, it is a different story.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    54. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually i'm torn on this. Yes freedom of speech is great but as someone who was hit on by a not very attractive female teacher at 14 as well as watched a friend trade sex for grades with said teacher there is actually sometimes where you DO need to "think of the children" because one forgets how much power a teacher can wield over a student.

      So lets not lose sight of the fact WHY bans like this have been put it place. it isn't like these school boards have gone "Oh its Tuesday, we need to be douchebags" it is because time and time again we have seen both male and female teachers use their position to have sex with their underage students.

      Notice how your story did not involve Facebook or any other social networking site If it had, then there would be a permanent record of the event which could be subpoenaed and the pedophiles could have been brought to justice.

    55. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is next? A law banning teacher and students from being in the same room at the same time? Missouri!

    56. Re:Anybody else? by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      No.

      They are free to leave their job and then be friends.
      Can I as an employee of my company say whatever I want, bad mouth the product, reveal company secrets.... and still expect to keep my job?

      There is an agreement between me and my employer on things related to the company.

      The same is true in education. To prevent special treatment, sexual relationships... it is a reasonable policy to prevent this kind of relationship. Not that I agree with it; I just think it is reasonable. Just like I don't agree with many of my companies policies, but they are reasonable.

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. It just means the government won't arrest you for it.

      Now in this case, it is more complex as the government has a monopoly on education. It's not like each school is run separately, so if one school implemented this policy, a teacher could just quit and go to another school.

      But in the end, it's the same. This is not a violation of freedom of speech.

    57. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only seems to affect elementary and secondary education, so your college club and night school are not affected.

      Your cousin isn't a current public school teacher and unless teaching private music lessons falls under the authority of an elementary or secondary education system, she shouldn't be affected either.

      RTFBill

    58. Re:Anybody else? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      You and your crazy "dispassionate examination of the aggregate evidence". You'll probably be telling me that cars are more dangerous than airplanes next, despite the fact that Hundreds Can Die a Fiery Death in Just One Crash!

      You can tell that anecdotes are the soundest basis for public policy, because they feel so true...

    59. Re:Anybody else? by cfortin · · Score: 1

      "Actually i'm torn on this. Yes freedom of speech is great ..." ---- you can stop right there.

    60. Re:Anybody else? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Mine was a man. Your theory is garbage.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    61. Re:Anybody else? by blackair · · Score: 1

      what do they think they are preventing if student's and teachers are going to have an inappropriate relationship , not being facebook friends isn't going to prevent it. I think it smoke and mirror move to look like he actually doing the business of gov't. How about he sign a bill with a mandatory sentence for teachers having "relations" with students, smh.

    62. Re:Anybody else? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It's a new millennium. Don't judge.

    63. Re:Anybody else? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If anything, it would be more likely to out a teacher behaving inappropriately than encourage it. It seems silly to suggest that it is OK to send your kid off to hang out in person with someone, but that it is a problem if they leave semi-public messages to each other? It must be because it it is "On A Computer", it is eeevvviillll.

    64. Re:Anybody else? by internerdj · · Score: 1

      This isn't really about prevention. It is another chargable offense to tack on against someone having a sexual relationship against a minor. The same reason many states still have sodomy laws on the books, when was the last time you saw an article where anyone was charged with sodomy if it wasn't involving a minor?

    65. Re:Anybody else? by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      So a school could legally write a policy that says "All non-sexual online interactions between teachers and students are acceptable" and not be going against the law? Sounds like a great way for a socially progressive school to tell the law makers to go fuck themselves. Not that I believe any such schools exist, but it sounds like a possibility.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    66. Re:Anybody else? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?

      I think it's ludicrous that a state legislature would waste its time on something so unnecessarily specific. The bill apparently doesn't prohibit teachers from communicating with students outside of school in general, though it's stupid to limit one specific type of communication and not others. It's not as if the legislatures have statistics showing more cases of inappropriate relationships conducted on websites than over the phone. However, because it is so specific and involves minors, I think it's a stretch to bring the First Amendment into it.

    67. Re:Anybody else? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Seconded, there is a computer room in my apartment complex and there is always a long line of kids waiting to check their FB. My kids always have a few friends that want to use their computers to do the same. Not having a computer does not exclude you from having an online presence.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    68. Re:Anybody else? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Lady gaga doesn't entertain. She teases people by dressing like she's going to show everyone her snatch but she doesnt actually do it. She's a fraud, and she's rip pinging everyone off who pays for her crap.

      I think its her management that stops her from doing it, it's fairly clear from the way she acts that she's just throbbing to she you her coochie.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    69. Re:Anybody else? by morari · · Score: 1

      My concern is more for professionalism. Teachers really shouldn't casually interacting with their students outside of class.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    70. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it feels creepy immediately after I read it.

    71. Re:Anybody else? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      These kids are far more likely to have a cell with unlimited text and web than a computer or laptop; computers are so last decade.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    72. Re:Anybody else? by spazdor · · Score: 2

      Well, the queues should indicate that demand exceeds supply - meaning the 'expecting kids to procure their own internet access' objection stands. If some of your students have to stand 45 minutes in line to find out what their homework is and others can just read it off of their smartphone on the way home, I hope it's clear how this may influence their respective grades.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    73. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of innocent relationships vs the few that might turn ugly is such that this is an unnecessary law. I say give them the rope and let them hang themselves with a public display that can be printed out. Yes, I realize there can be private notes.....but they will slip up eventually and then the private notes are part of facebook possessions and record.

    74. Re:Anybody else? by spazdor · · Score: 1

      It's weird how easily people make the jump from "success is not in principle impossible" to "you're getting a fair shake."

      Not being excluded from having an online presence is nice, but not being excluded doesn't mean you necessarily get the same advantages enjoyed by people who don't have to stand in line, observe a 30 minute time limit, or mooch a friend's (assuming you have one.) Until that inequality equalizes a little, I think it's unfair to hang a kid's academic opportunities on their internet presence.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    75. Re:Anybody else? by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      So a school could legally write a policy that says "All non-sexual online interactions between teachers and students are acceptable" and not be going against the law? Sounds like a great way for a socially progressive school to tell the law makers to go fuck themselves. Not that I believe any such schools exist, but it sounds like a possibility.

      It would not be possible because the law specifies the things which must be included in the district policy, such as prohibiting exclusive access with students. A school policy which does not include that would be in violation of the law. Which means the SCHOOL would be in violation of the law, but not the teacher.

      If the school did put such a policy into place, prohibiting the access and the teacher violated the policy, then the teacher would be terminated, but wouldn't go to jail. Make sense?

    76. Re:Anybody else? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      I worked with a teacher who ended up having an inappropriate relationship with a student. None of the communication between the two happened on facebook or email, or even phone calls. It was all done with hand written notes. So lets ban pencils and paper from schools. Digital communication is so much easier to trace. I would rather have a log of emails exchanged, or Facebook conversations than having handwritten notes.

      I myself am an teacher, and work with multiple school districts. I have worked in districts where they have a policy of not friending students, and I happily comply. I had one district which wanted me to completely delete my FB and Twitter accounts, I declined that position. I have way too many friends that have moved or I don't talk to as much as I would like and Facebook is the only way to keep in touch with them. Other districts don't have such policies and I have accepted friend requests from students or made pages where all the students can get up-to-date info on changes in assignments and such. I must say that when I have the ability to communicate with students via Facebook, it makes life a whole lot easier. I also teach extra-cirricualr activities and if there is a change in schedule or place that we are practicing I can get the word out quickest on social media. I keep my FB profile clean, I don't have any pictures that would reflect upon me in an unprofessional manner. I also expect the same from any students who friend me. I have reported a few students who posted pictures of themselves drinking.

      I live in a small town, and many of my students go to the same church as I do. I see students as I am running my errands around town, many of them are employed part time at restaurants and other businesses that I frequent. Passing laws to prohibit students and teachers from communicating outside of school is just plain stupid.

      please let us decide not to make up redundant && annoying new words.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    77. Re:Anybody else? by IRodent · · Score: 1

      "Any law that helps prevent teachers sleeping with children is alright with me." Does that mean that if there was a law that prevented teachers sleeping with children by saying that teachers must not contact their students in any way, you would be alright with it? "They don't have to worry about some brat reporting to their parents and principal that mr anderson likes getting high." Is it me, or does the law not say anything about that?

    78. Re:Anybody else? by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with your point. I think internet presence != success, but it is certainly helpful and when you have ubiquitous knowledge at your fingertips by being able to go google something it beats the hell out of having to stand in line for an hour to use a computer for 30 minutes.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    79. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you check your calendar? Mondays are 'douchebag days. Tuesdays are strip search days.

    80. Re:Anybody else? by Intropy · · Score: 1

      Yes other people feel that way, for example the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama. This is a pretty cut-and-dried example of the freedom of association. While not enumerated in the US Constitution, it is a human right, and seems pretty clearly to be the kind of think one would hope to cover with the 9th amendment. Further, I'd argue that this is a modern technological equivalent of assembly protected by the first amendment.

    81. Re:Anybody else? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "All non-sexual online interactions between teachers and students are acceptable"

      So if they interact online, the interaction must involve some kind of cyber-sex?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    82. Re:Anybody else? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Aargh, never mind. Misread and I can't delete my post. Bah.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    83. Re:Anybody else? by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      I was simply trying to illustrate a 'minimalist' policy, like 'do nothing illegal, otherwise go for it' rather than "All non-sexual online interactions between teachers and students are acceptable" being the exact policy. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

      And that bit about exclusive access is bullshit. So if a teacher talks to a student online, that communication must be made available to parents, administrators, et all? How is that any different than talking to a student after class? The only two people with access to that conversation would be the student and teacher unless those two decide to tell someone else, exactly the same as say, a private message on facebook. I would think the physical access component of talking after class (regardless of it being in school or not) bears more potential for a dangerous situation than simply sending a few words to a student's inbox. Or am I misunderstanding 'Exclusive Access' as it is being used here?

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    84. Re:Anybody else? by Xacid · · Score: 1

      I can't remember where I've heard this argument but "it's like your child's teacher saying they always wear a condom while teaching- better safe than sorry".

      The legislation doesn't exactly address the real issue. Existing laws already do.

    85. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly does this ban prevent students/teachers from having sex?

    86. Re:Anybody else? by Fned · · Score: 1

      Worse; if you take that declaration of principle literally, imhassi would be "alright" with a law requiring that children be euthanized prior to school age.

    87. Re:Anybody else? by edumacator · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. I should have been more specific. 95% of the students at my school have access.

      I will take a moment to say though, that we need to make sure that kids who don't have access at home still find a way to work with technology, or else we just increase the digital divide. One of the ways to do this is to increase the number of computers in the schools that students can use on a regular basis. I am from an affluent school. We have a lot of computers, but they are covered up all day.

      You are correct in pointing out that access is not universal, and we should do what we can to remedy that issue.

    88. Re:Anybody else? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      So, you've reported the teacher by now, right?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    89. Re:Anybody else? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Many teachers use Facebook as a means of communicating with clubs, teams, and even classes. Since ninety-five percent of the students (a guesstimate) are on FB, it's an easy form of communication.

      And do you feel it is appropriate that that other 5% should be required to create Facebook accounts just so they can get assignments or turn in homework? Many people choose not to have Facebook accounts for privacy reasons. Should students be denied that choice?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    90. Re:Anybody else? by edumacator · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not. Full stop.

    91. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They (and you) are going about it completely in the wrong way. The way to stop it is through education, not random bans on different forms of communication. In stead of banning being friends, the students should have more education on sex and how to report bad adult behavior. Hiding the students from info that these problems exists makes them unable to handle the situation when it occurs to them and thus also increases the likely hood that the adult will use this to their advantages.

    92. Re:Anybody else? by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      And that bit about exclusive access is bullshit. So if a teacher talks to a student online, that communication must be made available to parents, administrators, et all? How is that any different than talking to a student after class? The only two people with access to that conversation would be the student and teacher unless those two decide to tell someone else, exactly the same as say, a private message on facebook. I would think the physical access component of talking after class (regardless of it being in school or not) bears more potential for a dangerous situation than simply sending a few words to a student's inbox. Or am I misunderstanding 'Exclusive Access' as it is being used here?

      See, now you're using common sense and logic. You cannot expect the same of those who make the laws. You are exactly right, of course. But common sense and an understanding of technology are, unfortunately, not a requirement to make laws regarding technology.

    93. Re:Anybody else? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      By the same token, basically nobody should be allowed to friend anyone on facebook, as TIME AND TIME AGAIN people keep having sex with people under their sphere of influence .. ( bosses, politicians, priests , drill sergeants, sysadmins .. no wait .. )

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    94. Re:Anybody else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this law will prevent any abuse of power (sexual or otherwise), by a teacher over a student -- bravo! All laws around forbidding communication are pointless because where there is a will, there is a way.

    95. Re:Anybody else? by sjames · · Score: 1

      In those cases, it sounds like facebook friending would have been OK, it was physical contact and classroom interactions that needed to be banned. I fail to see what banning milk and pepsi, facebook, or any other random thing in school would have done for the situation. I presume boffing a student was already banned and that apparently didn't help.

    96. Re:Anybody else? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      My concern is more for professionalism. Teachers really shouldn't casually interacting with their students outside of class.

      The problem is... they all have lives. I had a math teacher who led a math club, and it wasn't restricted to a single high school. A Psychology prof. also worked at the public library. The Econ. prof. also worked as an accountant for a few ONGs. Keep adding teachers and, if your city is small enough, it's inevitable you'll cross them. Professionalism doesn't mean pretending you don't exist; it means failing you if you don't study hard enough (as it was my case). Instead of ostracizing you, a cunning professor would leverage those few interactions: essentially, manipulate you into studying, passing their tests with a high grade looks more like a favor you do for them.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    97. Re:Anybody else? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      I have three words for you: Anger Management Class

      Heh, I was going for Consume Clonazepam Quickly.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    98. Re:Anybody else? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      I myself am an teacher, and work with multiple school districts.

      please let us decide not to make up redundant && annoying new words.

      Although Firefox's spell-checker already gave its OK, search "define: educator" in Google if you are still unconvinced. Educator is a common word in Pedagogy. The gerund form of educate (namely, the students) is also used, if not in English, at least in Portuguese and Spanish. Finally, if you correct "educator", you have to change the an into a, it's only fair.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    99. Re:Anybody else? by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      My best friend is a Spanish and Lit. teacher. She doesn't have Facebook, but uses instead a social network for students and teachers (I forgot the exact name though, I'll ask her next time I see her and leave it over here). That way, both worlds, the academic and the real, are physically segregated. Can't tell if it's better than FB or platforms like Moodle, only that she was happy to use it to communicate more effectively with her students. Anything 2.0 beats student apathy, I guess...

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    100. Re:Anybody else? by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I also expect the same from any students who friend me. I have reported a few students who posted pictures of themselves drinking.

      Really?? Isn't that a bit weird? Do you actually tell them in class; "I look through your photos and if I find you drinking, then I will report it"?

      I think it's more appropriate to say that you betrayed them, rather than you reported them.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    101. Re:Anybody else? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It's no different than the government telling you to buy health insurance. Oh, wait...

    102. Re:Anybody else? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That would make a funny day in court though - "But she's only an integer in a database, Your Honor"

    103. Re:Anybody else? by CtownNighrider · · Score: 1

      Right because they aren't people too? I'm entering my senior year of high school and there are definitely teachers I would go on a ski trip with or something, some teachers are cool.

    104. Re:Anybody else? by jelle · · Score: 1

      "there would still be some murmurings about whether or not that teachers having a direct, unfiltered, (and most of all) unmonitored access to their child outside of class is a good or bad thing."

      Good point, but who says that the social networks can't make something where the parents of a child, as known to the network, can choose to want to review and filter that communication, like moderators, as it is on done certain forums?

      I bet a lot of parents would love to have the option to 'approve/disapprove' certail levels of contact to their children from 'outsiders'. Nana can talk directly, others get moderated by mom, dad, or nana ;-), and all postings with links to websites get moderated too...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  2. What State? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Editor, you really need to make it clear which state you're talking about. I can't go the whole blurb without knowing where until the last sentence.

  3. Question comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can we be CowboyNeals friend?

    1. Re:Question comes to mind by alexhs · · Score: 3, Informative
      1. Leave anonymity
      2. Go to ~CowboyNeal page
      3. Click on the white dot in the top right box. Sends you on alter relationship
      4. Click "friend"
      5. Click "Yup, I'm positive"
      6. ...
      7. Profit !

      You're welcome.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Question comes to mind by Dachannien · · Score: 0

      can we be CowboyNeals friend?

      More importantly, should we be CowboyNeal's friend?

  4. Something similar by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    I would welcome a law that would forbid anyone from entering my e-mail address (and any other personal data) on a web site without my permission.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or worse, those websites that find your e-mail in spam lists or something, then use it to "sign you up" without your permission.

      "You like internet don't ya son, well come on down to our random internet websights of discussion"

    2. Re:Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does not seem meaningful to me. Contact information isn't generally private. People getting in touch with you shouldn't be an illegal act, unless they (in some way) do it excessively so.

      You should get rid of advertising to email and homes as a legal business instead. Ads only in "public" places, and only "dumb" ads.

    3. Re:Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would welcome a law that would forbid anyone from entering my e-mail address (and any other personal data) on a web site without my permission.

      Photos too. I don't object to people taking pictures at private gatherings, posting them online is another thing entirely. I say this as someone who recently fought off accusations of guilt by association when a picture of me talking to a stranger (puportedly a nasty individual) at a party was posted online. Of course there's nothing to be done about pictures taken in public.

      As for preventing student and teachers communicating via unofficial channels -- it's exactly that. It's hardly as if facebook hearalded inappropriate extra curricula relationships and the like. Ultimately this will be ineffective, a better solution would be for institutions to proactively and officially facilitate groups under departmental control.

    4. Re:Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contact information isn't generally private.

      Private contact info for public figures is -- unless they happen to enjoy receiving endless inane abuse, death threats and pictures of ejaculating cocks!

    5. Re:Something similar by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I would just want a law that says if they do that I can charge them in advance whatever I want for the privilege.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, but phone number in my case. This guy keeps putting his name, his sisters name, and his grandmother's name into various crap sites. He then puts my number for the collectors to call :(

  5. Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "State Governor Jay Nixon recently signed Senate Bill 54, making it illegal for students and teachers to be friends online as of later this month. Now, a Missouri teachers group is fighting the state's new law that prohibits them from being Facebook friends with their students by filing a lawsuit. From the article: 'The Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) filed a lawsuit on Friday, challenging a new law. MSTA is specifically asking the Circuit Court of Cole County to determine the constitutionality of the law’s social media portion.'"

    You should have been able to figure it out no more than 7 words into the second sentence, so hush down.

  6. It must be pretty tough by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It must be pretty tough if your teacher is your dad, uncle, or even older sibling. Or if you belong to some sports club or similar and everyone else is a friend.

    Also what's the proposed legal situation if a student and/or the teacher uses a psedonym and is unaware that their friend is a teacher/pupil?

    1. Re:It must be pretty tough by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tough? Hell, that law is currently a godsend for kids of teachers. "Sorry, mom, I can't have you in my facebook friends, it's the law".

      I bet a lot of kids would kill for that opportunity!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:It must be pretty tough by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It must be pretty tough if your teacher is your dad, uncle, or even older sibling.

      I'm pretty sure most schools have rules prohibiting students from being taught by their own relatives for most core classes to avoid favortism. When I was in school, kids of teachers were always in someone else's class for the grade their parent taught.

    3. Re:It must be pretty tough by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      I knew the kid of one of the math teachers who was in his mother's classes as normally scheduled for his track. When his track went over to a different teacher's classes, so did he. In other words, the school treated him no differently than his peers.

      That said, it was a very small school, having a student body of maybe 100 students from grades 9-12. As such, they might not have had the resources to perform this particular segregation. As I recall, there was only ever one teacher teaching any given class. For example (IIRC -- this was . . . 22-25 years ago), this teacher taught Math I and II and all of the Math Fundamentals classes; there was another math teacher who taught all of the more advanced classes.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    4. Re:It must be pretty tough by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Certainly when I was at school we had Maths teacher who was head of department and taught all A-level students including her son. Nobody could have accused her of favouritism she worked him harder than the rest of us!

    5. Re:It must be pretty tough by vlm · · Score: 1

      It must be pretty tough if your teacher is your dad, uncle, or even older sibling.

      I'm pretty sure most schools have rules prohibiting students from being taught by their own relatives for most core classes to avoid favortism. When I was in school, kids of teachers were always in someone else's class for the grade their parent taught.

      Not where I lived, not beyond grade school. You're The chemistry teacher's daughter, you're in her class, that's just how it is. Same thing happened to The history teacher's daughter. I suppose if we had five chemistry teachers it would have been different than having only one. Everyone acted professionally and it all turned out well, the only noteworthy exception is I did not flirt with either attractive young lady as it would have been super awkward to do that in front of her parent.

      Speaking of awkward, I meet the substitute teacher for my economics class and it turns out to be a former girlfriend's mom... thankfully it was her daughter that broke up with me, it wasn't overly dramatic (at least for teenagers), and her mom / the sub teacher actually liked me (in a mother in lawful way, not MILF/naughty teacher way, although that would have certainly made my teenage years much more exciting and fun).

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:It must be pretty tough by digitig · · Score: 1

      I didn't see anything that said this only related to teachers of core classes.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    7. Re:It must be pretty tough by pokerdad · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most schools have rules prohibiting students from being taught by their own relatives for most core classes to avoid favortism. When I was in school, kids of teachers were always in someone else's class for the grade their parent taught.

      When I was in grade 7 my class was taught English by my mother and math by the father of one of my classmates.

    8. Re:It must be pretty tough by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Same situation here, but in honors English.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    9. Re:It must be pretty tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proposed legal situation is to outlaw pseudonyms online. Haven't you seen this show before?

    10. Re:It must be pretty tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the school. I had many friends in school in a rural town setting (think town of 5000 or less) where parents taught their kids, or coached their kids. My legal guardian was my HS music teacher, and I lived with her for three years. There were some accusations of favoritism in my case, but the music scholarships I received starting my Junior year quelled most of that.

    11. Re:It must be pretty tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most schools don't have a rule like this. My friend teaches her younger brother, moms teach their sons, it is quite common. A rule like this would prevent students from taking honors or certain other courses, so it is not forbidden for teachers to instruct their relatives.

    12. Re:It must be pretty tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much an option in the country. I'm from a small town where, literally, all of grades K through 12 were all in the same school.

      As well, I was in a grade with the largest graduating class in the town's history... 34 people!

      In such a location, it's downright COMMON for students, or hell, the principal, to be a parent/uncle/something of a student. There was always ONE teacher per subject. If they called in sick, a temp would come in, but that's about it. It's that teacher, at that time. That is when this subject is, and there's no other options.

      Hell, with laws like this one, families would have to de-friend their parents AND siblings sometimes. And what of sports teams, swim class, and things like that, how's that work? And what if, say, with piano lessons, the teacher is younger than the student?

      tldr: stupid law is stupid.

    13. Re:It must be pretty tough by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Tough? Hell, that law is currently a godsend for kids of teachers. "Sorry, mom, I can't have you in my facebook friends, it's the law".

      I bet a lot of kids would kill for that opportunity!

      Actually, I think the solution most kids use is to have two Facebook accounts with their name spelled slightly differently. One for friends, and one for family and family friends. Obviously, kids won't bother to mention the existence of the "friends" account to their parents.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    14. Re:It must be pretty tough by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Sounds like my high school. The teacher that teaches the lower math classes doesn't even have a basic grasp of the advanced math. The advanced teacher was there out of necessity as the only one that understood the material

  7. this is uber lameness by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as if being friends in real life was an impossibility, forget facebook the human race survived for millions of years before the internet came along so you can survive and communicate with your friends without facebook too, give it a try, exchange phone numbers, meet for coffee, play a game of pingpong or pool, or a board-game like chess or checkers or dominoes...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:this is uber lameness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I DENY ANY AND ALL ADVANCEMENTS IN COMMUNICATION.

      There are no new methods or mediums, there is only what I perceive as traditional.

    2. Re:this is uber lameness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      exchange phone numbers, meet for coffee, play a game of pingpong or pool, or a board-game like chess or checkers or dominoes.

      All of those require technology.

    3. Re:this is uber lameness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As noted in the other reply, your compliant works for any form of technology. Why are you stopping at Facebook?

      I think there is a legitimate complaint, that people perhaps tend to alter their social patterns entirely, instead of simply assisting them like a phone would. The jury is still out on what kind of effects this will have. However, there are a myriad of beneficial uses for social networking that I am still glad it is around.

    4. Re:this is uber lameness by hodet · · Score: 1

      Facebook will probably be seen as the "traditional" before you know it. That's when all the kids will bail for something else and the only people left on fb will be oldies like me. Then we will probably follow our kids to wherever the new and cool place to gather is.

    5. Re:this is uber lameness by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      as if being friends in real life was an impossibility, forget facebook the human race survived for millions of years before the internet came along so you can survive and communicate with your friends without facebook too

      Yes, you are being uber lame. Why edit stuff on Github when I just drive to the author's house, take a look at what he's working on, and suggest changes in person?

      In the real world, my wife texted me to ask me to pick something up at the store on my way home. In what way is that morally inferior to a phone call?

      And finally, why are you posting to a bulletin on the Internet instead of finding a topical corkboard in your local college student union and conducting a lively debate on it there?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:this is uber lameness by fedos · · Score: 1

      Forget phone calls and coffee, the human race survived for millions [sic] of years before either of them came along so you can survive and communicate with your friends withouth them too, give it a try, walk 10 miles to ask your friend if he wants to come to your party on Saturday, go watch 2 people try to kill each other in an arena, and if you're interested in a girl just bonk her over the head with a stick and have your way with her.

      Why should human civilization ever make any progress?

    7. Re:this is uber lameness by fedos · · Score: 1

      Not if you use Neil Postman's distinction for the difference between tools ("good") and technology ("bad"). This difference boils down to being a dividing line in 1954.

  8. OK its even worse by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative
    The bill says:

    Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child’s legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

    For a teacher who works in a small town for a few decades that will be a large number of people they can never friend on facebook. It could even prevent someone friending their husband or wife. A teacher/pupil can have an age difference of four years, which a few years after they younger one graduates will seem an insignificant difference.

    1. Re:OK its even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this only apply as long as the student is a child? Once the person is an adult they are free to do what they want.

    2. Re:OK its even worse by Will_TA · · Score: 1

      It should be a condition of employment, that unless there is a relationship already between teacher and student, then the teacher should not knowingly accept a student as a friend on social media. There isn't need for any law. Post school relationships with students are a difficult one, especially romantic ones that may well have started whilst the student was still a student.

    3. Re:OK its even worse by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      Having taught for over ten years, I have worked with a couple of my previous students (after they graduated from college) and kept in touch with others over the years.

      My rule of thumb is that I don't have anything beyond a casual conversation with students until they have been out of school for 3 or 4 years because information might trickle its way back if they have only been out for a year or two but even that would now be criminal in Missouri.

        I suppose teachers would have to forget online games with ex-students as well. I did occasionally have fun letting the freshman slaughter me at CoD or whatever their favorite FPS at the time is.

    4. Re:OK its even worse by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What if a former student becomes teacher at the same school? Is then the school no longer allowed to have a teachers-only web site for their administration?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:OK its even worse by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Doesn't this only apply as long as the student is a child? Once the person is an adult they are free to do what they want.

      There is no such limitation on the bill. I think it would be much easier to show that preventing two adults from being social networking friends was an unnecessary infringement on freedom of speech (or assembly), but as the bill is worded it can continue until the teacher is 104 and the ex pupil 100.

    6. Re:OK its even worse by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Obviously "who is still minor" is omitted from "former student" categorization.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:OK its even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one am friends with a teacher from college. I visit him and his family every year and we are friends on facebook. Of course, I don't live anywhere near the US :P

    8. Re:OK its even worse by vlm · · Score: 2

      What if a former student becomes teacher at the same school? Is then the school no longer allowed to have a teachers-only web site for their administration?

      Its even weirder, because "work related websites" must be made available for parents.

      This would seem to include online performance evaluation websites for the teachers and admins. I guess their annual review must now be made public?

      Where I work, we have boring HR training classes, online with video, quizzes, etc. Apparently if a school district offers mandatory online "fundamentals of diversity" class at $100 per viewer or whatever ripoff cost, the district MUST pay for parents if they want to take the class.

      Also there are HIPAA violations galore... So my public school teacher sister in law takes an online training class on teaching kids with "fill in the blank mental health issue", that information must be provided to all parents, thus all the parents know at least one kids mental health diagnosis. Or medical diagnosis, ranging from who cares ("bee sting allergies") to the privacy types go freaking bonkers ("pediatric aids")

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    9. Re:OK its even worse by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the childâ(TM)s legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

      For a teacher who works in a small town for a few decades that will be a large number of people they can never friend on facebook. It could even prevent someone friending their husband or wife. A teacher/pupil can have an age difference of four years, which a few years after they younger one graduates will seem an insignificant difference.

      Which part of "exclusive" did you have a hard time with?

      Or was it the "legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian" that threw you?

      Note that in the case of an adult, they are their own "legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian", unless they're in jail or prison....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:OK its even worse by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Znet conveniently cut out the very next sentence where is says "former student" only applies to those still under 18, meaning you can't friend the 13 yr old that leaves middle school to go to high school. Can't trust reporters, they only believe in sensationalism, you have to read the bill yourself.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    11. Re:OK its even worse by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Its even weirder, because "work related websites" must be made available for parents."

      I have the complete website in my shared folder.
      As we know that counts as 'making available'.

    12. Re:OK its even worse by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Which part of "exclusive" did you have a hard time with?

      None. Facebook, and as far as I know all Social media sites allow messages to be sent between individuals, so they are sites which "...allows exclusive access with a current or former student". Didn't you get that from the article title?

    13. Re:OK its even worse by badlikeacobra · · Score: 1

      Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

      All the news stories about this bill seem to leave out that last sentence.

    14. Re:OK its even worse by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      A high school senior can still be a minor.

    15. Re:OK its even worse by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      There most certainly is. Here is the immediately following sentence, which was for some reason omitted in the original quotation:

      SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication ... Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

      I suggest people go and read the bill itself.

    16. Re:OK its even worse by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      Sigh, no. The article says that. And in fairness the bill does also say that. However, the bill goes on to say:

      Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

      Without caring too much to parse this out, it's still pretty clear from the last half of that sentence that it's not a lifetime problem. Ten, 15 years have passed? Student is now over 18, presto, no problem.

      (I also note it says "the school at which the teacher IS employed", which I take to mean if you've moved on to another school then students from prior schools are okay, but I could be taking that out of context.)

    17. Re:OK its even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sentence right after the one quoted on zdnet states that "Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated."

      So "never" is inaccurate. Having said that, I'm not sure why people are only thinking Facebook could get teachers in trouble since anyone can send someone else a private email message from a website. Having said that, what the heck does it mean for someone to "have a nonwork-related website" anyway? I don't have any websites, but I am a member of Facebook. "Having a website" just doesn't make sense, unless it means you created and run the website yourself imho.

    18. Re:OK its even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Obviously .... is omitted" should never happen in laws. Even if it is completely brain-dead, it WILL be enforced as written, sanity be damned.

    19. Re:OK its even worse by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.

      The key word which most people miss is "exclusive". So this law would prohibit having a student as your ONLY Facebook friend, but as long as you have at least one other friend, you should be okay. Also, as others have noted, the next sentence in the law says that former students have to be under 18 years of age for the law to apply at all.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  9. Was this not the norm? by qxcv · · Score: 2

    In Australia, teachers aren't allowed (and this is a rule rather than a law) to contact you electronically using any means other than your school-supplied mailbox. From a teacher's point of view it works out quite well, because they can often be harassed by students (anonymously, of course) and sometimes visa-versa. I do admit that it would be hard for relatives who are teachers/students in the same state, but I think that is a bit of a corner case and unlikely to be pursued by the government. This bill seems to be simply to protect one party in the case online relationships between students and teachers become abusive/a threat to privacy.

    --
    "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    1. Re:Was this not the norm? by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      This bill seems to be simply to protect one party in the case online relationships between students and teachers become abusive/a threat to privacy

      Why not have a law that prevents teachers and students from meeting face-to-face outside school hours except for designated school events?

      Oh right because that would be a clear violation of peoples right to freedom of assembly, it is just politicians sometimes forget peoples rights exist online.

      This law is about pedo witch hunting. Unfortunately though, sexually abusive teachers existed long before the internet, and using "shotgun" laws like this isn't going to stop them.

      P.S. Hell, here in Australia the NSW government tried to remove the right to freedom of assembly from "outlaw" motorcycle club members. Thankfully we have courts to put the politicians back in their place.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    2. Re:Was this not the norm? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      And the teachers aren't suing?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Was this not the norm? by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      I suspect they ignore it.

      I have friends who are teachers in the private sector and either they don't have the same ruling as the public schools or he doesn't care (his students have a fan page for him on Facebook).

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    4. Re:Was this not the norm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What nonsense! I was a year 12 student 2 years ago and I had many of my teachers on facebook... I even submitted assignments on it! Mind you, I also had their mobile numbers, and even my own keys to classrooms (yes, a suburban public school). One of my teachers lived locally, and I was on several occasions invited over for dinner and to 'jam'. There was even a student-teacher relationship, which was accepted and even encouraged by the students providing no favour was given in terms of marks.

      Legislation rarely has any real impact on reality in cases like this where it hinders everyday interaction. Unfortunately the teacher as mentioned above was removed and branded because of such legislation, and as a result the entire yeargroup skipped class for weeks in protest.

      It's becoming more and more clear that the new generation do not hold to the values and ideals of their parents, and unless the law makes room for them, the youths are not going to be satisfied; as can be seen with the recent world wide protests and riots.

    5. Re:Was this not the norm? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      And the teachers aren't suing?

      Australia has adopted a lot of things from US culture, thankfully litigiousness is not one of them.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Was this not the norm? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      In Australia, teachers aren't allowed (and this is a rule rather than a law) to contact you electronically using any means other than your school-supplied mailbox. From a teacher's point of view it works out quite well, because they can often be harassed by students (anonymously, of course) and sometimes visa-versa. I do admit that it would be hard for relatives who are teachers/students in the same state, but I think that is a bit of a corner case and unlikely to be pursued by the government. This bill seems to be simply to protect one party in the case online relationships between students and teachers become abusive/a threat to privacy.

      Perhaps a norm or school rule about such things would be reasonable depending on the local situation, but a state government should never be legislating something so specific. In Australia, can a teacher never call a student or speak to her face to face outside of school? When I was growing up, I often interacted with teachers outside of school. If people are so afraid of inappropriate relationships that the majority healthy ones between teachers and students are disallowed, that's a sad commentary on society indeed.

  10. Open and shut case by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

    I can't begin to imagine a less defensible violation of the first amendment. Here we have a law which directly prohibits the free association of citizens for no justifiable reason. The prohibition does nothing to prevent inappropriate contact between students and teachers (nullifying any possible compelling reason to uphold this unconstitutional garbage) while directly attacking a right so critical to basic human liberty that the founding fathers chose to spell it out in plain English for all the world to see in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment was crafted specifically to ensure that exactly this kind of thing would never happen in this country.

    Not even in the 9th Circus would this kind of absurdity pass the smell test. Assuming this makes it to the SCOTUS, the lawyer defending it is going to find the justices incredulously shaking their heads at his every word.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:Open and shut case by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I obviously don't agree with this stupid new law, but I find the picking and choosing of when it's a violation of rights to be rather hypocritical.

      I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions. Yet, it's suddenly a constitutional free speech issue when it comes to helping put state sanctioned child molesters in touch with the students they spend their days preying on.

    2. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooo they won't....

      Teachers and students arn't friends, it isn't a friendship. They are in a relationship, yes, but they are not "friends".

      What would prevent a teacher from say, only friending specific students? His/Her favorities... etc.. To many problems.

    3. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Free association? What's free about a teacher being able to tell a student to add the teacher to their Facebook friends, so the teacher can see every stupid thing the students do in their spare time, and extend "violation of school policy" to their spare time? Heck, many students don't even think that far, until it's too late, and they're in the principals office because of a picture that no teacher should have seen in the first place.

      To me, the students freedom counts higher than the teachers "freedom" to monitor the students' spare time.

    4. Re:Open and shut case by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now who's picking and choosing?

      Out of 7,200,000 teachers (US Census 2008), you come up with a list of a couple hundred bad people and declare all of them "state sanctioned child molesters" who "spend their days preying on" their students?

      The only possible compelling interest the state could claim would be protecting children from the likes of people on the list you linked, yet it's completely impossible to show how this law accomplishes that. If the law is an utter failure at preventing undesirable contact between teachers and students (and it is), then it loses the one compelling reason to even consider allowing its complete and utter disregard for the first amendment. Teachers aren't limited to Facebook and MySpace to meet and seduce their students. Believe it or not, they actually sit just a few feet apart for much of the year and nearly all of them have absolutely no interest in molesting anyone.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    5. Re:Open and shut case by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      Who is advocating a teacher being able to force students to add them as friends on any social media site? Nobody.

      Your argument is a strawman.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    6. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a friend for years because we've had the same hobby. Once I found out that he taught my former classmate for a while. What a surprise! What if he taught me? Would we stop being friends?

      One of my close friends teaches me at the university.

      Finally, I spent eight years with 30 classmates and 20 teachers in high school, why the hell do you think the relationship was nothing more than formal teacher-student stuff? I still go with some teachers to have a beer. And yeah, we had a small website, a kind of a social network for 50 people, for communication with teachers, they used it for uploading papers and homework assignments.

    7. Re:Open and shut case by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.

      I'm sure that not everyone agrees with that, either (and how is that speech?).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    8. Re:Open and shut case by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Teachers and students arn't friends, it isn't a friendship.

      I don't see why not. If you can't be friends will people you like (even if the feeling is mutual), then I guess friendship simply doesn't exist.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    9. Re:Open and shut case by delinear · · Score: 1

      What's to stop them doing this already? Are you saying you've never encountered a teacher who had students they favoured or students they plain disliked? The only difference here is that it's a bit more transparent so it's less likely to be abused than in the classroom environment. I can understand if a teacher is already abusing the relationship then it's not in their interests, but I have no problem with that kind of behaviour being exposed, whereas at the moment the system seems set up to hide it and refuse to acknowledge it happens (much like bullying in schools - the schools would rather pretend it didn't exist than spend the time and resources and risk the social stigma necessary to fight it).

    10. Re:Open and shut case by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      i am kind of reminded of a friend of mine who taught special needs children, who he also took for swimming lessons. He made a point of making sure his hands were visible and that he was never alone with any of the children. As you can imagine this was to protect him from the children rather than the other way around.

      Now it seems to me that any interaction between a teacher and student on facebook is relatively public and observable. It is certainly more public than many other places where students and teachers might interact.

      I can see there are good points and bad points to social networking between students and teachers, the lack of filtering on facebook means too much might be shared, on the other hand google+ might allow a more filtered view of peoples lives and relationships. Having a forum for particular area's is useful. First class is a forum based system which allows students and teachers at the open university interact and is useful without giving too much away.

      I think personally I'd be an idiot if i was to let members of my work/school life have access to my facebook account. Google + some circles would be ok to share, while leaving my personal life personal.

    11. Re:Open and shut case by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      Traumatic for one of those precious flowers to have to deal with the real world eventually?

    12. Re:Open and shut case by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Not a violation because we are talking about adults talking to children. No, we do not have the right to talk to children that are not our own children.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have examples of all my points.

      The problem is, most students aren't going to say no, either because they know they are supposed to do as they are told by teachers, or because they don't know the consequences of having your teacher in your friends list.

      So how do we prevent this? Trying to stop the problem at the student side requires making it clear to students that saying "no way" to a teacher is fine. I'm sure that'll work out great when it gets to homework. And even if you do, I can guarantee you that some schools / teachers will try to dig up something else to punish the student for, so that it doesn't look like they are trying to force the students into this. But still, for most of the students, this won't be necessary, because they are going to do as they are told.

      Stopping it at the teacher side, however, can be done quite effectively with a law like this. You get around the whole problem of whether or not the students wanted to be friends with their teacher, and whether or not someone was punished for saying no.

    14. Re:Open and shut case by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >I'm sure these same schools also have all sorts of dress codes that prevent students from exercising their constitutional right to free speech while at school or attending school functions.

      And those of us who sincerely believe in free speech find that abominable. Here in South Africa about two years ago, an Indian girl was told by the teachers of her (largely Christian) school that she was not allowed to wear multiple sets of earings.
      She stated that the extra earings had religious signifance to her as a Hindu and after an investigation the school declared that since their wearing is not MANDATORY in Hinduism (meaningful but not required behavior) prohibiting her from wearing them during school hours due to a rule about girls not having any piercings except one-per-ear was perfectly fine.
      She took them to the constitutional court - and won. The court found that voluntary actions in religions are MORE meaningful than those compelled by the religion and thus a school rule that prevents the excercise of such actions is a GREATER infringement on freedom of religion and not only ordered the school to change the rule, but made it mandatory for ALL public schools to abholish all rules about earrings. It's also worth noting that the South African constitution considers freedom of religion to be a specific part of freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech rule covers religious expression (though religion gets additional extra protection which not all other speech gets).

      For context: it's worth noting that a few years before this another case was brought by a young Rastafarian after the school insisted he cut his hair to comply with hairstyle rules - this of course going directly against his religion which forbids males from cutting their hair. At the time - the court ruled that the school was in the wrong and made it illegal for any public schools in South Africa to have hair rules that could interfere with religious expression.

      The bible-thumping parents of South Africa and their schools did what they always do - in the name of discipline they acted without discipline. In the name of authority they did not adhere to the authority over themselves. They didn't abholish rules on hairstyles. They merely made an exception allowing the hair rules to be over-looked in the case where a child's religion requires it (with a letter to that effect from their parents - which in itself is a gross violation of freedom as children SHOULD have the right to change religion without their parent's permission, permission that would often be impossible to obtain and if you don't grant them that freedom then freedom of religion effectively stops existing altogether.)
      Parents can, and should have the right to, teach their religion to their children - but if those children later choose a different path they should not require permission (for starters all you biblethumpers: do you want to live in a world where if you preach the gospel to a muslim classmate he would need his orthodox dad's permission to before he could consider believing you ?)

      It was - basically - a dodge and the later hearing about earrings affirmed the position of the constitutional court here: that while there may be some restriction on constitutional freedoms in a school setting these restrictions MUST be kept to the bare minimum needed and if they cannot be adequately justified they cannot exist. That children have a right to believe, dress and decorate themselves as they choose to and that the school does NOT have the right to enforce a tyranny of the majority (even if it's just the majority of parents and wealthy citizens in the neighbourhood) on these matters.

      School (and those parents and wealthy citizens) continue to attempt to find ways around this out of a leftover belief that the old appartheid brainwashing system was somehow noble and that it is bad for children to be allowed to have opinions and express them - longing for a time when the very PURPOSE of schools was deemed to be to ensure all who passed through them would

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:Open and shut case by Jaysyn · · Score: 1
      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    16. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i live in a small town - i find that when adults are "friends" with students we are standing back and monitoring some of their activities. when a student is obviously using drugs or alcohol (their posts get pretty crazy), we can alert others or be alert ourselves to help him or her. it also helps adult to spot serious depressions.

      students do not use email any more, so trying to reach them to let them know about rehearsal times, etc, is almost impossible without facebook.

      (it also keeps the adult friends in line at times...:))

    17. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This is called fraternization. It is the same as an officer in the military fraterzing with the non-commissioned officers and taking the subordinate out for supper or something like that. Petty officers are not supposed to fraternize with non-rates. We are taught from early on to hang with those of our kind. Its a type of professional fiduciary relationship protocal thing. Assuredly, there would not be an opportunity for something inappropriate to happen between two consenting adults.. Its government in this case preventing any possibility for something inappropriate to happen. Its completely understandable to have such laws on the books.

    18. Re:Open and shut case by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because one is restricting freedom of speech at certain locations and times, while the other is universal.

      Of course that doesn't mean the such limited restrictions are consitutional, but it is a difference that allows both views to held a the same time without being hypocritical.

    19. Re:Open and shut case by Homburg · · Score: 1

      No, we do not have the right to talk to children that are not our own children.

      The Supreme Court disagrees (PDF).

    20. Re:Open and shut case by whit3 · · Score: 1

      The idea that the statute is contrary to free speech is
      a good one, but not the ONLY problem: 'the right
      of the people peaceably to assemble' is in the US Constitutioin
      also, and it covers lots of nonspoken communication,
      including, IMHO, telecommunications. Also, hanging
      out on the corner. And playing WOW.

    21. Re:Open and shut case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. If they wanted this, they should have just created a "job requirement". This would have the same effect but be without all the legal trouble.

  11. Who would want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I also suspect the constitutionality of this, I can think of nothing worse than befriending my students on facebook.

    1. Re:Who would want to? by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      Someone who doesn't have a reason to hate all their students? I personally didn't have any teachers in High School that I learned to enjoy the company of enough to have made friends with since, but there are definitely a few I'd be happy to buy a beer for to give it a shot, or have a laugh over "old times".

  12. Ban email and phones too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In college, we had email lists that a few professors used. It was good for starting class discussions, and occasionally discussing a difficult homework problem. The same thing could be done in a FB Group or G+ Circle.

    Private communication being it notes, phone, sms, email could always be used for inappropriate messages, but whatever the medium of communication people have to know when it crosses the line of appropriated.

    1. Re:Ban email and phones too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just ban all those under the age of 18 from using any electronic communication device. After all we already ban them from smoking and drinking.
      And they might be using said means of communication to arrange sexual encounters among themselves, and we can't have young people having sex now can we.

  13. When they get those rights by ciderbrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Expect to see child kicked out of class due to Facebook posts.

    And in the "grown up" world, a person who brings a camera to any event now ruins the night as far as I'm concerned. Social web and beer doesn't mix.

    1. Re:When they get those rights by slackbheep · · Score: 2

      So anyone with a phone unfortunately.

    2. Re:When they get those rights by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      You don't have to take it out and start filming, taking pics or call the girl friend, wife or both.

    3. Re:When they get those rights by camperdave · · Score: 1

      These days practically everyone who owns a cell phone brings a camera to any event they attend.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:When they get those rights by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Expect to see child kicked out of class due to Facebook posts.

      Already happening. Fortunately the Supreme Court told the school to smeg off.

      And in the "grown up" world, a person who brings a camera to any event now ruins the night as far as I'm concerned. Social web and beer doesn't mix.

      Here, I'm just waiting for social mores to catch up - people drink and do stupid shit in bars. Have for centuries. Seeing a picture of a person doing stupid shit in a bar is not noteworthy. (Cringeworthy, maybe.)

  14. Facebook is going to have its own law!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want one too please.

  15. Alternatives by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

    See, now teachers have a good reason to sign up for Google+

    They won't go to jail.

    1. Re:Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1: Put all students in "Not Friends" Circle... ;-)

  16. Only in the US of A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such stupidity!

  17. Just want to point out.... by CerealBH · · Score: 1

    "several decades ago"

  18. More importantly... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

    On Slashdot, not only can you be his friend - you can be his FOE.

    AND we have "I hate" buttons too.
    They come in flavors of "Offtopic", "Flamebait", "Troll", "Redundant" and "Overrated".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  19. new law proposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    government officials are not allowed to be friend with their citizens, or their coworkers. it seems improper that they have a channel of communication that is not under monitor and hence weaken government transparency.

  20. It's Not Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a violation of freedom of association that is the issue. We have the right to associate with anyone who is willing to associate with us without interference from government.

  21. Complete logic fail by lexsird · · Score: 2

    If teachers are some how unfit to communicate with students online, then shouldn't they be unfit to communicate with them IN PERSON AT SCHOOL?

    It seems that it would be intelligent that teachers should welcome a chance to be let into the social circles of students online. This is where they could influence them in a positive way. For example the case of cyber bullying. If there is a teacher in the circle of friends, wouldn't this hamper cyber bullying? Don't we have enough disconnect from the youth of the country as it is? We have both parents trying to work 2 jobs each trying to pay the bills, this leaves kids disconnected to a point of being criminally negligent.

    It's ok that we we let kids be influenced by Rap music, MTV, and free run of the Internet with all the filth involved in these elements, but we balk at a teacher being around? It sounds like we need drug testing for politicians.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:Complete logic fail by vlm · · Score: 1

      Don't we have enough disconnect from the youth of the country as it is?

      No, one of the central goals of the public education system is to create/enforce/encourage a strongly classist / caste oriented society.
      The problem is the collision between their twisted goal and reality.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  22. Does that include every teacher in your school? by cvtan · · Score: 2

    Can you friend a teacher in your school that does not have you in any of his/her classes?

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Does that include every teacher in your school? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Can you friend a teacher in your school that does not have you in any of his/her classes?

      When I was at school, yes certainly. In primary school we had one teacher for everything, changing each year. There were four teachers per class so we only got taught by a quarter. In secondary school probably most teachers taught me at some time, but there were optional subjects that I never took. I had no dealings with the cookery teachers, most music teachers (it was compulsory for 3 years), and a few others.

    2. Re:Does that include every teacher in your school? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Can you friend a teacher in your school that does not have you in any of his/her classes?

      Also don't forget advisors, and the concept of groups vs friends in social websites. Where I went to school, "academic clubs" required an academic adviser, and the AA was always a teacher in a related field. The computer club had a math teacher, who also advised the chess club. The science club (mostly we went on cool field trips and listened to interesting speakers) was advised by the chemistry teacher. Take a wild guess which teacher taught the Spanish language immersion club, which was really more of an informal study group. The university ham radio club was advised by one of the EE profs.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Does that include every teacher in your school? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Can you friend a teacher in your school that does not have you in any of his/her classes?

      No you may not, and I think it applies to teachers even other schools until you're 18

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  23. Those kids are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teachers should be friendly but they are not "friends". There should be distance between the student and teacher. The relationship should be academic to recieve the best results. Why would someone want to be facebook friends with a teacher at their school? It doesn't make a whole lot of sence

  24. Freedom of Association by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 3, Informative

    The United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others:

    "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment" ( NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 US 449 - Supreme Court 1958 )

    1. Re:Freedom of Association by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the point tho. Children are still treated as *property* of their parents until 18.
      During a school day they are being lent to the state in the schools --but they are not constitutionally protected individuals until they are 18.

      You don't like it? Stop supporting ageism where age-related entitlements are in play.

    2. Re:Freedom of Association by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Does not apply to children

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Freedom of Association by Homburg · · Score: 1

      Really? I don't see any "does not apply to children" clause in the first amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that children have a right to free speech.

  25. Why stop at teachers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about all the Priests? The neighbors across the street? Most kids are molested by a father or uncle. If we're serious about protecting kids then we need to make it illegal for any adult to "friend" children on facebook!

    And so what if the law is entirely useless and won't do anything to curb inappropriate relationships... at least it proves Jay Nixon cares about children.

  26. Not all schools are horrible... by jopsen · · Score: 1

    I had the pleasure of attending a boarding school in 9th and 10th grade, here it was normal to hang out with teachers after class, play board games, sports and what not... Teachers were always around, the principal even lived next door. I'm friends with some of them on facebook, and why shouldn't I be, I have "friends" on my facebook account who are a lot less friends than they are...

    That said, when you have authority over someone, you should always be aware of how you conduct yourself, even when you're off duty. I don't actively add kids, I was leader for at summer camp, to my facebook, that would be somewhat creepy.

    But just because you have a position of authority over someone, doesn't mean you can't be friends, and most certainly not facebook-friends (lets face it fb-friend != friend).

    1. Re:Not all schools are horrible... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      (lets face it fb-friend != friend)

      I'd say that would depend on the person. There's no reason that I see that someone on Facebook (or on the internet) can't be your "friend."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Not all schools are horrible... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      But just because you have a position of authority over someone, doesn't mean you can't be friends

      Well, it shouldn't -- but in our society today, it does, at least effectively. It is media driven hysteria, seized upon by politicians who aren't inclined to do the real work they should be doing, but instead engage in the easy pandering to that hysteria with endless production of "save the children at ANY cost to society" legislation, while reams of obsolete and improper laws remain on the books. The consequences of having too close a relationship -- or simply being accused of such a thing -- are draconian and final.

      Public school teachers exist in a structured environment and so far, at least, have been able to use that to erect a protective wall between them and a student body that are now armed with trivially engaged accuse-and-destroy mechanisms. But mentors, big brother types, a whole range of support that used to exist for younger folks, has basically evaporated.

      As for casual associations with students online... they really aren't advisable, because the laws enabling trivially easy accusations of improprieties with huge consequences make them extremely dangerous. You can have draconian laws that draw ridiculous age lines in the sand, or you can have adults that interact normally with teenage students. But you can't have both. And since, at least at the moment, we do have those laws... I can't see why an adult should take the risk of saying anything more than hello and goodbye to anyone under the age of consent.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Not all schools are horrible... by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Okay, what I mean is that fb-friend doesn't necessarily imply friend, where as friend typically implies fb-friend.

  27. Farmville Benefit of Doubt by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Unless the teacher agrees to let every student be their friend, I can see how it would create problems if the teacher was selective. I would find it easier as a teacher if there was a policy keeping me from accepting several dozen friend requests per year ("Sorry, Billy, I can't accept your Farmville invitation, state rules.") While the ban probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight, I can imagine a thoughtful person supporting Missouri in the policy, and can imagine a lot of teachers groaning if it's reversed.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Farmville Benefit of Doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In real life, the solution to this is to not keep a friends list that everyone can see. We all keep internal lists that we know to ourselves, and this is not intended to upset anyone or create bias, but because you just can't humanly have more than a certain amount of good friends. Keeping this list private is a good way to keep it flexible and not hurt anyone's feelings. There are various reasons for doing this such as a difference in values, morals, opinions, etc.

      This is one thing I like about Google+ over Facebook. Being in a persons "circle" does not necessarily make you their friend. Now don't get me wrong, being a persons "friend" on Facebook does not necessarily make you their friend either, but you can see clearly how the use of that word can be misleading. Perhaps they should rename it, just for semantics sake?

  28. I hope they stop this shit before it spreads by hufter · · Score: 1
    As if the fear of pedophiles wasn't out of proportion. Treating all contact between an adult and a minor as a potential pedophile act, giving them an excuse to seriously infiltrate peoples personal lives.
    It's not for the government to decide who can be friends with whom. I think it's good for children to have other adults they can trust, besides their parents. What if you get sexually abused at home (which does happen a lot)? Then an adult friend is a best thing you can have.

    "Think of the children"? Yes, think if your children want to live in a sexually tabooed and paranoid world, that you "think of the children"-folks are pushing it towards.

  29. The casus belli for this law by Nimey · · Score: 2

    was a teacher who had an inappropriate sexual relationship with his student.

    Thirty years ago, well before the time of social media.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:The casus belli for this law by anyGould · · Score: 1

      +1 Sanity

      If you want to cut down teacher-student nookie, a much saner solution is to stop new grads from teaching high school. (Say, enforce a 8-10 year gap between Teacher Age and Student Age).

  30. Question. by Syberz · · Score: 1

    How is this law "thinking of the children" exactly? I've heard of many teachers friending their whole class so that students could post questions and get help on their homework.

    --
    ~Syberz
  31. misinterpretation? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated.

    unless I am reading it wrong it sounds to me like every school must adopt a policy concerning facebook and other social networking sites, but it does not say that students and teachers cannot be friends. what it does say is that a teacher cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student meaning that they cannot run there own website that allows them to communicate exclusively with a student. Is there something I am missing here?

    1. Re:misinterpretation? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Facebook is a "nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. " so a teacher can not be friends with students on Facebook. The law does say teachers can have a work related website as long as school officials and legal guardians have access, so a private social networking website for the school is possible. The law makes a lot of sense but it seems some people are taking it out of context and making it sound evil.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    2. Re:misinterpretation? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

      yes, but it doesn't say they can't take part in a non-work related website...., it says that they cannot have one.

    3. Re:misinterpretation? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding a judge that understands the difference.

  32. problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are a host of problems with allowing teachers to friend students. Teachers demanding that all students "friend" them in order to keep track of their out-of-school activities, teachers selectively "friending" only certain students, etc.

    The thing is, all of these issues can be most appropriately handled at the school district level. An irrational and unconstitutional state law does nothing to effectively solve the problems. Especially as "friends" is targeted to a specific social media site. Can they follow each other on twitter? Can they be LinkedIn "associates"? Can the use email, phone, or text messages to communicate? This isn't a slippery slope, it's an elevator chute.

  33. Not a matter for the law, but... by barlevg · · Score: 1

    So I think this law is going a little overboard, but a lot of new teachers (who are in their early-to-mid twenties) don't realize that, by friending their students, they're giving their students access to all those embarrassing drunken pictures taken of them while they're in college--I've heard stories from my mother, a teacher, who is on Facebook (unfortunately) but who doesn't accept friend requests from students, but who works with many younger teachers who do. IMO, teachers should be trained that it's a good idea not to friend your students, maybe to the extent that it's the policy of a school system to not allow teachers and students to be Facebook friends. But I agree that this is a case of the government sticking its nose somewhere it doesn't belong.

    1. Re:Not a matter for the law, but... by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      except that the teachers are gov't employees...

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:Not a matter for the law, but... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      +1, insightful. This law protects teachers more than it does students, teachers don't have to worry about students finding something they shouldn't and being fired for it or being accused of something they didn't do. Not sure why teachers are fighting something that protects them, it's like (car analogy time!) suing to have airbags removed from all vehicles.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Not a matter for the law, but... by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      +1, insightful. This law protects teachers more than it does students, teachers don't have to worry about students finding something they shouldn't and being fired for it or being accused of something they didn't do. Not sure why teachers are fighting something that protects them, it's like (car analogy time!) suing to have airbags removed from all vehicles.

      Except that, and this may be surprising to some, not all teachers have drunken pictures and "inappropriate for a child's eyes" content on their Facebook account. This law is not protecting us, it's making us look like sexual predators so politicians can get re-elected. Oh, and that whole pesky gross 1st Amendment violation thing. If you want your Slashdot car analogy, it would be like the government telling you you're not allowed to drive a car, because you might use it kidnap and rape a child. That's your car analogy.

    4. Re:Not a matter for the law, but... by barlevg · · Score: 1

      Except that, and this may be surprising to some, not all teachers have drunken pictures and "inappropriate for a child's eyes" content on their Facebook account.

      Very well said. I'd like to amend my original comment to state instead that teachers should be trained to be mindful of what's on their Facebook accounts and what they're giving their "friends" access to.

      I do have a question (I haven't used Facebook seriously in about four years): when you friend someone these days, do they get access to (1) pictures others post of you, and (2) things people post to your wall? Are either of these things you can control? Because my concern then is that while the teachers themselves may be smart enough to not post their own embarrassing photos to their accounts, they might have idiot friends who will tag them in photos or who will post things on their wall such as "Dude, you were so WASTED last night!"

    5. Re:Not a matter for the law, but... by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      I haven't checked my settings in a while, but I do believe privacy controls can be set for groups. I know that every once in a while, I go in and make sure my student groups are set to a much more limited view of my profile than my adult friends. I'm not certain about pictures or not, but I want to say it can be limited.

  34. And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing of value was lost.

  35. Re:Welcome back, GNAA! by Sparx139 · · Score: 0

    Don't forget Dr. Bob, DC :p

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
  36. As a Missouri teacher by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

    As my first post on Slashdot after reading for a while, I can say that I lost an entire post already due to the back button on my browser. I suck. So, since I don't have the energy to post again why I hate this bill so much (to sum it up quickly, 1st Amendment and the fact this bill is so vague no one knows exactly what it says), I'll post the link to the actual lawsuit which was filed. You can find the .pdf underneath the summary. http://www.msta.org/news/?ID=1996 On a side note, I'm going to have to figure out how to put spaces in between my paragraphs. I'll figure this out at a later time.

    1. Re:As a Missouri teacher by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      It's vague because it only requires the school districts to come up with policies about it. The policies written by the school districts should be clear enough that there's no confusion.

      SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication...

      The law isn't written to mandate what teachers can or can't do. It just makes some suggestions of things that need to be addressed in the written policy.

      I'd really have hoped that school districts would already have policies like this in place, but if they needed a kick in the pants to get them moving, this is it.

      Obviously their policies need to make provisions for things like students who are related to their teachers, etc.

      On a side note, I'm going to have to figure out how to put spaces in between my paragraphs.

      If you're posting in HTML mode, HTML tags work fine. If you're posting in plain text mode, putting spaces between paragraphs works fine (and most HTML also works). Set your default posting mode here.

    2. Re:As a Missouri teacher by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      I'm aware the law applies to the district themselves, in my much longer post I accidentally deleted, I did address that. I just didn't have the energy to write it all out again, plus the second time you write the same thing out, it is never as good as the first. However, since the law is so vague, schools (meaning administrators and BOEs) aren't sure what should be in and what shouldn't, who can be friends with who, etc., and so it causes confusion on down the ranks. We (the tech department...both of us) told our teachers to save all their questions until a policy was enacted, but I'm sure you can guess how well that went over. And I'm not sure I agree with you that government run institutions should be dictating their employees private lives on their own personal time away from work, but I suppose we can just disagree on that.

      By the way, thanks for the help on new paragraphs.

  37. undo half of this law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Undo half of this law by enabling female teachers to be online friends with male students!!! The reverse can be problematic but the case I'm proposing has no bad consequences. If anything, the female teacher would be the one that's in danger...

  38. just make facebook illegal by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 0

    and do us all a favor

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
  39. Using FB safely - Venue 4 Educators & Students by catcomputers · · Score: 1

    Facebook can be used safely as a venue for communication between educators & students.

    I understand many of the previous posts here both regarding freedom of speech as well as privacy of the students.

    Educators can easily (and have been able to for some time), create organizational pages for their classes on Facebook where they can post homework assignments and answer questions. This has been a feature that has been available for quite some time. This way parents, school administrators and students can all have access to the site, and teachers can easily post assignments and reminders to students feeds / wall to keep them in the loop. Questions about assignments can be directly handled through the wall / discussion board of the site as well - keeping academic work separate while ensuring the privacy of the students.

    While there are many other safety driven sites available for educators, the ability to keep students up-to-date with their homework assignments through social media, whether it be Facebook, Twitter or Google + can be a valuable resource.

    Robert Chandler
    CAT Computers

  40. Re:This is what I think about the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Are you GAY?
    Are you a NIGGER?
    Are you a GAY NIGGER?

    If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for! "

    Sorry, but I'm a gay nigger from outer space.

  41. also FORMER students by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of you are failing to see beyond the immediate idea of a current teacher/student this year implications... The law includes all FORMER students too (nothing to say the law stops applying when they become legal adults). If you have been a teacher for thirty or forty years that can include a LOT of people (several thousand people easily). My high school chemistry teacher created a Facebook group for school alumni - as someone who has had their 10 year reunion come and go, shouldn't I be old enough to decide whether or not it acceptable for me to associate online with a past teacher?

    1. Re:also FORMER students by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      A lot of you are failing to see beyond the immediate idea of a current teacher/student this year implications... The law includes all FORMER students too (nothing to say the law stops applying when they become legal adults). If you have been a teacher for thirty or forty years that can include a LOT of people (several thousand people easily). My high school chemistry teacher created a Facebook group for school alumni - as someone who has had their 10 year reunion come and go, shouldn't I be old enough to decide whether or not it acceptable for me to associate online with a past teacher?

      Actually, the bill specifies former students as those who were once in your school district, and are still 18 years or younger and have not graduated high school. Once the student is 18 and graduated, you can add them as friends.

  42. Boo. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    I was hoping to make a "Well, there's still G+!" joke here, but apparently the law doesn't single out Facebook by name, it just says "social networking sites."
    This is looking to be an emerging rule in schools in general though, so I don't see the problem.
    Two of my cousins are teachers, and both of them have told me that their local schools are enforcing similar rules.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  43. Sorry, I tend to agree with this. by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    Your parents aren't your friends (in real life), and neither are your teachers. There are more than sufficient ways for teachers to communicate with their students in a professional way. Facebook is not one of them.

    When the line becomes blurred bad things happen.

    1. Re:Sorry, I tend to agree with this. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Your assuming teachers would use Facebook to communicate with students as opposed to monitor their behavior. In most schools any stundent function must have a teacher present for supervision. Seperating teachers from students just provides children a place where their actions are private from adults. Not really a good thing. I think friending a student is fine so long as the teacher also friends the principle, the students parents, and has a fairly open account.

  44. Stupid laws by stupid legislators by ff1324 · · Score: 1

    The fact this law is named after someone tell me it is knee jerk reaction pushed through by a state legislator looking for votes in their district, there is no chance of it being repealed legislatively, and it addresses a negligible risk to kids without understanding the problem. It's like killing off all of the Grizzlies because one ate some tasty humans.

  45. This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw saying that its a bad thing, I think this is great for the kids. It keeps the teachers from saying: "Why won't you accept my friend request?". Students need to be away from their teachers during down-time, not having them looking over their shoulder when they're playing farmville or other nonsense. Stuff like: "I saw your accomplishments, if only you would put that much time in to studying for my classes."

  46. testing beyond classroom by alexanderr · · Score: 1

    So when my physics teacher saw me online and started quizzing me on the exam subjects to check that I am prepared, he was being inappropriate too? Looked like a beneficial cause to me...

  47. this is so wrong! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    friends shouldn't fight! ;D

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  48. It's at times like this by markdowling · · Score: 1

    it's necessary to remind Americans that the founding fathers had no comprehension of Facebook, let alone a society where children and teachers have the relationship paradigms that exist in the 21st century Anglosphere.

    The only thing a teacher would "poke" you with in the 1770s is a leather belt or a stick of some kind.

  49. Welcome to the People's Republic of the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time there was a lovely little dream called Freedom of Speech and Expression, as well as a small document called the Constitution, but it was too much of a bother for the power-hungry so they systematically dismantled it by keeping the masses busy blaming everybody and everything but themselves...

  50. Facebook not fit for purpose by markdowling · · Score: 1

    If there is a need for collaborative work, Facebook doesn't have to be the platform for it - a dedicated education platform should be the goal. It also means that Facebook through a ToS or functionality change could disrupt classwork. Not good.

    1. Re:Facebook not fit for purpose by Syberz · · Score: 1

      Wasn't talking about anything that fancy, just that if kids had questions when not in class they could ask via FB.

      --
      ~Syberz
    2. Re:Facebook not fit for purpose by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      If a Yahoo or Google email group is overkill, howsabout a school-provided email address? And the school keeps backups, available to authorities. This allows 2-way communications, with the sobering proviso that ot is being monitored. A technical question about Euclidian geometry won't be incriminating, as opposed to "whatcha doin Friday night?".

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  51. Solution: Google+ by drb226 · · Score: 1

    I don't use Google+ much, but when I joined I almost without thinking immediately added 2 of my college professors into a "Teachers" circle. Circles ftw.

  52. This isn't just an EFF type issue by CodeShark · · Score: 1

    There are aspects of the law that are good-- strengthening the reporting requirements, etc. to make sure an abuse case can't be suppressed by the school administration, et. al. The problem is quite profound in terms of our current legal system in fact. A comparable case is that "it is legal in the United States to buy certain types of high explosives, but not to make them", as the buying can be regulated so that not just anyone can go out and buy TNT at the local "five and dime let's make a bomb shop". But because of the Bill of Rights, nearly anyone (felons excluded) can own just about any type of "arms" (weapons) because we have the right to keep and bear arms. And that right is strongly protected.

    Even though we all agree that teachers coercing or molesting students is a bad thing, it's not a preventable by destroying an aspect of the bill of rights thing. They call it the slippery slope and it's the same kind of thing with free speech. You are free to yell "fire" at the top of your lungs --but not in a public place --unless there is actually a fire. So the laws designed to protect students can't just say who can talk to whom and how as a method of preventing child abuse, they have to be crafted so dang specifically that they fit existing crime statutes, for example, it's illegal to engage in speech "soliciting" or "coercing" behaviors such as sex with minors, prostitution, etc., but not to call and talk to a student about an activity or grade. And a parent monitoring a child's FB account would have the right to raise holy hell for any teacher risking that kind of speech, etc. online anyway.

    So the likelihood of the freedom of speech issue surviving a court challenge as written is probably nil.

    (EFF ==> Electronic Freedom Foundation, btw).

    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  53. What about e-mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is interesting that this is being interpreted to mean "can't be facebook friends" when the language of the bill is this:

    "Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. "

    If a teacher has a gmail account, doesn't that give exclusive access with a student simply because they can use it to send the student a private e-mail message?

  54. Used to have to email projects to the teacher by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    A long time ago, when I was in college, I had one class where completed projects had to be e-mailed to the teacher. Of course, this law doesn't apply to college (at least I don't think so), but my point is that this was almost 20 years ago, and electronic interchange has gotten much more common in the intervening years. I imagine that using facebook as a tool is probably even somewhat common. I know I have been talking to some people in the teaching profession that my stepson recently moved up to campus to start college, and they said "Oh, yeah, I saw his post on facebook."

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  55. This law isn't a bad idea. by Shadowmist · · Score: 1

    Teachers are in a special position, they need to be examples and they have a special area of importance to their students. They shouldn't be forming cults of personality on places like Facebook or MySpace. They are obligated to keep relations with their students on a strictly professional level. It's not that much more different than the strictures against socializing with your students.

  56. FYI: He's a Democrat by gadders · · Score: 1

    I had to google the State Governor concerned to find out he was a Democrat. I'm sure that information would have been more prominent if he had been a Republican.

  57. I've seen the filing... by chinton · · Score: 1

    Mary-Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau v Facebook

  58. As a teacher in the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want any of my students finding out more about me than the limited amount of information I share with them. My football team changes every week, my first name changes depending on the day and who is asking.
    Teachers are profesionals, and should act in a professional mannerm with suitable boundaries. Also, leave your work at work, don't take more home with you, I already do enough of that with marking!

  59. The individuals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That passed this law should be personally financially responsible for it's legal challenges. And when it is found unconstitutional they can pony up the money.

  60. Law is upside down. by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better to force students to be Facebook friends with their teachers and with the administrator. Then everything they did on the social network would be effectively chaperoned. If children are on these networks they should be supervised. This seems like a sure fire way to make Facebook less safe.

  61. Obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do students want to be Facebook friends with their teachers?

    Once you've graduated, sure. But while they're in a position of authority over you (and doubly so when you consider that schools have this nasty habit of using your out of school life against you in class)?

    I have very few co-workers on Facebook for the same reason (and certainly none of my bosses!)

    But really - what possible benefit are you getting from having your English Teacher see everything you do?

  62. As a teacher I must agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a teacher of 11-18 year olds in the UK, unfortunately I must agree, however I don't think this law should apply to former students.

    As a teacher I'm responsible for making the students do things they don't always want to do, like work and learn, when they'd rather play and chat to each other. In order to do this I must have authority over them. These days, the kids know all too well that teachers can't hit them anymore, the worst we can really do is shout, give them detentions etc, and ultimately pass the issue on to the parents, who often as not just plain don't give a shit. In order to maintain some level of discipline, they need to respect (and to an extent, fear) me, they need to have the illusion that I have more authority than I actually do. This is almost impossible to maintain when my drunken weekend shenanigans are available for the class to see, and are a major talking point among the students (this is inevitable).

    The fact is modern classrooms are based on the illusion of authority, giving the pupils access to details of the teachers' personal lives (regardless of what they actually get up to) erodes that illusion.

    Most adults cannot be trusted to correctly use the privacy and friend-grouping functions of facebook effectively, and so it makes sense to simply make friending them at all illegal. However this still requires blocking pictures to non-friends, which hopefully most can manage.

    And there's no need for students and teachers to be friends on facebook, no reason at all. All pupils (at my school) are given an email address at the school's webserver, we use it to communicate electronically and when they're not in school. Most importantly, it is controlled by the school and detailed logs are kept and are readily available, should anything nasty be said.

    I AM friends on facebook with one or two former students, since my above reasoning no longer applies.

  63. Protection... by johnsnails · · Score: 1

    As a teacher at a high school I was not allowed to be friends with students on fb (school policy), I even had to remove students I was friends with prior to becoming a teacher! It was for my protection and the schools. Once I left the school I was added by about 30 of the students who I could then accept. I think its a good idea not to add students, although making it a law is silly, especially since students and teachers would join the same groups (eg the name of the school group) and write on the wall to each other.

  64. There was a time when teachers were hired to TEACH by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    There was a time when teachers were hired to, you know, teach, and kids were expected to learn. Nowadays, teachers are hired to grade, and kids are expected to pass.

    All those problems of teachers exploring the kids are a consequence of that disfunctional relationship they have now, and won't go away untill the actual problem (and it IS a problem) is fixed, it doesn't matter what kind of barriers you put between them.

  65. nothing to do with facebook by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    it says that a teacher can't have a site like facebook, not that they cannot take part in a site like facebook

  66. This is so unconstitutional it isn't even funny! by rhyous · · Score: 1

    Taking away freedoms should never be done with so frivolously! I am embarrassed for our nation that we even have a governor that would entertain the idea of taking away a freedom without bringing the idea to the entire population. In fact, we should have a new amendment to the constitution that states that any law that restricts freedom can only occur by a vote of the population.