Slashdot Mirror
Injunction Blocks "Don't Be Friends" Law For Missouri Teachers
Mr.Intel writes "A Missouri Circuit Court granted an injunction today, blocking the state law (PDF) that would ban all electronic communication between teachers and students, including their own children that was set to take effect on Sunday."
Why don't people do that here? ;-)
I'd like to see the "What the hell is wrong with you?" comments made by the circuit judges...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
They took an oath "I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States ...". Voting for a law that clearly violates the Constitution means they violated their oath of office.
It doesn't clearly violate the constitution. People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior. One example is that in some states the statute of limitations is higher for teacher student relationships than it would otherwise be.
Personally, I think it's somewhat silly as FB interactions at least are subject to subpoena a better law would be to mandate data retention on those communiques.
If we removed every politician that violated the constitution then we would have to start with Washington, because the Neutrality Proclamation was probably one of the worst violations of it.
It bans teachers from ever using Twitter or Facebook under any circumstances... ever...
Offenders can still send private text messages or other forms of communication.
Being a "friend" is not inherently a bad thing.
Classic case of good intentions gone too far.
The jurisdiction that I'm licensed in didn't make electronic communications with students illegal, but the teacher licensing body did create a set of guidelines. Even though I don't entirely agree with those guidelines, they don't: force the disclosure of a teacher's electronic communications; dictate what types of services a teacher can or cannot use; or create absurd situations, such as the children of a teacher scenario. The worse that can happen for violating those standards is the loss of your teaching license, so you can still have a life outside of teaching if something does go wrong. (Assuming that you didn't go anything criminal.)
I would also like to see some education on the parental front. I would much rather a parent monitoring my communications with a child than my employer. After all, it is the parent who is ultimately responsible for the upbringing of the child and it is the parent who should be deciding the boundaries that other adults have with their children.
I really do not see a serious problem with that.
Actually it specifically said that it does NOT prohibit teachers from having accounts on social networking websites, so long as they don't use the accounts to have non-public communications with students.
They're state legislators from Missouri. Finding out what is and is not in the constitution would require reading it, which would limit their ability to call things they don't like "unconstitutional" and would limit their ability to propose quick fixes and powergrabs.
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
Seems pretty clear to me. If you are a teacher, does that mean they can dictate what you do on your own time, who you can talk to on your own time? Here I thought we were living in a free society..
It says they can't use sites *which allow* exclusive access to students, not that they can't use sites *for* exclusive access to students. So if the site allows private messages they can't even use the site for public messages.
Indeed. Quote from section 162.069:
Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.
Honestly from the wording, it sounds like they can't use any social networking at all, even if they don't even have any students friended... as long as the potential to talk to a student privately is there.
Fine with me, where do I sign up for that job? You are paying me for any and all hours that you dictate my actions correct?
How is the overtime law in Missouri written? Here in California anything over 12 hours in one shift is double time, anything over 60 hours in a work week is double time, (and my personal fave) the seventh day worked in a work week is double time (and the counter on the double time clock does not reset until you get a day off). That last bit is something my boss and I learned when I worked 30 days straight @ about 10-12 hours per day. Day 7-30 (about 253 hours) were double time.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
They took an oath "I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States ...". Voting for a law that clearly violates the Constitution means they violated their oath of office.
And this is different than all the other countless times a law has been struck down... how?
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Any legislator too stupid to foresee this, or to consult with people who could foresee this, doesn't deserve the office.
That appears to be the judge's take on it as well.
I particularly like where he says "the breadth of the prohibition is staggering".
I think that says it all.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
The slashdot summary is totally inaccurate. The law wouldn't "ban all electronic communication between teachers and students." This post explains what it would actually do. Basically they wanted to make sure parents have access to all electronic communication between teachers and students.
Find free books.
Indeed not. Quote from section 162.069.4:
No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting a teacher from establishing a nonwork related internet site, provided the site is used in accordance with this section.
The out for that is that you'd have to show that they were quite certain the law violated the constitution before signing it. They can always play the "I'm a moron" card, who wouldn't believe that?
A Missouri court blocked a Missouri law and that somehow is an example of why states shouldn't be allowed to make their own laws? Or is it an example of why your'e a retard with no mental capacity? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. Retard.
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
The many states being allowed to have varying laws is actually shown to be effective here. Missouri tried something new and failed. The rest of the country can choose to take what happened here into their own decision making process. One state now suffers the consequences of passing a law like this, instead of the entire population.
There are certainly tragic situations, where teachers have behaved unethically or immorally towards their students. In most of these cases, the students are the victims, and (as a parent) I can't truly understand the pain that those victims feel. But this is a situation for school-wide, or district-wide policies, not legislation. Making electronic contacts illegal will paint with too broad a brush, and not adequately control or deter those people who are trying to victimize another. Even teachers' unions can play a role here. The interviews I've read with teachers, and the teachers I've spoken with, show that those teachers who take their profession seriously, and value their relationships with their students, are already working within strong ethical guidelines. And those guidelines could be shared, and applied more widely.
Saying you're that stupid you didn't recognize a law would be a violation of the Constitution should then be construed as the rep is incompetent for their job -- and should still resign.
This is because teachers are in a 'position of trust.'
Then how about trusting teachers not to abuse your kid :)
At the end of the day, you can legislate everything a teacher must/can say, but is that good?
It surely prevents teachers from doing anything out of the ordinary, and in that case why not just replace him with a video tape...
Bottom line: Trust that your teachers are competent and manage a healthy relationship with their students.
If I remember correctly, teachers in my public school told us that we could always come to them if we had personal problems. Surely, they could abuse any such situation. However, I find it far more likely teachers might actually help the kid, get over the grief of loosing grandparents, stop others bulling or discover that the kid is being neglected at home.
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
"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."
Ah, I finally got to read that part... I was thinking that being friended on Facebook to my former teacher from 1974 might endanger him.
Though since neither of us is in Missouri it wouldn't count. But still....
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
It also violates the Missouri Constitution it seems and giving the states more power doesn't mean they could go against the U.S. Constitution. Homogenizing the states by making the Federal government more powerful hasn't really made anyone happy on the left, right or middle. Throughout history the choice of states has helped America through tough times. Populations moved around as an economic collapse in one area would lead people to other areas. Let some states be more liberal and let some be more conservative while protecting civil rights/liberty. People for the most part should be governed locally. The seesaw between the two sides at the Federal level have led to massive spending by both sides and a lowest common denominator approach to politics.
I'm unsure what the answer to all of our problems are but I tend to think people will always disagree about some things. We just don't need to turn every disagreement into action by the Federal government. So far in this particular instance, Missouri seems to be handling it completely on their own.
If half the country likes law A and dislikes law B and the other half likes law B and dislikes A there are two choices (in the context of federal vs state). At a federal level you get one law you like and one you don't. At a state level you get 25 states to choose from. I'd rather have the opportunity to move than be governed by laws I disagree with half the time.
Actually, looking at that with a bit broader perspective..
it sounds like teachers not only cannot use any social networking, but also cannot use non-school-provided email, cannot use slashdot, and cannot play any sort of online game that has any sort of chat or messaging function.
Kinda ridiculous. Just a tad. Teachers have enough shit to put up with that forces them to keep up appearances of an absolutely puritanical robotic life. Oh gosh, Timmy's dad saw you buying a case of beer at the store, YOU'RE IN FOR IT NOW! He'll go and complain to the school board about what a poor example you're setting for the children!.. yeah.
Depression! Fun for the whole fucking family!
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
doesn't clearly violate the constitution.
Why yes, yes it does.
The State has to show a very strong public policy reason for violating the Constitution like that. "Shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre" kind of "strong".
I'm pretty sure they won't be able to do this.
Although it does say establish a site, not an account on one.
which means it'll likely be decided the first time it gets argued in court.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
It doesn't clearly violate the constitution. People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior.
As the judge noted, it would explicitly prohibit parent teachers from facebooking with their own child if that child were their student.
There really isnt any way that it doesnt violate the first amendment, except that technically it isnt "Congress" enacting the law (thank goodness for incorporation!).
Could you please clarify in what way it was a violation? Our country's military and its command is explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution, and I fail to see how a declaration of military intention exceeds that authority.
except if this law passed it would come into effect after many people decided to be a teacher.
and also what if there were a law that stripped the constitutional rights of anyone who attended protests against the government. i mean they choose to attend the protest right?
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Thats really not relevant, either they are unwilling to respect the incorporated aspects of the Bill of Rights, or they are so ignorant of them that they are unable; either way they are not capable of the job.
This kind of reminds me of when DC tried to ban handguns, as if they thought it could somehow pass court muster.
They probably have Constitutional immunity. The proper recourse against the legislators is to recall those legislators or, if the law in that jurisdiction doesn't permit recall elections, vote them out at the next opportunity. The proper recourse against the law itself is to sue an appropriate party (often a part of the Executive Branch) to have it ruled unconstitutional, assuming you have standing.
I really don't understand the value of this law. Teachers that would abuse their students have ample access to them without social media. Those teachers would not be deterred by their communication being illegal, considering they intend to commit a much more serious crime. Furthermore, I would suspect those same teachers would prefer to keep their communications private anyways. This law is not a deterrent, nor would it make catching molesters easier. At best, it would be one more charge to levy against a child abuser, at worst it could ensnare innocents.
The problem with these so-called recourses is they don't provide sufficient deterrent to legislators. They can pass unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law; those which are unchallenged or survive the courts stand, those which do not end up being passed again with slightly different wording until they do survive the courts. As long as there's no actual punishment for legislators (and I don't mean something as blunt and as uncertain as an election), they'll keep doing it.
From the definitions:
"Nonwork-related internet site", any internet website or web page used by a teacher primarily for personal purposes and not for educational purposes;
They're not as dumb as you seem to think, you know.
Too bad teachers are paid by contract and not hourly.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
You make a joke, but my mom was scared to death an still is to even be seen anywhere need alcohol,because she's so close to retirement.
Could that really be worse than the utter clusterfuck that is the federal government?
You have a better chance of being able to influence the state government for the better, being one in a few million rather than one in hundreds of millions of subjects.
Right, and if your half of the country doesn't like blacks, well, it can just codify it into law (Law A).
Your half doesn't like gays? Doesn't want to recognise their marriages? (Law B)
You were saying...?
It seems that would apply to IMs and email, as well. Carried to its logical conclusion, teachers would be prohibited from any electronic communication at all that allows for privacy.
"We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be." - Joss Whedon via Angel
The State has to show a very strong public policy reason for violating the Constitution like that. "Shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre" kind of "strong".
Here I thought they had to amend the constitution and follow the proper procedures rather than just disobey the constitution because a bunch of people think they should.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It seems that would apply to IMs and email, as well. Carried to its logical conclusion, teachers would be prohibited from any electronic communication at all that allows for privacy.
They can still telnet to port 25.
As well as the little phrase: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
I don't know where exactly we all went wrong. I know WHY such a law was enacted, but how did we get this far? Student and teacher have an inappropriate relationship. Ok, fine. It happens. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen, and it has likely happened since there were teachers and students. Somewhere along the line, the issue of what is appropriate (and legal) eventually made its way into policy and legislation, and we were all content to understand that everyone knew the rules and occasionally we would have to slap down someone who violated it. For those of you who are 30 or older, think back to your school years. You've probably heard a rumor or two, or if it got really bad, maybe read about it in the newspaper, where some local teacher and a student had an inappropriate relationship. It was scandalous to be sure, but it was rare enough to be considered an oddity. Something that doesn't happen often enough to get really excited about. Just take care of it when it DOES happen and let everyone's lives continue as normal. It's likely that the percentages haven't really changed. What HAS changed though is the fact that with the internet making sure that every local story is potentially nationwide news, we now get to hear about EVERY SINGLE CASE. And if by some chance the national media overlooks one, someone on digg or fark will be sure to publicize it, with a snarky, memorable headline, so we don't miss out on any. This makes what is actually a very rare event seem like it's happening every day, all around us. It makes it seem so rampant that surely EVERY teacher is pondering the possibilities. So enough concerned parents get just loud enough for the politicians to pay attention, and the message is that we want to preemptively prevent this from happening.
The problem with politicians is they tend to be reactionary. When some kid shows up to school armed to the teeth and kills 15 classmates, those politicians BETTER DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Some new law better be passed that will prevent this thing from ever happening again. The problem is, the easiest, cleanest, and least debatable solution would usually revolve around some controversial issue, like outlawing all guns. Fortunately, there is enough resistance to make sure THAT doesn't quite happen. But consider teachers and social media, and how it relates with the bottomless pit of scandal that revolves around protecting our children at all costs. I'm sure, especially in the last few years, that a lot of the inappropriate teacher/student relationships had some element of social media involvement. That's a simple but potent fact that people and politicians can latch onto. Cut THAT particular cord, and maybe the relationships will
never materialize in the first place. The problem is, it seems too weak to just make it a general policy to avoid unnecessary off-campus communication with current students. That's not really a law... people can't really BREAK that law, and therefore we can't punish anyone who does. So they come up with something that's absolute, thorough (so nobody finds a loophole), and concise, so people can actually read all of it in one sitting. By the time you're done drafting such a
law, you end up with a much larger problem than the one you were trying to solve in the first place.
Chris Hansen must be proud of what he has achieved.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Personally, as a teacher, I have always had close, intimate relationships with my pre-adolescent school children long before Facebook became a phenomena. I don't see why things should change just because of social networking technologies on the Internet. In fact, I am proud to say that I have taught some of the sexiest students in the United States, who can now easily share their school uniform pictures with their favorite teacher. Facebook makes it easier for me to invite my Facebook friends over for a sleep over or some skinny-dipping in my pool. Without Facebook and social networking in general I would just be another impersonal, anonymous teacher. But with Facebook I get to have much more intimate, meaningful relationships with my pupils.
Again, like others have said many times, this law only applied to children under 18 so it doesn't violate any amendments since you do not have the right to speak to other people's children.
the world existed before Facebook and texting and somehow we went through school just fine. The law is just trying to protect students from creepy teachers AND protect teachers from false accusations or accidentally getting in trouble ("Susie, why is your teacher mr Rodgers messaging you on Facebook?"). This law sounded good for everyone and its sensational journalism like "law stopping teachers from talking To Their Own Children (!!) has been rejected" that is ruining it.
Can someone explain why it's necessary for teachers and students to be Facebook friends? How exactly is it going to hurt education if they're not friends? Also the law does not prevent electronic communication, it only forbids it outside the watchful eye of school admin and parents. If the school setup their own social networking app that gave school admin and parents the right to see everything that would be fine.
I'm a bit surprised Facebook hasn't chimed in saying they'll add a feature allowing parents and school admin the ability to see student and teacher communications. That would solve this whole mess. Actually Facebook should probably add a few parental controls to accounts of those under 18 anyway.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I see what you're saying, but the world has changed a lot in 15 years and so should most laws. Maybe this law wasn't worded perfectly but the idea is sound, that teachers do not need to be sending facebook messages or txt to underage students. I think we can all agree on that much, and you have to look at anyone that argues that they really must message underage students like o_O
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
There really isnt any way that it doesnt violate the first amendment, except that technically it isnt "Congress" enacting the law (thank goodness for incorporation!).
Except that it doesn't violate the first amendment.
man walks up to your 6 yr old daughter at the park and starts talking to her. You notice and walk over and say "excuse me can I help you?". "no", says the man, "I'm just talking to this girl.". "ok," you say, "but she is my daughter and if you need to speak with her you should ask me first.". "No," says the man, "it's my first amendment right to talk to anyone I want.". o_O
the first amendment does not give you the right to speak to children. This law applied only to former students under 18 yrs old, so it does not violate the first amendment.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
+1,...Insightful?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Again, like others have said many times, this law only applied to children under 18 so it doesn't violate any amendments since you do not have the right to speak to other people's children.
Where in the First Amendment is there an exception based on age?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They really need to bring back the concept of infamy in law (basically, your word becomes worth shit and, in some places, you have less rights than a corpse).
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
All those other legislators should be thrown out as well.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
kids that don't have/care/need for a social network. The kids with plenty of self-esteem that don't want some teacher with no life that uses lamebook/gaggle+ to do what for them? Teachers need to do just that, Teach. PERIOD. If your a (bad) teacher that uses any social network to communicate with your pupils then you need to be fired on the spot. Your not doing any justice for the school curriculum other then setting a bad example for students. My kid doesn't need to be your friend, He needs to learn from YOU. I can only see the teachers that oppose this ban are the same teachers that have no life and spend way too much time "social netcrapping" then actually teaching. If it was up to me, I would pay you sorry teachers more money so you wouldn't waste time on garbage like this and get back to getting our kids ahead of the game versus your pathetic plight to feel accepted in this "digital world". If you couldn't teach kids before the "digital revolution" you sure as hell can't teach them now!
P.S. Your the same sorry teacher that recommended prozac and other psychotropic drugs to kids because you couldn't "handle" them.
Note that this statement would apply equally well to our Federal legislators in DC. Or legislators in any other State, for that matter.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Quick, go get Tim Geithner
Ken
Where in the First Amendment is there an exception based on age?
says pedobear
man walks up to your 6 yr old daughter at the park and starts talking to her.
You notice and walk over and say "Excuse me can I help you?"
"No", says the man, "I'm just talking to this girl."
"Ok," you say, "but she is my daughter and if you need to speak with her you should ask me first."
"No," says the man, "it's my first amendment right to talk to anyone I want."
o_O
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
They're state legislators from Missouri. Finding out what is and is not in the constitution would require reading it, which would limit their ability to call things they don't like "unconstitutional" and would limit their ability to propose quick fixes and powergrabs.
Also it would require them to be able to read...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Pedobear, despite his utility, is not yet an established concept in First Amendment jurisprudence.
he kind of is... scroll down to the Child Pornography part of the First Amendment
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If you think talking to a child is "child pornography", I suggest you look to other definitions of "intercourse". And further I suggest you turn off "safe search", use an unfiltered Internet connection, and educate yourself on what regular pornography is, so you don't make that mistake again.
It should have been like: all electronic communications with students should be through a parent approved and parent monitored student account.
Until they're adults, parents should look into their kids email and electronic communications. It's their duty.
If you think talking to a child is "child pornography", I suggest you look to other definitions of "intercourse". And further I suggest you turn off "safe search", use an unfiltered Internet connection, and educate yourself on what regular pornography is, so you don't make that mistake again.
Tell it to this guy, who was arrested for talking to children. Yes, just talking, not soliciting sex. He was charge with annoying children under 18 years of age.
This man served 60 days "for shooting a video in front of a first grade class and later editing in sexually explicit lyrics as a joke and then posting that video on YouTube." He's lucky, he was facing 20 years.
You have no first amendment rights when it comes to talking to children. Sorry.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Um, the first amendment is directed explicitly at legislatures, NOT a parent with their child. The child is not GRANTED rights in the Bill of Rights; simply given protections that Congress (and state legislatures) will not violate assumed rights.
There is nothing in the BoR or Constitution that says that a store-owner may not impose a "no talking" restriction on its patrons, or that you may not control who may talk to your daughter.
Its a common misconception that the 1st amendment means "you can say what you want". It only says "neither congress (nor state legislatures) may prevent you from saying what you want"; the two are very different. In this case, a state legislature WAS attempting to control who could say what, and on "former students" after they had become "of age" to boot. This is the parent's responsibility, and the state has no authority to do such a thing.
Sorry for double post-- even minors have all the protections in the first amendment; there have been court battles over it and the one exception I am aware of (other than "imminent danger") is that children WHILE THEY ARE AT SCHOOL are assumed to be under the "parental supervision" of the school-- the teachers receive some degree of the authority that the parent has, including the right to ask students to be silent.
However, I do not believe the courts have EVER allowed a law that silences "free speech" of students extracurricularly.
We are living in quite a different time than 15-20 years ago. When I when to high school there was little talk of teacher-student affairs but in a large school (5000+) students, I am sure it happened. You take a 20-something teacher and a 16-year-old student and put them in close contact and things can happen even back then.
Today, every message given to young people is pushing them to be more sexual in bolder ways. You also have a social climate that is quite a bit more fearsome to young people than it was in the 1950s. The end result is that a supportive and open teacher is going to have interactions with students that can easily turn into something more intimate. And that is discounting the idea that a teacher might openly desire something with a student.
So they try to pass a law banning private communication with students. OK, how you would you feel if you found a child's phone with the cell phone number of a teacher in the phone book. How about a history of phone calls both ways between the child and the teacher? A lot of parents would be concerned that they were out of the loop and take this record to the principal to get some answers. Well, private messaging on social networking sites isn't like email - there often is no record of it anywhere. So both sides can be very free to say anything without it coming back to bite them.
Personally, I would be happy to have all communication between a student and a teacher to be recorded and archived for the protection of both parties.
Note that I don't believe it matters what the gender of the teacher and student might be, nor does it matter who the "aggressor" might be. The fact is that it happens and any sort of private channel between teachers and students without any record is an open invitation for someone to carry the conversation into a direction that is going to be trouble.
Finally, the fact that this happens and can happen just as easily face-to-face as online is no reason not to ban online private messaging. Sure, it can happen in a classroom after school - but someone might come along and both parties know it. Online nobody is going to interrupt. We have no end of examples showing that people are less inhibited online than they are face to face. The motivation for this kind of law is obvious and it serves to protect both teachers and students. Private communications between teachers and students should not take place in an uninhibited manner - it just leads to trouble.
You obviously don't have grandchildren, or nephews, etc.
Actually, that you think this is creepy, is itself, in my eyes, creepy. You actually believe that 17-year olds should only be able to speak with their parents, each other, or other adults for whom some lawmaker has been gracious enough to create an exception?
Or did you just not think about it before opening your keyboard?
you do not have the right to speak to other people's children.
You've imagined this.
News flash: most of your child's public school teachers are not the creepy guy in the park. In fact, we owe our teachers a lot for taking our kids in for 6 or 7 hours a day.
...are assumed to be under the "parental supervision" of the school-- the teachers receive some degree of the authority that the parent has, including the right to ask students to be silent.
Yes, it's called in loco parentis . The linked article goes into some detail about what that actually means.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You have no first amendment rights when it comes to talking to children. Sorry.
Having a right, and having your government fail to acknowledge that right, are two entirely different matters, ones that I wish people around here would get straight in their heads. The Supreme Law of our Land reserves most rights to the people, and places substantial restrictions upon government. That is because the Constitution was primarily intended to rein in the behavior of our leadership, not that of We the People. If you understood that document in the context of the times in which it was written, that would make more sense to you.
All else is a matter of deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution by the courts and our lawmakers. We should be telling our elected officials what is Constitutional, not the other way around. The Founders would be not be pleased by the current situation. Not at all.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "leaving the fox to guard the henhouse?" Well, just think of Congress as the fox and the Constitution as the henhouse.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
THank you, that is what I was looking for.
It should be noted that that principle in no way empowers legislators to gag free speech; it only empowers schools and institutions to set rules for the kids.
You have no first amendment rights when it comes to talking to children. Sorry.
Having a right, and having your government fail to acknowledge that right, are two entirely different matters, ones that I wish people around here would get straight in their heads.
Not really. If I do something and I go to jail for doing it it doesn't matter if I had the right to do it or not, point is I'm still in prison.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I explicitly stated that the Federal government should protect civil rights. Try another argument.
Having a right, and having your government fail to acknowledge that right, are two entirely different matters, ones that I wish people around here would get straight in their heads
Sounds to me like you're saying that the soap, ballot, and jury box have failed him, and therefore advocating that he go out and kill some people. Am I mistaken?
just think of Congress as the fox and the Constitution as the henhouse
Nope, clearly I'm not. Shotgun time!
People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior.
I think you're confusing choosing a career in education with enlisting in the military.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
In this case, a state legislature WAS attempting to control who could say what, and on "former students" after they had become "of age" to boot.
You made that part up.
"Former student", 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;