Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Injunction Blocks "Don't Be Friends" Law For Missouri Teachers

Posted by timothy on from the you-can't-be-friends-says-the-government dept.

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."

5 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Anyone have a link to the decision? by SrLnclt · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe this is what you are looking for... (warning: PDF) http://www.msta.org/files/resources/publications/injunction.pdf

  2. Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig by Jiro · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  3. bogus slashdot summary by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:bogus slashdot summary by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Umm, no. "No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non-work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student." That's not out of context, either (although former only extends up to 18 year-olds.) Almost every internet site allows exclusive access, even if you somehow set it up so that content is supposed to be shared with parents (who, BTW, if a teacher are also forbidden from using such sites to contact their own children, and this according to the judge's ruling), it would still allow exclusive access. Hell, one could argue that simply using email allows such access (any email, period). Hyperbole? Not according to the judge. He says "the breadth of the prohibition is staggering", and would have "an immediate and irreparable harm."

      He also refers to it as a "complete ban on certain kinds of communication." So, unless you are one hell of a lawyer, you are wrong. Plain and simply wrong. Note that the lawmakers may have intended to do what you say, but that's not what the law does.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  4. Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!