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."
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.
I believe this is what you are looking for... (warning: PDF) http://www.msta.org/files/resources/publications/injunction.pdf
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
The wast majority, Of child abuse cases, Involves one or both of the childs parents. If you add the rest of the immediate family, Almost all cases of child abuse, Is accounted for.
If you are afraid that a teacher will abuse you children, Then stop sending your children to Sunday "school".
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot.
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.
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.
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!