Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Lets Teachers, Students Be Facebook Friends

Posted by timothy on from the so-very-kind-of-the-senate dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) has managed to secure another win in its battle against a new law regarding social networking with students. A repeal of the recently passed law has unanimously passed the Missouri state Senate."

38 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I always wanted to be more than Facebook friend with my female school teachers.

    1. Re:Not enough by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      like being their student? :)

      We have schools because we flirt w/ the opposite sex. Chances are some guy back in the day wanted to impress his date and boom structured education.

    2. Re:Not enough by wesleyjconnor · · Score: 1

      Agreed, my year 10 math teachers barely concealed breasts taught me more about fluid dynamics than anything at uni

      --
      http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
    3. Re:Not enough by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      Well, I for one say ; I'm hot for teacher

      After all, what could possibly go wrong ?

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    4. Re:Not enough by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Agreed, my year 10 math teachers barely concealed breasts taught me more about fluid dynamics than anything at uni

      I initially misread that as "my 10 year old math teachers barely concealed breasts" and began to worry in many diferent ways at once.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Wait, what? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Slyfox696 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

      This was actually just a clause in a much larger piece of legislation that got passed, much of which was good legislation to help protect children. It was just this specific clause that got repealed.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it's better than clinging in to it and pretend it's good to save face, no?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by jacksonyee · · Score: 1

      Yet another great example of our congressmen throughly reading the very laws that they vote upon...

      If only most Americans had somewhat decent interest in politics beyond the narrow confines of our own lives, we could catch things like this much sooner before they became a media worthy issue in the first place. Oh well, at least this is one win for sensibility in this case, unlike some of the recent SCOTUS cases. Cheers!

    4. Re:Wait, what? by MacDork · · Score: 1

      How is this informative? It sounds like spin. Please provide examples of how the original law "was good legislation to help protect children." Thank you.

    5. Re:Wait, what? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      US Citizens have a right to free speech - they can freely speak to anyone they like on any forum

      So either this was unconstitutional, or children and Teachers are not Citizens ...?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:Wait, what? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      US Citizens have a right to free speech - they can freely speak to anyone they like on any forum

      So either this was unconstitutional, or children and Teachers are not Citizens ...?

      So I suppose facebook banning under thirteens is a fucking crime agiainst the US constitution?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Wait, what? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech applies to non-citizens as well. It applies to everyone living in the US.

      Voting in federal election and running for federal office (and jury duty if you call that a right...) are limited to citizens.

      Expression, speech, assembly, petitioning the government, worship, bearing arms - those freedoms apply to everyone living in the US (in theory...)

    8. Re:Wait, what? by Slyfox696 · · Score: 1

      It's not spin, it's a matter of reading the bill for yourself. While I won't be nearly as mean about it as the ACs, I would suggest a little legwork on your own would go a long way in answering the questions you seem to have. I'll provide the link for you: http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf

    9. Re:Wait, what? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Facebook are a private company they can impose any rules they like (with a few specific exceptions) you are not forced to join and agree to them, the rule for under 13's is because they cannot be legally bound by the rules...

      The Government wanted to stop private citizens speaking on a public forum ... that is against the constitution

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  3. Thanks... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    Mary Kay Leteurneau thanks you, Missouri!

    1. Re:Thanks... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You joke, but we have a real problem with that here in WA. I'm not sure if we're better at investigating allegations than they are in other parts of the country or if it's more common here, but either way it's something we have a real problem with.

      Or it could just be that we're ahead of the curve on men's rights and are more likely to prosecute sexual abuse of male minors.

    2. Re:Thanks... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Well that's because most people think men's rights are nuts.

      I have a B.S. in social work, and let me tell you what, any time I came to the front of my classroom - where I was usually the only guy, at the least in a very, very small minority - I was looked at like a crazy man for mentioning men's rights.

    3. Re:Thanks... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's how that works. My TESL program was pretty much just me and one other man with the rest of the program filled out by women and I definitely got my share of threats for daring to point out that most of the figures are heavily sanitized to make things look a lot worse for women than they really are.

  4. Missouri State supports pedophilia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is how I read the article. I have said it before. There is no reason what so ever that any adult should have any relations with anyone under 18.

    The more laws we make the more criminals we can find. I think everyone should be thrown in jail. It is the only way we can support the kids.

    -You are a faggot.

    1. Re:Missouri State supports pedophilia by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded as a troll when it is so fucking obviously sarcastic?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Re:What the shit? by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    It's simply redrawing the line of what is appropriate social contact. Frankly, it's refreshing that we aren't assuming that all teachers who speak to kids outside of school hours are engaged in grooming behaviour.

  6. Food for thought by mariox19 · · Score: 2

    I recall hearing this, once upon a time: "Why would anyone want to be friends with a teenager? They don't know very much, and their taste in music stinks."

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Food for thought by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I remember when I realised how much of a muppet I was when I was a teenager ...

      I hate to think I will realise how much of a muppet I am/was when I thought I was an adult...

      Seriously though, if a teacher wants to be a mentor it's commendable - we need a less creepy way of doing this.

    2. Re:Food for thought by kenh · · Score: 2

      This law blocked, as I understood it, any form of social media communication between teachers and their minor-age students at their schools that could not be monitored by the parents and administrators.

      School-run social media sites which DO allow for parental and school administrator oversight WERE allowed.

      School-hosted email accounts which DO allow for parental and school administrator oversight WERE allowed.

      Teachers can still talk with students after class, in the hallways, in the cafeteria, on the playground, etc. To suggest that teachers need PRIVATEcommunication with students that neither their parents nor employers can know what is said between them is simply insanity.

      Imagine you are a parent of an attractive 14 year-old girl, and you go to school to pick up your daughter and you find her in a teacher's office, with the door closed, and you are prevented from entering the room until they are done speaking... I bet you'd wonder what they were talking about - imagine the teacher saying "It's none of your business." That is effectively what the teachers argued for in this case.

      Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?

      I think these teachers place more importance on being "special friends" with their students, not teaching them - I can think of no other reason why teachers need "private" communication with their students...

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:Food for thought by Jiro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The law says that teachers cannot "have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student." Aside from the bad wording (which leads to questions about whether "Facebook" is considered a website or whether each Facebook page is considered a separate website), this law doesn't just say the teachers can't talk secretly. It says that the teachers can't use a site that *allows* secret talk. Just the fact that methods of private communication exist on the website makes use of the website illegal, regardless of whether the teachers use them.

      It also prohibits teachers who are parents from communicating with their children over Facebook, since parents' communication with their children is not normally visible to school administrators.

    4. Re:Food for thought by Terrasque · · Score: 2

      Devil's Advocate mode initiated

      Imagine you are a parent of an attractive 14 year-old girl, and you

      .. whore her out every weekend. Or you frequently beat/abuse her. She wants to talk with someone she knows well and trust about it, and the teacher is the one person she both knows, and trust to handle it discreetly.
      But, she is not allowed to talk to any teacher privately, and she can't make herself talk about it to some complete stranger either.

      What then?

      From wikipedia:

      Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, mothers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbours; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.

      And, from this page (general abuse, not sexual abuse specific):

      In 2007, more than one-half (57 percent) of all child abuse cases and reports made to CPS agencies came from professionals who came in contact with the child, including teachers, lawyers, police officers, and social workers.

      From your post:

      To suggest that teachers need PRIVATEcommunication with students that neither their parents nor employers can know what is said between them is simply insanity.

      I would say it would be simply obvious, not insanity. To follow your logic all the way through, no one should have any private communication to any person below 18 years of age.

      End question : Are you still so certain that no teacher should ever have private communications with a student?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    5. Re:Food for thought by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It also prohibits teachers who are parents from communicating with their children over Facebook

      I think I'd be quite worried about a teacher who had to communicate with their kids via Facebook.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Food for thought by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't see how preventing the teacher from communicating via facebook stops them from having an old fashioned face to face meeting (which would be more appropriate in this case anyway).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Food for thought by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?

      Because it is both their as well as their students' inalienable right to. Free speech, you know. Have you heard of it? The fact that it can be used for nefarious things is understood and agreed to be an acceptable risk. If you disagree with this fundamental notion, then please move to another country more in line with your thoughts and desire for authoritarian control.

      Not to mention this law prevented communication with current as well as former students. You know, even after they grow up and become adults capable of making their own decisions. It was a bad law, which was obviously in violation of the 1st amendment and was rightly repealed.

  7. Students relation with teachers by vishal+dogra · · Score: 1

    What Missouri law is suggesting teachers or students to keep them at length on Facebook, since they feel, teachers or students cannot be friend. The decision is orthodox. In the new perception, can't we make both of them more close, so that they can go along leaving any hitch beside. http://www.infosphaira.com/latestarticles.com

    --
    vishal dogra
  8. Punching bags are people too by pefisher · · Score: 2

    This law went far beyond Facebook; (Zdnet said) it limited any internet communication that wasn't visible to both the school district and parents. It's nice that a judge indicated he was going to find it unconstitutional. That happens so seldom in this day and age.

  9. Children need right of choice by MrNthDegree · · Score: 2

    Parents (If one can even use the plural in most cases) should have no right to dominate childrens' lives any more than the school system does or big media do. Child protection laws are all a sad joke which make bad assumptions about the intelligence of young people who happen to be below the age of 18. Due to child protection laws, a lot of young and talented people cannot find their place in the world until they are much older, this is wrong.

    Parents very often do not recognise true potential in their kids and it should be up to the child as to who he/she communicates with in private. Teachers spend longer with classes of children at key times in any one given child's life than the parents do in many cases and teachers of specialist subjects are the best at identifying aptitude for a given subject. Students with an aptitude for a subject should get special attention to help them reach their true potential.

    In addition, social networking is no more risky than keeping a student for face-to-face chat at the end of a class, when will people realise this?

  10. Bad idea by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Teachers, like parents can't be friends with students/their children.

    Friends are supposed to be equals, these other relationships are not.

    Teachers and students can be friends only when the student has left that school. Parents and kids can only be friends when the kid has left home. Otherwise it's entirely inappropriate.

    Also: Cool parent is an oxymoron.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:Bad idea by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also: Cool parent is an oxymoron.

      Until you become a parent when "cool child" becomes the oxymoron.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. Might as well just legalise paedophilia by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    1. Re:Might as well just legalise paedophilia by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Um, not for nothing, but I believe those who believe all teachers are predatory pedophiles just waiting for a chance to strike their poor helpless children are more likely to be liberal whiners who love Obama.

  12. Re:Govt. Sticking its nose where it doesn't belong by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    OK, this was a bad law and its repeal is a good idea, but how does it qualify as the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? The teachers are government employees who have a government mandated relationship with the students. For the most part, the teachers would have no relationship with these students if it was not the law that these students must be in the classroom that the government hired these teachers to take charge of.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison