Missouri Removes Teacher-Student Social Media Ban

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Missouri Removes Teacher-Student Social Media Ban

Posted by timothy on Friday September 23, 2011 @11:14AM from the kids-and-teachers-are-alright dept.

bs0d3 writes "The law that would have banned teachers from friending students on Twitter and Facebook was overturned late Friday. Now that a preliminary injunction has been issued to block the law in question from going into effect, the Missouri House subsequently passed a similar, but separate, bill with a 139 to 2 vote that gives school districts the freedom to determine their own communications policies. The new bill, which would permanently block the previously one, now awaits Governor Nixon's approval. Free speech advocates admit it's good that the first bill is gone, but point out that the next one isn't much better."

37 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmm by xstonedogx · 2011-09-23 11:18 · Score: 2

Looks like somebody finally thought of the children.
1. Re:Hmm by HermMunster · 2011-09-23 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  It would have been easier to just repeal the first law and let good enough alone.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
2. Re:Hmm by hedwards · 2011-09-23 11:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I thought the concern that sparked this was teachers thinking of the children.
3. Re:Hmm by blair1q · 2011-09-23 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think thinking wasn't the problem.
Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 11:18 · Score: 1

This is the Show Me State after all!
Nanny State Bullshit by Baseclass · 2011-09-23 11:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

If somebody commits a crime against a student then prosecute them for the crime.
Maybe we just just ban cars because they are often used by kidnappers.

--
^^vv<><>BA
1. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by geekoid · 2011-09-23 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  The issue is a lot more complex the that.
  Teacher gives more time to one student over another, is it favoritism?
  Teacher gives some a grade influenced by something the student did on line. oh, see Timmy's parent donate my church, here is an extra 5 points wink wink.
  Those are simply issue, it gt far ore complex. It has nothing to do with a nanny states. Was it over the top? yes.
  Also, your anger towards the government seemed to overlook the fact that the government stopped it.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by Baseclass · 2011-09-23 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Also, your anger towards the government seemed to overlook the fact that the government stopped it.
  Yet somehow they still manage to continually chip away our freedom.
  
  --
  ^^vv<><>BA
3. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by blair1q · 2011-09-23 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  The solution then is to ban all contact between teachers and students.
4. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Teacher gives more time to one student over another, is it favoritism?
  Teacher gives some a grade influenced by something the student did on line. oh, see Timmy's parent donate my church, here is an extra 5 points wink wink.
  So favoritism, bribery, arranging sexual encounters between teachers and students, etc. never took place before Facebook and teh evil Interwebs. That's good to know. At least that is in line with the philosophy of the USPTO and the laws against cyber-crime, cyber-bullying, etc. I believe the formula is
  (Crime/Activity) + (Internet/Computer) = (New & Unique Crime/Activity)
  which deserves new protections/penalties. What a bunch of fucking morons.
5. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by similar_name · 2011-09-23 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe it is that complex. It's a medium for communication. Not the first and by all indications not the last for humans. There isn't really anything that could be done online between a teacher and student that couldn't be done offline. It's the offline that people tend be concerned about anyway. New mediums should not mean new laws. Current law provides codification of teacher/student relationships. Why does a particular communication medium add complexity?
6. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by xstonedogx · 2011-09-23 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Buy them all iPads!
7. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-23 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yet somehow they still manage to continually chip away our freedom.
  Nonsense. Your freedoms may be chipped, but it's not the government doing the chipping.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
8. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by Khyber · 2011-09-23 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Also, your anger towards the government seemed to overlook the fact that the government stopped it."
  Which is why a new bill is ALREADY in place to pass that does effectively the same thing?
  Did you even RTFS, FFS?
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
9. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by sjames · 2011-09-23 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  If those things happen, discipline them or (if it gets too bad) fire them.
  Of course the church scenario you mention has nothing at all to do with friending on facebook.
10. Re:Nanny State Bullshit by sjames · 2011-09-23 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  And started it in the first place. It is appreciated that they have at least made a gesture at replacing their divot, but there is concern they may have just sprayed the hole green.
Sooo.. by Khyber · 2011-09-23 11:33 · Score: 1

We get rid of ONE First Amendment violating law, only to enact yet ANOTHER one?
Public schools, being funded by taxpayer dollars and recognized as a part of the US Gov't, does NOT have this sort of authority.
I expect this bill to be overturned just as easily.
I also expect many Missouri politicians are going to not get re-elected.
At least, not once my little information campaign over there is handled.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
1. Re:Sooo.. by hedwards · 2011-09-23 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  I assume you mean prohibiting teachers from using a non-work related site that might allow for one on one contact with students. And, I'd have to agree that it goes too far, most of the rest of the provisions seem reasonable, and likely will be as protective of the teachers as the students. But barring the teachers from using other sites because of a possibility, is going over board, especially without requiring any motivation to skirt the requirements on the teacher's part.
What's going on? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 11:34 · Score: 1

This article has been posted for over 10 minutes and there are only 4 comments? I can't imagine slashdotters having dates or anything Friday night.
1. Re:What's going on? by ShiftyOne · 2011-09-23 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe no one cares who people are facebook friends with???
I dont trust the schools to make this decision by JohnRoss1968 · 2011-09-23 12:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

OK let me get this right....
We shouldnt trust our teachers to be able to talk to our kids online? So how can we trust them when they are with our kids in the real world?
Obviously we cant. And who hired these people to teach our children???
The Schools did. Why should we trust anyone who would put our children in contact (directly or over the internet) with people we should not trust???
We shouldnt. So The teachers cant be trusted, and the schools cant be trusted.
If the schools cant be trusted then how is it a good idea to leave it up to the schools to decide if teachers (who we cant trust) can have contact with our children online, late at night, with webcams all over??????
1. Re:I dont trust the schools to make this decision by Baloroth · 2011-09-23 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  We shouldn't trust the schools. The parents should be talking to their children and looking for any signs of sexual conduct between them and their teachers. For that matter, they should be looking for any sexual activity by their children period.
  Unfortunately, most parents in America abandoned their responsibilities to their children in exchange for personal pleasure (usually, money) quite a while ago, and asked the schools (and/or daycare) to do it for them. Monitoring and raising children is a full time job, and parents just don't want to do it anymore because they would rather have 3 cars, take expensive vacations a couple times a year, and own a couple of iPhones. And no, this isn't (just) because of "financial crises." I know plenty of families (including my own) that only have one parent working. Not to say that some genuinely can't manage it... but the majority could.
  I say this as a 21 year-old who was very recently in high school. My parents cared, and sent me to a private school where things were pretty good. Most parents, however, don't really care, and hand off all their responsibilities to teachers, assuming that they will take care of it. Best case scenario: teachers can't take care of all the kids. Worst case they abuse it.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
2. Re:I dont trust the schools to make this decision by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  That's is why we have Hillary Clinton's village. The village steps in and corrects for any disadvantages anyone had growing up. So your parents suck, that is OK, we have a whole team of social scientists that will give your the parenting your parents aren't providing. Are you poor, That is OK. The village will step in to provide you a few bucks to feed your kids, buy your drugs, and pay your rich landlord to provide you with subsidized housing. Are you stupid or slow. That is alright, the village will provide equal employment laws to ensure everyone has a job working minimum wage. Are you poorer than the guy next to you. The village is going to step in to ensure that you have the same health care as the village Chief. This is the rhetoric.
  Everyone is equal, but just like in Animal Farm some people are more equal. The President and members of congress are not going to the same emergency room as i am. If i do get subsidized housing, I know that money is going to my landlord who has much better access to congress then I do. If I spend my wellfare check on beer and lottery tickets, that money is going to be going to support members of the city / state government; all who all went to different schools than I did. In short is an impossible dream. Republican's used to realize this in the 70's and 80's. Their dream wasn't to make everyone equal, but to give everyone an equal chance to get rich. The dream of getting rich, and making a better place for you children used to be what made capitalism work. Unfotunetley for the last couple decades the monied interests have bought out the government. Corporations have found that they too can get handouts from big government. Banks too can play the lottery and better yet not pay the consequences when they loose. In short the corporations and government have become gang-stars. The old sets of values that used to define left and right no longer apply. The only value that the parties subscribe to is greed. They will say and do anything to make that bling.
  -
3. Re:I dont trust the schools to make this decision by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  Somewhere in your semi-coherent straw-man party you missed the point of the "it takes a village" speech. The notion that having the resources of your community to help you raise your kids isn't especially new, nor especially progressive. My father, a WW2 vet who grew up during the Great Depression, experienced it. Even I did to a lesser extent; pretty much everyone in our part of town was familiar with everyone's kids, and if you misbehaved at a friend's house, it wasn't uncommon to be disciplined well before you ever made it home.
  The only reason it seems radically progressive now is because we live in seclusion at home and orient ourselves more around interests and work than geography. Many people don't know their neighbors that well, and certainly don't socialize with them or think of them as part of a larger team. That's OK if you're rich and privileged.
Re:lot more complex the that. by TaoPhoenix · 2011-09-23 12:58 · Score: 1

It's a lot more / simpler than that.
Mark Z. Likes this.
He can pay for laws to be amended.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Wait, what? by NalosLayor · 2011-09-23 13:38 · Score: 1

I guess I've been out of the loop. The governor of Misourri is named Nixon? NIXON'S BAAACK!
bad law by renegade600 · 2011-09-23 14:21 · Score: 1

I am glad the law was overturn. It was an extremely bad one where parent could not be friends with their own kids. And before someone says they could see their kids at home - based on the law, if the teacher was divorce and the other spouse had custody, the teacher could not be friends with their own kids on facebook or any other social media. The same goes with grand kids, god children, family friends etc. The law was just too broad. The law of unintended consequences was in effect.
As far as the new one where they say let the school decide on policy, that will get interesting, though I think it is better since school policy can make exceptions and is more flexible than a state law.
just be a teacher please by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 14:50 · Score: 0

My kids have plenty of friends.
You are a teacher, just be a teacher.
If you are communicating more than assignments and test scores, you are overstepping.
Personal relationships with students are unprofessional.
If you need to be told or reminded of any of this, then you do have a problem.
1. Re:just be a teacher please by Alex+Belits · 2011-09-23 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  You are an idiot (and so are American Boards of Education, that reduced teaching to handing out assignments and assigning meaningless scores).
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
2. Re:just be a teacher please by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 18:35 · Score: 0
  
  You are an idiot (and so are American Boards of Education, that reduced teaching to handing out assignments and assigning meaningless scores).
  shouldn't teachers have private lives? Or is everything they do at school or home up to scrutiny by students and parents? By allowing them to be friends now teachers are teachers 24/7, they never get a break.
  
  I think repealing this will hurt teachers more than students, at least with the law the teachers could say "oh sorry, we can't be friends because it's illegal!", now they'll need another excuse "i'm sorry we can't be friends because sometimes i post funny references to pot and your parents wouldn't understand"
3. Re:just be a teacher please by Alex+Belits · 2011-09-23 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  shouldn't teachers have private lives?
  Do they? Did they ever? Teachers, just like many other professions, are based on a person taking his work as being personally important to him. Students need teachers interested in their personal development. If they don't get ones, they have to deal with "friends" that make Lord Of The Flies look like a healthy environment.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
4. Re:just be a teacher please by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Please, best teachers and instructors I ever had was also friends. Not deep friends as "I will tell you all my thoughts and secrets", but "I do respect you and treat you as an equal". It kinda included being my facebook friends. Not because there is something special on the facebook, au contraire, because the facebook is today as ordinary as mail or splashing toilet.
  Facebook is semi public anyway, they posted pictures from activities, camps and whatever there. And yes, they have been able to keep this attitude while requiring discipline and hard work.
Allowing Something != Requiring Something by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-23 22:35 · Score: 0

shouldn't teachers have private lives? Or is everything they do at school or home up to scrutiny by students and parents? By allowing them to be friends now teachers are teachers 24/7, they never get a break.
Allowing Something != Requiring Something
Teachers are adults, they can use it or not as they wish. And it is perfectly fine if one teacher is a facebook friend and another is not. Not everything needs a standard. You do not have to explain it, simply says: facebook is only for my friend and family, sorry.
Common, teachers do not need regulations to help them with normal communication.
the real point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-24 02:12 · Score: 0

Some teachers are totally clueless and irresponsible and cross the professional line (hence all the stories about teachers having sex with children). This law was intended to set a clear boundary - but of course, when liberal democrats get involved crossed over to Orwellian levels of mind control, thought control, and right-think.
I agree it would be best to take this case by case, but that has not stemmed the tide of inappropriate contact, so I do think it is appropriate for each school district to set out a clear policy what the line will be - professional contact, helping students learn the approved curriculum, but not crossing the line to personal and unprofessional relationships. In this case, local control is best.
1. Re:the real point by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-24 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, a teacher can and should be friendly to students, but never friends. Professionalism is key. It is important to draw the line and have concrete expectations on what is appropriate and not appropriate. It protects both the students and the teachers.
conservative = regressive by Fujisawa+Sensei · 2011-09-24 13:10 · Score: 1

Its progressive only in that the conservatives are so regressive, They yearn for the manor system, where the peasants worked for them, and paid taxes to their lord, while the lord lived in a luxurious manor, for the honor of providing the peasants with good jobs and a wholesome environment to raise their children.

--
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.