Slashdot Mirror


School District Sued By ACLU Over Student's Free Speech Rights

An anonymous reader writes "The ACLU is suing Minnewaska Area Schools and Pope County, according to this article in the StarTribune. At issue: school administrators and a sheriff's deputy forced a girl to hand over login information to her Facebook and email accounts, after she posted on Facebook that she 'hated' a school hall monitor who had been 'mean' to her, and cursed in a separate Facebook comment because someone reported her. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an order that would restrain school officials from attempts to regulate or discipline students based on speech made outside of school hours and off school property."

466 comments

  1. What about the parents? by Lord+Juan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, what in the world are the school administrators thinking? That parents are not going to care if they force their daughter to give them their log in information to their personal accounts?

    1. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, they obviously weren't.

    2. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right? School administrators and teachers are, more than most, too familiar with the legal dangers of everything they say and do. It boggles the mind that some would step so clearly out-of-bounds and risk something exactly like this, over something so ridiculous.

    3. Re:What about the parents? by EnempE · · Score: 3

      Maybe they were to busy getting a 9mm and some hollow points to perforate her notebook for sounding off on facebook again.

      Free speech aside, don't you USAns have a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself ?

    4. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a "USAn"

    5. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such thing as constitutional rights, either. That's an old fairy tale.

    6. Re:What about the parents? by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but this isn't even about that. A school isn't a court. If she'd refused to give them any information, what could they do - jail her for Contempt of Principal?

    7. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It offends SOME Canadians.

      Others approve of the implied separation from the rest of the continent.

    8. Re:What about the parents? by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Funny

      Free speech aside, don't you USAns have a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself ?

      Yes, that twelve year old girl folded like a little girl. She's a wimp. That's mostly the parents fault of not training her properly. When I have kids, they'll be able to survive police intimidation and interrogation techniques by the time they're three years old. In fact, the first word they'll learn won't be "Mama" or "Papa", it will be "IwantMyLawyerImNotTalkingToYouPigs".

    9. Re:What about the parents? by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      dunno.. call the deputy? that's what they did anyways? and the deputy promptly went and gave access to the school "officials" to those accounts.

      the deputy should be fired and the school staff too. they fucked up.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:What about the parents? by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ambassador Londo Mollari: My shoes are too tight and I have forgotten how to dance.

      I believe that quotes sums it up. The people involved have committed a great evil to someone less powerful than themselves, preying on the very being they were charged to protect; but it doesn't matter to them, because they've already forgotten what it was like to be a child.

      No doubt the kid will continue to be ridiculed and besmirched for some time, and the wounds will heal, leaving only scars. A few decade's time, she will want to become a teacher / administrator, so she can right the wrongs of her predecessors; and after many years of being pushed around by a system that frankly doesn't care about her now anymore than it did when she was a child, the light will go out in her soul at an inopportune time, during which she will commit a similar act to some young thing, and the cycle will begin anew. She will realize her mistake all too late to correct it, and spend the rest of her life trying to come to terms with an opportunity come and gone.

      I wish I had advice to dispense here, but I haven't found any that works in circumstances like these. I'd like to say that something will come from this, that there will be no scars, that good will triumph over evil, that everyone will learn some sort of valuable lesson, and that it will be the right one, but experience has taught me that good only triumphs over evil in fairy tales.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    11. Re:What about the parents? by qxcv · · Score: 1

      Expel her.

      --
      "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    12. Re:What about the parents? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the deputy should be jailed

      EFA. I mean, after a fair and impartial trial, which is more than this girl got.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    13. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No they are for real. What threatens them are retarded comments like the one above.
      If you ask me the people we really have to fear are the corn-fed over-medicated
      cattle that are too chicken-shit to demand their rights and that makes the abusers
      just like those scumbags at that school only bold and bolder.

    14. Re:What about the parents? by jpapon · · Score: 1
      I've never met a Mexican or Canadian who was offended by referring to citizens of the USA as "Americans". It's the most logical thing to call a person from the USA. It is also clearly distinct from Continental references, which would logically have the "North" or "South" prefix.

      It's also the convention in every language I've ever heard. Why change something that works?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    15. Re:What about the parents? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      They could suspend her, expel her, give her detention, etc.

    16. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're idiots. In a national context the term is American for people that have citizenship in the US. Despite what bigots from other parts of the super continent might think, there's rarely if ever a legitimate reason for using American in a different context.

    17. Re:What about the parents? by maitai · · Score: 5, Funny

      As a native (Yurok), wtf are you talking about?

    18. Re:What about the parents? by theNAM666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spanish for persons from the US is 'Estadounidoestes." Thank you for playing, please try again.

    19. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's in Spanish dumbass. Sort of like how in English we call Germans Germans rather than the more appropriate term. But don't let me stop your bigotry.

    20. Re:What about the parents? by old+man+moss · · Score: 0

      We are doomed? That is insightful? FFS

      --
      rt
    21. Re:What about the parents? by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're idiots. In a national context the term is American for people that have citizenship in the US. Despite what bigots from other parts of the super continent might think, there's rarely if ever a legitimate reason for using American in a different context.

      Considering Mexicans are citizens of Los Estados Unidos de Mexico (aka United States of Mexico), and Canadians are citizens of a place called Canada (formerly the Dominion of Canada, it stands to reason that citizens of the United States of America would be referred to as Americans.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    22. Re:What about the parents? by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but this isn't even about that. A school isn't a court. If she'd refused to give them any information, what could they do - jail her for Contempt of Principal?

      Nothing, but it is a 12-year old girl. If they had invited one of her parents (in addition to the sheriff's deputy), the parent would certainly tell them to shove it. A 12-year old girl is easy to intimidate.
      I think every administrator involved should be re-purposed to janitorial duty as a more appropriate venue. I do hope ACLU includes that in their lawsuit demand.

    23. Re:What about the parents? by major_fault · · Score: 1

      Such things heal better when there are people to remind that she was done wrong. The cycle can be broken.

    24. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      UMMM we are the only country called America. You know thats the name right? we are the United States of AMERICA. The of part is the key here.

    25. Re:What about the parents? by RealUlli · · Score: 1

      I've never met a Mexican or Canadian who was offended by referring to citizens of the USA as "Americans".

      I have. She lives in Mexico and preferred to call the folks north of the border "USians". Not sure what they're called in Mexican, we were talking English...

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
    26. Re:What about the parents? by metrix007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Americans is the accepted term. Using any other term like USian or USAn is idiotic and tries to solve a problem that does not exist.

      It is always clear from context that Americans refers to people from the USA, not lease because it is the only country that has the word America in it's title. Mexico doesn't count as we are talking about English here.

      In the rare times you need to refer to people from both north and south America it will be clear from the context, otherwise prefixing north or south to Americans makes it clear.

      There is really no problem to be solves except by pissy PC people who think the US somehow claimed a title it doesn't deserve.

      disclaimer: not american in any sense of the word.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    27. Re:What about the parents? by icebraining · · Score: 2
    28. Re:What about the parents? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      I send my kid to private school, there school explicitly states that they will not let anyone police included speak with my child without first contacting me for my approval. This should be a basic rule, these guys should be canned and sued for such idiocy.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    29. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what would you call people from the Americas? You know, North- and South America?

    30. Re:What about the parents? by firex726 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, they are so worried over a kid hurting themselves that they take away the monkey bars, or sand pit; but see no issues with forcing them to hand over login creds, or activating webcams in supplied laptops.

    31. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      Actually, the "of" is an implicit acknowledgement that the part preceding it is a subset of something greater.

      If you're going to be a pedant, at least get it right.

    32. Re:What about the parents? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      Sort of like how in English we call Germans Germans rather than the more appropriate term.

      That term being...?

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    33. Re:What about the parents? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      North Americans / South Americans? I don't think we need an extra term for "someone from either North or South America".

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    34. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then they could be rightfully sued for any of those punishments as well. The issue in dispute here is whether a school administrator has the power to punish speech which is engaged in outside of a school-controlled environment.

      If they have the legitimate power to punish this then students have no other rights either, whether at school or not. Since speech and behavior codes in a school do not distinguish between staff, students, and visitors, it means they are claiming the authority to punish a student for any speech, in any context, at any time. No, they're not doing it explicitly, but it is certainly implied based on the logic they use to enforce rules in this manner.

    35. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say, just wondering, but, since illegal Mexican immigrants are beginning to leave the U.S., rather than face legislation in a state they settle in, are they leaking into Canada? I figure there is a chance, because if you can think of it, there is a demographic that has you covered. Does the future hold Modelo rather than Moosehead?
      Will there be a new subculture of French-Mexican hybrids demanding Espanol in schools. Sure they tend the farms and weed the rape so we can all enjoy Canola, but will they displace jobs? Will their brightly colored, over dressed pickup trucks frighten the Mounties horses? Just what would the Canadians do if the wind blew the Mexicans north, rather than south?
      Curiosity is just eating me....

    36. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At least in the USA police are typically not allowed to interview minors without at least notifying the parents, so it wouldn't surprise me if either department policy or state law was broken during these proceedings. However, it's hard-to-impossible to get abusive officers (or departments) disciplined for anything unless there is video and a willing district attorney (something of a rarity in itself), so it probably doesn't matter much if the former is the case.

    37. Re:What about the parents? by flyneye · · Score: 0

      With Minoan villages found in New Hampshire, evidence of Viking culture in the north, Celtic Ogam writings on riverbanks throughout the U.S., Roman Galleys sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, Chinese 500 year old anchor stones found along the California coast, and of course the first influx over the Bearing Strait, and all these cultures showing in Indian culture,do you really believe there is a specific race of "natives" here? Even Egyptians and Pacific Islanders are suspect in the South American "natives".

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    38. Re:What about the parents? by Sique · · Score: 0

      We don't. We just use "Americans". If we are talking about someone from the U.S., we specify it and call them U.S. Americans or Americans from the U.S..

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    39. Re:What about the parents? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Deutsch. as in Ich bin Deutsch.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    40. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deutsche

    41. Re:What about the parents? by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      Knucklehead, blockhead... ;)

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    42. Re:What about the parents? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Americans is the nice term, loud mouths is another... ;)

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    43. Re:What about the parents? by BoxRec · · Score: 1

      Not neccessarily always clear, I have used the generic American for inhbitants of the Americas and have had emails from people in the USA thinking it meant just them.

    44. Re:What about the parents? by AlecC · · Score: 1, Informative

      "USAn" is internet shorthand for "citizen of the USA".
      Are you saying: 1: there is no such thing as a citizen of the USA, or 2: you are posting on /. and yet are unaware of the Internet propensity for abbreviations?

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    45. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not being pedantic to point out that there's no other country in the world with "America" in the name. Hence, "American" refers to a very clear geographical group. Sure, there may be a small minority of people that don't approve of using this label that way, but everything is disliked by someone, and it doesn't change the fact that there's no one in the world that will get confused as to who you are talking about. (Unless you try to use it to refer to Native Americans)

    46. Re:What about the parents? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Americans is the accepted term. Using any other term like USian or USAn is idiotic and tries to solve a problem that does not exist.

      It is always clear from context that Americans refers to people from the USA, not lease because it is the only country that has the word America in it's title. Mexico doesn't count as we are talking about English here.

      By that flawed logic, an African is always someone from South Africa too.

      In the rare times you need to refer to people from both north and south America it will be clear from the context, otherwise prefixing north or south to Americans makes it clear.

      How about someone from either North or South America?

      If you want to use a term for citizens and residents of USA which isn't based on an abbreviation of "United States of America", you already have one: Columbian.
      Of course, the typical Columbian would not understand what you meant.

      If it's too difficult to understand, Seppo works fine too.

    47. Re:What about the parents? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >It's also the convention in every language I've ever heard. Why change something that works?

      Well in large parts of the world outside the USA (including South Africa) it's quite common to refer to all Americans as "yankees" - and those of us who didn't study advanced history (which included the US civil war, something that in school is glossed over as rather unimportant to our lives compared to our OWN histories) or watch old movies generally have no idea that in the USA "Yankees" only refer to people from the North (indeed - the first I learned it was when I watched Gone with the Wind at age 16).

      I totally agree with you. Why change something that works ? I mean what are the odds that somebody from Atlanta is going to hear my tell a joke about stupid redneck yankees in the pub tonight right ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    48. Re:What about the parents? by metrix007 · · Score: 2

      Then that is your fault for using a well accepted term in a different manner without explaining the difference.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    49. Re:What about the parents? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Not sure what they're called in Mexican, we were talking English...

      *facepalm*...
      Seriously ? I live in a third world country on the other side of the world and even I know there's no such language as "Mexican".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    50. Re:What about the parents? by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

      United States of America
      Estados Unidos de Mexico
      United Arab Emirates
      European Union .....

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
    51. Re:What about the parents? by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      By that flawed logic, an African is always someone from South Africa too.

      It isn't flawed logic, it's how things are. Given how many people don't have a problem understanding the current system, it is anything but flawed.

      You can't compare Africa and the Americas in this context. While I get your point, it is irrelevant. It would eb relevant for an argument if we were designing how people should refer to citizens and countries/continents, but we are not. We are talking about how people do refer to citizens and countries and currently there is no ambiguity.

      How about someone from either North or South America?

      You refer to people of the Americas. Which is sufficient for the rare times that you need to refer to the people from two continents as one group.

      If you want to use a term for citizens and residents of USA which isn't based on an abbreviation of "United States of America", you already have one: Columbian.

      That makes as much sense as calling South Africans Capetownians. It's beyond dumb.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    52. Re:What about the parents? by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We" being pedants who have no interest in being clearly understood?

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
    53. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Legal dangers? Students have limited rights when it comes to the first amendment in the U.S.:
      * http://articles.cnn.com/2007-06-25/justice/free.speech_1_principal-deborah-morse-banner-case-school-policy/2?_s=PM:LAW
      * Some public schools feel they need to the decide what students wear, public uniforms. I know my school tried to enforce uniforms after a suicide threat by a kid who brought a knife into school and after seeing this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epeo8Pfm1xM . They just made us tuck in our shirts when the district and the parents refused to pay for uniforms.
      * Webcam monitoring was already attempted: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-20/justice/laptop.suit_1_webcam-district-court-laptop?_s=PM:CRIME
      * And requesting social media passwords aren't unheard of considering other things: http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10585353-govt-agencies-colleges-demand-applicants-facebook-passwords

      Requesting passwords seems to be well within the gray area where a non-timid district would be willing to make a power grab, and hope to gain such abilities. The gov is brushing up against warrantless cellphone searches (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/obama-admin-wants-warrantless-access-to-cell-phone-location-data.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss), so an organization tasked with keeping our children safe from even themselves could easily make the argument to sympathetic members of the public that they need this power.

      Actually, reading the article I see that last statement is a bit truer. They brought in law enforcement to force a hand over of information without a warrant. The Superintendent's response to the lawsuit: [quote]"We're taken aback by it," he said.[/quote]. Worrying about the legality didn't seem to even cross their minds it seems.

      The part that has me tweaked is they did this. She's twelve. Facebook, last I checked, requires you to be thirteen. They had a perfectly jerkwad path to take to get her off/limit her Facebook activities already if they could get the company to comply, and possibly a lawsuit they could win if Facebook didn't.

    54. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South America is best America.

    55. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could be a problem with peopole from Colombia though.

    56. Re:What about the parents? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well here is your counter story. When I was all over 9 years old I suffered from bad handwriting called by small-muscle coordination problems. I still haven't got great handwriting to this day.

      But with teachers lumping me under "doesn't bother to be a neat writer" there came a day when I had to erase something (at that stage we only wrote in pencil). The eraser I used had, unbeknownst to me gotten some pencil soot on it and left a big black mark in my book. Like a good little boy I went to my teacher to ask for advice. Instead of advice I was shouted at for making a mess in my book before I even finished my sentence... then sent to the teacher next door to be further ridiculed.
      A ridicule process that continued for some time all the way back to my own classroom where she then proceeded for the first time to ask my name. I told her my name ... and she said "I think 'varkie' would be a better name for you." (Varkie in my language literally means piglet - but without any of the 'cute' connotations... little swine is a better translation).

      The nickname stuck with me until I finally left for highschool - I got into fights all the time against kids calling me that, but nonetheless made it onto the student council in my final year of primary school and ended it as one of the top-scorers - but make no mistake that my social life was irreperably harmed and my ability to make friends suffered greatly.

      Like most kids in such a situation, I felt ashamed and didn't tell my family, big mistake, I told my dad some 4 years later (just before I would leave primary school) and then he was furious and told me if I had told him the story on the day he'd have had that teacher fired.

      That message changed my life... for the first time I understood that shit happens, but you don't have to be a victim - you can make bad people pay, you can hold people to account for their actions - even if they are authority figures. I went through high school a great deal happier, and made some real friends. I went to University where I was very successful and today I am 32 and I can say that I earn more money in a day than that teacher likely earns in month.

      There's a last little tail to the story. Just before I left primary school I bumped into that teacher one day, and she spoke to me, and talked of how "you don't like me because you're afraid of me" ... in retrospect, I hadn't fully understood why she chose to stop me and say that, nowadays I would outright have said to her "no, I don't like you because you horribly abused your position of authority and ruined my childhood you fucking bitch" and dared her to do anything about it.

      The thing is - your fairytale happened. I'm a happy and successful person. I remember these events, but they didn't define me - except to give me a perpetual soft spot for the underdog. The good guys won - even if the bad guy wasn't punished, it was the LAST teacher who did something wrong to me and didn't get in deep shit.
      There is a massive culture of power-abuse by teachers who think discipline is their job. I don't agree. Their job is to educate. Discipline is at best an evil they require to do their jobs and should be minimized not maximized. Their power, like that of any authority, should be the LEAST amount with which they can do their jobs, not the most.

      But don't think she's doomed. Her parents are doing exactly the right things. She may suffer a while but don't be surprized if she comes out stronger - and with a lifelong belief in being a champion for those who are stepped upon.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    57. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of suing the school. try suing the administrator specifically. True the school has more money. But if you really want to stop this. Sue the people that specifically did it for violating the policies of the school on a personal agenda. Every school administrator that thinks they may get sued instead of the school will follow the line quite well. Right now the administrator will think the school will take the brunt for their every action. I'm willing to bet there are many state and school policies that were violated. If the administrator has to take responsibility based on his actions he is going to think twice in the future. But as I said its less money.

    58. Re:What about the parents? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Los Gringos....

    59. Re:What about the parents? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If you want to use a term for citizens and residents of USA which isn't based on an abbreviation of "United States of America", you already have one: Columbian.

      That makes as much sense as calling South Africans Capetownians. It's beyond dumb.

      No, it is not comparable at all. Columbia is the poetic name for the United States. If you think it's based on the name of the capital and not the other way around, you're seriously ignorant.

      Calling a citizen or resident of USA a Columbian is like calling a Swiss a Helvetian, a Brit an Albion or an Irishman a Hibernian.

    60. Re:What about the parents? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well they have their own nationality names anyways. Mexican, Canadian... Also it is the United States of America as part of our name, unlike the other countries in our areas the USA is 3 words long. So it makes making a word to describe us rather difficult....

      Unitarian (That is a religion), Statan (Looks really close to Satan, Iran would have a field day with that one).

      If you want to identify yourself by continent then you need to prefix of North or South so you are North American or South American... However if you need to express your location within the united states you are a Northern American, Southern American, Western American... Texan...

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    61. Re:What about the parents? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      That could be a problem with peopole from Colombia though.

      Why? It's not like people can't distinguish similar country names already. You'd have to be pretty dense to mistake Austria for Australia or Switzerland for Sweden, and I'm sure there are no one that dumb.

      People didn't think Peter Falk played the capital of Sri Lanka either...

    62. Re:What about the parents? by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 1

      Students have limited rights when it comes to the first amendment in the U.S.

      Not according to the constitution. Sure, some senile old lawyers went along with it but that doesn't make them right.

    63. Re:What about the parents? by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Which sounds too much like Dutch. Granted it is a big just from Deutsche to German.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    64. Re:What about the parents? by SargentDU · · Score: 1

      from AC "South America is best America."
      Even if it is smaller? :)

    65. Re:What about the parents? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I've never met a Mexican or Canadian who was offended by referring to citizens of the USA as "Americans".

      I'm not offended by it, no. But I do get bothered when I'm taken as a citizen of the USA because I happen to live in North America and speak English. I accept the moniker "Americans" for the citizens of the USA, because it is shorter and easier to say than "Citizens of the USA". It's not inaccurate to call them Americans, it's imprecise. Strictly speaking I'm an American as well: I was born in America, after all, and do hold citizenship in a country that's in America. Just not the United States of America. The problem is there isn't really a collective noun that specifically refers to citizens of the USA.

      That being said, being Canadian isn't exactly something to be proud of in the world today. I'm really not pleased with what my government is doing... Harper has managed to turn us from respected diplomats into an international laughingstock. :(

    66. Re:What about the parents? by Sique · · Score: 0

      What's not to be understood with "Americans from the U.S."?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    67. Re:What about the parents? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Seriously ? I live in a third world country on the other side of the world and even I know there's no such language as "Mexican".

      There is a dialect, though... give him the benefit of the doubt. :) Mexican Spanish is different from the Spanish spoken in Spain.

      (but I have met Americans in my travels who responded "what state is that in?" when I told them I was from Canada....)

    68. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU is not a country.

    69. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna correct you right there, but the peso on my desk says "Estados Unidos Mexicanos."

    70. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that articulate and pessimistic reply.

      Hopefully other parents and children will realize by example and dialog that bullying in schools is not exclusive to the playground.
      (and by that I mean the school officials that are guilty of bullying as well)

    71. Re:What about the parents? by netsavior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You joke, but I was expelled in 9th grade for something vaguely similar (admitting I had done something off campus that was neither illegal, nor against student code of conduct). My kids (age 7 and 5) have explicit instructions from me. If the principal, teacher, or a policeman want you to say something that you do not want to say or do something you do not want to do (other than normal school work) then you need to say:

      "I don't want to do that unless you call my parents"

      will it result in false positives? Maybe. Will I honor that phone call? ABSOLUTELY.

      Kids don't actually have many rights, especially during school hours. They are not protected by our laws because they can't vote. The only ones that can protect them from abuse of power is their parents, so whereas you are entitled to trial, counsel, not incriminating yourself, children are only really entitled to not being denied access to their parents. It is my job to extend my civil rights to my children in this situation, because they have none. So the earlier I am involved in an incident, the better.

    72. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have to be pretty dense to mistake Austria for Australia

      The Internet can be pretty dumb: http://images.encyclopediadramatica.ch/b/b7/Patriot.jpg

    73. Re:What about the parents? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      she's 11 years old. at that age, you don't have the ability to say NO to authority figures, not really.

      they took advantage of her. they should be sued to kingdom come so that it never happens again.

      abuse of power should be punished harshly. but it rarely is.

      parents should teach their kids to refuse to cooperate on sensitive issues (just clam up!) and wait until your 'council' (parents) arrive. but then, most parents are idiots, too; and will probably go along with any privacy invasions as they don't quite 'get' the whole 'privacy is a human rights', thing, regardless of age.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    74. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You end up having to sue the school, specifically *because* the administrator was following school policies. Apparently "I was just following policy" is a valid excuse where "I was just following orders" isn't.

    75. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      You're right. Unfortunately, I wasn't taking issue with the "only one country called America" part, making the rest of this irrelevant with respect to what I actually did write.

    76. Re:What about the parents? by camperdave · · Score: 0

      Free speech aside, don't you USAns have a constitutional right to not incriminate yourself ?

      A password is not testimony. A password is not direct evidence. It's like a lock on the door. If the cops show up with a proper search warrant, you are obligated to unlock the door.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    77. Re:What about the parents? by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      wow, talk about citations needed

    78. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to elucidate a bit, since I haven't the slightest clue as to what this comment is supposed to convey.

    79. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suspend for disobediance with a recomendation for expulsion. No college for you. Good luck getting a job.

    80. Re:What about the parents? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      I sure as hell would be. They aren't the law, they have no right to enforce things outside their jurisdiction which in this case is school grounds, this happened off of school property, whether it was pertaining to the school or not. I think what's most troubling is the thought that the schools are following students social media pages. What need is there to do this? There were tons of people at school I hated and I made it well known I didn't like them.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    81. Re:What about the parents? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course not, it programs the child to think that it is ok to give up freedoms if authorities say so.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    82. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have a search warrant. A searh warrant for a comment on facebook will go to Facebook directly. This was intimidation of a minor to allow a full and thorough search or fishing expedition. It has been shown in a us court that the police do not have the authority to demand access without having good reason and knowledge of a specific thing that they are looking for.

    83. Re:What about the parents? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      We do but that is not saying anything in court to incriminate ourselves. I don't think it would pertain in this case like if I released a newsletter stating the same. At that point it has been made public knowledge. In this case thought it's more worrisome that the teachers forced the kid to hand over login details. Most likely threatening suspension or expulsion. If I found out the school or a teacher did this to my kid, they had better hope a lawsuit was the least I did.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    84. Re:What about the parents? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The term for that would be New Worlders.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    85. Re:What about the parents? by jeepien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WTF did the last fifty comments on what to call "Americans" have to do with passwords, law enforcement, or free speech?

    86. Re:What about the parents? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I know of more than a few as well, and they are not indians or native americans, it's whatever tribe they belong to.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    87. Re:What about the parents? by lytithwyn · · Score: 1

      Of course not, it programs the child to think that it is ok to give up freedoms if authorities say so.

      I couldn't agree more. I wish I had some mod points for you.

    88. Re:What about the parents? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Whenever I get asked what state I'm in, I usually respond with "a sort of calm, relaxed state".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    89. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah someone else who remembers that terribly poignant scene and what it means. Thank you for reminding me. I shall not forget how to dance!

    90. Re:What about the parents? by jeepien · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't be silly. The speech and behavior rules in a school certainly DO distinguish between staff, students, and visitors. And the staff part usually differentiates further, between those who hold professional certification and those who don't (i.e., teachers and custodians).

      IANAL, but in case anyone cares, courts have already ruled on this quite a few times, and the most common test on whether the school can discipline students for out-of-school acts is: whether the act could be reasonably expected to cause a "substantial disruption" of the educational mission of the school.

      Having no other information to go on this case does not seem likely to rise to that level.

    91. Re:What about the parents? by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      Dude, that is literally the best parenting advice I have ever heard. Talk about a life skill worth teaching!!!

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    92. Re:What about the parents? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

      Calling a citizen or resident of USA a Columbian is like calling a Swiss a Helvetian, a Brit an Albion or an Irishman a Hibernian.

      They are alike in the fact that only 14 people on the planet would understand you.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    93. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is 'estadounidenses'.

    94. Re:What about the parents? by dgower2 · · Score: 1

      Great! Very funny!

      --

      Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    95. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Vermont?

      (Whenever I hear the words "a state of utter despair" my brain fills in "New Jersey".)

    96. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I honestly think that one girl had it coming.

      And what's so incriminating about saying you hate someone and cursing? I know some other countries have stricter laws than we do when it comes to things like libel but I find it difficult to believe that this would break any laws more lax than what the Puritans had. I mean, I wouldn't even call saying she hated someone "bullying" - if anything, they were the bullies. Getting a freaking deputy and all your buddies and forcing a 12-year-old schoolgirl to hand over her personal life like that. Yeah, real big.

    97. Re:What about the parents? by WillyWanker · · Score: 0

      Yet despite what most citizens of the United States believe they are NOT the only "AMERICANS", as anyone living anywhere in either North, South, or Central AMERICA can lay claim to that title.

    98. Re:What about the parents? by niado · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Some of the fringe theories mentioned I haven't even heard of (Minoan villages...?).

      Wikipedia article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

      Short version: Norse contact c. 1000 AD confirmed. Polynesian contact c. 700AD likely. Inuit reverse contact possible. Everything else is based on pseudo-scientific speculation, unconfirmed "evidence", or unsubstantiated/hoax evidence.

    99. Re:What about the parents? by ffflala · · Score: 1

      At least in the USA police are typically not allowed to interview minors without at least notifying the parents,

      That's simply not at all correct. In the US, police can interview minors without parental notification. Often they need to, such as if they are dealing with suspected child abuse.

    100. Re:What about the parents? by niado · · Score: 1

      lol found the Minoan village reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Stonehenge

    101. Re:What about the parents? by gv250 · · Score: 5, Funny

      To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
      To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
      To Northerners, a Yankee is from the East.
      To Easterners, a Yankee is from New England.
      To New Englanders, a Yankee is from Vermont.
      And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast

    102. Re:What about the parents? by berzerke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...It boggles the mind that some would step so clearly out-of-bounds and risk something exactly like this...

      Not really. It's that corporate (or government) shield thing. The people directly responsible aren't paying to defend the lawsuit, and they won't pay a single penny of any damages that may be awarded. They certainly won't do a single day of jail time if they are found to have broken some law. At best, they may get some extra training and be reassigned.

      Since there is no real risk, they have no reason not to step out-of-bounds.

    103. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with you. Why change something that works ? I mean what are the odds that somebody from Atlanta is going to hear my tell a joke about stupid redneck yankees in the pub tonight right ?

      You realize the gentleman from Atlanta will only take offense at the redneck part not the yankee part right? Because he is not a yankee. Furthermore, nobody sees yankee as an insult. One of the most venerable sports institutions in the US is the New York Yankees.

    104. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...what in the world are the school administrators thinking

      You're claiming that they think at all. Between this action, and 'zero tolerance' rules, we'll need massive amounts of proof to substantiate that claim.

    105. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what would you call people from the Americas? You know, North- and South America?

      You seem to have referred to them without issue or ambiguity or excessive verbosity without using the term 'American' not once but twice. So what was the problem again?

    106. Re:What about the parents? by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      I'm not American. I don't think it is seriously ignorant for someone not from the US to know the history behind the term Columbia . Assuming it was related to the capital seemed reasonable.

      If anything, I would say you are showing your ignorance by assuming that most people would know the history related to that term.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    107. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little confused by the article and filing, or perhaps everyone else is...
       
      The deputy is welcome to ask the girl for her password. He's welcome to try to convince her. He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation. That's how an interrogation works. He can not "force her", nor can he harm her (and it does not appear that he did). She could have hid behind the 5th, but instead chose to give up her login details. I'm not saying that what the deputy is morally right, but that she could have said nothing, and requested counsel.
       
      All of this is probably overshadowed by the fact that no crime was actually committed. The deputy should not have been called, she shouldn't have been interrogated in the first place, etc.

      I'd really like to keep our eyes on the ball(s) of this case, rather than to jump to conclusions based on sensationalist headlines. The ACLU pdfs seem reasonable.

    108. Re:What about the parents? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast

      So that would be...everyone in the world who can afford pie ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    109. Re:What about the parents? by TheRedSeven · · Score: 4, Informative
      They actually *do* have the ability to enforce things outside their school grounds. At least in my school district.

      (Reposting a comment I have also posted below...because it's relevant to your comment. Sorry for dupe-ing.)

      I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.

      I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a .pdf):

      5.14 Use of any computer, including social networking websites, or use of any information technology device, or hacking into the CPS Network to threaten, stalk, harass, bully or otherwise intimidate others, to access student records or other unauthorized information, and/or to otherwise cause a security hazard. [emphasis mine]

      (On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list? ...discussion for another time...)

      Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:

      The SCC applies to actions of students during school hours, before and after school, while on school property, while traveling on vehicles funded by the Board, at all school-sponsored events, and while using the CPS Network or any computer, Information Technology Device, or social networking website, when the actions affect the mission or operation of the Chicago Public Schools. Students may also be subject to discipline for Group 5 or 6 Inappropriate Behaviors that occur either off campus or during non-school hours, including actions that involve the use of any computer, Information Technology Device or social networking website, when the misconduct disrupts or may disrupt the orderly educational process in the Chicago Public Schools. [emphasis mine]

      Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.

      It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.

    110. Re:What about the parents? by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I had something similar happen to me in... 6th or 7th grade? Might have been 8th. (So we're talking late 90s, early 00s.)

      I was doing arts and crafts at some... library thing. Might have been boy scouts. The point is, it was also an out of school function. We were making our own bookmarks and then laminating them. I made one that said something like "Some people are nice..." on one side and "...and I'm not one of them!" on the back. Just something silly and teenage-y.

      I go to school the next day, and I find out that I had left my stupid little bookmark there. The person running the class (who also happened to be my school's art teacher) showed it to my teacher, and my teacher talked to me and stated how it was inappropriate. I replied with it was none of her business at it had taken place outside of school. I suppose she was power tripping or one of those "think of the children" people, but she was really fishing for me to apologize or admit guilt or something. She threatened to escalate it to the principal. I said "Go ahead," sat down, and went back to my schoolwork.

      Still have that bookmark somewhere...

      Long story short, make sure you teach your kids how to deal with authority figures who are asshats. Teach them to say no to the authority when they make an unreasonable request. Teach them to stand up for themselves like my parents did.

    111. Re:What about the parents? by alexo · · Score: 1

      Yet despite what most citizens of the United States believe they are NOT the only "AMERICANS", as anyone living anywhere in either North, South, or Central AMERICA can lay claim to that title.

      Speaking as a Canadian, I don't know of any Canadian (with the possible exception of Harper) that would want to lay claim to that title.

    112. Re:What about the parents? by KingMotley · · Score: 0

      Actually, since the continents of North America and South America as a combined group is called the Americas, an "American" would be anyone from those continents, not just the US.

    113. Re:What about the parents? by strikeleader · · Score: 0

      USA...USA...USA...oh sorry I forgot that is considered racist now.

    114. Re:What about the parents? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      It's funny, but my father (ex-hippy, anti-establishment guy that he is) taught me from about that age about my rights as concerns police and how to handle myself around them. Granted, when he was not much older than I was at that age he was getting his head cracked by baton-happy riot police in one protest or another, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

      It's important to teach our kids their rights, especially these days with all the bullshit surveillance, monitoring of online accounts, "enhanced security screening", and all the other Orwellian fuckery going on these days...and it's equally important to demonstrate your willingness to stand up for them to your kids as well. Imagine how much different our own lives would be if we'd grown up watching mommy and daddy just capitulate and do whatever the goon with a badge tells them to?

      There are good cops out there that genuinely want to help people, but there are a scary amount of cops that were just jock bully fuck-heads in school and want the freedom to be a state-sponsored bully in their adulthood. I suspect that the police officer involved in this case was the latter. I bet he feels pretty powerful bullying a 11 year old girl, though, that's for sure...

    115. Re:What about the parents? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      And not only that, but this was FaceBook. The school wouldn't have had any rights regardless. The worst part is, people this incredibly stupid are teaching your children!

      As to your "senile old lawyers", age != senility. If a lawyer becomes senile he's not going to be practicing for long.

    116. Re:What about the parents? by demachina · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just because a school board/administrator writes it in to their policies doesn't make it legal or right. Those policies grossly exceed their jurisdiction when the activities occur outside school hours, on a students personal computer, and not on school property. The student is only subject to local, state and Federal law at that point not the whims of the school board.

      People with some power often seek to acquire more power, and it regretably often falls on the shoulders of the people whose rights are being trampled to try to stop them.

      For example the U.S. President and Attorney General have recently bestowed upon themselves the power to assasinate American citizens without any judicial oversight. Just because they say they can doesn't change the fact that they are probably violating the Constitution and their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The burden has now shifted on entities like the ACLU to engage in a multi year battle in the courts to try to prove them wrong.

      In a similar vein the Bush administration gave themselve the power to torture people which is also a violation of Federal laws and international treaties.

      A problem may arise when the politicians who are breaking the laws manage to stack the judicial process, especially the Supreme court, so the courts also fail to do the right thing, and let them get away with it.

      Another problem arises when you have a two party system and both parties have become equally complicit in dismantling the rule of law and trampling civil liberties.

      When those two things happen all the checks and balances the founding fathers built in to the Constitution are gone, and you are on the road to a totalitarian state unless the actual people up and say NO. That is a hard thing though, most people are too afraid.

      --
      @de_machina
    117. Re:What about the parents? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You have a few of those kind of nutter everywhere. That doesn't mean that we should all follow their lead.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    118. Re:What about the parents? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Latinos mostly.

      Although I would much rather refer to them by name. It's no less sloppy or unnacceptable to engage in this lazy sort of "shorthand" whether it's Brazilians or "Indians".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    119. Re:What about the parents? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      It's all there in the constitution, man. It's just invisible!

    120. Re:What about the parents? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation.

      Oh, I see. So for normal citizens, that kind of thing usually isn't allowed, but for cops, it's perfectly okay!

    121. Re:What about the parents? by bartosek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. A thousand times this.

      At my son's school they have a student code of conduct regarding technology which both the children and their parents are supposed to sign. One of the more egregious clauses gives the school permission to seize and search through students cell phones, laptops, MP3 players, etc, if they believe there is some incriminating evidence contained within. I struck that clause out and wrote a note saying if they had any problems with that to contact me, not a peep.

      If the school has any concerns or suspicions about what my son is doing they should contact me and have me search through his stuff. If we give the school that power it just desensitises our children against invasive privacy abuse.

    122. Re:What about the parents? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      I replied with it was none of her business

      Too bad you didn't tell her how it pretty much had nothing on it.

      "...and I'm not one of them!" Wow! That's awful! That's the most vile, reprehensible comment I've ever laid my eyes upon. That's almost as bad as calling someone a "stupid head."

      I don't think it bodes well for schools if their staff are actually more childish than the students.

    123. Re:What about the parents? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a west coaster, Yankees mean is a hated baseball team. *shakes fist eastward toward yankee stadium*

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    124. Re:What about the parents? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      so you look, speak act, and live in the US, but hate it when people think you are a citizen?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    125. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's welcome to try to convince her. He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation.

      Except that in any reasonable society, the deputy would have no cause whatsoever to be interrogating her in the first place.

    126. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've actually encountered that last one, though it's uncommon, and usually used by people who are trying to sound more learned than they actually are.

      Calling an American a Columbian is somewhat ridiculous - the USA is NOT called Columbia; it's not even a commonly-used convention in poetry, much less in common usage. To equate the two is more akin to equating Greece with Atlantis.

      Moreover, it's needlessly confusing: there already is a group of people called Columbians. They're people from Columbia, the country in South America.

    127. Re:What about the parents? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting a job even if you receive your piece of paper.

    128. Re:What about the parents? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      because they have none

      Interestingly enough, the constitution never actually says that children don't have rights such as free speech...

      But then again, a school isn't exactly a court.

    129. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously ? I live in a third world country on the other side of the world and even I know there's no such language as "Mexican".

      Seriously? Talk to a native Spaniard sometime and ask them what they think of the bastardization of their language as spoken (term used loosely) by the citizens of Mexico...

    130. Re:What about the parents? by everett · · Score: 1

      "That is a hard thing though, most people are too afraid." and rightly so, how many would stand in front of an armored column in defiance of totalitarianism. I recall there only being one man in the photos from Tienanmen Square

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    131. Re:What about the parents? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      because they have none

      Interestingly enough, the constitution never actually says that children don't have rights such as free speech...

      But then again, a school isn't exactly a court.

      Think of it this way... the only people in the world that it is legal to hit because you think they need a beating are children. They have no rights.

    132. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because it's in writing doesn't make it legal, enforceable, or ethical

    133. Re:What about the parents? by everett · · Score: 1

      There's also no country called "Spain" or "Germany", those are just the names we gave to countries that have rightful names. So it's only fair that they can call us whatever they want in return.

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    134. Re:What about the parents? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Calling an American a Columbian is somewhat ridiculous - the USA is NOT called Columbia; it's not even a commonly-used convention in poetry, much less in common usage.

      Washington, D.C. is called that because "District of Columbia" rolls better off the tongue than "District of the United States of America".
      There's also Columbia university in New York, Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), Columbia Records, the space shuttle Columbia and quite a few other uses of the name.
      Until 1931, one of the US national anthems was "Hail, Columbia!"

      Moreover, it's needlessly confusing: there already is a group of people called Columbians. They're people from Columbia, the country in South America.

      No, that's Colombians from Colombia.

    135. Re:What about the parents? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I send my kid to private school, there school explicitly states that they will not let anyone police included speak with my child

      I see that you, yourself, went to a public school...

    136. Re:What about the parents? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Which sounds too much like Dutch. Granted it is a big just from Deutsche to German.

      "Dutch" is also a poor name choice for the people from the Netherlands. (They call themselves and their language "Nederlands".)

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    137. Re:What about the parents? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The fact that they DO those things doesn't mean they have the RIGHT to do those things.
      Such behavior is completely illegal.

      All it would take is 1 high profile lawsuit and 1 judge saying "What the FUCK do you think you're doing?" for schools across the nation to do an about face on the matter.

    138. Re:What about the parents? by demachina · · Score: 2

      Tank Man is a fascinating story. Very few know what happened to him. His fate ranges from the Chinese authorities denying they ever identified him so he was never punished to his being executed right after the famous incident.

      Peoples do still revolt, though it more typically occurs because of economic issues than purely civil rights issues. When people are starving, disenfranchised and have nothing left to lose they tend to be less afraid of the consequences of revolution. When people have a job, place to live and food to eat, they generally dont really care if their country is turning to a totalitarian state.

      Revolt is typically a horrible thing and it usually ends badly. Revolt is the ultimate collapse in the rule of law, so its paradoxical to resort to revolution to remedy the break down in the rule of law instituted by your government. But when your government no longer adheres to the rule of law what else do you do?

      I recently read I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave and discovered a new word, "workampers". They are people who live in RV's and drive from one warehouse to another getting minimum wage temp jobs. These are places like Amazon's warehouses where most of the work force is permenently temporary so they can keep wages to a minimum since there are no raises or seniority among temp workers, and there are no benefits. One wonders if the U.S. is edging towards the place where economic conditions are so bad for so many that one day they will in fact revolt on economic grounds even if they dont care about the loss of their basic civil liberties.

      --
      @de_machina
    139. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about someone from either North or South America?

      Human. There is no specific term for people from one of (Select any 2 from all continents).

      For example: what is the proper term for someone from either Erurope or Africa? How about Aisia or Australia?

    140. Re:What about the parents? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      There is no specific term for people from one of (Select any 2 from all continents).

      Never heard of Eurasians?

    141. Re:What about the parents? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh. . . people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    142. Re:What about the parents? by TBerben · · Score: 1

      the deputy should be jailed

      EFA. I mean, after a fair and impartial trial, which is more than this girl got.

      The fair and impartial trial of which you just provided/suggested the outcome?

    143. Re:What about the parents? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Different condition - your example is when the child is a victim, not accused of a crime. I believe (but cannot cite) that the law is different in those two circumstances.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    144. Re:What about the parents? by jbolden · · Score: 0

      Schools may very well be an appropriate venue for handling most petty activities involving minors. It is a point of contact between government and underaged people. And in many states their jurisdiction in regulating off campus activities has been extended by state statute.

      Further it was often the case in private schools that the honor code, which regulated all conduct at all times was in force for all students. I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. Reinstating an honor court might very well provide due process for minors without the excessive expenses and consequences associated with adult courts.

    145. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically Mexico's official name is three words long as well: "United Mexican States" in english.

    146. Re:What about the parents? by Computershack · · Score: 1

      SCC isn't law. It is a set of rules for the school.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    147. Re:What about the parents? by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      So, what would you call people from the Americas? You know, North- and South America?

      I guess it depends... do these hypothetical persons have countries of which they are citizens? If so, that would probably be how I would refer to them.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    148. Re:What about the parents? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Statements made by a child against interest may not be admissible if parents aren't notified, and other evidence obtained based on those statements may be ruled inadmissible. Generally it is policy to notify parents unless there is good reason not to.

      It is essentially the same situation as not mirandizing someone.

    149. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the executive director of a small private school. As such, I have a LOT more power and authority over my kids than do public school teachers and administrators. We also have FAR fewer problems than the public schools do, our kids score MUCH higher on the SATs, and our school is a LOT nicer of a place to be.

      We do require all of our students with a facebook/G+/etc account to friend our staff account and include that account in their "close friends" group. Out IT guy even set up a thing on our firewall that prevents logging in to facebook profiles that are not connected to the students school account. It even checks the friends on the staff account to make sure they didn't "unfriend".

      And yes, we do monitor that teacher account. We have a teacher look over it a few times a day looking for specific things - signs of eating disorders, signs of kids getting in over their heads in different situations, etc.

      When we find those things, its our job to help. And it works. This year we have identified 3 students with eating disorders, 1 student that was planning on attempting suicide, a bad substitute teacher, a student getting into drugs, 2 other students that were being pressured into doing something illegal, and a number of students being pressured into other situations that they should not be.

      In all cases, we were able to use the information to help our kids.

      In terms of bringing in the police, its really bad practice on the part of that school system. In my view, my job is to act in the place of the parents. That means that when a cop shows up wanting to interview a kid, in addition to calling the parents, I call our lawyer, who sends down 2 associates (one to represent the school, the other the kid), and will not under almost any circumstances (except for death notification, we did have that happen once) allow the police to speak with the kid until the parents and lawyers have arrived (or at least the lawyers, its not always possible to keep the police at bay for more than a few hours without the help of the lawyers and sometimes court orders...).

    150. Re:What about the parents? by offsides · · Score: 1

      Except that an appeals court recently ruled exactly the opposite - giving a password to decrypt something IS testimony, and I suspect that giving a password for an account would be considered the same way. Yes, if the cops have a warrant they can get in your house wether you unlock it or they bust down the door. But you don't have to unlock it for them, and you don't have to give them their password. The warrant would then have to be served to whatever service hosted your account, and they could get your info that way.

      Also, warrants can be appealed and quashed, and if you can do that and they broke down the door on you, you can usually make them pay for the damages (albeit not individually). You may choose to cooperate with the cops or not, but you're never obligated to. They may make you cooperate in some way or another (e.g., they can arrest you, restrain you, or even shoot you if you're refusing to put down a weapon), but threat of force != obligation (though, again, it may be dumb not to, e.g., put down your weapon...).

    151. Re:What about the parents? by lilfields · · Score: 1

      Honestly, while they often -do- have that ability, they shouldn't unless it's a very serious issue like a criminal case, civil case involving students, etc. Parents, et al, are always blind to government overreach until it happens to them.

    152. Re:What about the parents? by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      Swing and a miss....

      He said he is Canadian. He lives in Canada. Canada is a part of North America just like the U.S.A is a part of North America. Technically all Canadians can be called North Americans or even Americans the same that all French and German people can be called Europeans. The difference is that the United States have taken the term American for them selves and there is nothing else really to call them.

    153. Re:What about the parents? by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Schools may very well be an appropriate venue for handling most petty activities involving minors."

      I can see your point, since schools are substantially less about actually educating children, and more about indoctrinating them to their subservient roles in society and preparing them for a life working for corporations.

      Me I would rather we were raising our children to be highly educated, actively thinking, highly questioning rebels, who would give "honor courts" the "Animal House" treatment. Maybe if we had been raising kids like that for the last 40 years our presidential candidates wouldn't be a horror.

      I'm reminded of a quote from Kim Stanley Robinson's BlueMars , its more about corporations than schools but the two entities are remarkably similard, for a reason:

      "If democracy and self-rule are the fundementals, then why should people give up these rights when the enter their workplace? In politics we fight like tigers for freedom, for the right to elect our leaders, for freedom of movement, for choice of residence, choice of what work to pursue,-- control of our lives in short. And then we wake up in the morning and go to work, and all those rights disappear. We return to feudalism. That is what capitalism is,-- a version of feudalism in which capital replaces land, and business leaders replace kings. But the hierarchy remains. And so we still hand over our lives' labor, under duress, to feed rulers who do no real work."

      Robinson wrote this in 1996, he didn't know we would completely give up figthing for our political rights five years later or that twelve years later his portrait of capitalism as feudalism would be so vividly illustrated.

      --
      @de_machina
    154. Re:What about the parents? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      How is it the fault of he speaker of the listener has an incorrect understanding of a term? If I use "begs the question" properly am I at fault because 95% of other people who use the term use it incorrectly?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    155. Re:What about the parents? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Isn't it against the Terms of Use of Facebook to give your login credentials to someone else? They have just as much authority to raise a stink about this as the school district does, especially since she was also violating the ToS by being underage.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    156. Re:What about the parents? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The worst part is, people this incredibly stupid are teaching your children!

      People that incredibly stupid may be teaching someone's children, but that is neither here nor there. It's the school district administration and the police who messed this one up.

    157. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Puertorrican I call bullshit. Not that estadounidense isn't used but so is americano and it usually means from Estados Unidos de America, just as Mejicano is from Estados Unidos de Mejico.

    158. Re:What about the parents? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As far as we Eurasians are concerned, Eurasia is a single continent.

    159. Re:What about the parents? by demachina · · Score: 2

      I should add if state statute has overreached to the point of giving school boards authority over every moment of the lives of children, it doesn't make it any more right than school boards overreaching and giving themselves this authority.

      If parents choose to put their children in private schools and to surrender their children's rights to these corporations I suppose its their prerogative and part of the price of admission. Me personally, I would want the children themselves to be made aware of what they are signing up for and decide for themselves if they value the school enough to justify surrendering their rights to it.

      The problem with public education is there is substantial coercsion involved in that its nearly mandatory, so me personally I dont think attendance at public schools should be accompanied by the abandonment of children's rights in their totality to school boards and school principals, especially since local school boards are frequently packed with people with disurbing agendas you can get with the tyranny of a majority.

      I think I'm suddenly seeing why home schooling is appealing to many.

      --
      @de_machina
    160. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That being said, being Canadian isn't exactly something to be proud of in the world today.

      Today?

    161. Re:What about the parents? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well they have their own nationality names anyways. Mexican, Canadian... Also it is the United States of <b>America</b> as part of our name, unlike the other countries in our areas the USA is 3 words long. So it makes making a word to describe us rather difficult....

      You do realize that there is no country called Mexico, right? It's called the United Mexican States (or United States of Mexico). In this case, calling someone from the UMS a Mexican is exactly like calling someone from the USA American. It's just taking out the United States part. Canada, on the other hand, is a single federal state (so would be called the Federal State of Canada).

      The current wikipedia entry states,

      "The earliest known use of the name America for this landmass dates from April 25, 1507, where it was used for what is now known as South America. It first appears on a small globe map with twelve time zones, together with the largest wall map made to date, both created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges in France. These were the first maps to show the Americas as a land mass separate from Asia. An accompanying book, Cosmographiae Introductio, anonymous but apparently written by Waldseemüller's collaborator Matthias Ringmann,[25] states, "I do not see what right any one would have to object to calling this part [that is, the South American mainland], after Americus who discovered it and who is a man of intelligence, Amerigen, that is, the Land of Americus, or America: since both Europa and Asia got their names from women". Americus Vespucius is the Latinized version of the Florentine explorer Amerigo Vespucci's name, and America is the feminine form of Americus. Amerigen is explained as Amerigo plus gen, the accusative case of the Greek word for 'earth', and meaning 'land of Amerigo'.[25] (See etymology.) Amerigo itself is an Italian form of the medieval Latin Emericus (see also Saint Emeric of Hungary), which through the German form Heinrich (in English, Henry) derived from the Germanic name Haimirich.[26]

      "Vespucci was apparently unaware of the use of his name to refer to the new landmass, as Waldseemüller's maps did not reach Spain until a few years after his death.[25] Ringmann may have been misled into crediting Vespucci by the widely published Soderini Letter, a sensationalized version of one of Vespucci's actual letters reporting on the mapping of the South American coast, which glamorized his discoveries and implied that he had recognized that South America was a continent separate from Asia; in fact, it is not known what Vespucci believed on this count, and he may have died believing what Columbus had, that they had reached the East Indies in Asia rather than a new continent.[27] Spain officially refused to accept the name America for two centuries, saying that Columbus should get credit, and Waldseemüller's later maps, after he had ceased collaboration with Ringmann, did not include it; however, usage was established when Gerardus Mercator applied the name to the entire New World in his 1538 world map. Acceptance may have been aided by the "natural poetic counterpart" that the name America made with Asia, Africa, and Europa.[25]"

      So originally, anyone termed American would have been native to the South American mainland. Not that it really matters anymore.

    162. Re:What about the parents? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A password is not direct evidence. It's like a lock on the door. If the cops show up with a proper search warrant, you are obligated to unlock the door.

      But if he has no warrant you are under no obligation to open that door, and without a warrant, have no obligation to disclose a password. If the following happens:
      "Open up! Police!"
      "Do you have a warrant?"
      "I don't need a goddamned warrant. Now open the goddamned door or I'll shoot you through it."

      You would have a multimillion dollar civil rights case against the city.

      The cop that bullied the little girl into giving up her password had no warrant and should be slapped down hard. I hope after the lawsuit that gestapo cop gets his walking papers.

    163. Re:What about the parents? by onepoint · · Score: 2

      Sad, but I had to enforce this type of 'course of action' against a threat made to my daughter.

      the key for me to get the school involved was that the threat specifically stated it was going to happen on school grounds.
      ( if the threat was going to be outside of school grounds I would have taken another course )

      I was able to solve it rather quickly and in the course of the communications with the school, I discovered that they seemed to believe that they have the bounty hunters 'freedoms'. I quickly reminded them that I am only looking at this issue in the context of the schools grounds and that they not bother with it outside of the school. They had a fit when I reminded them that the law is still the law and that they can only reach so far. I also advised my daughter not to speak to anyone until the issue was resolved and the person removed from the school. and once that was resolved, to call me and I would advise her what she could say or not say ... ( ended up that she wold not disclose anything to anyone with my lawyer being by her side to protect her rights.

      what I learned after all this is that I needed to teach my daughter more about how to protect her rights and when in doubt, she can call her dad or a lawyer.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    164. Re:What about the parents? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      IwantMyLawyerImNotTalkingToYouPigs

      That's IwantMyLawyerI'mNotTalkingToYouPigs. Learn to spell.

    165. Re:What about the parents? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      As far as we Eurasians are concerned, Eurasia is a single continent.

      Us Oceanians know we've always been at war with Eurasia.

    166. Re:What about the parents? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      No, the last time I set foot in the US was almost a decade ago. Your country has some seriously screwed up ideas that frankly scare me.

    167. Re:What about the parents? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I'm in education, and I can assure you that there are significantly more stupid people teaching your kids than anything in the original article suggests.

      Actually, that is kind of insulting ... to stupid people everywhere.

      I'm kind of wishing there was a mandatory rotation of teachers among the primary, middle and high schools every five years. To be an effective teacher one should be able to teach any grade level with a credential. It would expose the teachers that suck.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    168. Re:What about the parents? by forkfail · · Score: 1

      Yet.

      --
      Check your premises.
    169. Re:What about the parents? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      You are teaching children that the results are justification for the methods. Not sure if you intend for that lesson to get across, but that's the lesson I'm seeing in your words.

    170. Re:What about the parents? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well they have their own nationality names anyways. Mexican, Canadian... Also it is the United States of America as part of our name

      True. Mexico's name is actually "Los Estados Unidos de Mexico", which translates to "United States of Mexico." So calling us "the united states" is far more confusing than calling us "America".

    171. Re:What about the parents? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      I also have a hidden Slashdot Code of Conduct which states that any commenter must to buy me a beer even if they post on a completely unrelated topic I'm not even reading. Since I don't want to become an Alcoholic, I'm not enforcing it so there, you're lucky.

      I cannot believe that any documentation drawn up bby only one seide and can be subject to change with no input from one party can be enforceable. If my employer wants to change my contract, they have to negotiate with me until both of us agree on the changes. Otherwise either of us will have the option of terminating the original contract. One thing they cannot do is enforce the new contract w/o my acceptance. It's the law, I can't see why it would be different for a policy documentation.

    172. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the password is incriminating? Can police still force her to give it up?

    173. Re:What about the parents? by residieu · · Score: 1

      If you want to use a term for citizens and residents of USA which isn't based on an abbreviation of "United States of America", you already have one: Columbian.

      So you want to replace a term that, while technically imprecise, in practice is very clear in its meaning, with a term that will result in immediate confusion with people of Colombia, the South American nation?

    174. Re:What about the parents? by residieu · · Score: 1

      Austria and Australia are one thing. Columbia and Colombia are different in spelling, but identical in pronunciation.

    175. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your colleague can arrive on your door-step and call you names. He can also issue threats to your safety and life.

      Because obviously you can start work in the morning and say "What happened outside of the workplace is none of my employer's business." As an adult you can use government services (such as police) to protect yourself. A child does not have such protection from other children.

    176. Re:What about the parents? by residieu · · Score: 1

      If you've literally lived here your entire life (you were born here), you're a citizen. That's not true in all countries. I'm not sure, but I doubt the US's stance on not giving automatic citizenship to long term residents is an uncommon one.

    177. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Explain to us just how stupid you are. According to the article, the girl was 12 years old. They had no right to interrogate her without her parents being present, and just how many 12 year olds do you know the are aware of what their rights are?

    178. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I apologize, I should have been more clear what I meant when I wrote that particular section. I meant they don't distinguish between speech a student makes with respect to any given person.

      Swearing or being disrespectful to any given person can be punished exactly the same way regardless of whether the student is speaking to or about another student, staff member, or visitor to the event or facility.

      I don't mean to say they necessarily are punished the same way (especially in regard to inter-student exchanges), but simply that speech and conduct rules are uniform and don't distinguish between targets of improper behavior. At least, I've never seen a conduct code which does so.

    179. Re:What about the parents? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There are TWO "United States" in North America. There is the United States of America, and Los Estados Unidos de Mexico ("United States of Mexico" in English).

    180. Re:What about the parents? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Wow you would love nature of the Gothic (http://www47.homepage.villanova.edu/seth.koven/gothic.html) Start reading around the middle.

      Anyway I agree that as workers we live in a less free society, we don't have an artisan culture but rather want our goods mass produced sacrificing variety for inexpensive uniform quality. That incidentally is now what you had in feudalism which was an artisan culture. Rather it is more similar to the slave states of Greece and Rome.

      As for schools their are schools that emphasize autonomy. Montossori schools and Friends schools. These are excellent. They are however not what public schools do... except for some few public charter schools.

    181. Re:What about the parents? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm blowing a hell of a lot of moderation to respond, but this statement cannot stand unchallenged.

      You are flat out wrong.

      I spent months fighting it. At least in North Carolina, they can interrogate your child, force him to write a confession, call him back to update the confession to be more incriminating, and not even have to show up at court. You have no power to challenge the school cop or the assistant principal that forced the confession.

      I paid the $1200 to have the lawyer tell me that there was nothing to be done about it. My son did the nine months of probation and 40 hours of community service. They have your kids, and they'll do whatever they damn well please. Unless you can afford a team of lawyers, there is all of jack and shit that you can do about it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    182. Re:What about the parents? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The was about police I think you are talking about school officials. I assume by "school cop" you mean school security not a police officer assigned to the school.

      You are absolutely right that school officials can attempt to coerce false confessions, the same way bosses and corporate security can with adults.

      Sorry about what happened to your kid.

    183. Re:What about the parents? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      I hope to everything holy that you never have an issue, but if you do, you will see how badly the cards are stacked against you.

      They will first suspend your child. My boy was suspended for "intimidation" for drawing a "racist" cartoon that he saw on a BET comedy show (Dave Chapell). The four black guys that he was trying to get away from in the lunch room apparently were not "intimidating" anyone.

      You will get a chance to go before a board, comprised of the people that suspended your child, set for a month after the suspension. You are not allowed to challenge the merits of the case...only that the schoolboards procedures were followed. If you choose to challenge the verdict of the board, your child will be banned from school until the results of the hearing, schedule 6 weeks later, and faces the prospect of expulsion if the review board, composed of school administrators, decides against you. They offer an alternative school, which is mostly the discipline problems from throughout the school district and well known as a physically dangerous place to be.

      That's some damn tough decisions you'll be making. You won't sleep well for months, and you'll be bitter for many years afterwards. Unless you have tens of thousands for lawyers, no one will care. Lawyers will take your single digit thousands, but when push comes to shove, they will shrug their shoulders and say something along the lines of, "Oh well, that's how it is."

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    184. Re:What about the parents? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      If they want to search anything your son has, they will completely ignore your note. Afterwards, they will completely ignore your protests. They may give you the feel good measure of letting you talk in front of a review board if they think it might shut you up, but you may as well talk to your wall at home. The ONLY way you will get ANY satisfaction is to have deep pockets, and the willingness to give it to lawyers.

      Trust someone who has been there. These people are practiced at screwing over parents. They have the purse of the state and the sentiments of the people (poor underpaid and overworked teachers) to back them.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    185. Re:What about the parents? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I told my dad some 4 years later (just before I would leave primary school) and then he was furious and told me if I had told him the story on the day he'd have had that teacher fired. That message changed my life... for the first time I understood that shit happens, but you don't have to be a victim - you can make bad people pay, you can hold people to account for their actions - even if they are authority figures.

      If you lived in the US, it would be a good thing that you didn't tell your dad until it was to late. He would have tried to have the teacher fired. She would keep her job, and you would have suffered the retaliation. It's not that he would have been fighting the teacher. He would be fighting the bureaucracy and the teacher's union.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    186. Re:What about the parents? by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful Here you've hit the nail on the head. All the way through.

    187. Re:What about the parents? by TheRedSeven · · Score: 0

      It is the disciplinary code that the Chicago Board of Ed has established, in coordination with their legal department, to guide the behavioral discipline of students by teachers and administrators. You are correct to say that it is *not* law. But it *is* regulation by an executive branch of government that carries the force of law.

    188. Re:What about the parents? by TheRedSeven · · Score: 0

      Ever seen the EPA change its regulations on pollution standards? Or the FDA change the labeling requirements for food products or ban flavored cigarettes? These things have happened in the recent past. No legislator or elected official voted on these. They were simply put into place as regulations by the executive branch. No negotiation with different parties--they are the regulator, you are the regulated.

      This is the same thing. The Chicago Board of Education is part of the executive branch of government, and has the ability to create regulation within the scope of its mandate. Discipline is one of the areas within that scope. The Student Code of Conduct is the definition of that disciplinary regulation.

      You forget that public schools are not operating in a situation where two private parties are coming to an agreement on terms. It is not about enforcing a new contract. It is about the government imposing its diktat on the governed through regulation.

    189. Re:What about the parents? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      http://books.google.com/books?id=C-MDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Roman+ships+in+the+gulf+of+mexico&source=bl&ots=m3qx6VYTYQ&sig=FLk23A471oo1w-qv5Srm3Sa1t8M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SztZT53AM5CPsAKs5bTVDQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA
      Not my original reference, but an article on the same archaeologist. Forgot about the Phoenicians...

        http://www.midwesternepigraphic.org/inscriptions.html
      I've actually observed the Oklahoma site myself accompanying Dr. Terry Walter on an archaeological investigation, he claimed to know of another site not far from there as well. He'd been conversing with someone at Harvards Archaeology program about this stuff for a while. Turns out Harvard had an interest in the content of my parent post at the time.
        Since references are not hard to find on any of this, I can only guess you're not used to digging for citations which would make you Beavis and Butthead sitting at the couch going huh huh huh...heh heh heh Slashdot's cool,Shut up Beavis, your moms a slut. She may be a slut Butthead, but at least she can use a search engine.
                Your balls are based on ubsubstantiated/hoax evidence.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    190. Re:What about the parents? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      I agree. I am lucky enough that (unlike my parents) I have the financial and personal means to pull my kids from public school if i need to. It would be hard, but we could manage. I spent 9th grade in an alternative school just like the one you are talking about, and I don't want my kids doing the same.

      I don't take it lightly, and I am not ready to throw my hands up at the first sign of trouble, but I am also not willing to go in without an exit plan.

    191. Re:What about the parents? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points. You got informative, but you deserved insightful.

      When power is not coupled with responsibility for decisions, abuse is to be expected. The more power an individual has, the more vulnerable they should be to legal penalties for abuse of their position. How this could be made to work, when the most powerful control the legal machinery I have no idea.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    192. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man- I wish i had your parents! woo

      Then again I did push pretty damm hard throughout elementry school without there help. :)

      And once or twice in high school.

    193. Re:What about the parents? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's also a hard thing to do because there is no clear way to stand up to the authorities without making things worse. At some point it will get so bad that a violent revolution will seem like a reasonable option, but for now that doesn't look desirable. At least not to me. Passive resistance only works when the powers that be are possess a sense of shame. Consider how effective Gandhi would have been if he were opposing the NAZIs rather than Queen Victoria. (The British were brutal. Of this there is ample evidence. But they did have a reasonable moral sense...which I don't believe the current US politicians have, though they're quite accomplished as spinning the news, and de-emphasizing anything inconvenient.)

      As it is...I'll probably vote for some third party or other, as both of the major parties are totally lost to shame, ethics, morality, and justice. But I don't expect this to accomplish anything, as the election is clearly rigged.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    194. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To foreigners, somebody who eats pie for breakfast is a Yankee.

    195. Re:What about the parents? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >If you lived in the US, it would be a good thing that you didn't tell your dad until it was to late. He would have tried to have the teacher fired. She would keep her job, and you would have suffered the retaliation. It's not that he would have been fighting the teacher. He would be fighting the bureaucracy and the teacher's union.

      I am not entirely sure that's true. If I'd lived in the US I'm quite sure my dad's methods of doing so would have been rather different. If I lived in the US now and it happened to my kid I would approach it thusly:
        I'm absolutely certain that a lawsuit for slander and emotional abuse (I'm not sure about there but here emotional abuse of a minor is in fact a criminal offence - even though it's usually almost impossible to prove - this happened in front of 30 child witnesses and one adult witness) would have had at least a possibility of passing.
      Once suit is filed... I think right now I wouldn't even push very hard for a trial - I'd just get the school board on the back foot with some press reporting the event. Then I'd offer a nice low settlement figure, less than their expecting to pay in a court judgement - but contingent on the teacher being fired with cause and denied a refference.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    196. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like how in English we call Germans Germans rather than the more appropriate term.

      That term being...?

      Deutsche

    197. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you can go on and on about indoctrination and get a whole lot of yes men on here agreeing with you, or you could crack a copy of The Stranger and come to the realization that we live in a society and children have to be educated in how to live in that society and that means follow ng rules, the laws for on and often codes of conduct. There are certainly cases where you could loose your job for something in appropriate that is done outside of work and that is something that children need to learn. In this day and age they also need to learn that stuff you post online has consequences.

      Now certainly, perhaps these consequences are not quite in line with the offenses but since these offenses are new that is not surprising nor is it indicative of a conspiracy. I remember kids getting suspended for the clothes they wore, stuff that would seem totally normal these days. It is not unusual for organizations policies to lag behind a bit and that is something else that we all have to get used to in life. Sure you work to change it because that is how it works but don't go ascribing some grand scheme to every little thing you don't like. For one thing, doing so blinds you to the actual snow jobs going on around you and for another, it makes you sound like a fool.

    198. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why it is important to sue the feck out of whoever right now so the chain can be broken by making the child too rich to need a job and the school too impoverished to employ her if she did.

    199. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't alone. Late in my freshman year at a large public university the school decided that any student charged with underage drinking outside of school grounds would be subject to punishment including expulsion. Because it was a public school it sniffed of double-jeopardy--punishment from both the local authority and the university--to me but no one else seemed to see that argument. There's also the issue of being punished by the school for something that occurs outside the university's grounds.

    200. Re:What about the parents? by niado · · Score: 1

      Nice!! Popular Mechanics from 1963! Unfortunately I do not believe any of the "evidence" in that article has been corroborated in the last 50 years, and some has been debunked. (Also, I always love a good Prince Madoc reference!)

      It also doesn't really mention any finds of Roman or Phoenician shipwrecks in the Gulf. The primary archeological find referenced is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca_head, which is actually a pretty interesting artifact since it seems authentic and there is still significant controversy regarding how it got to the discovery site. Since everyone involved in the find is now dead we may never be able to confirm that it was/wasn't a hoax.

      I've seen a lot about the inscription stuff (which people find all over the place) but most of it ends up being hoaxes or graffiti.

      If you like this kind of stuff, check out http://www.1421.tv/. It's an interesting and pretty compelling book, though the mainstream history/archeology community considers it basically fiction.

    201. Re:What about the parents? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but this isn't even about that. A school isn't a court. If she'd refused to give them any information, what could they do - jail her for Contempt of Principal?

      Actually, worse - on school property your kid is pretty much chattel. They can easily suspend her for refusing. Not much more work to expel, if they can make it sound serious enough.

      What freaks me out is that while you can (marginally) make a case for this on school grounds during school hours, schools are getting it in their heads that they can enforce their rules off-campus off-hours. I'm waiting for the inevitable case where some teacher finds out that after the last bell rings, they have exactly the same powers as any other normal citizen.

    202. Re:What about the parents? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      He can even use coercion, threats, and lies during the interrogation.

      Oh, I see. So for normal citizens, that kind of thing usually isn't allowed, but for cops, it's perfectly okay!

      You're a 10-year-old in a school. For all intents, that principal *is* the judge, jury, and executioner. Add a cop standing next to them, and that's everyone society puts up as "trusted authority figures" telling her she has to do something.

    203. Re:What about the parents? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      At my son's school they have a student code of conduct regarding technology which both the children and their parents are supposed to sign.

      My daughter was sent home one of those for me to sign - I just didn't sign it. What're they going to do about it?

      She's in the public system, so I figure if they have the authority to enforce it, they don't need my signature. If they need my permission and I don't give it, it obviously can't be required for educating my daughter.

    204. Re:What about the parents? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      They have the purse of the state and the sentiments of the people (poor underpaid and overworked teachers) to back them.

      Not to mention all the time in the world.

      My younger brother got the bajeesus kicked out of him at school when he was eight (as in, full-body bruises from being kicked in the ribs while he was on the ground). The school's first reaction was to blame him (never mind that the other kids don't have a scratch on them). The teacher supervision was apparently out, but no-where near where the kids were actually playing. A couple days later, after that little detail was sorted out, they punished the instigator with one lunch-hour detention and a half-assed "I'm sorry" essay (that we weren't allowed to see - we were supposed to trust that it was done.)

      My parents retained a lawyer, and he told us we could spend ten thousand dollars on fees, and in about ten years we would likely get a very heart-felt apology (that would carefully avoid admitting anything) from the school board. Considering he'd be graduated by then, it didn't seem worth it.

      The school board has zero incentive to admit wrongdoing, and every reason to stonewall. So that's what they do.

    205. Re:What about the parents? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a Canadian, I don't know of any Canadian (with the possible exception of Harper) that would want to lay claim to that title.

      I was just thinking the same - yes, I suppose I'm a "North American" or more generally an "American", but I can't think of any situation where it would be advantageous to call myself that rather than "Canadian".

    206. Re:What about the parents? by anyGould · · Score: 1

      It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.

      One question - is the enforcement because the parents/students sign the SCC, or does the school believe that Because It Is Written So It Must Be?

      Just wondering if fault belongs with the board overstepping it's bounds (i.e. just because you say "I'm going to punish you" doesn't mean you have the right), or with the parents not reading the fine print in all the paperwork the school sends home.

    207. Re:What about the parents? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      In North Carolina, each school is now assigned a policeman. It is not a "security guard" with a plastic badge. They are duly sworn officers of the state. They also happen to be the rubber stamps of whatever the school administrator says.

      Thank you for your condolences. The thing is, I want to actually trust policemen and those appointed as authorities. Reality is a harsh mistress, though.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    208. Re:What about the parents? by b1scuit · · Score: 1

      In such a case, I believe it's required that an advocate for the state, usually a social worker, be appointed and present during the interview. Basically, you're not supposed to interrogate a minor without SOME kind of adult present. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen though.

    209. Re:What about the parents? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Wow. What a waste of expensive resources. I lived in NC around 93 for a year, it was a pretty law and order society back then too.

      Yes in that situation the kid just has to know to shutdown and request a parent.

    210. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      You disagreed in the first sentence, and then agreed in the last sentence of the first paragraph. :)

      I did specifically mention department policy. Also, if it impacts admissibility it means there was some violation of due process. So, while the police are capable of questioning a child without representation (as in, physically and conditionally able to) does not mean they are doing so in compliance with all applicable law and procedure. If they were complying with all applicable law and procedure, there would be no risk of compromising admissibility of any evidence gathered as a result of the interrogation.

    211. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certain people never miss a chance to bash the All Powerful PC Police and then scream USA!USA!

    212. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Mexico's long form name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos in Spanish and United Mexican States in English.

    213. Re:What about the parents? by ffflala · · Score: 1

      The line varies by state, and I can't speak to every state law. This guide is a readable summary: http://www.ylc.org/pdfs/ChildInterviewonCampus-ParentsRights072007.pdf

      The constitutional rights don't differ here, so cops don't even need to permit a parent/guardian's presence, not even if the kid directly asks. What's more, the police can *also* knowingly lie to kids, just like they can to adults, with or without a parent/guardian present. The technique of just making shit up on the spot is useful for controlling children's behavior, and is legal. Example: a friend of mine was threatened with arrest for "insubordination" when we were in HS. The cop was lying and he knew it... and that's allowed. My friend didn't know he was lying, so the fake threat of arrest was enough to get the him to stop bothering the cop.

      Also, undercover cops do not have to tell a kid that he's a cop even if they ask directly.

    214. Re:What about the parents? by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Darn, pressed submit too soon. I was fascinated when I first learned that lying is actually a standard part of police interview/interrogation training. "Criminal Interrogations and Confessions" by Inbau gets into the detail of how to usefully manipulate suspects, it's a very interesting read. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45556160 Last time I checked this was available on google books, ymmv.

    215. Re:What about the parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schools are practically court, nowdays. When a student goes to the principals office for whatever reason there is a cop present and the standard "anything you say can and will be used against you" holds even there. My son was already IN juvie before I knew anything was going on for a pretty minor offense.

    216. Re:What about the parents? by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm really not sure. That's a fantastic question. I'll look into it sometime.

    217. Re:What about the parents? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      it might in fact condition them to the exact opposite idea depending on their pre-disposition, i can think of at least one case where too much force without proper reason lead to an absolute distrust and unwill towards all things authority

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    218. Re:What about the parents? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's not what they taught me in Spanish class, and the teacher was a native Mexican. Literally translated, Estados Unidos Mexicanos is "states united Mexican". Los Estados Unidos de Mexico" is literally "the states united of Mexico" (I think Yoda was Hispanic).

    219. Re:What about the parents? by hutsell · · Score: 1

      Of course not, it programs the child to think that it is ok to give up freedoms if authorities say so.

      And it exposes adults, strangers to their child, to experience a position of misused power; perhaps some were closet psychos pining for the old days, savoring the idea of threatening her with a spanking if she refused to give the authorities the information,

      Also, having an employee of the police department present is usually a deceitful "sales tactic" to work around the legality of telling a child she'll be put in jail--which is subtler than having someone in the background looking at her quietly while holding a hammer, hand in hand. Was he there to witness an arrestable offense if she refused?

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
    220. Re:What about the parents? by boxxertrumps · · Score: 1

      If it was in Ontario, the laws are such that if she was interrogated by a police officer in that manner, it would constitute an arrest and she would be informed of her rights, foremost of which is the right to legal council.

      Failure to do so would mean that the arrest was unlawful and that the officer would be penalized, probably heavily.

      But, you are right, there was no crime in the first place, and If you or I was the deputy we would probably tell the school officials to sod off and save our number for real criminal activity or emergencies.

    221. Re:What about the parents? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Lets wait for a death, or gunfire attack before we decide that the code of conduct is in fact a good thing.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    222. Re:What about the parents? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Native or not, your teacher was incorrect (or was misunderstood), though may have been intentionally so in order to ease basic understanding via comparison. Don't take my word for it though. Feel free to peruse the country name stamped on official Mexican items, such as their currency or national passports.

  2. Fire them All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone that thought it was a good idea to try and extract passwords from the girl should be fired and permanently banned from taking any tax payer money, for the rest of their lives. The people that hired them, should be fired and banned for 3 years. I bet, in a very short order, we could put an end to this foolishness.

    1. Re:Fire them All by lightknight · · Score: 0

      Seconded.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Fire them All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thirded

    3. Re:Fire them All by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      Thirded.

    4. Re:Fire them All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people that hired them, should be fired and banned for 3 years

      A: "You're fired"
      B: "what for?"
      A: "inability to predict future offenses of someone you hired"

  3. Oh, oh, me too! by neiras · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hate Anonymous Cowards. Also, the fucking mods are mean to me.

    Tee hee.

    1. Re:Oh, oh, me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well we love you.

    2. Re:Oh, oh, me too! by William+Robinson · · Score: 0

      I hate Anonymous Cowards. Also, the fucking mods are mean to me.

      Tee hee.

      Hand over your password. IMMEDIATELY!!

      Also hand over your facebook, orkut, twitter, Google+, redtube accounts and their passwords along with your Smartphone, Debit Cards, Credit Cards, urine sample, blood sample, sperm sample, DNA analysis reports. RIGHT NOW!!!

    3. Re:Oh, oh, me too! by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      And drop that peanut butter sandwich right now.

    4. Re:Oh, oh, me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm concerned about the threatening and/or bullying nature of this statement. Someone alert the authorities!

    5. Re:Oh, oh, me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now, we, the anonymous mods, have been mean to you by modding you up to 5 - funny. But truly, the joke is on you. Because by modding you up, we've made a liar of you.

      Bwahahahaha!

    6. Re:Oh, oh, me too! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I hate Anonymous Coward

      Me too. The bastard with his goatse and gnaa and other crap... I'd put him in my "foes" list except there seems to be no link to his account to foe him with.

  4. ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sometimes the ACLU's actions make me roll my eyes, but on this one, they're right. Seems to me the school's personnel took their petty authority way too far. Off school property, on a website not controlled by the school. GET 'EM, ACLU! Give 'em HELL!

    1. Re:ACLU by madhi19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It the sheriff's deputy action that I found weird and mostly inexcusable of all peoples the cop should have been the voice of reason and told the Principal that he was treading in murky water to say the least.

    2. Re:ACLU by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I take it you don't have much experience talking to the police?

    3. Re:ACLU by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sometimes the ACLU's actions make me roll my eyes, but on this one, they're right.

      Why is it that so many posts praising the ACLU in any way contain this kind of ritual disclaimer? Can you give actual examples of some of the eye-roll-inspiring things the ACLU has done, or is it just "I've heard they're a liberal organization, and liberals are icky"?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:ACLU by Fjandr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. In the real world, it's fairly rare for an on-duty cop to be anything resembling "the voice of reason" when it comes to someone showing the slightest defiance to an authority figure. Whether that defiance is warranted or not is usually not ever something that would even cross the mind of most cops I've met.

    5. Re:ACLU by Jiro · · Score: 2

      How about the ACLU opposing the CAN-SPAM act on the grounds that this incredibly weak law was actually too restrictive? And the statements by an ACLU representative that people who are spammed should just press delete?

      Also see http://techliberation.com/2008/08/07/anti-spam-laws-and-the-first-amendment/ . Do a google search for "aclu" and "anti-spam".

    6. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am thought you should not talk to the police, since no good can come of it.

    7. Re:ACLU by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 1

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    8. Re:ACLU by Ragica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The very blog article you have linked has an "update" at the bottom wherein the writer also says he thinks that CAN-SPAM might be too restrictive! His exact words are "too broad", but his description of the broadness is actually criticising the broadness of the restrictions. (ie. "criminalize the sending of “multiple” deceptive emails or the creation of more than five separate email accounts for sending commercial emails.").

      Anyhow, even if your description of the ACLU's position was true (which your reference does not seem to support), don't you think it more credible to give the ACLU the benefit of the doubt that they may have a point, given the vast amount of experience, expertise and examples of them standing up for freedoms?

    9. Re:ACLU by Hatta · · Score: 2

      What has CAN SPAM done to SPAM? Still exists right? So why should we tolerate that restriction on free speech? It's not doing anyone any good, and just sitting there waiting to be abused.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:ACLU by HopefulIntern · · Score: 2

      Where do you live where the cops are the voice of reason???
      Everywhere I have lived, you don't get reason until your lawyer arrives.

    11. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about how they select only the liberties they will defend? I have a right to free speech, a right against self incrimination, but not a right to keep and bear arms? How about I have the right to freedom of religion, unless I practice the majority religion, then I'm trampling all others by my beliefs. The ACLU, while it has it's place and fullfills a need, is a very hypocritical organization.

    12. Re:ACLU by jdev · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's what the ACLU was actually saying in this particular case.

      "The law is overly broad, criminalizing not only commercial SPAM but also anonymous non-commercial bulk emails containing political and religious messages"

      http://www.acluva.org/docket/jaynes.html

      So the complaint here is Virginia's own anti-SPAM legislation was written to also penalize anonymous non-commercial free speech which is a violation of the first amendment. This is different from the federal CAN-SPAM law that specifically mentions that emails need to be commercial in nature to apply.

      I also find it very funny that you pick this particular case because the Virginia supreme court eventually sided with the ACLU that the Virgina law was overly broad. Like most people that criticize the ACLU, I feel like you don't understand the issue they were trying to address.

      http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151014/court_overturns_virginia_spam_law_conviction.html

    13. Re:ACLU by PRMan · · Score: 0

      Probably persecuting poor, defenseless churches for Christmas displays on their private property, for one.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    14. Re:ACLU by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm seeing more and more of those "power creep" myself. Schools trying to do things like banning X or Y behavior even if it takes place outside of school.

      I recall in the later years of my elementary school (in Newark, NJ) that they had apparently banned fighting. Like, everywhere. If a student got into a fight - even if they were a few miles away from the school - and the school found out, they would be punished as if they were fighting on the playground at lunch. I think their logic was something like "You're students at $SCHOOL and when you do something you represent your school and community!" I'm not sure they ever actually used those powers, though. At least not to my knowledge.

    15. Re:ACLU by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Citation?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NAMBLA comes to mind.

    17. Re:ACLU by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Probably persecuting poor, defenseless churches for Christmas displays on their private property, for one.

      Give examples of this actually happening.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    18. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that I shouldn't have to pay for you to "speak". Unsolicited mail (regardless of how "important" the sender thinks it is) is junk.. pure and simple. DO NOT WANT. I have to pay money every time someone sends me an email. Sure, it may be an infinitesimal amount for a single email, but that's not the point. *I* do not have to subsidize *your* speech. Pay for it your damn self. And the ACLU, in this instance, can go jump in a fucking lake.

    19. Re:ACLU by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      So, schools do have the ability to regulate off-campus activity (even off-campus speech) if it could reasonably affect discipline or the learning environment in the school. If, for example, a student threatened another student in Facebook, the school could take action. Or, if a student posted material that was so outrageous that it would disrupt the school day, the school could take action, even before that disruption occurs.

      Unfortunately, we're only getting one side here, but there's at least an allegation that the girl was bullying another student, and that might affect what happens at school. Does that justify forcing the girl to give up her passwords? I don't think so -- there ought to be other, less invasive, ways of getting the same info. But, it might justify suspending her for what she posted.

    20. Re:ACLU by glorybe · · Score: 1

      Cops are aware that they need to dominate in work situations. Usually they say or do something upon entering a scene that lets people know that what they say will go and is not open for debate. They are aware that many people sort of test the waters with a bit of defiance and if they get away with that defiance become more and more aggressive until a combative situation is at hand. That is why a confrontation with a cop almost sound like a game of Simon Says. You know, put your hands in the air, walk backward, kneel, lay down flat etc.. The cop is demanding a demo of a suspects intentions to comply before getting within striking distance. Any signs of being argumentative or resistant and the taser shocks and pepper spray kick in. Some people are simply over emotional and want to move about and rant and wave their arms etc.. Cops can not sort them out and they are likely to come to some harm while being arrested. Those who show good control and compliance are often innocent or at the very least smart enough to avoid convictions. The stupid and uneducated end up in jails.

    21. Re:ACLU by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      "The law is overly broad, criminalizing not only commercial SPAM but also anonymous non-commercial bulk emails containing political and religious messages"
      Sounds good to me. I don't want bulk e-mailed political or religious messages either. I consider them spam, therefore CAN-SPAM is not too broad.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    22. Re:ACLU by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      You do realize that the courts have decided that the police in the US are not required to know anything about the law. Right?

      Makes me cry blood every time I think about it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    23. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes the ACLU's actions make me roll my eyes, but on this one, they're right.

      Why is it that so many posts praising the ACLU in any way contain this kind of ritual disclaimer? Can you give actual examples of some of the eye-roll-inspiring things the ACLU has done, or is it just "I've heard they're a liberal organization, and liberals are icky"?

      When the ACLU backs people who weren't harmed in any way, but are obviously out to get a pay-day via lawsuit, I roll my eyes. It makes every other person they represent look that much less legitimate. It happens too often for me to cite examples. Just Google ACLU and the majority of cases should cause you to roll your eyes.

      Some cases however, like this one, are legit and need to be fought. The problem is, when most people hear "the ACLU is involved" they just think "another frivolous lawsuit." Boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome.

    24. Re:ACLU by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Look how that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has worked out. The church now has to pay for abortions and birth control, something they find akin to legalized murder.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    25. Re:ACLU by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of this happening. I have heard of however lawsuits against church displays on public property, but only when they are Christian displays, Jewish and Muslim displays are perfectly acceptable.

      Can you point to evidence of this happening in any other way?

      I also find it kind of funny that they support the depiction of Moses and the 10 commandments that is in the supreme court, but any other court trying to pay homage is slapped down.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Freest country in the world by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever I hear Americans make that claim, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

    I had school teachers who thought it was their job to teach the kids how to stand up for themselves and how to stand up to authority. Including theirs.

    1. Re:Freest country in the world by sosume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In this regard (free speech being regulated by schools, universities, employers, etc) the US is starting to look a lot like former Eastern Germany. I mean, like in this movie http://imdb.to/2fC1aE I find it really hard to understand how the US justifies this spying on each other's thoughts.

    2. Re:Freest country in the world by gweihir · · Score: 1

      US citizens seem to be conditioned to be cattle today. And while there is the occasional resistance, as in this story, most seem to be willing to just take it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is just where I grew up and how long ago it was. I assure you that officially students have a lot more free speach than when I was in school. "Damn" would get you a trip to the office. Any word that you could not say on TV would get you at least a warning and a note home. Early in elementary school the girls were not allowed to wear pants unless it was below 0F outside. We had no access to desktop publishing or anything short of marking the walls of the restrooms.

      "Different is dead" had a meaning that I don't think any student today can understand unless you have a poorly administered school. If I got ahead in class, most of the teachers would go out of there way to punish advanced students publicly. 7th and 8th grades seemed to be a place where they tried to shove everyone together one last time.

      We did talk however but we looked over out sholders while we did it.

      The teachers would sometime even strike the students and i have seen a couple of times where angry teachers picked up students by there clothes and shook them while yelling at the top of thier lungs.

      Now get off my lawn.

    4. Re:Freest country in the world by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a State that indoctrinates children to swear allegiance to it. That's really all that you need to know.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I hear Americans make that claim, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

      That was also my first thought.

      A school administrator goes to a female student here and tells her to give up his facebook pass and there are only three possible results:
      - He gets laughed at.
      - He gets laughed at and he finds his car burning that very afternoon.
      - He gets laughed at and later that week the girl's big brother, with a couple of friends, send him to the hospital to meditate on his inclinations.

    6. Re:Freest country in the world by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freest country in the world... Whenever I hear Americans make that claim, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

      I fail to see your point. This was a shitty thing that someone did and they will be smacked down by ACLU. Your comment would be appropriate if this was an accepted behavior with no recourse.

    7. Re:Freest country in the world by Phrogman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same up here in Canada. My High School (grades 8-12, ~250 students) was mostly farm kids. The teachers were mostly unqualified or should at the least never have been allowed to teach. The overwhelming pressure from the students was such that if you were too smart you would often find yourself being beaten up. Some sample moments from my school:
      * The math teacher teaching grade 12 math was living with one of his female students. She got straight A's of course.
      * The grade 9 English teacher I had, had to the best of my knowledge no teaching credentials. He had been hired before they were required. He taught English and the Agriculture courses (we had a barn attached to the school). He liked to separate his class into 2 halves - those he liked (farmer's kids) and those he didn't (anyone unusual, males with long hair (this was the 70's). The first group was referred to as the Wolves (or something like that) the second as the Rabbits (or something like that). Essays written by Rabbits got written up on the board so we could review them word by word in class.
      * Grade 10 English teacher. She was nice but was qualified to teach Phys Ed and Biology. They hired here but then had her teach English. I ended up teaching most of the grammar lessons because she didn't understand it at all.
      * Chem teacher 10-12. He was an alcoholic type, and we students periodically met him in the local bar after class. He delivered all his lectures via overhead projector and never looked at students most of the time.
      * Our guidance counselor was a bitter ex-nun. She hated the students I suspect. I know she told me that I was "too stupid to go to university, you should go learn welding or something".
      * We had a music teacher who lived near the school. He would regularly hold all-night parties featuring mostly free booze and weed. He invited a lot of the band students to these parties, particularly the young females.

      Nothing was ever done about these situations sadly.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    8. Re:Freest country in the world by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. The US is not free because no one tries to curtail our freedoms. The US is free because when people try to curtail our freedoms we have strong recourse. Now, in recent times our recourse has been more and more restrained, but there are two boxes left that we haven't been using very much: jury and ammo. The US needs a larger, more concerted push at jury notification.

    9. Re:Freest country in the world by Sique · · Score: 1

      Somehow the former East Germany had the Pledge Of Allegiance quite shortened. It was reduced to "for peace and socialism - be ready!".

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:Freest country in the world by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see your point. This was a shitty thing that someone did and they will be smacked down by ACLU. Your comment would be appropriate if this was an accepted behavior with no recourse.

      In a place that _legitimately_ calls itself "free" a school teach or headmaster should never, ever even in the tiniest little corner of his mind entertain the idea that something like this could be done.

    11. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a groovy place to par.. err i mean get 'educated', if you can just put up with couple minor things...

    12. Re:Freest country in the world by Jiro · · Score: 1

      That doesn't show that students have more free speech now than they did back then. Everything you describe about back then was in-school. In this case, the student was forced to give up her Facebook password for something done outside of school.

    13. Re:Freest country in the world by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The US is not free because no one tries to curtail our freedoms. The US is free because when people try to curtail our freedoms we have strong recourse.

      You actually believe this?

      A strong recourse would be the school admin losing his job and the cop going to jail. Please post back to let us know when this happens.

    14. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, it's a joke that stopped being funny.

      Going through public school, I recall many instances of teachers attempting to indoctrinate me with a love of authority and my country. Any individualism at all was swiftly and harshly discouraged. It's because the U.S. education system is largely still based on its agrarian/post industrial revolution societal roots; children of farmers better do what dad says because he needs their help. Factory workers need to follow orders exactly; doing too much thinking slows down the assembly line.

      It really is past time that we re-invent our education system to create free-thinking, liberated individuals. But such people are hard to sell useless things to, so the corporations don't want that. The government doesn't want that either because such people will revolt and overthrow them when things get too bad.

      Sorry, I didn't mean to turn that into such a rant. I think my doctor prescribed the wrong dose again...

    15. Re:Freest country in the world by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason is that government official are rarely if ever fired or sent to jail for obvious wrong doing.

    16. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell those sheeple, man!

    17. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they still swear allegiance to the flag in primary schools?

      Most insecure country in the world, maybe.

    18. Re:Freest country in the world by penguinbrat · · Score: 1

      It is accepted, and happening more and more - thats the problem, whether they get b*tch slapped for it will all depend on if they are caught and there is some one to stand up to them (ACLU and the mother of the girl in this case) who can argue better in court than their lawyers.. They absolutely don't think there is anything at all they did in the wrong - they're even surprised :-/

      FTFA: School Superintendent Greg Ohl said the district had not yet been served with the lawsuit and he withheld comment until he had more information.

      "We're taken aback by it," he said.

    19. Re:Freest country in the world by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have no recourse. If there were recourse in the US we'd have never have gone to Iraq, our jails would be stuffed with bankers, and we'd all be buying pot OTC. What we have instead is tyranny.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    20. Re:Freest country in the world by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Hot damn, maybe if Ricky had gone to your school he would have received his grades 11 and 12.

    21. Re:Freest country in the world by ehiris · · Score: 1

      Reminds me at Jack Nicholson's Easy Rider speech about freedom.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc11mJGre10

    22. Re:Freest country in the world by silanea · · Score: 1

      Nothing was ever done about these situations sadly.

      Nothing? They made a whole movie genre out of them! What more could you ask for?

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    23. Re:Freest country in the world by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Find us a story from another country where this has happened. Then we can talk.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    24. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Allowed to fight your oppressors, if you dare face the consequences" is not the same as "freest country in the world".
      Hope that clarifies things for you.

    25. Re:Freest country in the world by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That would be unreasonable recourse.
      Way to argue from the extremes. Do you have any non logically fallacious points to make?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are the legal structures, which you are referring to, which continue to protect us but are being eroded.

      Then there is the cultural bias. The problem is that actions like this will be widely supported by the community, and not cause universal outrage. That's why the legal protections of natural rights are being eroded over time. People will make fun of the ACLU, or hate on it, generally, rather than applauding it here.

      For me, personally, it's hard not to think this has a lot to do with the public education system. It allows the ambient cultural anti-intellectualism and authoritarianism to multiply over time, amplified by the cycle of education.

      It's hard to be sure about cause and effect, but there are ideological trends in the country that are headed away from freedom. (There are some positive trends, too, so it's hard to be apocalyptic, but education is pretty important to keep an eye on. Likewise scientific research, and anything that can open frontiers (deep ocean, space). Those are the terms with the big exponents, you know?)

    27. Re:Freest country in the world by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      What? What do other countries have to do with the US?

      You act as if because all the other countries do it too, that means the US must be free. That's simply not true. The US can technically be the "freest" country in the world and still be an awful country with few rights (just an example).

      As such, asking about other countries is just asking about irrelevancy.

    28. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think some people in iran, saudi arabia, pakistan, egypt, russia, china, north korea, malaysia, thailand etc might say we have it pretty goo d here. Yes America has its problems, but at least you are allowed to say so without the risk of being jailed and/or executed.

    29. Re:Freest country in the world by jason777 · · Score: 1

      +1. too bad im outta mod points

    30. Re:Freest country in the world by Bigby · · Score: 1

      I hope you aren't suggesting we tyrannically send a bunch of bankers to jail. Only those committing fraud should go to jail. Not those that simply worked within the law. That would be like throwing someone in jail for finding $100 on the street and picking it up.

    31. Re:Freest country in the world by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It's called accountability.

    32. Re:Freest country in the world by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      Jury 'nullification', not 'notification'. There's quite a bit of history there, and not all of it is good; nullification has often been used as a tool to suppress dissent and minorities.

    33. Re:Freest country in the world by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Wow. I have no idea how I wrote "notification" instead of "nullification." I love that /. lacks an edit button.

    34. Re:Freest country in the world by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      and yet, we have exactly ONE Presidential candidate that would stand up for all those positions, and he is trailing in all the polls.

      What is wrong with this picture?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    35. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't happen to mean "jury nullification" by chance, would you?

    36. Re:Freest country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting a link which seems to be to an IMDB-related site, but which is not on the official site (imdb.com) nor contains any information about what it links to.

      This is not twitter; you are allowed to post more than 140 characters. Also, most /. users are capable of copying the URL if necessary, so there is no reason to make it easier to type manually.

    37. Re:Freest country in the world by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do any countries not do this? I have been in only a couple countries and got the impression it was pretty widespread.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    38. Re:Freest country in the world by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be lack of freedom on the other extreme? In the US, we are all equally free, my freedom to not have my freedoms ever taken away doesn't become more important than the government's rights to remove freedoms occasionally when there is a legitimate need seen. There has to be a balancing act between anarchy and fascism/socialism(or whatever you want to call it). Or else no one has any freedoms.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. What are the adults' priorities? by bughunter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is disturbing not necessarily because of the password coercion, but because of the entire premise. What are the school administrators, the parents, and the entire adult community *thinking* when they make such a big friggin deal about "I hate you" comments that are clearly just juvenile emoting? Why are they getting involved in such petty hall locker politics to begin with?

    Did they never mature past a high school emotional age?

    Were they itching to make an example of someone?

    Do they have some policy or quota that they need to demonstrate compliance with?

    In other words, it's just like when my wife flips out after I leave dirty socks on the floor. The socks aren't the real problem; something else is. She's been bottling it up, and the socks were just the trigger for some other pent up stress... it may or may not be something I did, but it certainly means there's something I need to fix. In the same sense, something else is going on in Minnewaska... something else that needs fixing. And it's not middle school drama.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are thinking that the columbine kids said they hated people too. And that the admins from that school have a terrible reputation for failing to pay attention to a serious problem.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Years and years of political pressure for "zero tolerance," a.k.a. "zero intelligence." The idea that most of the things kids get up to are individual incidents and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis is anathema to this mentality. But it sells well to parents (until their kids get caught up in it, anyway), to legislators, and to voters in school board elections.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is too the freek'n socks you insensitive clod. What say you pick up your sock and then we'll talk. I can't be more clear. I'm sayin it loud and clear, in simple sentences the dog could understand. It is the sock! I'm not you freek'n mother. And you wonder why your sleeping on the couch.

    4. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The mind well and truly boggles as to why they didn't contact the parents. School punishment is pretty much limited to detention and even that has to be with parental consent. Beyond that, it really is impossible to imagine what got into those idiots heads. This is what happens when you have county rather than state managed schools. Lack of reasonable sensible management principles across the whole state. Tiny nothing local admin drunk on their own power over children.

      The ultimate punishment by a school is to require a meeting between the school principle, the parent and the child. So that issues can be resolved prior to suspension and detention.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      I don't like Mondays...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    6. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Tell me why? Tell me why? Tell me why?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Fine, then why not contact the parents, and/or have a teacher/administrator/psychologist with some tact speak to the student ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Ah yes. If only someone had forcibly corrected the writings of Harris and Klebold.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      I feel for ya about the sock thing, buddy. I don't think normal people freak out over socks or dirty dishes. She wouldn't happen to be a little bit Aspie, would she?

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    10. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tell me why? Tell me why? Tell me why?"

      My goodness! You seem to have entirely missed the reference to a song by the same name. Listen to the lyrics and it will all become clear.

      (Whoosh)

      Now get off my lawn!

    11. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What they did was too much. That said:

      They should keep an eye out for behavior that indicates bullying. Parents should be contacted,and a discussion should happen regarding why she said what she said.
      Bullying is an indicator of other issue as well.
      Of course it depends on history and extremes, there is never a one size fits all solution.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by hiryuu · · Score: 1

      Did they never mature past a high school emotional age?

      Sadly, my experience makes me believe that the vast bulk of physical adults in the US never matured past the emotional age of 12-15. The more I see of their "social" interactions, decision-making skills, and general irrational behavior, the more cemented this belief becomes.

      --
      Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    13. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      So in other words, they're just paranoia idiots who worry about unlikely events...

    14. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, you're a stupid head!

    15. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is my leading hypothesis, too... combined with a zero-tolerance hall monitor mentality, probably very like the one she encountered to begin with.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    16. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Some states (like mine, NJ) have anti-bullying statutes that extend 24/7 to students.

    17. Re:What are the adults' priorities? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      State or county, it doesn't matter. The school is run by a principal, and that person often believes they are king and ruler over all they behold. It is their school and they get to decide what goes on. The parent is a bother to them. I've had to deal with enough bastards to know. Unless you have deep pockets for lawyers, or the backing of the ACLU, they can basically jack around with your child's education however the damn well please, and they believe that give them total license over the child's life.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  7. Incredible by gweihir · · Score: 1

    They can force somebody (does not matter whether it is a child) to hand over credentials without a court order? Sounds like any totalitarian regime out there. This should get those responsible into really hot water, including criminal penalties.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Incredible by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Fairly sure they can't. Unfortunately, most kids aren't legal experts so they can't tell when people in authority are breaking the law. (With a few exceptions, of course, which are usually awesome to read about.)

    2. Re:Incredible by madhi19 · · Score: 1

      How hard could it be for a cop and a school principal to intimidate a 12 years old? These guys should be way proud of themselves!

    3. Re:Incredible by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      No, they can't, and they're going to get in trouble for this. It's just a shame it probably won't be the kind of trouble that requires their resignation. The problem is this was a 12 year old girl who was being intimidated by school staff (and apparently a police officer). Of course she's going to give up the info because she's too young to know any better.

    4. Re:Incredible by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the correct fix for this is to fire the involved parties with cause. To insure that that principle and cop never work in there respective fields again. They each knew what they were doing and exceeded there powers. Hell the principle should have been informing the kid that they did not need to talk to the officer without there parents and should not do so, they have a responsibility to act in the parents stead in there absence, that's where a lot of there powers come from in the first place.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:Incredible by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't just exceeded their powers. They were accessing a computer system with stolen or coerced passwords. This is a federal crime. They are just criminals.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Incredible by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Inform the child of their rights? WTH!? The assistant principal at my son's middle school had him write and sign a confession. Then called him back from the classroom and have him add to it because she didn't think it was incriminating enough. I repeat. She dictated the confession letter to him!

      That is the behavior you can expect from administrators.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  8. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The audacity. I am shocked to see not just school officials, but law enforcement entangled in abusing the 1st and 4th amendment rights to further something that they had no groundwork butting into in the first place! Having done this to the extent they have, I have no doubt they have experience having done it before and would of continued to do so until the ACLU stepped in.

    Cheers for the article. I wish the girl and her family good luck and happiness after this public humiliation and obvious abuse of her constitutional and human rights.

    1. Re:Anonymous by lightknight · · Score: 2

      *shrugs*

      Under the current thinking, a child can be charged as an adult if a crime is considered heinous enough, but denied its rights up until its 18th birthday. In short, if you're a kid, the State isn't really sure you have any rights. One might argue that it would have been particularly noble of an adult to have stepped in, and prevented this abuse, but nobility / honour is kind of out of fashion. Bowing to your leaders and their demands (thinking is hard), dogmatically agreeing with everything they say (spine of a jelly-fish), and fighting over their scraps is the current in-thing (if we are good, we might be able to ask for a small favor later on).

      For the record, we also send off kids to die before they're old enough to drink, have a permanent caste system, and we attack / infiltrate groups of people who have never spoken an ill word nor lifted a finger against us. We put the vile in evil.

       

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Anonymous by lexsird · · Score: 1

      We send the poor kids off to war. Face it, the rich kids will never face the horrors of war unless they volunteer for it.

      I was just thinking about how we need "digital rights". This needs to be established. But instead of establishing the rights and liberties of citizens, it seems our government is instead whoring itself out to corporate and big money interests. With this kind of job performance we the people have to say to the collective of politicians; You're Fired.

      Seriously, they have to go. All of them. They are just one big ratball of filth and corruption. All of them have to go and we have to start from scratch, parties that are held accountable to the people. We need to watch them far closer than these school officials watch these kids. We have to take it back.

      But that isn't going to happen now is it? If we aren't working ourselves to death, we are far too lazy to get off the couch and make a sandwich, let alone inspire a political revolution. The less we have to fight with getting a cold beer open, the happier we are. All we need now is for them to figure out if they let us have weed, we will really not care what they do with the country.

      Don't worry, they might not have the authority now to bring in the thug cops and wring your little girl's login and password out of her. (Wait, they just did, I guess that makes it OK for the rest of them to do it, right?) But just wait, they will legislate that into law soon. After all, bullying is terrorism, and we are at war with terror.

      America's War on Terror: They don't want to be afraid of anyone or anything again. This includes their own people, justice, not being bribed enough, etc...

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
  9. School children act like apes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monkey see, monkey do.

  10. Damned if they do damned if they don't by VinylRecords · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to the New American Nanny State.

    Right now, schools are under heavy pressure to reduce "bullying". The politicians and money groups have seized on an issue that is easy to win over the hearts of American voters and donors. That's why "bullying" is such a hot issue right now and gets tons of media coverage.

    Kids talking about sex, something mentioned in the article as being another reason why the police and school went after this student, is another always hot issue especially with American "conservatives". We must avoid talking to children or exposing them to sex at all costs.

    So we have a school where a kid is accused of bullying, and also talking about sex, on Facebook. The school knows if it does nothing they'll get blasted by moms, and the media, about how they failed to protect other children from bullies and perverts. They let a student make hate speech and promote sex talk amongst pre-teens or whatever. But if the school acts then they'll get blasted by people who think that the schools should mind their own business and let the parents handle things. And we know how well parents handle things in modern America.

    Instead of finding a middle ground, the school feels the pressure from all sides and.....calls the cops. Huge overreaction in hindsight of course but they must have felt at the time that it was warranted.

    But seriously? A kid can't say that they hate their teacher anymore? A kid can't talk about sex with another kid? When I was in school it didn't matter if a kid said he hated a hall monitor or a teacher. Most of the teachers had been around long enough to recognize which kids disliked them. And most of my teachers could tell which boys and girls had started puberty earlier than others because we behaved much differently around the opposite sex. Times have changed.

    The school should have just called the student's mother or father and said "some kid tattled on your kid, it's not a big deal, but you should monitor your kid's facebook and just check to see if they are doing anything that is inappropriate". No cops. No teachers. No detention even. Let the parents do their jobs.

    1. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by Pool_Noodle · · Score: 1

      There's a Fundamental breakdown with letting the 'Parents Do Their job' and that is that Most Parents won't, they're too busy buying their kids the latest toys to keep them occupied. As a matter of fact now, its becoming more common for kids to call the cops on their parents when they don't get their way (I wish I had a specific reference for this point, anyone), or for parents to become infuriated when their kids get into trouble (recently heard a story on the news regarding parents of children who were arrested drinking, infuriated at the sheriff - one father's comment to his son was "why didn't you run ?"). But this does not give the school district the right to do what they did either, they violated at least 3 of these kids rights with one action. Even if they did locate any information off Facebook it would be Inadmissable in a court case, so why was it done, seems to me the school was forced into reinforcing some position or opinion at the cost of trampling on civi liberties. Its a damn shame, but I don't think it will last we hear. --My 2 Cents

      --
      "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
    2. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 for a think of the children post done right. People, this is what thinking of the children is all about. If you want to know what it's like when someone really thinks of the children, here it is.

    3. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by Kozz · · Score: 1

      There's a Fundamental breakdown with letting the 'Parents Do Their job' and that is that Most Parents won't, they're too busy buying their kids the latest toys to keep them occupied. As a matter of fact now, its becoming more common for kids to call the cops on their parents when they don't get their way (I wish I had a specific reference for this point, anyone), or for parents to become infuriated when their kids get into trouble (recently heard a story on the news regarding parents of children who were arrested drinking, infuriated at the sheriff - one father's comment to his son was "why didn't you run ?").

      I'd just like to warn you against using such a broad brush. Certainly there are some parents who seem incapable of teaching boundaries to their children, and those are the kids that will end up in prison, etc. But I do believe they are a minority. I think there's a bit of selection bias going on here -- your observation of kids drinking and a stupid parent is something that will easily get eyeballs on FOX News, but it's pretty boring to write a news story about all the parents who are doing good parenting jobs.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    4. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was able to deal with bullying fairly easily. Goad the bully into throwing the first punch with several witnesses, then pummeling him into unconsciousness and hospitalization. A couple rounds of that and high school was a breeze, had friends, and nobody dared mess with us, even the potheads who brought knives to school each day. Boxing and mercenary martial arts are quite beneficial for a kid who is relatively disciplined and mature for his age.

    5. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Having worked with cops, I can tell you that bad cops are also a minority. And having parents and in-laws that work in schools, I can tell you that good administrators are a minority...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Stopping 'bullying' is reasonable, as in, stopping actual assault and battery which happens all the time at schools. (Remember, just _threatening_ other people is assault.) It's entirely reasonable to say 'They are children, they should not be sent to jail for assault', but it's not reasonable to let it _continue_.

      Sadly, schools have latched onto cyber-bullying as if it's an actual thing. Uh, no. All reported cases of 'cyber-bullying' that I can see were actually cyber-harassment and have fuck all to do with 'bullying'. (It would be possible to bully, aka, threaten, someone via electronic means, but really really stupid.)

      So, basically, there are four things. Bullying inside and outside the school, and general harassment inside and outside the school that does not actually rise to the level of bullying.

      Stuff inside the school should be dealt with at school, and is, frankly, the most important thing. Because outside of school children can just _stay away_ from each other. (And please note that 'inside the school' also includes after school activities and the ride home.)

      If students harass and bully others outside of school, the school should inform the parents, and if it doesn't stop, invite both kids, their parents, and a judge to a meeting, and explain how they're going to help the victim's parents gets a 'restraining order', which will prohibit the asshat being within X yards of them, which means they won't be able to physically attend school due to their own stupidity. (And if there is 'bullying', aka, physically threatening behavior, they are also risking time in juvie.)

      Schools cannot punish students for stuff outside of school, period. But we live in a nation of laws that doesn't let random people run around harassing other people, regardless of their age or school or whatever. It is, however, not the job of school administrators to enforce that law. But if school administrators notice violations of the law happening off school ground to a student, they should simply inform everyone and perhaps help parents a little with legal proceedings to stop it.

      But all that assumes that schools actually care about 'bullying'. Someone informing their friends that they hate someone is not bullying. Or even harassment.(Something like following that person around repeating 'I hate you' would be harassment.) Someone talking about sex is not bullying. Students holding up a banner saying 'Bong hits for Jesus' is not bullying.

      Schools are suffering the same problem as the police: They have been infested with control freaks who think they are literally allowed to control other people's actions in any way, instead of understanding they have been giving that 'control' for the sole purpose of maintaining order, and unless they are stopping some serious disorder, they are not supposed to be using it. These 'control powers' are supposed to be the last resort, and instead they have become the first resort.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      and that is that Most Parents won't

      Well, I don't see that as a reason for the government to step in. Then we just get situations like this, and I'd rather have the nonexistent parent situation, to be honest.

    8. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      A kid can't talk about sex with another kid?

      No, in many instances they can't. That's besides the fact that there is a corporation facilitating this discussion. We need an entire new legal framework for child on child discussion which treats a 12 year old sending naughty pictures to her 14 year old online boyfriend very differently than a 12 year old sending naughty pictures to her 41 year old online boyfriend. Right now we mostly don't have that framework.

    9. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by deciduousness · · Score: 1

      Home schooling seems like the best answer. Now you can a police record for missing a certain number of days in school. If that were the case when I was growing up, my life would have been a lot different. The time in life that kids are in school are for learning more than just textbooks. It is for making mistakes that should not carry into the rest of your life, but hopefully be used to improve the rest of your life.

    10. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Oh those violent potheds with their knives....

    11. Re:Damned if they do damned if they don't by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If you want to end bullying and other Lord-of-the-Flies-like behavior, cut down on the amount of child-child interaction. I'm not saying to get rid of it, but kids should spend a lot more time around adults - and not just with a 30:1 ratio in a classroom. If kids spent a lot more time around adults, they'd tend to act like them, and when they became adults most likely they'd act a lot better than most adults do now.

      Kids try to fit in to whatever is around them. If that is mostly kids, then they'll do whatever their peers thinks is a good idea. If they are around adults more often than not, then they'll care more about what adults think about them. Just look at homeschooling, or the days when kids apprenticed from an early age.

  11. On the other hand... by boef · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I agree that NO ONE should be able to force you to hand over your account details... I think they should have just had her Facebook account suspended for breaking the T&C's. I could of course be wrong, but don't have to agree that you are over 13 years of age (she was not) when you create a Facebook account?

  12. ACLU should win this easy by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    Public school officials are known to power trip so much. To some people power tripping, they don't care about the law of the land, they just want to punish the person they think is doing something wrong.

  13. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time that school officials realize their authority ends at the end of the school zone. In my high school it was a serious offense to post anything against a teacher. An entire class of students was given multiple detentions for a group called "X Teacher's Name's Essay Suck".

    Shameless.

  14. What can happen to a naughty little girl... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Someday we'll end up with this. Keep in mind shit like this has happened before:

    A few years after the WW-II a young teenage girl called Erika Riemann defaced the moustache on picture of Stalin at school in then soviet occupied Germany. She got ratted out and then they sent her to Sachsenhausen, a nazi concentration camp the soviets had reactivated. She spent 8 years there where she was continously brutally raped by the guards who knocked her front teeth out in one episode.

    1. Re:What can happen to a naughty little girl... by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No idea who modded the parent down. Of course, maybe his problem was that he posted some long ago, far away scenario that could "never" happen in the US, right? Right?

      Unless you're in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Youth_Commission#Child_sexual_abuse_scandal

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  15. Kids - if this happens to you... by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'd encourage using facebook's terms and conditions as the reason not to give out your password.

    "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."

    It's not ideal. The administration shouldn't ask in the first place, but it's a means you can employ to protect your privacy.

  16. more post columbine paranoia by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    Rational adults know that just because a kid says something bad about a teacher doesn't mean the student's out to do the teacher harm. So why do most school policies nowadays attribute any attitude short of sunshine and happy unicorns to be evidence of mental problems worthy of nuke-it-from-orbit 'solutions'? The most obvious conclusion is that it's the school trying to save face when the student gets too close to the truth for their comfort, so they play out the zomg-columbine excuse. The fact is, the teachers that get the majority of the jeers from students often deserve it, and since most often the student complaints get buried under piles of bureaucratic and jingoistic fallacy (arg from authority usually) whether they're legitimate or not, students resort to other means of expression. In many ways, this is the equivalent of employers using the law (and contracts) to dictate more and more of what employees may do outside of work..

    I swear, it's like every institution in this country is looking to get their hands on as much of everyone's freedom as possible, with the schools becoming the front lines for indoctrination. Too bad. I guess expression is only to be tolerated when authority has the mouthpiece most of the time and gets to set the politically correct boundaries for everyone else. It's truly a shame how hard and how fast liberty has fallen in this country. The stipulations for when and where we may exercise our rights have become more and more byzantine and the fine print is getting ever more fine as the power hungry chip away..

    1. Re:more post columbine paranoia by forkfail · · Score: 2

      It's all about the fear. Something has changed, and we as a society are suddenly willing to do anything to keep that fear away.

      Couple of kids go nuts with guns? Take all the kids rights away.

      Terrorists attack? Take all the rights away, period.

      What causes this willingness to give into fear is another matter. I think it's complex, but probably has its roots in the fact that even if we don't generally acknowledge it, there's a widespread awareness that Bad Things are probably going to happen given that they usually do when the number of people so outstrip the resources.

      --
      Check your premises.
  17. Thugs by shiftless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know, police officers used to be looked up to back in the day. Now they are just hired thugs to be feared. How big of a man do you have to be to intimidate and coerce a little girl? What a piece of shit

    1. Re:Thugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, police officers used to be looked up to back in the day.

      I remember that day; it was a Tuesday.

    2. Re:Thugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Prohibition was the historical turning point there, really. Now we're all just reminiscing about a time before any of us were born.

    3. Re:Thugs by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'm even noticing a more militaristic look among them, at least in my city (Newark, NJ). I see way less dress blues and way more combat boots and vests. Sure, they still have the standard uniform pants and shirt, but it's covered up with gear that makes a cop look like a JV SWAT team member.

  18. My special snowflake by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too many parents think that their child is a special snowflake. They must protect their snowflake from having any negative experiences, like having another kid dislike them. Their special snowflake is not supposed to grow up, and not excepted to actually be able to cope with such traumatic thins as having some other kid actually disliking them.

    Of course, it goes without saying that no one else's kid is as special a snowflake as your own - it's absolutely fine to traumatize other kids, in order to protect your own.

    The next generation of Americans will have a huge challenge to overcome their upbringing...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:My special snowflake by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      posting to undo bad mod - put Redundant, meant Insightful.
      Yeah, with a teacher I know, the parents often refuse to believe that their kid is engaging in any bad behavior whatsoever

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    2. Re:My special snowflake by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Kind of like "America is exceptional", even though we're waging unilateral wars all over the friggin' Earth while shamelessly burying children in debt so that anyone on welfare can have a cell-phone?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:My special snowflake by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Yeah, with a teacher I know, the parents often refuse to believe that their kid is engaging in any bad behavior whatsoever

      Which is fair, but that doesn't justify vigilantism. (And some of us parents will happily discipline our kids if the school bothers to tell us what was done.)

      But for every snowflake parent, there's a teacher who decides that bullying is just "childhood fun" but the bullied fighting back is "a serious offense". So, forgive me for choosing to discipline my own kid.

    4. Re:My special snowflake by Zephyn · · Score: 1

      You don't see any other country doing that, do you? Therefore, America is exceptional. QED.

  19. Greate use of school system money . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . don't waste money on useless textbooks or facilities! Give it to needy lawyers instead!

    I really would have hoped that the ACLU and the other folks involved would have found a more pleasant way to settle this, without burning cash on litigation. At the end of all this, the only happy ones, will be the lawyers involved in the case, of course.

    And lawyers are very good at copying previous lawsuits. What the tech industry calls, "patent infringement," the law industry calls, "precedent." So expect to see a lot more of these. Even threatening a lawsuit against a poor school system should be enough to scare them into a cash settlement out of court.

    How the involved parties allowed this to escalate into the mess that it is, is beyond me. It must be idiots . . . all the way down.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Greate use of school system money . . . by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      So what would you suggest the girl and her parents, and the ACLU, do instead? Nobody's going to jail over this (although they damn well should) so the only real penalty that can be imposed is financial, seems to me. And there has to be some real penalty for this -- a "yeah, you shouldn't have done that" isn't nearly enough.

      How the involved parties allowed this to escalate into the mess that it is, is beyond me. It must be idiots . . . all the way down.

      Sounds like you're lumping in the family with the school administrators and the cops, which is one whopper of a false equivalence. The idiots are pretty clearly on one side of the issue.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Greate use of school system money . . . by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately to many states have personal lawsuit shields that cover these administrators and cops, So you have to go after the school district and police force. Each has very deep pockets. Personally I blame the anti drinking programs of the 80's that pushed schools into kids out of school lives. In my view the schools authority needs to be cleanly set to school hours and needs direct buy in from the parents. The ultimate "worst" thing a principle should be during is calling parents outside of direct evidence of a crime. We have invited police into schools to shield administration, in my view police are/should be bared from speaking to children without there parents being present as they are unable to consent to not having counsel present. Anyways the only way to get these things corrected is to show that it's potentially very expensive to do so.

      Want to fix litigation, stop shielding these people and direct punitive damages to the non profits of the injured parties choice to disinsentivize suing for cash.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    3. Re:Greate use of school system money . . . by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I really would have hoped that the ACLU and the other folks involved would have found a more pleasant way to settle this, without burning cash on litigation.

      Well, if I were the parent I'd accept disciplinary action against those involved. At a minimum, how about a month suspension without pay? Do you suppose the school district and police force were actually willing to put anything on the table? I'll eat my hat if they did.

    4. Re:Greate use of school system money . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really would have hoped that the ACLU and the other folks involved would have found a more pleasant way to settle this, without burning cash on litigation.

      I agree with you, instead of taking much needed money from the schools, the ACLU should be pressing for nothing less than a minimum of 10 years in prison for the school administrator, 1 year in prison plus permanent loss of teaching credentials for the teacher, and 20-25 years in prison and permanent loss of job for the police officer who's job it is to know better.

      Of course for the mental rape of the child, the school administrator needs life in prison or death, to assure he never scars another child again.
      What's worse, if the parents of the child took morality into their own hands, did the only "right" thing, and killed this mental rapist, it would be THEM who got in trouble.

      Welcome to the fucked up world we live in!

    5. Re:Greate use of school system money . . . by jbolden · · Score: 1

      We used to have those things, they were called "honor courts" and handled both in school and out of school petty issues. I see no reason not to bring them back.

    6. Re:Greate use of school system money . . . by anyGould · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, the ACLU usually only asks for lawyers costs (and the prohibition against doing it again). The school board could easily make the suit go away by just doing the right thing now.

  20. Bankrupt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    School district totally deserves this suit, I hope they go financially bankrupt, since they are already intellectually and morally so.

  21. Not to mention the state prosecutor by The+Creator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Accessing computer systems with stolen passwords is a crime.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:Not to mention the state prosecutor by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Cue the police union saying "probable cause, probable cause!" like a fucking mantra. The cop will go on, at worst, paid leave.

    2. Re:Not to mention the state prosecutor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cop may have had probable cause (which is questionable at best), but the school administrators did not. They used threats to coerce the password from the student, and then used it to access their accounts - i.e., they used a stolen password to access the computer. The cop may avoid jail time, but I bet a really good lawyer could get the administrator at least a few days in lockup plus a suspended sentance and probation...

    3. Re:Not to mention the state prosecutor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good point.. they should be brought up on hacking charges.

  22. More Information Please. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    Nowhere in the article was there a complete quote; there was only single words. There have been a number of posts here that assume all she said was "I hate you". It is not clear from article that those were the word she used. maybe they were stronger like "I hate him because he was mean to me and he should have the crap beaten out of him". This is yet another article with enough detail to get the "free speech" brigade up in arms without giving enough information to make a logical conclusion about the issue.

    There are many schools that "regulate and monitor" speech off school property. Those kids who use bullying speech off school grounds are the same ones who use physical bullying on campus. A target can avoid bullying off campus but when they have to be in the same hallways, change rooms and classrooms as their bullies it becomes impossible. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to threaten or bully. Would you rather the school handle it or the youth court system? Perhaps if the school did it a bully will learn before he/she get a juvenile record. The juvenile court system is burdened enough as it is without having to deal with issues that could be handled in a much simpler way.

    To those who think that anti-bullying campaigns are "nanny brigade" I say you have never been bullied. Personally I got beat up by the entire soccer team I was on because a few bullies started it. Stand up for yourself does not work when it is five to one. You have never had to walk down a hall when you never know when you will be body checked into a locker, have your books slapped out of your hands, be elbowed in the head, etc. Bullies are smart they know where the teachers are and will not be seen.

    1. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowhere in the article was there a complete quote; there was only single words. There have been a number of posts here that assume all she said was "I hate you". It is not clear from article that those were the word she used. maybe they were stronger like "I hate him because he was mean to me and he should have the crap beaten out of him". This is yet another article with enough detail to get the "free speech" brigade up in arms without giving enough information to make a logical conclusion about the issue.

      That's nice, but do you care to postulate a situation, consistent with the limited detail available, where "[forcing] a girl to hand over login information" is a justified response?

    2. Re:More Information Please. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have to disagree a bit here. I had similar issues and I was jumped by five boys after school one day. I fought back out of sheer terror and ended up putting two of them in the hospital.

      They nor anyone else in the school ever bothered me again.

      The only way to deal with bullies is to hurt them badly enough that they're too afraid to come back.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:More Information Please. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it doesn't matter what she wrote there, giving access to her accounts to the school officials is illegal any way you put it. doesn't matter what the school has on it's rules either. furthermore the vibe I got from the article was that she was already bullied, by the people who now were given access to her accounts. nothing impartial about it.

      you know how the first to join anti-smoking campaigns at schools are those who smoke? same goes for many other similar..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but do you care to postulate a situation, consistent with the limited detail available, where "[forcing] a girl to hand over login information" is a justified response?

      Where the deputy is really Jack Bauer, and the girl is really a terrorist who communicated with her cell through Facebook about the location of the stolen nuclear warheads they plan to use in their imminent strike on Los Angeles.

    5. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so let me see, if the student had said "I'd like to kill that b***h.", then the her words outside of school justified punishment, but if she said something like "Ms. M was unpleasant to me today." then those words would be ok?

      Whatever was said, was outside of school, and just saying the words does not make it an actual threat.

    6. Re:More Information Please. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      I only hit a guy in high school once and knocked him out cold with a single Karate punch - after he and his mates annoyed me for 3 years. Nobody ever bothered me again after that. When my son was in grade 1 he was bullied by a bigger kid. I dressed in a black leather jacket, jeans and boots, went to school, picked the kid up off the ground by grabbing the front of his shirt with one hand, talked gently to him for a minute or so, then dropped him and walked off. My son says he practically never saw the kid again, he slinked kept far away in the distance. So, yes, judging by this sample of two, bullies do respond well to strong arm tactics.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    7. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is yet another article with enough detail to get the "free speech" brigade up in arms without giving enough information to make a logical conclusion about the issue.

      And yet, you conclude she is a bully. Even more worrisome, you seem to believe that the treatment the girl received would be ok for a bully. Seriously? Calling the cops on her and forcing her to give them her facebook password, that is bullying.

      Reasonable people would have diskussed the issue with her and her parents.

    8. Re:More Information Please. by limaxray · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, 'bullying' is not a good reason to curtail free speech. Why should my speech be curtailed because of your feelings? Censoring speech for the sake of making others feel good is a very slippery slope since what is and is not 'bullying' is entirely subjective. If you think your feelings are more important than the speech rights of others, maybe the US isn't the place for you to live.

      I fail to see what she could have possibly said that wasn't protected speech. Taking your example to the next level, "I hate the president because he sucks and should be shot" is 100% protected speech in the US.

      And yes, you know this is /., a good number of us were picked on constantly growing up and still strongly oppose anti-bullying campaigns. Some of us were also involved in fights because of it, myself included. I remember how upset it made me at times, but I still think a very strict and ridged protection of speech is far more important than protecting my feelings.

      Honestly though, it sounds like you need to grow a pair and stand up for yourself or you will be walked on your entire life and that is no one's fault but your own. The people who pick on you do so out of their own insecurities, don't feed into it and give it validation, instead be confident in yourself.

    9. Re:More Information Please. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny if I hadn't already posted

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    10. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of horse shit. "Ignore it" does not work, has never worked, and causes far more lasting scars than when your precious, precious "free speech" gets trampled on because you apparently want your kids to have the right to be able to harass other students and call them "faggot" and other wonderful terms. Fuck you.

    11. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To those who think that anti-bullying campaigns are "nanny brigade" I say you have never been bullied.

      And I say you are unaware of the "anti-bullying" campaigns going on right now. Kids are being suspended routinely for "being in a fight" without throwing a punch, let alone those who simply defend themselves when another starts a fight. Zero-tolerance policies today make zero-tolerance policies of yesteryear seem incredibly permissive. A kid I work with (I'm a therapist for children) was suspended for playing a game where four friends were lightly knocking each other on the ground in a completely voluntary, though "rough-housing" manner.

      Meanwhile, kid after kid I know reports that real bullying still happens. All the "anti-bullying" campaigns have done is made apathetic faculty hyper-sensitive. They still don't care enough to deal with the problems around them, just to put on the display of caring.

      This, of course, ignores the more fundamental problem that no adult will ever be able to cite/give detention/sternly lecture enough to give children a perfectly safe, supportive environment at school. Caring enough to spot the real problems would certainly help, but bullying would still occur because even the most caring adult can't be aware and present all the time. Much more child-centered systemic solutions must be found, rather than celebrities on commercials and hyper-vigilant teachers suspending children for saying "shut up".

    12. Re:More Information Please. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      "I hate him because he was mean to me and he should have the crap beaten out of him"

      That's almost on the level of calling someone a stupid head!

      Seriously, why are the school staff seemingly acting like oversensitive imbeciles?

      Most people are probably responding to the information that they have now. As in, "If X is true [they did this to her for a petty reason], then..."

      Those kids who use bullying speech off school grounds are the same ones who use physical bullying on campus.

      Then I think they should be punished for what they actually do in the school.

      To those who think that anti-bullying campaigns are "nanny brigade" I say you have never been bullied.

      I'm sorry that you can't seem to accept that different people in your group (the bullied) have different opinions than you. I assure you that I was physically bullied. Still, I do not want anyone's free speech violated. Especially not in a petty manner that has nothing to do with the school.

    13. Re:More Information Please. by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      "If you think your feelings are more important than the speech rights of others, maybe the US isn't the place for you to live."

      I agree with that. I was bullied, yet I still think people need to stop being so oversensitive. It becomes a problem for me when it gets physical. Yes, I believe free speech is precious. Apparently the constitution agrees.

      Also, I don't really see where he said to just outright "ignore it." I'd rather not have your "think of the children" nonsense interfering with free speech.

    14. Re:More Information Please. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      In the case of you confronting your own child's bully: You became the bully. Congratulations. You should have told your son to stand up for himself, instead of intimidating a child.

    15. Re:More Information Please. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with you - that bullying is rampant, and has moved on to more sinister and subversive areas with the advent of social networking. However, the authorities acted in an entirely inappropriate manner. There are rules on bullying, and there are consequences - including in-school disciplinary measures/counciling, suspension and/or expulsion. There was no need for the action taken, and no good justification. She did or did not post bullying remarks, and if she did she should be subject to the school code. No need for anything else.

      If the bullying was actual threats, then they may refer it to the local authorities for assault charges, but it should then go through the proper channels. That would mean serving papers to the legal guardians at her residence.

      They screwed up, and the ACLU will have them for lunch.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    16. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went through a lot of that in Junior High School as well. I did get body checked into a locker, had my bike stolen, got jumped by several classmates, etc.

      My response was to report each and every single instance to the authorities, including the police officer that was assigned to the school as a liason. The primary instigator spent his 9th grade year in juvenile school because of it.

    17. Re:More Information Please. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Why should my speech be curtailed because of your feelings?

      Because that is common workplace behavior. People should not be forced to endure coercive environments.

      Censoring speech for the sake of making others feel good is a very slippery slope since what is and is not 'bullying' is entirely subjective. If you think your feelings are more important than the speech rights of others, maybe the US isn't the place for you to live.

      Or maybe you should understand what the policies in the US are. Political speech is fully protected. Religious speech is fully protected. As speech moves away from areas of public interest and into areas of private interest it becomes more regulated.

    18. Re:More Information Please. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Have to agree with the other reply you got sorry...best that you have your kid fight back both for his own self confidence and for his ability to deal with bullies if you're not around.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    19. Re:More Information Please. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Smoking is a personal thing. It does not cause fear, pain and anxiety in innocent kids who just want to go to school and learn. Making a parallel between the two is just stupid.

      So i guess you want her to have to go to youth court of something that is small now but could grow very quickly.

    20. Re:More Information Please. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Threatening speech is not and never has been protected speech. It is called assault, as apposed to assault and batter when someone actually gets touched physically.

      "I hate the president and I am going to shoot him" is not protected speech as it is a direct threat."I hate the president; lets get together and kill hims" is not protected speech as it is conspiracy to commit murder. "I hate the president because he has sex with little boys" is not protected speech because it is slander. There are many forms of speech that are not protected.

      So because you survived and did not commit suicide like many children are doing bullying is OK? Also, you lived in a different world that today's kids. They have so many ways to keep connected. One tweet and everyone in the school knows about it. One Facebook post of an embarrassing picture never goes away. Suicide is a rising issue with children these days. Bullies have no sense of how much it hurts to be the target and the targets are in so much pain that they give up. Bullies 20 years ago are much different than they are today.

      I have been in many fights all through school. Did it help? NO; they just got more and attacked me again. This crap about "grow a set" comes straight from bullies and wana be bullies. Sure there are cases where fighting back sometimes works. There are many more cases where fighting back just escalates the violence until someone dies.

    21. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to threaten or bully.

      It absolutely does. It's right there in the name: "freedom", meaning freedom, of "speech", meaning speech. You're thinking of "freedom of non-threatening speech", which is a somewhat more limited thing - depending, in particular, on who judges whether something is threatening or not.

    22. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm .. well, as a youngster, I was forced into the center of a circle of jeering, snarling, punching bullies that decided to "pass" me from bully to bully in the circle. They made one mistake and taht was they pushed me past a largepiece of 2x4 laying on the ground. Once I got that in my hand, the bullying began to abate, as, one by one, they left the circle with various abd mostly bleeding injuries. NONE of them ever approached me like that again. However, one of the boy's parents decided to have me arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. I was arrested, handcuffed and hauled off to the local sherrif's station. By the time my father got there, they were threatening me with more of the same "treatment" I had "assaulted" the bullies with. When it finally came to court, I was absolved of the charges, however, I was made to apologize to the bullies for using the 2x4 in my own defense against 7 boys intent on causing me great hurt. Despite my father's request (at the time of my arrest) that the others be rounded up and charged, they never were.

      The unfortunate part of that whole mess was that it has now become the norm for the bullies to become the "victim" and the victim is then punnished.

    23. Re:More Information Please. by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree a bit here. I had similar issues and I was jumped by five boys after school one day. I fought back out of sheer terror and ended up putting two of them in the hospital.

      They nor anyone else in the school ever bothered me again.

      The only way to deal with bullies is to hurt them badly enough that they're too afraid to come back.

      Agreed (although putting two kids in hospital might be a *bit* extreme, my father taught me "if you don't want to fight, walk away. If they make you fight, then drop them as fast as you can - fighting fair is for boxers", so I ain't gonna complain.

      What schools can do to help is to extend that selective amnesia to those moments - any teacher worth a damn knows exactly who the bullies and the bullied are. So when you see the kid stand up for themselves, now is the time to take that extra smoke break. (Or, if you must "break it up" for appearances, do why my old vice-principal did when I was the bullied. I got "hauled off", but the talk was "You know fighting is wrong, I know they started it. Have a good day.")

    24. Re:More Information Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone chooses to report a student for posting or emailing something that is fine. However, forcing a child to give login and password information for their personal accounts and then searching them is completely different. This isn't about free speech, this is an invasion of privacy. They searched her personal space whether by computer or tromping about in her home shouldn't matter. A home is protected by locks and data is protected by passwords. They violated her privacy by searching her private accounts. That is completely different than following up on complaints you have been given. It's different from someone printing out what she posted on facebook and giving it to the school. It's different than forwarding the school an email she had sent out. The school accessed her personal account through intimidation and force and then searched it. That is wrong!

  23. IHTFP by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    Students at MIT should be punished for publicly hating their school.

  24. Dangerous by SmarterThanMe · · Score: 2

    While I appreciate that this situation is outright silly (on the part of the school), ACLU's action here seems a little foolhardy. If schools can't discipline kids for what they say on social media, etc., then how are they meant to respond to cyber bullying such as that has led to however many teen suicides? What about defamation of teachers/students (I'm not talking about the usual Mr. So-and-so is a poopoohead, but what about calling him a pedo or something)? What about cyber-stalking or threats of physical violence against teachers/students?

    The alternative would be to deal with those issues through more judicial means, and that isn't necessarily better.

    1. Re:Dangerous by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      School administrators aren't parents (of the kids in question), and they aren't cops. Let them report it to the appropriate parties and leave it at that. Why the fuck do they have to do anything?

    2. Re:Dangerous by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You'll want to take this up with the 1st and 4th amendment of the constitution.

      The school doesn't have the authority and it never will. The ACLU isn't being foolhardy. They're entirely right here. If the school suspected something dangerous, they should have alerted the authorities and the parents with the information they had and been done with it. They had no rights to threaten a little girl into handing over her login details for things she has done off school property.

      Every example you gave have procedures to deal with them. Defamation? That is a civil matter. Stalking, violence? That is a job for the police.

      Schools should never have the right to discipline a child for something said off school property. That's why this whole cyber-bullying thing is such a joke. Parents expect the schools to be able to do something, but they can't do anything. Nor should they be able to. If it doesn't happen on school property, there is no reason for the school to be involved.

    3. Re:Dangerous by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      social media != private exchange of letters. that's the thing, they didn't need to coerce the logins from her to read public exchanges, public defamations etc. It's not the administrations job to read her chatlogs about if her periods already started or not - the sheriffs perhaps, if there was reason enough for a warrant - or her parents.

      (in all fairness that a school _needs_ hall monitors is a sign that the school is already administered in a fucked up fashion, never had 'em in ours)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Dangerous by SecurityGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I appreciate that this situation is outright silly (on the part of the school), ACLU's action here seems a little foolhardy. If schools can't discipline kids for what they say on social media, etc., then how are they meant to respond to cyber bullying such as that has led to however many teen suicides?

      The short answer is that they aren't, unless those things happen in a realm that falls under their authority. Schools are not the "child police". Their job is not to discipline children when they do things wrong. Their job is to educate children. Period. Now, if "cyber" bullying happens on school grounds, using school equipment, etc, then by all means they should discipline. If not, they have no standing to say word one about it, any more than if I, as John Q Public, call you a poopoohead, do you get to run off to my employer and tell on me.

      It really doesn't matter that you'd rather the schools handle it than the judicial system. The schools don't have the authority. The judicial does. Schools have gotten worse and worse at educating students due to the plethora of things which are not their job that they insist on doing instead.

    5. Re:Dangerous by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      A school is not the appropriate avenue for criminal matters. Either the matter is criminal or it is not.

      If the matter is criminal, or potentially so, it should be referred to the police and the parents should be notified.

      If the matter is not criminal, and occurs within the context of a school function, the school should punish the child.

      If the matter is not criminal, and does not occur within the context of a school function, the authority of the school begins and ends with notifying the parents of the situation.

    6. Re:Dangerous by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      If schools can't discipline kids for what they say on social media, etc., then how are they meant to respond to cyber bullying such as that has led to however many teen suicides? What about defamation of teachers/students (I'm not talking about the usual Mr. So-and-so is a poopoohead, but what about calling him a pedo or something)? What about cyber-stalking or threats of physical violence against teachers/students?

      None of that is within the power of the schools. Cyber-stalking and threats of violence, etc are all police matters.

    7. Re:Dangerous by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1
      (Reposting a comment I have also posted below...because it's relevant to your comment. Sorry for dupe-ing.)

      I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.

      I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a .pdf):

      5.14 Use of any computer, including social networking websites, or use of any information technology device, or hacking into the CPS Network to threaten, stalk, harass, bully or otherwise intimidate others, to access student records or other unauthorized information, and/or to otherwise cause a security hazard. [emphasis mine]

      (On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list? ...discussion for another time...)

      Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:

      The SCC applies to actions of students during school hours, before and after school, while on school property, while traveling on vehicles funded by the Board, at all school-sponsored events, and while using the CPS Network or any computer, Information Technology Device, or social networking website, when the actions affect the mission or operation of the Chicago Public Schools. Students may also be subject to discipline for Group 5 or 6 Inappropriate Behaviors that occur either off campus or during non-school hours, including actions that involve the use of any computer, Information Technology Device or social networking website, when the misconduct disrupts or may disrupt the orderly educational process in the Chicago Public Schools. [emphasis mine]

      Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.

      It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.

    8. Re:Dangerous by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They question is whether they can implicitly threaten legal sanction as a way of obtaining information during their investigation. For example the police need to be able to investigate traffic accidents. That doesn't mean the officer can whip his gun to get you to tell the truth about what happened.

      I'm not sure it is such a bad thing if school administrators have broad investigative rights. I do think it is such a bad thing for there to be no law spelling out the checks and balances.

    9. Re:Dangerous by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Actually they sort of are parents: loco parentis. They have to act in place of parents.

      Further they most certainly have an obligation to make the school safe for everyone involved. And in many states there are explicit anti-bullying statutes.

    10. Re:Dangerous by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Why? What agency in our society is better setup to regulate and handle day to day petty issues involving minors? The juvenile justice system isn't setup for petty issues.

      Adults with these sorts of problems have recourse to HR departments for example, which certainly would take out of work harassment of another employee very seriously.

    11. Re:Dangerous by jbolden · · Score: 1

      It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters)

      Actually most teachers in most states have fairly extensive training in dealing with interpersonal problems involving children. They all have extensive experience in it. Who in our society is better trained?

    12. Re:Dangerous by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Schools have gotten worse and worse at educating students due to the plethora of things which are not their job that they insist on doing instead.

      Actually in almost all cases when they gotten involved in this plethora of things it has made education better. For example school lunch programs substantially increase student performance for malnourished children. School vaccination programs substantially decreased absences due to plagues. School hearing and vision testing increase performance. Social work decreases distractions.

      If the goal is to maximize student performance the best thing you could do would be to have schools get involved in hundreds of these side activities.

    13. Re:Dangerous by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1

      Who is better at dealing with interpersonal problems involving children? I assume you mean besides parents, counselors, and social workers?

      Who si better at dealing with crime (or threats of crime) that happen outside the school setting? Police, neighborhood groups, non-profits that focus on helping troubled kids, etc etc etc.

      The teachers don't get a ton of training in mediating interpersonal problems or dealing with kids as humans. Their expertise is pedagogy (the theory of teaching). The closest they come to training in the sorts of issues listed above is either under the aegis of "classroom management" or "discipline," neither of which really tells them how to deal with the kids themselves or their underlying issues.

    14. Re:Dangerous by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Parents aren't trained, social workers are specific to particular issues. Though I'd agree the MSW social workers have a good grounding. If schools want to make use of counselors and make them broadly available, that's even better. The question above was about the involvement of schools.

      As for neighborhood groups, what neighborhood groups deal with interpersonal issues?

      And classroom management / discipline is what we are talking about. If they are dealing with a deep seated issue doing a referral would be excellent.

    15. Re:Dangerous by SmarterThanMe · · Score: 1

      Schools are not the "child police".

      That's nice that you say that (and it's what I happen to believe as well), but, as a teacher, I can say that you're completely out of step with society's expectations of us. More and more, parents, educational authorities, everyone is expecting us to be pseudo-parents. My school has a cyberbullying policy, a transport/walk to school policy, a personal development program (i.e., sexual education), etc. We're required to have them, but if we didn't, the parents of our students would demonstrate their complete inability to cope. All of these things should be done by parents, but aren't.

  25. there goes ... by armandoxxx · · Score: 0

    ... freedom of speech ...

  26. the child must be taught a lesson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never use hate, k@@@, or any derogatory term, ever. That's what children should be taught.

    The best response, e.g. would have been -

    It's a shame that the hall-monitor's treatment of me could not have been more Christian like and dignified;
    I guess she can't overcome her upbringing. I'll keep her in my prayers. But if she continues to violate statute
    X.XXX.x for harassment, I will ask my parents to petition for a criminal complaint against her

    This will garnish the most hate from the local police since they can't easily justify any retaliation against the child.

    But schools are reluctant to teach Children their rights and the courts are less inclined to man-up to this issue as well.
    The camera on the laptop voyerism case is a perfect example - no jail time, fines, etc. Teachers should be accountable
    through their home-owners policy, not the School District (which basically comes out of the local residents pocket anyway).

    This is a bigger problem then drugs, IMHO...

  27. Happened to me, but not as bad by sureshot007 · · Score: 1

    When I was in high school (in the mid 90s), a teacher was hit with and egg as part of a senior prank. I posted on a local BBS (yeah, that's how long ago) that I thought it was funny because I thought she deserved it. This teacher was either on the board, or knew someone that was, because the following day I was called down to the principal's office and confronted with a printout of my posting. Threatened with disciplinary action, the principal tried to coerce an apology from me.

    I looked her right in the face and said, "I don't think I should have to apologize for something that I said outside of school on my own time."

    The principal said that she strongly suggested that I apologize anyway, and then dismissed me. That was the end of it. Kids may not have the same rights as adults in all situations, but until they are instructed by their parents, they should assume they do, and defend them as necessary.

  28. I look at all this by LiroXIV · · Score: 1

    In Canada, I've never really had to experience some of these blatant violations of privacy. No school I've went to has attempted to extrude information like that in this matter, no theatre I've gone to has required me to have a TSA examination before I watch a movie, and so on and so on. Please, unless it directly harms the students (like, if you said on Facebook that you were going to burn down the school, that's obviously cause for concern), keep our personal lives out of this.

  29. in loco parentis by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

    This is a legal term which basically means that schools have the right to act as parents while kids are within its boundaries. Generally it's been citing and upheld by the courts in cases like searches of property such as back picks and lockers without needing a warrant. There have been several cases where it has been used to limit the rights of students.

    Yes I can see the argument that the school would make: a parent could demand the child's creds therefore the school, by acting in loco parentis, can demand such information. And that may very well hold up in court as a defense against the ACLU.

    I think about schools today compared to when I went through. Those 5 years before me learned to shoot .22 and shotguns in the 5th grade. When I went through we still learned archery with real bows and arrows. We were even allowed to bring our own bows to school for class. My parents generation would even bring guns to school so they could go hunting after class. They didn't have school shootings.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:in loco parentis by jackbird · · Score: 1

      They didn't have school shootings.

      Not true.

      (This took place in an area where the first day of deer season is considered a holiday, BTW.)

    2. Re:in loco parentis by _8553454222834292266 · · Score: 1

      That was a school BOMBING. Also it was by a non-student,

      Andrew Kehoe, 55

      The op was talking about students + guns and how this didn't result in shootings.

    3. Re:in loco parentis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off it was NOT a school shooting it was a school bombing.
      Second the person doing this was a member of the schoolboard not a student.

    4. Re:in loco parentis by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Yes I can see the argument that the school would make: a parent could demand the child's creds therefore the school, by acting in loco parentis, can demand such information. And that may very well hold up in court as a defense against the ACLU.

      Actually, I'd say a parent can't necessarily demand it. Think of it - you tell Junior you want his Facebook password. He tells you to stuff it (Because he's a teenager and in his rebellious phase).

      How much discipline would we be willing to accept for that noncompliance?

  30. Great Britain. English. Welsh. Scottish. Irish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So being specific is completely fine with NORMAL people.

    PS How do you prefer being called Yankee?

    We will call you what we want to call you. If you don't like USian, then stop calling your country the United States of america. See, that has "US" in it.

  31. Cyberbullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing people who don't work in schools need to realize is that there is legislation out there that covers cyberbullying. Even if you ignore cyberbullying for a second, at least here in Oregon, kids can be punished at school for interactions they have with other classmates outside of school grounds....anytime something involves another student, the school can get involved "in loco parentis, which also covers other things schools do that bug people.

    Also, even in public schools, students really don't have freedom of speech...and people always forget that your exercising of your rights don't apply the moment you start infringing on the rights of others.

    1. Re:Cyberbullying by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      ...and people always forget that your exercising of your rights don't apply the moment you start infringing on the rights of others.

      The right to not be hated? How do I exercise that one?

  32. Charismatic Exemplar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    12-year-old girl

    Good heavens, at least it wasn't a boy in a black trenchcoat, a 12-year-old girl makes a much more charismatic exemplar for the ACLU. Have we forgotten the Hellmouth already?

  33. An Example of Student Code of Conduct by TheRedSeven · · Score: 1
    I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.

    I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a .pdf):

    5.14 Use of any computer, including social networking websites, or use of any information technology device, or hacking into the CPS Network to threaten, stalk, harass, bully or otherwise intimidate others, to access student records or other unauthorized information, and/or to otherwise cause a security hazard. [emphasis mine]

    (On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list? ...discussion for another time...)

    Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:

    The SCC applies to actions of students during school hours, before and after school, while on school property, while traveling on vehicles funded by the Board, at all school-sponsored events, and while using the CPS Network or any computer, Information Technology Device, or social networking website, when the actions affect the mission or operation of the Chicago Public Schools. Students may also be subject to discipline for Group 5 or 6 Inappropriate Behaviors that occur either off campus or during non-school hours, including actions that involve the use of any computer, Information Technology Device or social networking website, when the misconduct disrupts or may disrupt the orderly educational process in the Chicago Public Schools. [emphasis mine]

    Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.

    It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.

    1. Re:An Example of Student Code of Conduct by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Well then, if this is your public school policy I suggest that in the financial interests of your school, you should probably consult with a lawyer. The board of education likely doesn't have the authority to regulate the activities of children off school grounds, especially if their defense is a single party non-contractual statement. It would be like the city council passing a resolution that stated that any adult living in the city could be fined for using harsh language on the internet, it simply is beyond the scope of their granted power. In all likelihood your school district is open to a similar lawsuit by the ACLU, and as a school council representative it is your duty to try and protect your school from such liability.

  34. The school (and sherrif) have committed a felony by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
    It is illegal to obtain someone else's password without a warrant.

    It's a violation of the terms of services, and violation of federal law:

    18 USC Â 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.ahref=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030rel=url2html-19895http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030>

    Cops need a warrant to obtain a password. Even if the person is a child. Schools are forbidden from doing so even with a warrant.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  35. Thank You ACLU by gubers33 · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing about stories like this from my mother about my old school, as well as other schools around the country. Schools need to realize that they are there to teach as their main function not to discipline. If a kid is acting out on the school grounds and breaking the rules, then they can discipline the children. Anything that happens outside of the school is none of their business and they should butt out. Activities outside of school grounds should be handled by the parents or police if it is that serious. The school is meant to teach that is it.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  36. facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the recent school shooting again and all the harassment bullying issues schools have a hightened awareness and sensitivity. I would say that the schools cant be too careful and take any threatening or harassing comments made by any memebr of the school seriously students or faculty.

  37. 10:30 to 11:30 - Troll feeding time by alexo · · Score: 1

    So, what would you call people from the Americas? You know, North- and South America?

    "North Americans", for people from North America.
    "Central Americans", for people from Central America (unless included in the term above).
    "Middle Americans", for people from Mexico and the nations of Central America (and possibly West Indies, Colombia and Venezuela; depending on the definition used).
    "South Americans", for people from South America.
    "Anglo Americans", for people from countries in the Americas with significant British cultural or historical links.
    "Latin Americans", for people from Latin America.
    "Ibero Americans", for people from the former colonies of Spain and Portugal in the Americas.
    and so on and so forth...

    While the commonly used term for the whole "greater" American continent is "the Americas", There is too little in common between all the people of the region to warrant a specific term just because there's a narrow land-strip connecting the sub-continents.

    After all, how often do you hear the term "Afro-Eurasians"?

  38. Only in the US! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Wow, so basically now the US is saying you don't get free speech? As long as this girl didn't make a direct and pointed threat to this hall monitor then she did nothing wrong and shouldn't get in trouble. Of course like I just posted, she put it online with the intent to show off what she thought and she wanted people to read and react, but this still doesn't violate free speech.

    1. Re:Only in the US! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, not at ll. It is saying there are different guidelines for 12 year olds; which has been the case for the entire history of the US.

      They handled it wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Only in the US! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      12 years old, 20 years old, 80 years old, 2 months old it doesn't matter. It's all free speech

  39. zero tolerance by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    zero tolerance policies might blame those who fight back as well as or instead of those who started it. Is that BS? Yes. Does it happen? yes.

    or in sports terms, the ref gets the second guy

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:zero tolerance by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Don't care.

      If my kid gets in trouble with the school for fighting back I will back him 100%. Self defense is legal justification for whatever might happen.

      The issue here is getting the bullies to back off. The ONLY way to do that is to get their respect or their fear.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    2. Re:zero tolerance by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      And then they get more friend and blindside your kid and put your kid in the hospital or the morgue. Violence only creates more violence and when it is a kid it can be deadly.

    3. Re:zero tolerance by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Have you lived it or are you just thinking about it?

      I grew up in a slum, without parents and without any realistic hope of help from 'the authorities.. I know very well about violence. I also know that if you let bullies get away with it they'll keep doing it but if you fight back then they'll find easier prey.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    4. Re:zero tolerance by anyGould · · Score: 1

      And then they get more friend and blindside your kid and put your kid in the hospital or the morgue. Violence only creates more violence and when it is a kid it can be deadly.

      I'd disagree. Bullies go after easy meat - they don't want a "fight", they want to push someone around and enjoy the pain. They want to look and feel big and important.

      You can fight it two ways - either be mean enough that they find easier prey, or thick-skinned enough that they get bored. I've lived both, and while the latter might be the "better way", it's a hell of a way to live in the meantime.

    5. Re:zero tolerance by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      So it is fine with you that bullies move on to someone else why may not be as big as you or as thick skinned as you. They will eventually find someone smaller and weaker than them to pick on. Bullies will find a target no matter what.

      As for fighting back? Difficult when the bullies outweighs you by 50%. The "bullies don't want a fight" is a generalization and not always true. Unless one can put the bully in the hospital some just keep coming back and with friends this time. I had a friend who knew karate. One on one he was unbeatable. The bullies just waited and ganged up on him from ambush. It became a game to see how may times they could beat the crap out of him in one day. Some bullies are cowards others like the challenge.

      Thick skin? It is impossible not to react to punches, kicks, etc. When one has been kicked in the leg one will limp and that is all the gratification some bullies need.

      It needs to be socially unacceptable to stand around a laugh while someone gets bullied. That is the only way things are going to change.

    6. Re:zero tolerance by anyGould · · Score: 1

      So it is fine with you that bullies move on to someone else why may not be as big as you or as thick skinned as you. They will eventually find someone smaller and weaker than them to pick on. Bullies will find a target no matter what.

      And no-where did I say you shouldn't stand up to bullies. (But nice strawman) You can't help others until you can help yourself. And bullies can be contained - if you have enough people willing to stick up to them, it stops being fun or cool.

      As for fighting back? Difficult when the bullies outweighs you by 50%. The "bullies don't want a fight" is a generalization and not always true. Unless one can put the bully in the hospital some just keep coming back and with friends this time. I had a friend who knew karate. One on one he was unbeatable. The bullies just waited and ganged up on him from ambush. It became a game to see how may times they could beat the crap out of him in one day. Some bullies are cowards others like the challenge.

      Thick skin? It is impossible not to react to punches, kicks, etc. When one has been kicked in the leg one will limp and that is all the gratification some bullies need.

      It needs to be socially unacceptable to stand around a laugh while someone gets bullied. That is the only way things are going to change.

      One, if they're beating you up, that's not bullying, that's assault. Getting apple juice poured on your head or tripped in the halls is bullying.

      Two, I'll repeat the advice my father gave me - you are not required to fight fair if you don't want to be in the fight. I was taught (and will teach my kid) to go for the nuts, go for the eyes, go for the ears. You aren't trying to score points, you're trying to protect yourself. A reputation as a dirty fighter is a good thing in the schoolyard.

      Three, it's not a question of not reacting (because as you say, there's involuntary reactions). The question is, do you give them the satisfaction of being upset, or do you walk as best you can, straight face, and if someone asks honestly say what happened? I've spent a day covered in apple juice because an older kid decided I was "in his chair". I've been jumped after class. Been, done, learned the lessons the hard way.

      Four, which is related - sure there's a stigma against "tattling". But that doesn't mean you lie if you're asked. Someone says "hey, why are you limping?", you say "because Joe and his buddies jumped me between periods".

  40. Breaking ToS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breaking ToS "You will not use Facebook if you are under 13" [https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms]

    Also from the article "The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages" all I can say is, if those "unspecified damages" are in any way monetary I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

  41. Repeat by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me, young lady, "You guys can go fuck yourselves!"

    --
    I8-D
  42. law of unintended consequences by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I see a couple unexpected consequences

    although not at issue in this particular case, the gay rights movement seems to contribute to general anti bullying sentiment because of non-heterosexuals driven to suicide
    also, ridiculous zero tolerance policies after Columbine

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  43. The Kid Didn't Understand Her Rights by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    And it sounds like they were banking on that. Any ill-informed child will probably spill the beans in the presence of a law enforcement officer. The proper thing to do would be to refuse to say anything unless a parent or legal council is present. Either way she'll probably still get suspended -- the schools seem to have a lot of discretion about when they can do that. A lawyer might even tell her that she can be compelled to provide that information, but I bet it's not that easy.

    Anywhoo I'd just chalk it up as an important lesson about ever cooperating with authority figures. And yeah, suing them, just to prove a point.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  44. Re:What about the parents? Wrong name dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering Mexicans are citizens of Los Estados Unidos de Mexico (aka United States of Mexico),

    Mexicans are citizens of Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which translates to United Mexican States.
    If you notice in the name it actually says it uses the word MEXICAN implying they're mexican. However USA has the proposition "OF" America, which actually means it belongs to America.
    A latin american can trabel to europe and say he/she is American, and people will understand know he/she refers to other country besides USA. The only time europeans will have trouble is with canadians and that is because US and Canadian english accents are almost the same.

  45. parents allowed 12 year old to use facebook? by jpc1957 · · Score: 1

    Why does a 12 year old need Facebook, and how was that authorized? I question any adult letting children use Facebook as a substitute for normal personal communication with their friends. Should banter between 12 year olds be recorded for all time and unknown audiences? When a 12 year old says 'i hate someone' to a friend in a casual conversation, the meaning and context is very obvious. Even an adult overhearing the conversation would probably be able to know if there was a threat involved. Put that same statement into Facebook, and context and meaning is up to wild interpretation. No-one should use Facebook to communicate unless they are mature enough to understand that. Not implying the ridiculous level of escalation in this case is the fault of the parents. The original parent that reported the statement and the school administration both escalated the situation dramatically. Either could have stopped the escalation by applying some reasonable judgement.

  46. info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minnewaska School District
    25122 State Highway 28
    Glenwood, MN 56334-3390 map
    Phone: (320) 239-4820

  47. the real question, to me is by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Did they talk to the hall monitor they were mean?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. Not a free speech issue by neonv · · Score: 1

    Children do not have the right to free speech. They are minors with a legal guardian responsible for discipline in the case of bad behavior. When a child mouths off to a parent, the child is punished. When the child mouths off to a school administrator, the child is punished. Parents are responsible for teaching their children proper behavior. When the child is no longer a minor, then he or she can mouth off and find out the hard way that needlessly pissing people off is not in their best interest.

    My only problem with this is that the school is doing the discipline and not the parents. The school should inform the parents, and let them work it out.

  49. Whose is it to say? by gottabeme · · Score: 1

    You beg the questions, "Was the listener's understanding of the term incorrect?" and, "Is the way 95% of other people use 'begs the question' actually incorrect?"

    For that matter, is there a "correct" way to use language in an informal context? I think Lewis Carroll covered this already:

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

    Through the Looking Glass

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  50. Of course it's a free speech issue. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    When a child mouths off to a parent, the child is punished.

    Irrelevant comparison, as parents are not actors of the state.

    It's also a jurisdictional issue - what happens off of school grounds and outside of school events is none of their damned business. The only thing they can do is report the issue to the parents or to law enforcement.

  51. Not "Nanny". Authoritarian. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the New American Nanny State.

    Welcome to false talking points. The school is overreaching their authority where it doesn't belong.

  52. Complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can email the principle at pfalk@minnewaska.k12.mn.us and tell him to start respecting students rights. Maybe he should be forced to disclose his email password to the public.

  53. Facebook TOS by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

    Well besides the potential criminal charges the school administrators should face, but won't, perhaps Facebook could step in.

    The administrators and others present likely violated Facebook's TOS, section 5. Under such, I think Facebook could disable any accounts for any administrative personnel involved, as well as give them legal notice that they may not ever again open a Facebook account. Might be a slap on the wrist, even comical to some, but it's probably the best which could be hoped for. Facebook could choose also not to disable the girl in question's account pursuant their investigation.

  54. Intimidate a 12 year old girl? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Not all children are created equal. Attempts by anyone to intimidate my 12 year old girl are met with a stubborn streak comparable to Jason Bourne... She has asthma. Her PE teacher apparently does not believe asthma is a real disease. He told her as much and ordered her to run with the rest of the class. She refused, and when he threatened to have her punished, she pulled out her phone, and while standing there in front of him turned it on (phones required to be off at this school) and called me. Stared him in the eye while she asked me to come take care of this fascist pig. I came to visit with her, principal, and the PE teacher. He was apparently set to intimidate me as well, but as soon as he stepped close to me I asked him politely to step away, as my USMC training and war experiences make me unpredictable when threatened. Mr tall, dark, and pudgy decided to re-think his tactics. I did have to discuss the fascist remark with her. Really, know what a word means before using it in an insult.... He's clearly a despot wannabe. the principal is the fascist. The principal took her out of PE, something she swore was not possible at the beginning of the year, state requirements prohibit it. I took my daughter out to dinner of her choice and we discussed how she was right to stand up against an authority figure in the wrong. Pride flowed from me in copious amounts.