Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Teen Wins Settlement After School Takes Facebook Password
schwit1 (797399) writes "A Minnesota school district has agreed to pay $70,000 to settle a lawsuit that claimed school officials violated a student's constitutional rights by viewing her Facebook and email accounts without permission. The lawsuit, filed in 2012 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, alleged that Riley Stratton, now 15, was given detention after posting disparaging comments about a teacher's aide on her Facebook page, even though she was at home and not using school computers. After a parent complained about the Facebook chat, the school called her in and demanded her password. With a sheriff deputy looking on, she complied, and they browsed her Facebook page in front of her, according to the report. 'It was believed the parent had given permission to look at her cellphone,' Minnewaska Superintendent Greg Schmidt said Tuesday. But Schmidt said the district did not have a signed consent from the parent. That is now a policy requirement, he said.'"
Asks schwit1, "How is this not a violation of the CFAA?"
It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service, too.
... apparently people are still using Facebook.
http://www.xkcd.com/538/
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service,
So? You think some legal document your student signed stands in the way of you doing stupid things? There is a legal term for it. FB may have grounds to sue. But why would they really care about something so minor (heh see what I did)?
But what were these these "disparaging" comments exactly?
Apparently she was complaining about a teacher's aid... at home, not in school. I haven't seen anything more specific.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
They should have known better - time for hard time for that stupid retard.
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private. Once you release something on the internet you no longer have control of it - particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company. If she wanted it to be private she should not have posted it online, anywhere.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
But what were these these "disparaging" comments exactly?
Probably something like "These administrators are total fascists."
Look at the districts reply: We searched her cell phone without permission. We won't do that again. Now we have a standard form requiring permission that all students must sign. WTF?! The problem was not a lack of parental signature. The problem was a flagrant abuse of rights, which apparently they are happy to continue.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
But what were these these "disparaging" comments exactly?
"You look like someone that would read Slashdot."
Schools agreed to pay $70,000 in damages and rewrite its policies to limit how intrusive the school can be when searching a student’s e-mails and social media accounts created off school grounds.
The school cannot in any way, shape or form perform any kind of search of any student's e-mails, social media accounts, personal electronic equipment, etc.
If any School faculty, administrative staff, board member attempts to do so, they will be shot on site.
The school has no relationship with Facebook and isn't bound by any terms of service - it's the student who was coerced to violate them.
Here's a lesson school districts need to take to heart: just because a parent says "do something!" doesn't mean you have to.
This girl is now going to be subjected to a lot of insidious B.S. until she leaves. Teachers will likely be very harsh for any sort of subjective grading. School staff is going to be watching her like a hawk. If she steps one toenail out of line, she's going to be in a world of hurt. If it's one thing I know, when you have no power and she really doesn't, the people who do have even a little power will make your life miserable. And this crap is going to follow her for a very long time too because it's now got a life of its own online.
> It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service, too.
Thats a felony under federal law now. Aaron Swartz was facing 15 years for something similar.
Oh, and the reason why we don't have a free democratic nation, and the reason why you don't see adults dissent, is because it is beaten out of us as children. We don't have a school system which produces free thinking citizens as adults.
We can pretend this is an isolated incident and not the trend of a large society.
This also demonstates the need to post either anonymously or pseudonymlsy. Its to prevent authority figures from fucking you
Failbook is for fucktards and this is a prime example why sheeple shouldn't have one yet they do to post shit someone else can use against them. Besides there are methods to post sit other than socially fucktarded media sites such as failbook. Blogs are one and having a website is another. HTML and PHP are so fucking easy to learn and if someone can't learn those then they are obviously too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a computer.
*This* type of thing illustrates well why I give money to the ACLU twice a year.
She said that a Hall Monitor was mean, according to TFA.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It should be noted that the school did NOT search her cell phone because of what she said about the Hall Monitor (at least according to the school), but rather because the girl had been sexting with some other kid, whose parents complained to the school.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
because the girl had been sexting with some other kid, whose parents complained to the school.
Even if true, unless it was being done at school, why is the school involved?
Why would you even bother complying?
Sure, you're likely to be substantially richer than you would be, had you not complied
but I bet it would feel pretty goddamn good, to sit there and say "oh, you'd like my password?
That's cute."
You don't HAVE to do anything you don't want to do. You don't HAVE to obey authority.
That kid should've laughed in the school's face to begin with. Ignored them completely. Tell the cops to come back with a warrant.
Settlement is NOT a win. It is a cop out.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Hmmm. If anything, that sound like a good reason for school officials *NOT* to be taking or viewing the students phone contents.
1. Good for the kid. Seriously. 70k is a nice chunk of change 2. Glad the taxpayers had to pay for the settlement to the kid. 3. Yet another person named Riley who is little self indulgent prick. Signed, Life of Riley
"the school called her in and demanded her password as a deputy sheriff looked on."
What the actual fuck?
I'm guessing that the sheriff was involved (due to quite likely child pornography) and the school was the easiest place to find her during his ordinary working hours. It's also quite possible that the other parent reported it to the school rather than to the police, but that's irrelevant - either way the police would have probably come to the school to find her.
Three reasons I'm guessing:
One: people who make rules like these are fond of the idea that they are infallible. Admitting a policy was wrong would force them to admit they CAN be wrong, at which point they assume the students will riot and burn schools to the ground.
Two: the people who made the policies aren't going to be changed, the groupthink that led them to that point hasn't changed, they still believe in the value of the policy and think that everyone else is just ignorant and misguided as to why the policy is so necessary.
Three: Probably some idiotic notion about limiting liability. "If we admit it was wrong, someone ELSE MIGHT SUE US!" No one applies this logic to actually changing the policy or is willing to admit it's the policy that caused the lawsuit of course. It seems to be a weird quirk of groupthink that it's good to be shitty people in a half-assed attempt to limit liability.
...people should be held accountable for what they say and do.
But Schmidt said the district did not have a signed consent from the parent. That is now a policy requirement, he said.
So the district wants to go from an individual lawsuit to a class action lawsuit? I refuse to sign half of the shit my district sends home, making it clear that we are under no obligations to waive liability or agree to their arbitrary demands in exchange for a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).
One of the items they wanted us to sign stated that we waive the right to sue if our child was killed during a field trip. Only three parents refused to sign, and those students stayed at school while the rest of the class went on the field trip.
but let's be real: By the time they head to a university, that'll be a drop in the bucket. Pretty decent scholarship, though! And no ESSAYS.
"All in all you're just another brick in the wall."
... apparently people are still using Facebook.
Well, they were two years ago. From TFA:
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Minneapolis StarTribune had this article and what troubled me was this passage:
"As part of the settlement, Minnewaska school policies now address electronic devices for the first time.
The new rules say electronic records and passwords created off-campus can only be searched if thereâ(TM)s a reasonable suspicion they will uncover violations of school rules. Enhanced teacher training was also part of the settlement."
What bothers me about this is that there seems to be this idea that there are "school rules" that can conceivable cover ANY off-campus behavior, actions or activities. The idea of "reasonable suspicion" as being the grounds for searching anything seems to just make this seem all the more egregious.
As far as I'm concerned, the power of a school administrator extends to the boundaries of the school campus and only off-campus to the extent that the students are participating in some school-organized event (ie, playing school sports off-site or being on a field trip). You can't just say that because someone is a student in a school that you can create rules that extend past the schoolhouse door and empower you to utilize coercive force (police power) to enforce them.
I'm sure much of this thinking has been driven by the motivation to cut underage drinking by making it a violation of school policies and thus eliminating eligibility for sports or activities.
...if the school I attended tried to pull something like this, the kids I grew up with would burn that fucker to the ground.
Kids need strength. They're being oppressed on a daily basis, in multiple ways.
They need to learn to question authority.
Two: the people who made the policies aren't going to be changed, the groupthink that led them to that point hasn't changed, they still believe in the value of the policy and think that everyone else is just ignorant and misguided as to why the policy is so necessary.
You remember how we've heard for years and years that our schools need more money? Well, they got it and they continue to get it. Do you know where that money went? Not to hire teachers and buy textbooks and computers ... no. For the most part, it went to hire more administrative staff.
Much of schooling is a jobs project as illustrated by Jon Taylor Gatto. You now have lots of administrators who feel a need to justify the existence of their jobs. So, of course idiotic policies (especially "zero tolerance") will be deemed necessary. Like most problems society has, It was a predictable outcome.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
...in ages past 13 year olds were having to make choices that would affect anything from their entire personal future to the future of entire nations.
Maybe if we returned that level of seriousness to 13 year olds we'd have less 18, 21, 30, 40 etc year olds who were acting so fucking immature. Maturity starts when responsibility is demanding. Treating youths as children until they're 18 or 21 or some indefinite point in the future isn't doing them any favors.
I as well as many of my former associates of Gen Y are proof enough of that!
Anon Y. Mouscoward
In which case he should have a warrent right?
Citation needed on that. And with legislators addicted to zero tolerance and get tough on shirts untucked, I'm willing to bet that most of the money came with strings on it that set the problem up. "Here's ten thousand dollars... no you cannot fix the roof with it, you need a metal detector!"
and the parents / legal guardian should have been there.
"if you load your gmail on a school pc they can check squid logs and basically see your gmail account"
Gmail is ssl encrypted, retard.
The scary part was going through an American Public Education and watching all the kids go from free thinking independents into brainwashed cliquers who basically cast their die for life.
I ran into or googled about enough former classmates to know that most of them, regardless of clique or cast or prospects for life, didn't ever dig their way out. Even the ones who'd left the city for greener pastures had returned, often as not due to lack of friends and lack of prospects where they went.
I've had at least two suicides, a couple either slipped into mental illness or drove themselves there with hallucinogens, at least a dozen more are working shitty min wage jobs 10-15 years later, and at least 2-3 of the others have been in the news as felons.
Real pillars of sucess we have going here.
"the kids I grew up with would burn that fucker to the ground."
I'm guessing most of the kids you grew up with are probably in prison now for other things.
>Kids need strength. They're being oppressed on a daily basis, >in multiple ways.
>
>They need to learn to question authority
*yawn* Must be teenage cliche week.
And the motherfuckin lawyer!
the students will riot and burn schools to the ground
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I'm guessing that the sheriff was involved (due to quite likely child pornography)
It never ceases to amaze me how you don't actually own yourself in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Very few people here care about freedom, and even if what you're doing is 100% consensual, they'll still come after you. Disgusting. Yeah, we're really "civilized."
[End Of Line]
Because they can get away with it.If it were my kid, it would be a different story.
Then again, I'm not aware of the whole facts of the case. I'm also sat behind a computer in a different country. I have no children with a Facebook account on which to post negative comments, as I have no children.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
For the most part, it went to hire more administrative staff.
Citation needed on that.
Citation.
Citation.
Citation.
You realize that "puberty" is nature's way of basically ensuring that young people learn to question authority, right?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
I would love to see the Cop's thoughts on this.
You would think that an officer of the law should be well aware of what the law is and when (they are) doing something is directly violating someone's rights (especially that of a child).
I wonder how they felt intimidating a child?
Apparently the school thinks it has some moral obligation to deal with "cyberbullying", and since the parents (of the hypothetical other kid) complained, they (the school) had to investigate to determine if "cyberbullying" had occurred.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
*yawn* Must be teenage cliche week.
Questioning authority is a teenage cliche? I thought it was something everyone in every single country should be doing, as ensuring that your country retains its freedom, or helping your fellow man acquire freedom, requires vigilance.
[End Of Line]
Look at the districts reply: We searched her cell phone without permission. We won't do that again. Now we have a standard form requiring permission that all students must sign.
So if all students must sign this, then why even have a form? What if they don't agree with the policy? Do they kick them out of school? Isn't the state required to provide education to the student, even if the child does not agree to an illegal and unconstitutional search of their property? If this was a private school, that is one thing, but a government funded public education facility must comply with the laws of the government. If they refuse, the government should withdraw the funding and throw the administrators in jail.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You only need a warrant to conduct a search without permission. If the person being searched, or their legal guardian in the case of a minor, gives permission, you don't need a warrant.
The school's administrative policies probably should've demanded that a parent be present, but legally I don't think they're required to. When a student is at school, the school has certain rights that would normally pertain to the parents (for instance, the school nurse wouldn't be breaking the law by accessing the school's medical file without parental permission; similarly, you couldn't argue that the school had unlawfully detained a student if they gave detention).
In particular, they have the right to conduct reasonable and justified searches, without a warrant, regardless of whether the student consents to the search. See: New Jersey v. T. L. O.
Not until you are legally an adult (18).
That is pretty uncontroversial.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Asks schwit1, "How is this not a violation of the CFAA?"
No, fraud involved and not a "protected computer"
It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service, too.
Did the school employees ever agree to the Facebook TOS? No evidence of that.
Come on, wouldn't you want to see those pictures too?
Not until you are legally an adult (18).
You're merely restating something I'm already well aware of, and criticized. We are not "the land of the free and the home of the brave" at all; we're merely a country full of people who pretend to care about freedom, but in reality, just want to use laws to force their own morals down everyone else's throats.
That is pretty uncontroversial.
Because most people are morons, and not just when it comes to nonsensical "protect the children!" rhetoric. You can see this by how many people tolerate the TSA and NSA spying; sure, they're criticized by some, but are more than a few people willing to stop voting for the two evil parties, or do anything remotely meaningful? No.
[End Of Line]
This was neither "reasonable" nor "justified." They'll pretend it was, but given that these people despise freedom and privacy in all forms, why would that be a surprise?
[End Of Line]
Not good enough.
The school officials and deputy need to all be in jail: Conspiracy and Coercion are 2 crimes I can think of just off the top of my head.
And since the courts have already ruled that they violated her constitutional rights, I'm sure there's some federal civil rights charges that can be brought against them as well.
Worst outcome is an innocent verdict with a trial that bankrupts all of them.
Best if 5 years in state pen + 5 in fed pen. Non concurrent.
Seriously prosecutors and law enforcement advocates are always wanting to make an example of the bad guys, well how about making an example of the good guys who go bad?
Is this one going to be void too; or did the school forget to add the confidentiality clause, for some reason?
"We are a school district! We are above the law!"
In that case this is MUCH more serious. Sexting has sometimes been considered child pornography, a FELONY offense. Pressuring an underage person to reveal incriminating information that has the potential to send her to prison and ruin her life should be illegal.
I don't know the law on questioning minors. Can the police question a minor without parental consent, and without a miranda warning? If so, this seems like a big weakness in our legal system. (since one cannot reasonably assume a minor is educated in their legal rights).
Our local airport just got voted #1 in North America for the 5th time in a row.
The same airport that 4 police officers murdered a person in 2007. Nothing has been changed to stop this from happening again.
The police officer who fired the gun (tazer) said he only shot once. Inspection of the gun and the video of the incident showed that he tazered the guy once, then walked over to him and tazered him when he was down 3 more time. This officer was not licensed to even have the gun on him at the time. Witnesses say that he was talking about tazering the victim even before seeing him. This police officer was found guilty of perjury, which according to law means he no longer can be a police officer in this country. He is still working in another province today.
Three of the four officers were found guilty of perjury. One of them being the man in charge of the situation. He has since retired after killing another man by hitting his car. He was found to be guilty of obstruction of justice in trying to hide the facts of the accident as well. In two situations he was in charge where innocent men were killed and he lied about what happened in both cases and all that happened was he was force to retire.
The other two officers, one of which was found guilty of perjury are still working in other provinces.
This is only one of many stories about rape, beatings, murders, drug dealing and other serious offenses where police officers found guilty were allowed to stay on the force when legally they should be barred for life and many times should be in jail.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
"After a parent complained about her Facebook chat with her son that was of a sexual nature, the school called her in and demanded her password as a deputy sheriff looked on. When she complied, they navigated her Facebook page in front of her."
Should the school just ignore the complaint from the other parent? They could potentially be on the hook for much greater liability for refusing to do anything about the allegations.
The school has a *legal* obligation to deal with cyberbullying.
www.stopbullying.gov
Whether it applies to situations outside the school is an interesting question.
Three: Probably some idiotic notion about limiting liability. "If we admit it was wrong, someone ELSE MIGHT SUE US!" No one applies this logic to actually changing the policy or is willing to admit it's the policy that caused the lawsuit of course. It seems to be a weird quirk of groupthink that it's good to be shitty people in a half-assed attempt to limit liability.
FYI, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is generally inadmissible.. It's a good rule, designed exactly for this kind of situation. This is from the Federal rules. As far as I know, most states have similar state rules.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Meanwhile, in reality, the administrators I know have to do more work than three of us and are held up to a higher standard. Better not make a mistake, or you're career is over!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Rather than take five minutes to post your question, why not take five minutes doing a simple Google search to get your answer?
Better yet, post the answer to your own question and get some nice karma points.
Thanks for giving them to me instead.
And for the record, the comments were, "I hate a Kathy person at school because she was mean to me," and later, after being disciplined for that post, "I want to know who the f*** told on me."
*warrant
Is 1563649 a prime number?
So... what happens if you refuse to sign?
Stealing a password = jailtime. So who do they intend to arrest for this? It's damn well better be someone.
You have to tell the school admins and cops to get in line to suck your dick. Seriously. "NO", now expel me, send me to Gitmo, do whatever the fuck you assholes think you're entitled to do. Fuck off, die screaming.
Daily Caller? Hahahaha ...
Oh, wait, you were serious? Let me laugh louder!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
"Asks schwit1, "How is this not a violation of the CFAA?" It sounds like the school was violating Facebook's Terms of Service, too."
Because in our society, laws don't apply to law enforcement officers or other officials. It's one of the perks of those jobs.
That's what they say. Why do you believe them? They are obviously a bunch of criminals attempting to cover their asses.
(N.B.: I'm not claiming it isn't true, I'm claiming that in context there is no reason to believe them. It sounds like the kind of lie they would invent to be a cover story, and no proof is offered. AND even if so it wouldn't justify their actions.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well.... My first reaction was to say "Bingo!", but then I thought. Doesn't "sexting" imply that it was only text messages?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"So if all students must sign this, then why even have a form?"
Every normal human being that speaks English understands the idea of not repeating the antecedent. Why do people insist in interpreting even the slightest indication of ambiguous language as proof that they themselves are the smartest person in the room rather than interpreting it in a way that makes sense for it to be in that place in the dialog? (See "principle of charity": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...)
When a citation is requested and provided, the proper counter-argument is not to ridicule the source of the citations, but to provide your own citations that provide opposing evidence. According to the citations, since 1950, public school enrollment has gone up by 96%, the number of teachers has gone up by 252%, and the number of administrative employees has gone up by 702%. If you can find a citation that contradicts this statement, please provide it.
Questioning the authority of a ruthless dictator is one thing , questioning the authority of a teacher because he shouted at you because you were late for class or you couldn't be bothered to do your homework is petty, juvenile and achieves nothing other than the laughter of adults who've seen and heard it all before.
Teenagers may question authority but they have jack shit life experience so their questioning is usually naive, shallow, self centred and to most of the population over 20 - utterly irrelevant. So I'm afraid no one is interested in what they have to say because its the same old tedious tune played by every generation at that age. When they get older and have spent some time in the real world THEN they might have something of interest to say wrt the status quo.
Not a chance this stands in court. As the parent, it's MY phone, I'M paying for it, I allow my child to use it. The release needs to be with ME. Oh, and minors cannot sign information releases.
Just to be clear, I wasn't the one making fun of the source there, I only requested a citation. I didn't look into the citations yet.
All authority figures are fallible. All people are fallible. All authority figures should be questioned. I'd rather not have people dictating that people shouldn't question authority in certain instances because they think it's "petty, juvenile, and achieves nothing other than the laughter of adults who've seen and heard it all before" (which is completely subjective). Our school system is designed to indoctrinate and instill obedience in people (Which is why my kids don't go to public schools.), and the last thing I want are kids who don't question authority figures.
Also, there's nothing wrong with being "petty" or "juvenile" in my eyes, especially with the way many people use those words. Whether the argument has any merit is what matters, not whether it's "petty" or "juvenile."
[End Of Line]
You mean after they've farted out a couple of genetic copies and end up cornered by them like you, right?
if it involved curse words that can be a problem in some states, you cant curse at a teacher...obscure, also not a good idea..
If it were my kid, it would be a different story.
...
I have no children.
All righty then...
Then you can take your kids to private school.
Probably the same thing that happens if you refuse to wear the uniform, get them vaccinated, or submit their medication to the nurse's office.
Having RTFA'd, I didn't see anywhere mentioned that their was imagery shared. As such, child pornography would not apply. Apparently, they were both under the applicable age of consent, so underage solicitation would not apply. Even if either or both of those occurred, if it did not take place on school grounds, with school resources, why the hell was the school ever involved? This sounds to me like bad parents that don't know how/are unwilling to confront and punish their child for behavior they find unacceptable. From what I've read, the school never should have been involved, and has no business being involved.
Additionally, even if there was a suspicion of child pornography, a proper warrant would still be required to conduct the search.
Intimidation and coercion does not make consent.
Leaving out the 2nd is not some grand conspiracy. It illustrates what the ACLU fights hardest for, and everyone knows the ACLU doesn't bother with the 2nd amendment.
I wouldn't mind if they just ignored it - and left it for other groups (like the Secon Amendment Foundation or the Cato Institute.) But they don't restrict themselves to that.
For instance: A guy had a gun locked in a safe in his office. The crooks cracked the safe, stealing the valuables and the gun. Then the stoen gun was used in a later crime where someone died. The ACLU financed a wrongful death suit against the guy whose gun was stolen from the locked safe.
Now this WAS a few decades ago. It was about the same time another office of the ACLU was defending the rights of the American Socialist Party (i.e. the American neo-NAZIs) to march in a Chicago suburb with a substantial population of Jewish NAZI death-camp survivors.
Since then they've even allied with the NRA when their interests coincided. (Notably: when Chicago instituted warrantless searches of the south-side low-income housing projects for legal pistolsk, which they'd purported to ban by a housing authority rule. The NRA didn't like house-to-house gun sweeps and government landlords banning guns with unconstitutional, non-law, rules (giving the poor the choice of being homeless or gunless), while the ACLU didn't like warrantless searches. But I still don't trust them anywhere near a gun-rights issue, and haven't donated since that wrongful death suit.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'll have to agree with the above. I had my first job at 15. I paid income tax, medicare, FICA, social security and all that jazz. I was pissed. So, I wrote "my" Senator and & representative. All I got back was a form letter about the importance of Americans paying their taxes, which flies in the face of one of the founding principles of the country: "no taxation without representation". Needless to say, I did not vote for either one of those people once I was able.
Except, this isn't a case of cyber bullying. It's a case of mutually engaged "sexting" via facebook chat that occured at home. One parent found out, and called out the dogs on the other kid involved (btw, why wasn't the accuser's kid also punished, if this was about sexting?).
Pray tell how this situation is cyberbulling?
> You realize that "puberty" is nature's way of basically ensuring that young people learn to question authority, right?
If by "question authority," you mean "provoke sexual desires so powerful you sneak off away from the adults to fuck, ensuring x number of babies are born every year," then yes.
FTFY.
Pity it won't come out of the individuals' pockets.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Egads. And meanwhile people wonder why cost per student has gone up while results per student are going down. Obviously "more teachers" wasn't the answer.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
....which is why so many of them then run for political office, so as whorescum they can do even more damage.
I have to constantly remind new occupants of Washington state that both our so-called "democratic" senators, Maria Cantwell and (former teacher) Patty Murray, voted down the public option for the ACA or Obamacare. Murray was a moronic teacher, now she's a moronic --- and corrupt --- politician (who voted for every military/Iraq War financing bill under Bush).
And this is why I say we live in an orphanage state. Most kids spend more waking hours under the parental care of the state than they do their biological "parents".
It's the taxpayers who have to pay the fine. And how is this fair?
--- wad
Then you find out if they're actually serious about it or not.
If it's just stupid boilerplate, they might never notice. If it's something they're slipping under the radar (my daughter's school tried a "we can use your daughter's image and name in our promotional materials" sheet this year), then they'll either quietly put a note in her file to Not Mess With This One, or they'll try and push it as a requirement (and then put the note in her file when they realize they're SOL here).
If it's an honest to goodness Actual Legal Thing, then you'll start hearing from the school board lawyers.
Many people on Facebook don't even have their real names posted.
Did you raise a fuss and a holler?
The "no dice" bit would be welcome here ...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Shut the door behind you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
She upset a piece of AV equipment or lab apparatus?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ok , so you're just some lame hippy giving it the rebel yell when really you should have grown out of that by now. I feel sorry for your kids. I'm sure they'll feel great not being told what to do or what to learn - until they have to enter real life and find out that to get a job that do actually need to know a bit more than Che Guevaras life story and how to knit hemp. I doubt they'll thank you for fucking up their childhood while you worked out your own anti authority demons. People like you are just a bit pathetic.
Ok , so you're just some lame hippy giving it the rebel yell when really you should have grown out of that by now.
Calling me a hippy isn't going to debunk any of your arguments. I'm more of a libertarian than anything else. But even if you aren't, questioning authority figures is the only intelligent thing to do, for reasons I've already explained. I'm not going to get rid of my "anti authority demons"; everyone is fallible, and power corrupts. Do you take issue with either of those statements, which history has proven time and time again, regardless of the type of authority figure? It sounds more like you need to be more questioning.
Either that or you're imagining that I'm wildly different from how I actually am. Questioning authority figures isn't the same as being a hippy.
I'm sure they'll feel great not being told what to do or what to learn - until they have to enter real life and find out that to get a job that do actually need to know a bit more than Che Guevaras life story and how to knit hemp.
You're assuming a number of things are true that simply aren't true at all. One of those things is that our public school system is anything but abysmal. Another is that I'm teaching them things like how to knit hemp. Neither of those are true.
[End Of Line]
I see you subscribe to the old logical fallacy of 1 = true ergo N = true. Just because an authority figure such as Hitler invaded Poland doesn't mean your kids need to question a teacher telling them the earth goes around the sun. Questioning everything everywhere all the time just leads to anarchy. But hey, whatever floats your boat pal, perhaps you are an anarchist. Luckily people like you are in the minority.
When a citation is requested and provided, the proper counter-argument is not to ridicule the source of the citations
If the "citation" here had any intellectual integrity, you would be right. The Daily Caller does not.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I see you subscribe to the old logical fallacy of 1 = true ergo N = true.
Nope. That's your own misunderstanding of the position. My actual position (Not the straw man you decided to setup.) is that all people are fallible and that you should use your brain to decide whether other people are asking you to do something moral and/or logical, even if the person asking you to do something is an authority figure.
Questioning everything everywhere all the time just leads to anarchy.
You're a complete moron. Questioning does not lead to anarchy. Getting rid of all forms of government would lead to that. The two obviously aren't the same.
Obviously me.
[End Of Line]
NO, I actually wanted them to have the band there!
http://warrantrocks.com/