In all of your replies to this story you seem immune to one simple idea. Here it is. The internet is not a credible source of information. To conflate a kids facebook post with malicious vandalism shows you're just intent on igoring this key idea.
You're missing one simple idea - people tend to not check facts.
Just look at all the idiot birthers screaming Obama isn't American, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, dopes who feel that *their* marriage is threatened by letting same-sex couples get married, or that the military will somehow fall apart if gays and lesbians serve openly, or who believed the lies that housing always goes up in value, or think Sarah Palin would be a good president.
And that's not counting the people who would give their password for chocolate (okay, I can sort of understand that, chocolate is a girl's second-best friend), or who continue to use Windows because they don't want to invest a day learning another environment, even though all they do is check email and surf the web.
Your idea isn't a "key idea" - it ignores today's social reality. Individuals might be smart, but people are DUMB!
Expulsion does not "destroy their lives." It means they have to attend a school that is capable of handling kids who act lower than trailer trash. Would you want your kids attending the same school as these brats, learning the same tricks, and the teachers having an "us vs them" attitude?
Expulsion, an apology posted on youtube (so they can see just how nasty posting crap on the internet can be), and community service sounds about right to me. The punishment should fit the deed.
And while we're at it, send the bill for all the wasted time to the parents.
The police are held to a different standard, since they investigate criminal acts. This was not a criminal investigation that the principal was conducting. And in a case like this, where the safety of the other students is also called into question (after all, if it's true, the school would be negligent if they didn't investigate, and if it's not true, the school would also be negligent for not investigating), it's justified.
The school already knew - there was no "collecting evidence". It was more like "See those posts of yours? Delete them NOW." and finding out who else was involved.
Example of black-hat troll: Trolling for the sake of disruption.
Example of a white-hat troll: Using trolling techniques to break through the echo chamber that is the Internet. "Facebook does not have 500 million users. Many people have multiple accounts, many gamers create hundreds of accounts to ensure they level up quickly, and where do you think all those 'buy facebook followers for as low as 5 for a penny' accounts come from - the only people spouting the 500 million numbers are fools and liars. Which one are you today?"
Look, I agree with your description of the etymology of the term "troll" - it's what I use when I describe trolling to those who are unclear of the concept.
However, keep in mind that when doing the "fishing on the lake" thing, you can catch a fish in more than one way. They might bite your hook, or you may snag them on side. Either way, you got the fish, though in the latter method, you didn't even need bait.
Now trolling on the net is far more complicated, because the motives for trolling are not "just" to catch a fish. And argument-type trolling isn't limited to the Internet. Look at any business meeting, or sit in a courtroom for a while. The goal there isn't just to cause random disruption - it's to disrupt the other side's arguments to achieve a specific goal.
The "random noise generator" trolling is the most juvenile, and the most boring. Those you can handle by kicking them a few times so that they think they're getting a rise out of you, then ignoring them (this way, they'll keep at it against you for a while - it keeps them occupied and too busy to bother someone else for at least a bit). Eventually, the pattern will sink in, and they'll realize that you're just trolling them back, but they're always hopeful that *next time* they'll get you "for real".
There is absolutely no reason that you can't troll in service of something you believe in. It's a good way of getting others to try to find flaws in your arguments, rather than the echo chamber that passes for too much "reasoned argument" on the internet. Example - facebooks' phony claim that they have 500 million subscribers. They don't, and it only takes a few minutes to figure out a few reasons why, but because everyone *wants* to believe that facebook is some sort of great way to market crap - if only *they* could figure out how - it's in nobody's interest to challenge the group-think.
So I'll troll people who buy into the crap, and show how you can "buy" followers for as little as 5 for a penny, how many people have multiple accounts, how gamers will generate 500 accounts so that they can go into a game and quickly accumulate enough points so they don't get wiped out, how most posts never get read, etc., and how anyone who believes facebook is a good marketing platform for the average business is either a dumb f*** or a liar. (without that last bit, you don't get people so passionately trying to defend their illusions). Does facebook have 500 million users? No. Does facebook have 100 million users? Maybe.
Schools have the right to search student lockers, with or without a warrant, with or without the student present, with or without their knowledge, with or without their permission.
So what next, are you going to say that a parent or other parental authority can't search their kid's room without a warrant? Or ground them without first being found guilty by a jury? Or that a school can't expel a kid without first having a trial? Nonsense. Get over it, already. The courts are a separate issue.
There's no such thing as "in loco parentis" when the parents are there themselves!
Your claim that the parents were present when the kids posted the false accusations is interesting - if you have any proof, I'm sure social services would be VERY interested.
The parents were obviously NOT there themselves...in more ways than one, unfortunately.
>The sort of damage that could do to a teacher's career is unbelievable. And the parents are saying "my children shouldn't be punished so harshly." And threatening to sue the school.
Yes, but there is still nothing criminal about it at all. Libelous, sure, but not a crime.
First, some states have criminal libel laws.
Second, the school wasn't conducting a criminal investigation. They have every right to kick the kids out. I wouldn't want my kids hanging around with kids who would make such stupid false accusations, and neither would most parents.
Why is a facebook post in any way more credible than grafitti? In order for harm to be done by any statement, that statement must be believable and taken as serious in intent by a reasonable man. A reasonable man does not believe what he reads on the internet. Therefore, no harm was done.
So, if someone goes and sprays swastikas on doors, "no harm done"? If someone sprays "rapist lives here" on your door, no harm done?
False accusations of this nature are very serious, not only because of the harm they do to the person falsely accused, but because they make it harder for someone who IS a victim of a pedophile or rapist to be taken credibly.
But they won't work when the moon is below the horizon - then you're looking at a 12-hour dead time.The moon makes a terrible data warehouse if you want to access your stuff in anything like real time on a consistent basis.
What part of "any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior" don't you get.
If they had wanted to say "on school grounds" they could have. They didn't. Instead, they carved out a VERY broad rule - "any reason". "Any reason" means what it says - it is not just related to school grounds. They then go further to qualify "any reason", by saying it doesn't matter the time, place or type of behavior. They did not say "any reason - whether it stems from time or type of behavior, on school grounds."
They sort of had to
on
Nokia Sells Qt
·
· Score: 5, Informative
... while they still could. There was a "poison pill" in the QT acquisition
(For those of you who don’t know what it is, the KDE Free Qt Foundation is what we call a “poison pill” for Trolltech: should we ever stop releasing open source versions of Qt, the foundation is given the right to unilaterally release the last version of Qt under the BSD license.
big budget Hollywood movies where you have to blow up your star actor
if he's a Scientologist then who cares?
Perfect - A movie starring Charlie Sheen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Tom Cruise, where Cruise gets blown up. You could call it Mission:Impossible - Two and a Half Men!
Teachers and other school officials are agents of the US Government.
No they're not. They're hired by local school boards as teachers, not peace officers.
If we want to stretch it your way, then someone on unemployment or welfare or a government pension or in prison or a foster home is an agent of the US Government. After all, they're all supported by tax dollars.
Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The Supreme Court has already laid the ground rules - kids are subject to the authority of their parents, and their teachers. The parents and teachers owe the kids protection and a safe environment, free from disruptive behavior, as well as reasonable discipline and instruction. A safe environment includes one where the other students don't have to worry that maybe those lies the students were spreading might be true.
If the kids aren't happy about being called to account for spreading lies, too bad - they should grow up. Even a 12-year-old should know the difference between right and wrong.
Since the moon isn't covered by any legal jurisdiction, it would be a perfect place to set up a data haven. In fact, I believe one company already has plans to set up a lunar facility.
Two words: high latency.
People won't settle for crappy ping times - a minimum of 2,600 ms.
And of course, it's only usable when the moon is above the horizon.
First, the school is neither law enforcement nor the courts. They were NOT conducting a criminal investigation, and you only have 5th amendment rights in a criminal trial.
Additionally, as for unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), neither parents, nor those acting in their place, require a warrant to access the personal papers of the children in their care and custody. The school principal was acting in loco parentis, had legal care and custody of the student at the time, and facebook account posts are not private - even deleted facebook posts are discoverable.
A student caught passing a note to someone else during a test can't say "it's personal - you can't see it." Same reasoning applies to the right of schools to search students lockers, again without a warrant.
Students are not adults, and as such, do not have the same rights as adults.
You've asserted its possible to troll educationally, which, almost by definition can't be done, because to the very degree you are successful, it becomes that much less of a troll.
It certainly doesn't seem that way to the one receiving the education:-)
Besides, you've forgotten the oft-excluded middle - the people who aren't initially committed to either point of view, but who make up their minds after seeing the other side demolished by an effective troll.
People aren't creatures of reason by nature, so sometimes you have to get visceral.
You're the same kind of dick as those who said, "Yes it was appropriate for schools to send laptops home, turn on the camera, and spy on kid's bedrooms."
[citation needed]
Which you won't be able to do, because you're lying.
The last refuge of the true scoundrel.
BTW - it was the parents rights that were violated in that case. The parents have the right to run their kids lives in the privacy of their home, without the school monitoring them or their children.
Also, the student complied when asked. If the student had refused, you might have a case.
You could try to argue that the school principal represented an "authority figure" and the student felt intimidated.... and you'd ALMOST win. Almost, because the school, in acting in loco parentis, has the authority of a parent figure.
Call me back when a parent needs a verdict in a trial by judge and jury to ground their kid for a week.
Second, getting a conversation off-topic doesn't necessarily kill a thread. Sometimes those off-topic threads are more interesting than the subject that spawned them, or lead to more insights.
Third, not all trolling is done to spark fighting and stupid behavior - it can be used to expose that same stupid behavior. Consider how effective trolling neo-cons is compared to trying to "reason" with them. Ditto trolling fundies who insist on imposing their religious beliefs on others by banning same-sex marrage, abortion, and attacking gays, lesbians, atheists, etc.
Fourth, such debate is not useless. It most forcefully engages the opposite party in defending their stance, rather than just preaching to the faithful.
Good trolling is an art form. It can also be socially constructive, by being socially disruptive.
Slashdot Mirror
In all of your replies to this story you seem immune to one simple idea. Here it is. The internet is not a credible source of information. To conflate a kids facebook post with malicious vandalism shows you're just intent on igoring this key idea.
You're missing one simple idea - people tend to not check facts.
Just look at all the idiot birthers screaming Obama isn't American, global warming deniers, holocaust deniers, dopes who feel that *their* marriage is threatened by letting same-sex couples get married, or that the military will somehow fall apart if gays and lesbians serve openly, or who believed the lies that housing always goes up in value, or think Sarah Palin would be a good president.
And that's not counting the people who would give their password for chocolate (okay, I can sort of understand that, chocolate is a girl's second-best friend), or who continue to use Windows because they don't want to invest a day learning another environment, even though all they do is check email and surf the web.
Your idea isn't a "key idea" - it ignores today's social reality. Individuals might be smart, but people are DUMB!
Expulsion, an apology posted on youtube (so they can see just how nasty posting crap on the internet can be), and community service sounds about right to me. The punishment should fit the deed.
And while we're at it, send the bill for all the wasted time to the parents.
The school already knew - there was no "collecting evidence". It was more like "See those posts of yours? Delete them NOW." and finding out who else was involved.
Language evolves. Example - trolling used to be something you did from the back of a boat.
Example of a white-hat troll: Using trolling techniques to break through the echo chamber that is the Internet. "Facebook does not have 500 million users. Many people have multiple accounts, many gamers create hundreds of accounts to ensure they level up quickly, and where do you think all those 'buy facebook followers for as low as 5 for a penny' accounts come from - the only people spouting the 500 million numbers are fools and liars. Which one are you today?"
BTW: http://www.bulkfans.com/
Buy Fans in Bulk
Buy Facebook Fans now to START promoting your FACEBOOK PAGE !
BONUS 1000 More Fans will be added to any order excluding “sample”.
It's just one of the many scams on facebook.
However, keep in mind that when doing the "fishing on the lake" thing, you can catch a fish in more than one way. They might bite your hook, or you may snag them on side. Either way, you got the fish, though in the latter method, you didn't even need bait.
Now trolling on the net is far more complicated, because the motives for trolling are not "just" to catch a fish. And argument-type trolling isn't limited to the Internet. Look at any business meeting, or sit in a courtroom for a while. The goal there isn't just to cause random disruption - it's to disrupt the other side's arguments to achieve a specific goal.
The "random noise generator" trolling is the most juvenile, and the most boring. Those you can handle by kicking them a few times so that they think they're getting a rise out of you, then ignoring them (this way, they'll keep at it against you for a while - it keeps them occupied and too busy to bother someone else for at least a bit). Eventually, the pattern will sink in, and they'll realize that you're just trolling them back, but they're always hopeful that *next time* they'll get you "for real".
There is absolutely no reason that you can't troll in service of something you believe in. It's a good way of getting others to try to find flaws in your arguments, rather than the echo chamber that passes for too much "reasoned argument" on the internet. Example - facebooks' phony claim that they have 500 million subscribers. They don't, and it only takes a few minutes to figure out a few reasons why, but because everyone *wants* to believe that facebook is some sort of great way to market crap - if only *they* could figure out how - it's in nobody's interest to challenge the group-think.
So I'll troll people who buy into the crap, and show how you can "buy" followers for as little as 5 for a penny, how many people have multiple accounts, how gamers will generate 500 accounts so that they can go into a game and quickly accumulate enough points so they don't get wiped out, how most posts never get read, etc., and how anyone who believes facebook is a good marketing platform for the average business is either a dumb f*** or a liar. (without that last bit, you don't get people so passionately trying to defend their illusions). Does facebook have 500 million users? No. Does facebook have 100 million users? Maybe.
So what next, are you going to say that a parent or other parental authority can't search their kid's room without a warrant? Or ground them without first being found guilty by a jury? Or that a school can't expel a kid without first having a trial? Nonsense. Get over it, already. The courts are a separate issue.
There's no such thing as "in loco parentis" when the parents are there themselves!
Your claim that the parents were present when the kids posted the false accusations is interesting - if you have any proof, I'm sure social services would be VERY interested.
The parents were obviously NOT there themselves ...in more ways than one, unfortunately.
>The sort of damage that could do to a teacher's career is unbelievable. And the parents are saying "my children shouldn't be punished so harshly." And threatening to sue the school.
Yes, but there is still nothing criminal about it at all. Libelous, sure, but not a crime.
First, some states have criminal libel laws.
Second, the school wasn't conducting a criminal investigation. They have every right to kick the kids out. I wouldn't want my kids hanging around with kids who would make such stupid false accusations, and neither would most parents.
Why is a facebook post in any way more credible than grafitti? In order for harm to be done by any statement, that statement must be believable and taken as serious in intent by a reasonable man. A reasonable man does not believe what he reads on the internet. Therefore, no harm was done.
So, if someone goes and sprays swastikas on doors, "no harm done"? If someone sprays "rapist lives here" on your door, no harm done?
False accusations of this nature are very serious, not only because of the harm they do to the person falsely accused, but because they make it harder for someone who IS a victim of a pedophile or rapist to be taken credibly.
For a few weeks, when you searched for Maureen O'Gara, it was the #2 hit.
A parent is not an Agent of the US Government. A teacher is.
Your tin-foil hat is on too tight :-)
Also, you're factually wrong.
Teachers are hired by the schools, funded by the individual municipality, school board, or state - not the feds.
But they won't work when the moon is below the horizon - then you're looking at a 12-hour dead time.The moon makes a terrible data warehouse if you want to access your stuff in anything like real time on a consistent basis.
If they had wanted to say "on school grounds" they could have. They didn't. Instead, they carved out a VERY broad rule - "any reason". "Any reason" means what it says - it is not just related to school grounds. They then go further to qualify "any reason", by saying it doesn't matter the time, place or type of behavior. They did not say "any reason - whether it stems from time or type of behavior, on school grounds."
(For those of you who don’t know what it is, the KDE Free Qt Foundation is what we call a “poison pill” for Trolltech: should we ever stop releasing open source versions of Qt, the foundation is given the right to unilaterally release the last version of Qt under the BSD license.
So, why not get some $$$ while you can, right?
if he's a Scientologist then who cares?
Perfect - A movie starring Charlie Sheen, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Tom Cruise, where Cruise gets blown up. You could call it Mission:Impossible - Two and a Half Men!
Teachers and other school officials are agents of the US Government.
No they're not. They're hired by local school boards as teachers, not peace officers.
If we want to stretch it your way, then someone on unemployment or welfare or a government pension or in prison or a foster home is an agent of the US Government. After all, they're all supported by tax dollars.
Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. The Supreme Court has already laid the ground rules - kids are subject to the authority of their parents, and their teachers. The parents and teachers owe the kids protection and a safe environment, free from disruptive behavior, as well as reasonable discipline and instruction. A safe environment includes one where the other students don't have to worry that maybe those lies the students were spreading might be true.
If the kids aren't happy about being called to account for spreading lies, too bad - they should grow up. Even a 12-year-old should know the difference between right and wrong.
Since the moon isn't covered by any legal jurisdiction, it would be a perfect place to set up a data haven. In fact, I believe one company already has plans to set up a lunar facility.
Two words: high latency.
People won't settle for crappy ping times - a minimum of 2,600 ms.
And of course, it's only usable when the moon is above the horizon.
Additionally, as for unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), neither parents, nor those acting in their place, require a warrant to access the personal papers of the children in their care and custody. The school principal was acting in loco parentis, had legal care and custody of the student at the time, and facebook account posts are not private - even deleted facebook posts are discoverable.
A student caught passing a note to someone else during a test can't say "it's personal - you can't see it." Same reasoning applies to the right of schools to search students lockers, again without a warrant.
Students are not adults, and as such, do not have the same rights as adults.
The super-executive summary for this post is: "On the Internet, don't be right - be smart."
Like the two are mutually exclusive?
How dumb can you be?
The article is troll-bait.
You've asserted its possible to troll educationally, which, almost by definition can't be done, because to the very degree you are successful, it becomes that much less of a troll.
It certainly doesn't seem that way to the one receiving the education :-)
Besides, you've forgotten the oft-excluded middle - the people who aren't initially committed to either point of view, but who make up their minds after seeing the other side demolished by an effective troll.
People aren't creatures of reason by nature, so sometimes you have to get visceral.
You're the same kind of dick as those who said, "Yes it was appropriate for schools to send laptops home, turn on the camera, and spy on kid's bedrooms."
[citation needed]
Which you won't be able to do, because you're lying.
The last refuge of the true scoundrel.
BTW - it was the parents rights that were violated in that case. The parents have the right to run their kids lives in the privacy of their home, without the school monitoring them or their children.
Also, the student complied when asked. If the student had refused, you might have a case.
You could try to argue that the school principal represented an "authority figure" and the student felt intimidated .... and you'd ALMOST win. Almost, because the school, in acting in loco parentis, has the authority of a parent figure.
Call me back when a parent needs a verdict in a trial by judge and jury to ground their kid for a week.
But in order to obtain the evidence of the suspected crime,
Stop right there. The school doesn't have to follow "due process" any more than you do, if you're not law enforcement.
For example, a parent doesn't need a search warrant to enter their childs' room.
Or to search their backpack for drugs.
Or a trial by a judge and jury to ground them for a week.
The school is acting in loco parentis. This isn't just the school's right - it's their duty and obligation, both to the child and to the parent.
Second, getting a conversation off-topic doesn't necessarily kill a thread. Sometimes those off-topic threads are more interesting than the subject that spawned them, or lead to more insights.
Third, not all trolling is done to spark fighting and stupid behavior - it can be used to expose that same stupid behavior. Consider how effective trolling neo-cons is compared to trying to "reason" with them. Ditto trolling fundies who insist on imposing their religious beliefs on others by banning same-sex marrage, abortion, and attacking gays, lesbians, atheists, etc.
Fourth, such debate is not useless. It most forcefully engages the opposite party in defending their stance, rather than just preaching to the faithful.
Good trolling is an art form. It can also be socially constructive, by being socially disruptive.