His critics argue that most of his peer-reviewed studies on microexpressions were published decades ago, and much of his more recent writing on the subject has not been peer reviewed. Ekman maintains that this publishing strategy is deliberate — that he no longer publishes all of the details of his work in the peer-reviewed literature because, he says, those papers are closely followed by scientists in countries such as Syria, Iran and China, which the United States views as a potential threat.
We know its working, even though we can't tell you how we know it works, because if we told you, bad people would pay attention...
In 10 minutes a company could be responsible for a giant oil spill which causes billions worth of liability. In 10 days massive accounting fraud could be discovered taking down an energy trading company and a storied auditor. In a day the markets could realize that a investment bank that's leveraged 40:1 primarily in MBS isn't worth a 10th of what it was last week.
etc. etc.
The fact that banks are engaging in this challenge strikes me as an admission that their expertise is fundamentally no different from bookmaking.
Yeah, rule 34 and all that. I bet if I search for "engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse" I can find some porn of that too...
Here, however, we're not dealing with hypothetical. That is the circumstance surrounding Hustler magazine v. Fallwell.
The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding.
That's a pretty unequivocal statement. Speech can be either libelous or parody - not both, and the way to distinguish between them is through a "reasonable person" test.
Next time you set out to "educate someone" make sure you have your facts straight.
I guess that's a consistent position, but courts don't tend to go with "slightest chance" doctrines.
I think this is going to be decided based on whether or not with was reasonable to suspect that this speech would make it into school, and I don't know which way that's going to go.
Would a finding for the school censor a student blog? Yes, but only to a point. A student could exercise controversial speech, provided it doesn't impact school discipline. I guess what such a finding would mean is that no student can ever post anything "disruptive" (as defined in Tinker) on the net. Do we, as a society want to go there? I don't know. Do I think the Roberts court will balk at such a restriction? No.
We're getting into a rather esoteric area here, so I'm not well versed in the specifics of medieval Japanese education, but I believe you're talking about the time when Japan isolated itself from the west. During this time Japan was a highly feudal society, and while the populace may have been well educated, it wasn't a self-discipline sort of education, and it sure as shit wasn't a question-authority kind of education. Further, I doubt very much that there was an absence of carrots and sticks.
So not marital as we think of it, but still marital as in "do as you're told."
"Mr. Smith abused me after class" is not parody regardless of how well liked he is. It's either true or defamatory.
"Mr. Smith when into the chemical supply costume, put on a gorilla outfit, took out two coconuts and started rubbing them against his body as he stared at me with his cold gorilla eyes" probably qualifies as parody.
I'd like to know what percentage of students at this school got free lunches.
I'm not saying this wouldn't work in an inner-city school, but you're going to need work arounds for the work around. Tracking is probably the best option - but that leads to problems of it's own.
In a school where 50+% of the students intend to go to college, this is probably a great solution. At a school where 10% have higher education ambitions... I'm not sure.
Thousands of years? The fact that you think that there has been a mandatory education system for more than a couple of centuries anywhere in the world pretty well debunks your post.
If you're going to make that sort of assertion, you should provide a link. Lots of people have advocated mandatory education - going all the way back to at least Plato. Historical implementations weren't to form good citizens (even in Athens) they were to form good soldiers. And they sure as shit didn't teach self discipline. Your idea might apply to the best and the brightest who might philosophize, but again, if they didn't behave, they were sent to back to military school, so we still have the self-selection problem.
Ostensibly mandatory education in the past was either limited to the wealthy or trained would-be soldiers. And even then, in both cases if the student didn't behave himself he would invariably be subject to discipline (usually corporeal) or kicked out of school.
The idea you have in your head of Plato sitting around with Aristotle implementing the Socratic method was neither compulsory nor the norm. Compulsory education in antiquity was a lot closer to what you saw in 300 than what you saw in Alexander.
Honestly, whether this is parody or libel is at best a side issue.
It's true that the principle could have sued for libel, but he didn't. What did happen is that the school disciplined a student, most likely for being disruptive and the student filed a suit claiming that they had no right to discipline her. So the question here isn't whether the speech is libelous, but whether (a) the speech is disruptive, and (b) whether the speech took place in such a way that the school has authority over it.
The public school is the government, and the teachers are their agents. A private school can discipline their students for anything and everything, without running afoul of anyone's constitutional rights. They only thing private schools have to worry about is breaching any contract they might have had with the parents. A private school could, for instance, ban wearing of black armbands protesting the war without any fear of legal repercussion.
Public schools have considerable authority over their charges, but it does not extend to what they do on their own time. The question this case is going to be decided on is whether or not material posted on the internet is on exists entirely outside the school, or whether it enters the classroom and is disruptive.
And I think you're taking an exception and making it the rule. Confident teachers like being challenged by intelligent students, but that's not what 9/10 classroom disruptions in primary schools are. Most disruptions are gossiping, chatting, fighting, etc.
Plato's acadamy and schools for the gifted have the great advantage of selecting their students. It is wholly unsurprising that when you get to pick your pupils you end up with students who want to learn. This is very much not true universally.
The test for parody isn't "is it funny." The test for parody is, would a reasonable person believe the charges to be true.
I've seen a lot of really drab, outrageous and unfunny parody. I've also read some pretty hilarious libelous stuff (e.g. take any "dumb criminal" story and remove all instances of "allegedly.")
knowingly making a false accusation of an infamous crime would qualify under even the strictest defamation standards
Only if a reasonable person would believe that those charges are true. This might be libel, or it might be parody. I haven't read the entire post, so I can't really say one way or the other.
pedophilia is a term used in psychology to describe people attracted to pre-pubescents.
The legal system doesn't punish or define pedophilia, it punishes statutory rape, sexual assault against a minor, and possession/production of child pornography.
A teacher caught with a student should be punished regardless of their respective ages.
Depending on the situation it's possible that being placed on a sex offender list isn't appropriate. However, someone who abuses their authority like that should never be in a position of authority again.
I agree that you laid out the best approach, I just don't think that it is universally applicable.
There needs to be some measure of discipline in a classroom or the teacher won't be able to teach. All carrots and no stick doesn't work for everyone - and if it doesn't work for one student, he can disrupt the whole class.
Sometimes, take it down and apologize isn't sufficient to bring the lesson home. Sometimes people need to face actual consequences.
Whether this matter was handled appropriately or not, I think it's within the schools authority to pursue this very serious matter somehow - either internally or in the courts.
If the school (or the principle) was concerned about what was best for the student, he could have pressed civil charges, demanded the post be taken down, and not asked for any damages.
Libel isn't a criminal action.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't like the school having authority of every act a student makes. On the other, by posting to the internet the student was assured that her speech was available within the school. The school most certainly should have a right to regulate this sort of speech within the school.
removed him from AP classes and stuck him in a class with low-performing students.
This is pretty outrageous. Lets say that the court finds that the school district was fully within their rights to discipline the student... they still shouldn't be allowed to do that.
As far as the Tinker test... I think it would pretty easy to argue that this speech either did, or could cause a disruption. The question the court will need to answer is where the speech took place. Was it wholly outside of school, or does posting to the internet mean it entered the school.
Slashdot Mirror
There has never been a day when going against the government was (quickly and painlessly) rewarded.
In a few cases, people who went against the government were eventually recognized, but only after years of struggle, and often after they were dead.
Remember, we passed the alien and sedition acts in 1798.
My favorite part of TFA
We know its working, even though we can't tell you how we know it works, because if we told you, bad people would pay attention...
Don't worry, it's not just the airport.
Yes and no.
In 10 minutes a company could be responsible for a giant oil spill which causes billions worth of liability.
In 10 days massive accounting fraud could be discovered taking down an energy trading company and a storied auditor.
In a day the markets could realize that a investment bank that's leveraged 40:1 primarily in MBS isn't worth a 10th of what it was last week.
etc. etc.
The fact that banks are engaging in this challenge strikes me as an admission that their expertise is fundamentally no different from bookmaking.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
They could get lucky this time...
Yeah, rule 34 and all that. I bet if I search for "engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse" I can find some porn of that too...
Here, however, we're not dealing with hypothetical. That is the circumstance surrounding Hustler magazine v. Fallwell.
(link)
That's a pretty unequivocal statement. Speech can be either libelous or parody - not both, and the way to distinguish between them is through a "reasonable person" test.
Next time you set out to "educate someone" make sure you have your facts straight.
I guess that's a consistent position, but courts don't tend to go with "slightest chance" doctrines.
I think this is going to be decided based on whether or not with was reasonable to suspect that this speech would make it into school, and I don't know which way that's going to go.
Would a finding for the school censor a student blog? Yes, but only to a point. A student could exercise controversial speech, provided it doesn't impact school discipline. I guess what such a finding would mean is that no student can ever post anything "disruptive" (as defined in Tinker) on the net. Do we, as a society want to go there? I don't know. Do I think the Roberts court will balk at such a restriction? No.
/. ... where everyone is smarter than everyone else.
A school can't punish me for smoking in a public park.
A school can punish me for drinking at Prom.
The Morse v. Fredrick decision turned on the fact that the rally was a "official school event."
Fredrick could have hung his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" poster from his bedroom window with impunity.
Edmund and Jane Muskie
We're getting into a rather esoteric area here, so I'm not well versed in the specifics of medieval Japanese education, but I believe you're talking about the time when Japan isolated itself from the west. During this time Japan was a highly feudal society, and while the populace may have been well educated, it wasn't a self-discipline sort of education, and it sure as shit wasn't a question-authority kind of education. Further, I doubt very much that there was an absence of carrots and sticks.
So not marital as we think of it, but still marital as in "do as you're told."
Usually by the context.
"Mr. Smith abused me after class" is not parody regardless of how well liked he is. It's either true or defamatory.
"Mr. Smith when into the chemical supply costume, put on a gorilla outfit, took out two coconuts and started rubbing them against his body as he stared at me with his cold gorilla eyes" probably qualifies as parody.
I'd like to know what percentage of students at this school got free lunches.
I'm not saying this wouldn't work in an inner-city school, but you're going to need work arounds for the work around. Tracking is probably the best option - but that leads to problems of it's own.
In a school where 50+% of the students intend to go to college, this is probably a great solution. At a school where 10% have higher education ambitions ... I'm not sure.
Thousands of years? The fact that you think that there has been a mandatory education system for more than a couple of centuries anywhere in the world pretty well debunks your post.
If you're going to make that sort of assertion, you should provide a link. Lots of people have advocated mandatory education - going all the way back to at least Plato. Historical implementations weren't to form good citizens (even in Athens) they were to form good soldiers. And they sure as shit didn't teach self discipline. Your idea might apply to the best and the brightest who might philosophize, but again, if they didn't behave, they were sent to back to military school, so we still have the self-selection problem.
Ostensibly mandatory education in the past was either limited to the wealthy or trained would-be soldiers. And even then, in both cases if the student didn't behave himself he would invariably be subject to discipline (usually corporeal) or kicked out of school.
The idea you have in your head of Plato sitting around with Aristotle implementing the Socratic method was neither compulsory nor the norm. Compulsory education in antiquity was a lot closer to what you saw in 300 than what you saw in Alexander.
Did you read your link?
Here let me paste in the first line:
It then goes on to list the 17 states that have criminal defamation laws - Pennsylvania is conspicuously missing.
Finally, if look into state criminal defamation laws, you'll find that they tend to be misdemeanors.
Honestly, whether this is parody or libel is at best a side issue.
It's true that the principle could have sued for libel, but he didn't. What did happen is that the school disciplined a student, most likely for being disruptive and the student filed a suit claiming that they had no right to discipline her. So the question here isn't whether the speech is libelous, but whether (a) the speech is disruptive, and (b) whether the speech took place in such a way that the school has authority over it.
It's a lot less obvious than you think.
The public school is the government, and the teachers are their agents. A private school can discipline their students for anything and everything, without running afoul of anyone's constitutional rights. They only thing private schools have to worry about is breaching any contract they might have had with the parents. A private school could, for instance, ban wearing of black armbands protesting the war without any fear of legal repercussion.
Public schools have considerable authority over their charges, but it does not extend to what they do on their own time. The question this case is going to be decided on is whether or not material posted on the internet is on exists entirely outside the school, or whether it enters the classroom and is disruptive.
Your idea won't work with mandatory education.
And I think you're taking an exception and making it the rule. Confident teachers like being challenged by intelligent students, but that's not what 9/10 classroom disruptions in primary schools are. Most disruptions are gossiping, chatting, fighting, etc.
Plato's acadamy and schools for the gifted have the great advantage of selecting their students. It is wholly unsurprising that when you get to pick your pupils you end up with students who want to learn. This is very much not true universally.
The test for parody isn't "is it funny." The test for parody is, would a reasonable person believe the charges to be true.
I've seen a lot of really drab, outrageous and unfunny parody. I've also read some pretty hilarious libelous stuff (e.g. take any "dumb criminal" story and remove all instances of "allegedly.")
Only if a reasonable person would believe that those charges are true. This might be libel, or it might be parody. I haven't read the entire post, so I can't really say one way or the other.
pedophilia is a term used in psychology to describe people attracted to pre-pubescents.
The legal system doesn't punish or define pedophilia, it punishes statutory rape, sexual assault against a minor, and possession/production of child pornography.
A teacher caught with a student should be punished regardless of their respective ages.
Depending on the situation it's possible that being placed on a sex offender list isn't appropriate. However, someone who abuses their authority like that should never be in a position of authority again.
I agree that you laid out the best approach, I just don't think that it is universally applicable.
There needs to be some measure of discipline in a classroom or the teacher won't be able to teach. All carrots and no stick doesn't work for everyone - and if it doesn't work for one student, he can disrupt the whole class.
Sometimes, take it down and apologize isn't sufficient to bring the lesson home. Sometimes people need to face actual consequences.
Whether this matter was handled appropriately or not, I think it's within the schools authority to pursue this very serious matter somehow - either internally or in the courts.
If the school (or the principle) was concerned about what was best for the student, he could have pressed civil charges, demanded the post be taken down, and not asked for any damages.
Libel isn't a criminal action.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't like the school having authority of every act a student makes. On the other, by posting to the internet the student was assured that her speech was available within the school. The school most certainly should have a right to regulate this sort of speech within the school.
This is pretty outrageous. Lets say that the court finds that the school district was fully within their rights to discipline the student ... they still shouldn't be allowed to do that.
As far as the Tinker test ... I think it would pretty easy to argue that this speech either did, or could cause a disruption. The question the court will need to answer is where the speech took place. Was it wholly outside of school, or does posting to the internet mean it entered the school.