Okay, I see your point. I'd be curious to see what business operations they do have in the UK. If they do have offices there, might they not be legally obligated to avoid publishing? I'm not sure it's as simple as they are obeying laws of another country when not obligated to.
I would suggest we haven't seen a violation of the freedom of press. The UK didn't accuse the NYT of committing a crime. The NYT had a choice, ie. the freedom, to choose what to print and what not to. They chose one course over another.
I haven't heard of a time when Google released personal information to the Chinese government. You can argue successfully a case against their censoring of information, but they actually withheld services that might force them to release personal information to the Chinese government, like GMail and Blogger.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to see a link to something that shows they've released information. But if I'm not wrong, I'd suggest we be not let ourselves confuse these two very different issues.
The side thing is I have said repeatedly that Israel has done horrible things, yet you seem incapable of seeing that. Each time I make a post, you only see where I have, in your eyes, been deficient in criticizing Israel. I applaud your conviction, but I promise you, you will accomplish little until you are able to at least engage in conversation without twisting someone's words.
My hope is that we find a peaceful solution to this, and that in future generations we'll be able to look at this as a long gone era where humanity failed to live up to it's potential. And I think people with your perserverence will make it happen.
You make a strong argument, and I'm not saying what you say isn't true. I agree with you that Israel is way overstepping themselves. I am not saying Israel is right. I would ask you to look over my posts again. I'm not agreeing with Israel. Nor do I agree with targeting civilians in order to instill fear. Would you agree that both sides have done this? I don't think either side is acting in a civilized way at this point. I am suggesting that we need to continue to have a dialogue. I realize it is hard to do so when people are dying. But when things get bad is when we need to remain calm.
And be careful assuming my statements that both sides have done bad things represents indifference. I would argue it's the opposite. I think to find a solution is one of the most pressing issues of our time; and to do so, we need to realize there are two sides to the conflict.
I have personally sent impassioned letters to my Senators, national representatives, and to the President urging them to look for a middle ground solution, and pleading that a position that solely supports Israel would be pointless. There are people dying on the ground, and whether they are Lebanese, Israeli, or Palestinian, I abhore the loss of life, but we must, must, acknowledge the errors made by both sides. I don't think the fact that Israel has killed more people than Hezbollah in any way excuses Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.
This is complicated, and no one is totally in the right.
I submit to you that seeing that there are two sides to an issue isn't fence riding. If you read the entire thread, you'll see I didn't avoid assigning responsibility, but laid it squarely on both sides.
But even if it is, the passionate hatred demonstrated in many of these posts suggests that ever successfully assigning blame is not only pointless at this stage, but impossible.
Is it better for us to sit around and all look to blame someone, or should we work towards a solution to the current state of things?
I think if you read my post, it's clear that I do have issues with that. It's a little unfair to pull out one line from my post. Your response demonstrates exactly the issue I was trying to address.
I write a post that in essence says, there are many sides to any story. Then you pull out one line that makes it look like I think Israel is completely write.
I'm moved by your passion, and I understand why you are upset about the issue. I think it's fair though to suggest that both sides have done things wrong. I think it's vitally important, if you want innocent lives to stop being victimized on both sides, to move past trying to assign blame. Until we get past that, nothing will change and innocent lives will continue to be lost.
Remember, they went home and said, "Dad, Mom, What should I believe?" And then believed arbitrarily whatever the parent said. So hopefully, some of them might be able to think for themselves now. Well, maybe I'm being too optimistic.
I wish I'd had teachers like you. I though about being a teacher, but I don't think I could handle the education system.
That's the best kind of compliment. Thanks. The education system is, IMHO, ruined. But if you and people you loved were on a boat that was leaking faster than you could bail, would you jump off, or do everything you could to give them the least bit of a chance?
Check back over my post. I never, ever, ever, mention the Bush administration. I'm talking about people closer to the middle. The syndrome I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction many people are developing which lumps anyone to the right or left of them politically into the "Must be an idiot" column.
I understand the frustration. I'm a public high school teacher. You want to talk about a group of people with preconceived notions...high schoolers fit the bill. But I don't stop discussing issues with them because they have irrational, poorly thought out ideas. I listen to them, suggest alternatives, and try to convince them that there is at least another side, and maybe they should think about it. You'd be surprised how often that works with anyone, student or not.
We are reaching a level of polarization that is difficult to overcome. In fact, I would suggest you were a little reactive to my post and assumed the people I said you should deal with are the extreme right. I would submit that most people who supported going to war, are frustrated with the Bush administration for lying, (or maybe they see it as an honest mistake.) and shake their heads at it. But, to assume anyone who believe it was an honest mistake is ignoring blithely ignoring lies is unfair. The truth is muddled in the media, and most people are trusting and want to believe in their government. It's not good, and our forefathers would be spinning in their graves to see it, but writing them off is also contrary to the idea of democracy. We need to show them evidence, not rant at them for not believing us.
I think we need to make a concerted effort to reach out to those nearer the middle. The idealogues at each extreme are unlikely to ever agree, but they are the minority. Most people are willing to discuss things calmly, like we are doing.
Exactly my sentiments. I'm actually a little to the right of you, but I'm impressed with your comment. <soapbox>The trouble is we have lost the ability to disagree without assuming the ones on the other side are complete morons. The ones at the ends of the spectrum tend to be a little, well, overzealous, but I know smart, honest, and moral people on both sides of the politcal debate and have had fascinating discussions that have broadened my perspective both ways.</soapbox>
We need that kind of discussion on a national level. I think many moderates are so afraid of being labeled by both extremes they keep their mouths shut, when their voices are needed to find a middle way.
You might be right, and I don't have the time to check your facts or dig beyond them at the moment. But don't you think this is about more than that?
It's easy to look at this from one side or the other, but reality is rarely clean and neat with one party being right and the other totally wrong. I would venture a guess that the Hamas leaders that Israel took were probably involved with plotting against Israel. It's also certainly a valid position to say those men had a right to defend their homeland. I have issues with the lobbing of missiles indiscrimately into a country where only civilians are hurt. And yes, Israel certainly has hit quite a lot of civilians too. But my point is that going back and trying to say, "This is ___________ fault," is counterproductive.
Right or wrong, Israel has done some crappy things to Palestinians, and the Palestinians have done some terrible things to Israel, but they need to move forward with where they are now. The real culprits are the ones, on both sides, who are so entrenched in their hate for the other, that they will never stop fighting, and will work to keep peace from rooting itself in the region.
Remember, both the UK and the US are based on representative democracy.
We elect people to serve in government to protect us from others and from the fickle will of the people themselves.
I for one don't want the government listening to the masses every time they make a move. Modern governance is very complicated and like another poster commented, we live in a distractable and gullible society, and we should elect officials who won't easily succumb to pressure from one group or another, but will stick to what they believe is best for the country. I'm not saying that our officials do that now, but it's the idea. I hope some day we can find some politicians who will.
The reason that laws governing the internet get passed, and laws limiting parenthood don't even get proposed, is that the former are politically easy to sell, and the latter would rightly be seen as oppressive and illegal.
Same goes for why they don't demand phone companies to record all our phone calls. Even if the government said, "Well wait, we won't use it unless we find out you are a pedophile," people would flip their lids. But most people don't realize how closely related the two are.
If only you could make a concise argument against this in a ten second sound bite and connect it to some really sensational story and get it on the evening news.
If this wholesale data mining works, then the government will tout this success as justification for its acts.
And for using the same pattern recognition for other areas. Say, use traffic cameras to see if any cars frequent several areas where drugs are sold. If it does, do they then have the right to search that persons car for drugs?
I know that many of you here would agree that there needs to be some serious discussion about how this idea turns in to a slippery slope that could erode many of our rights. The problem is most of our citizens don't take the time to think passed the sound bites.
I would agree that there are some teachers who don't care, but I would suggest that overall, most teachers are trying to do what's right. Even the ones who give you endless worksheets. Think of them like parents, they always want what is best, but sometimes miss the mark.
If you accept that teachers are humans just as prone to mistakes as others, I think you would find that most of them are trying.
If you will agree to put politicians who make decisions about how schools function wherever you put teachers in your post. I will agree with you whole heartedly.
I think you will see a sharp change in educational philosophy amongst teachers who haven't barricaded themselves in their classrooms in the last twenty years. We know there needs to be a change. We want to change the Carnegie units (Think courses) and go to a more student centered classroom. But teachers don't make those decisions. So while we are saying, you can't assess a student's ability by his or her score on a multiple choice test, they say more standardized tests. We say, hey I want to keep this kid around for another month or two and he'll get the idea; they say, "Follow the state mandated curriculum." Teachers are there for the kids. We know it isn't working the way it is, and many teachers are trying to make this point. But we don't make the decisions.
I worry that grouping teachers with the politicians who have their own self interest in mind causes two problems. One, teachers take enough abuse without being grouped with politicians we generally despise. Two, it drowns out the internal voice of teachers saying, "Hey, we're in the trenches, and this isn't working. We need reform now.
But overall you make good points. I might suggest you either take them to your politicians in an attempt to change the system, or run for office. I'll vote for you.
The First Amendment, as extended through the Fourteenth and interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars government institutions from punishing or rewarding anyone on the basis of almost all speech. Note that the school in question is a public school, and thus is a government institution and bound by that law.
I made this point in another thread, but I think it is worth mentioning here. The issue isn't about his right to free speech, but whether or not he made a veiled threat. (Personally, I think the administration got it wrong.) The administration is looking at the post as a threat.
From the post:
I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold?... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied....
My take is the school sees the reference to Columbine as a threat. I don't agree, but the argument should change to is that a threat or not? Most school officials I know, find MySpace and the like to be a nuisance, but haven't even considering censoring free speech. In the instances that people do advocate censorship, they are just plain wrong, but this case is about whether or not the student made a threat.
I'd be careful using years worth of isolated incidents to say schools suspend for everything. That isn't true. Schools have become much more hesitant about suspending and expelling students.
The examples you give are few and far between and most of them aren't as simple as they appear in the news clips. For instance, most students who are suspended for having Tylenol and the like are suspended because they aren't in the original labeled bottle. I'm sure you know schools are trying to deal with a pretty intense drug problem, and they have laid out clear guidelines and most schools require medicine to be in its original packaging. What ever happened to following the rules? Also, the peanut butter story, if it's the one I'm familiar with, is because a student at the small school was super allergic to peanuts, and even getting peanut oil on her skin could have led to her death. Be careful when listening to or reading media reports. They are often sensational.
I think you nailed it on the head. This point is what I was trying to say in my original post.
As an educator, I always want to point out that these issues aren't simple. I agree with the grandparent post. The administration overreacted. But it's hard not to in education these days. There is political pressure on the administration from both sides. I am not saying they are right, but they are in a predicament. If they censor the kid, they get blamed for violating his rights. (In this case, that is what I think they did.) But if they did nothing, and something horrible had happened, they would be fired, and maybe even charged criminally.
My hope is that we don't just blame the school system. It's really easy to blame this totally on the school, but the problem is much deeper than that.
"You're unimportant... I don't have time for you." -- and that's the message our kids usually get in public education anyway...
I have to disagree here. I think that problems are all you see in the news about education. Remember, the school that student is in probably has a lot of students who feel completely supported and has teachers working day in and day out to help them succeed.
I am a public school teacher, and I put up with relatively low pay, little respect from the community, and some other minor difficulties because I care about our kids. The belief that teachers and administrators don't care is pervasive, but nonetheless incorrect. Most teachers try to reach every one of their kids. It's just that being a good teacher isn't news worthy. Hearing about how a teacher or administrator does something horrible, that is definitely news worthy. Just keep in mind that most of the kids don't have this kind of issue.
Last thing they want to do is lose all that money they are going to in a clear-cut 1st amendment case....
IMHO the school overreacted by trying to expel the kid. But I don't think the line is as clear as it might seem. The kids says, "I've been bullied by you." Then goes on to say the kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied by the school.
So the school is reading that as a veiled threat. I think that is an overreaction, but schools are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If this kid had gone on to actually take action, an extremely unlikely prospect, and the school had known about that post, the parents would have been screaming for the administration's heads.
I am a teacher at a school that recently had a student post a "hit list" to his MySpace page and he was expelled. The difference was the threat was explicit. In this case I would have liked to have seen the administration talk to the kid and explain how his post could have been seen as a threat and worked with him on avoiding that potentially sticky situation in the future.
Most schools do believe in free speech, and trust me, teachers take a whole lot of "free speech" from their students, but this case, at least in intent, isn't simply about free speech. It's about the administration overreacting to a possible veiled threat.
The lesson that many Muslims seem to need is that if you find something offensive you should just ignore it, not try to impose your own values by violence on everybody.
I don't disagree with you. I think violent reaction over someone else's view is inappropriate too. I'm not trying to condone the reaction.
Rather, I'm trying to expand the conversation. When we discuss these issues, it is imperative that we realize we all have different world views. Saying they need to wake up is a little condescending. They are aware that others have different views than they do and are reacting to them, as is their right, in a way that there culture accepts as okay. I don't suggest that the entire world should cater to their world view, but as you say they need to realize people have different views, we should follow the same advice.
Let me reiterate. I'm not defending the position, but detaching the cultural issues from the argument is counterproductive. The convenience of the internet is forcing sharply different ideas on cultures that aren't used to that kind of openness. Do I think this is a good thing? Absolutely. But those who live in more tolerant and open societies need to be aware that other cultures don't have the same views and there will be an awkward and often painful transition period. In an ironic way, those of us in open and tolerant societies need to be, um...tolerant, of those less tolerant than ourselves.
What is so wrong in mentioning and disapproving the prophet Muhammad's morally wrong behavior?
Let's keep in mind that there are some fundamental cultural differences. As a general rule, and I am generalizing here, Muslims who have lived for a long time in the West will not be offended by comments critiquing religious figures. But that is because they understand a certain irreverence in Western cultures. I'm not implying that irreverence is bad; it just doesn't exsist in all cultures. People from the Middle East, where the largest outcry has been over issues like the Danish cartoons, do not jest about religious figures.
Again, I don't disaggree with you, but culture is something that is important to put into the equation when making these decisions. If you had drawn a cartoon of Jesus back in Puritan New England in the early 1800s, there is a good chance you would have been drawn and quartered.
(Disclaimer: I have not researched punishments from Puritan New England. The drawn and quartered line was to prove a point only.)
In this case, I think that there should be some legal redress rather than blocking because I do not see what gives google the right to decide what will offend me.
With all do respect, I think that is backwards. There should be no legal redress. I hate what that guy says, but he has every legal right to say it, and I would go to the mat to defend it. But Google is free to do what they want with the content they provide.
Why do we always seem to confuse legal freedom of speech with a company's rights in business. Google is a corporation. The government can't tell the blogger to stop posting, but Google has every right to pick and choose what they carry.
If you as a consumer want to use a news aggregate that doesn't exclude material that the company views as extremely offensive, then go find another news aggregate.
Freedom of Speech you can't be punished legally for what you say.
Right on the money. Of course one of the issues we face is providing more appropriate tools that are as easy to use as Email.
Can we find a tool that allows interaction as easily as email? Wikis come a long way, but you are still dealing with going to a wiki, signing in (if it's protected), saying something, then letting others know what you have changed.
How can we skip that middle part? I'm sure there are fixes out there, but there is a tipping point for adoption, and we are no where near it.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember when Coca Cola changed their formula too. That worked out really well...
Okay, I see your point. I'd be curious to see what business operations they do have in the UK. If they do have offices there, might they not be legally obligated to avoid publishing? I'm not sure it's as simple as they are obeying laws of another country when not obligated to.
I would suggest we haven't seen a violation of the freedom of press. The UK didn't accuse the NYT of committing a crime. The NYT had a choice, ie. the freedom, to choose what to print and what not to. They chose one course over another.
I haven't heard of a time when Google released personal information to the Chinese government. You can argue successfully a case against their censoring of information, but they actually withheld services that might force them to release personal information to the Chinese government, like GMail and Blogger.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to see a link to something that shows they've released information. But if I'm not wrong, I'd suggest we be not let ourselves confuse these two very different issues.
The side thing is I have said repeatedly that Israel has done horrible things, yet you seem incapable of seeing that. Each time I make a post, you only see where I have, in your eyes, been deficient in criticizing Israel. I applaud your conviction, but I promise you, you will accomplish little until you are able to at least engage in conversation without twisting someone's words.
My hope is that we find a peaceful solution to this, and that in future generations we'll be able to look at this as a long gone era where humanity failed to live up to it's potential. And I think people with your perserverence will make it happen.
With that said, I think we're done here.
You make a strong argument, and I'm not saying what you say isn't true. I agree with you that Israel is way overstepping themselves. I am not saying Israel is right. I would ask you to look over my posts again. I'm not agreeing with Israel. Nor do I agree with targeting civilians in order to instill fear. Would you agree that both sides have done this? I don't think either side is acting in a civilized way at this point. I am suggesting that we need to continue to have a dialogue. I realize it is hard to do so when people are dying. But when things get bad is when we need to remain calm.
And be careful assuming my statements that both sides have done bad things represents indifference. I would argue it's the opposite. I think to find a solution is one of the most pressing issues of our time; and to do so, we need to realize there are two sides to the conflict.
I have personally sent impassioned letters to my Senators, national representatives, and to the President urging them to look for a middle ground solution, and pleading that a position that solely supports Israel would be pointless. There are people dying on the ground, and whether they are Lebanese, Israeli, or Palestinian, I abhore the loss of life, but we must, must, acknowledge the errors made by both sides. I don't think the fact that Israel has killed more people than Hezbollah in any way excuses Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.
This is complicated, and no one is totally in the right.
I submit to you that seeing that there are two sides to an issue isn't fence riding. If you read the entire thread, you'll see I didn't avoid assigning responsibility, but laid it squarely on both sides.
But even if it is, the passionate hatred demonstrated in many of these posts suggests that ever successfully assigning blame is not only pointless at this stage, but impossible.
Is it better for us to sit around and all look to blame someone, or should we work towards a solution to the current state of things?
I think if you read my post, it's clear that I do have issues with that. It's a little unfair to pull out one line from my post. Your response demonstrates exactly the issue I was trying to address.
I write a post that in essence says, there are many sides to any story. Then you pull out one line that makes it look like I think Israel is completely write.
I'm moved by your passion, and I understand why you are upset about the issue. I think it's fair though to suggest that both sides have done things wrong. I think it's vitally important, if you want innocent lives to stop being victimized on both sides, to move past trying to assign blame. Until we get past that, nothing will change and innocent lives will continue to be lost.
and very few of them understood the issues
Remember, they went home and said, "Dad, Mom, What should I believe?" And then believed arbitrarily whatever the parent said. So hopefully, some of them might be able to think for themselves now. Well, maybe I'm being too optimistic.
I wish I'd had teachers like you. I though about being a teacher, but I don't think I could handle the education system.
That's the best kind of compliment. Thanks. The education system is, IMHO, ruined. But if you and people you loved were on a boat that was leaking faster than you could bail, would you jump off, or do everything you could to give them the least bit of a chance?
Now, now...No kicking of furry animals.
Check back over my post. I never, ever, ever, mention the Bush administration. I'm talking about people closer to the middle. The syndrome I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction many people are developing which lumps anyone to the right or left of them politically into the "Must be an idiot" column.
I understand the frustration. I'm a public high school teacher. You want to talk about a group of people with preconceived notions...high schoolers fit the bill. But I don't stop discussing issues with them because they have irrational, poorly thought out ideas. I listen to them, suggest alternatives, and try to convince them that there is at least another side, and maybe they should think about it. You'd be surprised how often that works with anyone, student or not.
We are reaching a level of polarization that is difficult to overcome. In fact, I would suggest you were a little reactive to my post and assumed the people I said you should deal with are the extreme right. I would submit that most people who supported going to war, are frustrated with the Bush administration for lying, (or maybe they see it as an honest mistake.) and shake their heads at it. But, to assume anyone who believe it was an honest mistake is ignoring blithely ignoring lies is unfair. The truth is muddled in the media, and most people are trusting and want to believe in their government. It's not good, and our forefathers would be spinning in their graves to see it, but writing them off is also contrary to the idea of democracy. We need to show them evidence, not rant at them for not believing us.
I think we need to make a concerted effort to reach out to those nearer the middle. The idealogues at each extreme are unlikely to ever agree, but they are the minority. Most people are willing to discuss things calmly, like we are doing.
Wow. Good post monoqlith.
Exactly my sentiments. I'm actually a little to the right of you, but I'm impressed with your comment. <soapbox>The trouble is we have lost the ability to disagree without assuming the ones on the other side are complete morons. The ones at the ends of the spectrum tend to be a little, well, overzealous, but I know smart, honest, and moral people on both sides of the politcal debate and have had fascinating discussions that have broadened my perspective both ways.</soapbox>
We need that kind of discussion on a national level. I think many moderates are so afraid of being labeled by both extremes they keep their mouths shut, when their voices are needed to find a middle way.
You might be right, and I don't have the time to check your facts or dig beyond them at the moment. But don't you think this is about more than that?
It's easy to look at this from one side or the other, but reality is rarely clean and neat with one party being right and the other totally wrong. I would venture a guess that the Hamas leaders that Israel took were probably involved with plotting against Israel. It's also certainly a valid position to say those men had a right to defend their homeland. I have issues with the lobbing of missiles indiscrimately into a country where only civilians are hurt. And yes, Israel certainly has hit quite a lot of civilians too. But my point is that going back and trying to say, "This is ___________ fault," is counterproductive.
Right or wrong, Israel has done some crappy things to Palestinians, and the Palestinians have done some terrible things to Israel, but they need to move forward with where they are now. The real culprits are the ones, on both sides, who are so entrenched in their hate for the other, that they will never stop fighting, and will work to keep peace from rooting itself in the region.
Remember, both the UK and the US are based on representative democracy.
We elect people to serve in government to protect us from others and from the fickle will of the people themselves.
I for one don't want the government listening to the masses every time they make a move. Modern governance is very complicated and like another poster commented, we live in a distractable and gullible society, and we should elect officials who won't easily succumb to pressure from one group or another, but will stick to what they believe is best for the country. I'm not saying that our officials do that now, but it's the idea. I hope some day we can find some politicians who will.
The reason that laws governing the internet get passed, and laws limiting parenthood don't even get proposed, is that the former are politically easy to sell, and the latter would rightly be seen as oppressive and illegal.
Same goes for why they don't demand phone companies to record all our phone calls. Even if the government said, "Well wait, we won't use it unless we find out you are a pedophile," people would flip their lids. But most people don't realize how closely related the two are.
If only you could make a concise argument against this in a ten second sound bite and connect it to some really sensational story and get it on the evening news.
If this wholesale data mining works, then the government will tout this success as justification for its acts.
And for using the same pattern recognition for other areas. Say, use traffic cameras to see if any cars frequent several areas where drugs are sold. If it does, do they then have the right to search that persons car for drugs?
I know that many of you here would agree that there needs to be some serious discussion about how this idea turns in to a slippery slope that could erode many of our rights. The problem is most of our citizens don't take the time to think passed the sound bites.
I would agree that there are some teachers who don't care, but I would suggest that overall, most teachers are trying to do what's right. Even the ones who give you endless worksheets. Think of them like parents, they always want what is best, but sometimes miss the mark.
If you accept that teachers are humans just as prone to mistakes as others, I think you would find that most of them are trying.
If you will agree to put politicians who make decisions about how schools function wherever you put teachers in your post. I will agree with you whole heartedly.
I think you will see a sharp change in educational philosophy amongst teachers who haven't barricaded themselves in their classrooms in the last twenty years. We know there needs to be a change. We want to change the Carnegie units (Think courses) and go to a more student centered classroom. But teachers don't make those decisions. So while we are saying, you can't assess a student's ability by his or her score on a multiple choice test, they say more standardized tests. We say, hey I want to keep this kid around for another month or two and he'll get the idea; they say, "Follow the state mandated curriculum." Teachers are there for the kids. We know it isn't working the way it is, and many teachers are trying to make this point. But we don't make the decisions.
I worry that grouping teachers with the politicians who have their own self interest in mind causes two problems. One, teachers take enough abuse without being grouped with politicians we generally despise. Two, it drowns out the internal voice of teachers saying, "Hey, we're in the trenches, and this isn't working. We need reform now.
But overall you make good points. I might suggest you either take them to your politicians in an attempt to change the system, or run for office. I'll vote for you.
The First Amendment, as extended through the Fourteenth and interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars government institutions from punishing or rewarding anyone on the basis of almost all speech. Note that the school in question is a public school, and thus is a government institution and bound by that law.
I made this point in another thread, but I think it is worth mentioning here. The issue isn't about his right to free speech, but whether or not he made a veiled threat. (Personally, I think the administration got it wrong.) The administration is looking at the post as a threat.
From the post:
I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ...
My take is the school sees the reference to Columbine as a threat. I don't agree, but the argument should change to is that a threat or not? Most school officials I know, find MySpace and the like to be a nuisance, but haven't even considering censoring free speech. In the instances that people do advocate censorship, they are just plain wrong, but this case is about whether or not the student made a threat.
I'd be careful using years worth of isolated incidents to say schools suspend for everything. That isn't true. Schools have become much more hesitant about suspending and expelling students.
The examples you give are few and far between and most of them aren't as simple as they appear in the news clips. For instance, most students who are suspended for having Tylenol and the like are suspended because they aren't in the original labeled bottle. I'm sure you know schools are trying to deal with a pretty intense drug problem, and they have laid out clear guidelines and most schools require medicine to be in its original packaging. What ever happened to following the rules? Also, the peanut butter story, if it's the one I'm familiar with, is because a student at the small school was super allergic to peanuts, and even getting peanut oil on her skin could have led to her death. Be careful when listening to or reading media reports. They are often sensational.
I think you nailed it on the head. This point is what I was trying to say in my original post.
As an educator, I always want to point out that these issues aren't simple. I agree with the grandparent post. The administration overreacted. But it's hard not to in education these days. There is political pressure on the administration from both sides. I am not saying they are right, but they are in a predicament. If they censor the kid, they get blamed for violating his rights. (In this case, that is what I think they did.) But if they did nothing, and something horrible had happened, they would be fired, and maybe even charged criminally.
My hope is that we don't just blame the school system. It's really easy to blame this totally on the school, but the problem is much deeper than that.
"You're unimportant... I don't have time for you." -- and that's the message our kids usually get in public education anyway...
I have to disagree here. I think that problems are all you see in the news about education. Remember, the school that student is in probably has a lot of students who feel completely supported and has teachers working day in and day out to help them succeed.
I am a public school teacher, and I put up with relatively low pay, little respect from the community, and some other minor difficulties because I care about our kids. The belief that teachers and administrators don't care is pervasive, but nonetheless incorrect. Most teachers try to reach every one of their kids. It's just that being a good teacher isn't news worthy. Hearing about how a teacher or administrator does something horrible, that is definitely news worthy. Just keep in mind that most of the kids don't have this kind of issue.
Last thing they want to do is lose all that money they are going to in a clear-cut 1st amendment case....
IMHO the school overreacted by trying to expel the kid. But I don't think the line is as clear as it might seem. The kids says, "I've been bullied by you." Then goes on to say the kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied by the school.
So the school is reading that as a veiled threat. I think that is an overreaction, but schools are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If this kid had gone on to actually take action, an extremely unlikely prospect, and the school had known about that post, the parents would have been screaming for the administration's heads.
I am a teacher at a school that recently had a student post a "hit list" to his MySpace page and he was expelled. The difference was the threat was explicit. In this case I would have liked to have seen the administration talk to the kid and explain how his post could have been seen as a threat and worked with him on avoiding that potentially sticky situation in the future.
Most schools do believe in free speech, and trust me, teachers take a whole lot of "free speech" from their students, but this case, at least in intent, isn't simply about free speech. It's about the administration overreacting to a possible veiled threat.
The lesson that many Muslims seem to need is that if you find something offensive you should just ignore it, not try to impose your own values by violence on everybody.
I don't disagree with you. I think violent reaction over someone else's view is inappropriate too. I'm not trying to condone the reaction.
Rather, I'm trying to expand the conversation. When we discuss these issues, it is imperative that we realize we all have different world views. Saying they need to wake up is a little condescending. They are aware that others have different views than they do and are reacting to them, as is their right, in a way that there culture accepts as okay. I don't suggest that the entire world should cater to their world view, but as you say they need to realize people have different views, we should follow the same advice.
Let me reiterate. I'm not defending the position, but detaching the cultural issues from the argument is counterproductive. The convenience of the internet is forcing sharply different ideas on cultures that aren't used to that kind of openness. Do I think this is a good thing? Absolutely. But those who live in more tolerant and open societies need to be aware that other cultures don't have the same views and there will be an awkward and often painful transition period. In an ironic way, those of us in open and tolerant societies need to be, um...tolerant, of those less tolerant than ourselves.
What is so wrong in mentioning and disapproving the prophet Muhammad's morally wrong behavior?
Let's keep in mind that there are some fundamental cultural differences. As a general rule, and I am generalizing here, Muslims who have lived for a long time in the West will not be offended by comments critiquing religious figures. But that is because they understand a certain irreverence in Western cultures. I'm not implying that irreverence is bad; it just doesn't exsist in all cultures. People from the Middle East, where the largest outcry has been over issues like the Danish cartoons, do not jest about religious figures.
Again, I don't disaggree with you, but culture is something that is important to put into the equation when making these decisions. If you had drawn a cartoon of Jesus back in Puritan New England in the early 1800s, there is a good chance you would have been drawn and quartered.
(Disclaimer: I have not researched punishments from Puritan New England. The drawn and quartered line was to prove a point only.)
In this case, I think that there should be some legal redress rather than blocking because I do not see what gives google the right to decide what will offend me.
With all do respect, I think that is backwards. There should be no legal redress. I hate what that guy says, but he has every legal right to say it, and I would go to the mat to defend it. But Google is free to do what they want with the content they provide.
Why do we always seem to confuse legal freedom of speech with a company's rights in business. Google is a corporation. The government can't tell the blogger to stop posting, but Google has every right to pick and choose what they carry.
If you as a consumer want to use a news aggregate that doesn't exclude material that the company views as extremely offensive, then go find another news aggregate.
Freedom of Speech you can't be punished legally for what you say.
Right on the money. Of course one of the issues we face is providing more appropriate tools that are as easy to use as Email.
Can we find a tool that allows interaction as easily as email? Wikis come a long way, but you are still dealing with going to a wiki, signing in (if it's protected), saying something, then letting others know what you have changed.
How can we skip that middle part? I'm sure there are fixes out there, but there is a tipping point for adoption, and we are no where near it.