As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Going To Use MySpace To Attack Your Teacher? Think Again.

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited September 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Federal judge rules that school district was in line in suspending two students that posted a fake, derogatory MySpace profile of their principal.

You know, I do respect and support the ACLU, but sometimes, I have to wonder if they think through some of the cases they take. This one was going to be a slam dunk for the district - they attacked the principal in a manner that could compromise his ability to administer the school (so Tinker doesn't apply), using outright defamatory speech (so there's no First Amendment claim to be made). The term "foregone conclusion" very much applies here.

That said, I don't like that the judge focused on the vulgarity (as seen with his reference to Bethel). The defamation and interruption of school administration factors were already big enough, there was no need to try to use vulgarity as a reason that the speech wasn't protected.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
«13

Posts

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm against the notion that school codes of conduct should restrict a child's behavior on nights and weekends.

    Kids cannot choose not to go to school, and they have limited choices where to go. Expecting them to conform to school rules, and be disciplined at school, for actions that were not done at school or on the way to or from school is far too restrictive. It basically means that school rules a child's life 24/7.

    The MySpace profile was clearly derogatory, therefore the principle is fully within his rights to take legal action against the children and their parents, which is what he should have done.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    BTW, there was a vaguely similar case at my high school. A student pulled a prank where he shot a teacher's house with paintballs at 10 pm on a Saturday night. The school attempted to expel him, however apparently California law specifically states that students cannot be punished for actions taken outside of school so the teacher's only recourse was to take legal action.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Pretty much what Feral said. The Principal should have no right to suspend the students for their activities outside of school.

    But he can lay charges against them for defamation and that kind of thing.

    JustinSane07 on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm against the notion that school codes of conduct should restrict a child's behavior on nights and weekends.

    Kids cannot choose not to go to school, and they have limited choices where to go. Expecting them to conform to school rules, and be disciplined at school, for actions that were not done at school or on the way to or from school is far too restrictive. It basically means that school rules a child's life 24/7.

    The MySpace profile was clearly derogatory, therefore the principle is fully within his rights to take legal action against the children and their parents, which is what he should have done.

    Well, I don't think this case specifically is a great argument for that...if nothing else, the MySpace profile doesn't exactly go down when the morning bell rings. This is an example of an action that isn't necessarily restricted to a specific outside-school time, but rather continues throughout the day.

    And regardless, I think actions by students taken against faculty are not an unreasonable exception to the "what happens off campus stays off campus" rule. If a student decided to kick the shit out of a teacher outside of school, I don't think suspending them from school as a response in addition to taking legal action is unreasonable, as due to the nature of the faculty/student relationship it can't help but undermine the teacher's ability to maintain discipline otherwise.

    mcdermott on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Yeah, if they defamed him (and they certainly did), he has a right to take legal action against them, but not to use the power of a public position to punish them extralegally.

    MrMonroe on
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    We just had a big to-do about a code of conduct at this university, where student behavior outside of school and off campus could result in punishment within the school system.

    Basically, it was going to be used as a tool to punish student protests, because recent protests against constantly increasing tuition and the lies about said increases have gotten very fervent and perhaps even effective.

    The student and community outrage was such that the code was abandoned, and good riddance.

    The principal should have taken legal action outside of the school system. These kids want to fuck around outside of school, they should see what it's like to get in trouble in the real world.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • kaliyamakaliyama Left to find less-moderated fora Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It's galling that the principal has a weaker case for a civil libel/defamation suit than his recourses for punishing students. Its ridiculous to allow school districts to de facto regulate internet speech because they're about school figures or because students are involved.

    I can see why courts get this wrong - it's about a school official, and telepresence extends into schools, but there's no principled way to draw this line. If schools can regulate this, they can regulate any interpersonal exchange between students and other students or officials outside of the educational context, which is a drastic expansion of educational authority into the public space.

    And what happens if students with legitimate grievances try to organize outside of school? (as this posting could well be an example of - even if they're satirizing him in an unintellectual way).

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    kaliyama wrote: »
    It's galling that the principal has a weaker case for a civil libel/defamation suit than his recourses for punishing students. Its ridiculous to allow school districts to de facto regulate internet speech because they're about school figures or because students are involved.

    I can see why courts get this wrong - it's about a school official, and telepresence extends into schools, but there's no principled way to draw this line. If schools can regulate this, they can regulate any interpersonal exchange between students and other students or officials outside of the educational context, which is a drastic expansion of educational authority into the public space.

    And what happens if students with legitimate grievances try to organize outside of school? (as this posting could well be an example of - even if they're satirizing him in an unintellectual way).

    Yeah, I think the particulars of this case are why I'm not immediately uncomfortable with the ruling. We're not talking about "organizing outside of school" here. These kids had absolutely no claim to the moral high ground.
    A federal judge has ruled that a Pennsylvania school can suspend two eighth-graders who created a fake MySpace profile of their principal depicting him as a pedophile and a sex addict, among other things. The September 11 ruling said the students' civil rights were not violated despite their actions taking place off school grounds because the language used on the profile was "lewd and vulgar," and because it was akin to speech that promoted illegal actions. Given the recent prevalence of fake MySpace profiles meant to taunt or harass others at school, this ruling could help decide future cases related to student speech online.

    The story goes back to March 2007, when a profile representing the principal of Blue Mountain Middle School, James McGonigle, popped up on MySpace. The profile didn't explicitly identify McGonigle by name, but used a photo of him taken from the school district's website and labeled him as principal. Among McGonigle's alleged interests listed on MySpace were "f****** in my office" and "hitting on students and their parents." The profile also had a statement with the headline "HELLO CHILDREN," that read (in part), "yes. It's your oh so wonderful, hairy, expressionless, sex addict, fagass, put on this world with a small d*** PRINCIPAL I have come to myspace so I can pervert the minds of other principals to be just like me."

    While I agree with AngelHedgie that the court's decision to highlight the vulgar nature of the speech, despite that fact that it wouldn't be protected anyway, was disturbing, at first glance I'm not seeing any particularly slippery slopes around.

    And, again, despite the fact that the page was created outside of school, the page would have continue to be available during school hours, including, at least in theory, from computers on school property. Considering that this amounted to a baseless and derogatory attack on a faculty member, I'm not buying the idea that this should be considered as taking place entirely outside of school.

    mcdermott on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And, again, despite the fact that the page was created outside of school, the page would have continue to be available during school hours, including, at least in theory, from computers on school property. Considering that this amounted to a baseless and derogatory attack on a faculty member, I'm not buying the idea that this should be considered as taking place entirely outside of school.

    Then there should be evidence that the page was worked on or viewed in school, from the network firewall, browser logs, or just direct observation by teachers.

    That maybe somebody might have looked at it during school is not terribly compelling IMO.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And, again, despite the fact that the page was created outside of school, the page would have continue to be available during school hours, including, at least in theory, from computers on school property. Considering that this amounted to a baseless and derogatory attack on a faculty member, I'm not buying the idea that this should be considered as taking place entirely outside of school.

    Then there should be evidence that the page was worked on or viewed in school, from the network firewall, browser logs, or just direct observation by teachers.

    That maybe somebody might have looked at it during school is not terribly compelling IMO.

    The fact that it was readily available for viewing from school all day long, however, is enough for me. I'm willing to agree to disagree, though.

    mcdermott on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And, again, despite the fact that the page was created outside of school, the page would have continue to be available during school hours, including, at least in theory, from computers on school property. Considering that this amounted to a baseless and derogatory attack on a faculty member, I'm not buying the idea that this should be considered as taking place entirely outside of school.

    Then there should be evidence that the page was worked on or viewed in school, from the network firewall, browser logs, or just direct observation by teachers.

    That maybe somebody might have looked at it during school is not terribly compelling IMO.

    The fact that it was readily available for viewing from school all day long, however, is enough for me. I'm willing to agree to disagree, though.

    Wait, so because something is published in such a way that it could get onto computers on school grounds means that it's essentially done at school?

    If I print out pamphlets and hand them out downtown, might I be charged because there is a possibility that some students might pick them up and bring them on-campus?

    Also, public schools should have MySpace blocked on every single public computer. There's no good excuse otherwise.

    MrMonroe on
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And, again, despite the fact that the page was created outside of school, the page would have continue to be available during school hours, including, at least in theory, from computers on school property. Considering that this amounted to a baseless and derogatory attack on a faculty member, I'm not buying the idea that this should be considered as taking place entirely outside of school.

    Then there should be evidence that the page was worked on or viewed in school, from the network firewall, browser logs, or just direct observation by teachers.

    That maybe somebody might have looked at it during school is not terribly compelling IMO.

    The fact that it was readily available for viewing from school all day long, however, is enough for me. I'm willing to agree to disagree, though.

    What if Myspace is blocked by the school's filter?

    JustinSane07 on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    So... the two sides...

    A> How do you handle this situation without limiting the kids rights?

    1> How do you protect someone that is being slandered as such outside of his occupation?

    You have to remember. For one thing, children don't share the same rights as adults. Secondly, while this didn't take place at school, it still concerns the school.

    There's no way they can force the parents to punish the kids, but there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work. In the end, while suspension from school may have trotted the lines of decency, given the facts that we know, I feel that this is the correct line of action to take. The punishment won't affect their grades, and they are given the opportunity to return to school and behave like decent people.

    Sheep on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    Also, public schools should have MySpace blocked on every single public computer. There's no good excuse otherwise.

    I agree, but I've noticed that the IT policies at a lot of schools are fucking retarded.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    And what's the punishment for libel for a minor again? Getting told "Don't do that?"

    Aroduc on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    If I were a kid, I'd have much rather taken a few days suspension that go through an entire, lengthy, expensive legal process with long standing ramifications. Hell, you'd imagine the same for the parents.

    They should take the opportunity and run with it. They're getting a very fair deal out of this.

    Sheep on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    And what's the punishment for libel for a minor again? Getting told "Don't do that?"
    I'm not sure what is so horrible about kids badmouthing adults.

    Couscous on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    And what's the punishment for libel for a minor again? Getting told "Don't do that?"
    I'm not sure what is so horrible about kids badmouthing adults.

    They kinda called him a pedophile.

    And if any other kid stood up on a soap box in a public place and started throwing slander at a public official, they'd probably get snatched up with the swiftness.

    Could the principal have ignored it? Probably. He probably could have gotten MySpace to delete the account. However, that doesn't really do much to teach the kids to not be insufferable little cunts.

    Sheep on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    If I were a kid, I'd have much rather taken a few days suspension that go through an entire, lengthy, expensive legal process with long standing ramifications. Hell, you'd imagine the same for the parents.

    You can only say that because the kids were eighth-graders. Had they been in high school, then suspension could have rendered them ineligible for extracurricular activities, which would then impact their chances of getting into college.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    If I were a kid, I'd have much rather taken a few days suspension that go through an entire, lengthy, expensive legal process with long standing ramifications. Hell, you'd imagine the same for the parents.

    You can only say that because the kids were eighth-graders. Had they been in high school, then suspension could have rendered them ineligible for extracurricular activities, which would then impact their chances of getting into college.

    They probably shouldn't have been little bastards then, right?

    Having a legal record where you're guilty of slander and libel will pretty much cut out a solid chunk of possibilities for you as well. Unless you plan on working for the RNC or something...


    EDIT

    Also, I dunno about that specific school, but I don't think anyone really does. Anecdotally, when I got suspended from High School, I was only cut out of extra curricular activities for the week of. So, no football game for me. I also thought twice about being a douche bag.

    Sheep on
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    there needs to be some sort of action taken to let the little bastards know that doing this isn't how things work.

    We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.

    If I were a kid, I'd have much rather taken a few days suspension that go through an entire, lengthy, expensive legal process with long standing ramifications. Hell, you'd imagine the same for the parents.

    You can only say that because the kids were eighth-graders. Had they been in high school, then suspension could have rendered them ineligible for extracurricular activities, which would then impact their chances of getting into college.

    Why stop there? Without getting into college, they would have become self-service gas station attendants and been killed when some maniac robbed the store.

    Don't you see? They could have been dead if they were in high school.

    Aroduc on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Why stop there? Without getting into college, they would have become self-service gas station attendants and been killed when some maniac robbed the store.

    Don't you see? They could have been dead if they were in high school.

    Do you have a point to make, or are you just being willfully stupid?
    Sheep wrote: »
    Having a legal record where you're guilty of slander and libel will pretty much cut out a solid chunk of possibilities for you as well. Unless you plan on working for the RNC or something...

    To my knowledge, being involved in a civil suit does not affect admissions at any college.

    There is also the simple fact that civil suits require a burden of proof greater than suspensions at school. If this ruling were allowed to stand, a principle would be able to suspend a kid for any vulgar language outside of school without having to show that it was protected or not. The parents could then countersue, but the damage would already have been done.

    Again, this gives school administrators effectively complete power over their students' lives, 24/7. I don't see how that is remotely defensible.
    Sheep wrote: »
    Also, I dunno about that specific school

    At my high school, being suspended for five days or more (consecutive or not) rendered you ineligible for extracurricular activities for the remainder of the semester.

    If your suspension was at the beginning of the year, it de facto made you ineligible for some extracurricular activities in general, because there was no way you'd be able to catch up on practice for, for example, Academic Decathlon in January if you'd missed all the practice sessions in August through December.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    To my knowledge, being involved in a civil suit does not affect admissions at any college.

    It affects social standing and can affect your credibility depending on what job market you're interested in.

    Again, these kids being let off pretty easy. The court proceedings will keep them out of school for much longer than 10 days, will cost their parents time and money, as well as tie up the legal system.
    They were suspended for 10 days for violating the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members, as well as copyright infringement for using his photo without permission.

    Pretty much puts the school in a position to suspend them.

    Though I do think 10 days is a bit long.

    Sheep on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    To my knowledge, being involved in a civil suit does not affect admissions at any college.
    It affects social standing and can affect your credibility depending on what job market you're interested in.

    Again, these kids being let off pretty easy. The court proceedings will keep them out of school for much longer than 10 days, will cost their parents time and money, as well as tie up the legal system.

    At the same time, the legal system also protects students from false accusations and knee-jerk school administrations.

    In this case, the facts are pretty cut-and-dried. However, not necessarily all applications of school discipline are clearly fair.
    Sheep wrote: »
    They were suspended for 10 days for violating the school discipline code, which prohibits making false accusations against school staff members, as well as copyright infringement for using his photo without permission.
    Pretty much puts the school in a position to suspend them.

    The entire crux of my point is that students should not be suspended for violating the school discipline code outside of school. That's why it's called the "school" discipline code and not the "kid" discipline code.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    To my knowledge, being involved in a civil suit does not affect admissions at any college.

    It affects social standing and can affect your credibility depending on what job market you're interested in.

    Again, these kids being let off pretty easy. The court proceedings will keep them out of school for much longer than 10 days, will cost their parents time and money, as well as tie up the legal system.

    No. It doesn't. Job applications and admissions forms only ask for criminal information, not civil. You don't have to report that Person A sued you for something, it's not criminal.

    JustinSane07 on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    To my knowledge, being involved in a civil suit does not affect admissions at any college.

    It affects social standing and can affect your credibility depending on what job market you're interested in.

    Again, these kids being let off pretty easy. The court proceedings will keep them out of school for much longer than 10 days, will cost their parents time and money, as well as tie up the legal system.

    No. It doesn't. Job applications and admissions forms only ask for criminal information, not civil. You don't have to report that Person A sued you for something, it's not criminal.

    If you're a journalist or hold public office, having something like this on your record will be known and will reflect badly upon you.

    Sheep on
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Why stop there? Without getting into college, they would have become self-service gas station attendants and been killed when some maniac robbed the store.

    Don't you see? They could have been dead if they were in high school.

    Do you have a point to make, or are you just being willfully stupid?

    Speak for yourself, Captain Woulda Coulda McSlipperySlope.

    Aroduc on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Why stop there? Without getting into college, they would have become self-service gas station attendants and been killed when some maniac robbed the store.

    Don't you see? They could have been dead if they were in high school.

    Do you have a point to make, or are you just being willfully stupid?

    Speak for yourself, Captain Woulda Coulda McSlipperySlope.

    Recognizing the realistic ramifications of a legal principle is not fallacious thinking.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 Really, stupid? Brockton__BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    To my knowledge, being involved in a civil suit does not affect admissions at any college.

    It affects social standing and can affect your credibility depending on what job market you're interested in.

    Again, these kids being let off pretty easy. The court proceedings will keep them out of school for much longer than 10 days, will cost their parents time and money, as well as tie up the legal system.

    No. It doesn't. Job applications and admissions forms only ask for criminal information, not civil. You don't have to report that Person A sued you for something, it's not criminal.

    If you're a journalist or hold public office, having something like this on your record will be known and will reflect badly upon you.

    Provided someone looks up your legal record, which there's a good chance a job won't, except in specialized fields like you mentioned.

    JustinSane07 on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Why stop there? Without getting into college, they would have become self-service gas station attendants and been killed when some maniac robbed the store.

    Don't you see? They could have been dead if they were in high school.

    Do you have a point to make, or are you just being willfully stupid?

    Speak for yourself, Captain Woulda Coulda McSlipperySlope.

    Recognizing the realistic ramifications of a legal principle is not fallacious thinking.
    Yeah, and recognizing that being accused of pedophilia by a minor is one of those things that can tarnish a person, whether it's true or not.

    Fencingsax on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    I think we need to go back to the basics here.

    From a legal standpoint, these kids are getting off easy. No tying up the judicial system, no funds being used, publicly or by the family, to defend the kids in court, and they'll spend less time out of school via suspension than they would if they take this to court.

    Since they broke the school's code of conduct, the school is open to the punishment they see fit.

    Sheep on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    I think we need to go back to the basics here.

    From a legal standpoint, these kids are getting off easy. No tying up the judicial system, no funds being used, publicly or by the family, to defend the kids in court, and they'll spend less time out of school via suspension than they would if they take this to court.

    Since they broke the school's code of conduct, the school is open to the punishment they see fit.
    And if they had attended a protest...?

    Thanatos on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    I think we need to go back to the basics here.

    From a legal standpoint, these kids are getting off easy. No tying up the judicial system, no funds being used, publicly or by the family, to defend the kids in court, and they'll spend less time out of school via suspension than they would if they take this to court.

    Since they broke the school's code of conduct, the school is open to the punishment they see fit.
    And if they had attended a protest...?

    If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, then I was completely against the school on that one.

    They went as far as to insinuate that the running of the flame was a school sponsored event.

    Sheep on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    No tying up the judicial system

    But that's what the judicial system is for.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Why stop there? Without getting into college, they would have become self-service gas station attendants and been killed when some maniac robbed the store.

    Don't you see? They could have been dead if they were in high school.

    Do you have a point to make, or are you just being willfully stupid?

    Speak for yourself, Captain Woulda Coulda McSlipperySlope.

    Recognizing the realistic ramifications of a legal principle is not fallacious thinking.

    Making unfounded assumptions about future events, however, is.

    If they were in highschool
    If they were in/wanted to be in extracurricular activities
    If being suspended made them ineligible for them
    Then maybe it would have impacted their college selection

    We can do it the other way too.

    If they were in highschool
    If their parents came down on them like a ton of bricks
    Maybe they'd be forced to study hard
    Then they might have a shot at Brown.

    Prove to me that your sequence of possible future events is more valid than mine.

    Aroduc on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    No tying up the judicial system

    But that's what the judicial system is for.

    It doesn't hurt that I'm thankful that it's free to be used for shit that matters.
    Prove to me that your sequence of possible future events is more valid than mine.

    Feral also ignores the fact that, if these kids gave a damn about any of that, they wouldn't have acted up in the first place. They're future ultimately rests on their own shoulders. It's not the schools fault for punishing them for being douche bags.

    I find it funny that Feral was so anti corporal punishment and pro-passive punishment, yet here it is in all of it's glory, and Feral still opposes it.

    The kids fucked up. They're getting off easy. Long standing ramifications may exist, but they are responsible for their own actions.

    Sheep on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    No tying up the judicial system

    But that's what the judicial system is for.

    It doesn't hurt that I'm thankful that it's free to be used for shit that matters.

    If this "shit" doesn't matter, why does it justify suspension?

    Aroduc: I don't even know where to begin with your post. If we establish a legal principle that public school students can be punished in-school for actions taken outside of school, then it is assumed that such a principle will apply to high school students and it is likely to impact somebody's ability to get into college. Are you arguing that this is an unreasonable statement?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    If this "shit" doesn't matter, why does it justify suspension?

    I think it's possible for shit to matter enough to justify a suspension, but not enough to justify the excessive legal fees that would be racked up in a civil suit, regardless of outcome.

    Though I also found this...
    At the same time, the legal system also protects students from false accusations and knee-jerk school administrations.

    In this case, the facts are pretty cut-and-dried. However, not necessarily all applications of school discipline are clearly fair.

    ...somewhat compelling.

    mcdermott on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sheep wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    I think we need to go back to the basics here.

    From a legal standpoint, these kids are getting off easy. No tying up the judicial system, no funds being used, publicly or by the family, to defend the kids in court, and they'll spend less time out of school via suspension than they would if they take this to court.

    Since they broke the school's code of conduct, the school is open to the punishment they see fit.
    And if they had attended a protest...?
    If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, then I was completely against the school on that one.

    They went as far as to insinuate that the running of the flame was a school sponsored event.
    I'm not referring to anything. I'm just saying that if they had attended a protest that the principal had judged to be in violation of the school's discipline code, you could make exactly the same argument.

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.