The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Going To Use MySpace To Attack Your Teacher? Think Again.
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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.
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
0
Posts
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But he can lay charges against them for defamation and that kind of thing.
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.
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).
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 "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
What if Myspace is blocked by the school's filter?
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.
I agree, but I've noticed that the IT policies at a lot of schools are fucking retarded.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We already have such a system in place. It's called the legal system.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And what's the punishment for libel for a minor again? Getting told "Don't do that?"
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.
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.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
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?
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.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
Pretty much puts the school in a position to suspend them.
Though I do think 10 days is a bit long.
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.
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
Speak for yourself, Captain Woulda Coulda McSlipperySlope.
Recognizing the realistic ramifications of a legal principle is not fallacious thinking.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Provided someone looks up your legal record, which there's a good chance a job won't, except in specialized fields like you mentioned.
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.
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.
But that's what the judicial system is for.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
It doesn't hurt that I'm thankful that it's free to be used for shit that matters.
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.
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?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.