Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education The Almighty Buck Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism 273

Posted by timothy from the so-here's-some-more dept.
Lane writes "News-Press.com reports that 'Charter Schools USA is threatening legal action against parents who use an Internet discussion board to air grievances about Gateway Charter.'" This despite comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism More

Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism

Comments Filter:

  • So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jnmontario ( 865369 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @08:54AM (#12467310)
    Another great example of somebody with expensive lawyers telling (read: threatening) the average person what they can do or think. Yay America.
    • Listen closely: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

      Looking at some of the comments on that site, I

      • Unless you are either an attorney for CSUSA or a poster on the forum, neither you nor I are in position to determine just how "truthful" the accusations are.

        See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

        Given the fact that truths tend to be overblown and exaggerated as they are circulated among groups, damaging the business is precisely the point of criticism.

        If you go to Bobs Store and Bob rips you off by falsely advertising

        • You sort of missed the point there. If you are getting ripped off, then you are legally entitled to tell anyone who'll listen about your woes.

          However, if Bob's clerk is rude to you, and you begin parading around town claiming that Bob raped your family and set fire to an orphanage, you are breaking the law.

          If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.

          Now, if
          • No, this isn't "a company taking the matter before a judge." It's a company threatening to take matters before a judge unless an entire forum is nuked.

            The fact is, the C&D claim there are unlawful, defamatory, and libelous statements being published, but aren't willing to cite specific instances of unlawful, defamatory, or libelous statements. That indicates--at least to my twisted, paranoid mind--that the lawyers know they don't actually have a case, and are hoping to shut the site down with pur

          • If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.

            They might, but that's not the same as they must. It's hard for one of us on the outside to tell the difference between them having a legitimate grievance about out-and-out falsehoods and them just not wanting any bad publicity and so suing or threatening to sue with a certain confidence the site and the parents can't aff

          • As a side, note, because the site owner claims to monitor the site -- specifically because she claims that all the content is "fact-based" -- the ceases to be protected by the laws that protect, say, Slashdot from being held responsible for the idiocy of Anonymous Coward. She has taken responsibility for the content of her site, and so she is now going to have to prove that all those angry posts are based entirely in fact.

            Actually not.

            IANAL. There are two standards for libel in the US depending on who

      • If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

        You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."

        As do you. Grandparent was defending the case, you are supporting it.

        Almost any discussion on it has preempted due process of the law.

        If CSUSA takes Reigelman to c

      • Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)

        by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:37AM (#12467508) Homepage
        Where does due process come into the picture? (Answer: it doesn't, since due process is about a person being able to protect himself against one-sided legal action.) The Constitution provides no penalties for libel, and corporations generally have as little ground as public figures do when it comes to making defamation claims. The joke has a nugget of truth in that in America, everything that is not prohibited is permitted.

        You also confuse the company's claim that the posts are defamatory with that actually being the case. Since the company refused to identify -- even as an example -- any post on the site that was defamatory, I doubt even they believe they have a case that would stand up in court. They just want to scare people into compliance.

      • Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)

        by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:45AM (#12467545) Homepage

        Looking at some of the comments on that site, I can see why CSUSA thinks they have a case. Most of the worst posts have now been deleted, but the parents were in there accusing teachers of all kinds of horrible crimes, as well as CSUSA of condoning them.
        I read through some of that website, the worst post I saw was something about stealing pizza. I didn't see anything approaching libel.

        If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
        The proper approach would be to subpoena the forum owner for the names of the libelous parents. Then sue those parents for libel. The vast majority of the posts on this site are nowhere near libelous, so the school has no right to shut down the entire site.

        This clearly sounds like it's just a threatening action designed to silence people rather than merely stopping libel. If it were about libel they'd being going after individuals, not trying to shut down the site.
      • Why does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? Yes, libel is against the law, but this wouldn't be the first time we, as a society, have questioned what exactly the Constitution means in its language, nor would it be the first time that we have reconsidered such things. Most importantly, despite the potential merits of the case, I think both I and many others here are particularly concerned about the idea of a discussion-based internet community (like say, slashdot) being sued out of existence by

      • Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:51AM (#12467921) Homepage Journal
        Charter schools aren't just any corporation. They receive taxpayer money to do a job usually performed by government bodies (public schools) and are therefore acting as an arm of government. So yeah, I'd say this is a First Amendment issue.
        • Charter schools aren't just any corporation. They receive taxpayer money to do a job usually performed by government bodies (public schools) and are therefore acting as an arm of government. So yeah, I'd say this is a First Amendment issue.

          Maybe I'm missing something, but since went does accepting money from the government allow libel and slander to become protected by the First Amendement?

          Whether or not Charter Schools (or any other corporations for that matter) have in fact accepted money from the gove
        • This defends against libel how, exactly?

          You need to think more clearly. The "First Amendment" isn't a magic incantation to be waved around willy-nilly. If people are accusing others of libel, and can back it up in court, the First Amendment simply isn't in play, be the libel target government or private. Thus, waving it around in this situation is meaningless. It's not relevant; the First Amendment is never a defense for libel.
      • Yeah I see something that "mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business" the part that says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," it actually doesn't say anything about what type of speech. So how is it illegal?

        That said the school can kick the offending students out of the school which would be perfectly within their own rights.

        • Re:Answer: yes! (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "It actually doesn't say anything about what type of speech. So how is it illegal? "

          Becasue free speech is defined within the bounds of our legal system. It's not, "you can say anything you want to say in any situation you want to say it."

          Such things include words that cause a Clear and Present Danger, words that that are Likely to Breach the Peace, Libel and Slander, and Obscenity.

          Our legal system is not based on the Bill of Rights alone. It is defined through 200+ years of legal definition as to wha
      • IANAL, but this is not such an open and shut case. These ignoramuses at CSUSA don't know what real criticism is, so I am going to show them.

        These are CHARTER schools, which means that they perform an essential public service, education, with a special dispensation from the government. Their role is not strictly private. They are taking over a service that would normally be publically administered, and therefore open to the same type of broad criticism that public figures and institutions may be subject to. As such their openness to criticism is much greater than your average private business.

        The public has an essential and compelling interest in promoting good education. This forum promotes that interest by fostering said discussion, a compelling and essential service. The interest of the corporation in protecting its image is far outweighed by the overwhelming interest of the public to have an open forum to discuss the public service the school provides. This charter school, it should also be noted is publically funded. Their CEO is a political pal of Jeb Bush. The President of the United States uses this organisation as a stage for his attacks on the public school system. CSUSA stinks of sacrificing childrens' futures in the name of political expediency. Like a diseased, filth-ridden sexual deviant, CSUSA sacrifices children in its perverse worship of Mammon. The Chairman and CEO, Jonathan K. Hage, is worse than John Wayne Gacy. (That last remark may be over the top, not in its accuracy, but merely in rhetorical appropriateness.)

        The bottom line is that they are using strong-arm tactics to quell legitimate criticism and dissent. It stinks to high heaven and underscores an essential misunderstanding by their management to their public mission. They should have their charter pulled for this kind of legal thuggery.

        It is my considered opinion that CSUSA is a rotten organisation with no business educating children. Their operation and their thuggish legal tactics are an affront to all civic-minded people.

        This is pretty strong criticism and I stand by it. I find it hard that there was anything worse on the board in question. I can't stand bullies.

      • See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

        IANAL, but I do not understand why lying would not be protected as free speech.

        Free speech, as far as I know, is that one is allowed to utter anything, anywhere. I do not understand why lies would not be protected under the same law as truths. Neither do I understand why defaming someone would undermine the protectedness of the statements made.

        Otherwise, who is to draw the line

      • Unfortunetly, "due process of law" which you seem to like so much also requires that in order to lose a libel case, you have to prove that the other person knew they were lying. So, even if you prove the claims false, you have to prove they knew they were false...

      • If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.

        This argument might make some degree of sense in those cases where there is no connection between the government and corporations. The reality is that "charter school" firms exist solely due to government fiat.

        The whole reason there is freedom of speech is to make it possible to criticize government policy. If my lo

    • I wish people wouldn't be scared of lawsuits. Yes, I understand that if it actually goes to trial, the defendant could go bankrupt, but more than likely they're just as scared of a lawsuit as the parents - it costs a shitload of money for one. The parents could threaten the school with their own lawsuit - I'm sure there's something they could sue for - maybe breach of contract becuase of schooling that doesn't meet standards? I dont' know. That's for an education lawyer in their state and only in their stat
      • When there's a lawsuit, there's the "discovery" process. IIRC (IANAL), this is when you basically search through the other sides records. I don't think some school for kidies wants to have ALL their dirt dragged out in court. From an attourney that taught one of my classes, this can be a deterent.

  • So... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thegoogler ( 792786 )
    Are they going to sue slashdot?

  • Bad move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @08:55AM (#12467316)
    Honestly, i couldn't have found a worse course of action to take by that organization, to dig their own grave. First they only had to deal with 65 parents, now its in the press. Talk about bad PR.

    • Are you kidding? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They'll get invited on morning shows, they'll hire a professional public speaker, and they'll stay on message, which will include God/Jesus. Now is the time to buy stock, not short it.
    • Aw they do it the good ole american way, the just babble a little bit of Jesus and go on...
    • I agree to a point. Anyone that spends 5 minutes reading their web site and the comments therein (as I just did) will:

      1. Want their wasted 5 minutes back
      2. Will see what a bunch of whiners the parents on that site appeat to be. Most of the comments seem to be insulting each others' grammar and spelling. The rest are complaining about pet issues ("The principal told my daughter to take off her jacket").

      Whoever started that company picked the wrong business to be in. Their primary customer appears

  • Call me crazy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cat_jesus ( 525334 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @08:59AM (#12467332)
    But don't you have to identify what specifically you consider libelous and defamatory if you are going to take legal action? I Guess Darl McBride has some alumni running Charter Schools USA.

    I would write a letter back saying I have complied and to please let me know if I missed anything.
    • INAL, etc, but my belief is that if this case actually went to court, then, yes, individual posts would have to be shown to be actionable; but this is merely a threatening letter.

  • Money to blow... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hexzero ( 744801 ) * on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:05AM (#12467357)
    Sometimes media attention and a little /.ing is all it takes for a travesty to come to the mainstream. A charter school that wastes its time and financial resources on a lawsuite that can be considered frivoulous at best, should not be recieving state and gov't funds. Just another crap use for the joke the gov't calls no child left behind. Yeah, I am sure the funds are not connected. ERate is that perfect.... How much is a retainer for a medium-sized firm? Lets deduct that from the per head dollar amount the school gets from the state. Could that money have been used more efficiently? Probably... Perhaps we can get the government involved next. Senate hearings on closing the website down... Sounds like a viable option in todays government...
  • This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

    Sad.

    • Re:difficult to deal with (Score:5, Insightful)

      by notque ( 636838 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:20AM (#12467419) Homepage Journal
      This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

      Sad.

      It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.

      I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.

      Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.

      Seems pretty difficult to deal with to me.
  • Could someone explain cease and desist letters to me? I've googled for them, but get a ton of how to make your own.

    What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal.

    Right?

    • Re:true tort reform. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Hexzero ( 744801 ) *
      Cease and desist letters can be considered a letter of intet. A warning if you will... The calm before the storm... Push him a little before we start flexing our financial litigation muscles.

    • Re:true tort reform. (Score:4, Informative)

      by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:23AM (#12467435) Homepage
      Cease and desist letters are basically a warning. You send them to the person saying you believe what they are doing is illegal and you would like them to stop, and if they don't stop you may take legal action. They are basically a way to settle things without suing. Of course oftentimes they are used more as a threat than a warning ("Do what we want or we will sue you for millions of dollars") in the hopes the people would rather stop doing whatever it is they are doing than go through a court case they may or may not win (but will cost money either way).

      In short, there is nothing wrong with C&D letters. They should be the first step someone takes when they find someone infringing their copyright, trademark or the like. But they shouldn't be used as a way to scare people away from legal activities, which they often are.

    • Re:true tort reform. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:24AM (#12467443)
      "Real" cease and desist letters place a potential defendant on notice that a potential plaintiff considers the actions of the potential defendant to be illegal or more specifically, a violation of the rights of the potential plaintiff and/or causing the potential plaintill harm. This has the legal effect of supplying notice to a potential defendant.

      With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.

      • With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.

        Really? You're kidding me.

        What if you do not beileve the action is illegal, and come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor.

        Now you've unknowingly became a
        • What if you do not beileve the action is illegal...

          Then you should not be sending cease and desist letters. At a minimun, you should have a good faith belief that all the elements of a legal wrong are present in your case. Ideally, you should have advice of counsel or a legal opinion in hand prior to sending a C&D letter.

          ...come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor

          There is room in the law for true disputes and differences of opinion. That's why there are courts in the first plac

          • Here's a civics lesson - want to screw up your judicial system? Elect your judges. Want judges who make good decisions based soundly on the law and are more impartial? Appoint them for life without possibility of salary reduction (can be fired for misconduct).

            Good point, I believe I've just learned something, thanks.

            I do have several off topic questions , if you wouldn't mind? Would initialing electing these permanent judges be workable? How else would you select and promote the judiciary? Do you see thi
        • Now you've unknowingly became a willful party.

          And a fool, for not seeking legal advice when threatened with legal action.
    • What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal

      Innocent until proven quilty is the standard of proof in a criminal trial.

      It does not bar a formal rquest to stop what you are doing until the legal issues have been resolved.

  • Now, whenever somebody Googles for "Charter Schools USA", at least 9 of the top 10 search results will surely reference this questionable conduct. That's got to hurt their business in the long run.

    I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

    • I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

      Unless they don't make very much money in which case they are left with Public schools or this.

      It's not really the same question of voting with your money when you left with 2 very bad alternatives. One that you can at least attempt to reason with, or another where you are in even a worse position to make change.
    • That's got to hurt their business in the long run.

      I would think that libel would hurt them in the long run. Imaging people 'Googling' for 'Charter Schools USA' and 9 of the top 10 results are false comments about Charter Schools employees, accusing them of all sorts of things they didn't do. That's what would hurt them.

      I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

      Why? Because they stand up for their rights not to be libelled? That's a really stupid reason to d
      • Why? Because they stand up for their rights not to be libelled? That's a really stupid reason to decide your kids' educations.
        'Hey son, you're not going to that good school, you have to go to a shit one instead, because the good one is suing someone who lied about them.'
        'But Daddy, that shit school's full of bullies and incompetent teachers and drugs.'
        'I'm sorry son, but people's right to libel people on the Internet comes before everything, even you.'

        Right, your theory makes perfect sense because

        1. All

  • Fox News Generation! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Adult film producer ( 866485 ) <van@i2pmail.org> on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:11AM (#12467378)
    is there such thing as libel and slander anymore ? Seriously, fox news has perfected this type of character assassination by qualifying all their statements with "Rumour has it John Doe has been killing fetuses".. or "It's been said that jack frost hates the military and is a liberal!" or "Word around Capital Hill indicates democrats want to kill god" ... Easy as pie..

    Nothing is slander anymore, it's just "Your opinion" Watch fox news sometime, they get away with saying crazy stuff all the time by using that legal technique.
    • Some say....there's an interesting documentary on this called "Outfoxed", I recommend checking it out.

    • Right... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rev.LoveJoy ( 136856 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:44AM (#12467543) Homepage Journal
      CNN clearly [google.com] never does this.

      -- RLJ

      • Firstly, he was just saying that Fox were the worst at the practice. Secondly, did you actually click on the link that you gave? I actually decided to and all the links in the first page were either (a) book, movie or TV show reviews or (b) points that they just didn't have the facts to back up. None of them were personal attacks or would have been defamation at all. Quite the opposite, it would have been bad reporting to *not* say 'rumour has it'.
        • (b) points that they just didn't have the facts to back up

          Thank you for this admission - it will keep this thread shorter.

          Back to the original topic: discussing an aggressor attempting to censor protected speech via the legal system by using an unrelated example of sloppy journalism is probably not worth your or my time to discuss. It was a bad example which detracted from the valid (if tired) debate about free speech online.

          My point, which evidently was missed (sarcasm can be subtle like that) is

          • I don't really understand why talking about possible rumours that people have been talking about is wrong. They weren't creating rumours, just reporting them when they were relevant to the factual story. In my opinion it's obvious that you didn't click on the link you gave, since if you had you would have seen the first story was reporting of a rumour that had a large impact on Microsoft shares.

            But no, the original topic is defamation, which, it is rumoured, you seem to be doing quite well. Your point
            • This was really funny. Thank you!

              Since you do not care about American television politics I am going to quit responding to this thread. That and you seem to be unawares how Google advanced searches work. In order to provide the link, I had to construct the search. In doing so, I was privy to the result set. The first one is the best, see the other thread of this grandparent for a humorous discussion.

              To summarize: beating up the little guy w/ the legal system is bad. Making a straw man out of a ne

      • The first match is "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem"

        Maybe that was a pun, but anyone else find it incredibly ironic?
        • It was unintentional but it was so funny that I had to go with it. Googling the same phrase with NYTimes.com only yielded theatre reviews for a few pages. Feh.

          It's funny the things one picks up when one reads, yes?

          Cheers,
          - RLJ

      • Since when does pointing to someone else doing something wrong vindicate you?
      • Interestingly enough, only one of the first page of links could be considered to be even remotely slanderous if stated as fact. I'm british and thus pay no attention to either news source, so I can't comment on whether they regularly play silly buggers, but you might want to double-check your example.

      • Re:Right... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        Hit #1: "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem" addressing the problem of gossip in the workplace. Quite an ironic hit for your point.
        Hit #2: A book review complaining about the book going from first person narrative to third person rumors. Again apparently critical of rumor.
        Hit #3: "Rumor has it that Microsoft is considering giving away at least $10 billion of its massive $46 billion cash horde." Certainly not trying to cloak themselves against slander charges here, and as I recall this was in fact true.
        Hi
    • Ah, sort of like "Word on the grapevine is that Fox News 'gets away with saying crazy stuff all the time'."

      Did I get it right?

    • You must be making this up, what sort of news programme uses rumours as real stories? I can't think of any in the world. Even Al-Jazeera is honest enough not to disguise things are rumours or hearsay. I can't believe anyone would be so unprofessional.
    • It's not their fault most people are too stupid to understand what exactly they hear.

  • That's the great thing about privatization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:15AM (#12467391)

    Accountability!

    Oh? Never mind.

  • Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement (Score:5, Informative)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:25AM (#12467447) Homepage
    No link to them, so I went and had a look. They're definitely in the education business, that's for sure. Their site [charterschoolsusa.com] starts cheerful enough with the reaching kid graphic and Putting Children First sm slogan. Strangely, their mission and who we are [charterschoolsusa.com] pages don't mention much about kids after that. The Starting a Charter School [charterschoolsusa.com] makes my eyes glaze over.

    I have no idea of how good they are as schools, do they have a political leaning, or anything like that. If I was a parent, I'd probably ask some questions too. Definitely an Edu-Corp.

  • Charter Schools USA should set up some "free speech zones" for parents. In other words, lock them in a closet somewhere, ban the press from entering, and let them gripe all they want.

    It worked well for both the Republicans and the Democrats last year.

  • Gosh guys this is important. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You think public schools are failing the kids.

    My guess is that most of you are in your teen's and 20's with no kids that you know of. Right now there is a effort to Privatizating everything! Schools seems to be the best example of why not to privatize.

    1) The tax payers almost never get a tax break from the new private charter schools. It's hard to see. but charter schools cost about the same per student as a regular school.

    2) Charter schools with open enrollment like to pack the students in. for get
    • Privatization in america means some rich guys get guranteed tax payer money while services and responsive action suffers.

      Privatization means at least one other thing that may be even more important. When you privatize a service formerly performed publicly, you make a good portion of the taxpayers' money alloted to it available for campaign contributions and political lobbying. Getting rich in privatized public services means knowing what backs to scratch. So, in the end, everybody (e.g., business and coope

  • If they're anonymous, are they really parents? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:46AM (#12467553)
    Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard [mackinac.org] for free speech too.)
    • Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard [mackinac.org] for free speech too.)

      I don't mean to dimish your point about the MEA union, but have you read the message board?

      Most of the complaints are about a child being able to wear a jacket to school, and take
      • Well if you don't like the rules, go to another school. Personally I believe the poor state of schools is a result of not enough discipline, rather than too much. Go to a private school and complain about the uniform, they'll just tell you go somewhere else if you don't like.
      • Other responders seem to have missed the point of the parent poster.

        What he is saying is that the attacks on the school are really weak and about minor-sounding annoyances. If the teacher's union is trying to slander the school with false accusations, he is claiming they would use much worse things than rules about wearing jackets, thus he is arguing they are not slandering it.

        I have no idea or opinion on this case, but am annoyed at responders who do not even bother to comprehend what they are responding

  • since it is not seen as legitimate as the press (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @09:55AM (#12467592) Homepage
    lawyers all feel safe in attacking it.

    What needs to be done is to put up and then attack a site which the 'regime' does not atack as it is clearly a shill. You are not the subject of attack, but some one who suposedly is is getting clobbered.

    As long as all the allegetions can be 'arguably' backed up, the proxy fight can continue unabated.

    This gets the debate out of the 'close in' arena and gets into first ammendment rights.

    Then you get press without involving the lawyers.

  • This is a job for 'offshore ISP' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:03AM (#12467626)
    This is a example of the need for offshore ISPs where discussions can be held without harassment. It's an example of how the 'loser' countries of the 20th century can become the winners of the 21st. By being so low on the totem pole (a Pacific Northwest North American Tribal Nation's religious icon that has come to mean in American idiom to be insignificant in a hierarchy) that no one gives you any money so you have nothing to lose by providing a forum for people to air grievances.

    An enterprising person in a (relatively) stable nowheresville sets up an uncensored ISP. Then charges micropayments for access. In return the ISP ignores all threats and warnings of civil actions from countries with overdeveloped legal systems. This could be in a country like Nigeria that is super-corrupt and has its own resource base, or UAE in the Gulf where there is so much wealth that they immune to any bullying. Or a place like Botswana that has stability and no money. Or maybe a microstate like Litchenstein that has traditionally provided these various discrete services to their powerful neighbors.

    And again, you could fight this in court of law. You do have democracy, freedom of speech, tradition, and all that jazz on your side. But American courts run on money. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run just to hold the discussions on an offshore site in neutral territory. And it would send a strong message to lawyers that in the information age there is a new limit to the extent that they can use legal means to harass and intimidate people just for money.
  • ...comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.

    Any why not? Afterall, the records speak for themselves anyways. Doesn't matter who points out the facts in those records.

  • Text of the legal threat: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (reggoh.gip)> on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:26AM (#12467759) Journal
    (Posted in anticipation of slashdotting)

    Tripp Scott (law firm)

    RE: CHARTER SCHOOLS USA
    OUR FILE No. 980058.0001

    Dear Mrs. Reigelman

    Please be advised that the undersigned law firm represents Charter Schools USA, INC. (CSUSA) in regards to the defamatory and libelous web site you created and have publishedin disparagment of CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and Deborah Nauss. Since we are reprsenting CSUSA, we respectfully request that you direct any further communication through us.

    CSUSA has reviewedthe web site and has determined that your and other parents' and other web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and DR.Nauss.

    Accordingly, CSUSA hereby demands that you immediatly cease and desist your continues published libal and defamatory accusations, comments and statments about CSUSA, Gateway Charter Scool and Dr.Nauss through any means, including a web site. If you fail to heed this demand, you will leave CSUSA with no altermative but to proceed with all legal actions to protect CSUSA against your continues false, libelous and defamatory publications.

    PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

    Very Truley Yours,
    Lisa D MacCLUGAGE
    For The Firm

    Phone number is 954-760-4906
    e-mail: ldm@trippscott.com [mailto]

  • In my experience... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by delirium of disorder ( 701392 ) on Sunday May 08, 2005 @10:50AM (#12467912) Homepage Journal
    Schools do not tolerate dissent. The whole purpose of the US education system is to encrourage obedience, not to instil knowledge.

    (What happened to me)
    http://www.textfiles.com/uploads/incident.txt [textfiles.com]

    • Someone like John Taylor Gatto would agree that a conformist
      and obedient sort of person is exactly what mainstream schools were
      designed to turn out. From:
      http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/8e.htm [johntaylorgatto.com]
      "The first exhibit for your perusal is the U.S. Bureau of Education's
      Circular of Information for April 1872, which centers around what it
      calls the "problem of educational schooling." With whose interests in
      mind did the bureau view education as a problem? The amazing answer is:
      from a big business perspective
  • Having read the forum, these people think that their children are attending a "private" school. A charter school is a school that is not run by the public school structure but is bound by their rules... Many of the arguments and problems they have (claimed/state) are the same things that happen in "public"schools. They need to do some reality checking, if they go to the local school board they can get a lot more done than what they are doing now.

    Also, these people are citizens of the Hangin-Chad state o'
  • Congratulations, Charter Schools USA : I now think you're a stupid, evil, company without having any idea what you do.

    Update: Now that I know what you do (and more importantly, how you do it), I hate you even more.

    But hey, all publicity is good publicity!

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close