Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Injunction Blocks "Don't Be Friends" Law For Missouri Teachers

Comments Filter:
  • by MacTO (1161105) on Friday August 26, 2011 @07:11PM (#37223956)

    The jurisdiction that I'm licensed in didn't make electronic communications with students illegal, but the teacher licensing body did create a set of guidelines. Even though I don't entirely agree with those guidelines, they don't: force the disclosure of a teacher's electronic communications; dictate what types of services a teacher can or cannot use; or create absurd situations, such as the children of a teacher scenario. The worse that can happen for violating those standards is the loss of your teaching license, so you can still have a life outside of teaching if something does go wrong. (Assuming that you didn't go anything criminal.)

    I would also like to see some education on the parental front. I would much rather a parent monitoring my communications with a child than my employer. After all, it is the parent who is ultimately responsible for the upbringing of the child and it is the parent who should be deciding the boundaries that other adults have with their children.

  • by chispito (1870390) on Friday August 26, 2011 @07:42PM (#37224146)

    They took an oath "I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States ...". Voting for a law that clearly violates the Constitution means they violated their oath of office.

    And this is different than all the other countless times a law has been struck down... how?

  • by sjames (1099) on Friday August 26, 2011 @07:58PM (#37224260) Homepage

    The out for that is that you'd have to show that they were quite certain the law violated the constitution before signing it. They can always play the "I'm a moron" card, who wouldn't believe that?

  • by SeaFox (739806) on Friday August 26, 2011 @08:23PM (#37224400)

    Saying you're that stupid you didn't recognize a law would be a violation of the Constitution should then be construed as the rep is incompetent for their job -- and should still resign.

  • by Kreigaffe (765218) on Friday August 26, 2011 @08:43PM (#37224526)

    Actually, looking at that with a bit broader perspective..

    it sounds like teachers not only cannot use any social networking, but also cannot use non-school-provided email, cannot use slashdot, and cannot play any sort of online game that has any sort of chat or messaging function.

    Kinda ridiculous. Just a tad. Teachers have enough shit to put up with that forces them to keep up appearances of an absolutely puritanical robotic life. Oh gosh, Timmy's dad saw you buying a case of beer at the store, YOU'RE IN FOR IT NOW! He'll go and complain to the school board about what a poor example you're setting for the children!.. yeah.

    Depression! Fun for the whole fucking family!

  • by russotto (537200) on Friday August 26, 2011 @10:33PM (#37225002) Journal

    They probably have Constitutional immunity. The proper recourse against the legislators is to recall those legislators or, if the law in that jurisdiction doesn't permit recall elections, vote them out at the next opportunity. The proper recourse against the law itself is to sue an appropriate party (often a part of the Executive Branch) to have it ruled unconstitutional, assuming you have standing.

    The problem with these so-called recourses is they don't provide sufficient deterrent to legislators. They can pass unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law; those which are unchallenged or survive the courts stand, those which do not end up being passed again with slightly different wording until they do survive the courts. As long as there's no actual punishment for legislators (and I don't mean something as blunt and as uncertain as an election), they'll keep doing it.

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI

Working...