Injunction Blocks "Don't Be Friends" Law For Missouri Teachers 150
Posted
by
timothy
from the you-can't-be-friends-says-the-government dept.
from the you-can't-be-friends-says-the-government dept.
Mr.Intel writes "A Missouri Circuit Court granted an injunction today, blocking the state law (PDF) that would ban all electronic communication between teachers and students, including their own children that was set to take effect on Sunday."
Anyone have a link to the decision? (Score:2)
I'd like to see the "What the hell is wrong with you?" comments made by the circuit judges...
Re:Anyone have a link to the decision? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The law specifically prohibited PRIVATE communication between teachers and their students that could not be monitored/tracked by the school district and the student's parents. School-issued email, and other non-private methods are fine.
Why, exactly, does a teacher NEED the ability to hold private conversations outside the watchful eye of the child's parent?
Teachers have access to the students in real life 200 days a year, why do they need to be able to, for example, text their students?
That kids like/prefer
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't an ADULT former student not have the right to communicate with a former teacher away from the prying eyes of ANYONE?
And...what if the parents are abusing the child? Do they still have the right to see everything the child does?
Re: (Score:2)
Trust can be abused, so let's outlaw trust, is that the logic?
Why restrict this to teachers?
Re: (Score:2)
"He who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken." Cally once said that was a saying amongst her people.
Cally was murdered. So were most of her people.
(Kerr Avon)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the law wouldn't have had ANY effect on teachers until their school district drafted the written policy required by the law.
The ENTIRE portion that is causing this whole uproar is not even something that the law required of the teachers; it's a requirement for the school districts.
The law requires school districts to enact policy that blatantly violates the first amendment to such a degree that the law has been entirely blocked.
This whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion.
Tell it to the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Say wha??? (Score:2)
You obviously don't have grandchildren, or nephews, etc.
Actually, that you think this is creepy, is itself, in my eyes, creepy. You actually believe that 17-year olds should only be able to speak with their parents, each other, or other adults for whom some lawmaker has been gracious enough to create an exception?
Or did you just not think about it before opening your keyboard?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in the first amendment says adults have the right to speak to other people's children, good thing because that would be a little creepy.
What could possibly be wrong with teachers having private conversations with students [kansascity.com]
Simple, set up Facebook accounts for each teacher through the school IT department. Teachers can engage with students outside school hours but the district would have the capability to monitor if necessary. But it also seems like the districts should be setting policies like this,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out how requiring the school district to enact it instead of it being enacted directly by the state makes it better, or how the school districts having a year to draft the policy makes it better. Those aren't even relevant to the conversation and you act as though the outcry hinges upon who's enacting the policy and the timeframe in which they will do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4. No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student.
Any forum software that allows private messages between users (e.g. Facebook) would fall under that, wouldn't it? It also doesn't say, "you may not interact with students", it says (to paraphrase) "you may not use a website that might let you interact with students". It looks like a huuuuge first amendment violation to me.
Re: (Score:2)
But it also says "former students"....so the 25 year old who is in the military/college/beginning of a great career who wants to connect with their favorite HS teacher who encouraged them to succeed is forbidden from doing so, even though there is no longer an active student/teacher relationship and both are adults. MAJOR violation of the 1st Amendment.
Every legislator that voted for it should resign (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It doesn't clearly violate the constitution. People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior. One example is that in some states the statute of limitations is higher for teacher student relationships than it would otherwise be.
Personally, I think it's somewhat silly as FB interactions at least are subject to subpoena a better law would be to mandate data retention on th
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't clearly violate the constitution.
Why yes, yes it does.
The State has to show a very strong public policy reason for violating the Constitution like that. "Shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre" kind of "strong".
I'm pretty sure they won't be able to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
The State has to show a very strong public policy reason for violating the Constitution like that. "Shouting 'Fire!' in a theatre" kind of "strong".
Here I thought they had to amend the constitution and follow the proper procedures rather than just disobey the constitution because a bunch of people think they should.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't clearly violate the constitution. People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior.
As the judge noted, it would explicitly prohibit parent teachers from facebooking with their own child if that child were their student.
There really isnt any way that it doesnt violate the first amendment, except that technically it isnt "Congress" enacting the law (thank goodness for incorporation!).
Re: (Score:3)
Um, the first amendment is directed explicitly at legislatures, NOT a parent with their child. The child is not GRANTED rights in the Bill of Rights; simply given protections that Congress (and state legislatures) will not violate assumed rights.
There is nothing in the BoR or Constitution that says that a store-owner may not impose a "no talking" restriction on its patrons, or that you may not control who may talk to your daughter.
Its a common misconception that the 1st amendment means "you can say what yo
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for double post-- even minors have all the protections in the first amendment; there have been court battles over it and the one exception I am aware of (other than "imminent danger") is that children WHILE THEY ARE AT SCHOOL are assumed to be under the "parental supervision" of the school-- the teachers receive some degree of the authority that the parent has, including the right to ask students to be silent.
However, I do not believe the courts have EVER allowed a law that silences "free speech" of
Re: (Score:3)
...are assumed to be under the "parental supervision" of the school-- the teachers receive some degree of the authority that the parent has, including the right to ask students to be silent.
Yes, it's called in loco parentis [wikipedia.org]. The linked article goes into some detail about what that actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
THank you, that is what I was looking for.
It should be noted that that principle in no way empowers legislators to gag free speech; it only empowers schools and institutions to set rules for the kids.
Re: (Score:2)
except if this law passed it would come into effect after many people decided to be a teacher.
and also what if there were a law that stripped the constitutional rights of anyone who attended protests against the government. i mean they choose to attend the protest right?
Re: (Score:2)
People choose to teach and when they do, they have to follow the resulting requirements. In some cases that means being subjected to prosecution for what would otherwise be legal behavior.
I think you're confusing choosing a career in education with enlisting in the military.
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:4, Informative)
It says they can't use sites *which allow* exclusive access to students, not that they can't use sites *for* exclusive access to students. So if the site allows private messages they can't even use the site for public messages.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Quote [mo.gov] from section 162.069:
Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.
Honestly from the wording, it sounds like they can't use any social networking at all, even if they don't even have any students friended... as long as the potential to talk to a student privately is there.
Re: (Score:2)
That appears to be the judge's take on it as well.
I particularly like where he says "the breadth of the prohibition is staggering".
I think that says it all.
-nB
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know where exactly we all went wrong. I know WHY such a law was enacted, but how did we get this far? Student and teacher have an inappropriate relationship. Ok, fine. It happens. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen, and it has likely happened since there were teachers and students. Somewhere along the line, the issue of what is appropriate (and legal) eventually made its way into policy and legislation, and we were all content to understand that everyone knew the rules and occasi
Re: (Score:1)
"Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated."
Ah, I finally got to read that part... I was thinking that being friended on Facebook to my former teacher from 1974 might endanger him.
Though since neither of us is in Missouri it wouldn't count. But still....
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Fine with me, where do I sign up for that job? You are paying me for any and all hours that you dictate my actions correct?
How is the overtime law in Missouri written? Here in California anything over 12 hours in one shift is double time, anything over 60 hours in a work week is double time, (and my personal fave) the seventh day worked in a work week is double time (and the counter on the double time clock does not reset until you get a day off). That last bit is something my boss and I learned when I w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
Re: (Score:3)
I often think that people who advocate states rights aren't paying any attention to the actual state governments they want to give more power to...
It also violates the Missouri Constitution it seems and giving the states more power doesn't mean they could go against the U.S. Constitution. Homogenizing the states by making the Federal government more powerful hasn't really made anyone happy on the left, right or middle. Throughout history the choice of states has helped America through tough times. Populations moved around as an economic collapse in one area would lead people to other areas. Let some states be more liberal and let some be more cons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that this statement would apply equally well to our Federal legislators in DC. Or legislators in any other State, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
They're state legislators from Missouri. Finding out what is and is not in the constitution would require reading it, which would limit their ability to call things they don't like "unconstitutional" and would limit their ability to propose quick fixes and powergrabs.
Also it would require them to be able to read...
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
All those other legislators should be thrown out as well.
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, go get Tim Geithner
Re: (Score:2)
Thats really not relevant, either they are unwilling to respect the incorporated aspects of the Bill of Rights, or they are so ignorant of them that they are unable; either way they are not capable of the job.
This kind of reminds me of when DC tried to ban handguns, as if they thought it could somehow pass court muster.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
the world existed before Facebook and texting and somehow we went through school just fine. The law is just trying to protect students from creepy teachers AND protect teachers from false accusations or accidentally getting in trouble ("Susie, why is your teacher mr Rodgers messaging you on Facebook?"). This law soun
Re:Every legislator that voted for it should resig (Score:4, Informative)
Again, like others have said many times, this law only applied to children under 18 so it doesn't violate any amendments since you do not have the right to speak to other people's children.
Where in the First Amendment is there an exception based on age?
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the First Amendment is there an exception based on age?
says pedobear
man walks up to your 6 yr old daughter at the park and starts talking to her.
You notice and walk over and say "Excuse me can I help you?"
"No", says the man, "I'm just talking to this girl."
"Ok," you say, "but she is my daughter and if you need to speak with her you should ask me first."
"No," says the man, "it's my first amendment right to talk to anyone I want."
o_O
Re: (Score:2)
Pedobear, despite his utility, is not yet an established concept in First Amendment jurisprudence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think talking to a child is "child pornography", I suggest you look to other definitions of "intercourse". And further I suggest you turn off "safe search", use an unfiltered Internet connection, and educate yourself on what regular pornography is, so you don't make that mistake again.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think talking to a child is "child pornography", I suggest you look to other definitions of "intercourse". And further I suggest you turn off "safe search", use an unfiltered Internet connection, and educate yourself on what regular pornography is, so you don't make that mistake again.
Tell it to this guy, who was arrested for talking to children. [youtube.com] Yes, just talking, not soliciting sex. He was charge with annoying children under 18 years of age.
This man served 60 days "for shooting a video in front of a first grade class and later editing in sexually explicit lyrics as a joke and then posting that video on YouTube." [fox17online.com] He's lucky, he was facing 20 years. [slashdot.org]
You have no first amendment rights when it comes to talking to children. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no first amendment rights when it comes to talking to children. Sorry.
Having a right, and having your government fail to acknowledge that right, are two entirely different matters, ones that I wish people around here would get straight in their heads. The Supreme Law of our Land reserves most rights to the people, and places substantial restrictions upon government. That is because the Constitution was primarily intended to rein in the behavior of our leadership, not that of We the People. If you understood that document in the context of the times in which it was written, th
Re: (Score:2)
You have no first amendment rights when it comes to talking to children. Sorry.
Having a right, and having your government fail to acknowledge that right, are two entirely different matters, ones that I wish people around here would get straight in their heads.
Not really. If I do something and I go to jail for doing it it doesn't matter if I had the right to do it or not, point is I'm still in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
They really need to bring back the concept of infamy in law (basically, your word becomes worth shit and, in some places, you have less rights than a corpse).
Re: (Score:3)
I really do not see a serious problem with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please clarify in what way it was a violation? Our country's military and its command is explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution, and I fail to see how a declaration of military intention exceeds that authority.
Re: (Score:3)
No, voting for this doesn't mean that they are stupid. Hypocrisy is a more likely explanation than stupidity.
Here's how it works: Some parent gets offended because their kid did something that the parent didn't know about. Maybe the parents are jerks, maybe there's a real problem, but you can be sure that one or more parent was offended.
The parent makes a fuss, and a TV station gets involved. TV stations and newspapers love controversy, so they blow the story up into a huge sensation. The public loves to ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stupid micromanagement (Score:1)
Offenders can still send private text messages or other forms of communication.
Being a "friend" is not inherently a bad thing.
Classic case of good intentions gone too far.
Re: (Score:3)
Being a "friend" is not inherently a bad thing.
Maybe not but as a high school student I saw plenty of examples of questionable relationships between students and teachers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I also knew a teacher and a student that were friends during school, but started dating when she was 20 (he was about 28). I questioned her about it and she said she never thought about him that way while she was in school, just as a friend/teacher. Only in college did she realize how much she missed him and they eventually got married.
As far as anyone could tell, it was all innocent and proper and her parents liked him and were good with it. It's rare, but it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of those are already illegal; explicit violations of the first amendment through new legislation dont really fix any problems, they just create a zillion new ones.
Tell me, if its already illegal for a teacher to abuse their position of power to have an inappropriate relationship with their students, and if such laws dont always work, what makes THIS law so effective that it will put a stop to such relationships?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, if its already illegal for a teacher to abuse their position of power to have an inappropriate relationship with their students, and if such laws dont always work, what makes THIS law so effective that it will put a stop to such relationships?
Back in the day, this is what we would call The $64,000 Question.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of those are already illegal; explicit violations of the first amendment through new legislation dont really fix any problems, they just create a zillion new ones.
Tell me, if its already illegal for a teacher to abuse their position of power to have an inappropriate relationship with their students, and if such laws dont always work, what makes THIS law so effective that it will put a stop to such relationships?
It won't, it can't, and it was never intended to work. What it does do (as others in this thread have pointed out) is gain votes for certain politicians, so in that context it will work whether it is ultimately signed into law or not. Even when such a law is struck down, the lawmakers involved can point to it and say with pride, "I'm here for you, people! I tried to Protect your Children but the courts stabbed me in the back. Just remember that next time you in the polling booth."
What disturbs me about t
Re: (Score:2)
I largely attribute this 'teachers are not friends of students' bit to big city attitudes. Teachers are unlikely to have an existing relationship with a child or their family in large urban areas.
I would also question the judgement of a teacher who oversteps professional boundaries and becomes friends with a student who they teach. This is because teachers are in a 'position of trust.' That basically means that a teacher is given access to and authority over a child, usually for an intended purpose (in t
Re: (Score:3)
The facebook "friend" covers a large gamut of relationships. It can be entirely impersonal such as liking a band or a product or it can be more personal than real-world friends such as married people. I would hope the student-teacher friend status would be along the lines of mentor (which is certainly not at all an abuse!). If it isn't, then electronic communication isn't the problem and blocking electronic communication certainly won't fix it.
Exactly: Trust (Score:3)
This is because teachers are in a 'position of trust.'
Then how about trusting teachers not to abuse your kid :)
At the end of the day, you can legislate everything a teacher must/can say, but is that good?
It surely prevents teachers from doing anything out of the ordinary, and in that case why not just replace him with a video tape...
Bottom line: Trust that your teachers are competent and manage a healthy relationship with their students.
If I remember correctly, teachers in my public school told us that we could always come to them if we had personal prob
Re:stupid micromanagement (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
The wast majority, Of child abuse cases, Involves one or both of the childs parents. If you add the rest of the immediate family, Almost all cases of child abuse, Is accounted for.
If you are afraid that a teacher will abuse you children, Then stop sending your children to Sunday "school".
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes that abuse will have extraordinarily negative consequences, such as a teacher using their position to gain access to children then physically, emotionally, or sexually abusing them.
Sure, and for every case of abuse that occurs, should millions of otherwise perfectly normal, healthy, nurturing relationships be artificially severed? That attitude is morally questionable, akin to the "no matter the cost, if it saves but one life, it's worth it" attitude that is so prevalent among our psychotically risk-averse society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you're saying, but I also fear that you are taking it to an extreme. You seem to be suggesting that children are treated as property, and yes some adults do that. Yet a lot of what you're describing here is a consequence of adults being responsible for the physical, emotional, and social welfare of a developing person. Once they have reached that point, presumably they can take care of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
You're basically saying that children (whatever that means) aren't human beings, but things to be given access to, authority over, educated, or abused. That's okay. I fear that a majority of adults feel the same way about them.
You fear? Wow is this post ever creepy... where's the Internet police we need to dun backtrace it
Maybe they'll search for a better solution ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
While I agree with this, it is easier said than done. When I was a kid, I always a quarter in my pocket which I could use to call home or my parent's work. Today, there are simply no pay phones anywhere where my kids spend time (a big city in the USA). My kids don't have mobile phones yet (because they can't reliably use them yet), but when they do, they will have them on their person all day. How do you monitor phone calls/sms/web browsing in this scenario? Not a glib question -- I try to do a lot to
Re: (Score:2)
If you cant trust them to not abuse a mobile phone but you do want them to carry one, get one of the "kid friendly" mobile phones that can be locked down so they can only make/receive calls/SMS from "approved" numbers.
Or go with a carrier that lets you apply similar restrictions on incoming/outgoing calls at the network level.
Re: (Score:2)
If you cant trust them to not abuse a mobile phone...
It's not about trust, it's about allowing for the inevitable naive mistake without all of the dire or embarrassing consequences. It's about balancing communication capabilities against being confronted with new and challenging concepts. My kids know my phone number, they should be able to call me if they need help. I trust them to do that, and to not send inappropriate messages to others. But what if they get a creepy text from a peer? Or what if they send a poorly-phrased text to a peer who then misin
Re: (Score:2)
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.
While I agree with this, it is easier said than done. When I was a kid, I always a quarter in my pocket which I could use to call home or my parent's work. Today, there are simply no pay phones anywhere where my kids spend time (a big city in the USA). My kids don't have mobile phones yet (because they can't reliably use them yet), but when they do, they will have them on their person all day. How do you monitor phone calls/sms/web browsing in this scenario? Not a glib question -- I try to do a lot to monitor my children's online/tv/etc time. There are no private TVs or computers in the house; we talk about what it means to enter an email address into a Club Penguin form; etc. But at some point, they are going to have to go out into the world on their own, and they are going to have to have a way to phone home when they are in trouble. Am I supposed to do a data dump on their phones at the end of each day and interrogate them about mysterious SMSs that I find? I'm not really interested in that for many reasons...
One word: Latitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting up some form of logging (that they are fully informed of) that doesn't require daily intervention (and you have the already-demonstrated good sense not to obsess over, or probably even look at most of), but you can access when needed, is not necessarily bad.
One possible method would be get them a data-only SIM, install a SIP client on their phone, and run your own SIP service for them (and you) -- as a bonus, you can wind up cheaper (potentially as low as the operating costs of the server, with all calls and texts free, if you take advantage of the right offers, different routing for sending/receiving, voice/SMS, etc.) this way. I haven't done it, because it's really a bit of work to set it up and, then keep on top of what VoIP providers are offering what services free, but amortized over a whole family, it could be worthwhile -- and then logging is at your discretion.
Of course, if your kids know you're logging everything, they will inevitably route some comms other ways -- payphones (if they can find them), their friends' phones, social networking sites, etc., so it's still no good for helicopter parenting, but if you're concerned about e.g. teachers starting predatory relationships with them, it could have some value.
Disclaimer: I'm not a parent, don't want to be (yet, anyway), and haven't studied for it -- therefore I make no claim that my ideas about parenting are particularly good. They are pure speculation devoid of research or experience, and the only thing dumber than yelling at me because I'm obviously wrong would be following my suggestions. ;)
Yeah, I know that's all possible, but I'm not going to do any of that. 1) I don't log or lock down their computer at all. It's in a common living space and they know the rules. They still make mistakes, though, and I help them through those. 2) I just don't have the time to do any of that. I can barely be bothered to check the "Parental Controls" box for their browser (mostly because I don't believe it will do any good, long-term). 3) Maintaining my own SIP network while I have a full-time job, multip
bogus slashdot summary (Score:4, Informative)
The slashdot summary is totally inaccurate. The law wouldn't "ban all electronic communication between teachers and students." This post [slashdot.org] explains what it would actually do. Basically they wanted to make sure parents have access to all electronic communication between teachers and students.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right - the summary should say "the law bans educators from using any tool not provided by the State for communications" as anything that doesn't allow parents to have access to all electronic communications between teachers and students is forbidden by the new statue. And being there are no exceptions, it makes it kind of hard to use any social networking site, now doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
You are right - the summary should say "the law bans educators from using any tool not provided by the State for communications" as anything that doesn't allow parents to have access to all electronic communications between teachers and students is forbidden by the new statue. And being there are no exceptions, it makes it kind of hard to use any social networking site, now doesn't it?
Your idea for a summary is just as inaccurate. Go read the actual law http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=4066479 [mo.gov]. Here, I'll help you since you're obviously too lazy to check your facts before posting up your uninformed opinion.
SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communicati
Re: (Score:2)
As I read it, teachers would not only be unable to email their own children, they would be unable to be a member of an email service. Well, one that uses a web client. Using a Facebook application on their iPhone is fine, because the law specifies webpages.
Yes and no. The statute defines exclusive access as "the information on the website is available only to the owner (teacher) and user (student) by mutual explicit consent and where third parties have no access to the information on the website absent an explicit consent agreement with the owner(teacher)".
But, the statute as written requires the schools to have a policy governing "Appropriate use of electronic media such as text messaging and internet sites for both instructional and personal purposes, wit
Re: (Score:2)
I guess either the judge should have read that slashdotter's post, or you should have read the judge's ruling. One of you is wrong.
Re:bogus slashdot summary (Score:4, Informative)
Umm, no. "No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non-work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student." That's not out of context, either (although former only extends up to 18 year-olds.) Almost every internet site allows exclusive access, even if you somehow set it up so that content is supposed to be shared with parents (who, BTW, if a teacher are also forbidden from using such sites to contact their own children, and this according to the judge's ruling), it would still allow exclusive access. Hell, one could argue that simply using email allows such access (any email, period). Hyperbole? Not according to the judge. He says "the breadth of the prohibition is staggering", and would have "an immediate and irreparable harm."
He also refers to it as a "complete ban on certain kinds of communication." So, unless you are one hell of a lawyer, you are wrong. Plain and simply wrong. Note that the lawmakers may have intended to do what you say, but that's not what the law does.
Including their own children? (Score:2)
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
Reading the injunction (here [msta.org]) it seems the original law does indeed prohibit parent/child association, and the court agrees with you that it is ridiculous. On page 2:
[the law states] "No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non-work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or or former student."
...
... Even if a complete ban on certain forms of communication between certain individuals could be construed as content neutral and only a reasonable restriction on "time, place and manner," the breadth of the prohibition is staggering. The Court finds at based upon the evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing, social networking is extensively used by educators. It is often primary, if not sole manner, of communications between the Plaintiffs and their students. Examination of the statute indicates that it would prohibit all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. It clearly prohibits communication between family members and their teacher parents using these types of sites. The Court finds that the statute would have a chilling effect on speech.
So yeah, redonkulous.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
No it doesn't. It merely fails to make any kind of exemption for that situation.
Honestly, having read the bill, I found it to be mostly reasonable, but needs a few tweaks here and there. Most of the people who are all up in arms about it are basing their opinion of it on what bloggers have said about it, which is mostly inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, having read the bill, I found it to be mostly reasonable,
Except that the first amendment is incorporated (applies to state legislatures), and explicitly forbids legislation that restricts free speech in this way.
Be careful, not illegal (Score:1)
While perhaps broad, the justification is obvious (Score:2)
We are living in quite a different time than 15-20 years ago. When I when to high school there was little talk of teacher-student affairs but in a large school (5000+) students, I am sure it happened. You take a 20-something teacher and a 16-year-old student and put them in close contact and things can happen even back then.
Today, every message given to young people is pushing them to be more sexual in bolder ways. You also have a social climate that is quite a bit more fearsome to young people than it w
Re: (Score:2)
Indubitably because Missouri state law currently forbids it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Teachers that would abuse their students have ample access to them without social media.
Lack of an Internet didn't stop many a pastor from getting into the back of the church van with 15-year-old parishioners when I was in school back in the 70's. I see no reason to expect that lack of it as a communications channel is going change this now.
We'd accomplish heaps more by banning churches (or vans).
Or by doing something about the horrid American cultural mindset that says that guys should continue wanting to fuck teenagers when they're in their 30s,40s...