Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Education Social Networks United States Your Rights Online

Missouri Removes Teacher-Student Social Media Ban 37

Posted by timothy
from the kids-and-teachers-are-alright dept.
bs0d3 writes "The law that would have banned teachers from friending students on Twitter and Facebook was overturned late Friday. Now that a preliminary injunction has been issued to block the law in question from going into effect, the Missouri House subsequently passed a similar, but separate, bill with a 139 to 2 vote that gives school districts the freedom to determine their own communications policies. The new bill, which would permanently block the previously one, now awaits Governor Nixon's approval. Free speech advocates admit it's good that the first bill is gone, but point out that the next one isn't much better."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Missouri Removes Teacher-Student Social Media Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by xstonedogx (814876) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Friday September 23, 2011 @06:18PM (#37497630)

    Looks like somebody finally thought of the children.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is the Show Me State after all!

  • by Baseclass (785652) on Friday September 23, 2011 @06:20PM (#37497652)
    If somebody commits a crime against a student then prosecute them for the crime.
    Maybe we just just ban cars because they are often used by kidnappers.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      The issue is a lot more complex the that.
      Teacher gives more time to one student over another, is it favoritism?
      Teacher gives some a grade influenced by something the student did on line. oh, see Timmy's parent donate my church, here is an extra 5 points wink wink.

      Those are simply issue, it gt far ore complex. It has nothing to do with a nanny states. Was it over the top? yes.

      Also, your anger towards the government seemed to overlook the fact that the government stopped it.

      • by Baseclass (785652)

        Also, your anger towards the government seemed to overlook the fact that the government stopped it.

        Yet somehow they still manage to continually chip away our freedom.

        • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

          Yet somehow they still manage to continually chip away our freedom.

          Nonsense. Your freedoms may be chipped, but it's not the government doing the chipping.

        • by sjames (1099)

          And started it in the first place. It is appreciated that they have at least made a gesture at replacing their divot, but there is concern they may have just sprayed the hole green.

      • by blair1q (305137)

        The solution then is to ban all contact between teachers and students.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Teacher gives more time to one student over another, is it favoritism?

        Teacher gives some a grade influenced by something the student did on line. oh, see Timmy's parent donate my church, here is an extra 5 points wink wink.

        So favoritism, bribery, arranging sexual encounters between teachers and students, etc. never took place before Facebook and teh evil Interwebs. That's good to know. At least that is in line with the philosophy of the USPTO and the laws against cyber-crime, cyber-bullying, etc. I believe

      • I don't believe it is that complex. It's a medium for communication. Not the first and by all indications not the last for humans. There isn't really anything that could be done online between a teacher and student that couldn't be done offline. It's the offline that people tend be concerned about anyway. New mediums should not mean new laws. Current law provides codification of teacher/student relationships. Why does a particular communication medium add complexity?
      • It's a lot more / simpler than that.

        Mark Z. Likes this.

        He can pay for laws to be amended.

      • by Khyber (864651)

        "Also, your anger towards the government seemed to overlook the fact that the government stopped it."

        Which is why a new bill is ALREADY in place to pass that does effectively the same thing?

        Did you even RTFS, FFS?

      • by sjames (1099)

        If those things happen, discipline them or (if it gets too bad) fire them.

        Of course the church scenario you mention has nothing at all to do with friending on facebook.

  • by Khyber (864651)

    We get rid of ONE First Amendment violating law, only to enact yet ANOTHER one?

    Public schools, being funded by taxpayer dollars and recognized as a part of the US Gov't, does NOT have this sort of authority.

    I expect this bill to be overturned just as easily.

    I also expect many Missouri politicians are going to not get re-elected.

    At least, not once my little information campaign over there is handled.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      I assume you mean prohibiting teachers from using a non-work related site that might allow for one on one contact with students. And, I'd have to agree that it goes too far, most of the rest of the provisions seem reasonable, and likely will be as protective of the teachers as the students. But barring the teachers from using other sites because of a possibility, is going over board, especially without requiring any motivation to skirt the requirements on the teacher's part.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    This article has been posted for over 10 minutes and there are only 4 comments? I can't imagine slashdotters having dates or anything Friday night.
  • by JohnRoss1968 (574825) on Friday September 23, 2011 @07:24PM (#37498334)

    OK let me get this right....
    We shouldnt trust our teachers to be able to talk to our kids online? So how can we trust them when they are with our kids in the real world?
    Obviously we cant. And who hired these people to teach our children???
    The Schools did. Why should we trust anyone who would put our children in contact (directly or over the internet) with people we should not trust???
    We shouldnt. So The teachers cant be trusted, and the schools cant be trusted.
    If the schools cant be trusted then how is it a good idea to leave it up to the schools to decide if teachers (who we cant trust) can have contact with our children online, late at night, with webcams all over??????

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      We shouldn't trust the schools. The parents should be talking to their children and looking for any signs of sexual conduct between them and their teachers. For that matter, they should be looking for any sexual activity by their children period.

      Unfortunately, most parents in America abandoned their responsibilities to their children in exchange for personal pleasure (usually, money) quite a while ago, and asked the schools (and/or daycare) to do it for them. Monitoring and raising children is a full time

  • I guess I've been out of the loop. The governor of Misourri is named Nixon? NIXON'S BAAACK! [youtube.com]
  • I am glad the law was overturn. It was an extremely bad one where parent could not be friends with their own kids. And before someone says they could see their kids at home - based on the law, if the teacher was divorce and the other spouse had custody, the teacher could not be friends with their own kids on facebook or any other social media. The same goes with grand kids, god children, family friends etc. The law was just too broad. The law of unintended consequences was in effect.

    As far as the new o

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...