Student Web-Site Censors Stung for $62,000 244
Pru points to this CNET story, writing that "[Karl Beidler, a] teenager who was suspended from high school for building a Web page mocking his assistant principal has won $10,000 in damages." This was covered on politech last week as well, for the brave. Plus, the North Thurston School District (Washington state) has to pay up to the ACLU $52,000 in attorney fees, too. That's quite a disincentive for other schools to clamp down on parody sites.
What if hadn't been online? (Score:2)
Part of me thinks there wouldn't have been a problem, because somehow handing out pamphlets making fun of the principal within the school itself is seen as more of an attack on the principal's authority. But since it's online it's "discrete" and should be left alone? I don't know...
It seems odd to me, because I think at this point in history we're sometimes MORE sensitive about online censorship rights than hardcopy freedom of speech.
School Censorship (Score:1)
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:1)
Nah, we just consider them "ungrateful"
Re:CNET Story without big annoying ad (Score:1)
Ok, so this is a little off topic but at least it will get posted! (somewhere:)
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:1)
I've given a few lessons to teenagers and it's not easy - primarily, their disrespect of you comes not from any personal dislike for you as a person, or for the content of the lesson, but because if they show you disrespect in a public and obvious way, it makes them look cool in the eyes of their peers.
Most of the disruptive kids in a classroom are actually quite easy to get on with outside of it - it's only when they have an audience of peers that they become insufferable.
Now I don't know if this is the case here, but if the kid said a whole load of offensive things about a member of staff to look cool to his peers, and then that member of staff suffered some harm or other (however you care to define it) as a consequence, then reinforcing the child's behaviour isn't solving any problems, nor is it "standing up for constitutional rights". Perhaps the punishment was too severe, then the teacher ought to be put right, but you don't reward this kind of behaviour unless you want to see it again and again.
In my scenario the kid wasn't "exercising a constitutional freedom" as far as he was concerned. He was making himself look good at someone else's expense - a behaviour common in children that we ought to encourage them grow out of.
I'm not saying there's a miscarriage of justice here - I don't know enough about the facts, but the above is an argument that seemed to be missing from the discussion so far. The devil is in the detail (yes, I know, and my high school maths teacher - probably).
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:1)
What are ya...a liberal
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:1)
The problem is proving disruption of class (Score:2)
But off-campus speech is another issue altogether. It cannot be argued that off-campus speech is disrupting class, and therefore off-campus speech does not fall under the "cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theator" exception to the 1st Amendment. The school's mistake was for suspending him for off-campus (protected) speech, rather than for speech he did on-campus.
-E
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:1)
Re:Good grief! (Score:1)
Assuming that the test was longer than just a few questions, curved, or the weighting of teh questions wasn't abnormally heavy towards the top question, there's no way that missing ONE question should land you a D-.
PLUS -- if you backed your arguments logically and factually, the teacher probably should not have even docked you for the question!
FYI: I had an experience like this in college, and by going up the ladder was able to make my case & prevail.
Scott
Double standard (Score:2)
While I'm glad to see that Free speech wins again,
You have to admit that there is a double standard here.
If the principle were to make his own website
attacking the credibility of the student,
The shit would definitely hit the fan.
I probably would have done the same thing when I was a kid (had there been an internet), but if I were in the principle's shoes, I'm not sure what I'd do. What would you do? What is the correct thing for a principle to do in that situation?
It comes with the job. (Score:2)
Why?
Because the teachers are different. There are teachers who let students get away with anything, and the students took advantage of it. Then there were teachers who would try to use peer pressure "ok because John can't control himself, you all have an extra page of homework tonight"- John doesn't care, he wasn't planning on doing the homework anyway. The teachers who followed the rules to the letter are the ones who handled the problem kids the best. You cause a disruption, you get 1 warning, then suspension- or whatever the school's system was.
I believe I was very close to being a "problem kid", but I wasn't, mainly because I was too shy to talk in class. I believe the REAL problem is with the teaching system- not everyone learns the same way. I don't learn a damn thing from homework. I fall asleep during lectures. However, if I get interested in something I can pick it up in five minutes- and then go on and teach the people around me how to do it (kinda how highschool Physics class was).
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:2)
No, sets a good precedent (Score:2)
To a certain extent schools act 'in loco parentis' -- but only while the student is on campus or attending a school function. The courts have long held that students do not lose their 1st Amendment rights just because they are students. The only time schools are allowed to step in is when the student's ON-CAMPUS speech is disrupting the school. What the student says off-campus is none of the school's business.
And oh -- I've been a teacher. I've also hung out with school attendance officers (the people who conduct disciplinary hearings). I've seen how students disrespect teachers and administrators. But if it happens off campus, it's not the school's business. I had plenty to handle on-campus without going out of my way to look for trouble off-campus.
-E
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
Wow, I guess proferring a geniunely held opinion that is far enough outside accepted slashdot dogma consitutes trolling. Apparently some of the moderators agree with you.
Free speech in action folks.
-josh
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:1)
If it was, that's a proxy situation, Not a violation by the student. We could turn this into a "these 3 sites are legal" argument, but if its on the internet, its visible unless its censored.
The same thing happend to me (Score:2)
Something similar happened to me in high school. I was suspended for 10 days for running a teacher quotes website. The quotes were submitted by students, and posted on the website.
I appealed the suspension decision with the help of a lawyer and the suport of all the other students involved (and their parents) and it was approved. That didn't give me back my 10 days though.
Also, I was the only one who got in any sort of trouble, many students, including myself are still bitter over that fact.
Too bad I didn't try to sue them.. I could have paid for university. Oh well.. damn school.
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:1)
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:1)
Heh. As we know, moderators will agree with just about anything, including goatse.cx and base ownership...
Is this your "genuinely held opinion" - that the student should be punished for off-campus behavior, rather than the school buying a clue and segregating its virtual space the same way it segregates its physical space?
If so, how do you figure? Or do you rather find my interpretation of your statements to be inaccurate, and my own opinion to be thoroughly wrong and trollesque?
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
If the student's *ON CAMPUS* behavior was disrupting class, if, for example, the kid was going around saying "look at this neat URL!" and kids were giggling and dusrupting class, that's one thing. No student has the right to interfere with the education of another. If documented, this would have sufficed to uphold the suspension. But what the kid does on his spare time is his own business. I did not see it as my job to regulate what the student did on his own time, I had enough work regulating what the kid did on my time. It is a shame that this vice principal was so anal that he did a knee-jerk dumb thing and cited the kid for off-campus behavior, especially when with a little more work he could have probably found on-campus behavior to cite the kid for (I'm sure that the kid was spreading the nasty URL around campus, for example -- and what students do on-campus *IS* the school's business).
-E
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:1)
Also, I believe teachers get PAID to deal with students? I have to deal with rude customers each and every day in my job. Am I sayin the students are OK for doing this? NO, but I am saying it's part of the job, but you seem to have the right understanding... I wish there were more "Good" teachers out there... unfortunately most of them out there are just looking forward to 10 year.
"Conduct unbecoming" (Score:1)
Basically, if you do something that the school doesn't think one its students should do, they have a right to punish you. It doesn't matter whether it's in school or not.
Also, you'll be happy to note that in Canada, our Supreme Court has ruled that students in school have no right to privacy, nor do they have unrestricted free speech. Just like you have no right to privacy or free speech in your own home if your parents so choose.
Re:I am confused... (Score:1)
You can read other people's comments which would explain it better.
Re:Whats wrong with school today (Score:3)
It's too bad that the distict was liable. Better to sue the actual fools that committed the offense.
With respect to this being a "dog bites man" story, I opine that the current climate is very much against online rights and protections. A court finding *for* speech rights online is worthy news indeed.
Re:No it's not... (Score:2)
________
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:2)
But that's my contention. This *is* disrupting school. Things like this are disruptive of public education. Even if they take place off campus.
Comparison: suppose the kid had got on television and published this stuff? Or a newspaper? This is tantamount to telling the stuff to the principals face, in public. What does one do then?
Or, put another way, how is this different from you creating a website making fun of the President of the U.S.?What gives you the right to abuse federal employees? Why shouldn't George W. have you kicked out of the country? Do you expect him to go on paying your social security benefits with a smile?
I was afraid someone would bring this up. I don't have a ready answer. I think there's some difference between the two situations, but can't articulate what it is yet. Then again, you could argue that most politcal campaigns are pretty much this sort of behavior at a slightly higher level.
The problem that I want to solve is: public disrespect (especially in such a degrading manner) of authority figures undermines their authority at school. Undermined authority makes education harder. What do you do about the problem?
--
Off campus vs. on-campus (Score:2)
Undoubtedly the kid was going around school telling kids "hey, look at this neat URL!" and getting kids giggling and disruptive. If so, cite him for that on-campus behavior. Don't try to cite him for off-campus behavior, because schools only have authority to regulate speech or behavior that directly disrupts class (courts have ruled that students do NOT leave their 1st Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door, but they cannot disrupt class with their speech), and speech that's off-campus by definition cannot disrupt class.
-E
Re:What if hadn't been online? (Score:2)
There is a clear difference between off-campus behavior and on-campus behavior. The school wronged the student by punishing him for off-campus behavior.
-E
Re:What if it was viewed in school? (Score:2)
Schools have no business regulating off-campus speech, because off-campus speech by definition cannot disrupt. Only on-campus behavior can disrupt. So if the kid was spreading the URL around campus, yeah, you can suspend him -- for that on-campus behavior. But that's not what they did to him.
-E
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:2)
The owner of a private business has the right to refuse serivice to anyone, unless it was for one of the protected discrimination categories. I.e. he can keep out someone he's had a personal issues with, but not all people of a particular color.
You'd get yourself thrown out of the store, and perhaps arrested if you persisted.
Yes, it's called trespassing.
Same situation here. What makes this case different - the fact that this is a public institution?
Yup.
Why should that give you, or anyone else, the right to abuse the employees and expect them to simply take it and continue to provide you with whatever services you demand?
Because they don't own the school, the taxpayers do. And who said anyone had the right to abuse the employees? As I said, the pricipal probably had grounds for legal action as an individual. But as long as the student isn't disrupting school, there is no reason to kick him out.
Or, put another way, how is this different from you creating a website making fun of the President of the U.S.? What gives you the right to abuse federal employees? Why shouldn't George W. have you kicked out of the country? Do you expect him to go on paying your social security benefits with a smile?
What if a print equivalent was viewed in school? (Score:2)
This is no different than if the student had paid to have an ad published in the local weekly 'Free Shopper Ad Paper'.
If he had bought an ad in a traditional print-on-dead-trees publication, and other students had brought copies of that ad to the school and shown them around, would he have been suspended?
Just because the internet makes the 'printing press' nearly free, does not always mean that we should ignore two hundred years of laws relating to old school publishing.
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
I don't beleive I'm advocating wiping (or wiping with) and consitutional clause. I haven't once said the student should in fact be censored. I've advocated the reverse -- let him keep his site. Let him publish anything he wants. What he loses is not even his educational priviliges (not guaranteed by the constituation, I beleieve, if it matters), but his privilege to attend the school which, by his own apparent admission, is run by questionable people anyway. Given that there are usually some good alternatives, it's not really such a punishment.
If the student's *ON CAMPUS* behavior was disrupting class, if, for example, the kid was going around saying"look at this neat URL!" and kids were giggling and dusrupting class, that's one thing....If documented, this would have sufficed to uphold the suspension.
I can't seem to find information about the case, so this is speculation, but: what's the most likely way that the principal found out about the site? Was he just on the net searching Altavista for his own name? Perhaps. But I think it's far more likely that some authority figure in the school found kids having exactly the kind of giggling/disrupting conversation you mention above, and they reported it to the principal. Or maybe they left it up in the browser window in the library. In any case, it seems unlikely to me that this came to the attention of the principal by any means other than "discussion" of the site on campus.
Furthermore, once the cat's out of the bag, it doesn't need any help to run around. The public challenge to authority has already been made. The principals alternatives would be:
1) back down. do nothing. hope this doesn't undermine authority at all (not so effective).
2) call parents (depending on parents, might work)
3) bar him from school, temporarily or permanently
4) sue for libel (more punitive than #3)
5) tit for tat. Principal puts up website saying student is the model for goatse.cx and hasn't had
a date in 3 years and all the cheerleaders think he's a loser, and the teachers hate him.
The only good options I see are 2 and 3.
But what the kid does on his spare time is his own business. I did not see it as my job to regulate what the student did on his own time, I had enough work regulating what the kid did on my time.
Again, I don't know how the principal would even have known what the students did on their own time -- Heaven knows I didn't -- unless it somehow did touch the school. The fact that the principal -- often the last person to know about such things -- knew means that it had probably already touched the school.
--
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:3)
He published it in a format that was available to students on school property. I see no functional difference between this and a paper pamphlet. Please enlightment me.
The difference is a website is in public domain. A pamphlet is not. Yes, a student could have accessed it from the computer lab I suppose. They could also access it from home, as could you or I. By that reasoning, can I sue every website that has obcenity/pornography/violence/racisism for publishing material that could potentially slip by filtering software and be viewed by some student in a school lab? If so, I'd better have kids now so I can cash in. The only issue here was the principals pride.
On the brighter side, I think this was a wonderful education for the students there on how effective the Constitution is. It clearly demonstrated that 225 years later, our rights to free speech are still protected, and I hope that all of the history teachers there have a class on how Big Brother got screwed out of $60,000 for trying to abuse their power.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:HOORAY!!! (Score:2)
"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of national socialism... at least it's an ethos."
--Walter Sobchak
But I agree that it's a shame that a jackass move by school administration only ends up costing the taxpayer.
--
Whats wrong with school today (Score:3)
---
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:3)
The fact that it was accessible from the school PC's doesn't matter. He should have had the sys-admin block the site then. (still a violation of 1st amend rights but doubt it would have gotten the school system as bad as it did.)
His freedom was violated because he was blocked from continuing his education due to something he said. And with regards to the job environment, that is a private industry, not a government run institution. The asst. principle would have had less problems if they were in a private school setting.
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:2)
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:4)
What rule of a school, ANY SCHOOL, controls what a student says with his own computer, on his own webserver, on his own time, from his own home? You must have a pretty strange idea of how far the authority of a school extends.
...phil
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:3)
Was the web site downloadable on school PCs? If so, this is no different than a student being suspended for distributing an obscene parody pamphlet, or running down the halls yelling obscene things about the assistant principle. Whether the site was downloadable on school PCs is irrelevant, because the speech was done publically and not through a school channel. Distributing an "obscene parody pamphlet" or "running down the halls yelling obscene things about the assistant principle" would get a student punished for violating school rules and disrupting school, but the key difference is that those are actions done while within the school building.
The boy's freedom of speech was clearly violated. As I said earlier, censoring and punishing free speech are more or less equivalent.
You miss the key difference, which is that the employer is a business, while the school is a government-run institution. Businesses are not bound by the first amendment, while government is.
------------------
A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:2)
I'm not an American, but I thought the Declaration of Independance was there, partially, to protect the people from Governmental tyranny (and to separate America from the UK)?
Most school kids don't deal with the same government you and I do. They deal with the "school administration" government.
How would you like it if your government put you under house arrest for expelling some nasty diatribe against Bush on the internet?
I guess you'd say to yourself that you need to respect the government more; They are not your equals, they are your superiors and therefore everything they say and do is right and if you don't do it then you are an evil person that belongs in jail. You'd just tuck tail and never complain about your government again. All heil leader Bush for he does no wrong! Right?
Rush Limbaugh probably deserves to be sent to live in another country for his crimes of speech against his government. Right?
Students say the darndest things (Score:2)
Anyhow, probably a kid told a teacher about how so-and-so was saying he had a web site that slammed Mr. VP, and the teacher told Mr. VP, and Mr. Vice Principal blew a fuse.
There are kids who specialize in figuring out what will make teachers and administrators blow fuses. The trick to dealing with those kids is to go "by the book" -- dispassionately, documenting everything, making sure all the boxes are checked and all the A's covered in the CYA's. Blowing a fuse gets you sued. As happened here.
And oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a "challenge to authority", the moment you get into that zero-sum game, you (as a teacher or administrator) have lost. The only thing of interest is disruptions to the learning environment. "authority" is of use only insofar as it relates to handling disruptions of the learning environments. Teachers (and administrators) can no longer stand at the schoolhouse door and beat the sh*t out of any kid whose looks they don't like. There has to be an actual disruption first.
-E
Re:Off-campus is off-campus (Score:2)
You said:
"You can go here but you cannot have any bad opinions about it, and if you do, well god help you if you voice them in a way a teenager might."
He said (paraphrasing):
"You can voice any opinion you want in the way a teenager might, but if you do it rudely/disruptively, you can't go here."
So he's suggesting the reverse of what you thought.
--
Re:Off-campus is off-campus (Score:2)
Comments like this are the number 1 thing I hate about slashdot. It's impossible to have a discussion here without slinging insults.
If you disagree with something I say, try actually reasoning instead of asking logically empty and insulting rhetorical questions.
Yeah, maybe I'm being a little unfair
Way unfair. There's a large difference between barring a student from participating in a single educational institution and depriving them of the ability to move freely about, owning property, earning money, etc.
--
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:2)
So you believe that a school (a government agency, remember) has unlimited power to censor any expression they feel is disruptive. Suppose a student writes a letter to a newspaper supporting legalization of drugs? Supporting drug use is clearly disruptive to the educational process, better get rid of him.
Comparison: suppose the kid had got on television and published this stuff? Or a newspaper?
Then nothing, if it's done outside of school and does not constitute libel or slander. Refer again to the Bill of Rights.
The problem that I want to solve is: public disrespect (especially in such a degrading manner) of authority figures undermines their authority at school. Undermined authority makes education harder. What do you do about the problem?
Obviously, punish all who dare to express dissenting opinions. That's a surefire way to win the respect and admiration of your subjects. It's worked well in China...
Re:Whats wrong with THE LAW today (Score:2)
Nice system. Real fair.
--
In my opinion... (Score:5)
The kid's actions were wrong. He should not have published such images to the world. The *assistant principal* (not the school) had every right to report him to a) his parents, b) his ISP or c) the law.
The school, however, had no right to expel him - it was nothing to do with them. Therefore, I believe the judgment to be correct. Just.
</soapbox>
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
I am sure he did have it blocked. But I am sure this was after many kids had already read it the computer lab
His freedom was violated because he was blocked from continuing his education due to something he said.
Then by that logic the kid should be able to say anything to anyone in school and receive no punishment. Heck, swear at the teachers, it's protected speech. As I remember my speech was a bit more limited than that.
-josh
Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:4)
One year ago I spent four months teaching algebra in a High School in a normal middle class area. It changed a few of the ideas I had about public education. One of them was that you could get by on charisma, intelligence, and efforts to do something beyond the ordinary -- and by "get by" I mean you could educate high schoolers w/o resorting to disciplinary tactics and falling back on institutional authority (I had managed to do so in the past, in an academic summer camp setting).
I was probably 80-90% right -- that's about the number of students who are willing to at least go with the flow and/or respect you for your knowledge and efforts. The problem is that you're left with an intractable 10-20% who really just don't want to be there and don't respect you, and simply because you ARE the institutional authority. They're looking for a conflict/power struggle. If you let them get out of hand, you start losing part of the rest of the 80-90%. And one of the ways to let things get out of hand is allowing disrespect of others (students) or authority figures.
I'm not talking about objections to the way things are done (though you'd be surprised how fast THOSE can get out of hand -- "But we're not READY for the test today... PLEEEAAASE can we move it to Monday?"). I'm not talking about appeals. I'm talking about things like
What's the last resort a teacher has with a recalcitrant student? Or a principal? Nothing, really, except one thing: the ability to decide if the student can continue to attend their classroom -- or for a principal, that institution. I won't ever teach in a public school unless I have an darn near unconditional right to say who gets to stay in my classroom. It's harsh, but it'd be the only way I can make sure I can do my job.
I'd love to find a nice way to resolve that with free speech, but I can't think of anything. The only thing I can think of is this: Free Speech is guaranteed to citizens in law. Free education isn't an unalienable right; it's probably a privilege more on order with a driver's license. You want your education, you don't do anything to make the jobs of educators any harder than they already are.
(To those who notice I posted the same thing when this appeared in YRO last week, I'm sorry. Duplicate submission, duplicate post. Ask the Slashdot editors why they didn't run this story in the main subject queue last week).
--
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:3)
IMHO, A lot of schools today go way too far.
suspending kids for taking advil, listerine, carrying cell phones, etc. This was just another example of today's schools going to far, and trying to implement a communist-like governmental system on kid's rights. It is about damn time someone sued the hell out of them for obviously trying to take away an individuals rights.
I am not saying that the content of that website the student put up was good at all, and yes his parents should have talked to him about it, but suspending the student for a month is way
out of line and totally overboard. A wrong-doing was committed on both parts but IMHO, it is more on the the schools part than the kids. I think the school should have had a talk with his parents about the website, and that is by no means violating the kid's first ammendment rights.
What are the schools teaching our kids here?
IMHO, they are teaching our kids basically they
can't even raise a finger or be punished. In a
sense they are try to teach our kids to be whimps
and not stand up for what is right and just "accept it".
And accepting the suspension? PLEASE! History
did not get us here by just accepting something!
We have gotten here today by our fore-fathers
fighting for what is right, and that is our freedom!
Just my 2 cents worth.
Re:... percentage of the award (Score:2)
Re:Not a chance (Score:2)
Teachers have a responsibility to educate their students. In order to carry out this mandate, they need to maintain an environment of respect and order. When a student deliberately does something that would violate this, they should be punished by suspension or expulsion. It's really the only punishment that fits the crime; if they're not ready to act responsibly w/in a learning environment, then they're not ready to join it.
Note that I don't think this means there is no room for dissension in a classroom, school, or other educational community. But it has to be done respectfully; being permissive to anything else will reduce/destroy the effectiveness of the community.
This is equivelent to saying that posting naked pictures of the president is grounds for jail time since it de-moralizes 80-90% of the citizens that like the president. I KNOW that can't be legal. And I KNOW you couldn't advocate such a speech policy. So why should it apply to schools?
It's not equivalent. It's roughly analogous. And like most analogies, it breaks down at some point.
For example: how closely does the president have to work with the poster of said pictures? How much attention would the 80-90% who didn't like the pictures pay to them anyway -- other than w/ incensed fervor? Is there a difference between what you lose by serving jail time and what you lose by being barred from attending a single educational institution?
The differences highlighted in those questions show the situations have some important differences.
Let me emphasize again: the point is not to restrict speech. The point is to make sure dissenting speech is expressed reasonably and with respect so as not to cause disruption. Dissenting speech doesn't cause disruption. Rude speech does.
And one more time, since it might have been missed: Nothing I have advocated actually infringes on the right of the student to speak as they wish. But by speaking rudely and disruptively -- by being unable to dissent w/o disrespecting -- they lose the access to that learning community. Meanwhile, they may continue to speak freely and do whatever else strikes their fancy.
I think it's unfortunate that public education is required by law past elementary school. The compulsory attendance is one reason why I think the ability to participate in an education isn't valued more than it is. It's a requirement, a hoop to jump through, instead of an opportunity.
--
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
The student suffered only one consequence: he couldn't attend the school run by that darn principal anymore. Other than that, he was completely free. No loss of property, freedom of movement, or freedom of speech.
How bad is that?
--
Well.. (Score:2)
They were TOTALLY wrong to interfere with his taxpayer funded education though. This had nothing to do with his behavior at school, or his studies.
A school administrator cannot use the power vested in them as an administrator to punish students outside the scope of the school itself.
Re:This sets off a bad precedent. (Score:2)
Seriously, the only thing really new about this case is that the cartoon was put up on a website, instead of being passed around on a xeroxed piece of paper. You can't make a rule that says kids have to respect their teachers. Parents can teach kids to respect them, society can show respect to teachers by paying them what they are worth, etc, and that will filter down to more respect from the kids. If the value of the education system is being degraded day by day, it isn't because kids make fun of their teachers after class at their own homes.
Re:"Conduct unbecoming" (Score:2)
Attending a private school is a voluntary act, they can expel/suspend/punish the student for whatever they choose, no civil rights issues there.
Attending a public school is not voluntary, and being government run, they must respect civil rights. They can usurp some of your rights while on school grounds, but that's it.
I assume that when you say "in Canada, our Supreme Court has ruled that students in school have no right to privacy, nor do they have unrestricted free speech." you mean in school. Juveniles do indeed have the same protections against government attacks on the to privacy and free speech when they are at home.
That is, when a student is at home, their parents are free to intrude on their privacy and free speech, but your public school's teachers cannot control what you do at home.
Re:In my opinion... (Score:2)
I disagree.
What the kid did was wrong.
How exactly is making fun of a public figure wrong? Does your moral outrage extend to every sketch comedy skit ever done about any politician?
The principal could have sued for slander,
No. Slander involves oral communication.
libel
No. For libel, you have to have written statements that are both untrue and believable. Parody doesn't count.
defamation of character, or whatever. (IANAL)
No. Thanks to Larry Flynt, we all have the right to make as much fun of any public official as we want.
But it should have been the principal as an individual, not the school.
There was nothing the principal could do legally, so he resorted to petty harassment. Welcome to the US Education system.
I'd love to see the principal turn around and do that now, and get the money back from the kid.
Yes, the kid should be sued for standing up to the system. Otherwise, how will we turn kids into the mindless drones society wants them to be?
Of course, only the lawyers are getting rich...
Yeah, those damn ACLU lawyers are so rich and greedy, they volunteer time defending people's first amendment rights.
Can you do us all a favor and at least try to remove your head from your ass?
Absolutely false. (Score:3)
Absolutely false. The Supreme Court has said, time and time again, that the Constitution grants absolutely no rights. Instead, the Constitution recognizes some rights as existing even in the absence of law which establishes them. Under American legal theory, free speech is a universal human right; that even were the Government to abolish the First Amendment tomorrow, citizens would still enjoy the liberty of speaking freely.
Free speech is not guaranteed to citizens in law. Law recognizes that citizens possess free speech, whether the government wants to recognize it or not.
If the government provided your right to speak freely, then the government could revoke that right at any time. They can't, because they don't provide it.
You want your education, you don't do anything to make the jobs of educators any harder than they already are.
The students don't have a choice in whether or not to show up to school, for the most part--skip school and truancy officers start looking for you. Apparently, you'd like to have it both ways: you'd like for students to be required to show up for school, and you'd like to be able to forbid them from school if they're being disruptive.
You can have it one way or the other, but asking for it both strikes me as hypocritical.
Civil case? (Score:2)
For the record, I'm in support of the verdict. The school has no right to use their disciplinary system to punish him for something he did outside of school. However, I do think that the vice principal should have some options open to him personally if someone has published unfounded or unproven allegations against him.
Asikaa
Asikaa
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
Was the web site downloadable on school PCs? If so, this is no different than a student being suspended for distributing an obscene parody pamphlet, or running down the halls yelling obscene things about the assistant principle.
I think you misspelled "this is no different than a studend being suspended for distributing an obscene pamphlet off-campus, where other students could see it once they left the campus facilities".
Remember that the Internet != School Property. If you don't want your kids to carry on outside of school during school hours, then you close your campus. Many schools do this, to one extent or another. The only reason the kids could read the website during school hours is because they could leave the school property (i.e., the school's LAN) during school hours.
I know you're probably a troll, but the point's worth making anyway...
Re:Sad. (Score:5)
Yes, slander and libel are punishable by law.
No, slander and libel are NOT punishable by your principal!
The difference is that the law punishes people through due process and the review of a jury of their peers, whereas your local principal punishes you whenever he gets his panties in a bunch.
Do NOT confuse the issue. This is about whether a school can make rules about what students can say in their own homes, to their parents. It is NOT about libel.
Friends don't let retarded friends
Re:Sad. (Score:3)
Are you a lawyer? I am not either, but from what I've seen things are not quite that simple. Certainly a lot of things are printed and/or broadcast every day that everyone would agree are legal and protected by the First Amendment but 'cause harm' to another. Think political cartoons, think editorial pages, think National Lampoon, MAD Magazine, even, for example Hustler.
was right to have his website censored by the school system
The limit for the school to 'censor' such a web site should be limited to their ability to block it from access through the school's internet connection. The school should not be allowed to punish kids for what they do and/or say off school grounds and outside school hours. If any wrong was done to the associate principal, he should have to resort to outside means to have it righted, not by abusing his position of authority within the schools. What if the schools decide to start punishing kids for expressing political or religious beliefs on their own time? Sure, they might be able to keep them from doing it at school, but what right to they have outside the schools? What if a kid distributes political flyers outside school and another kid brings them to school? Who did something wrong, the kid who distributed the flyers or the one who brought them to school? If someone is viewing a web page at school that the school has somehow banned, then it should be them that is punished, not the person who created it.
When speech causes harm, whether it be physical injuries, or mental anguish, to another person, the speaker has violated the rights of the target of the speech and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment.
Not necessarily. In many cases the courts have held that material that undoubtedly caused 'mental anguish', for example, are protected by the First Amendment. Satire, for example was upheld in the well publicized supreme court case as dramatized in 'The People vs. Larry Flynt'.
This is called slander or libel and is punishable by law
Slander and libel are not only fairly narrowly defined, they are very difficult to prove in court. For example, satire is usually considered defensible when it should be obvious that the claims would not be mistaken as true (for example, Hustler magazine's fake ad which implied that Jerry Fallwell had incestuous relations with his mother).
Deliberately spreading rumors or insulting another person is against the law
Deliberately spreading false rumors may be illegal, or it may not. Deliberately spreading true rumors is almost always going to be legal. Insulting people is not necessarily illegal either. I could say 'I think Hillary Clinton is a lying, cheating bitch'. That is legal. If that is my opinion, then the statement is entirely factual, regardless of wheter Hillary really is a lying cheating bitch or not. In order for something to be libelous or slanderous, it has to be false. Saying 'I think the associate principal sodomizes goats' may be significantly different legally than saying 'I've seen the associate principal sodomizing goats'.
Just ask the National Inquirer.
Fine. The Enquirer wins almost every case brought against them. If they didn't, they'd have been out of business a long time ago, because they piss off a lot of people, especially politicians and celebrities who have a lot of influence.
I don't agree with the ACLU all the time, but it sickens me even more when I think of the warped sense of justice and what the consititution and bill of rights are all about that kids get sent by the wacked out school systems in this country.
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
He published it in a format that was available to students on school property. I see no functional difference between this and a paper pamphlet. Please enlightment me.
Would you support a student who, during school hours stood just off school property and shouted obscenities about the principle?
You are splitting hairs
-josh
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:2)
I agree, none of that should be tolerated. But the difference is that those incidents happened on school grounds and directly interfere with teaching. The student here did not use school time or equipment, and while the pricipal may not like it, I can't see how he has any authority to censor off-campus expression.
Re:Censors Rights (Score:5)
Ah shut up.
ObJectBridge [sourceforge.net] (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:5)
Homer Simpson. (Doh! MMmmmmm. Floor Pie!)
Repeatedly talking about their penis in the classroom. Making a hobby of reducing a girl in the room to tears. Free speech, yes.
Hmm... no, sounds like disrupting class and harrasment to me, not free speech.
What's the last resort a teacher has with a recalcitrant student?
Boot them out of class if they do it in class.
Or a principal?
Recalcitrant principal? Sue them, apparantly. A number of people posting to this thread seem to have the right idea. The principal abused his power by taking an issue outside of school, and making it a school issue. He should have pursued legal recourse outside of the school.
Nothing,
Nothing if they do it outside of school.
institution. I won't ever teach in a public school unless I have an darn near unconditional right to say who gets to stay in my classroom.
Say, because you don't like something they did outside of school?
Free Speech is guaranteed to citizens in law. Free education isn't an unalienable right;
It's not in the list of inalienable rights. However, I have no choice about paying taxes to fund education, and I'm required by law to make sure my kids attend some sort of school. That's a pretty strong endorsement from the law in my mind that we're supposed to receive an education.
I have no sympathy for teachers (principal in this case) who aren't willing to give kids the rights they are entitled to, in order to make their jobs easier. I do have sympathy for what people get paid in the public school system, and I appreciate their sacrifice. Not enough to let them trample people's rights, though.
Off-campus is off-campus (Score:5)
Nevertheless, while disrespect and disruptful behavior cannot be tolerated on the school campus, what happens off the school campus was not my concern. Frankly, I find it ridiculous that, as overworked as teachers and administrators are, they chose to make an issue of something that happened off-campus. That's *LOOKING* for trouble, and surely there's enough trouble *ON* campus for administrators?
Now, if this kid was going around *ON CAMPUS* saying to other kids, "Look at this disrespectful page I made!", and him doing that was disrupting class and the school environment, that's a different story. But you have to make that case, complete with documentation of how his *ON CAMPUS* behavior disrupted the school environment. This is under the old principle of "free speech does not cover shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater" -- i.e., that disruptive speech on-campus is not protected speech. But the on-caompus speech has to be what's documented as the problem -- *not* the off-campus speech.
-E
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:2)
Oooh! Disrespecting the
Wouldn't want our future citizens thinking, would we?
After all, a thinking, questioning population is SO much harder to manipulate and control...
But, these kids are in school to learn what the school has to teach them, not to change the rules of the school.
Great...Let's teach our kids to be complacent, unquestioning droids.
After all, they'll just grow up to be taxpayers, and then they'll have representatives to speak for them, if the representatives deem it necessary.
Rebellion is the only thing that drives evolution in a political system, be it a school, or a country.
Progress is not made without rebellion.
RG
----
High School Fun (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you live / went to school, but I know that here in Oregon, especially in the Beaverton/Hillsboro area, the administration is both stupid and scary - seemingly inept in every way (i.e. network up 1/2 the time), but also paranoid as hell - how about webcams on each and every computer that are always on and are monitored actively?
Oh. they got that awesome proxy stuff too, you know, the one that filters "offensive" sites, like slashdot and the usual keywords - god forbid you learn anything other than keyboarding in a school that gets several hundred thousand yearly (from independent corporations such as intel) to teach students about "high tech"
Westview High School is especially bad and I will give you a description of my experiences there.
How about this - a school employee hacked a kid's webpage about why a teacher sucked (granted this was when angelfire was just starting, with all of its bugs, couldn't really be construed as hacking)
and changed it to mirror the School Disrict homepage - all of this was, of course approved by the administration.
Oh... they changed his password too, not just edited the page.
He complained, put a petition around the school - and lo and behold, they gave him a MONTH suspension for "hacking" into computers. No evidence, nothing - just removed him from campus one day, gave him a letter saying that he was suspended, and if he came on campus, he would be arrested and charges filed for trespassing. They didn't answer his phone calls, refused to talk directly with him, etc.
He went on a bender for that month (booze, weed, acid), so he didn't exactly defend himself, just took a break from school.
Whats good is to see somebody actually stand up for their rights. Same shit happened to me, but being a Canadian citizen in an American school (legally, of course, I have my green card now...) Needless to say, I let it slide.
Oh... word of advice - if you're in a shitty high school (and not in your senior year) - drop out, get your GED and go the local community college.
A GED is really easy to get(with a gr. 10 education), especially if you're fairly intelligent.
College is so much better - the teachers are 10x better too, not to dump on all HS teachers, but the majority of them suck (which is why they "choose" to work for less pay in a less respected orgainization). College teachers actually know how to teach and also know the material.
Enough "rant" for now, just be aware that this does happen, and its freaking great to see people defending themselves.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
Think with your brains people! (Score:3)
Take a minute to project this same situation into a different setting: You make a website portaying your boss involved in various acts of vulgarity, and then you go and tell everyone in the office about it (don't even pretend this kid didn't tell everyone at school) and if(when) they figure out it's you there will be hell to pay.
High school is just like every other voluntary institution, if you don't want to be there, leave. And if you want to stay, don't piss people off and break the rules. When did people forget that actions have consequences? If I go and make lewd comments about some guys girlfriend and get pounded for it, I don't sue the guy for attacking my freedom of speech. Why is high school this magical place where you can say/do anything you wan't and shouldn't have to suffer the consequences
And speaking of doing things on your own time, what if I'm a high school kid smoking weed accross the street from my school after school is out, I'm off school property, and I'm not on school time, but I'll bet I would get in trouble for it. Why is anything I do on the web magically protected??
The point is: be careful what court cases you applaud. Personally the ACLU scares the S*** out of me, and when we are applauding the ACLU for robbing a school district of $62,000 to defend a kid's right to post slander and libel on the internet, I start really getting scared
P.S. Substitute the word "Principle" in the article with "Female classmate" and tell me who's side you are on.
The simplest act of surrealism is to walk out into the street, gun in hand, and shoot at random
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:3)
Wasn't the Constitution and Declaration written by people the British would considered "jerks"?
Think about that when you talk about the "spirit of the constitution"
Re:Sad. (Score:2)
From my dimly remembered high school law classes there are some signifigant exceptions to libel and slander in the USA.
A true statment (or one that would have been beleved to be true to a reasonable person) is not libel (or slander). In the UK I have been told that trueth is not an absolute shield, and you can be found guilty if you speed the truth with an intent to harm. In the USA trueth is an absolute shield. Absolute. To a lesser extent the "look I had this evidence, and it seemed valid and compelling, even though it later turned out wrong" is a shield, but apparently not absolute.
There are also exceptions to things that are clear parodies. This is how Hussler got away with saying all manner of nasty things about Jerry Fallwell. I think that case went to the US Suprime Court.
There are also exceptions for public figures, but they are more narrow, and I think it really just brodens the other exceptions (like you might get in trubble for writing that I'm a wife beater, baised on flimsy evidence, but maybe not for a TV star baised on the same evidence).
Remember, I'm not a laywer, and worse then that this is baised on information more then ten years old (the law does change), and even worse was gained in a USA public school. The same one that didn't teach me to spell. So there may be more exceptions, or fewer. Or something. Talk to a real lawyer before you try to "not quite" slander (or libel) someone.
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
Would you support a student who, during school hours stood just off school property and shouted obscenities about the principle? You are splitting hairs -josh
I would actually support the student. The principal has no authority over the kid for what he or she does outside of school.
Re:He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the Sch (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
HOORAY!!! (Score:2)
Yaaaay! Now I get to send my tax money to some blood-sucking lawyers instead of to the struggling school system!
lawyer bait (Score:2)
Libel? What's that?
Re:Whats wrong with school today (Score:2)
While it is sad that taxpayer funds pay for this OR the insurance that pays for it, your statement is dangerous. Think about it - you work for a company and are asked to design a product - you do and it has a defect that kills someone - who should get sued - you, or the company that sold it? Granted - this everyone is a victim society we have sucks, but I'd stop designing shit if everytime someone was unhappy by something I had a hand in, all the involved engineers got sued instead of the company - I'm not shirking responsibility here - just that sometimes things get WAY out of hand as this lawsuit illustrates.
--
He Wronged the Assistant Principal, NOT the School (Score:4)
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:2)
Comparing closing a school to an individual to crushing dissent in China is rather disingenous. Comparing our spotlight student's action to a dissenting opinion is laughable.
"But where does it stop, man? Who's next?"
"No one. No one is next. Just Mr. Satan."
I figured, you know, since we're at that level of dialouge...
--
CNET Story without big annoying ad (Score:2)
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-4930756.html [cnet.com]
Censors Rights (Score:4)
This happened to a girl I knew.... (Score:2)
The webpages were mean. But the school in both cases did not have the right to suspend the student, because they did it on their own time/resources.
Its like... If the students were making fun of a non-school-faculty member, they wouldn't have been suspended. The person being made fun of would have had to go to the ISP/Police to have it straitened out. The school seems to abuse their power by bypassing that and suspending the student.
If I make fun of my next-door neighboor, who is a police officer, he cannot throw me in jail JUST BECAUSE he is a police officer. He would have to do everything a normal citizen would have to do: Being in a place of high authority does not mean you enjoy special previlages when things are directed at you personally.
Re:Absolutely false. (Score:2)
You can have it one way or the other, but asking for it both strikes me as hypocritical.
Actually, I think that requiring students to attend school past a certain age -- say, 10-12 -- is a big mistake. So at least at the secondary level, I'm not a hypocrite.
I'd favor making secondary school completely optional, and a privilege -- allowed by not being a disruptive influence and some minimum standard of effort. But available on a part-time basis and to people as old as maybe 23, so that the 14-17 year olds who get fed up with the system and then regret it later still have the option.
Not everyone takes advantage of our national parks -- because some people aren't interested. Same with public libraries. Same with a million other public works. It's possible public education should be no different.
--
A matter of jurisdiction (Score:5)
Oh, and despite how this article in slashdot is titled, the crux of this case is more about abuse of authority than it is about censorship.
Dual-edged sword (Score:2)
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
Absolutely. However, the principle should have
darn near absolute authority about what happens
within the school. And that includes who gets to attend. Disruptive influences can be tossed out.
So I say: let the kid keep his website up, no problem. But he doesn't set foot in the school again -- and hey, if the principal really sucked as much as the student thought, then the student wouldn't be all that bad off. The school can block the website and education can go on in peace. The student can find more satisfactory arrangements. And lawyers for an actual libel case.
--
Re:Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
The point you seem to be missing (twice already) is that the speech was ouside of school. The reason schools are able to punish students (which hinders their own education) is because they are hindering their peers ability to learn in school by creating an unsafe/unsutable environment for learning. The schools CANNOT control what goes on outside of school.
The parody had very little to do with school, and didn't impair the learning process more than anything else would. The appropriate thing would have been for the student to have been sued.
Re:$52K in attorney's fees? (Score:3)
In a civil rights act/employment discrimination lawsuit, the judge will award fees based on hours that an attorney put in.
If an attorney has a contingency fee agreement, then that amount of money goes into the pot and then the attorney get 1/3 of the pot.
This of course depends on the particular fee agreement in place.
hmmmm... (Score:2)
Hate to break it to ya, but students have rights (Score:2)
The Court has held repeatedly that, even on school grounds during school hours, students have Constitutional rights including the right to free speech and free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A student's First Amendment rights while on school grounds are slightly limited, but not to the extent people like you--and even a lot of misguided teachers and admins--seem to think. For instance, students have the right to distribute printed materials ("free student newspapers," pamphlets, etc.) on school grounds between, before, and after classes, in accordance with prescribed guidelines set by the district as to location and time. One would think that the administration could therefore limit such free press entirely, but the Court has set limits to the rights of schools in setting up such guidelines, so that any overbroad school regulations restricting speech and press are considered unconstitutional. This makes perfect sense, since the public school system is in fact an arm of the government and therefore cannot violate the Constitution. And, despite the fact that most students are under-18, the Court has ruled that minors have Constitutional protections in schools, though slightly limited ones. In private schools, though, students don't have such explicit rights, since the schools are not an arm of the government and therefore free to disallow exercise of some rights.
I know this not because I'm a lawyer (IANAL), but because in 11th grade I was suspended for 3 days for distributing an alternative student newspaper written and published by me and several friends. I liked to call it my school's "free student newspaper" since it wasn't subject to the censorious editorial control of a certain idiot vice principal. See, in 10th grade I had submitted an article against race-based scholarships and my school's Minority Parent Association, which I viewed as providing minority students with more opportunities and help seeking scholarships than the white students had. Funny thing is, in my school whites were a 70-30 minority, and when the article was published I had to receive a security detail for a few days to escort me to and from classes and then after that I still had to contend with mistaken people who thought I was a racist for wanting *equal* opportunities--I even had a desk thrown at me, and a national newspaper local to me did an article about the controversy. Well, after that the newspaper rejected most of my articles, and the one they did finally publish was so horribly censored abnd mutilated that my idiot vice principal even changed the common phrase "liberal education" to the nonsensical "conservative education," thinking it had something to do with politics. Bah. So, I got several friends, including the Homecoming Queen, to write articles with a conservative slant, and published them as *The Federalist* which I had printed at a local shop (today, one could print the same quality on any home laser printer). Funny thing is, except for my articles, every one of my writers was a woman or black, so our conservative newspaper was very diverse. I submitted it to the principal for approval of a time and place for distribution, as per school regs, but the administration nailed me when they found out I'd given advance copies to students who'd written articles for me. I researched the whole legal area, and appealed, and the suspension was expunged when I brought the area superintendant a pile of photocopied, highlighted legal decisions by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that the school's regs were constitutionally vague and overbroad. All it took was the threat of a lawsuit, and me handing him a pile of decisions affirming my rights to free press even in public school.
He could have been a jackass and not acknowledged my rights, but he folded before I did (it was a bluff--my family was too poor to sue). He recognized my rights once they were shown to him clearly, in the form of Court deisions with the good bits highlighted.
Since then the First Amendment has been a pet subject of mine, and I can tell you that since public schools are an arm of the Government, they are not allowed to completely take away any rights of students. They are only legally allowed to put reasonable limits on those rights, ones which are necessary for maintaining order. Trying to eliminate First Amendment protections does not instill order, it breeds contempt in students for the hypocrites who teach us one thing about rights and then demonstrate another through abuse of discretion and authority. This is why things like Columbine happen, because students with half a brain or more realize that their rights are systematically abusd, and then they strike out violently against such oppression. The sad part is, this makes misguided school admins clamp down further, which only alienates students more and will lead to more rebellious outbursts. And the thing that makes me most upset is the realization that, in today's climate, that same administrator who reversed my suspension and affirmed my rights, would probably have gone the other way even when presented with all the evidence I gave him. It's sad and unfortunate, and it teaches our kids (most of the smart ones, anyway) that government is there to oppress them, not ensure their rights. When the government, and parents even, start treating 16 year olds as having no more rights than 6 year olds, that breeds so much unnecessary enmity...
Re:Whats wrong with school today (Score:3)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
What if it was viewed in school? (Score:2)
How is this any different than distributing flyers of the same picture in the school? I think as with so much net stuff, the traditional boundaries start to get pretty murky.
Re:Off-campus is off-campus (Score:2)
I have no doubt you were in tougher situation.
My situation was actually relatively cushy. I choose to emphasize this by saying that I was in a nice middle class area because I wanted to communicate that I probably have it relatively easy.
I don't think you can draw such an easy line between on campus and off campus behavior. Degrading statements targeted towards someone on campus among a group of school peers still have an effect. Can you punish someone for that? Probably not. But when you publish something on the net -- now it can find its way into the school, now all the students have to do is pass a URL around campus, and the authority-eroding damage is done. Since most authority-- except that which comes from respect -- is illusiory, this is important.
I'm all for letting any student exercise their right to publish and have free speech until they're blue in the face. But if they do it, they should be prepared to give up attending the school they're badmouthing.
--
Re:Public Education Can Only Tolerate So Much (Score:2)
He certainly should have pursued legal recourse outside the school.
However, I think what our friend was trying to say above was: anything that's disruptive to the educational processs should be grounds for letting the school bar a student from participating.
Distributing the said material on the web would qualify, just as much as distributing the material across the street from the school grounds.
As others have pointed out, let the student keep the web site and continue to exercise his right to speak freely. And let him, at the same time, lose his privilege to attend institution whose administration he's villifying. I think it's a fair trade, especially considering that he can grab a GED anyway, and if the principal really sucks as much as the kid was implying, he's really not out that much.
Then again, *I* think that public school shouldn't be mandatory after age 12. There's too many people wasting time in the system. So I would be what many people would call a "kook".
--
Re:Sad. (Score:2)
>this case, writings) causes harm to another
>individual.
Ouch. Your writing is hurting my eyes. Can I sue you too?
>however in this particular case, the student
>has crossed the line
Define any `line' that the student has crossed and I'll define a corresponding `line' that he has not crossed.
>This is called slander or libel and is
>punishable by law. Just ask the National
>Inquirer
Slander and Libel only applies when you're trying to portrait your statements as truth. In this case, it is obviously a parody.
Of course, parodies cause harm. In fact, ALL of them hurts. Yet, however hurting they might be, they're ALL protected speech.
Re:Censors Rights (Score:2)
Yes. Fortionately, they also have the right to be ignored.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Absolutely false. (Score:2)
The fact that the Supreme Court says it's false was my first hint.
No offense, but that was a pretty foolish question. If the Supreme Court says "the Constitution grants no rights" (Cruickshank is the first cite I can find), then that's a pretty clear indicator that free speech isn't guaranteed to citizens in law.
Not sure this is a good decision (Score:2)
Was the web site downloadable on school PCs? If so, this is no different than a student being suspended for distributing an obscene parody pamphlet, or running down the halls yelling obscene things about the assistant principle.
Freedom of speech is certainly sacrosanct, but this boy's freedom of speech was not violated - he did not have to take down his web site (though he may have of his own accord).
In the same way, you have every right to put up an independent parody web site criticizing your employer, but don't expect to keep your job when they find out.
-josh
Sad. (Score:2)
While free speech is protected by the First Amendment, there must be drawn a limit to which this umbrella of protection is stopped. That limit is drawn where your speech (or in this case, writings) causes harm to another individual.
A philosopher once said "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and this holds true in most cases. We have the First Amendment not to protect the conformists and conservatives in our society, but to protect those who hold minority or contriversial opinions that would otherwise be persecuted for their beliefs.
This is a good thing, and I fully support the student's right to exercise his rights, however in this particular case, the student has crossed the line, and was right to have his website censored by the school system. When speech causes harm, whether it be physical injuries, or mental anguish, to another person, the speaker has violated the rights of the target of the speech and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment. This is called slander or libel and is punishable by law. Just ask the National Inquirer. Deliberately spreading rumors or insulting another person is against the law and I am truly saddened at the opressive power the ACLU wields over this country's courts. I can only hope that justice will be served in an appeal.
This sets off a bad precedent. (Score:3)
I wont put my voice behind this kid, if he wanted to voice something meaningful about the asst. principal, he would have found some better way than portraying the guy having sex with simpson, smoking marijuana and as a pedophile. These are quite harsh allegations and even if he deemed them funny, i am sure this hurts the general morale among teachers.
I am sure half of Slashdot would agree that they were better than the teachers that taught them, but then again, most of us would agree that wisdom that comes with age is ten times better than whats being taught as part of the curriculum. No wonder why people dont want to get in to the teaching profession anymore. After all, what do they get. Less money and to top it all, their own students alleging them of being a pedophile. I wouldnt be suprised if this shocks and saddens the whole teaching community as a whole
I agree that the school has nothing to do or has no power over what a student does after school. I wish the asst. principal had slapped a law suit on the kid and his parents first, rather than kicking him out of school.
My mother was a teacher, not in this country though. There are different method for teaching and some starts at the end of a cane. The parents and the kids accept this as a part of the learning process and everyone is better at the end of the day.