Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Education News

Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case 331

Posted by Zonk from the worth-the-pain-i-hope dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A student who brought a suit against his middle school has been awarded a settlement after two years of legal battles. USAToday reports that the suit was brought after the school leveled harsh disciplinary measures against the student, based entirely on comments made to his website guestbook." From the article: "Grayson Barber, who handled the case on behalf of the ACLU, said the school presented no evidence that Dwyer's comments were threatening or disruptive of school activities. 'Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case More

Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case

Comments Filter:

  • Seems a rather obvious conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dartmouth05 ( 540493 ) * on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:56PM (#13982820)
    Students have free speech rights--they are limited for the special circumstances of the school house environment, but it is undeniable that public school students have certain 1st Amendment rights. A website, written from a home computer, would seem a rather obvious example of free speech that cannot be punished by school administrators, especially if the punished speech was in a guest comments section that the student may not have written himself.
    • And yet there have been way too many cases where school officials punish a student for something done off-campus. I can think of several on-line posting examples like this one, and one case where a student was suspended because a principal saw her jaywalking around town, or similar.

      I'm happy to see this ruling.

      • there's a distinction (Score:3, Interesting)

        by conJunk ( 779958 )
        actually, a couple of distictions...

        first is that the school acts in loco parentis [wikipedia.org] while the student is traveling to/from school. so, if a teacher sees a kid jaywalking on her way home, the school may legally respond to that

        the other distinction has to do with published policies. if the school has a policy that says "you get suspended for violating city ordinances", and then the kid gets caught jay walking, that's that.

        this case seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it though? the kid was operating at h

        • If the school is still responsible for the kids while they are walking home, then the school is doing a lousy job keeping an eye on them.

          I suppose the school can try to have whatever policy they like, but I don't think it's any of their business whether the kids violate city ordinances on their own time. I would hope to see such a policy get shot down in a similar manner.
          • I'm having dificulty googling anything as concise or relevant as we got in my 7th grade "you and the law" course. Basically, in loco parentis isn't going anywhere fast. It's been part of life in America for about 50 years, and the courts are happy to keep it that way.

            this article [freeadvice.com] is rather brief, but provides a little more insight on how the courts feel about it

        • In loco parentis? How many parents prosecute their kids for talking back to them, or jaywalking? If schools deign to use that phrase, they better act like it.

          I'll go one further here, on a somewhat relevant subject; zero-tolerance policies. These are what cause things like Columbine to happen (and no, zero tolerance wasn't due to Columbine, although that did accelerate it). Zero tolerance (ZT) is dangerous, because it constricts aggression. A schoolyard scuffle, no matter what else, relieve mental pressure

          • Re:there's a distinction (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Namronorman ( 901664 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @07:06PM (#13983994)
            Zero tolerance is a real bitch, and I say this from first hand experience. A school I used to go to would suspend you if you were in a fight, even if you didn't defend yourself etc. If someone jumps/mugs/etc you, you'll likely be suspended even though you yourself didn't do anything wrong.

            I got so fed up with the bull shit of being jumped (I was a minority in the school and was often alienated) I just started to fight back. School is kind of like prison now, you beat someone up on the first day and they'll respect you. If you don't beat someone up on the first day, someone will beat you up and you'll be suspended regardless!

            It upsets me with what's happening to what used to be a fine country. What's worse is 90% of the people don't seem to care until it's too late.

            • I just wish that people who promulgate so-called zero-tolerance policies would realize that far from looking strong and principled what they've really done is brand on their forehead "I am too stupid and lazy to make logical distinctions."

    • Quite possibly the speach itself was physically threatening to certain people at the school. Such speach is not protected. What the school did not understand was that simply offering a forum for free speach does not hold the forum creator instantly liable for the speach in said forum. Possibly if takedown request to the individual messages that contained threatening speach were ignored only then would there be a case against the forum owner.

      • Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:19PM (#13983042)
        Possibly if takedown request to the individual messages that contained threatening speach were ignored only then would there be a case against the forum owner.

        Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU. In this case, however, the school decided that it's own more stringent rules trumped law and they metered punishement without so much as a trial.

        If it weren't a state-run institution, if our young citizens weren't compelled to attend school by law and if the offense had actually occured on school grounds then these punishments may have been acceptable. But when a citizen is compelled by law to be a member of an institution and then that instutution can institute rules that extend to all other aspects of the citizen's life and then when those rule can supercede state and federal law, well, then you have a problem.

        TW
        • "speach" is apparently Gaelic for "wasp, any venomous insect, bite or sting of wasp, etc., stitch in the side"
          (From: http://www.mackinnon.me.uk/Faclair/S.html [mackinnon.me.uk] in case you wanna look up some Gaelic; and really, who doesn't?)

          "Speach" is also a surname.

          If we're going to discuss schools and education and whatnot, maybe we should use the right words.

          I, for one, do not support "Freedom of Speach." Keep your wasps away from me.
          • That's really so nice of you to point out my error. Have you considered posting on "Colon: News for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation Nerds"?

            Or maybe instead of your friendly spelling advice, you could give me advice on the best spell check for my web browser? Remember, make fun of a man's spelling and you feel superior for day, but teach man to spell and you can feel superior for a lifetime.

            TW
            • That's really so nice of you to point out my error. Have you considered posting on "Colon: News for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation Nerds"?

              No, I have not. Typically I mangle the crap out of the english language on a daily basis with my incredibly poor typoing skills. However, "speach" looked close enough to a real word that I took the time to make sure it wasnt an alternate spelling or something else I didn't know.

              Or maybe instead of your friendly spelling advice, you could give me advice on the best sp
        • Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU.

          Please turn your brain on before posting.

          The speech in question was message board comments, posted by visitors, not by the boy himself. Even if that speech was threatening, the boy is blameless. I would be supporting him in such a case; the ACLU would join me; and if you wouldn't, well, I won't threaten you for such a viewpoint but I ce
          • um, sure. You're right. Except the article pretty clearly states that the assertion by the school board was that Dwyer was responsible for the speech in question and Dwyer's defense was that the school had no right to govern his speach.

            From the article:

            The settlement of the lawsuit brought nearly two years ago follows a decision by a federal judge ruling that Oceanport school administrators violated Ryan Dwyer's free speech rights.

            and

            "While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly

    • I think that Penn & Teller said it best -

      "You do not have the right not to be offended."

      Can you imagine what would happen if Slashdot were held responsible for our comments? *SNICKER*

      2 cents,

      Queen B

      • Re:Rights (Score:5, Funny)

        by krbvroc1 ( 725200 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:34PM (#13983171)
        Can you imagine what would happen if Slashdot were held responsible for our comments? *SNICKER*

        You snicker, but I see the Senate confirmation hearing for a future political position.

        Senator: Sir, I have before me posting alledged to be by you on a computer web service referred to as slashdot. Are you familiar with that?
        Nominee: Uh, yes Sir.
        Senator: Are these postings labelled as from one 'FukMonkey345' yours?
        Nominee: Sir I can assure you that was a long time ago.
        Senator: Sir, remember you are under oath, I have evidence here that you claimed that you 'Welcome the nerd overlords?' Who are these folks?
        Senator: You also stated that 'In Soviet Russia they own you'? What is this commie loving talk?
        Senator: Do you have a prejudice against us old people? There are frequent references in the record to 'In Korea only old people use...'.
        Senator: Finally, what did you mean when you claimed 'All you base are belong to us'?

        • Nominee: I agree that these posts look a little troubling, Senator, but please, Sir, let the record show that at least I got the first post.
    • You'd think that, wouldn't you?

      But it really depends on whether or not they have a "code of conduct" clause in their student handbook.

      Incidentally, IANAL, but I was disciplined in high school for making a website that criticized a fellow student at the school. Rather, I was disciplined for viewing the website, and fell prey to a rarely-invoked clause about viewing webpages with profanity in them, and for printing it out to show people. They did say they could do nothing to me because I made it at home-

  • Pure Profit (Score:5, Funny)

    by s-twig ( 775100 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:58PM (#13982852)
    $100,000 isn't bad for your first website.

    • Re:Pure Profit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ecklesweb ( 713901 )
      Why do I think that the kid isn't going to see much of that $117,000? If it's been in court for two years, there are some legal bills mounting somewhere, and I wouldn't think it surprising or even wrong if the ACLU took a big ass cut to pay for the services it rendered.

      Anyone know for sure whether the ACLU takes a percentage of judgements or settlements to offset litigation costs when one of its clients wins?
      • That would really suck if that were the case, since I think the kid has earned that $117,000 for sticking it out for two whole years. Seems like there might be some justification for stupidly-high multi-million-dollar jury-awarded settlements after all: after the inevitable appeals, expenses, and legal bills, there's just not that much left!
      • It's really quite variable depending on the case, the jurisdiction, and so on. I doubt there's a standard practice, although remember that the ACLU's work is not like a typical plaintiff's firm's.

        At any rate, even if it were on contingency, that tops out at about a third. Contingency fees are a gamble; sometimes you win big, sometimes you get about what your rate would've been, and sometimes the lawyer ends up worse off than if he had never taken the case.
    • 1. Make webpage
      2. Get punished
      3. Profit!!

      It's every student's dream! :D

  • Just as well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dakirw ( 831754 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @04:59PM (#13982866)

    It's a good thing that the school district got its hand slapped for enforcing a stupid rule and then refusing to state the rule that was violated. How can someone be held liable for what another person put in a guestbook? And then to top it off, suspending a kid from school and not allowing him to go on a field trip or play sports for no justification? Jeez, at least tell the guy exactly what rule he violated. That school district just taught its students a lesson in the abuse of authority.

    • Re:Just as well (Score:2, Insightful)

      by techwrench ( 586424 )
      "The school district has never -- to this day -- explained to us what rule or policy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father." According to the article, there was no stated rule, stupid or otherwise.

    • Re:Just as well (Score:2, Funny)

      by Surt ( 22457 )
      Yep, they taught their students you can get big $$$ when you abuse the authorities.
    • Hopefully what the students will learn is that when you stand up to abusive authorities you stand to win big $$$.

  • Schools react harshly to protesting students (Score:5, Informative)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:00PM (#13982882) Homepage Journal
    Any student that takes a chance and says something against authority, or does something that some board members may find offensive, run the risk of suspension. A couple years ago a girl in Florida was suspended for her Halloween outfit because she covered herself in unused condoms, and encouraged other students to take them. The official story from the school was that she was being disruptive, and refused to change shirts, but really it was about a repressive administrator that felt that "handing out condoms admits to being sexually active, and that was against the policy of the school which is abstience".

    Schools are messed up places in some parts. If you didn't always toe the line, and didn't get suspended, consider your school a progressive one.
    • Even that is understandable. The school found it disruptive and frankly it probably was. It was in school and they can enforce a dress code. This case is much different. This was a website that was not hosted by the school and was a comment in a guest book that may or may not have been written by the student.
      As long as you are not breaking the law I do not see how a public school has the right to do anything about what you do at home.

    • Re:Schools react harshly to protesting students (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Eh, I got into a fight with a shop professor once. He had the habit of whacking people on the hand with a ruler when he got pissed at them. I was taking fencing lessons at a time, so what I did was take my own ruler and parry. We ended up exchanging a few blows, then he grabbed my ruler and I grabbed his. He ended up with both, proceeded to hit me over the head with one of them (don't remember if he kept a grip on the other), at which point I decked him.

      The principal decided that I was in the right because
      • I used to have a typing teacher that would smack your fingers with a ruler. I told her not to smack my hands with the ruler. So she went out of her way to try to do it. Most of the time I got my hands out of the way fast enough that she'd smack the keyboard instead and get all pissed. She finally lost it when she went to smack my hands, hit the keyboard, I busted up laughing, and she hit me over the head. So I took the ruler, broke it in half, and threw it in trashcan. I got suspended for 3 days even after
    • early, right out of the gate.

      The school works for us, not the other way around. They may be trained as educators, but they have nothing on honest, caring, critical thinking parents where raising kids is concerned.

      Most of the crap kids must endure these days is directly related to making the job easier for the educators. A noble goal, and one that I support. However, this goal must not get in the way of helping kids to learn citizenship, responsibility and ethics --along with their rights and responsibilities.

      If the school does something lame with your kid, do not let it slide because the damage is minor, or resolving the issue takes time. Address it completely and fully and make sure your kid knows why this is being done and what the value is.

      Often the school will want the parents to meet with the educator without the student in kind of a settlement meeting. The idea being to come to a solution that insures no educator loses face. Don't do that. If the problem involves your kid, then the discussion is fair game as well.

      There are a lot of things about my school district that I don't like, and there are a lot of things I do like too. My point is they are not perfect, even though they try really hard to convey that to both kids and parents. Once they realize you see through that and require they deal fair, many issues get a lot easier as time goes on.

      I'm happy this kid got to actually speak. I am also worried that he does not see the flip side of the issue; namely, that free speech has consequenses. Later in life, he might speak and be right for doing so, but might not consider the consequenses of his speech where his peers are concerned.

      Who knows though. Might be a smart young man who just learned a valuable lesson early enough to really make a difference. Just worry a little that it might go to his head, that's all.

      If the student is reading this: Good luck in life, young man, but be sure to think your future speech all the way through before speaking!

      (Not that you did anything wrong, because you didn't. It's just that speaking out does not always equal a nice bankroll.)

      • In fairness to the student: the likelyhood he would learn that his speech has no consequences is fairly low, since it wasn't his speech that got him in trouble in the first place. It was someone elses speech, and I hope he rightly learns that he shouldn't worry too much that someone else's speech will get him into trouble.
      • Most of the crap kids endure at schools these days is to make school administrators feel self-important and powerful. Teachers are usually fine and pretty in tune with what's going on, but administrators will make and enforce stupid rules just so they can pat themselves on the back later.
    • Schools are messed up places in some parts. If you didn't always toe the line, and didn't get suspended, consider your school a progressive one.

      Or like I've always said, public schools preparing the public to live life in a police state to be happy with whatever repulican voting they get and to believe that they live in a democracy.

  • What did it say?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Warlock7 ( 531656 )
    There doesn't appear to be any mention of what was claimed to have been said on the site, other than "anti-Semitic" comments. What did the site say that got the kid in trouble?

    What were the criticisms of the school?

  • This kid is a genius (Score:3, Funny)

    by NardofDoom ( 821951 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:03PM (#13982899)
    He has one helluva a business plan:

    1) Create website with guestbook
    2) Wait for some idiot to post disparaging comments about his school.
    3) Get suspended (woohoo! four day weekend!)
    4) Get the ACLU to sue the school for him
    5) Profit! At taxpayer expense!

    No student loans for this kid, eh?

  • They expelled a student from my high school for making a wesite about how stupid he thought the school was...

  • Fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bgog ( 564818 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:05PM (#13982924) Journal
    This is wonderful!! There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period. If threatening comments are made they of course have the right to call the police who DO have authority outside of school. However it is NEVER appropriate to levy a school punnishment (like detention or removal of privilages) for an activity outside school. It's just a power grab to make the administrators feel more important than they are. Worry about education and keeping kids safe while at school. Leave the parenting to me and any criminal punnishments to the police.
    • I'd just like to mention that in the school district where I went to high school, getting arrested on a drug or alcohol violation would result in an immediate school suspension. After I left, there was also a case where a student created a web site [school name]sucks.com. The site got taken down. He should have contacted the ACLU.

      Pretty much my entire high school experience was dodging a barrage of arbitrary threats and punishment from school officials, and I wasn't even one of the troublemakers. I hated t

    • Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by man_ls ( 248470 )
      What gets me even more is certain activities, 100% legal off property of the school, become punishable offenses on their property.

      Take smoking, or even posessing, tobacco or tobacco products (or, for that matter, any medication OTC or prescribed, etc.) As was, for that matter, posessing a cellular phone on your person.

      An individual I was friends with a number of years ago, was caught with a pack of cigarettes in her purse by an administrator walking by. She was 18 (legal age for smoking/owning tobacco) and

      • Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
        It's still illegal to take a gun into a courthouse if you have a concealed weapons permit, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be against school rules to have tobacco on school grounds. If your friend's not smart enough to not get caught with her cigarettes, she shouldn't be bringing them to school.
        • If you genuinely believe that the two cases are similar -- that the harm made possible by letting someone bring a gun to a courthouse compares to the harm made possible by letting a student bring tobacco to school -- then you deserve whatever misfortune comes your way, up to and including having a plane dropped on you.
          • God damn, what a tosser you are. Right after submitting this comment I realized that some idiot somewhere would decide that was what I meant, but it was too late. Let me clarify for you: it's normally not legal to carry around a loaded gun; it is legal to carry one around if you have a concealed weapons permit, but you still can't carry one into a courthouse because it's against their rules. (You can't have a lot of other shit in courthouses either, like nail clippers or a wallet with a chain - no shit.) Si

        • I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be against school rules to have tobacco on school grounds.

          How about "There's nothing wrong with having tobacco on school grounds"? Sounds like a good reason to me.

          If smoking is banned, which is reasonable, then punish anybody who breaks that rule, not anybody who possesses the means to break a rule. Otherwise, you'd be endorsing banning pens and pencils, since they can be used to poke the eyes out of other students, which is against the rules. In the tobacco case

    • There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period.

      In general principle, I do agree. I think a pretty clear exception to your statement would be school sponsored events, such as sports, band, field trips and such.

    • Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fried-Psitalon ( 929587 )
      And yet at the same time, as a teacher in a Title 1 (read: seriously economically disadvantaged school) we spend a lot of time seeing parents that don't do ANY job of parenting at all. We run multiple after-school programs just to keep kids off the streets who don't have a parent at home to watch over them. We expect teachers to teach students morals and values (or do we? I've lost track of public opinion on that subject at the moment), teach responsibility, and inspire public virtue in our students... but
      • Except in the example you gave, the line is clear. The one kid beating up the other is committing a crime. It would be a better world if more people would step in and stop this kind of violence, but it seems that most will just turn their backs and ignore it because it's "not their business." I commend you for doing the right thing, even at the expense of your own safety. However, the kid in the OP was not committing a crime--the school was. Outside of the classroom, the school has no right to limit an
      • a teacher in a Title 1 (read: seriously economically disadvantaged school) we spend a lot of time seeing parents that don't do ANY job of parenting at all. We run multiple after-school programs just to keep kids off the streets who don't have a parent at home to watch over them. We expect teachers to teach students morals and values (or do we? I've lost track of public opinion on that subject at the moment), teach responsibility, and inspire public virtue in our students... but the moment the final bell rin
        • Well, as a concerned citizen, I want teachers teaching morals amongst other things. Most kids sure are not getting it at home.

          • I think it would be just grand if the school system would impose my morals on an entire generation of youth, but I don't trust them to get it right.

          • Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bgog ( 564818 )
            Cool, what set of morals should they teach. Yours or Bob's?

            Bob says your girls can't be on the swim team because it's not moral for them to expose their skin.
            Bob says the teachers should hit your kit if he swears.
            Bob says it is not moral to teach science because it is against HIS religion

            Sorry, parents get to teach their kids the morals and values that THEY choose.
    • "There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period."

      But the school environment should prepare students for their adult life. Will their employer not have rules about what they can do when not on the employer's time? We can't have a generation of children grow up with unrealistic expectations about their rights. In the interests of an efficient nation
      • "We can't have a generation of children grow up with unrealistic expectations about their rights. In the interests of an efficient national economy, we need the school system to teach students to respect authority at all times for their own good."

        For the love of God, I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, we're going to have an entire generation who would vote an idiot into the White House, sell their children to Haliburton, and think that it's their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
      • Surely what we need is a complete generation of young people who care a great deal for their rights, and also know that authority does sometimes need to be ignored/done away with (i.e. when it's corrupt, abused, self-appointed, etc) instead of the present system where about 1% have brains and get shouted down as terrorists/unpatriotic/dissenting when they stand up for their rights.
        If everyone stands up for their rights then it will be impossible (or very hard) to remove them.
        To use your employer example,

  • Society (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trip Ericson ( 864747 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:12PM (#13982986) Homepage
    I think this is as much a problem with society as anything else.

    The article states that the school district did not show what rule was broken exactly, and had no proof of these anti-Semitic remarks they claimed were on this site (not that such things can be outlawed--first amendment).

    I am of the belief that this was solely to shut him up. He was criticizing his school district, using his first amendment rights, and so long as he wasn't slandering the school district (or libel, as the case may be), that's tough. However in our society, anyone who says anything at all about anyone else is up for punishment, be it this, suspension and such, or a lawsuit.

    The most the school can do is block his site within the school system using filters. IANAL, but from what I gather, their power should end right there. Especially if the site was not being updated from school, as the article indicates.

    Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad to see this. I doubt it will help, but who knows, maybe it will allow for other schools to get their acts together.

  • Oceanport School District Student Speech Policies (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) * on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:30PM (#13983140)
    Here is the "Freedom of Speech/Expression" policies for the school district that this guy was suspended in (pdf): http://www.oceanport.k12.nj.us/PDFFiles/5145.2doc. pdf [k12.nj.us]
  • While I'm all for freedom of speach even if I don't agree with it that's what freedom of speach is, I don't however, think it is right that in this case the school was sought after for a monetary award, when so many schools are so underfunded these days, this sends a message not of freedom to speak and be heard or to express, but rather to sue your school and profit.

    I think in this case some other form of restitution could have been sought and some agreement made, granted that this kid will ever regain the
    • Yeah, what should have happened is that the power-mad, un-American assholes that punished him should have been fired, barred from working with children anywhere ever again, and personally fined. Nobody should be fucking around with Free Speech rights, especially when the target is impressionable children!

      These school administrators are more harmful to America than terrorists are!

  • The lessons of youth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Tuesday November 08, 2005 @05:45PM (#13983275) Homepage Journal
    Being a young person is a long hard lesson in the abuse of authority. This case is a happy exception in that the abusers were punished and punished publicly.

    This case clearly demonstrates what most of us already know, that an awful lot of school administrators pursued a career in education because they wanted a job where they could lord themselves over other people. This kind of abuse is inevitable anytime one group or person has too much power over another group or person.

    This kid didn't do anything wrong. I'm glad he had the courage and intestinal fortitude to stand up for himself and fight his oppressors. He was punished for the "crime" of being young and because the administration thought they could get away with it. They saw him as a non-person without any rights. A punching bag to take out their frustrations upon. Maybe they'll think twice next time, assuming that there is one since the voters now have 100,000 reasons to elect a new school board. No one likes being told that their tax dollars were spent to compensate the victims of abuse at the hands of a public institution.

    Lee
    • Which part of this was flamebait? From where I'm standing (a high school student) this appears to be fairly accurate. I've been threatened with suspension or expulsion for minor offenses, only to be told "it was a misunderstanding" when my parents ask about it. The abuse of power is a huge problem in the public education system, and putting your head in the sand doesn't help anyone.

      And yes, I do know that many educators do value their jobs for the right reasons, but that still doesn't make this sort of

  • Does anyone remember that big deal that happened in New York where students were told not to start personal websites (MySpace and the like). Here, I found the Slashdot article:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/235524 3&tid=95 [slashdot.org]
    Now, I know one can make the argument that these are different situations, but they both deal with a school's right to compel their students to change what they do outside of school, specifically on the Internet. The other large difference is that this is a public sch
    • The other large difference is that this is a public school and the other school was Catholic, but this really shouldn't matter outside of school.

      But that's the crux of the buscuit though.

      The same constitution that says that public schools cannot censor out-of-school activities by students also grants private institutions of all sorts "freedom of association" rights (these are not explicit, but are implied by the first and fourth ammendment rights of peaceful assembly and protection from unreasonable se

    • Schools should have no right, Catholic or public, to compel their students to take down personal blogs...

      Why can't a Catholic school do this? Unlike a public school, a Catholic school is a private organization. It seems to me that enforcing this "right" limits the ability of private organizations to conduct their own affairs.

      A Catholic school, and for that matter, any private organization is perfectly entitled to enforce its own code of conduct on or off its property, and apply any (legal) disciplinar

  • I seriously doubt that the settlement money here will come directly out of the school district's budget. More than likely they have some kind of liability insurance policy that would pay out in a case like this. Maybe it's too small of an amount for an insurance payout, but any entity that doesn't have some kind of general liability policy is asking for problems when a case like this arises.

    My wife, who is a music teacher in a public elementary school, has a general liability policy for $1 million that cov

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Close