Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
Bouncer Beatdown at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club
Obama's Afghanistan Plans: 30,000 More Troops, Withdraw By July 2011
Well, we suppose the Department of Education would have to crack down on the Internets after holding the line on not letting kids bring in cellphones. The DoE wants to prevent students from posting "libelous or defamatory material or literature" online, and if they do, they are in big trouble. The Post reports:
Kindergartners to fifth-graders who disparage their teachers, principals or fellow students on the Web could face a finger-wagging parent conference or be suspended for up to 90 days, according to the proposed discipline code.Okay, how much do we love the idea of kindergarteners starting blogs to bitch about their teachers? Naturally, civil rights lawyers are wondering what ground the DoE has to enforce this, but the DoE wants to make sure that the Internet is not being used to taunt other kids. Yeah, good luck with that one. It's been a while since Gothamist was in school, but what are the college and university policies regarding this? And note that this doesn't prevent parents from going to town on the DoE or teachers...or other students.For students in sixth grade through high school, derogatory online postings would warrant an automatic suspension and could necessitate expulsion under the new rules.
The regulation would apply to personal Web sites, online diary entries or comments on popular social-networking sites like MySpace.com and Sconex.com.
The DoE will be holding a public meeting on August 9. The meeting will also be discussing banning paintball guns and stun guns (disguised as cell phones!).
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I would think the DOE would have more important things to worry about than cellphones or what some educationally frustrated student is saying about them online.
"we love the idea of kindergarteners starting blogs"
kindergartenist.com ??
;)
Colleges where students reside in dorms do have legal grounds to limit the activities of those students, because they are using college resources and infrastructure to access the Internet. However, most don't, on the grounds that students should be generally free to do what they want -- the exception, of course, is when the RIAA comes a knockin'; but even then, many schools, such as MIT, go out of their way to side with their students.
Um....1st amendment?
This is overstepping the authority of the DoE, not to mention grossly unconstitutional.
Time to take these bastards to court.
Wish the DOE had a policy for Project Runway fans.
(kidding, people, kidding)
Public schoolchildren have fewer First Amendment rights if they're doing something on school premises/using school resources than public university students do. There's a lot more to First Amendment analysis than claiming that nobody can ever tell you what you can and can't say.
kristin, you and me both. What constitutes "derogatory language" legally speaking? It seems like this is yet another rule that is going to end up costing the DoEd more money due to legal costs involved and taking away costs from the much needed educational measures.
Kristen:
The courts have ruled that schools have compelling and just cause to limit any and all rights of students on school property, including instituting speech and dress codes, warrantless locker searches, etc.
The argument (and a good one, at that) is that the school can (and must) do what it needs to do to maintain a safe, positive learning environment for as many students as possible. Allowing students to call eachother names, for instance, or requiring a warrant for a locker search for a weapon or drugs, represents too great a threat to that environment, and that trumps things like the 1st or 4th Ammendment (or 2nd, for that matter).
This argument has never been tested outside of school property, to my knowledge, although I've seen reports of similar policies cropping up here and there. A test in court for this policy would take years to see though, which is most unfortunate for any student found on the wrong side of it, so all I can do is hope that ill-advised policies like this one are shot down before they can be enforced.
Newsflash:
School kids have no constitutional rights whatsoever. They are a nonentity and so are not afforded the rights and privileges of a full citizen of this great country.
At Syracuse University last year, 4 freshman girls were expelled for starting a facebook group that complained about a horrible (and, according to them, not-so intelligent) TA that they had. It clearly never occurred to them that the administration would find out about it (which may have been naive), but certainly no one thought that the consequences of complaining about a bad TA on the internet would include expulsion.
to samantha and isaiah: i don't believe the article specified using school equipment.
in fact, my comment was based on the assumption that this is being done at home.
Kristen:
Right, hence my last paragraph.
(sorry, I realize now it's Kristin. You kids and your crazy names! :) )
and to Judas: Are you saying that anyone under the age of 18 doesn't have the right to free speech? I hardly think that it can be boiled down to that.
The article doesn't say "derogatory." It says libelous and defamatory, which are fairly clearly defined under the law. Libel and defamation have always been punishable under civil law. You can scream "First Amendment" rights all you want, but if you libel or slander someone, don't be surprised if you're sued. This DOE rule is just short-circuiting the process so they don't need lengthy legal action, which would be pretty silly against kids and very difficult in a school system of millions of students.
This is when Anonymity comes into play.
Also if you’re too afraid to use the internet to post your derogatory comments, its best to just use a permanent marker and write it on the bathroom wall. And perhaps an illicit illustration involving the person you want to make fun of and a giant erect penis will help get your message across.
There are interesting arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, students have rights to free speech. On the other, libel and defamation are illegal.
As a NYC public high school teacher, I understand the tension between these two. I want students to be able to express themselves freely in my class (and in the world), and yet I don't want them to do so in such a way that is derogatory or damaging to others.
When my students go online (in blogs, MySpace, etc.) I urge them to think about their public identity. Publishing on the Internet for anyone to see is different than having a conversation with your best friends on a street corner. I would ask them to imagine that anyone (friends, parents, teachers, or employers) might read what they write. Yes, they should be honest. But they should also be responsible.
Jeebus - buahahaha. I know I shouldn't be laughing, but I think this comments thread needed that. What is it with drawing gigantic penises all over everything in grade school?
"This argument has never been tested outside of school property, to my knowledge, although I've seen reports of similar policies cropping up here and there."
it will, eventually. figure at-home drug testing (compulsatory for all students) is only a few years away (for the children, of course) and i'm sure the NEA and local school boards around the country can find many other ways to further dehumanize their already hormone-tarded subjects. seeing as attendance is compulsatory already, and drug testing the chess team is hellaciously popular, the rest of it isn't much of a leap.
Who knows, but it’s probably penis envy. Those little shits are just jealous they're still tiny down there with no hair, so they compensate for their shortcomings by drawing large dicks on the bathroom walls.
I’ve seen drawings on my JHS bathroom wall referring to a math teacher that would make you cringe and laugh at the same time.
I've heard about the horrible, cruel things teenage girls say about each other online. They spread lies, post the contents of private chat conversations, pose as each other and fake comments, etc. Terrible! Thank god there was no internet when I was in school.
kristin,
I was being sarcastic and facetious (if that really can be accomplish in a single comment on a blog). My sentiment was boiled down from snippets of news throughout the years from various sources regarding 1st amendment rights of minors in school which Isaiah was more capable in recounting. Given that minors (under 18 or 17 in certain states) are not afforded the right to vote politicians have no vested interests in protecting their 1st amendment unless of course it comes to the G-d given right of cellphone in school. No man shall trespass on such fundamental right.
How does this affect remarks, some disparaging and negative, that students post on ratemyprofessors.com?
It doesn’t since its Anonymous and basically just states opinions.
But Professors are now starting to read it, blowing the whole deal.
Sorry for the misunderstandings... hard to get sarcasm via post sometimes.
old timer said:
"I've heard about the horrible, cruel things teenage girls say about each other online ... Thank god there was no internet when I was in school."
GiGi (who's in her 30s) says:
Amen to that.
There's something you really need to understand. There is no true anonymity online, at least not without taking extreme precautions. If myspace gets a subpoena in a libel suit, they will turn over your name. The terms of service for these sites always say that if legitimate charges are made against specific individuals, they'll turn them in. Sure, you can use a fake name. But then they'll subpoena the IP logs and from there, your ISP. Unless you were smart enough to never do your dirty work from home. Maybe if you were bright enough to use a free WiFi hotspot so you're not traceable, but how many kids are that cognizant of consequences (read: paranoid)?
People who immediately scream "unconstitutional" whenever something like this comes up show they have only the most basic understanding of the Constitution. Ask any professional journalist if they can write anything they want, regardless of truthfulness, and hide behind the First Amendment. They'll laugh you out of the room.
"kids have no constitutional rights whatsoever...
...[just]being sarcastic and facetious"
Judas Iscariot
and yet its half true in the sense that kids are property of the parents, which is good if you have good parents and bad if you have bad parents.
The problem is people under 18 have no leverage. Forget constitutional rights. They only exist for those with the economic or organizational strength to back up claims to rights with an army of lawyers, votes, or serious bad press.
Yes, this policy from the DOE is insane if it goes beyond a very specific limitation to what is legally libelous or defamatory. We all know the DOE won't limit it to that in practice and will instead just put it's full weight on any poor sap of a student stupid and unlucky enough to get caught saying something "mean" about the wrong person online.
If students are going to be free from this kind of meddling overreach by administrators and busybodies in City Hall they need to increase their own leverage. That means organizing. That means increasing their own economic strength. It means taking their own learning seriously. It means a slightly lower voting age. And it means having significant alternatives to the public education system.
First graders aren't going to do any of that obviously. I'm talking high school students. But even there that would require a level of seriousness, maturity, and dedication that is rare at any age.
poopyface.com! "'You're a big stupidhead' is not necessarily defamatory or libelous." I can't wait to hear that transcribed into a court report.