Students Can Be Punished For Postings Online »

Posted by: Webfeed 1 year, 10 months ago

5.7

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 24

Propped: 37

Comments: 17

Archived

The policy informs students and teachers that they will be held legally responsible for anything posted online, including material deemed defamatory, obscene, proprietary or legally libelous. The policy targets threats or other comments posted online that could cause a disruption in the school or threaten the safety of a student or employee.

Read Full Story at indystar.com »

Story Tags What are Tags?

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 18

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
JenMurdock
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:04 p.m.
Yep, thanks to Bush and his hatred of free speech, everyone who is a megalomaniac and has some modicum of power is going to start telling people what they can and can't say. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, isn't it? What is the next step, businesses saying their employees can't complain about working conditions online...or anywhere else? We can't even protest our beloved president anymore, lest you get arrested, never mind it's a 'peaceful' one. This country is in trouble. Biiiig trouble. And people who think every thing is "just ducky" are either delusional, republicans or part of the problem...or all three rolled into one! I love my country, but fear my government. Sad but true.

1 Reply
- Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
  Fangarius
  Oct. 20, 2006, 2:25 a.m.
  Well, actually, it's not as so much Bush and the hatred of free speech per se, but the delusion that one can go online and literally say anything without consequences. Now the only problem I see with this is say, the student has a private blogsite. There, I see no reason for a school to punish a student for what is posted there because: one, the student has a private account, and two, I've considered blogsites to be like anonymous diaries.
  After all, I've felt blogsites, and places like MySpace, serve as a means for one to express themselves and vent freely without being judged in the process. And I'd rather a student constructively vent out their emotions than to act upon them. It's bad enough we hear about students murdering other students and teachers due to the fact no one listens.
  However, I feel if you're posting hateful and spiteful items about something or someone on public website forums and such just to be vindictive, then you've got a serious dilemma. On the one hand, I can see where the school wants to protect itself, especially if they have their own private online forum for the students. But if you're online in general, you do have a right to express your thoughts and ideas as you see fit. Thus you get into the whole problem of censorship, which, as of late is getting worse.
  And yet, I recall V once saying "People should not fear their government, instead governments should fear their people." In other words, I consider our government needs to start listening to the people, rather than dictating to them. But that's just me.
Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)
Monkey_Scout
Oct. 19, 2006, 10:21 p.m.
Well it's not Bush's fault on this. They are doing to wrong things to get students to stop acting violently. Punishing for venting is a bad thing. I rather they vent on Xanga insted of on other people.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
KISA452a
Oct. 20, 2006, 8:07 a.m.
Hmmmm. Bush is to blame for censorship? Wow, I must be from a different country. Censorship by the government has been in full swing for (probably) as long as the country has been around. Think of the 60s radicals who were supporessed. They then took power and suppressed speach they didn't/don't like. Now you say Bush is doing it. US history is full of this.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
KISA452a
Oct. 20, 2006, 8:07 a.m.
What I don't get is that people constantly say that educational institutions are where people should learn to think for themselves. Then they constantly force some view or other on the students. While direct threats might need to be investigated, and certainly anything done on a school computer or with a school account "belongs" to the school, vviews expressed on public websites are to be punished? Scary... "Distruptive" ideas are to be punished? Someone will undoubtedly decide that a complaint about why someone was suspended is disruptive. Or a compettion between schools about a sports game. Or complains about the subject matter. Or... The potential for abuse is unlimited and obvious.
How about school try looking at subject matter and keeping campuses safe, leave outside of school to proper authories. Then think about a rule that says if a student is convicted os X, Y, Z crimes the school will prevent access. Not thought and speech...
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
geographer47
Oct. 20, 2006, 8:42 a.m.
School districts are not the only entities assigning liability to blog commenters. Before year's end the California Supreme Court will be ruling on a blog-based libel suit.
http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/09/06/comments-libel-and-free-speech-on-the-internet
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
oreooreo
Oct. 20, 2006, 10:21 a.m.
First of all to blame Bush for the decision of a local school board is silly.
As a libertarian I have no real problem with the school board taking this action except for the part that talks about obscene, but I'll get back to that in a minute.
As far as things that are posted that are legally libelous, defamatory, or proprietary, or overtly violent or threatening, can't be tolerated.
They are not tolerated in the adult world, without consequences, just check the personal insurance premiums for individuals in the public eye if you doubt me.
You can't just post the Mr. Smith is having an affair with under aged students, just to get back at Mr. Smith for giving you an "F". That stuff does need to regulated cause you can destroy someone, and without a policy, you can destroy them without consequence.
My issue with the obscenity piece is does anyone really know what is legally obscene? If that were removed I would have no problem with this at all.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
samsara15
Oct. 20, 2006, 10:24 a.m.
We always have been respopnsible for what we say. I would like to hear the ACLU's take on this issue.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
CommonSense50
Oct. 20, 2006, 11:08 a.m.
Free speach is a basic right, but as individuals, there is no "right" to harass, insult, libel or cause harm to another person, whether it is in a "private" form or public. Students often use this anonymous venue to vent their spleen on other studends, much to their distress. This is just another form of "bullying" by one group upon a weaker group-which should not be tolerated. The veil that the net offers just allows more vicious attacks and many teenagers simply are not emotionally mature enough to handle being targeted. Using the net to discuss open issues is one thing, using it for spiteful, hurtful and criminally activity is another and should be controlled.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
IanFraigun
Oct. 20, 2006, 11:13 a.m.
Oreooreo
Nobody is directly blaming Bush. They are blaming Bush's policies and methods for showing examples that these others follow.
When the federal government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong (read warantless wire taps) then those at lower levels start looking for ways they also can get away with trampling the rights of those under their control for whatever purpose they wish.
Let's see now that congress has given the adminstration the right to wire tape and without oversite declare someone an unlawful combatant thus taking away their Habeus Corpus rights what else would you expect from a school board. School boards always have looked for ways to be more controlling of the private life of their students and the feds have shown them ways to do it.
Avg rating: (+7/-1 6)
oreooreo
Oct. 20, 2006, 11:34 a.m.
Ian:
You are not matching apples to apples, and are trying to put everything under one umbrella.
As I noted, with the exception of the obscenity piece, the school board appears to be trying to enforce some modicum of control.
I expect that you would find it wrong and illegal to go on a public forum, and make liable or slanderous comments about another student, or teacher or administrator that could cause serious harm or damage to that person and there family. Laws are already in place about that, so I don't see this as wrong.
Libertarians believe, government should stay out of personal lives, until someone harms or infringes on the rights of others.
By posting lies about people that are damaging or intimidating, doesn't the effected person have an equal right not to be slandered. I don't believe a persons free speech rights exceed the rights of someone else to not have falsehoods attributed to them.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
oreooreo
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:01 p.m.
I kind of liken this to creating a school policy that says, "students will could be charged if physically attacking another student". Well of course assult is a crime in society, but I bet every school district in America has its own rules that echo the existing laws.
It really is a kind of a non story, when all they are doing is enforcing rules/laws that all ready exist, and yes, they existed prior to President George W. Bush.
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
oreooreo
Oct. 20, 2006, 12:04 p.m.
Tristan:
So if a girl goes to a friends house, and blogs falsly the school principal raped her, and the principal gets fired, you feel the school, in learning of the truth should have no say in the childs punishment? that the parents should handle it?
Avg rating: (+0/-2 -2)
KISA452a
Oct. 20, 2006, 1:14 p.m.
"Free speach is a baslic right", but only speach I approve of. This is what you are saying. Simply stop saying "you" support free speach, admit only "your" sactioned speach is OK, and then make your arguemnt. And wait until "they" come to take away your freedom of speach.
Simply have the courage of your convictions and stop trying to fool people.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
oreooreo
Oct. 20, 2006, 1:48 p.m.
KISA452A
Not sure who you are addressing. But for the record, do you support the free speech of those who choose to slander, and libel people, with no consequence?
I am not suggesting by any means you do, I am just making sure you believe that there do need to be free speech limits.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
KISA452a
Oct. 20, 2006, 1:55 p.m.
It's a tough question, but generally I will say that there do need to be limits. Therefore, I do not believe in free speech and admit that. The debate then becomes what should the limits be. And NOONE should say they believe in free speech.
All that said, this implies that we ahve thrown away the US contitutional guarantee of free speech, and any discussion that uses the Constitution as a basis is also suspect. Honesty is what is required. Not a particular position.
BTW: It was quoted from CommonSense50, though others imply a blief in free speech by criticizing Bush for his "hatred of free speech" as posted several times.
All that said, it is not the job, purvue, realm of responsibility for schools to "prosecute" violations of the law. An institution which can destroy a child's future without charges, trial, jury must be HIGHLY RESTRAINED.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
epcookjr
Oct. 20, 2006, 3:33 p.m.
as this article is written. i see substantial violations of human rights here. i'm 54 years old so i am not a child. i have grand children. as i see it this school board is exceding it's authority. only federal and state elected legislative bodies have that authority. school boards only have authority to set policy ,not make law, concerning the schools they are over and not to legislate the lives of the children 24 hours a day. even then, they do not have authority to set policy that violates human rights and the Constitution of the United States.

one more note. if the student is slandering somone or in someway committing a felony then the school can bring legal action in the proper courts. for them to act otherwise is against the constitution and the existing laws of the land. they would be as gilty as the student or more so sence they should know better. they would be vegilanties.