School, Where do you draw the line?

rate_me said:

I'm starting to feel like this discussion has gotten a bit off track towards people just talking about how strict their school is or how they unfairly got punished. In order to make this thread more of an actual debate, I'd like to shift to the topic to something along the lines of "What rights do schools have, both public and private, in regards to discipline, policy, admission (i.e. admitting minorities before other potential students, taking into account legacy, etc.), and what rights students are entitled to be allowed to do or should not be allowed to do.

To start us off in this new direction, what do you think about students facing disciplinary repercussions from inappropriate comments about school faculty, staff, and the school itself on social networking sites such as facebook. My position is that if a student is in a facebook group for students of the school, then he or she has no right to criticize the school or its staff members online because in that case the student is supposed to be representing the school responsibly.

So you mean basicly a pupil making a "bad" group about a teacher?

Which has happened at my school.

I would have to agree with Kyle- I am not sure about in england but in the US people have the freedom to say whatever they want, if they want to criticize teachers or schools that is their constitutional right.

Telling other people that a teacher is not very good at teaching or even calling them swear words is not hurting the teacher in any way. The US constitution protects such "publications" even if they are offensive to some people.

Patriot X said:

I would have to agree with Kyle- I am not sure about in england but in the US people have the freedom to say whatever they want, if they want to criticize teachers or schools that is their constitutional right.

Telling other people that a teacher is not very good at teaching or even calling them swear words is not hurting the teacher in any way. The US constitution protects such "publications" even if they are offensive to some people.

I'd consider informing people that a teacher isn't very good is indeed doing a lot of damage and hurting the teacher, their reputation, their position of authority, affecting future employment oppuntunites etc etc. Of course people should have a right to complain if they don't think a teacher is doing a good job but it should be through the proper channels and not just insulting the teacher. Surely even in the US you need some sort of evidence to back up your claims? You can't just go around saying how crap a teacher is unless you provide details on why, of course pupils are always going to be biased. How is a pupil going to feel about a teacher who gives them loads of homework compared to one that doesn't?

« Last edited by super craig on Apr 10th 2010 »

That is true, i'm just saying that people have the right to say whatever they want. There is such things as slander and liabel but that would be different. If a student went on like facebook and said that a teacher was a b*tch, that would be totally legal. Thats a matter of opinion and even though it is insulting to the teacher the student has the right to say it.

Now if a student made up a lie about the teacher- lets say he said that the teacher was having an affair. If that is not true, the teacher could sue him for ruining here reputation.

Do you get what i mean? Those are different things

Patriot X said:

That is true, i'm just saying that people have the right to say whatever they want. There is such things as slander and liabel but that would be different. If a student went on like facebook and said that a teacher was a b*tch, that would be totally legal. Thats a matter of opinion and even though it is insulting to the teacher the student has the right to say it.

Now if a student made up a lie about the teacher- lets say he said that the teacher was having an affair. If that is not true, the teacher could sue him for ruining here reputation.

Do you get what i mean? Those are different things

I do get what you are saying but I'm not entirely sure you can still get off as scot free as that, I'm afraid I've not heard of anything similar in schools but there have been cases off people being disiciplined at work for saying various stuff about their bosses and company on sites like facebook and I haven't heard of anyone successfully complaining against it.

Here in New Zealand, some kids (between the ages of 12 and 15) made a Facebook group called something like; "Mr *insert Principles name here* is such a c**k" and the group was about how the principle was unnesserially strict. Apparently if your shoe laces hung too long (like the loops) you could get a detention & other really unimportant things like that would net a detention.

Sure, I agree with respectable uniform for some schools - but thats just taking it too far. Its a school. Not the Army or Navy. School should be about education first & foremost. Not running a totalitarian government like regime.


All this group was saying, was that they think the principle was taking things too far & things of that nature. Sure, they didn't put things so politely, but that was the point of the group. A teacher saw the group, complained to the Polices Cyber Crimes unit & the group was pulled down, and now the kids that started, and every kid that joined, the group are facing possible criminal charges by the police. I can't remember the reasons why, but thats what was on the News.

Which I think is a bit too harsh. We're supposed to be able to voice our opinions, just because someone dislikes what they see & hear shouldn't give them the right to force others to silence their thoughts or opinions for fear of serious reprisals.

only 3 or 4 or the kids in the group were said to make serious accusations & threats against the prinicple, which I think they should be punished for, but punishing everyone in the group for voicing their opinions & personal experiences of the harshness of the Principle is wrong. Punishing the majority for the stupidity of the minority isn't right.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the responsibility of speech. You have every right to say whatever you want, but you also have to suffer the consequences of those things.

Now personally, I don't believe that using your own time and resources (meaning not using school computers or being at school at the time) to criticize, not slander, a teacher or principal should get you punished. I think that outside of school, you have full 1st Amendment rights. But within a school, your 1st Amendment rights are restricted.

i.e. If you call a teacher a c**k on FB from your own home, that's alright imo. It's disrespectful but within your rights. But threats and/or harassment are a totally different issue.

sphynxx said:

Here in New Zealand, some kids (between the ages of 12 and 15) made a Facebook group called something like; "Mr *insert Principles name here* is such a c**k" and the group was about how the principle was unnesserially strict. Apparently if your shoe laces hung too long (like the loops) you could get a detention & other really unimportant things like that would net a detention.

Sure, I agree with respectable uniform for some schools - but thats just taking it too far. Its a school. Not the Army or Navy. School should be about education first & foremost. Not running a totalitarian government like regime.


All this group was saying, was that they think the principle was taking things too far & things of that nature. Sure, they didn't put things so politely, but that was the point of the group. A teacher saw the group, complained to the Polices Cyber Crimes unit & the group was pulled down, and now the kids that started, and every kid that joined, the group are facing possible criminal charges by the police. I can't remember the reasons why, but thats what was on the News.

Which I think is a bit too harsh. We're supposed to be able to voice our opinions, just because someone dislikes what they see & hear shouldn't give them the right to force others to silence their thoughts or opinions for fear of serious reprisals.

So I can go around town slandering you and you can't do anything about it because it is my opinion and I shouldn't face any consequences? It's great if they have an opinion, but that opinion doesn't entitle them to libel. If they knew they'd get in trouble for tying their shoes wrong, did they seriously think they could get away with this? What could they have possibly accomplished beyond humiliating and enraging the principal? That's like telling your parole officer that you'll kill someone the second you're free, and complaining when you don't get out of jail.

sphynxx said:

only 3 or 4 or the kids in the group were said to make serious accusations & threats against the prinicple, which I think they should be punished for, but punishing everyone in the group for voicing their opinions & personal experiences of the harshness of the Principle is wrong. Punishing the majority for the stupidity of the minority isn't right.

Were they not all stupid for actually joining the group: "Mr *insert Principles name here* is such a c**k"? Why shouldn't they be punished for making their school look bad, the student body disrespectful, and the principal foolish? Why shouldn't they be punished for participating in an organization devoted to slandering someone who they merely disliked?

I'd say the principal was fully justified in punishing them.

rate_me said:

Were they not all stupid for actually joining the group: "Mr *insert Principles name here* is such a c**k"? Why shouldn't they be punished for making their school look bad, the student body disrespectful, and the principal foolish? Why shouldn't they be punished for participating in an organization devoted to slandering someone who they merely disliked?

I'd say the principal was fully justified in punishing them.

Technically calling someone a name isn't slander. "Mr. X is a c**k!" is fine, but "Mr. X is having an affair with Mrs. Y!" is not unless you have proof.

YoSoyJu said:

rate_me said:

Were they not all stupid for actually joining the group: "Mr *insert Principles name here* is such a c**k"? Why shouldn't they be punished for making their school look bad, the student body disrespectful, and the principal foolish? Why shouldn't they be punished for participating in an organization devoted to slandering someone who they merely disliked?

I'd say the principal was fully justified in punishing them.

Technically calling someone a name isn't slander. "Mr. X is a c**k!" is fine, but "Mr. X is having an affair with Mrs. Y!" is not unless you have proof.

Slander: ?verb (used with object)
4. to utter slander against; defame. (dictionary.com)

/semantics

Regardless of what it is called, the students had no right to form such a group. While they are entitled to free speech, they should express it in a less antagonistic way.

rate_me said:

YoSoyJu said:

rate_me said:

Were they not all stupid for actually joining the group: "Mr *insert Principles name here* is such a c**k"? Why shouldn't they be punished for making their school look bad, the student body disrespectful, and the principal foolish? Why shouldn't they be punished for participating in an organization devoted to slandering someone who they merely disliked?

I'd say the principal was fully justified in punishing them.

Technically calling someone a name isn't slander. "Mr. X is a c**k!" is fine, but "Mr. X is having an affair with Mrs. Y!" is not unless you have proof.

Slander: ?verb (used with object)
4. to utter slander against; defame. (dictionary.com)

/semantics

Regardless of what it is called, the students had no right to form such a group. While they are entitled to free speech, they should express it in a less antagonistic way.

While I agree with you that freedom of speech doesn't by any means give you the right to just slag off people I think the real issue here is slightly bigger than just about schools. The group these children joined was on facebook, which is highly likely to be accessed outside of school hours and premises and is not under the authority of the school, so how can the school use that to punish pupils in the school? Its no different to how this site is run is some ways, by which I mean that you can't punish/ban/whatever someone on this site for something that they have done on another site. The schools authority is restricted to the times when it is legally obligued to look after you and after school, at home doesn't fall within that. I think its not only a question of the schools authority while you are there, but the reach of the schools authority when you aren't.

Of course you could argue that the headteacher was antagonising the students with such stupid rules, unless he could back up his reasoning for having students shoelaces perfect with evidence that it improves students performances and discipline (the fact that we are having this debate would seem to suggest not)etc.

I still stick by my earlier point that following the proper channels for complaining is best, at the end of the day it should be the best bet for actually getting anything changed.

Yeah, but Rate_Me - the Principle didn't do any punishing. Legally; the School and Prinicple can't do anything about it because it was all set up, looked after, & posted in outside of school.

The problem is; once the Police heard about it, and saw that maybe 5 or 6 out of 150+ students made threats against the principle, the group was pulled down, and the ENTIRE group is being punished for the reckless, thoughtless actions of the minority of idiots.

Most of those students only joined the group because they were sick of being punished for things that didn't have anything to do with Education. I mean; a shoelace that hangs 0.5cm too low gets you a weeks detention?

I agree that those that made threats against the principle should get punished. But the other 144-145 students didn't do anything wrong; which was my point. A teacher saw the group, & instead of approaching Facebook, or the students that started it, went immediately to the Police & now things have snowballed beyond what anyone could have imagined.

I don't know what things are like where you live.

But here; if we think someone is a jerk, or a d**k, or anything like that; we're free to voice our thoughts. If we started saying (as someone else has said) that person X is sleeping with person Y whilst person Ys husband/wife is on holiday, without any kind of proof, then we could very well get into trouble with the law. But not for voicing opinions of that kind of nature.

« Last edited by sphynxx on Apr 13th 2010 »

sphynxx said:

Yeah, but Rate_Me - the Principle didn't do any punishing. Legally; the School and Prinicple can't do anything about it because it was all set up, looked after, & posted in outside of school.

The problem is; once the Police heard about it, and saw that maybe 5 or 6 out of 150+ students made threats against the principle, the group was pulled down, and the ENTIRE group is being punished for the reckless, thoughtless actions of the minority of idiots.

Most of those students only joined the group because they were sick of being punished for things that didn't have anything to do with Education. I mean; a shoelace that hangs 0.5cm too low gets you a weeks detention?

I agree that those that made threats against the principle should get punished. But the other 144-145 students didn't do anything wrong; which was my point. A teacher saw the group, & instead of approaching Facebook, or the students that started it, went immediately to the Police & now things have snowballed beyond what anyone could have imagined.

I don't know what things are like where you live.

But here; if we think someone is a jerk, or a d**k, or anything like that; we're free to voice our thoughts. If we started saying (as someone else has said) that person X is sleeping with person Y whilst person Ys husband/wife is on holiday, without any kind of proof, then we could very well get into trouble with the law. But not for voicing opinions of that kind of nature.

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with anything you posted here. The principal didn't act within the school (which had no jurisdiction), he got the police involved after specific threats had been made. I'm sure the police informed Facebook, whose policies specifically mention that no threatening or hate speech is allowed. Facebook pulled the group (which it had every right and responsibility to do) and the police opened an investigation about the threats. Everything here makes sense. The 145 kids that joined but didn't threaten didn't get punished as far as you have said. They just got their group taken away when the group violated the TOS of Facebook.

mk i didnt read anything about that but i got the impression that a new zealand group of kids made sumthing about a principal on facebook.

Its like what our school does. Some students got suspeneded because of what htey said on facebook.Its because our school doesnt regular sweeps on what we do on social networking sites.thats why i put my profile on private.

sphynxx said:

Yeah, but Rate_Me - the Principle didn't do any punishing. Legally; the School and Prinicple can't do anything about it because it was all set up, looked after, & posted in outside of school.

Then wouldn't be better suited for a debate like "Facebook, Where do you draw the line?" or maybe "Off Campus Yet School Related Organizations, Where do you draw the line?" if the school didn't do anything itself? The teacher, not the school reported the facebook group, anyway.

sphynxx said:

The problem is; once the Police heard about it, and saw that maybe 5 or 6 out of 150+ students made threats against the principle, the group was pulled down, and the ENTIRE group is being punished for the reckless, thoughtless actions of the minority of idiots.

Most of those students only joined the group because they were sick of being punished for things that didn't have anything to do with Education.

And yet they chose to associate themselves with the group. It doesn't matter if you didn't help someone rob a bank: if you're in the get away car, you're getting in trouble too. They aren't exempt from consequences just because they made a stupid decision.

sphynxx said:

I mean; a shoelace that hangs 0.5cm too low gets you a weeks detention?

I agree that it is a stupid rule. However, I do wonder how often and strictly this rule is enforced. I imagine they don't stop random people in the hall and inspect their shoelaces, but I could be wrong.

sphynxx said:

I agree that those that made threats against the principle should get punished. But the other 144-145 students didn't do anything wrong; which was my point. A teacher saw the group, & instead of approaching Facebook, or the students that started it, went immediately to the Police & now things have snowballed beyond what anyone could have imagined.

I'm not familiar with New Zealand law. What was the content aside from the title that would have required police involvement?

I'll respond to the other points tomorrow if I have time.

rate_me said:

And yet they chose to associate themselves with the group. It doesn't matter if you didn't help someone rob a bank: if you're in the get away car, you're getting in trouble too. They aren't exempt from consequences just because they made a stupid decision.

In which case the students should be investigated and if they are found not to have done anything wrong not punished, rather than being punished purely by assocaition. The bloke in the getaway car (providing he didn't know what they were in the car for and had just come along for a ride) would be investigated and if he didn't have anything to do with it would be let off. Same as this group, many off them joined to show their displeasure of a teacher, that doesn't mean that when one or 2 of them decides to start making threats, everyone in the group automatically supports them.

super craig said:

rate_me said:

Regardless of what it is called, the students had no right to form such a group. While they are entitled to free speech, they should express it in a less antagonistic way.

Of course you could argue that the headteacher was antagonising the students with such stupid rules, unless he could back up his reasoning for having students shoelaces perfect with evidence that it improves students performances and discipline (the fact that we are having this debate would seem to suggest not)etc.

Then we need to know why such a rule exists. Have people been injured in the past when they tripped over laces? Are there special shoes that go along with a uniform, if there is a uniform? Is the school public or private (by going to a private school, you've already consented to the rules, regardless of said rule's fairness).

super craig said:

rate_me said:

And yet they chose to associate themselves with the group. It doesn't matter if you didn't help someone rob a bank: if you're in the get away car, you're getting in trouble too. They aren't exempt from consequences just because they made a stupid decision.

In which case the students should be investigated and if they are found not to have done anything wrong not punished, rather than being punished purely by assocaition. The bloke in the getaway car (providing he didn't know what they were in the car for and had just come along for a ride) would be investigated and if he didn't have anything to do with it would be let off. Same as this group, many off them joined to show their displeasure of a teacher, that doesn't mean that when one or 2 of them decides to start making threats, everyone in the group automatically supports them.

But if they didn't support the more "outspoken" ones, they should have left or publicly stated disagreement. Silence implies consent. They might not have taken part in it, but they did nothing to stop it, and therefore they approved of it.

« Last edited by rate_me on Apr 16th 2010 »

rate_me said:

super craig said:

rate_me said:

Regardless of what it is called, the students had no right to form such a group. While they are entitled to free speech, they should express it in a less antagonistic way.

Of course you could argue that the headteacher was antagonising the students with such stupid rules, unless he could back up his reasoning for having students shoelaces perfect with evidence that it improves students performances and discipline (the fact that we are having this debate would seem to suggest not)etc.

Then we need to know why such a rule exists. Have people been injured in the past when they tripped over laces? Are there special shoes that go along with a uniform, if there is a uniform? Is the school public or private (by going to a private school, you've already consented to the rules, regardless of said rule's fairness).

super craig said:

rate_me said:

And yet they chose to associate themselves with the group. It doesn't matter if you didn't help someone rob a bank: if you're in the get away car, you're getting in trouble too. They aren't exempt from consequences just because they made a stupid decision.

In which case the students should be investigated and if they are found not to have done anything wrong not punished, rather than being punished purely by assocaition. The bloke in the getaway car (providing he didn't know what they were in the car for and had just come along for a ride) would be investigated and if he didn't have anything to do with it would be let off. Same as this group, many off them joined to show their displeasure of a teacher, that doesn't mean that when one or 2 of them decides to start making threats, everyone in the group automatically supports them.

But if they didn't support the more "outspoken" ones, they should have left or publicly stated disagreement. Silence implies consent. They might not have taken part in it, but they did nothing to stop it, and therefore they approved of it.

This was a facebook page, unless they are regularly checking every group they join then how are they to know what is being said? I know that I've joined groups that I've never looked at again, who since I joined could now be preaching any sort of hate and I wouldn't have a clue that they were doing it, doesn't mean I consent to it. Are you fully aware of what every organsiation/group etc you've ever joined are up too? To use your getaway car analogy again its like me willingly getting into a car, falling to sleep then someone uses the car with me asleep for a crime and me then being fully accountable and having consented to the theft/murder/rape while I was asleep, when I wake up.

« Last edited by super craig on Apr 16th 2010 »

super craig said:

rate_me said:

super craig said:

rate_me said:

And yet they chose to associate themselves with the group. It doesn't matter if you didn't help someone rob a bank: if you're in the get away car, you're getting in trouble too. They aren't exempt from consequences just because they made a stupid decision.

In which case the students should be investigated and if they are found not to have done anything wrong not punished, rather than being punished purely by assocaition. The bloke in the getaway car (providing he didn't know what they were in the car for and had just come along for a ride) would be investigated and if he didn't have anything to do with it would be let off. Same as this group, many off them joined to show their displeasure of a teacher, that doesn't mean that when one or 2 of them decides to start making threats, everyone in the group automatically supports them.

But if they didn't support the more "outspoken" ones, they should have left or publicly stated disagreement. Silence implies consent. They might not have taken part in it, but they did nothing to stop it, and therefore they approved of it.

This was a facebook page, unless they are regularly checking every group they join then how are they to know what is being said? I know that I've joined groups that I've never looked at again, who since I joined could now be preaching any sort of hate and I wouldn't have a clue that they were doing it, doesn't mean I consent to it. Are you fully aware of what every organsiation/group etc you've ever joined are up too? To use your getaway car analogy again its like me willingly getting into a car, falling to sleep then someone uses the car with me asleep for a crime and me then being fully accountable and having consented to the theft/murder/rape while I was asleep, when I wake up.

Actually, I have never had a facebook, and I don't really intend to make one in the future. Thus, I don't have any groups to check or not to check. However, I don't see the point of being a member of a group if you won't check it whenever you have the chance.

In addition, you'd need to actually prove you were asleep in the car while it happened. If one of the criminals thought he would get a lesser sentence if he testified against you he'd certainly do it. What alibi would you have for being somewhere you shouldn't have been or doing something you shouldn't have.

You cannot use that facebook example. People have hundreds of groups they join but don't check, Unless they are facebook junkies.

I actually have first hand experience with this.

In seventh grade, my friend Mike made a site called stonerbahnisland. We could get on at school. Problem is, our school logs everything. So they told one o the students parents, who is in officer. He had it the site deleted. Our parents alerted. And all we did? talked to eachother between classes, makes jokes, fake stoner jokes, act emo, insult some teachers, and pull pranks. We was pissek.

Go to far? We think they did. Was it their property? no.