Students Banned from Blogging 876
wayward writes "Students at Pope John XIII, a Catholic high school, were told to take down their blogs from sites like Xanga and MySpace or face suspension. Rev. Kieran McHugh, the school's principal, said that he was trying to protect students from online predators. Not too surprisingly, free speech advocates got more than a little concerned.
Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back on topic: On legal grounds, because the school is a religious school, they can make certain requirements. For instance, I once dated a girl that was recruited from Norway to be on the BYU ski team. She accepted because of the scholarship even though she was not part of the "moral majority" there. Here is the deal though... they made her sign an "agreement" that she would not consume coffee or alcohol even while not on school grounds. She abided by that contract, and honored it. But when her parents came into town, she went to dinner with her family. She did not have any wine at dinner, while her parents did. Two days later, she was called into the Presidents office because someone had reported (ratted) her for being with people who were consuming alcohol. The deal is though, because this was a religious school, there are no personal rights issues at stake and she had no recourse. Her personal choice was to leave BYU and her scholarship behind because she was so offended.
Of course this is one of the major problems associated with federal funding of religious programs for charity or education. These charities can discriminate and there are no federal protections for these folks who are discriminated against even though the source of the funds are federal in nature. Shockingly, there have been discrimination cases based upon religion, race or appearance that are being upheld because "private" churches or schools can make any requirements on their "clubs" they want. Historically, the protection has been that any organization that receives federal funding cannot discriminate, but the new rules blow this away.
Don't get me wrong, I consider myself religious and was raised Catholic, but large organized religions have proven difficult for me to participate in.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Informative)
There is no "school" right to free speech. There is no right to free speech on the job. There is no right to free speech in a shopping mall, if the shopping mall has a rule that says otherwise. And, the First Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with this because it is not a federal law. So, the government hasn't made a law abridging free speech.
Not unless you think the Federal government gets to review and approve all school rules, employee handbooks and shopping mall rules.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Informative)
, the latter says:
While they sound quite similar, the first ammendment to the US consititution says "Congress shall make no law...", while Canada's equivalent the more nebulous "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms." It seems to me that Canada's has more room for interpretation. It might mean that the Canadian government can't take away those freedoms, much like the US first ammendment. However, it might mean that the government is supposed to make sure everyone has those freedoms. I like how the US first ammendment is specific in limiting the power of the Federal government to deny freedoms. There are many cases when individuals, corporations, or state governments deny those freedoms. There are additional US laws to address some of those situations, such as the Civil Rights Act.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:4, Informative)
No. Thanks to the 14th Amendment, most (all? IANAL) Constitutional restrictions on the federal government also apply to state and local government. That is why a school teacher paid from local property taxes in Podunk, Idaho is bound by First Amendment freedom of religion restrictions. And the Peoples' Republic of Berkeley can't outlaw firearms (Second Amendment).
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are many cases when individuals and corporations deny those freedoms.
In the US we believe that by doing so, we respect the rights of those individuals and in the case of corporations, the rights of the individuals that own the corporation.
In much of the rest of the world (the text supplied here suggests that Canada may be one of those places) freedom of speech is interpreted as restraining the actions of individuals.
None of this is to suggest that the rest of th
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Funny)
Heh. In America, you have freedom of speech, unless the words you're speaking happen to have been spoken earlier by someone else who didn't give you permission to repeat them (copyright). Or unless you're telling someone how to circumvent an access control (DMCA).
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:4, Insightful)
A school, even if it is entirely private, is not the same thing as a private organisation that people can choose to go to such as a restaurant.
We live in a society where school is not a choice, but compulsory (indeed, here in the UK parents have been sent to prison for their children playing truant). It ought to follow that any organisation wanting to receive the status of "school" - even if it is totally private - should abide by certain rules (otherwise you could label anything a "school", and therefore avoid sending children to a proper school).
This particular case isn't even about admission policies, it's about kicking students out whilst they are already there. It's all very well saying "Don't like it, go somewhere else", but doing so will severely disrupt their education (not to mention causing problems if the only other schools are further away, or if other schools refuse to take them because they were "expelled" and labelled as troublemakers).
Therefore, in my opinion it follows that a private school most certainly does not have the right to do what it likes, if that causes disruption to a child's education.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When one describes a right in terms of the things (implied) that others must give you, then assuredly it is not a right.
Conversely, if one describes a right in terms of things that others must not take from you, then quite possibly it is indeed a right.
One cannot have a right to education, a home, or medical insurance, without forcing others to pay for them. One can have a right to pursue an education, purchase a house on the free market, and so forth, without intruding upon others. One set of things are probably rights. The other set of things probably are not.
There are probably other angles you can take on your private school has public school responsibilities tack, though. I don't see your opinion as wrong, really. I'm just objecting to the whole "right" thing.
C//
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You bring your haircut with you to school... it's part of your school life. As long as the kids aren't blogging from school, or perhaps promoting their blog at school, the school doesn't have ANY right to even discuss the subject.
Maybe the school can sue students for slander if they pos
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The key decision was the moving of funding (and fund raising) from the local level to a combination of the state and federal level. From that point on the public school system deteriorated, though changes were implemented gradually, and you will still find some local schools that perform well. (The criteria is that the local area has enough money to raise sufficient local funding to subsidize the schools, and thus to regain control.)
I'll grant you that the justifier (fairly distributing the school funding) was plausible, but the effect was that the control of the system moved from the local area, where people were individually concerned with how their children were doing, to the state and federal level where the concern was "How can I present this well". Some believe that the schools were intentionally sabotaged, with malice, but I feel that an analysis of the system shows that this is an unnecessary hypothesis. The system was changed to give the central government control, because governments like to control things. This inherrently resulted in the schools doing an increasingly poor job, because the feedback loops were either broken or had long delays inserted into them.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you, but we need a sense of scale. The United States Federal government is way too involved in the schools. The states are too involved. Most school decisions should be made at the local level, and then some of course at the state level. No federal involvement should take place. No federal money, either.
The surest way to destroy any
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, at some point in the past, a community didn't think of the gov'ment as some abstract higher power, but as an agreement among the community about how to do things. Think of public schools as 'community run public schools', (which they are!) and your comment doesn't make very much sense. The problem isn't over-reliance on government, it is forgetting exactly what the government is supposed to be and supposed to do.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:4, Insightful)
YES! That's EXACTLY the concept that's missing these days. I would say "Mod parent up", except that that always sounds so dumb.
Maybe we need smaller communities, so that EVERYBODY can be involved in the decision making.
Also, with smaller communities, it might become more obvious that taxes are the way that we all pool our money to do something for all of us. It's pretty common to think of taxes as going to "them" somewhere (who then waste them), and that money for projects we want also comes from some benevolent "them". We need to get it through our skulls that it's not "them", it's "us". WE pool OUR money, and then WE, through our representatives, spend it. It's not their money to do with as they please. It's not someone giving us a gift of a library from above, it's our money and our neighbours' money.
I once read a book which said that a major factor in the way the Soviet Union was dysfunctional was that nobody felt that they were doing something for anyone. You didn't make shoes for some customer that might be your neighbour, you made shoes for "the system", for some giant warehouse "out there", that had no connection to actual people that you know that might be buying them eventually. You didn't grow potatoes to feed your family, or to sell to your neighbours in exchange for the fruits of their labour, you grew potatoes for "the system", which would in all probability ship them to some totally inappropriate place and let them rot while your neighbours go hungry. And if the world is like that, then why make any effort to do a good job? Why NOT steal whatever you can get away with, since everybody else is doing the same thing. It's not like there is someone you would hurt by that, you would only hurt "the system", and Lord knows it owes it to you.
I think that this is part of the mentality that allows looting during natural disasters or, for that matter, simple power outages. It's not Mr. Smith who lives two doors over that you're hurting when you break his window and take stuff from his store; it's some nameless, faceless corporation, who is insured anyway, and who owes it to you by now anyway, so why not take whatever you can get away with? It's just "the system".
No, we need to get things back onto a human scale, where we're interacting with each other, instead of each interacting with "the system". Where the "government" is just US who are making agreements about how to do things (including how to spend OUR money).
I really think that the United States was founded on principles like these, but they have gotten lost over the last few hundred years.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Funny)
The proper penalty, of course, is to say 6 Hail Marys and make a donation to the school building fund
Vaguely worded contracts (Score:4, Informative)
You'd have more of a point if most student handbooks didn't have a line that essentially means that. My favorite one was the prohibition of "any gang or cult related attire" in the public high school I attended. Gang attire... that just covers everything from T-shirts to 3-piece suits now, doesn't it? And that was used several times while I attended school to arbitrarily single out students the administration didn't like.
Although my favorite was still the line in our college's student handbook where it stated that the University could not be held at fault for any incident whether or not it was in fact the fault of the school. That clause got snuck in the semester after a kid died in a house fire on campus and there were whispers going around that a large number of smoke detectors on campus didn't work and that maintenance requests to have them fixed had been largely ignored.
Re:Vaguely worded contracts (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. Nor do I have the right to demand entrance to the mall if it chooses to deny me for whatever reason (provided it's not based on my sex, race, religion, hair color, "sign", blah, blah, blah).
Would you expect a school to be able to enforce a dress code off-campus? Any student seen in Starbucks on the weekend gets suspended? Any student seen browsing the banned book display at the
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. That's NOT what the article says. The principal has prohibited the kids from having blogs at all, regardless of what they discuss on them. He is not just telling them not to reveal information about their school schedules that might conceivably put them in harm's way.
In any case, blogging is not what gets kids in trouble on the net. All of the cases that I've heard of of serious problems involve kids, mostly girls, getting involved with predators in chat rooms. If he were really concerned about the kids, that's what he would warn them about. This guy is either more ignorant about the net than a school principal in this day and age should be, or concern for the kids is just a pretext and he's really trying to prevent the kids from posting anything critical of the school.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were at this school, I would immediately start a Catholic evangelization blog and provide reflections on my personal religious life. For an extra twist of the knife, I'd call it St Isadore's [catholic-forum.com] Shrine. If this is going to go to court, let "religious discrimination" be the grounds for the 1st amendment suit. If the blog didn't get shut down, the school has other problems in that it's not enforcing its rules evenhandedly and providing a bad moral example for the students.
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Thinking more about it, the suit that would likely have the best result would be in the ecclesial courts as the bishop holding the purse strings for the school would not be amused at anything that smacked of repressing evangelization. If the bishop lets it go through, the nuncio probably wouldn't like it and the Pope would like it even less. They all have email and they're all in one Catholic directory or another
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution is mainly a blueprint for relations between the Federal government and the States, between the Federal government and the People, and ever since the Fourteenth Amendment, between the States and
Re:Constitutional protections.... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually there is. Laws governing who is responsible for a minors actions (Parents/Guardians) address this.
Historically, the protection has been that any organization that receives federal funding cannot discriminate, but the new rules blow this away.
I believe the armed services are federally funded and I'm SURE they have never had free
Re:Could someone explain to me ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Could someone explain to me ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No age limit? (Score:3, Interesting)
The criteria of "child" has varied over time. Thus maybe the question should be along the lines of "Would current High School students be considered children according to the standards of the late 18th century?"
believe me... (Score:5, Funny)
Believe me, if they're going to a Catholic school, the students have a hell of a lot more to worry about than online predators.
Re:believe me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:believe me... (Score:5, Interesting)
That reminds me of a gal on Bill Maher said. "All those people you interrogated in Iraq, if any of them are innocent, they ARE terrorists now"
Nothing makes you hate more than being persecuted..
Re:believe me... (Score:4, Interesting)
The teachers and the people were good there.
Nothing makes an intelligent person more critical of religion than actually learning about a religion.
I studied in a catholic school. (Score:5, Interesting)
Catholic schools have been distinguished here for their strict morals, and I do feel grateful for my religion classes, despites their obvious shortcomings (I'd prefer the evangelical way - streamline, not creationist and the like - of teaching religion, i wish the religion classes had been more interactive and fun).
Anyway.
The problem with catholic schools is their own fame: Parents saw them as some kind of disciplinary schools. So what happens when you throw in a bunch of troublemakers, hoping a few teachers will put order in their little dirty minds?
All the bad words, dirty jokes and whatnot, I learned because of the students in the "best" school! And because I was a nerd (and shy) since I was little, I was always the target for bullies. Lesson: Bullying is OK, but getting even at bullies gets you reprimanded, a low grade on "conduct" and in the worst cases, kicked out. Of course, being good and earning the teachers' respect inside school, didn't save you from getting beaten OUTSIDE school on the way home!
Nice discipline, really (/sarcasm).
A few years later, this catholic high school became famous for the LACK of discipline by the students. I also feel grateful for having graduated before the decline of this particular school.
So, yes, the parent poster is right, the students have HELLUVALOT more to be worried about online predators.
Re:I studied in a catholic school. (Score:3, Informative)
The point being that in the US and elsewhere, a disproportionately large number of catholic priests - especially those working at catholic schools - have been convicted of the sexual abuse of children. Many Americans believe (rightly or not) that this has something to do with vows of chastity. By this reasoning, the problem is likely systemic.
It serves as a running joke that priest = child molester. In this context, the headmaster's paranoia about "online predators" could be based on pe
Re:I studied in a catholic school. (Score:4, Informative)
Catholic clergy child abusers make it into the news more because for decades, the Catholic Church covered up the problem.
Can't they just... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't they just... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't they just... (Score:5, Funny)
Because it's full of Catholic priests?
Re:Can't they just... (Score:3, Insightful)
People who live in countries that attempt to take away the right to free speech have to do that. However American citizens shouldn't be forced to undertake such steps when they're in their own country. Free speech isn't just for the anonymous, it's for every single citizen of your country.
The fact that so many would be so blaze about this is very telling of the society in America.
depends on what "problem" you're trying to solve (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, the stated purpose is to protect the students from predators, so the problem appears to be "how to protect the students when they're on the internet". But - and I mean this with the utmost, non-flamebait sincerity - isn't a big part of Christianity the ability to control people and their behavior? And given that, is the problem instead, "how to maintain control over what the students say, think and do"?
To be fair, religion in general (not just Chr
Re:depends on what "problem" you're trying to solv (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not at all. That's a ridiculous (although not uncommon) caricature. I won't deny that occasionally Christianity has become a tool of the state, and in those cases it has become one of a number of means by which the state attempts to control its population, but control over the masses is really foreign to the Christian ethic. It's far more about the individual learning to control himself. When it becomes about controlling others, it devolves into a mere cult.
It indeed is intended to draw focus away from earthly things -- or rather, one earthly thing: the self. The only path to heaven is on earth, by doing good for others, treating them the way you would wish to be treated, giving what is needed [biblegateway.com]. It is all about serving others. Most Christians do not forget the admonition in one of the Epistles that faith without works is dead [biblegateway.com].
If this is "population control", then so be it.
Re:depends on what "problem" you're trying to solv (Score:3, Insightful)
I pity you t
Re:depends on what "problem" you're trying to solv (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Major Super-Important Point - THE COMPUTER IS NOT A BABYSITTER. YOU MUST INTERACT WITH YOUR CHILD.
There are dozens of way more effective steps than taking down a blog or two. Explain to kids that real names and real places don't get used in blogs. Using someone's real name, or telling where they live, etc. should be cause for suspension.
2 cents,
Queen B
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Funny)
Tax dollars... (Score:5, Interesting)
'doh!
Tax dollars have nothing to do with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it within the school's rights to suspend anyone who watches an R-rated movie, even if their parents are present?
Suppose someone reads books not on the approved list -- at home? Plays D&D on the weekends? Dates someone of another religion (again, not on school time)? Eats junk food?
What gives the school the right to dictate the student's personal life when the student is not on school property
Re:I call BS (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem with this discussion is that people are arguing two different issues.
Position A: It's wrong for an institution to do this.
Position B: No, it's perfectly legal.
But B isn't responding to A -- A's position isn't that it's illegal, but that it's wrong. And B isn't saying it's right, but that it's legal.
Legality and morality are two separate issues that happen to intersect in a number of places (murder being both immoral and illegal) but differ in others (it's perfectly legal to cheat on your girlfriend, but few people would claim that it's moral to do so -- and many would argue it's immoral to be sleeping with her in the first place).
Back to your post, I've never understood the blind faith in private enterprise that big-L Libertarians seem to have. The idea seems to be that the corporations will save us from the government. That's kind of like hoping that a tiger will save you from a lion. I say throw the lion and the tiger in a pit and let them keep each other busy.
Re:Tax dollars... (Score:3, Interesting)
How about free will? Doesn't having free will also mean you have freedom of speech, regardless of what any law might or might not say? "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
The constitution doesn't grant us the
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Well it could be like my school (Score:5, Interesting)
Wednesday Morning (Score:3, Funny)
Report to my office BEFORE HOMEROOM Wednesday morning.
Don't be late.
-Principal O'Brien
God Forbid (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, some of them might not even be *gasp* Christian. The children might be promoted to *Horror* Question the Doctorine of the Church!
Please Someone Think Of The Children!
(Not anti-religion, just think that by highschool people should be making up their own minds about it. Shouldn't true belief and a relationship with whatever god(ess)(es) a person chooses to follow or not come from self reflection and soul serching instead of bullying, parental decree, and a lack of exposure to alternate viewpoints?)
Re:God Forbid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God Forbid (Score:4, Funny)
Re:God Forbid (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite being an atheist, I strongly believe that I should treat others as I would want to be treated. And that includes ramming my religious beliefs down other people's throats. I would prefer that they don't do it to me, and thus I don't do it to them, even if they do do it to me.
not just in Catholic schools, or the US (Score:4, Informative)
Again, the argument is that the sites could be used for gathering information about the kids.
Discussions about the limits of school responsibilities in personal lives, the role of parental supervision, and the level of Internet education being provided to children seem to go nowhere.
It seems that any issue involving kid's safety has the effect of turning of brain cells in some school officials.
silly british ka-nigits (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh... I stumbled on the fact there seems to have been two Pope John XXIII (either the journalist left out an X or there are two Pope John High Schools in Sparta NJ). The first was also called an Anti-Pope and (thanks Wikipedia!) and later charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest. Oh the irony, the irony!
Religious restrictions: News at 11! (Score:4, Funny)
We are one step away from a nightmare scenario where there might even be clubs were men meet to wear aprons and learn secret handshakes. Clearly this is a case were the government needs to step in! The government always brings freedom!
Geez, I don't know what this church is thinking! Normally religions have few restrictions, and they are all quite reasonable!
Other Schools are doing this too (Score:5, Informative)
From: Round Rock ISD info@roundrockisd.org
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:12 AM
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject:MAV MAIL-a letter from the principal
October 20, 2005
Dear McNeil High School Parents and Guardians:
While technology has served to improve our lives in numerous ways, it also has some negative effects. It has come to our attention that some Round Rock ISD students are sharing personal information and photographs on web sites that could enable viewers to locate the students. Two of the sites found to include RRISD students were www.xanga.com and www.myspace.com. On some postings students listed their full names, school names, cities, and other identifying information. Several included pictures and commentary (about both students and teachers) that are discomforting, if not downright disturbing.
While many of the postings on these web sites are not necessarily alarming, we want you to be aware that some students are sharing information and photographs that could compromise their safety. Please talk with your student about the dangers of publishing identifiable information and photographs on the Internet. Please be aware of the online sites your student is visiting from home, and discuss with your student the harm that can be done by publishing inappropriate information or photographs of others without their consent or knowledge. You may also want to consider obtaining content-filtering or other parental control options for your Internet service.
Students who participate in extracurricular activities that require higher standards of conduct, such as cheerleading, band, and athletics, may face consequences for publishing inappropriate web photos or information that identify their role in the school.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 464-6300. We appreciate your assistance in maintaining safe and secure environments for our students.
Sincerely,
Nelson Coulter
Principal, McNeil High School
-----
Personally I believe that is a load of crap, There goes the right to free speech.
Re:Other Schools are doing this too (Score:3)
What's the problem?
Re:Other Schools are doing this too (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution and Catholics (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, Free Speech as provided by the First Ammendment, like so much of the Constitution, is completely misunderstood by a large portion of Americans, and a great deal of the rest of the world. There are pleanty of examples, not the least of which is the Dixie Chicks crying foul (and using the term censorship) when other free citizens decided to boycott their product. Free speech is for everyone, good and bad, and I'd argue that it is more important to protect the bad, since it needs the most protection. Having said that, and digressed, in this case the body silencing the speech is a private organization silencing its membership. That membership is neither a right, nor involuntary. They may do as they please legally, and the membership that doesn't like it can certainly leave.
Be careful what you wish for. If the fed gets control of what private organizations can do in every regard, its only a short put to your front door...your living room...your bedroom.
But hey...at least the term SPLOG wasn't used...
Re:The Constitution and Catholics (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a free speech issue (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two important things here. First of all, this is a private high school. The First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, and even more so to religious private organizations *. Nor should it have to. If there is a problem with free speech, they can go to some other, possibly public school.
Even if the student is not going to a Catholic school by choice, the First Amendment does not apply. Although the government cannot restrict the free speech of a minor, the parent can. Parents are all-powerful with regards to their children, with the exception of a few things like abortion.
All in all, if I were running the school, I'd be far more worried about the clergy molesting the children than some outsider reading a web site.
*: Religious organizations, or more accurately non-profit organizations in general, really do have more freedom with their views. You can't fire someone from a normal job for saying "there is no heaven" (or another inoffensive but heretical statement). But you can certainly do that to your clergy. Freedom of speech and freedom of association both work this way.
Melissa
Wait (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's really about protecting students I think he'd want educate them about the values of anonymity and the dangers of giving personal information when using the Internet.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
But what of the TEACHERS? (Score:5, Funny)
From the school website: [popejohn.org]
"Teachers Sites
Mrs_Askin Mrs_Harrigan Mrs_Olsen
Mrs_Astor Mrs_Kalafsky Mrs_Partida
Mrs_Buniak Mr_Kenny Mr_Peck
Mrs_Covel Mrs_Morris Mrs_M.Ross
Ms_deVries Mr_Morro Mr_Vohden
Mr_Ferrise Mr_Nicholson
Mrs_Franc Mrs. O'Connell"
Look at all those websites! Surely, each and every one a target for the foul predators that lurk on the Internets!
Please, for their own good and safety, they must be PREVENTED from having their own websites!
Re:But what of the TEACHERS? (Score:3, Interesting)
But what of the TEACHERS? Oh, the hypocricy. (Score:3, Informative)
Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously, kids should not be blogging their thoughts in public anyway. It's different if they do it as a kind of job, but otherwise their blogs are just insipid surveys and risk taking opinions that people outside of their trusted social circles should not be entitled to read. Children don't know any better, and can't deal with the consequences when things go awry. They can't even sue someone for libel, or defend themselves directly in a libel suit.
Catholic School (Score:5, Funny)
The First Amendment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. Look it up and then stop complaining about how CowboyNeal* is infringing on your rights.
* not a federal institution
Is it a bank? No it's a Catholic High School (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.catholicism.org/ibank.barclays.co.uk/ol b/p/LoginMember.do/index.htm [catholicism.org]
No Foul (Score:4, Informative)
The key thing to realize here: (Score:3, Informative)
While Pope John's school handbook does not specifically forbid students from creating personal profiles on Web sites, it does prohibit students from posting anything on the Internet pertaining to the school, without the school's permission.
If they aren't explicitly banning bloging in their handbook, but they are doing it anyways, then they're NOT enforcing their rules - they're overstepping their bounds.
Nail it to the door instead (Score:3, Funny)
--Mike--
Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from free speech type issues... (Score:5, Insightful)
Student: *create new blog*
"hi! My name is (name of person that cut in front of me in the lunch line yesterday). My school sucks and the principal is a gay child molester."
Principal: "What you say?!" *expel*
Thank God Someone is Protecting the Children (Score:3, Funny)
Thank God we have Catholic authorities to protect the children from all of the perverts out there in the world.
Thank you! (Score:4, Funny)
(For those who can't see the parent, don't bother. it's a gnaa troll.)
And given the fact that most blogs - specially the blogger ones - have become a target for spamvertising [slashdot.org], I couldn't agree more with him!
Re:Wait, wait, wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait, wait, wait (Score:3, Informative)
No, fee speech advocates are concerned about restriction of speech outside of a high school for students who attend the high school.
Re:Wait, wait, wait (Score:3, Informative)
here's what my right to assemble means.
I can start any organization and include or exclude any one I want. For any reason. Assuming Im not getting federal money. I can exclude black people (KKK), women (catholic priests), gay people (boy scouts). I am also free to make a school. That school is allowed to exclude or include people based on ANY criteria. The children aren't forced to go to that school. They are offered a free, public alternative. If
Re:Wait, wait, wait (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh huh.
The problem's always somewhere OUT THERE isn't it?
The problem is that China is prohibiting Freedom of Speech, something they've never guaranteed their citizens, not that organizations and institutions in the US are starting to prohibit in a country FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM. Right?
The problem is that evil sexual predators OUT THERE are molesting our kids, not that the vast majority of children are molested and beaten by their own, often reli
Re:Wait, wait, wait (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
And stupidity
Re:Too bad. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Free access vs safe lifes (Score:5, Insightful)
Stopping blogs or chatting or other online behaviour won't stop that. It will only teach them that they need to hide what is going on in their life from you - destroying trust may very well prove to do far more damage to their safety than not by stopping them from telling you about worrying things before it develops further.
Re:Students will love it (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, when people have a generally easy life, it breeds apathy about such things as free speech, freedom from excessive government intervention in daily life, going to war and so on.
I'm part of the NO2ID [no2id.net] campaign here in the UK, campaigning against the compulsory biometric ID cards that the UK government are trying to introduce. Our main problem in finding supporters is not that people think ID cards are a good idea, just that the average member of the public out there really couldn't give a shit... about