Students Suspended From School Because Of Comments On A Message Board

[FullTruth]

[url="http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/Facebook_Postings_Get_Students_Suspended"]Facebook Postings Get Students Suspended[/url]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/wyff/20070308/lo_wyff/11199054"]Facebook.com Postings Get Students Suspended[/url]

[url="http://mycrimespace.com/2007/02/13/11-toronto-students-suspended-over-facebook/"]11 Toronto students suspended over Facebook[/url]

[url="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/school-facebook.html"]11 Ontario students suspended for 'cyber-bullying'[/url]

[url="http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070321/cyberbullying_suspensions_070321/20070321?hub=TorontoHome"]Students suspended for 'cyber-bullying' comments[/url]

[url="http://www.thestar.com/News/article/194772"]2 students suspended after reports of cyber-bullying[/url]

I just heard this news story on CTV news here in Canada. Currently, five students have been suspended for 5-20 days for having a message board where they criticized their Vice Principal. The news story reported more students will be suspended.

Where did freedom of speech go to?

Honestly, this is where authority is getting to harsh. Teenagers will always not like one or more of their teachers. They didn't get suspended before?

It wasn't like they were e-mailing death threats or sending nasty messages directly to the vice principal. That would have been crossing the line. But suspending the students for not liking the Vice Principal and saying so on a message board is just wrong!

[Guest T-Bone]

Unless it was a private school, there should have been no suspension for activites done off campus.

[Farsight one]

I really think it depends on exactly what was said. If someone says simply "I don't like principal X", then there really should be no punishment. If someone says "I hate principal X. He's a bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep...", then perhaps discipline is in order.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1217445' date='Mar 22 2007, 06:16 PM']here in Canada.[/quote]


all you need to know

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1217517' date='Mar 22 2007, 10:25 PM']all you need to know[/quote]

Ohh dear... Another Canadian misshap... good thing I'm old enough to vote (as of today ). I hope to do my duty as soon as possible! I'm noticing other little freedom things disappearing in my high school... such as freedom of privacy being revoked by video cameras... Time to draw steel. Any suggestions, my American friends?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1217518' date='Mar 22 2007, 08:41 PM']Ohh dear... Another Canadian misshap... good thing I'm old enough to vote (as of today ). I hope to do my duty as soon as possible! I'm noticing other little freedom things disappearing in my high school... such as freedom of privacy being revoked by video cameras... Time to draw steel. Any suggestions, my American friends? [/quote]

Move?

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1217518' date='Mar 22 2007, 10:41 PM']Ohh dear... Another Canadian misshap... good thing I'm old enough to vote (as of today ). I hope to do my duty as soon as possible! I'm noticing other little freedom things disappearing in my high school... such as freedom of privacy being revoked by video cameras... Time to draw steel. Any suggestions, my American friends? [/quote]
The best thing we can do is force the right issues on the politicians.

I would be the first to say, I disagree with video cameras in schools. Are schools prisons or places of learning. I don't think we need such things and I am not voting for anybody here unless they are going to co-operate.

Also, immediate removal of Canada from the UN, and all other one world organizations, and cutting ties with the international banks and revoking the banking act of 1913. That will lead to the eventual disappearance of Income Tax in Canada - woot!

Then we can start on the other important godly stuff like re-instating prayer in class rooms, removal of abortion bills, and making Canada a great place to live again.

[Maggyie]

I thought the general rule was that students can not be suspended for off-campus remarks unless they threaten physical violence. Guess I'm wrong

[Jaime]

Around a year ago, a student by the name of Katelyn Sills was expelled from her Catholic school for blogging about a teacher who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. here's the link [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=42161&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...c=42161&hl=[/url]

[Sojourner]

"Free speech" has never meant an absolute right to say whatever you please. It has always had some sort of boundaries (at least in the U.S.). That's why we have libel and slander laws, and why it's a crime to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire.

Although I didn't see the actual postings, they're nonetheless described as being "extremely vulgar and profane" in at least one case. I think it's entirely within a school's rights and even responsibilities to restrict behavior of students who are publishing untruths and defamatory statements. Frankly, they could sue (at least in the U.S.) so suspension is a mild punishment in comparison.

The Katelyn Sills case is of another character altogether. Here, a Catholic girl at a Catholic school called out one of her teachers who was volunteering at Planned Parenthood -- a decidedly unCatholic activity. The suspension there was, in my opinion, because the statements were not untrue or defamatory -- they were statements of fact.

I just don't think you can make the blanket statement that all suspensions for extra-curricular publication of materials is improper.

[jeffpugh]

That is true terra... things might get messy in the future if people don't practice 'diplomacy' with an informed conscience and a good intent. Who knows what the future has to hold? Only God. Looks like we're in for another siege...

Edited March 25, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[FullTruth]

Terra, the news report I heard had no such discussion of langauge or any threats. As long as there isn't a threat on a persons life, and what they are saying is based on personal experience with the Vice-Principal, they shouldn't be suspended.

The number of students suspended is on the rise. If it is a number of students with low opinions of the Vice-Principal, that is a warning sign. Who is the Vice-Principal? What kind of person is the vice-principal to evoke such a reaction?

I think suspensions for a non-violent message board is totally uncalled for, and takes us one step closer to the restriction of honest opinions because it is politically incorrect to do so.

As a Christian, I think a person should be able to blow off some steam with friends and not get punished for it. As a Libertarian, I don't think the school system has any right to tell students how to behave off campus. If they want to gripe about their vice-principal, then let them gripe.

Our society is becoming a survaillence society, where everybody is having all their private thoughts and honest opinions watched and they will get punished. The story never got into how the Vice-Principal found out the students had such a message board. How did she find out? Did the board inform her? Did a concerned student inform her? And why the harsh suspensions for honest opinions?

If it was the school board that told her, what right does the school board have to spy on students? What right does the provience of Ontario have to be spying on students, if they were the ones who were data mining for any 'potential' threats?

There are greater questions here than a bunch of students having a message board gripping about the teacher. That is why I am calling it a denial of Freedom of Speech, and I hope you believe we have the right to privacy.

Edited March 25, 2007 by FullTruth

[Sojourner]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1218964' date='Mar 24 2007, 08:18 PM']Terra, the news report I heard had no such discussion of langauge or any threats.[/quote]
Funny, I found it on one of the links you posted: [url="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/school-facebook.html"]11 Ontario students suspended for 'cyber-bullying'[/url]":
[quote]Bruce Campbell, a spokesman for the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, told CBC Radio on Monday that the comments posted on Facebook were demeaning to the principal. He also said they were "extremely vulgar and very profane."[/quote]

As for the rest of your post:
Since we don't know the exact content of the posts in question, it is really really difficult to form an opinion (for me at least) about whether the suspensions were justified or not. However, I believe that non-violent comments could rise to a level deserving of suspension, depending on the actual content of what was said.

And I don't know about you, but in my high school there were plenty of people who had unjustified beefs with teachers or administrators. The mere fact that students are complaining does not mean that the complaints are justified or that the vice-principal is truly deserving of the (potentially) libelous statements. Restricting inappropriate speech is well within the bounds of the school, and could well be justified -- again depending on the exact content of the posts.

As a Christian, I think we are not to bear false witness, and we are to respond to our enemies with love. I don't remember any verses that say it's OK to blow off steam by demeaning others. And the idea that this is "private communication" is, frankly, laughable. These statement were posted on the internet, otherwise known as the "world wide web." I'm sure you've heard of it. They were publicized. It is not spying, last I knew, to read Facebook postings or myspace postings. These postings are a very public record.

Once you're making statements in public, you lose privacy protections. That's just common sense. As far as your freedom of speech claim -- I stand by my earlier statement that NO freedom is given without limitations, including this one. Even a libertarian must recognize that there are always boundaries on freedoms. Hopefully, the boundaries will come from the proper exercise of self-restraint.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1218976' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:40 PM']Funny, I found it on one of the links you posted: [url="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/school-facebook.html"]11 Ontario students suspended for 'cyber-bullying'[/url]":
As for the rest of your post:
Since we don't know the exact content of the posts in question, it is really really difficult to form an opinion (for me at least) about whether the suspensions were justified or not. However, I believe that non-violent comments could rise to a level deserving of suspension, depending on the actual content of what was said.

And I don't know about you, but in my high school there were plenty of people who had unjustified beefs with teachers or administrators. The mere fact that students are complaining does not mean that the complaints are justified or that the vice-principal is truly deserving of the (potentially) libelous statements. Restricting inappropriate speech is well within the bounds of the school, and could well be justified -- again depending on the exact content of the posts.

As a Christian, I think we are not to bear false witness, and we are to respond to our enemies with love. I don't remember any verses that say it's OK to blow off steam by demeaning others. And the idea that this is "private communication" is, frankly, laughable. These statement were posted on the internet, otherwise known as the "world wide web." I'm sure you've heard of it. They were publicized. It is not spying, last I knew, to read Facebook postings or myspace postings. These postings are a very public record.

Once you're making statements in public, you lose privacy protections. That's just common sense. As far as your freedom of speech claim -- I stand by my earlier statement that NO freedom is given without limitations, including this one. Even a libertarian must recognize that there are always boundaries on freedoms. Hopefully, the boundaries will come from the proper exercise of self-restraint.[/quote]

Terra, I don't think honest opinion is false witness. If the Vice-Principal has done something to offend the students where they made comments on Face Book, than it is honest opinion.

Liabel, which I have training on, is saying - "I know that person is a (place whatever detestable thing here). I've heard stories they (did this detestable thing) and got away with it."

Unless the person has hard proof of it, you can't say anything like that.

If you say, "I think so and so teacher is a (input insult here). I wish they just get fired. I really hate them." isn't slander, because you're just venting steam. It says nothing about possible behaviour, and most even-minded people would read such a thing and wouldn't form a excessive negative opinion of this person. Especially adults, because most adults would say, it's just teen angst.

I think the one statment is definitely well within the law, which, as a Libertarian, is the second highest authority in the land, God being the first. School Boards, governments, and all other things are to [b]obey the law[/b], and not use the law to their own advantage. President Bush and Prime Minster Harper doesn't rule our respective countries, God and the Law have rule over our lands.

I know this to be true because the first statement in the Canadain Constitution says,

"We recognize the supremacy of God, and the [b]rule of law[/b]".

It doesn't say school boards, governement or anything else has rule over us! Praise God!

I would think a similar sentense if found in your constitution as well.

I think the suspensions of these students is our gracious leaders way of saying, shut up and stay in line. No dissention is allowed.

Which brings me to the questions I posed before. Shouldn't we have the right to have a certain amount of privacy on the Internet. Face Book is a friend only web service. So should the government be able to read comments you are discussing with friends? Should the School Board? How did this Vice-Principal learn about this message board?

Should students recieve suspensions of 20 days for a non-violent message board comment?

Is this not totalitarianism? You have to agree with us, or you're going to get suspended for 20 days! Shut up, stay quiet, don't form your own opinions, and be a good little drone for society! Disgusting. It's against our constitution, which guarentees a persons right to state an opinion. You can't say something untrue about a person which smeers their reputation, but they can state an opinion.

Edited March 25, 2007 by FullTruth

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1218992' date='Mar 24 2007, 11:04 PM']I know this to be true because the first statement in the Canadain Constitution says,

"We recognize the supremacy of God, and the [b]rule of law[/b]".

It doesn't say school boards, governement or anything else has rule over us! Praise God![/quote]

Keep quiet GodChaser! Or you will give away that line they missed when secularising our country... They have eyes everywhere...

On a serious note, I agree with your post somewhat. Just as long as the 'opinion' doesn't go slandering or attacking the dignity of people with words. I know you know that... just clarifying.

[Sojourner]

You're making the assumption that these opinions were honest and factually based. I see no support for your assumption in any of the articles you have published.

And, with 8 years of experience as a journalist and 1 year as a law student, I also have an understanding of libel. In the U.S. libel is a false statement published in writing about a person. Slander is a false statement that is spoken but not published. It is a state, not federal, cause of action. Simply making a false statement is typically not enough to support either a libel or slander accusation -- there has to be intent to harm the person's reputation in the community. However, negligently publishing a false statement (i.e., not checking out the veracity of your source) can lead to liability (for a newspaper reporter, at least).

Truth matters ... it is not right to damage a person's reputation on the basis of an untrue rumor or malicious gossip, which is the wrong that libel and slander were created to address.

Since you are the one arguing that libel and slander are OK, which is against the status quo, you bear the burden of proof that such behavior is acceptable societally. This is not about schools silencing student opinions. This is about schools taking action to ensure that the educational atmosphere is safe both for students and administrators.

[jeffpugh]

Okay its hard to argue that one Terra. Point taken.

[HeavenlyCalling]

I dont think that this student should have been suspended. If they were not doing the posting in school ( I know in some schools things like message boards are not allowed on the school computers) or forming some sorto f lynching mob to go after the vice-principle, then there is no reason to suspend them. For the same reason I always found diciplen actions like detentions out of place at after school, volenteer activies. I think that maybe the parents of the child may need to talk with them about their problems with the Vice Principal, but I think it is out of his power...

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219017' date='Mar 24 2007, 11:17 PM']You're making the assumption that these opinions were honest and factually based. I see no support for your assumption in any of the articles you have published.

And, with 8 years of experience as a journalist and 1 year as a law student, I also have an understanding of libel. In the U.S. libel is a false statement published in writing about a person. Slander is a false statement that is spoken but not published. It is a state, not federal, cause of action. Simply making a false statement is typically not enough to support either a libel or slander accusation -- there has to be intent to harm the person's reputation in the community. However, negligently publishing a false statement (i.e., not checking out the veracity of your source) can lead to liability (for a newspaper reporter, at least).

Truth matters ... it is not right to damage a person's reputation on the basis of an untrue rumor or malicious gossip, which is the wrong that libel and slander were created to address.

[b]Since you are the one arguing that libel and slander are OK[/b], which is against the status quo, you bear the burden of proof that such behavior is acceptable societally. This is not about schools silencing student opinions. This is about schools taking action to ensure that the educational atmosphere is safe both for students and administrators.[/quote]
Terra, you just committed Libel.

I never said Libel was OK. I said the students hadn't committed it!

Your view of Libel is a little harsh. I know the exact definition of Libel myself.

Opinion is not Libel because of FREE COMMENT, a law term you have seemed to forgotten.

Public officials, including a vice-principal are under the jurisdiction of FREE COMMENT by students, because they are public officials.

[url="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-2234(191912)18%3A2%3C161%3ALASQPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7"]Libel and Slander: Qualified Privileges: Comment on Public Acts of Public Officials[/url]

If the Vice Principal did an act that the students didn't like, they are under the privilage of Free Comment. They can say they don't like the Vice Principal. I haven't like some teachers in high school because they were arrogant people who down marked anybody who had a differing opinion. The funny thing is, when I didn't like a teacher, most of the other students in the class didn't like the teacher as well. The Hilarious thing is, if you butter them up, and get their inside information to start a project, these arrogant teachers will give you high marks - i. e. they are prideful of their own knowledge, and are definitely not qualified to be a teacher, IMHO.

Since the other students who were interviewed about the story thought the sentense was harsh and it was a denial of Freedom of Speech, my only conclusion is something wasn't right about what happened.

Edited March 25, 2007 by FullTruth

[Resurrexi]

Free speech is a condemned and proscribed error. I don't see why you are defending it.