Software·43,881 discussions

Cyberbullying versus free speech

Locked

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/school-facebook.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070213.FACEBOOK13/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

This is juts 30km north of me…

Long story short – students get upset at ban of cells/pagers/other devices in school and blame principal of school (school board policy BTW).

Kids go onto social networking site and make comments, turning into something pretty nasty (some of the comments suggest he should suck some part of the male anatomy). Kids get suspended, though their punishment is less than if they had said the same things about a fellow student(board cyberbullying policy).

The kids have been all over the news saying this isn’t fair, that they have the right to free speech and since it wasn’t posted from school grounds the school has no right to interfere.

To me this is the classic free speech/responsibility challenge. The students are wrong to think that something that they do outside of school, but that affects the atmosphere of the school, cannot be held against them. If I slander my employer from my home, they can fire me. The students somehow think that they have the right to say whatever they want without consequences.

Now some students may have been caught in a wide net because the school board doesn’t understand the technology. The student council president was a member of the group(he was invited by others) but did not post anything at all, and was suspended with the rest.

Frankly I think these kids are the enemies of free speech and fair comment. If they had used the forum to debate the fairness of the cell phone ban, I’d be all for it(though I agree with the ban, I like open debate). But their personal abusive attacks cannot be let pass.

James

Topic

Yep. Free speech vs. fist+nose

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

Placing libel and slander outside of the scope of free speech is generally accepted.

The debatable issue here is whether the school had any jurisdiction to impose punishment. On the one hand I don’t think that the school has jurisdiction but on the other hand no other authority would do anything if the issue was brought to them. So are we going to grant the school jurisdiction for convenience or practicality? Yes, I think so. We should understand the precedent that’s being established though. We are saying that the civil authority that has jurisdiction would probably not respond so we find a more convenient and accommodating authority that does not have jurisdiction to punish the offenders.

Let me be clear about my own position. I am very happy that the school board took punitive action in this case.

In the case of student versus student

In reply to Yep. Free speech vs. fist+nose

They have in the past done automatic 20 day suspensions. What they are suggesting is what is going on in cyberspace is an extension of whats going on in school and vice versa. The bullying may start in school and continue in cyberspace.

Its a tricky issue. Libel and slander aren’t always part of the bullying. The bullying may be something like ” Debbie is ugly and stupid and has no friends” – that may be bullying but not libel/slanderous. But if you say it on school grounds you can and will be suspended (my kids are in this school board and I’ve read the rules).

The school is a catholic school and has a code of conduct for its students.

James

I find it rather simple myself

In reply to In the case of student versus student

The students proved that they could not responsibly carry mobile phones too and from class so mobiles phones where banned.

They responded by behaving in a way that no parent or professional setting would tolorate (or hopefully wouldn’t anyhow).

They then go to the media with an outcry because they are held accountable for there actions.

They seem to think that freedom of speech somehow outweighs the other person’s freedom from hurrassment.

Now, the part that puts a grin on my face; it’s out there. They will push the issue, get publicity and generally over-dramatise the situation. They can’t take it back. They can’t delete it. And, they are drawing attention too it so the news and there names attached to it become publicised on other websites. I think they should be held accountable and I expect they won’t remember the stupid decision fondly when it starts effecting there futures. Students who have done the same are already having stupid highschool decisions haunt them in future job and school applications.

As for the school. I think they need to based punishments on factual evidence of who was involved not just the linked list of names for the overall groups. Unfortunately, school is a political organization focused on manufacturing not a place of education. The parents will push from one side and the school board may cave. The board will push from the other side and over-react with too large a net and too heavy a hammer.

No one is going to truly win this one.

“stupid highschool decisions haunt them in future “

In reply to I find it rather simple myself

Well worn path, that.

isn’t it though.. self documented now though

In reply to “stupid highschool decisions haunt them in future “

hehe.. who doesn’t have a few stupid highschool decisions they’d like a chance to rethink. At least in our, or my, day we didn’t document them ourselves on a permanent medium.

A while back there was discussion around if there should be a “children’s internet” that could expunge kid’s history when they hit adult age. The idea is that kids get a sandbox to be stupid in but don’t end up with the documented history. The theory is also that it could also keep adults off the children’s internet hopefully limiting predatory attacks. I don’t know about the second as someone will figure out how to get access but I think th first intention is worth considering.

We where all stupid highschool kids once but self-documenting that in a perminent medium is the new twist.

Interesting notion

In reply to isn’t it though.. self documented now though

“children’s Internet”.

Boy. I think that would be a bad idea. We have already invented myriad ways to avoid holding our children – and ourselves – accountable.

For those of us who were near complete idiots in our teen years, we couldn’t have gotten away with it if we hadn’t been enabled. That same particular bunch of us – if we wake up – will pay for that level of idiocy until we die. A level of accountability that is near obscene for the simple fact that accountability in the moment would have taught us.
(Maybe beyond, but no one knows about that.)

etu

true, it was an interesting idea but not implementable

In reply to Interesting notion

I think that’s why it never went further than inital discussion. I’d like to see some way someone’s childhood idiocy online could be expunged at the same time as other children’s juvi records (age 19 here I believe) but implementation is the real challenge and how long will it take kids to figure out how to break out into the grown’ups networks?

Free Speech

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

If you support free speech that means you have to suffer the things you do not like/want to hear along with the things you do like/want to hear. I served in the military and consider myself to be very patriotic, but I am against the banning of flag burning, etc, even though I find it distasteful.

I don’t think the school has any right to punish these students regardless of how vulgar the comments are. If school resources were not used, or if this was not done on school time then tough.

If threats were made that is a different story, but vulgarities are not in and of themselves threatening. I personally find it absurd that anyone gets offended by “curse words” anyway. What is the difference between me saying the “f-word” or saying “CRAP”? The meaning is the same when used in the right context aren’t they? And is it not the meaning of the word that is offensive?

I would expect that the principal would alert the parents of these children to what their kids were doing, but that is about the extent of their legal recourse in my opinion.

I don’t think kids should be using any of the banned devices in school, but unless the school offers telephones for their children to call home if they need to (after sports, etc. – I personally had to use a pay phone when I was in High School) then I don’t think cell phones should be banned altogether.

The day a school tries to parent my child will be the day my child starts home schooling.

But, too many [i]expect[/i] the school to act as [i]in loco parentis.[/i]

In reply to Free Speech

In fact, parents have not only demanded such, but sued schools for failing to so act! Given the choice between pissing off the students vs the parents, the choice for the schools is clearly obvious.

And, for those too young to have experienced it, most colleges had official [i]in loco parentis[/i] policies until the end of the ’60s and early ’70s.

Go back and learn what free speech is covered

In reply to Free Speech

Sorry, but individuals do NOT have a free right to say anything they want.

Freedom of speech is to keep unpopular political speech from being silenced.

This is not free speech that is protected.

People give up certain rights in a civilized society, and crude/abusive expression such as in this case is one such thing that is given up in CIVILIZED nations.

You CAN say it, but you are not free from retribution, such as getting fired from your job or suspended from school.

The responsibility to face the consequences of your actions

In reply to Go back and learn what free speech is covered

is the defining characteristic of any freedom.

“Sorry, but individuals do NOT have a free right to say anything they want.”

Well, we do have a right to say what we want, we do not have a right to be immune from consequences of said speech. (Which is what you stated in your last sentance).

Seems to me it comes down to the “harm principle”, meaning we have a right to say what we wish (in the sense that its impossible to remove the ability without violating many other rights), but that right is only protected in as much as our words do not cause harm to another. This is where it gets tricky. What does harm mean? A bruised ego? Financial loss? Hurt feelings?
This is where I get stuck on the issue.

Two sides

In reply to The responsibility to face the consequences of your actions

you do not have a right to not be insulted. The student CAN speak out against the staff, but there are slander laws as well as obscenity laws that they will be subject to, for starters.

The point of law

In reply to Two sides

If the student called the teacher a “Bad name” in public, but outside of the school grounds, there isn’t much the teacher can do, short of talkingt o the student or parents – no legal recourse.

But publishing it in Facebook is somewhat akin to saying it in the newspaper. Its published, not verbal, carries more weight and potentially more harm.

The school has a right to decide what the rules are for attending the school. The students had to agree in writing to those rules when they signed the agreement, including a no bullying clause. The school then has the right to enforce that contract, up to and including suspensions or expulsions.

James

“Published” is the key word

In reply to The point of law

I think you are right in your point here James. Being that these comments are being [b][i]published[/b][/i] upon a public website gives a whole lot more meaning to them.

If these comments were in a chat room between the students, it would not hold so much weight as that is a passing conversation. But when it is posted to a public forum where the posts remain on the site for any and all to see, then you are indeed “publishing” your words and imprinting them as if you were to put them in an ad in the newspaper. It then can be covered by slander laws.

The school should also review its choices of suspendees. If there were people signed up to the forum, but did not post slanderous comments, they should not be considered a part of the guilty. Only the ones who actually made the slandersou comments should be punished.

It then can be covered by slander laws.

In reply to “Published” is the key word

Right on teh money wit hthe publish comments but PUBLISHED content is considered LIBEL defamation of character.

Slander if oral or vocal defamation of character, Libel is written.

Libel is FAR easier to punish for and can easily be taken care of with the award being assumed. Slander is much harder to take to court, there needs to be a lot more proof of the exact amount of personal financial loss.

But these kids just got suspended and want it to be an issue because they actually THINK they are right. Just goes to show that they either don’t get instructed properly at that school or these kids are too interestd in text and phone calls than they are in learning the most basic of human rights.

minor quibble…

In reply to Two sides

it’s libel if it’s published.

Agree with you here

In reply to Two sides

where I get stuck is where is the line drawn between opinion and slander/libel.

The line is usually drawn

In reply to Agree with you here

depending on who has the better lawyer….

Heh… thats about what I would expect… NT

In reply to The line is usually drawn

.

Free speech is an absolute right.

In reply to Go back and learn what free speech is covered

The only places it can be restricted is when it is part of another act, such as shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater if you are not an actor on stage or there is no fire.

It would be more acurate to say

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

its not protected under such circumstances rather then restricted. But thats me being picky.

To pick another nit… :D

In reply to It would be more acurate to say

It’s not the speech, but the action.

You can shout “FIRE” if you are an actor shouting “Ready, Aim, FIRE!”

You can shout “FIRE” if there is a fire.

So, it’s not the word FIRE that’s the issue, it’s inciting a riot/panic

Good point.

In reply to To pick another nit… :D

So intent of word is as important as the word?

It’s not the word at all

In reply to Good point.

It’s the attempt to incite a riot/panic.

You can do it with things other than words. If you had five people point, scream and run from a place, chances are you’d have the same result.

Hadn’t thought of that Lorican

In reply to Good point.

but its another good point. But that moves us from freedom of speech into freedom of expresssion, and even more vague.

the word is key too

In reply to To pick another nit… :D

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

It is the CONTEXT the WORD is used in that is the issue. If the context is of a nature known to incite a riot, then it is not protected under the first ammendment.

The reason the word is so importasnt is that the example you are referring to was tantamount in determining exactly HOW freedom of speech cannot be applied.

Now THERE’s a nitpick for you!

No, it is the action, not the word

In reply to the word is key too

If a person shouts “FIRE” in a crowded theater and there is no fire BUT the person shouting it *THINKS* there is, he will not be in legal trouble, or on the chance that he does, would be able to mitigate it quickly.

Save it for a judge

In reply to the word is key too

You are not wrong, couldn’t possibly be wrong, it would result in a four week rant going in circles until you finally changed the subject enough to make a point.

I simply took what is written and specified in the Law Library at our local University.

I assumed that a legal definition of the term, as applied in a court of law (that’s where it originated) would suffice, I suppose you are right and they are wrong though.

Damn, so bloody clever, and yet you are in IT?

A waste of superiority for sure!

I bow to you gracefully, I guess I’ll ditch my membership to the law library and start sending you money for your infinite wisdom instead.

Now go give you head a good shake and put on some cartoons until mom calls you for supper.

To be more concise, you can jump up and down and yell and point and it rarely gets much attention, yell “FIRE” and its the [i]word[/i] itself that creates hysteria, not the action.

Just like they tell you to do in emergencies to get attention of strangers, say for a woman being raped, a child being snatched etc. Yell “FIRE” and it gets instant attention, the WORD is key. Nobody cares about someone jumping up and down and making noise, but “FIRE” is instant alarm and gets everyone’s attention right away.

But I suppose you can write to the BC Supreme Court and set them straight on it too. Just tell them you are a computer nerd and know better, they’ll buy it.

Oh, I’ve been wrong before, Oz,

In reply to the word is key too

Just not about this.

You just don’t see it

In reply to the word is key too

Just because you don’t THINK you are wrong, it doesn’t mean you are NOT wrong, wheras in this case yuo clearly are.

Law is my pet, I can play this game all day and night, in this case it is black and white, as linked to and descibed above.

again though, if you think you are right, you may feel you are right but it isn’t necessarily so.

Not at all. Do your homework or you’ll be staying late after class!

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

First off all, feedom of speech is NOT an absolute right.

Secondly,this takes place in Canada and no first ammendment rights can be applied anyway.

But it doesn’t apply in the USA either.

Have you actually read and understood the First ammendment ?

[i]”The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights that [b]expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws[/b] “respecting an establishment of religion” (the Establishment Clause) [b]or that prohibit the free exercise of religion (the Free Exercise Clause), laws that infringe the freedom of speech [/b], infringe the freedom of the press, [b]limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[/b]

What laws have been placed upon him that stop him from speaking out about the government? People just keep assuming free speech mans you can say what you want, when you want, it does NOT.

It has NOTHING to do with saying whatever you want, NOTHING AT ALL. Freedom of expression is a different animal altogether and also falls under the same limitations. The fact that there ARE limitations ensures that people cannot assume that freedom of speech is an absolute right.

The fact that it is subject to other limitations means precicesly that Freedom of Speech and freedom of Expression are NOT absolute rights in ANY country.

Time for you to do some learnin I think. it’s not just you, millions of Americans and Canadians think the same thing, only to be somewhat dumbfounded when they are fined or jailed for what THEY consider free speech.

Rights are not granted, they are protected or opressed

In reply to Not at all. Do your homework or you’ll be staying late after class!

The fact that government oppression tramples on rights is irrelevant.

Read the federalist papers some time, VERY enlightening on the subject of rights, liberty, et cetera

Thety are certainly not assumed

In reply to Rights are not granted, they are protected or opressed

Read your own legal system’s guidelines regarding the appliication of the first ammedndment in US law. RIGHTS ARE NOT ASSUMED.

Or just give up, you have nothing to say that any sane person should listen to anyway.

You make an incorrect comment, it is corrected with proof and fact from the main source and yet you continue to remble on with your little panty waste replies to the contrary. You even contradicted your original comment with your reply this time, just to make SOMETHING you have said seem SOMEWHAT correct.

Oz logic

In reply to Thety are certainly not assumed

A sane person would not listen to what Loc has to say

Oz is listening to Loc (and replying).

Ergo?

I have two relatives that have mental disabilities

In reply to Thety are certainly not assumed

It teaches me patience with even the most ridiculous, though I think even they would se efact before adding their guess to it instead.

This is a matter of having you understand the clear and concise amendments to the US Constituion, there’s no possibility of adding Locrians law to it, no possible way at all.

why does one’s free right speech outweigh one’s right to not be harassed?

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

This is the bit I don’t get. One’s right to free speech is great. Say what you like, support it and repeat it if you feel it is correct. The part I don’t get is how one’s right to free speech should outweigh one’s right to freedom from abuse. This isn’t the best wording but I think it gets the idea across.

What the kids did was intentionally malicious. They where abusively expressed unsupported opinions against someone for doing there job. If the tables where turned and the kids where the target of abusive writing, would they be so interested in free speech rights? Does free speech mean I can target and harass whom I like for whatever personal justification I choose?

In the end, this is basically all over a bunch of school kids being told they can’t bring there blankie or dolly to school with them and responding by throwing tantertantrums then self-righteously throwing another tantertantrum when they are held accountable for the first. If I where one of there parents, I would be shamed by my child?s behavior. If one’s right to free speech does somehow outweigh one’s freedom from personal attack, how should the school respond to these kids?

Because there is not right to not be harassed

In reply to why does one’s free right speech outweigh one’s right to not be harassed?

nt

Harrassment is an example where free speech is NOT an absolute right

In reply to Because there is not right to not be harassed

Actually, harassment would be ONE of the stupulations that PROVES that free speech is NOT an ABSOLUTE right.

If there are ‘if’ or ‘buts’ that surround a right, then it is NOT an absolute right.

Example, free speech does not protect you when you are harassing somebody.

Free speech does not protect you when you are not protesting peacefully.

Free speech does not protect you when speaking out in a private place.

Free speech does not protect you when it is a case of character defamation, libel or slander.

There are ‘conditions’ in order for you to be protected by free speech, therefore it is NOT an absolute right.

Your comment as quoted: “Free speech is an absolute right”. INCORRECT.

summed up

In reply to Harrassment is an example where free speech is NOT an absolute right

your rights end where the next persons begin.

Of course, rights are easier to take away in a secular society than in one founded under Christian principles. We have what is called “Unalienable rights”. They are not given by the government, so can not be taken away by the government.

[i]”that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”[/i]

Those of us with a creator are endowed, while the rest of you are monkeyboys… :p

LOL

In reply to Harrassment is an example where free speech is NOT an absolute right

Yup, that’s my dad on the PG Tips box.

http://shop.pgtips.co.uk/

😀

:D

In reply to Harrassment is an example where free speech is NOT an absolute right

B-)

Harassment is a pattern of behavior.

In reply to Harrassment is an example where free speech is NOT an absolute right

If I call you a jerk, that is not harassment.

If I call your cell phone 100 times a day and call you a jerk, that *is* harassment.

again, the action, not the word.

Haerrasment comes in MANY forms

In reply to Harrassment is an example where free speech is NOT an absolute right

There is verbal harrassment (calling people ‘names’ such as Jerk), calling somebody more than the allowable 3 times per day (yes you can call 3 times IF there is no answer on the first 2), sexual harassment, etc.

Don’t confuse stalking with harassing.

YEs you cited ONE exmaple/form of harassment, but we were nto talking about that. We were SPECIFICALLY referring to teh exmaple fo using the WORD FIRE in a public place in order to incite mayhem. THAT law is clearly defined and teh ONLY factor that makes it illegal is teh use of teh WORD FIRE, as described quite clearly in the law and teh specific case in which it is used to refer to.

It’s not something with grey area, as you are trying to point out, it is not something to do with harassment, as you are now tryign to twist teh topic to meet your thoughts, it is one comment and one comment only.

FIRE, as used in your example orginally quoted, is the ENTIRE and WHOLE issue behind the law as applied here. That is exactly why it is referred to by judges worldwide now, it was ONE statement, ONE case and ONE result that is used, not the examples you are trying to make it.

If I jump up and down in a theatre and yell, OMG RUN! RUN! I will get a lot of shushes, some really nasty looks and perhaps a couple of people squirming around to see what is going on. The act of yelling teh specific WORD ‘FIRE’ reults in hysteria, people learn to deal with most people’s hysteria by sussing up what is going on, they will often ignroe people’s cries for an amblance and ESPECIALLY ‘HEEEEEEELP’! But yell ‘FIRE’ and it starts panic. The difference, in the case cited, the case noted and commonly referred to in courts when discussing free speech and the case as used here is the specific word ‘FIRE’ as much as you’d like to to meet your goals and make yourself seem correct, you cannot change the law to suit your own ideals, it simply does not fly.

[b][u]Clear and present danger law[/b][/u]
Commonly used to nullify use of the First Ammendment.

[i]”Future of Freedom Foundation, a libertarian think tank, has stated [1] that in most cases free speech issues in the U.S. depend upon whose property one is on at the time. If someone falsely shouted “fire” and created a stampede which was clearly against the wishes of a theatre owner’s policy of conduct, then the theatre owner would be within his rights to prepare charges against the agitator. If, however, the theatre owner decided it would be good for business to have patrons yell “Fire! Fire!” whenever they felt like it, then he would be within his rights to do so.[/i]

It is the word that creates he ‘stampede’, not the act of yelling. If I stand in a theatre and yell HELP, STOP HIM, OUCH!, MY GOD LOOK AT THAT, LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!, nobody does anything but get annoyed, yet add the word FIRE into it and the theatre will empty in a stampede. FIRE being teh operative word in the sentence.

so one has the right to be blatantly hostil to another

In reply to Because there is not right to not be harassed

but one does not have the right to be protected from such hostility?

If one agrees to a code of conduct there by agreeing that one’s freedom of speech is too remain within that code of conduct, should they not expect to be held accountable for there actions in breach of that agreement?

Don’t be stupid

In reply to so one has the right to be blatantly hostil to another

see, I had the “RIGHT” to be blatantly hostile towards you. 😀

You have the “RIGHT” to either sit down, STFU and cry about it, or you have the “RIGHT” to be hostile back.

B-)

One can not threaten, but one CAN belittle someone else. 😀

If the kids would have not implied partaking in a homosexual act, but kept it to “he is a dootyhead for taking my phone away”, none of this would be happening.

Disparaging of ones character is a no-no.

fair enough.. and the second point?

In reply to so one has the right to be blatantly hostil to another

.. though I would differentiate a bit between one or two random opinions and an ongoing attack of one’s character and moral. I don’t know if this case falls into the more extreme classification though.

Now, on the matter of the second point; if one agrees to a code of conduct which defines what speech is acceptable and what isn’t, do they still get to give an outcry when they break that code of conduct in a blatantly unsubstatiated and hostile manner then are held accountable for those actions?

Depends on the community and acceptable conduct

In reply to so one has the right to be blatantly hostil to another

A small town is more likely to take you out behind the woodshed if the law won’t remove you.

In the bigger cities, they pretty much expect that everyone is an a$$hole. It will be dealt with quickly by them, or not at all unless there are plenty of witnesses or video.

I don’t think there is a set line anywhere. You have to take offense, press charges, and then win in court. Courts are a real crap shoot, because a jury of your peers is rarely a good thing.

What if (JD)

In reply to so one has the right to be blatantly hostil to another

[i]Disparaging of ones character is a no-no. [/i]

The disparaging remark is [b]true[/b]?

Obviously (Tony)

In reply to so one has the right to be blatantly hostil to another

you had better be able to prove it….

Knowing something and being able to prove something are not the same thing.

One’s right to free speech is great. Say what you like,

In reply to why does one’s free right speech outweigh one’s right to not be harassed?

Unfortunately that is the most common misperception of what free speech really is.

Free speech does NOT mean you can say what yuo want when you want, it merely prevents teh government from passing a law to restrict your freedom of choice in religion, government and grants you a right to protest against such peacefully.

Other than that, you can’t say what you choos ein my home, it’s MY home and you have no freedom of speech guarantees there, nor at work. Schools fall into gray area as they are government funded, if the GOVERNMENT fund it then it becomes an issue sthat requries agovernment law to stop it, which is what the first ammendments assures you they cannot do. BUT, in the case of harassment, sexual or racial discrimination, or when bvreaking other laws such as Defamation of Character, in this case Libel, Free Speech does not apply (and that’s exact;y why it isn’t considered an ABSOLUTE right, as it can be negated under certain conditions.

Unfortunately too many poepl eactually think Free Speech IS an absolute law, as did these school kids.

Free speech is an absolute right.

In reply to One’s right to free speech is great. Say what you like,

not law, right.

So I have the right to come into your home

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

speak badly of your wife, critisize your manner of decorating and make up a few extra insults along the way and that’s no issue for you because I have my right to freedom of speech? When you strike me for the vulgarity I express, I can then take you to court over encrouching on my freedom of speech then and/or denounce you in the media over it? After all, I have a right to free speech so any reprecusions of that speech are infinging are they not?

Wouldn’t try that in the US

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

first, you are trespassing. A crime you can get arrested for.

Second, if the person feels threatened, they have the right to remove that threat, permanently.

I can call you a poopyhead and get away with it. I can not call you a crook and get away with it.

No it isn’t an absolute right

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

You have a computer can you not simply Google it and find the countless examples and instances that prove clearly that FREE SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.

How can it be an absolute right if there are limitations to its aplication? Simple, it CAN’T. DUH!

Quick, JD, we got a live one!

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

This ones a real nutter I know, but you would think that with the information available that the density would diminish, but nooooooo.

“they have the right to remove that threat, permanently.”

I assume you are referring to shooting the person. There are also a LOT of ‘BUT’ surrounding that common claim to, but you wouldn’t understand them, they are legal facts and that doesn’t seem to have any effet on your understanding of your rights.

So what if someone was in your home, unarmed and you wanted them to leave and tehy didn’t, do you think you could shoot them?

How about if you caught a robber, armed, as he was runnign out teh door, can you shoot him too?

And lets say you catually stopped a criminal in your home, you knocked his gun out of his hands and stuggled on the floor, can you shoot him then?

I suppose this is all subject to Locrians Law and not actual US law, but that’s okay too, actual US laws don’t seem to apply in your case anyway.

Live one? Not for long….. :p

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

Ok Oz, wasn’t really looking to get into a discussion about shooting people, but if you asked….. I was just being sarcastic before… :p

It is a State by State issue on what you can and can not do. HERE, if you feel threatened, you can use the force required to remove that threat.

If someone has your TV and are running out the front door with it, NO, you can not shoot them. They are not a threat. If he points his weapon at you, you drop him. If the weapon is in a pocket or waistband, he is not a threat with his hands full. Insurance will buy you a new TV.

If you just want someone to leave but they won’t, (but are not violent or threatening) you call a cop and about a half hour later you can have them removed. (cops are intentionally slow to respond to domestic style disputes as parties involved are often emotional and will BOTH turn on the cops when they get there)

If you are foolish/stupid enough to physically confront a robber [i](as I once did)[/i] and take their gun away [i](as I once did)[/i], no, you don’t get to shoot them, [i](as I once didn’t)[/i].

It all comes down to what is a threat to you. In the US, you have a real right to be free from threat in your own home. Someone breaks in, you do not have to make sure they are armed, or do any of the TV crap like yelling “freeze”. They are a threat, that can be legally removed. Make sure you have insurance and a lawyer, because you will end up in court over it in many of the cases, but it often comes down on the side of the home owner defending themselves. Home owners do not have to be tough guys that can/will beat up the intruder.

Edit to add: I went through personal protection classes, where they teach you both the proper safe handling of firearms AND the legal issues with defending yourself with that firearm. They teach you if you are victim of a home invasion, try to get your firearm, get your family safe, and stay put. You are recommended AGAINST “clearing the house” because it makes YOU a target for the intruder and is more hollywood BS. If they come to you, well…..

I can not vouch for the other states, although I know Texas gives even more lea-way on this where you can protect property as well as yourself and family.

Other places, [i](like Chicago and New York)[/i] well, the cops will make a nice pretty chalk line around you when they show up.

I know you don’t agree, but it is NOT as blood thirsty as many portray it to be.

I own several handguns and rifles. NONE of them are laying around my house for personal protection, but instead are ALL locked up in my gun safe, with the key on my keyring, in my pocket. They are not for personal protection. That is why I have golf clubs and baseball bats all over the house. B-)

It depends on the state, Oz

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

[i]So what if someone was in your home, unarmed and you wanted them to leave and tehy didn’t, do you think you could shoot them?

How about if you caught a robber, armed, as he was runnign out teh door, can you shoot him too?

And lets say you catually stopped a criminal in your home, you knocked his gun out of his hands and stuggled on the floor, can you shoot him then?

I suppose this is all subject to Locrians Law and not actual US law, but that’s okay too, actual US laws don’t seem to apply in your case anyway. [/i]

In Texas, you can shoot someone running AWAY from your neighbor’s house after they broke in or tried to 🙂

In most other states, you cannot kill or attempt to kill someone who is not a threat to your person or to the person of another. In some cases, however, you MAY intentionally wound them 🙂

You do NOT want to “wound” someone

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

They can still be a threat, and if they accidentally live, they can try to sue you.

If your dog attacks them while they are breaking into your home, they can sue you. Is that a crock of sheet or what?

No winging someone. No shooting the gun out of their hand. Full clip, center of mass. Threat eliminated. You do not give them a
“fair chance” or wait until you are fired upon. Just make sure you properly identify your target. Rounds that will not penetrate a wall is also a good idea for home protection, that way only the person that is suppose to die, does.

Any word on the civil trial for the guy from Texas that took out the two illegals that were breaking into his neighbors house?

That’s exactly how I see it too, JD

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

THAT is teh point I was gettign at. Too many people think that if an intruder is in their home, they can legally shoot away, as demonstrated so many ties in comments we’ve seenhere. But that just isn’t so, the THREAT is the key issue.

As you said, you can’t shoot someone leaving or trying to leave, or someone who is unable to access a gun to pose a leathal threat upon you.

The level of threat is key also, if it is a gun, a knife, fists etc. makes a world of difference. This applies in Canada too, you are alowed ot own guns here, in fact there is a higher percentage of Canadians with legal firearms than in the USA.

We just don’t make a big deal out of it and use it in a threatening way all the time, ie. “If someone breaks into my house, my Glock is under the pillow and I’ll shoot them on sight.” It is THAT mentality that gives gun owners a bad rap. I am NOT opposed to gun ownership, I am simply opposed to how EASY it is to legally obtain a firearm in the USA as opposed to other parts of the world that excerise greater gun control/discrepancy.

I fully understand home invasion laws and have taught the courses similar to the safety course you speak of, as a security Foreman and manager of concert security teams (who find they have a LOT of similar ‘force’ issues to deal with at most major shows). It was my life for a good 12 years (security and legal boundaries) so I can understand exactly what you are getting at.

You seem to have confused my post though, my intent was not to get into a gun ownership issue but to iterate exactly what yuo have said above, lethal force is not something to be taken lightly, which it too often is by Joe public, as you very well know yourself.

That’s only recent though, Tony.

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

The Castle Doctrine Law was only just passed in Texas last year to allow such use of force. Prior to that it was handled with the same scrutiny as any other state.

even now it is still not as cut and dry as you may think.

[i][b]”LAREDO ? “A man who shot and killed a 13-year-old breaking into his mobile home has been indicted for murder[/b] in a case that could test a new law giving Texans more leeway to defend themselves with deadly force.

Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, was indicted Friday in the July killing of a teenager who sneaked into his home with three friends to steal drinks and snacks. Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back and later died at a Laredo hospital.

Gonzalez was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree murder.[/i]
http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2008/04/texas-man-indicted-in-13-year-old.html

The law is being scrutinized on a regular basis and I doubt it will last more than a few years before being ousted, too many Texans are against it (if you can believe THAT).

Then again, Texas is not really part of Earth, is it?

Texas is another planet for most people, it simply si far too different than any otherplace on Earth for people to accept it as being American or even human.

I mean, they produced people like George Lee Harvey Oswald, Bonnie Parker (of Bonnie & Clyde fame), Charles Albright and of course Ross Perot and both Bush presidents.

I think that says it all for Texas: Serial killers, mass murderers and Presidents that had thousands killed during their time in office.

Yup, Texas, what a place!

Gotcha

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

As for regulations, again, that is state by state.

Here I have to go to the local cop-shop where they will do a criminal background check. If there is nothing in my past, I get my purchase permit that is good for 15 days.

It is a far cry from just anyone walking into a store and walking out with a weapon.

Even to get a rifle, there is again a criminal background check.

Only point of contention, an intruder does not have to be armed to be considered a threat.

The problem is, the anti-gunner crowds that run the media intentionally put on the toothless hick that is gunna shoot ya if you step on his property! It is an intentional and dishonest attempt to make all gun owners seem like nutcases.

You will hear the same about the NRA, even though the NRA has ALWAYS been for tougher enforcement of existing laws, and for proper training for all gun owners. The dumb and dishonest still think the NRA is “anything goes” as far as gun ownership.

If you poses an illegal firearm, lock them up.

If you use a firearm illegally, lock them up.

A simple idea.

That’s a sketchy one, JD

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

Horne was not threatened, and he was urged to not go outside and confront them by the 911 dispatcher. another officer was out front of teh house and saw him shoot both guys IN THE BACK.

He said he feared for his life and that the man had lunged at him witha crowbar.

First of all, both of them were shot in the back.

Secondly, he was safe in hsi home and could have stayed there, gun loaded in case they came to HIS home, and he HAD spoken with police who were arriving on scene. He told teh police dispatcher that he was going to shoot them, walked outside, confronted them and shot them. That is NOT the action of someon in fear of hisown life, not at all.

But the Texas Castle Doctrine Law doesn’ trealy protect him either as THTA is only effective if the shooting is at NIGHT, not when the shooting/invasion was conducted.

IN his case, he’s just really ‘kin lucky he’s in Texas, or else he wouldn’t have a hope in hell of getting through without a 1st degree manslaughter charge (at best).

Read and listen to teh call he made to 911 here, as well as the follow up call after he shot them, against the dispatchers pleadings. THEN he has teh gaul to say they came into his yard and he had no choice. HE CONFRONTD THEMAnd here’s a similar incident wher ethey have ciled charges, the guy shot someone driving AWAY from the scene.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2008/08/04/man_accused_of_shooting_at_all.html

Just goes to show, you pass one law and out come the cowboys, freaks, yahoos or whatever idiotic phrase describes these paranoid lunatics properly.

Personally I say it is Texas, why not just strap them in the chair them move on, you execute people for much less.

Purchase permits in Michgan are 10 days

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

You get 10 days to buy your pistol, long guns do not require a permit (which is bad).

That is not the issue, the ease and speed at which it is issued is a problem. Private sale is of course exempt from this need also.

If you don’t have a prior criminal record and no KNOWN mental health issues, you can get your gun simply by walking in, havign a background check in a computer while you wait and walking out with a permit to go and buy a pistol just about anywhere. Done deal.

That is not any form if discouragement to a guy who just got really PO’d with somemone and is going to kill him or ANY criminal for that matter. Gangs and criminals are made up of new members who are clean and innocent. You want in? Go buy me a gun, domne deal, legal and all. That night someone else is shot.

You see, in Canada it takes time. a criminal background check is conducted thoroughly and takes a couple fo weeks, not hours. It is also up to teh discrepamcy of the shop owner, who have been proven to simply take gansters money for firearms and leave it at that.

Michigan laws are as slack as any in the USA, I aam not opposed ot guns, I am opposed to screening and buying on the same day or even the same week. Rage that gets peopls to buys guns to kill with is usually vented in a few weeks, whereas in the USA, they can rage, buy and kill in the same weekend, if not same day.

For more on Michgans gun legislation: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf

That’s the full meal deal, no ifs ands or buts about it, those are the slack assed state laws as they apply in YOUR state.

I’ll modify it a little

In reply to Free speech is an absolute right.

So, instead of visiting your home. Granted, I question lethal response where only threat of insult is experienced. Let’s take it to the local pub or park even. If I aproach you and your significant other in the local pub or the local park and share my freedom of speach through blatantly insulting and intentionally costic opinions. That is still ok? I’m not in your home or, in the case of the park, not even in a private place with nice big bouncers.

When you inevitably take a swing at me, I’m perfectly within my rights to claim freedom of speech and charge you with physical assault in response too my verbal assault? I should have no responsability for what I say because it is my right to do so and you can’t do anyting in response but express your freedom of speech? Why does that right to free speech outweight the targets well being?

Why does considering one’s freedom of speech always have to be done without considering the consiquences or target of that speech?

Granted, I’m not the type that would come find someone a park just to talk smack to them nor do I intentionally express opinions I’m not willing to support. This is really just posed as an example. At what point is practicing one’s right to free speech incrouch on the rights and well being of another person?

The article implied

In reply to Free Speech

that this was a Catholic school, which I assume means not run by the government. The “free speech” laws don’t necessarily apply, though there may be some contractual issues.

I don’t think the school has any right to punish these students regardless

In reply to Free Speech

The school is not playing parent, they are protecting their own best interests.

The Crime:
They are liable for defamation of character, in this case the principal is tamtamaount to the school’s ability to encourage new student and is a key part in how the school is seen from the outside.

Acceptance: (if this was was in the USA)
First Ammendment:
Free speech does NOT entitle you to say what you want, when you want. It merely stops the government from passing a law against you excercising your freedoms of expression and religious faith.

“…that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” (the Establishment Clause) or that prohibit the free exercise of religion (the Free Exercise Clause), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In other words, you can call Bush a prick and as long as you don’t stop traffic or cause any harm to anyone, it’s okay.

Nothing in there says you can say what you want, where you want, it’s just that the government can’t pass a law in order to shut you up.

Hate speech, and defamation of character are still punishable crimes, while this is not really HATE SPEECH, I’ll agree with you there, it IS defamation of character, in written form thus Libel.

It is a crime, and they should rightly be punished for it. The measely few days out of school is no punishment for most kids, but I suppose these kids will say how much they stand to lose from it and try to play the big man role before losing.

We had many pay phones in school and if you parent needs you to check in after classes, (a ridiculous claim to begin with) then the school office, with a note from the parent, will gladly oblige.

There is no reason a child needs a teleohone in school, there are adminstrative staff that will help in the case of emergency.

There is no reason for a kid to be able to text while in school, none at all.

There is no reason for a kid to need a PDA to organize his day in school, they provide schedules and if you can’t leaarn what classes to go to and when, then you will need ot be on the short bus and will get help accordingly.

When you were in school, there were payphones, how many times was it imperative taht you used one? Not for buying dope or finding out where teh party was that night, or checkign in to see what’s for dinner but actual need to contact your parents, where anoter phone was not available to you?

Ever?

Yeah, we don’t need phones.

As is demonstrated by these morons, who are supposedly good students, they need to focus a lot mroe on learning than calling. They don’ teven understand teh difference between the US Bill of Rights and the Canada’s adherence to the International Human Rights Act.

My only argument is that they shouldn’t be suspended, the ‘kin morons should have to attend school overtime until they are not so stupid.

Suspension is the worst?

In reply to I don’t think the school has any right to punish these students regardless

[i]the ‘kin morons should have to attend school overtime until they are not so stupid. [/i]

I agree with that Oz. Since when is Suspension a bad thing to bad kids? They don’t have to go to school? Oh no!

Suspensions hurt kids who are good students, and work hard on attendance records and such.

Whatever happened to detentions and making the bad kids do extra school work? Or do community service with the janitor? Is it because the adults don’t want to have to spend the extra time supervising them in this type of punishment anymore?

pansy parents

In reply to Suspension is the worst?

I think it is a result of too many prents whining about theur kids being held behind after school and how the school has no right to do that.

Maybe its time we let the schools satrp and cane kids again, perhaps both parents AND students would get the picture that the school is an institution for people to learn, not a playground for kids to learn how to constantly push the limits and complain about their rights being infringed upon.

if I had done that when I was a kid, the world would have stopped spinning. My parents would have been the first people to waltx me down to teh school to apologize for my behaviour and would have let the school deal with it accordingly.

Then again, we learned things when I went to school, that’s what we were there for. There was no free ride in life, you needed school, unless your career choice was to empty outhouses by siphoning through straw.

I just want to beat the snot out of most of the baggy pant wearing, slack jawed morons they call students these days. They wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes in our high schools, without being thrown to the curb with a few boot prints on them.

Pansy arsed tossers, should all be condemned to a life of working at MacDonalds and WalMart.

“condemned to a life of working at MacDonalds and WalMart.”

In reply to pansy parents

They may be with all the publicity they are getting. A job involving “j’want fries with that?” may be the only thing they can get hired for with how common background checks are becoming and how purmanent the internet is. 😉

I think they got off lucky

In reply to I don’t think the school has any right to punish these students regardless

Suspension is the worst that happened too them? That’s lucky I figure.

The school had a code of conduct which was agreed too and broken by the students. They chose to attend the school provided by the catholic school board instead of the school provided by the public school board. Anywhere I’ve seen a catholic school, there has been a public school also available for all us non-catholic heathons.

Suspension is definately getting off easy. In a work environment it would have been expulsion; here’s your last pay, that’s the door.

I know for my kid, time off for bad behavior wouldn’t result in sitting around home on vacation until allowed back into school; Especially after drawing that kind of shame through clearly unacceptable behavior.

Good Point

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

“their personal abusive attacks cannot be let pass”

I can cite / read / been involved in a few TR momments when this kind of behaviour was allowed to pass, with no person taking action. Perhaps we should all take heed here!

The difference

In reply to Good Point

Here at TR we can all have our moments and move on – you can chose to stay or leave.

But the postings from those students are about people, teachers, that they see and interact with every day. Would that not change the tone a little around the school.

If some of your work collegues did the same thing, posted vulgar obscenities about you, non-anonymously, would that change how you work with them? Is that not a much different thing to insults traded here?

You don’t need to come here. You could happily live without the place. But if you poison someone’s workplace, thats a different story. Its not so easy to get a new job.

James

Same – Same

In reply to The difference

The same could be said of Facebook James.

The principal didn’t have to go look at what was said on the Facebook site.

If, as the Principal of a school, you haven’t come to the realization that some of the students won’t like you for some of the rules that are enforced, then he needs a serious dose of reality.

What is the principal or any employee of the school doing visiting the Facebook profiles of these children anyway?

Assuming the principal was told of the existence of this discussion…he should have been an adult, realized kids will be kids and not bothered to even look at it.

The principal didn’t go

In reply to Same – Same

The principal was told by other staff.
Presumably the staff found out from students, not all of whom agreed with the tone of the site.

I think what it might help you to know is that each student has to sign a code of conduct to be registered at the school. The school has the right to deny access to the child if they don’t sign – its a Catholic school. The postings clearly violate the code of conduct.

Free speech is not unlimited. I don’t have the right to slander or libel, incite a riot, promote violent hatred (in Canada at least). What we are balancing here is the right of the school to enforce a code of conduct versus the right of the kids to free speech.

And its a little more than a group of profiles on Facebook – they created a group specifically with the principals name in it, to denegrate the principal. That goes beyond an individual’s musings.

James

Ahh well…

In reply to The principal didn’t go

If it’s a private school and the children and parents sign a code of conduct that governs behavior outside of school…then the kids knew full well they could get in trouble for it and deserve to be punished.

Still, if I were a teacher or staff member of a high school and one of the students came to me about this, I seriously doubt I would even bother to give it a look.

While it may be inappropriate for the kids to act in this manner, kids WILL be kids, and if no threats were made then it is a non-issue in my opinion.

And if it had been face-to-face?

In reply to Ahh well…

Would kids then still “be kids” or would you recommend appropriate punishment?

Would you rethink your attitude if you thought that such a group could possibly incite an individual to violence? Even if unintentionally?

At the very least such postings would be prejudicial to good order and discipline, even in a public school

Just blame the school

In reply to And if it had been face-to-face?

I have actually heard that from people regarding these situations. Scary part is they were serious, and questioned nothing about it.

In my area, we have dealt with hazings of all sorts as well as postings on MySpace, Facebook, and others. These things tend to be a balancing act at best, perspective ignorance in others.

I have actually seen the media come out and chastise schools in my area for doing what this school did. Schools range from public to private, but usually the same story. The schools have come out like this and punished students for what they post. These were threats, cyberbullying, and other things directly related to the school. The school was fried in the public eye for infringing on the students right to free speech. And all the students, parents and lawyers stated the school had no business reading these or punishing anyone because of such postings.

Then there have been stories where students have posted about these hazing rituals and cyberbullying. The school was not aware of these postings. The parents and media immediately fried the school again, stating that they have a responsibility to the kids and their safety. The public clearly felt that the schools were negligent for not stopping these things from happening. They have also said that threats and other postings, whether made on campus or not, that directly relate to the school should be dealt with.

No matter what seems to come of these, the school is the big loser every time. For some unknown reason, everyone shifts responsibility from the children and parents onto the school, both for action or inaction. And thanks to the holy power of the lawsuit in the US, most of these people act without remorse or responsibility, and this is a direct result of it. My favorite was a kid who was expelled for “finding” a pellet gun in a garbage can. He hid the gun, and was caught with it. The parents, student and of course the legal team, all claimed that the student was going to bring it to the attention of the school (but he did hide the gun). That he did not warrant expulsion as he was, of course, in the process of doing the right thing, and that the school was at fault for not understanding that. Even the reporter did not buy it. I figure pretty shortly, I should be able to do any illegal thing I want, so long as I think about doing the right thing at the time.

I remember getting detentions and Saturday schools for intercepted notes and various things that were found and read by the school. These kids are posting these thoughts and expressions on a public web-site. If they believe it is private enough that the school has no right to it, do not post it on a public web page. These kids do have the right to free speech, and as such can enjoy the responsibility inherant in freedom.

I do believe the school has the right to check MySpace, facebook, and any other blog and webspace. These may be private thoughts, but are published in a public place, and are therefore public domain. The school should set about boundaries, though, and have policy for handling these situations. Both to protect the children, and the school itself. These websites should be handled no differently than a note that was intercepted in class. When informed or these situations are discovered, the school should act. Threats dealt with in kind. Inciting violence or illegal actions outside of school resulting in contacting the parents. And the “principal is a poopy-pants” or “my teacher smells like old cheese” be dismissed as an immature mind attempting to deal with a hormone spike and the over-inflated expections laid upon them.

little people with a loud voice

In reply to Ahh well…

im a student and i came upon this site after researching the topic

but come on … free speech is Voicing your opinions ? like we are now ? and I think you?ve all forgot how crippling teen life is ? I think this form of bullying is a way of releasing the pressure of teen life ? if bagging out a teacher or a principal gives you a sense of security or power then so be it ? if they care about what a student thinks of them then they really are in the wrong career ? think of where the students are coming from or what they might be feeling ? I think the youth needs away of blowing of steam and getting it off there chest ? I would rather have offended teachers than emotionally challenged students

Could you elaborate

In reply to little people with a loud voice

on the following:
“and I think you?ve all forgot how crippling teen life is”

“I would rather have offended teachers than emotionally challenged students”

It’s been a long time since I was a teen, but I don’t remember it being that hard at all. In fact, I would jump at the chance to re-live my teen years.

Bullying to release pressure…

In reply to little people with a loud voice

is still bullying.

Split wood. Beat the feathers out of a pillow. Work out. Swim laps.

The behavioral habits you acquire now, in your ‘crippling teen years’, will follow you into the rest of your life, which, believe it or not, can be equally ‘crippling’.

Further, emotionally challenged applies to adults as well as students. Life is a nightmare of an emotional challenge. Get used to it.

Bewildered intellect bringing up the rear.

In reply to little people with a loud voice

,

Good luck with that…..

In reply to little people with a loud voice

You are set for a long life of disappointment.

Enjoy that.

Why should you be coddled?

In reply to little people with a loud voice

Many students at a high school will not go on to college or university and will instead commence life in the working world. What a rude shock awaits them if they find they’ve been coddled and sheltered from real life consequences through their school years.

You can’t have it both ways, if you want to be treated like an adult, you have to accept responsibility for you actions, like an adult.

I’m all for voicing an opinion, but bullying is bullying, whether the victim is a teacher or a student. I don’t want my kids to learn that bullying is ok if the victim is a teacher.

James

Bullying to release pressure?

In reply to little people with a loud voice

Heck, we used to have sex. You know, with girls. Real girls. Try it sometime, you might like it…. ;\

Someday, if you work at it, you to can say “I like girls!” B-)

Another question,

In reply to Same – Same

How can they be sure the people listed actually did the deed?

I mean, if I have someone else’s picture, I can create a page, say I’m them, then post all kinds of nasty stuff to get them into trouble. This can be caught, by tracing IP addresses, etc., but is the school actually verifying this information?

No one here

In reply to Good Point

can give you a pass or fail.

Schools have to keep discipline and order, or they will not be able to maintain a learning environment.

The schools with the least amount of discipline are also the schools with the least amount of academic success.

Would YOU be allowed to do such against your boss, and still hope to keep your job? [b]Think[/b] about it, instead of reacting on emotion.

“But, my little darling would never…….”

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

fill in the blank yourself.

It is completely the fault of the parents that came out of the same system that do not know THEIR rights, and so are passing on bad information to their perfect little copies of themselves that they have created.

They don’t FEEL it is fair, so it must not be.

I think the parents should be made to sit in the corner, nose to the wall.

Rights and responsibilities.

In reply to “But, my little darling would never…….”

You can not have former without the latter.

With power comes great responsibility

In reply to Rights and responsibilities.

Yes I know that comes from the Spiderman movies. But hey, it’s true. If you are going to have the right (power) to speak as you will, then you must face the fact that responsibility goes hand in hand with that power.

If you are going to say something or do something, then you must realize that there will be reactions to it. Just like physics – for every action there is a reaction. Therefore whomever creates the initial “action” must be prepared to face the “reaction” that follows.

That isn’t what liberals teach

In reply to Rights and responsibilities.

Did you know you have a RIGHT to free health care? Bah!

They teach people have RIGHTS, but it is not their fault for the responsibilities.

hmmm

In reply to That isn’t what liberals teach

And Conservatives believe in what? Privatizing everything?

Listen to your candidate when he pseudo-quoted Teddy R.:

“Unfettered capitalism breeds corruption.”

Conservative motives to make private enterprise independent from government regulation and oversight means businessmen are allowed to pursue corrupt and unrestrained practices.

Kind of like oil companies are doing now. Oil goes up based on damage that *might* have happened to refiners.

3 days later “Oh…the damage isn’t that bad.”

If someone doesn’t keep things within a nominal means, all people that are along for the ride…being the American people…begin to suffer…excepting those that are “pushing the car over the cliff”.

Besides, I have to ask this of you:

Have you ever taken a free thing from the system in your life? I have. Free tetanus shots from the county. Free testing from the county. That’s free medical care. Guess I’m a pig for that.

Oh, and btw. I believe the liberals propose that everyone has a right to free basic medical care…not all health care. That is, it’s not like they will get free plastic surgery or boob implants.

Where does that RIGHT come from?

In reply to hmmm

I don’t recall there being anything that gives you anything more than the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

You do not have a RIGHT to happiness, just the ability to pursuit it.

You do not have a RIGHT to take something from one person to give it to another.

You have a right to ACCESS quality health care. This can not be denied. Nothing gives you a right to it for free.

Like any other service that costs money, where do you see this should be “free”? It is not one of the necessities of life.

Food IS a necessity of life, so it should be free.

Shelter IS a necessity of life, so it should be free.

Clothing IS a necessity of life, so it should be free.

Health insurance is NOT a necessity of life, yet you would have the government rip money away from people who work, to pay for someone else to have their “free” healthcare?

Of course you will not be honest enough to admit how hypocritical that is of you and any/everyone that “feels” that health care should be “free”.

Just how basic is basic? Do I get a “free” kidney transplant or hearth surgery?

Before you buy into the BS about how grand the welfare medical states are, talk to the people in Canada and the UK about how “free” it really is, and the waiting periods and such. Was a very interesting link Neil posted last week of their meetings going on about how failed their medical system is. I will see if I can find it…. It was a real circus…

Never confuse people being compasionate enough to help others, with another person having ANY “rights” to such help.

Stop feeling and start thinking.

start thinking?

In reply to Where does that RIGHT come from?

[i]I don’t recall there being anything that gives you anything more than the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?[/i]

Go back and read the Bill of Rights, then. You’ll find a right to peacable assembly, bear arms, of the press, etc.

[i]You do not have a RIGHT to happiness, just the ability to pursuit it.[/i]

Yep, and any fettering of your right means what? Someone gets a slap on the wrist? You’re not even guaranteed that right either.

[i]You do not have a RIGHT to take something from one person to give it to another.[/i]

No, but your government does. And, you can’t do anything about it…can you? lol

[i]You have a right to ACCESS quality health care. This can not be denied. Nothing gives you a right to it for free.[/i]

And depending by state, you also have the right to free healthcare by law. Public health facilities, by law, can not deny critical care to patients who are in mortal danger.

[i]Like any other service that costs money, where do you see this should be “free”? It is not one of the necessities of life. [/i]

I see that things like flu shots, basic checkups, etc., should be free. Because, this kind of service means if someone who can’t afford a doctor is found by public health service to have tuberculosis or something that can endanger the public that the government is informed immediately, rather than the person wandering the streets and passing it to an untold number of others.

Does it excite you to know that your kid could be going to school with another kid whose dad has TB and hasn’t gotten any meds or anything cause he doesn’t have the money to go?

[i]Food IS a necessity of life, so it should be free.

Shelter IS a necessity of life, so it should be free.

Clothing IS a necessity of life, so it should be free.[/i]

Clothing is NOT a necessity. Natives have lived without clothing for 1000s of years. Civilization expects that of you, not nature or need.

[i]Health insurance is NOT a necessity of life, yet you would have the government rip money away from people who work, to pay for someone else to have their “free” healthcare?[/i]

Health insurance is [b]NOT[/b] basic healthcare.

And if the government would stop sucking up to people for votes (both sides do it), they’d make welfare people go work at McDonalds or pickin up trash along a highway for that welfare check.

[i]Of course you will not be honest enough to admit how hypocritical that is of you and any/everyone that “feels” that health care should be “free”.[/i]

Basic healthcare is best for the country, jd. It is a stop-gap measure to prevent/curtail the transmission of disease among the populous.

Or, do you feel it’s right for your children to be in more chance of medical peril cause you want more of your paycheck?

[i]Just how basic is basic? Do I get a “free” kidney transplant or hearth surgery?[/i]

I’ve lined out what basic is above.

If they would reform welfare and make it “workfare”, yeah. I think all non-elective procedures should be included, so long as the person did not bring on the condition voluntarily to their body. (Surgery for deep tissue infection for piercings, lung transplants for former smokers, etc.)

[i]Before you buy into the BS about how grand the welfare medical states are, talk to the people in Canada and the UK about how “free” it really is, and the waiting periods and such. Was a very interesting link Neil posted last week of their meetings going on about how failed their medical system is. I will see if I can find it…. It was a real circus…[/i]

That’s because they’ve let it get out of control. Of course, we’re not doing much better here. I waited 3 hours to get into my doctor just a few weeks ago, and I had an appointment. And to get that appointment for a simple check I had to wait 2 weeks.

Is that any better? And I have insurance! And I pay! And I work! So, what’s so great about the system here, jd? What makes it so good?

BTW, check out Australia’s healthcare system.

[i]Never confuse people being compasionate enough to help others, with another person having ANY “rights” to such help. [/i]

So, you’re going to be compassionate and go to medical school to donate your services?

[i]Stop feeling and start thinking. [/i]

Oh, I think. I just think about more than what I get in my check. I look for a solution to the overall problem, not just what benefits me most.

Maybe most of your problem is not all because of how the system works, but because of yours and others approach to patchwork solutions?

[i]?If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month.?[/i] – Theodore Roosevelt

Gotta love Teddy.

Here in Michigan

In reply to start thinking?

clothing is more than just a decoration or for modesties sake. It gets COLD here. Ask someone that spent the two coldest months last year without a furnace….

Patchwork solution? Tell people that the gravy train has come into station, everybody off!

The DO workfare in Michigan. Fatboy demonizes it in Bowling for Columbine, when he blames Dick Clark for the 5 year old for taking the gun he found living in his uncles crack house to school and shooting a little girl. Poor woman had to actually WORK like the rest of us. What could people be thinking????

And shots/immunizations is NOT what is being talked about by “The One” and his party.

And in ALL hospitals, it is illegal to turn someone away with a life threatening injury/illness, regardless of their income/insurance/nationality. It is the braindead Dems that paint the picture of people being turned away from life saving treatment after an accident, but like most of what they say, it is just not true.

There in Michigan

In reply to start thinking?

[i]Here in Michigan clothing is more than just a decoration or for modesties sake. It gets COLD here. Ask someone that spent the two coldest months last year without a furnace….[/i]

I believe…you make a choice to live there. It’s not required. You could move. You can get a job somewhere else. You CHOOSE to live somewhere that is not hospitable to human existence in the winter without clothing. So you choose to live where it’s needed.

That is your choice. Don’t blame me for your choice to stay there where you have to have clothes.

You can move where it’s not required…just like the welfare unemployed can move where there are jobs.

Remember that arguement you made? 🙂

So clothing is not required. Stop being hypocritical and admit it. (remember that line?) :^0

[i]Patchwork solution? Tell people that the gravy train has come into station, everybody off![/i]

Elect me president, and I will. Any welfare person who doesn’t take a job assigned to them by Job Corps or the Unemployment Office…has gotten their last check.

I’ve said it before…I’m an advocate of the Jamestown, VA model of living. If you’re able to perform some job function for which you can be hired…and you refuse to work…if your family won’t feed you…you’re gonna starve and die.

You’re preaching to the choir on that one.

[i]The DO workfare in Michigan. Fatboy demonizes it in Bowling for Columbine, when he blames Dick Clark for the 5 year old for taking the gun he found living in his uncles crack house to school and shooting a little girl. Poor woman had to actually WORK like the rest of us. What could people be thinking????[/i]

What was the child doing alone in a house by himself to where he could have time to find a gun? That’s negligence by his mother, not the system.

[i]And shots/immunizations is NOT what is being talked about by “The One” and his party.[/i]

Basic medical care has been discussed since Clinton was in office for everyone. The privatization of medical care has only led to higher insurance costs adn worsening treatment.

For God’s sake, jd. Let me give you another real life example.

I went to a hospital ER in July with a pulse over 100. My normal pulse is about 44-56 beats per minute.

Do you know how long it was before I saw an ER doctor? 8 damn hours. And, I was having some kind of heart issue. I suppose if I’d have dropped dead on the floor, I would have got some medical attention.

But, how good is our medical system again? What benefit has the privatization of medical care done for this country? NOTHING. PERIOD. I could have died, and the hospital probably would have sued my estate for the money for the EKG and blood test.

[i]And in ALL hospitals, it is illegal to turn someone away with a life threatening injury/illness, regardless of their income/insurance/nationality. It is the braindead Dems that paint the picture of people being turned away from life saving treatment after an accident, but like most of what they say, it is just not true.[/i]

Not true. Private facilities (there was one in Oklahoma City when I grew up, but I can’t remember the name of it) in most states are not required to deliver care. Only public accessible medical facilities have to do that.

I know Minnesota is different, because of a “Good Samaritan” law.

And btw…I have seen people turned away from private clinics here. I used to go to one, and later worked for the company as their programmer. They don’t have to accept patients like a public facility does.

Read the federalists papers.

In reply to start thinking?

Also, learn about John Adams, the architect of the constitution.

He argued STRONGLY against the bill or rights, not because he didn’t believe that our rights should be protected, but because he KNEW idiot pinheads would come along and make ludicrous assertions about what rights really are.

We do anyway….

In reply to hmmm

[i]And Conservatives believe in what? Privatizing everything? [/i]

…. through contracts with private businesses. Why not cut out the middle-man?

[i]Listen to your candidate when he pseudo-quoted Teddy R.:

“Unfettered capitalism breeds corruption.”[/i]

It CAN, but doesn’t always. Prosecute those cases where it does, and leave the people who aren’t doing anything wrong alone (goes for citizens too)!

[i]Oh, and btw. I believe the liberals propose that everyone has a right to free basic medical care…not all health care. [/i]

Problem is, they are LYING to you! It’s not “free”!

All social(ist) programs violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We are all created equal, and the government should protect our liberties equally. The cost of government should also be divided equally. If the government does something for one person and not another, that is preferential treatment, and should be disallowed. While some exceptions can be made in times of emergency, those exceptions should be treated as loans, and the recipients should be expected to pay it back with interest.

Why is oil off 40% from it’s high?

In reply to hmmm

nt

man oh man, jd

In reply to “But, my little darling would never…….”

You sore about that corner. Did they make you wear the dunce cap too? :^0

I went to therapy for my aggression. That’s why I advocate sending the parents and kids together to day workcamps so the kids can see how good they have it.

And if they don’t work at the camp? Jail.

Sometimes when you wanna ween the baby, ya gotta sour the milk.

Sitting in the corner means being lazy. Make em swing a sledgehammer!! :^0

No cap

In reply to man oh man, jd

and no sitting either.

Face the wall, nose touching it,
hands clasped behind your back,
and stand there……
and stand there……
and stand there……
and stand there……
and stand there……

talk about time standing still…..

The single most influential teacher in my life was my sixth grade teacher. He never used it on me, (he didn’t need to) but he had one of those old rubber hot wheels race tracks. You remember, the orange pieces? Whack across the back of your leg got your attention, real quick.

He was two years away from teaching my boys before he retired, or he would have taught three generations.

I had blown off my math homework assignment. So what, give me the “f”, what do I care? Well, he made me stay after to finish it. We had pictures that night for basketball, (he was the coach/teacher/principle) so he called my mom and informed her I was staying after, and to pick me up after pictures/practice.

AFTER I did my homework, he took me back to his place where his wife tried to kill me with seconds and thirds of the food before their son pointed out that I had already said “no thank you” to the previous helping she had put on my plate….. 😀

Every other teacher before or after didn’t care if I got that F or not. He knew I was better than that, and made me step up and BE better than that.

Math is now my easiest subject.

Made you?

In reply to No cap

Nah, he just gave you reason to want not to have to do something undesirable each time you F up.

I think teachers are held back from putting kids in their place…both by law and by fear that the kid will bring a gun in and shoot them the next day.

Part of that blame goes on the system…part on the parents.

The system for not standing up to legal crap and saying “If you think you can do better, Mr. Lawyer…you pay to put them in the private school of your choice. We won’t ruin other childrens’ educations for one, unruly, miscreant child.”

The parents for not being parents…letting their kids run around and not teaching them responsibility.

Hell…I feared my dad coming home and knowing I didn’t behave. That kept me in line til I was 17. lol :^0

Child abuse for edcuation?

In reply to Made you?

works for me… B-)

One of the big problems I see are[b] pathetic [/b]people that are more concerned with being cool than being a parent. Being a parent means you will be unpopular with your kids because you tell them “no” when it is required and in their best interest.

Was at a store the other day, and these kids were such brats. running around, getting into everything, and their parent just looked on in admiration. I looked at my boys and said “Thank you”. They asked why, and I said it was for not being like these children, and that I appreciated them for the fine young adults they are turning into. The proud parents glared at me, while everyone else was a combination of horror that I would dare say that in front of proud mommy/daddy, and admiration that I would dare say that in front of proud mommy/daddy…. 😀

Frickem.

Brats

In reply to Child abuse for edcuation?

They’re all over the place.

Although a few weeks ago I saw something that I could hardly believe. Again, in a shop. Walking around was a young mother with her boy, about 5 years old. The boy was doing what normal boys do, running around picking things up saying “I want”, and mother saying “No”.

She gets to the checkout, and I’m stood behind in line. She says “Alex, come here”, he says, “Mum, can I have this”. In a little sterner voice she says (not shouts) “Alex”. He goes, “But mum …”

At this point I thought it was going to go the usual way of things, a screaming match between mother and child, but no. She starts to count “1 … 2 …”. She doesn’t even get to 3, when the boy runs up to her, stands by her side, looks up and says “Sorry Mum”.

Like yourself, some parents know how to bring up children, but unfortunately some don’t.

It was a reminder

In reply to Brats

mum better not reach “3” or something bad will happen…..

How many times have you seen someone repeatedly say “I’m not going to tell you again!”, and then about a minute later they say the same thing? Kids know how much they can push, and know which parent they can push.

I have seen a 2nd grader tell his mother to shut up, and she did.

I [b]TOTALLY[/b] disagree with one point

In reply to Child abuse for edcuation?

[i]One of the big problems I see are pathetic people that are more concerned with being cool than being a parent. Being a parent means you will be unpopular with your kids because you tell them “no” when it is required and in their best interest.[/i]

BAH! Let’s talk about pathetic.

That is a mongering sentiment.

I practically raised my niece. I have never been unpopular with her. I never took the piggish attitude “I’m your elder and you’ll do what I say because I said it.”

That kind of attitude is antiquated, bullish, and only for those who are mentally incapable of dealing with communicating to a child who is of age to be reasoned with.

Every time I told my niece not to do something, I would explain why if she asked why not. I never treated her like an idiot, or that she was incapable of comprehending it, or that i was too good to explain something to her.

You do [b]not[/b] have to be a bully monger or unpopular with your child to be a good parent. You are absolutely wrong.

[i]Was at a store the other day, and these kids were such brats. running around, getting into everything, and their parent just looked on in admiration. I looked at my boys and said “Thank you”. They asked why, and I said it was for not being like these children, and that I appreciated them for the fine young adults they are turning into. The proud parents glared at me, while everyone else was a combination of horror that I would dare say that in front of proud mommy/daddy, and admiration that I would dare say that in front of proud mommy/daddy…. [/i]

You must have double jointed shoulders… patting yourself on the back like that. What a good dad I am…I did so well raising you right…YAY ME! BOO YOU!

Real tactful there. Maybe instead of making a belittling comment about them as parents, you could have just talked to the parents…you know…like an adult?

Way to think there.

You have the right to be wrong

In reply to I [b]TOTALLY[/b] disagree with one point

Just because I say no doesn’t mean I don’t have a reason AND share that reason with them.

What it comes down to, it the kids will either not agree with your reason or not CARE about your reason. Guess you would have to be there full time to run into a time when a child will disobey you after you say no about something? I smile at how simplistic you really think it is.

And yes, sometimes it TAKES being belittled for people to “get it” about how pathetic they are. You can not have a reasonable conversation with unreasonable people, and anyone that raises their kids like that are not reasonable people. Go watch “the nanny” and you will see some monsters of kids, but worse is the parents that created the monsters.

Ask any parent on here how it works out when their 3 year old insists they want that toy in the store, or they want that candy. Ask them how it works out when the teenager wants to go do something that you know is not a good idea, or they can’t go because their homework isn’t done or it is a school night. You know less than you think.

Any parents want to chime in here? Ever have your kid say something hateful to you because they were not allowed something? How did “reasoning” work out with irrational, self-centered children?

My boys are VERY well behaved, and I still deal with that.

I know more than you think

In reply to I [b]TOTALLY[/b] disagree with one point

I have been through all of that, and then some, JD.

See, I have a sister who is a pig. She and her husband would rather have bought cigarettes and beer than pay for my niece’s clothes and dance lessons and a car to get her to school in.

I picked up the ball, cause I realized there was no reason for my niece to be punished for being born. And, I did it with a girl child. Ever had to have talks with a 10 year old girl you’re raising about menstrual cycles?

I’ve done everything from being in the delivery room the day she was born, to paying for half my niece’s wedding because my sister is a cheap bi+ch.

I’ve had condom talks.
I’ve paid for lunches.
I’ve driven my niece to lessons.
I’ve made time out of work to go to recitals/games/events.
I’ve changed diapers and been peed and puked on.
I’ve had discussions about why she couldn’t have something when she was a child.
I’ve talked with my niece about drugs and alcohol.
I’ve been the person to drive her and her friends to the movies and mall.
I’ve been the one throwing her birthday party.

I’ve been there for it all.

Just because I didn’t get someone pregnant yet doesn’t mean I don’t know all about it. I had to be a dad to my niece, and I wasn’t the dad. I had to make up for my sister being a lazy ass, and some guy being a deadbeat. I stepped up.

Again, you assume you know more just because you made your kids.

That just means you procreated. Doesn’t mean I haven’t been in your shoes having to take care of and raise a child.

Oh, and about the fulltime thing you mentioned?

There was a time that my niece was staying with me pretty much fulltime when I lived on the other coast of FL, because i didn’t make her cook me dinner and do my laundry and clean up after me like my sister and her husband.

And, she stayed at my mother and fathers house as a child most of the time when I took care of her because my mother worked almost 24/7 and my sister and her first deadbeat husband were out being partiers. I was attending college and taking care of a child.

So I’ve been on the fulltime ride thing too. Don’t kid yourself.

At least I’m prepared for being a parent now. And, I thanked my niece for it too…and not in front of my sister to make her feel like the bi+ch she is.

And everytime

In reply to I [b]TOTALLY[/b] disagree with one point

you told her no and explained it, she was just fine with it, huh? Yeah, right. Now, about that swamp land….

My point about the “full time” was that kids will act differently for someone that isn’t there all the time. Tell me you have never seen that? Had nothing to do with dipping the wick or anything.

everytime

In reply to I [b]TOTALLY[/b] disagree with one point

[i]And everytime you told her no and explained it, she was just fine with it, huh?[/i]

Just fine with it? Maybe not. But, I was never unpopular with my niece, as you asserted a parent HAS to be with children they raise.

She always understood why I made a decision, whether it was what she wanted or not.

And in fact, her friends all thought I was cool too. Why? Cause, I didn’t talk to them like they were stupid just because they were 12 or 13. I’d hang with them at the mall, take them places their parents didn’t want to take the time to do, etc.

I treated them like equals. I talked to them like they were just like me. I listened to what they had to say.

And, they (according to my niece) thought I was the coolest adult for that.

[i]Yeah, right. Now, about that swamp land….[/i]

Call the FL Dept. of Agriculture for that. I have regular land :p

[i]My point about the “full time” was that kids will act differently for someone that isn’t there all the time.[/i]

And as I told you, I have been there fulltime in my niece’s life. More than my sister, who is her mother.

And even when my sister would run off and drag her along (and my niece even pondered applying for legal emancipation from my sister to stay and live with me in FL at age 13), my niece and I always talk and still do to this day. I have flown up to see her several times, and been up when she needed me (like in April when her husband’s father was killed).

Pretty much all of her life, it was either me or my parents paying for anything she got, including once when my father paid for carpet for her room because my sister didn’t want to pay for it but did the rest of the house.

And guess who went to Missouri and put the carpet in? Not my dad. Not my sister. Me.

Nah, I don’t know anything about taking care of a child and being there for her and doing things for her…required, needed, or wanted.

[i]Tell me you have never seen that? [/i]

Did my niece act differently toward me? Yeah, she actually did. She talked to me more, and respects me more to this day. Why? Cause I didn’t take the “I’m the parental unit and you’ll do what I say!” attitude.

I taught her why the decision was made. I explained to her possibilities, consequences, ramifications, etc. I did not act like it was my God-blessed right to unquestionable judgement or decision. I didn’t treat her like a retard or like she was unworthy of being told why.

I treated her like a sentient, understanding human being with a brain.

But it was [b]not[/b] because I wasn’t there for her…it’s because I [b]was[/b] there.

[i]Had nothing to do with dipping the wick or anything.[/i]

I guess not. I did pretty well (along with my parents) at raising her. She’s 20 now, and runs an office, is attending college full time on a scholarship, and taking care of two children.

So, I guess being “the donor” has nothing to do with anyone being able to be a good influence on kids you raise.

Of course,

In reply to I [b]TOTALLY[/b] disagree with one point

adults are something like children in that they learn not to do things that bring bad or painful results, so after “just talking to the parents like they are adults”, and getting responses like:

“So?”, or

“She’s not your kid. Mind your own damned business.”

It’s easy to see why some people quit trying.

Yeah, we’re taking a hard line with our daughter too.

In reply to Child abuse for edcuation?

Makes me proud every time folks tell me how happy and well behaved she is.

I’m not out to be my daughter’s fried, I’m out to be her father.

Anyone can be a friend.

I am glad that you haven’t

In reply to Yeah, we’re taking a hard line with our daughter too.

“fried” your daughter….

[i]

I don’t care about spelling, but typos crack me up….. :p

Dam my spell cheque pro gram!

In reply to Yeah, we’re taking a hard line with our daughter too.

LOL

Once when I picked up my daughter from school,

In reply to Child abuse for edcuation?

I heard, from the mouth of another girl about 12, “Give me a f****ing cigarette, mom.” The mom fished one out for her. I wanted to slap both of them…

I would have

In reply to Once when I picked up my daughter from school,

pulled out the cell phone, snapped a photo, and emailed it to social services.

I had a teacher like that…

In reply to No cap

Mr Woodside.

Mr Woodside would hand out tests and quizzes in descending order of grade.

He would also announce to the class if you did particularly poorly.

He frightened the HELL out of me, but boy did my grades improve.

He was the best teacher I ever had, and gave me the tools to succeed in life.

He did not coddle me because of my disabilities, but worked me like a dog, and gave me some of the ‘can do’ attitude I still have today.

But he might

In reply to I had a teacher like that…

hurt your poor little feelings….

he should have given you a big hug and told you it wasn’t your fault….. right? ;\

I prefer the good feeling from having overcome adversity. :D

In reply to But he might

He hurt my feelings, ALOT.

Guess what, he hurt them enough so that I never EVER wanted to go through that again.

I remember the last day of school, he didn’t tell us our grades, but told us if they were the same as the last marking period.

I had gotten a “B” in the third quarter, and when he got to me he said “no”.

I was almost broken hearted….

until I saw my report card and saw I had gotten an “A”.

I ended up getting a “B” for the year, after getting a “D” in the first marking period.

Yeah, my feelings got hurt for a little while, but I don’t remember that, but I *do* remember the feeling of getting that “A”. 😀

I would be interested in seeing the actual

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

facebook pages. The details in the links you provided were to vague for me to say if it was bullying or just kids being d!c|

Facebook pages removed long ago.

In reply to I would be interested in seeing the actual

The principal was called someone who performed oral sex on male genitalia “$#@!sucker”.

A spokesperson for the schoolboard called the comments demeaning and “extremely vulgar and very profane”.

“Campbell said the comments violated the school’s code of conduct, calling the situation “a case of cyber-bullying.”

He said if the incident had involved students posting comments about a classmate, it would have been dealt with in the same way.”

I’m afraid thats all I could dig up.

James

Its about what I figured

In reply to Facebook pages removed long ago.

since there was no way Facebook would leave them up in the PR storm. But it would be interesting to see if they said he was a *&*&* or if they thought he was a *(&(*^.

In my opinion…
I think…
I feel…

All these make it hard to press libel/slander since you are exressing a belief admittedly your own and not a statement of fact. This is why I was interested in their wording.

But, all that aside, it does seem they violated the terms of their contract with the school, which they ahd the right to refuse, and to find anoher school.

That’s why the press

In reply to Its about what I figured

uses “allegedly” 🙁

What the school

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

needs to do is pull out the signed agreements and get the students & parents who disagree with the punishment to spell out why they should be given a free pass on the breaking of the agreement when everyone else as seen fit to abide by it. What makes them so special..And do it in a public arena..so we can all hear the whinning and flimsy reasoning that will be used to justify their actions. But hey thats just what I would do..

Pull the brat in front of the board of ed

In reply to What the school

have them repeat and explain everything they posted.

Then have them explain how it is relevant.

If it is not true, then there is possible liable.

“Well it depends on what the meaning of

In reply to Pull the brat in front of the board of ed

the word “is” is.”

(said with a straight face)

suuuuuurrrreeeee

In reply to “Well it depends on what the meaning of

it was….. ;\

Thought you might appreciate that ;) NT

In reply to suuuuuurrrreeeee

.

Thats just to funny

In reply to “Well it depends on what the meaning of

and over the head for some

Libel or Slander

In reply to Cyberbullying versus free speech

First of all, it never ceases to amaze me how teh Internet has made so many lawyers out of the unknowing. People in Canada speak with people in America and then start going on about the right to free speech and , this one slays me, pleading the fifth. Not growing up in a politically concious society, Canadians learn abotu politics form Americans and they then assume that US constutional ammendments effect Canadaians. While we DO have a similar bill of rights, we do not base our laws on US Contitutional Ammendments.

As for this case, you are correct that they have been found guilty of defamation of character. But in this case it is considered libel; libel is written defamation, slander is verbal.

IN the case of libel defamation, the damages are assumed, whereas with slander, it is up to the person who has been defamed ot show clearly just how much of a financial loss has been incurred and show specific damages that the verbal assult has put upon him.

Libel is an easier suit because written word, especially on th einternet is quickly absorbed and transferred, the assumed cost is deemed based on the amount of public who has viewed the information.

I say these kids SHOULD be made and example of but a lot more focus should be placed on these laws and how they are applied exactly, and why.

In the couple of issues I’ve had here with libel defamation, it stands to cost the guy quite a bit in a court room, as this site has a HUGE membership and many peopl efrom all over the world view it, thankfully TR has been very cooperative and went well out of their way to appease the cease and desist requests. I truly thank TR staff for their quick help in resolving these issues.

In Canada our freedom of speech is guaranteed by our adherence to Article 19 of the International Human Rights Law.

While teh US ammendment is focused on how teh government cannot pass a law denying you your freedoms, the IHRL pertains more towards freedoms of thought and expression (though somewhat different than free speech itself).

These kids just got into the mentality that they could say whatever, whenever and it would be protected by a US Ammendment.

As with many US citizens, they also feel that free speech entitles them to say whatever, whenever.

so now that I get this far, I have another question, ‘Doesn’t it just lok bad for teh school that some of their more honorable students all seem to not udnerstand these basics of Canadian/Human Rights?”

If I was the principal, I think I’d be more embarassed that they were so clueless than what they had actually said about me.

Good ejumakashun! Maybe its a goo dthing that they put away PDA’s and cell phones and start paying attention in class instead.

bans of cell phones

In reply to Libel or Slander

after all the times that “teachers” have gotten busted, either abusing kids or going off on racist rants while being caught on cell phones, is it any wonder the schools would want them banned?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B8ToAyBFf4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXO8EfjnQBk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuCI83WS91E&NR=1

TEachers get teh bad rap these days

In reply to bans of cell phones

When I was younger you wouldn’t DREAM of acting out in class. Mind you, when I hit high school in Canada, it was a joke, people just didn’t give a toss about school and the students ran the teachers and classes.

I think teachers should have the ability to knock the little bastards out, that’d change the way they are treated in a hurry. It sure does back in England.

Out here it seems parents send kids to school and teh teachers are slaves who are just paid to baby sit their snot nosed brats and put up with their crap. Gotta love North America, nobody accepts responsibility, kids do what they want and parents get pissed off when their kid is disciplined. No wonder our countries are full of morons that graduate.

I can only say one thing, Oz

In reply to TEachers get teh bad rap these days

AMEN! 🙂

It is understandable

In reply to TEachers get teh bad rap these days

when one of the teachers finally stands up to the kids and has this happen though.

There are a lot of things I will tolerate in life, but my children will keep a respectful tone while they live in my house.

They have learned, they can disagree and discuss it, and have a hope of changing my mind. As soon as the attitude/tone starts, discussion is over, and now it isn’t only “no” for this accasion, but we are working on a premade “no” for the next week and we can go from there. B-)

Maybe I’m older,

In reply to TEachers get teh bad rap these days

But when I went to school, we had very few disciplinary problems, and I have no reason to think your experience is any more representative of “Canadian” education than mine.

My high school was perhaps exceptional – we won a national math contest and provincial football championship the same year. We were a disciplined bunch and skipping classes or acting out were treated swiftly and harshly.

I’ve got three kids in school, one starting high school, two in senior public/middle school, and I’ve met some excellent teachers. Of course not all of them are. We actually worked to get a new teacher fired because she had anger management issues and abused the kids.

When I started they still had the strap. In high school, they counted strap you, but they could and did yell all they want. One math teacher used his yardstick on your desk if you weren’t paying attention and gave a wrong answer.

James

Yeah but I think you have a few on me

In reply to Maybe I’m older,

Fom what I know yuo have a few years on me.

High School here was an unruly gang turf issue. We had East Van, vs West Van, schools within eact end were against each other. acid/LSD was in, weed was a given, alcohol was part of school.

We had the winning football team and excelled in academic programs but most of the school was still just an uruly place to waste your day away. Classes were something where if you wanted to go, you went; if not, you didn’t. Teachers were laughed at and ignored, should have seen the stuff we did to the VP’s car in auto shop, LOL.

But the same actions in England would have had me in serious shite. I would have felt teh teachers wrath, got a nice caning or strap afterwards from the headmaster and would have had it at home too.

Today, Vancouver schools are far more academically focused than before, it was sports or shops then, and the students seem to be far mroe interested in actually going to school.

We had it pretty easy in Canada back then though, you could be anybody and build a career of your choice and get paid well for it. Today its a lot tougher for kids to break out into teh market I think.

But there is simply no discpline in schools, the teachers will toss you out if you are too hard to handle, but they certaonly don’t address teh issue and give you a strap or cane, my god the parents would have a field day today, protecting poor little Timmy from that horrible teacher who beat on him.

I couldn’t even imagine what would happen if a teacher caned a kid these days.

We would’ve been expelled.

In reply to Yeah but I think you have a few on me

Oh did we talk about teachers when we weren’t in class! And if any adult had gotten a hold of the book we wrote – we (the writers) would most likely have been expelled, that is, if they managed to figure out the code names for the teachers. That book was the most filthy piece of trash I’d ever seen/written/read in my life! Nothing but sex, violence and gore. 😀 No wonder I like horror movies.

[edit: Actually, now that I think of it, I don’t think we code named the teachers at all. That was the fun of the book – doing whatever you wanted to them in fiction. We did, however, have our own individual pen names to disguise the writers just in case it did fall into the wrong hands.]

Deny deny deny

In reply to We would’ve been expelled.

don’t write anything down, no pictures, not video tape, and nothing that can be used in court.

deny deny deny! B-)

I learned my lesson that you NEVER “accept responsibility for your actions”. Getting punished by the school/government will NOT make you feel better about anything you have done.

I have told my boys, if they EVER get busted, shut their traps and call me ASAP.

Saw a guy “step up” and instead of NOTHING happening to him like everyone else, he almost didn’t graduate. All because one dumb kid left an empty whiskey bottle in the dark room. So WHAT that the cops came and were trying to scare everyone because they were going to “fingerprint”. I was SUPPOSE to be in there everyday, so my hands were on EVERYTHING in there, and if she was cute, someones….. ]:)

One little all day party in the darkroom and you would think it was the end of the world…… ;\ Music, dancing, drinking….

ah, the good ol’ daze… B-)

Such a wild young man you were JD!

In reply to We would’ve been expelled.

I was NEVER that wild.

The wildest thing I ever did was throw a cast party at my house when my dad was out of town. It was completely innocent though – no alcohol or drugs and I made everyone smoke outside. The only thing wild about it was the game of Truth or Dare – in which myself and another girl had to go upstairs and come down in nothing but towels. LOL!

Otherwise, I only smoked cigarrettes and drank wine coolers behind my dad’s back.

Grade 6 what a gas

In reply to We would’ve been expelled.

we actually had our ‘new’ teacher throw in teh towel and go back to teching grade 3 after us.

At recess we would stay behind and turn all of teh furmiture backwards, put his desk at teh opposite end of teh room, hang th eguinnea pig cage from teh lights and take his fish bowl turn it upside down (with a piece of card on top while we flipped it, and then slide teh card out so as to leave a bowl of water (and his prize fish) upside down on his desk.

We’d hand a string of books out the window (3rd floor) and drop it in passers by, he would wind up collectign all the books from the grounds at lunch.

We’d get up literally in teh middle of class and walk out, go to 7-11 buy a Big Gulp and return to class with it when we were ready.

He just gave up and left crying one day, so we got a sub ot torment until year end and he was back to kiddie grades the year after.

In high school the VP asked us to change her tires, at 2:30PM. When 3PM rolled around, she found her car in the parking lot, with the rotors sitting on the rims which were laying on their sides without tires on them. Wheels flat on ground, car on top. LOL

“were”. yeah, lets go with that…. :D

In reply to We would’ve been expelled.

I was the wild long hair, traveling with the local rock-n-roll bands since I was 16. With the band you drink free. bonus.

Did I mention I do NOT share most of these stories with my boys? They know I was no angel, but no reason to give them ideas.

All I DO tell them is while what I did wasn’t right, the rules and punishments have changed since then. Things that would (and did) get me a stern talking to by a cop would get them thrown in jail today.

We drank a lot, regularly. I had even taken rum and cokes into class on more than one occasion. The instructor knew, but didn’t care. I was getting my “A” and I never disrupted class, so he let me be. He would just look at me, shake his head, and go back to teaching…. ;\

He was kind of nuts. World history. There was the day he starting going on about the “damn gooks in the rice patties”…. Can you say “unresolved issues”? :p

As for Oz, back in 8th grade, we turned the principles car sideways in his one car driveway. A driveway lined with rail road ties that his little car would/could not drive across…. B-)

Other than that, I found in high school, if you were on good terms with the administration, you got away with a lot more, while the people they didn’t like got busted for every little thing. People liked me, as long as I wasn’t there to pick up their daughter…. ]:)

I WAS/AM the person your mother warned you about…. ;\

And why did I take offense to that?

In reply to We would’ve been expelled.

When I was younger I had been told MANY times by girls parents, “You are a really great guy and all that but I just wouldn’t want you to date my daughter.” word for word, no lie.

We like you but don’t trust you as far as we could kick your sorry but. Why didn’t they understand why that offended me?

I always found that “I really like you guys too but sure am glad you aren’t MY parents” was a good comeback.

Or else, “Don’t you trust your daughter to make her own decisions yet?” The trust word always gets them as they want to defend the fact that they raised her properly and she is smart enough to know better herelf.

Or else, just grin and bear it, drink all their liquor and wreck the house with a good bash of a party anyway.

No pictures LOL

In reply to We would’ve been expelled.

That’s funny, to this day I still don’ let peopl etake my picture, not that its a big deal anymroe though.

I used to be adamant about people NOT taking my picture at parties, bat events, backstage etc. I have literally torn film out of a girls camera who took a picture of me at a party, after a whiel people learned to simply not take MY photo, all others are fine by me.

I was ALWAYS doing something I shouldn’t, with my label involvement growing and band representation contracts, I got really sticky about it for a good 10 years. Today it just pisses me off and I still don’t let people take my picture or take pictures with me, its a no no, however there is little to hide nowdays, compared to back then…boy what a ride it has been!

[Author]

Replies