   Student faces expulsion for Web post on xanga...
  According to the  Sun Times  a student who posted on his xanga site criticizing the school of bullying him and sort of taunting them from the way i read it but whether you are conservative or liberal this is way over the line. Since when does a school have a right to judge someone for what they say or do when not only is it NOT on school hours but not even on school grounds? Now if a student were to say that there will be a bomb go off or he will hijack a student and keep him or her hostage then clearly any sane person would come to the conclusion that this could endanger the whole school and needs to be taken care of immediately. Otherwise if people say stuff about you that you dont like, whether its one person or a group of people(in this case the schools administration) then grow up, suck it up and get a life. This is the like the 3rd or 4th time this has happened in the news that i know of.. are schools now hiring spies to trample through all the xanga and myspace profiles?? what do you think?[Edited by - OpenGL_Guru on May 25, 2006 2:48:01 PM]
  Not had a chance to read the full article, but this sounds very familiar. I'm sure it happened a while back - some kids posting inappropriate rants in MySpace/Blogs and getting into trouble.Quote:Original post by OpenGL_GuruSince when does a school have a right to judge someone for what they say or do when not only is it NOT on school hours but not even on school grounds?Back in the day... our high-school could bust you for smoking outside the grounds. Technically you're not on school property, but they busted you anyway. Same with bad behaviour (e.g. fighting, shouting, vandalism) when walking home.I think it was because we were also wearing uniform - thus out of school hours (and off site) we were still representatives of the school. Or some crap like that.Then again, I doubt that same logic applies in this instance...Cheers,Jack   ;Quote:Original post by jollyjeffersNot had a chance to read the full article, but this sounds very familiar. I'm sure it happened a while back - some kids posting inappropriate rants in MySpace/Blogs and getting into trouble.Quote:Original post by OpenGL_GuruSince when does a school have a right to judge someone for what they say or do when not only is it NOT on school hours but not even on school grounds?Back in the day... our high-school could bust you for smoking outside the grounds. Technically you're not on school property, but they busted you anyway. Same with bad behaviour (e.g. fighting, shouting, vandalism) when walking home.I think it was because we were also wearing uniform - thus out of school hours (and off site) we were still representatives of the school. Or some crap like that.Then again, I doubt that same logic applies in this instance...Cheers,JackSame thing used to happen with us. I remember a teacher trying to get me into trouble or something even when I wasn't wearing a uniform. Needless to say I told him where to go, and there was nothing he could do about it. Ah my rebelleous youth...Wasn't there a similar mentioned a few months ago about people losing their jobs after blogging bad things about the company?   ;  FYI -- the students xanga site is  here  and his sisters ironically is  here . i think the language might be overbearing so just a warning if you are at work.. just be careful.   ;  The article quotes him as posting:Quote:I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ... In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. We voiced our opinions. You are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.As the article says, he's walking a very fine lineQuote:Still, it's a very fine line. "If a student wrote, 'I'm so frustrated I wish the school would blow up' — that would not be a crime," Hayes explained. However, "if a student were to post on a Web site ... at 2 p.m. a bomb will go off in a school -- that would probably cross a line to a crime."The implication in his words was, "You don't want what happened at Columbine to happen here, do you?".  That is very close to a direct threat.  The question is whether it's close enough.  It could possibly count as libel, as well (but IANAL).;  Well, that guy from Sony got fired because he posted on a forum or blog that the PS3 sucked.(But then again, I think he gave some secrets away, *I think*).   ;Quote:Original post by spacemonkeystudiosWell, that guy from Sony got fired because he posted on a forum or blog that the PS3 sucked.(But then again, I think he gave some secrets away, *I think*).A job is very different from a school -- while there are wrongful termination laws, a job can just decide to stop employing you for whatever reason they determine. It is a private enterprise.A school is government-bound and obligated to provide a public service, and to deny kids an education because of what they posted outside of school time and involving no school equipment or property whatsoever, including bandwidth, is a ridiculous and petty bureaucratic power grab of the worst kind.   ;Quote:Original post by Way WalkerThe article quotes him as posting:Quote:I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ... In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. We voiced our opinions. You are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.As the article says, he's walking a very fine lineQuote:Still, it's a very fine line. "If a student wrote, 'I'm so frustrated I wish the school would blow up' — that would not be a crime," Hayes explained. However, "if a student were to post on a Web site ... at 2 p.m. a bomb will go off in a school -- that would probably cross a line to a crime."The implication in his words was, "You don't want what happened at Columbine to happen here, do you?".  That is very close to a direct threat.  The question is whether it's close enough.  It could possibly count as libel, as well (but IANAL).Ignoring context, it could be seen as a threat. HOWEVER, given the context of the posting, his words are very clear to me: "If you keep acting like you're gods over the students, someone may get sick of it and do something stupid." ;Quote:Original post by SticksandStonesQuote:Original post by Way WalkerThe article quotes him as posting:Quote:I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied. ... In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. We voiced our opinions. You are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.As the article says, he's walking a very fine lineQuote:Still, it's a very fine line. "If a student wrote, 'I'm so frustrated I wish the school would blow up' — that would not be a crime," Hayes explained. However, "if a student were to post on a Web site ... at 2 p.m. a bomb will go off in a school -- that would probably cross a line to a crime."The implication in his words was, "You don't want what happened at Columbine to happen here, do you?".  That is very close to a direct threat.  The question is whether it's close enough.  It could possibly count as libel, as well (but IANAL).Ignoring context, it could be seen as a threat. HOWEVER, given the context of the posting, his words are very clear to me: "If you keep acting like you're gods over the students, someone may get sick of it and do something stupid."thats the way i thought of it, before i read anyones remarks. i took it as the student warning the school that if they continue their bullying of their students that its possible one of the students might go off the deep end. nothing wrong with that. he didnt say HE might act in a way that would harm the school. next thing you know the school will want complete access to a childs thoughts through telethapy to make sure they dont think badly of the principle of the school itself. ;  I agree, I don't see it as a threat at all.  I see it as an assertion that the situation is similiar to the situation that lead up to Columbine and that continuing on that path could give a similiar result.  That might warrent keeping on eye on the kid to ensure that he wasn't actively pushing it further but that's all without more context.  It *should* be a wake-up call to the school that they need to review thier policies and actions.Actually I do see a threat - a threat to the school administration's authority.  I have no doubt whatsoever this is the main issue here.  You can have some nobody kid challenging the absolutely authority of the school or critizing them in anyway after all.   