Students Banned From Blogging At A Catholic School

[cornflower]

http://slashdot.org/articles/05/10/2...tid=95&tid=146

Protecting them from online predators? Jesus christ.

[JackOfHearts]

http://slashdot.org/articles/05/10/2...tid=95&tid=146

Protecting them from online predators? Jesus christ.

*flashes back to Indianna Jones*"SLAP! That's for blasphemy." */flash back*

While online predators can use such sites to glean info on the students, it's more then likely that such is not the case. You always take a risk when you post personal information anywhere. What the students do online, outside of school is their business. Hopefully their parents are monitoring, or at least have laid out guidelines for their kids internet usage, but that isn't the business of the school.

[cherubknight]

wow. thats amazing, but sadly Im not uber surprised.

[dilznik]

Damn catholics. They killed Jesus! No wait...

Where's Fencing Jesus at when you need him?

[RITFencing]

Par for the course for NJ schools, I'm afraid. Even the public system there is very big on restricting freedom of speech and thought.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

*flashes back to Indianna Jones*"SLAP! That's for blasphemy." */flash back*

While online predators can use such sites to glean info on the students, it's more then likely that such is not the case. You always take a risk when you post personal information anywhere. What the students do online, outside of school is their business. Hopefully their parents are monitoring, or at least have laid out guidelines for their kids internet usage, but that isn't the business of the school.

did some of you read the linked article??

because i have a higher sense of outrage than many of you, and i'd like to highlight something:

it's not that myspace/xanga/etc are blocked at school, that's merely annoying.

students aren't allowed to access those sites from HOME either.


granted, in my high school, people were suspended once or twice for what they said in their blogs. and there are a few other people who ought to have been but were not. it's an issue. .... but this seems a little excessive.

[darius]

Private schools can do what they want. If the 'rents don't like it, they're allowed to vote with their dollars.

But still, damn. If I were a kid at this school, I'd definitely be starting a blog right this second.

darius

[RITFencing]

Private schools can do what they want. If the 'rents don't like it, they're allowed to vote with their dollars.

But still, damn. If I were a kid at this school, I'd definitely be starting a blog right this second.

darius

Legally, they can do stuff like that. It's still a damn shame, though, and I think I'd be starting a blog or 5 myself. I've never reacted well to BS rules.

[Mauler]

What the students do online, outside of school is their business. Hopefully their parents are monitoring, or at least have laid out guidelines for their kids internet usage, but that isn't the business of the school.

Or perhaps parents enroll their children in Catholic schools for precisely this reason. They would hope and expect the school's leadership to provide guidance beyond mere academics, no? While America is predominantly a freedom-loving society, which is certainly reflected on the posture of public educational entities, many do seek alternative educational means. Home schooling, various forms of private schooling, you name it.

Is it so surprising and shocking that certain types of schools have the authority to govern personal aspects of the students' lives?

[RITFencing]

Is it so surprising and shocking that certain types of schools have the authority to govern personal aspects of the students' lives?

You bet it is. I can understand, to some extent, limiting what students can sya about the school, but even that strikes me as a bit flaky. As far as stuff that doesn't concern the school? When I was a high school student, the administration's authority over me ended once I went home. I understand that the school thinks this is a danger, but far too many people and institutions don't realize that not every statement has to be an order from on high. I wonder if they considered suggesting this to parents? There are ways to lead without a whip. Activities outside of the school should be the purview of the kid's family.

[Mr Epee]

I'm glad to see that at least one institution has taken a stand on blogging.

There's a reason that fortune tellers and therapists get paid. The your daily activities and the innerworkings of your mind are tediously boring to the rest of the world. Nobody really cares.

Save your drivel... No more blogging, please.

Thank you, Catholic School!

[JackOfHearts]

Or perhaps parents enroll their children in Catholic schools for precisely this reason. They would hope and expect the school's leadership to provide guidance beyond mere academics, no? While America is predominantly a freedom-loving society, which is certainly reflected on the posture of public educational entities, many do seek alternative educational means. Home schooling, various forms of private schooling, you name it.

Is it so surprising and shocking that certain types of schools have the authority to govern personal aspects of the students' lives?

Guidance, sure. Teach the ten commandments, the golden rule, and the parables of Jesus, fine. Have them recite them to their parents for homework. But to give an institution the ability to suspend a constitutional right to free speech, especially OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL just seems too damn much.

While Pope John's school handbook does not specifically forbid students from creating personal profiles on Web sites, it does prohibit students from posting anything on the Internet pertaining to the school, without the school's permission.

So if a student wishes to day that Pope John whatvernumber highschool sucks on his blog, they'd have to get the schools permission? I guess that isn't a problem for them now, since the school prohibits the students from blogging even at home. Why does this make me think of a nintendo mishap that occoured last year?

[RITFencing]

But to give an institution the ability to suspend a constitutional right to free speech, especially OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL just seems too damn much.

In principle, I agree wholeheartedly, as I'm sure you gathered.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has no direct authority over this school, or any other. While your average American has an almost intuuitive understand of their rights (which is a great thing, btw) they generally don't have the best knowledge of the document set in place to protect those rights. The first Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[JackOfHearts]

In principle, I agree wholeheartedly, as I'm sure you gathered.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has no direct authority over this school, or any other. While your average American has an almost intuuitive understand of their rights (which is a great thing, btw) they generally don't have the best knowledge of the document set in place to protect those rights. The first Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Interesting quote, RIT, this is one I've used many times to point out that separation of church and state isn't spelled out in the constitutuion (though it should be). It says congress cannot make a law that restricts freedom of speech, but doesn't necesarily give any other protections for it. Is it just me, or do we need a new amendment so this thing wouldn't be so vague?

[keith]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

or to paraphrase;

If you join a private club you can't go complaining about the unconstitutional nature of their rules.

[RITFencing]

Interesting quote, RIT, this is one I've used many times to point out that separation of church and state isn't spelled out in the constitutuion (though it should be). It says congress cannot make a law that restricts freedom of speech, but doesn't necesarily give any other protections for it. Is it just me, or do we need a new amendment so this thing wouldn't be so vague?

I don't think so. The Constitution exists to plan out the federal government. There are state Constitutions as well, but even then, they only apply to their respective state governments. A private school, or any other private organization, therefore, should not be subject directly to the Constitution.

On a more mundane note, I think it is better, when possible, to solve disputes without bringing the law into the picture or otherwise forcing an outcome. It's harder, although generally better in the long run, to try and convince people instead of force them. Things run so much more smoothly when people want to do them, not when they have to do them.

[RITFencing]

or to paraphrase;

If you join a private club you can't go complaining about the unconstitutional nature of their rules.

Basically. My point really pertained more to the sphere of influence of the Constitution. I still think the rule the school put in place is grossly immoral. The reason the Constitution has Amendments like the first, the thirteenth, the fifteenth and the ninteenth is because they are very good, ethical ideas.

[achilleus]

Guidance, sure. Teach the ten commandments, the golden rule, and the parables of Jesus, fine. Have them recite them to their parents for homework. But to give an institution the ability to suspend a constitutional right to free speech, especially OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL just seems too damn much.
...
So if a student wishes to day that Pope John whatvernumber highschool sucks on his blog, they'd have to get the schools permission? I guess that isn't a problem for them now, since the school prohibits the students from blogging even at home. Why does this make me think of a nintendo mishap that occoured last year?

Actually, most of the catholic schools specifically state that students represent the school both on and off campus. As a result, they give rules/guidelines to be followed, and if one doesn't follow them, they can penalize them, or ultimately expel them.

If you don't like it, don't go to private schools. It's not for everyone, and it certainly wasn't for me, so I left. It's not rocket science, nor do I see anything wrong with it. Now, if the school was public that would be a different story...

[keith]

I still think the rule the school put in place is grossly immoral.

strange definition of moral.

This is what the parents are paying for - on the basis that if they weren't/aren't the school would either reverse its policy or go broke.

Personally I'm with MrE', the school administrators should be given our heartfelt congratulations for doing this public service.

[RITFencing]

strange definition of moral.

This is what the parents are paying for - on the basis that if they weren't/aren't the school would either reverse its policy or go broke.

I freedom of speech and thought are very important, and I also think that the raising of a kid should be left more to the parents, especially when that kid is out of school. Laying down guidelines like that one seems very heavy handed to me.

Personally I'm with MrE', the school administrators should be given our heartfelt congratulations for doing this public service.

Yeah, most blogs out there are trash. I can't deny that one. Stupid goth and emo kids who can't stop whining... much like I'm doing now. I wish they would shut up of their own accord. That doesn't mean I think they should be forced to. Of course, my own views of free speech are tainted by some bad experiences I had in a public school, right after columbine. I remember how angry I was capable of becoming when I could no longer joke about my situation, or even really express the anger that's pretty typical of a 16 or 17 year old male for fear of reprisal. My real problem here, I think, is that the school is being very heavy handed with its policy.