Pedagogical Tom

Fuck School. Fuck Softball. Fuck Everything.

Recommended Posts

Fuck School. Fuck Softball. Fuck Everything.
 

Quote

 

Some of the most interesting and difficult questions in First Amendment law arise in the context of public schools. The reason is simple: Public schooling is one of the few situations in which people are forced to spend time in a government-controlled forum. Not surprisingly, students forced to attend public schools want the same freedom to express themselves that adults take for granted in our day-to-day lives, while schools want to maintain an environment conducive to learning. And because public schools are bound by the First Amendment, these conflicting desires often lead to litigation.

This debate is headed to the Supreme Court later this year in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. There, the Court will decide whether a school can punish a student for using explicit language on Snapchat, on the weekend, outside any school event.

This case all started when a female student, a rising sophomore (as a minor referred to only as “B.L.”), failed to make the varsity cheer team. Instead, she was relegated to the junior varsity cheer team for at least another year. To make matters worse an incoming freshman made the varsity team. The anger over not making varsity, on top of stress over examinations and unhappiness with her private softball team, led her to vent on Snapchat on a Saturday. The photo she took to express her anger was captioned with the words “F**k school f**k softball f**k everything.” The photo was visible to a couple hundred of her “friends,” some of whom took screenshots of the picture and showed it to the cheer coaches.

The cheer coaches determined the language violated team and school rules. They suspended her from cheer for the rest of the year. She then sued the school and the school district arguing that her punishment violated her First Amendment free speech rights. She argued that because her speech took place outside school hours, outside any school sponsored event, and not on any technology owned by the school, she could not be punished for her speech. Fortunately, the district court and the Third Circuit agreed.

...

 

Now the Supreme Court will sort out whether she can say such a thing without consequences from her school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Fuck School. Fuck Softball. Fuck Everything.
 

Now the Supreme Court will sort out whether she can say such a thing without consequences from her school.

Doesn't the SC have more important things to do?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
2 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Fuck School. Fuck Softball. Fuck Everything.
 

Now the Supreme Court will sort out whether she can say such a thing without consequences from her school.

Major over-reach by the coaches and school.

I disagree.

Fuck that kid and her parents. Let 'em eat cake.

This is the inherent problem in an orderly society, where people expect to eat food that is grown & prepared by others, and use machines that they don't understand... basically the huge range of benefits that they get but don't work directly for.

Deliberately throwing sand in the gears of that system should disqualify you from participating.

I'm a volunteer coach at our high school. I'd kick this girl out of our program in a heartbeat. Without a 2nd thought. I don't do what I do for the sake of some little snowflake to feel under appreciated and use hateful insults toward me and my program. If she wants the position, she needs to do the work. What happens when every other kid says "yeah, this is a lot of work, I want to just coast thru everything and get the same recognition."

Anybody who thinks they should impose their childish hatefulness and spite on everybody around them, at any time, can go live in the woods and eat grubs. Then say "Fuck everybody else!"

That's freedom.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was teaching APUSH, there was a colleague that left his law practice to teach history but volunteered to handle school based legal issues.  According to him, other than minor drug possession charges, the most frequent legal issue to deal with was parents suing the cheer coach for not promoting their kid (upper middle class district). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I disagree.

Fuck that kid and her parents. Let 'em eat cake.

This is the inherent problem in an orderly society, where people expect to eat food that is grown & prepared by others, and use machines that they don't understand... basically the huge range of benefits that they get but don't work directly for.

Deliberately throwing sand in the gears of that system should disqualify you from participating.

I'm a volunteer coach at our high school. I'd kick this girl out of our program in a heartbeat. Without a 2nd thought. I don't do what I do for the sake of some little snowflake to feel under appreciated and use hateful insults toward me and my program. If she wants the position, she needs to do the work. What happens when every other kid says "yeah, this is a lot of work, I want to just coast thru everything and get the same recognition."

Anybody who thinks they should impose their childish hatefulness and spite on everybody around them, at any time, can go live in the woods and eat grubs. Then say "Fuck everybody else!"

That's freedom.

- DSK

I don't think the school should presume to control speech when off campus, on a private device.  If the girl named names, either the coaches or the school, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I don't think the school should presume to control speech when off campus, on a private device.  If the girl named names, either the coaches or the school, maybe.

When the speech is directed at the school, and is 100% about the school, they may or may not 'control' that speech but they are certainly an interested party.

Speech has consequences. Rights entail obligations.

Should a lazy kid and lawsuit-happy parents be able to force the school to give their kid straight As? Given the position as starting quarterback? No, I don't think that's what you're advocating but that's the endpoint of this trajectory. I'm happy in the middle and firmly believe in pushing back from either extreme.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Doesn't the SC have more important things to do?

Don't you and Tom have more important things to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you who claim to support her freedom to express herself seem to be eager to remove similar rights from others. 
I endorse / support the coachs’ right to, “ Oh Yeah?!? Well FUCK YOU TOO.”

Why does the kid have more rights than anybody else?? 
 

adding a tad of depth ;

Before this started, We the People have pretty much established rules where the schools and anyone affiliated may not EVER tell ANY kid to fuck off. 
In fact, society just might not only sanction anyone who says fuck but may Impose permanent disqualification from the Education field. 
I cannot endorse a position where we demand verbal disarmament and unconditional toleration while protecting the right to verbally assault those same individuals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed feelings here. I am sure I said a lot worse than that to my buddies in high school pretty much about every other day, but we had no mechanism to capture such moments and share them around  and Thank God for that!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most schools have a 24/7 policy for athletes.  They expect you to exhibit sportsmanship at all times.  You break it you pay the price.  

She was suspended from the team not school.  There is a difference 

Hey Steam see we can agree on something.  Without going into detail I’m a national level official so I congratulate you for your coaching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that I drive home to my kid and all his friends all the time is "The Internet Is Forever". You can SAY the coach has syphilis from screwing all the sheep on the island, but as soon as it gets on the internet in any form that will be linked to you for the rest of your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Another thing that I drive home to my kid and all his friends all the time is "The Internet Is Forever". You can SAY the coach has syphilis from screwing all the sheep on the island, but as soon as it gets on the internet in any form that will be linked to you for the rest of your life.

Yep.  Tell my kids the same along with advice from an attorney friend from long before the internet.   Never put anything in writing unless you are prepared to back it up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I don't think the school should presume to control speech when off campus, on a private device.  If the girl named names, either the coaches or the school, maybe.

We can think that, and in an ideal world it would be the right thing, but the reality is that if this same girl was bullied on-line outside of school hours by other students, the next thing that would occur is her parents demanding that the school do something about it.

It's an entitled world out there, and schools have to walk a tightrope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I disagree.

Fuck that kid and her parents. Let 'em eat cake.

This is the inherent problem in an orderly society, where people expect to eat food that is grown & prepared by others, and use machines that they don't understand... basically the huge range of benefits that they get but don't work directly for.

Deliberately throwing sand in the gears of that system should disqualify you from participating.

I'm a volunteer coach at our high school. I'd kick this girl out of our program in a heartbeat. Without a 2nd thought. I don't do what I do for the sake of some little snowflake to feel under appreciated and use hateful insults toward me and my program. If she wants the position, she needs to do the work. What happens when every other kid says "yeah, this is a lot of work, I want to just coast thru everything and get the same recognition."

Anybody who thinks they should impose their childish hatefulness and spite on everybody around them, at any time, can go live in the woods and eat grubs. Then say "Fuck everybody else!"

That's freedom.

- DSK

Your bit in bold up there is insightful, that is absolutely a real problem.

Given that, I think that some teenager venting her feelings about school, softball, etc., isn't really "throwing sand in the gears" but rather her just expressing her feelings.

When I coach baseball, for some inexplicable reason, there is always some nervous kid that picks at the tape on the bats. That's a safety issues, he's "throwing sand in the gears" as the tape unravels and the bat flies out of someone's hands and hits someone else in the head. It happens, the grip tape is there for a reason. But I freaking love any kid who loves baseball enough to actually get nervous enough to pick at the bat tape, so I see these kids doing it (or using equipment in a way it wasn't designed) and take a lesson from Boothy. He once wrote here in PA that his old man never got angry when he broke one of his cars, he was just expected to fix it. I hand the kid some new tape, or glue or even needle and thread and I say "now you have to fix it." And they fix it. Sometimes well, sometimes it needs an adult's repair, but that responsibility is a way of giving them ownership of the process.

Adults have freedom of speech up to the point that it incites chaos. Kids don't. So yeah, she's going to get pissed off, her school is going to do what they will, because they apparently see any kind of dissent as corrosive. But some adults see dissent as the stuff of life, the transition to adulthood, and reading "fuck everything" is a treasure, it's a sign of a kid who gives a shit. Hatefulness is part of life, and we see that right here in P.A..

Anger is a good thing, it's productive. Apathy is the enemy, not anger.

When I ran high school track, our coach only got angry at us one time ... he got into a fight with the lacrosse coach for using the tennis courts which we were allocated for practice, and only a few stuck around for the punch-up. The rest of us (including myself, unfortunately) thought that the idea of getting hit by lacrosse sticks at 17 degrees F was not something with which we wanted a part. And Mr. Hughs laid into us like a freight train for not backing him up, and we deserved all of it. Youth sports should not require lockstep compliance, it's not the military, it's not professional sports. The vast majority of student athletes will not have a career in sports. If they want to get angry at themselves, at the team, at their lives, go for it. Welcome to adulthood punk. Go shake your opponents hand because  they beat you, and by the definition of all this good and holy in Sports, the better athlete wins. All the time, every time, without exception. It's why we play the game. Any punk can be proud of a win, but hold their head high in a loss, that takes courage. Anger? I would hope she would be angry. She worked her ass off for a varsity spot and she lost it to someone who was better connected or perhaps more talented that she was. She's angry? Damned straight. Switch sports, work harder. Stay angry.

Any adult who seeks to punish a kid for anger has anger issues of their own, in my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Some of you who claim to support her freedom to express herself seem to be eager to remove similar rights from others. 
I endorse / support the coachs’ right to, “ Oh Yeah?!? Well FUCK YOU TOO.”

Why does the kid have more rights than anybody else?? 
 

adding a tad of depth ;

Before this started, We the People have pretty much established rules where the schools and anyone affiliated may not EVER tell ANY kid to fuck off. 
In fact, society just might not only sanction anyone who says fuck but may Impose permanent disqualification from the Education field. 
I cannot endorse a position where we demand verbal disarmament and unconditional toleration while protecting the right to verbally assault those same individuals. 

Years ago I was coaching basketball with a female phys ed teacher who was great with kids and really cared. We had a boy on the team who was a talented player but in polite terms a real jerk. Jane got particularly frustrated with him one day (which was easy) and told him in front of the team that if he wasn't such a fucking asshole he would be a really good player. Needless to say that got everyone's attention and the rest of the practice was very quiet and focussed. Afterwards, her comment to me was that she shouldn't have said that. I just smiled. The kid's mother called to complain (she was always calling to complain about something and never did come to understand that her two kids were jerks and likely to continue to be unsuccessful in school and sports without a serious attitude adjustment - by the mother). Next day the principal, who was wonderful, called Jane in and asked her if she had called the kid a FA. Jane said she did and Bev said he is a fucking asshole but you can't call him that and that was the end of it. Jane and I still chuckle 25 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

When the speech is directed at the school, and is 100% about the school, they may or may not 'control' that speech but they are certainly an interested party.

Speech has consequences. Rights entail obligations.

Should a lazy kid and lawsuit-happy parents be able to force the school to give their kid straight As? Given the position as starting quarterback? No, I don't think that's what you're advocating but that's the endpoint of this trajectory. I'm happy in the middle and firmly believe in pushing back from either extreme.

- DSK

If she said "Fuck Benedict Arnold High School", I would agree.  If I understand the situation, she did not.  The OP reports it as a generic “F**k school f**k softball f**k everything.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Major over-reach by the coaches and school.

Agree.  Off school property and outside of school activities - she should be able to say any damn thing she pleases.  Fuck school!  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I disagree.

Fuck that kid and her parents. Let 'em eat cake.

This is the inherent problem in an orderly society, where people expect to eat food that is grown & prepared by others, and use machines that they don't understand... basically the huge range of benefits that they get but don't work directly for.

Deliberately throwing sand in the gears of that system should disqualify you from participating.

I'm a volunteer coach at our high school. I'd kick this girl out of our program in a heartbeat. Without a 2nd thought. I don't do what I do for the sake of some little snowflake to feel under appreciated and use hateful insults toward me and my program. If she wants the position, she needs to do the work. What happens when every other kid says "yeah, this is a lot of work, I want to just coast thru everything and get the same recognition."

Anybody who thinks they should impose their childish hatefulness and spite on everybody around them, at any time, can go live in the woods and eat grubs. Then say "Fuck everybody else!"

That's freedom.

- DSK

Sorry, what you describe is the exact opposite of freedom.  Freedom is the ability to say things that others may not like, without retribution.  Because public schools are bound by the first amendment, they have no right to ban her speech.  Now if she was working for a private entity or going to a private school and said those things, then absolutely they would have the right to kick her out.  

It sounds like you're the snowflake here, douglas.  Did your wittle feelings get hurt?  Waah!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Should a lazy kid and lawsuit-happy parents be able to force the school to give their kid straight As? Given the position as starting quarterback? No, I don't think that's what you're advocating but that's the endpoint of this trajectory. I'm happy in the middle and firmly believe in pushing back from either extreme.

Wow, talk about ranting over something that is not even part of the discussion.  At no point did the discussion move from speech to litigation over being entitled to be on the team.  As BD said, speech off campus and on a private device is protected speech.  I would say that even if she named names and/or the school - she would still be on fairly solid ground wrt to her 1st Am rights.  As long as that speech was not considered "hate speech" or inciteful to violence, then the school has no right to do anything about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Wow, talk about ranting over something that is not even part of the discussion.  At no point did the discussion move from speech to litigation over being entitled to be on the team.  As BD said, speech off campus and on a private device is protected speech.  I would say that even if she named names and/or the school - she would still be on fairly solid ground wrt to her 1st Am rights.  As long as that speech was not considered "hate speech" or inciteful to violence, then the school has no right to do anything about it.  

Umm, no

Please re read the Constitution.

It does not say "When you're behind somebody's back, you can say or write whatever you want, and be totally immune from consequences"

This is what has gone wrong with the USA. It's whole country full of irresponsible spoiled children.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

...

Any adult who seeks to punish a kid for anger has anger issues of their own, in my opinion.

Agree

That is not what is happening here.

The kid thinks (and a bunch of you agree) that she can punish/insult others and and not only suffer no negative effect, but actually gain privilege(s).

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, no

Please re read the Constitution.

It does not say "When you're behind somebody's back, you can say or write whatever you want, and be totally immune from consequences"

This is what has gone wrong with the USA. It's whole country full of irresponsible spoiled children.

- DSK

I think it is YOU who needs to go read the constitution.  It does say:

Quote

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.

Since Public schools are gov't run, by default the 1st Am applies to them.  I have already stipulated that if she had said this about a private employer or a private school - she would have been deserving of the punishment.  The 1st Am does not apply to private entities.  But because it's a gov't run school, they cannot sanction her for speech that she makes off of school ground using a medium that is not controlled by the school.  If she had said that on campus or using a school provided account or device, then absolutely they would have the right to control that speech for the sake of good order in school.  But she didn't so they can't.

Quote

This is what has gone wrong with the USA. It's whole country full of irresponsible spoiled children.

100% agree with that.  We have absolutely become a country full of irresponsible spoiled children.  But like it or not, the 1st am allows irresponsible spoiled children to say childish things when it comes to what the gov't can or cannot do to abridge your speech.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

I think it is YOU who needs to go read the constitution.  It does say:

Quote

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.

Since Public schools are gov't run, by default the 1st Am applies to them.  I have already stipulated that if she had said this about a private employer or a private school - she would have been deserving of the punishment.  The 1st Am does not apply to private entities.  But because it's a gov't run school, they cannot sanction her for speech that she makes off of school ground using a medium that is not controlled by the school.  If she had said that on campus or using a school provided account or device, then absolutely they would have the right to control that speech for the sake of good order in school.  But she didn't so they can't.

Uh huh

Does it say that she must be supported in all privileges she ever had, and given some more?

-THAT'S- what the kvetching is about. She's not being prohibited from speaking, or punished for speaking. She's just suffering the consequences of her actions BEFORE her speech and not having her outburst over ride them.

Like I said, if I had a student in the programs I am involved with say such a thing, one of the two of us would not be in that program any more. And they can sue me all they want for withdrawing my services as a volunteer. School's choice, that kid is NOT in the program either because they're dropped from it, or because there is no program any more.

This is why we can't have nice things.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Uh huh

Does it say that she must be supported in all privileges she ever had, and given some more?

-THAT'S- what the kvetching is about. She's not being prohibited from speaking, or punished for speaking. She's just suffering the consequences of her actions BEFORE her speech and not having her outburst over ride them.

Like I said, if I had a student in the programs I am involved with say such a thing, one of the two of us would not be in that program any more. And they can sue me all they want for withdrawing my services as a volunteer. School's choice, that kid is NOT in the program either because they're dropped from it, or because there is no program any more.

This is why we can't have nice things.

- DSK

I sometimes wonder if english is your native language.  Or if you have literacy problems with reading the written word.  Maybe you have a brain disorder that jumbles the words in your mind....... 

Because whatever the case is, she is absolutely being punished for her speech.  And furthermore, you are jumping to something that has not only not even happened but is not even being contemplated .  At no point in the OP article did it say that she was suing the school or making a fuss about demanding that she be put back on the team.  She was merely venting her disappointment and frustration.  

JFC, you really ARE a snowflake with a thin skin and fragile feelings.  If I was coaching a team and had a kid say that, I would attempt to use it as a teachable moment rather than get my feelings hurt and storm off.  Such a pussy you seem to be.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

I sometimes wonder if english is your native language.  Or if you have literacy problems with reading the written word.  Maybe you have a brain disorder that jumbles the words in your mind....... 

Because whatever the case is, she is absolutely being punished for her speech.  And furthermore, you are jumping to something that has not only not even happened but is not even being contemplated .  At no point in the OP article did it say that she was suing the school or making a fuss about demanding that she be put back on the team.  She was merely venting her disappointment and frustration.  

JFC, you really ARE a snowflake with a thin skin and fragile feelings.  If I was coaching a team and had a kid say that, I would attempt to use it as a teachable moment rather than get my feelings hurt and storm off.  Such a pussy you seem to be.  Just saying.

There's a difference between 'punishment' and 'rational consequences.'

For example, little Johnny steals cookies and gets cavities from the sugar. That's consequences. Little Suzy says "fuck the cheerleading squad" and gets dropped from it.

Little Johnny getting spanked for stealing cookies is punishment. Was little Suzy spanked for her potty-mouth outburst?

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really really wish someone would institute a national campaign to educate citizens on what the 1st Amendment says and means.  The government can make no laws blah blah blah. Now the repercussions and consequences of said speech is totally different.  

Now BM calling someone a snowflake is priceless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

I really really wish someone would institute a national campaign to educate citizens on what the 1st Amendment says and means.  The government can make no laws blah blah blah. Now the repercussions and consequences of said speech is totally different.  

 

How so?  Please feel free to edumacate me on why the repercussion of said speech is different?  

For example, congress has made no new laws recently that I'm aware of that says you can't call the POTUS a cunt.  But let's say the FBI comes and arrests you for shouting on the street corner that HWSNBN is a cunt and you go to jail and are required to pay a $10K fine.  That jail time and fines would be "repercussions and consequences" of your speech, right?  Can they do that to you?  How is that "totally different"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't do word salad. See if you can get someone to translate that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Wow, talk about ranting over something that is not even part of the discussion.  At no point did the discussion move from speech to litigation over being entitled to be on the team.  As BD said, speech off campus and on a private device is protected speech.  I would say that even if she named names and/or the school - she would still be on fairly solid ground wrt to her 1st Am rights.  As long as that speech was not considered "hate speech" or inciteful to violence, then the school has no right to do anything about it.  

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If the cheer squad has some sort of behavior expectations, representing the school, etc, she has to abide by them, or choose not to and stay off the squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Tom,

If she'd been protesting about anything important like underpayment of the cleaners, or objectifying women she might have a point.:rolleyes:

There's too many entitled brats with rich mommys to feed the legal seagulls without giving brainspace to another one. 

 cheer squads? really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agree

That is not what is happening here.

The kid thinks (and a bunch of you agree) that she can punish/insult others and and not only suffer no negative effect, but actually gain privilege(s).

- DSK

I missed that then. All I saw as that she potentially broke some school/team rules when she posted a photo with the caption "Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck everything."

Is that the insult to others? It just seems like an expression of her emotions to me. How is that any different from her posting a photo with the caption "I love school, I love softball, I love everything."? Both are just her emotional responses to the things in her life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. If the cheer squad has some sort of behavior expectations, representing the school, etc, she has to abide by them, or choose not to and stay off the squad. 

It's a public school, funded by the taxpayers. How far should the reach of a public entity extend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Jesus Tom,

If she'd been protesting about anything important like underpayment of the cleaners, or objectifying women she might have a point.:rolleyes:

There's too many entitled brats with rich mommys to feed the legal seagulls without giving brainspace to another one. 

 cheer squads? really?

It's going to the Supreme Court, fercrissakes. Is a Supreme Court insufficiently important to rate a thread in a forum used by millionaire with sailboats?

You obviously have no skin in this game, because you're not an American, but the rather pressing issue here is that the business of Americans is to not only protect The Constitution from encroachment, but also to help raise generations of young adults who treasure their Constitutional Rights, and are willing to give up wealth, pleasure and success for both their rights and the rights of others.

How is that going to happen when people support the right of public-entities to apply restrictions of speech, willy-nilly? It's very difficult to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. Obviously a sufficient number of judges felt that this case is sufficiently important that it needs a final ruling, and they don't share your "really?" disdain of something you apparently perceive as minutiae.

This one is a cheer-squad student ... what about the Satanist high schooler who isn't allowed to wear a shirt to school with an image of his faith? Link. Why is the Christian kid allowed to wear a crucifix while the Muslim student is expelled for wearing a Hajib? Link. Or not allowed to compete in a race for wearing one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Jesus Tom,

If she'd been protesting about anything important like underpayment of the cleaners, or objectifying women she might have a point.:rolleyes:

There's too many entitled brats with rich mommys to feed the legal seagulls without giving brainspace to another one. 

 cheer squads? really?

Two points.

First, private rant, private device, outside school hours/control and some helpful 'friend' takes a screenshot and rats her out.

Nothing to do with school, should be no consequences to her. IMO any sanction is just overreach. Maybe a quiet chat with the coach but nothing more.

Second - yeah, cheer squads. How quintessentially USA.... WGAF really.

If even 10% of the things I did/said in my school years ever got back I'd likely have been expelled. Though maybe not. I was smoking on the bus stop in uniform in year 12 waiting to go to school. Principal drove past. Later I got called up and politely asked not to do that in school uniform as it reflected badly on the school. As I'd been approached in an adult manner, shown respect and given a reason, plus *asked* not told, I agreed, apologised, said I hadn't thought of that, and never did it again. He was a pretty smart headmaster and I was one of their brighter students. Not that it was difficult given the demographic of the area...

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

...

Since Public schools are gov't run, by default the 1st Am applies to them.  I have already stipulated that if she had said this about a private employer or a private school - she would have been deserving of the punishment.  The 1st Am does not apply to private entities.  But because it's a gov't run school, they cannot sanction her for speech that she makes off of school ground using a medium that is not controlled by the school.  If she had said that on campus or using a school provided account or device, then absolutely they would have the right to control that speech for the sake of good order in school.  But she didn't so they can't.

....

Interesting.  Up here in the GWN school officials are expected to intervene in on-line bullying involving students even when it happens off campus and outside school hours.  

Does this mean that schools in the US are not expected to deal with on-line bullying between students because of the 1st Amendment?  Or is "bullying" speech not protected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rain Man said:

Interesting.  Up here in the GWN school officials are expected to intervene in on-line bullying involving students even when it happens off campus and outside school hours.  

Does this mean that schools in the US are not expected to deal with on-line bullying between students because of the 1st Amendment?  Or is "bullying" speech not protected?

I'm not sure how schools have jurisdiction over what happens away from school and outside of school hours.  Maybe "expected" is one thing, but I'm not sure they have a legal obligation or even the authority to do anything against students outside of the school environment.  That's a grey area that I'm unfamiliar with.  I suspect that it's because cyber-bullying crosses the line from "free speech" to actual harmful speech.  So that may be the differentiator as to why schools can take action on cyber bullies.  Dunno, @MR.CLEAN could answer that better than I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I'm not sure how schools have jurisdiction over what happens away from school and outside of school hours.  Maybe "expected" is one thing, but I'm not sure they have a legal obligation or even the authority to do anything against students outside of the school environment.  That's a grey area that I'm unfamiliar with.  I suspect that it's because cyber-bullying crosses the line from "free speech" to actual harmful speech.  So that may be the differentiator as to why schools can take action on cyber bullies.  Dunno, @MR.CLEAN could answer that better than I can.

@dacapo may have some idea as well.  There are some more US teachers on here but I forget who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

@dacapo may have some idea as well.  There are some more US teachers on here but I forget who they are.

For all three of my kids, the schools had/have the "zero tolerance" for bullying, which was in school, around school, on the bus, on the school message boards, using the school equipment. (They loan out a shit-ton of Chromebooks to the students so they can connect.) The school district wisely stays coy about bullying away from school, but they do get involved regardless, and if a student says "that kid bullied me on the block" then they get involved, ditto with platforms that are in no way connected to the school, like Roblox, Fortnite, etc.. If it involves their students, they make it their business.

Given all that, the young woman in this Supreme Court cases wasn't apparently bullying or threatening anyone, she was just bitching and complaining.

I've little doubt that my own school district would involve themselves similarly if a student did this, but in some ways, they are like Sailing Anarchy ... emotionally driven rather than data-driven. The most recent is that they outlawed neck gaiters for students, even though the CDC showed that doubled-up neck gaiters (that the boys especially seemed to figgen love) are actually more effective than surgical masks. But that's the data. The school simply sees happy kids and says something to the effect of "these kids are happy, we better change the rules."

 

Totally off the subject of both this complainer in the OP and school bullying ... but a couple years ago, I get a robocall on my phone ... I have to paraphrase a bit, but you'll get the gist ... "This message is to inform you that your child's school has been locked down due to a security concern. Do not pick up your children at school, and please wait for an update. All students are under lockdown." Click.

I start freaking the fuck out, assuming some maniac is roaming the halls with a gun or something. No news. I call some of the other parents, nada. Finally after an agonizing half hour or so, I get a text from my daughter ... "yeah, we're locked in, that mountain lion is roaming around the parking lot again." Or maybe it was a bear, I can't remember, but it was outside the school, and it wasn't a treat of the human variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Deliberately throwing sand in the gears of that system should disqualify you from participating.

Anyone who disagrees should just be made an unperson? You always wanted to "work" for the SSD, didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Doesn't the SC have more important things to do?

If you think this one is trivial, you should visit scotusblog.

It's going to be good fun reading the opinions and quoting them alongside posts in this thread when the case is decided.

8 hours ago, nacradriver said:

Don't you and Tom have more important things to do?

Yes, the tilt/trim on my fishing boat is acting up. Stopped working a couple of weeks ago, resumed working when I dragged a mechanic out here, then I pestered the poor guy via text for an hour or so last night as he walked me through checking various things. At the end he said, "take the trim motor off and bench test it." So I'll be seeing him out here again. First I have to use my tractor to tilt the darn engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

Interesting.  Up here in the GWN school officials are expected to intervene in on-line bullying involving students even when it happens off campus and outside school hours.  

Does this mean that schools in the US are not expected to deal with on-line bullying between students because of the 1st Amendment?  Or is "bullying" speech not protected?

Venting/bitching ≠ Bullying

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys keep missing the point I’m betting she signed an agreement,  as an athlete to obey the schools 24/7 policy on sportsmanship.   She broke it.  So she knew the consequences.  This is nothing to do with stopping her free speech.  It has to do with agreeing to not act out,  as a athlete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's a public school, funded by the taxpayers. How far should the reach of a public entity extend?

She’s still going to school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

She’s still going to school.

Exactly.  They did nothing to her ability to attend school.   I wonder when the lawsuit will come about getting cut at tryouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

She’s still going to school.

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

Did you read the brief? Normy went to all the trouble of digging this up, all we have to do is click the link.

The Supreme Court case is looking into the legality of a school regulating speech that occurs off the campus. They apparently took the case because this kind of behavior by schools is rampant. It's not about the school controlling her ability to attend, it's about the school "regulating" a student's free expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You guys keep missing the point I’m betting she signed an agreement,  as an athlete to obey the schools 24/7 policy on sportsmanship.   She broke it.  So she knew the consequences.  This is nothing to do with stopping her free speech.  It has to do with agreeing to not act out,  as a athlete. 

I've never seen such an an agreement with any of my kids. And even if she did sign such a thing, it would have been under duress of not being able to participate.

Public entities can't force people to agree to things that impinge on their rights.

What if a football team told a student "you can participate only if you sign the agreement that "you have to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"? What's the difference between that kind of "regulation" and the kind of "regulation" that says this student is not allowed to be grumpy on the interwebs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polytelum Tom said:

If you think this one is trivial, you should visit scotusblog.

It's going to be good fun reading the opinions and quoting them alongside posts in this thread when the case is decided.

Yes, the tilt/trim on my fishing boat is acting up. Stopped working a couple of weeks ago, resumed working when I dragged a mechanic out here, then I pestered the poor guy via text for an hour or so last night as he walked me through checking various things. At the end he said, "take the trim motor off and bench test it." So I'll be seeing him out here again. First I have to use my tractor to tilt the darn engine.

 

5-to-1 it's a solenoid or even an inline fuse, and the trim motor is fine. Did you check the solenoids and the fuse first before you go to all that trouble, Normy?

I just came off of blowing about 25 hours trying to diagnose a problem with my snow truck, the blower fan wouldn't blow hot air to defrost, warm the cabin. I ended up pulling the entire dash apart ... fuses okay, relays okay, blower fan okay, switch was okay, head was okay. It was apparently some burned wire in that rat's nest of wiring. I finally threw in the towel, ran some wiring from the back of the cigar lighter, added a little toggle switch and connected it to the blower motor. I should have done that redneck repair in the first place, saved twenty-some hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I think it is YOU who needs to go read the constitution.  It does say:

Since Public schools are gov't run, by default the 1st Am applies to them.  I have already stipulated that if she had said this about a private employer or a private school - she would have been deserving of the punishment.  The 1st Am does not apply to private entities.  But because it's a gov't run school, they cannot sanction her for speech that she makes off of school ground using a medium that is not controlled by the school.  If she had said that on campus or using a school provided account or device, then absolutely they would have the right to control that speech for the sake of good order in school.  But she didn't so they can't.

100% agree with that.  We have absolutely become a country full of irresponsible spoiled children.  But like it or not, the 1st am allows irresponsible spoiled children to say childish things when it comes to what the gov't can or cannot do to abridge your speech.  

Oh goody.... Another "Our generation is better than the one following us."   It's been a real crowd pleaser since.... I don't know.... The fucking 40's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well heaven forbid simplicity, but if she's, on the one hand expecting to be the public face on a schools cheer squad (Or any other place where she she knows she'll be photographed as representing some org)

and on the other hand, publishing her photo on a public forum, disrespecting that same entity. I'm not at all surprised if the schools suspended her from the cheer squad.

They are not controlling her speech. they are simply saying, "be careful what you wish for".

Even public schools have a right to protect their reputation.

Methinks it's time she grew up a little. It's not as if it's unusual these days for employers to dismiss staff, even staff that have no public profile in a company, if those same staff bring the company into disrepute. 

That beastie is out of the box.

Can't understand how it got to a SC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mikewof said:

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

Did you read the brief? Normy went to all the trouble of digging this up, all we have to do is click the link.

The Supreme Court case is looking into the legality of a school regulating speech that occurs off the campus. They apparently took the case because this kind of behavior by schools is rampant. It's not about the school controlling her ability to attend, it's about the school "regulating" a student's free expression.

Yeah, I get it, and I have no idea how the court will rule, but I see no issue with a non-required club having some guidelines for behavior that could reflect on that club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Well heaven forbid simplicity, but if she's, on the one hand expecting to be the public face on a schools cheer squad (Or any other place where she she knows she'll be photographed as representing some org)

and on the other hand, publishing her photo on a public forum, disrespecting that same entity. I'm not at all surprised if the schools suspended her from the cheer squad.

They are not controlling her speech. they are simply saying, "be careful what you wish for".

Even public schools have a right to protect their reputation.

Methinks it's time she grew up a little. It's not as if it's unusual these days for employers to dismiss staff, even staff that have no public profile in a company, if those same staff bring the company into disrepute. 

That beastie is out of the box.

Can't understand how it got to a SC.

exactly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

You guys keep missing the point I’m betting she signed an agreement,  as an athlete to obey the schools 24/7 policy on sportsmanship.   She broke it.  So she knew the consequences.  This is nothing to do with stopping her free speech.  It has to do with agreeing to not act out,  as a athlete. 

Never heard of any student being asked to sign such an agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are clearly limits on the first amendment.  Community standards, hate speech, offensive content...  On the extreme, what if the litagant went on a racist tirade threatening a jewish underclassman that she believed got special treatment by her coaches who she also referred to with anti-semetic insults.  Go ahead, imagine the worst.  Is it entirely unreasonable for school run organizations to take action?

IMHO, the punishment does not fit the crime.  School should have remained silent.  Even if there were complaints from students/parents.  Bullying, intimidation, racism, different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Yeah, I get it, and I have no idea how the court will rule, but I see no issue with a non-required club having some guidelines for behavior that could reflect on that club. 

I guess we'll see. But when these clubs exist in public schools, use public resources, and accept public funds, the SC may not be so lenient.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing left to say is, fuck anyone that doesn't know how good they have it living in America.

People are dying to get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Keith said:

The only thing left to say is, fuck anyone that doesn't know how good they have it living in America.

People are dying to get in.

Let's hope they don't discover Canada.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like she did have a code of conduct, just search for the school district. Check #2

Off-Campus Activities
This policy shall also apply to student conduct that occurs off school property and would otherwise violate the Code of Student Conduct if any of the following circumstances exist:
1. The conduct occurs during the time the student is traveling to and from school or traveling to and from school-sponsored activities, whether or not via school MASD furnished transportation.
2. The student is a member of an extracurricular activity and has been notified that particular off- campus conduct could result in exclusion from such activities.
3. Student expression or conduct materially and substantially disrupts the operations of the school, or the administration reasonably anticipates that the expression or conduct is likely to materially and substantially disrupt the operations of the school.
4. The conduct has a direct nexus to attendance at school or a school-sponsored activity, for example, a transaction conducted outside of school pursuant to an agreement made in school, which would violate the Code of Student Conduct if conducted in school.
8

The conduct involves the theft or vandalism of school property.
5. There is otherwise a nexus between the proximity or timing of the conduct in relation to the student's attendance at school or school-sponsored activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mikewof said:

5-to-1 it's a solenoid or even an inline fuse, and the trim motor is fine. Did you check the solenoids and the fuse first before you go to all that trouble, Normy?

Yes, starting at the batteries. The trim motor ground had some corrosion where it bolts onto the zinc at the bottom of the engine bracket. Everything else, including the solenoids, was checked during the hour I mentioned. He also pointed out that it would be really, really unusual for both up and down solenoids to simultaneously fail, simultaneously start working again, and simultaneously fail again. Especially since I can hear them clicking.

 

9 hours ago, mikewof said:

I just came off of blowing about 25 hours trying to diagnose a problem with my snow truck, the blower fan wouldn't blow hot air to defrost, warm the cabin. I ended up pulling the entire dash apart ... fuses okay, relays okay, blower fan okay, switch was okay, head was okay. It was apparently some burned wire in that rat's nest of wiring. I finally threw in the towel, ran some wiring from the back of the cigar lighter, added a little toggle switch and connected it to the blower motor. I should have done that redneck repair in the first place, saved twenty-some hours.

Flats boat. Having the trim switch on the throttle is important. Having the other one on the engine is just handy. I want both to work.

 

18 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Mixed feelings here. I am sure I said a lot worse than that to my buddies in high school pretty much about every other day, but we had no mechanism to capture such moments and share them around  and Thank God for that!

We made up songs and poems about some teachers. I still remember some of them. They were unflattering to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

....   ...

We made up songs and poems about some teachers. I still remember some of them. They were unflattering to say the least.

And you broadcast them to the whole world, attracting as much attention to yourself as possible in the process... because of your RIGHTS!

FREEDOM!!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And you broadcast them to the whole world, attracting as much attention to yourself as possible in the process... because of your RIGHTS!

FREEDOM!!

- DSK

Actually, I haven't shared them at all, and won't. But if you're talking about the thread topic, it seems you didn't read it.

On 1/23/2021 at 7:00 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

The photo was visible to a couple hundred of her “friends,” some of whom took screenshots of the picture and showed it to the cheer coaches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Looks like she did have a code of conduct, just search for the school district. Check #2

Off-Campus Activities
This policy shall also apply to student conduct that occurs off school property and would otherwise violate the Code of Student Conduct if any of the following circumstances exist:
1. The conduct occurs during the time the student is traveling to and from school or traveling to and from school-sponsored activities, whether or not via school MASD furnished transportation.
2. The student is a member of an extracurricular activity and has been notified that particular off- campus conduct could result in exclusion from such activities.
3. Student expression or conduct materially and substantially disrupts the operations of the school, or the administration reasonably anticipates that the expression or conduct is likely to materially and substantially disrupt the operations of the school.
4. The conduct has a direct nexus to attendance at school or a school-sponsored activity, for example, a transaction conducted outside of school pursuant to an agreement made in school, which would violate the Code of Student Conduct if conducted in school.
8

The conduct involves the theft or vandalism of school property.
5. There is otherwise a nexus between the proximity or timing of the conduct in relation to the student's attendance at school or school-sponsored activities.

Thanks for that.

I guess the SCOTUS gets to rule on whether the school can police behavior off-property and after-hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And you broadcast them to the whole world, attracting as much attention to yourself as possible in the process... because of your RIGHTS!

FREEDOM!!

 

Actually, I haven't shared them at all, and won't. But if you're talking about the thread topic, it seems you didn't read it.

Ah, so when you said insulting things about your school and/or teachers, you kept it closely among your peers instead of posting it to the internet where literally anybody in the world can see it?

What's the difference, here? Perhaps you actually believe that there would be consequences?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in this part of the country, the school system's authority is based on "in loco parentis", to the extent of using corporal punishment despite DOE guidelines.  Children are not considered capable of fully accessing the rights of a citizen and so face restrictions on rights.  We don't want 15 year old kids buying guns, booze or cigarettes because they are not deemed mature enough to do so AND because of that lack of maturity they don't have the full measure of responsibility for their actions.  Communities have increasingly demanded that schools expand into the role of parenting and yet also demand that schools follow the morals and ethics of each individual family while not upsetting ANY child.  How could ANY system operate effectively under these expectations?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah, so when you said insulting things about your school and/or teachers, you kept it closely among your peers instead of posting it to the internet where literally anybody in the world can see it the photo was visible to a couple hundred of her “friends,”?

What's the difference, here? Perhaps you actually believe that there would be consequences?

- DSK

Edited for accuracy. And this was before Al Gore had even invented the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah, so when you said insulting things about your school and/or teachers, you kept it closely among your peers instead of posting it to the internet where literally anybody in the world can see it the photo was visible to a couple hundred of her “friends,”?

What's the difference, here? Perhaps you actually believe that there would be consequences?

- DSK

Edited for accuracy. And this was before Al Gore had even invented the internet.

I would suggest your edit is incorrect.  There is no way you can assume it would be limited to her friends. 

Once one of them shares it, the circle of people who have access increases exponentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I would suggest your edit is incorrect.  There is no way you can assume it would be limited to her friends. 

Once one of them shares it, the circle of people who have access increases exponentially.

I would suggest that in that case, it would be the friend, not the girl in question, who did what Doug said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

I would suggest that in that case, it would be the friend, not the girl in question, who did what Doug said.

Once she posted it to social media, she willingly gave up any idea her comments are private.  That her friend(s) shared it is almost to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:
41 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I would suggest your edit is incorrect.  There is no way you can assume it would be limited to her friends. 

Once one of them shares it, the circle of people who have access increases exponentially.

I would suggest that in that case, it would be the friend, not the girl in question, who did what Doug said. 

I would suggest that in your way, you're as big a liar as Dog.... trying to push your dysfunctional fairy-tale philosophy. You're a hypocrite because you do not practice it yourself, as proved by your own youthful insult/mockery of school & teacher being kept private rather than published to the world and demanding the consequence-free RIGHT!! FREEDOM!!! to do so.

And there's not even gunz involved, this time.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Thanks for that.

I guess the SCOTUS gets to rule on whether the school can police behavior off-property and after-hours.

I know my workplace has that right. If I said F them on social media, I would likely no longer be employed there. FoS seems to have consequences, sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I know my workplace has that right. If I said F them on social media, I would likely no longer be employed there. FoS seems to have consequences, sometimes.

What if you wrote "Fuck work", without specifying your employer?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Thanks for that.

I guess the SCOTUS gets to rule on whether the school can police behavior off-property and after-hours.

Up here in the GWN, we told our incoming grade 8's and their parents at the beginning of year assembly that their behaviour was a school responsibility, and they were subject to discipline, from the moment they arrived at the school bus stop to the moment they walked away from the bus stop.  This established a clear boundary for them to prevent misunderstandings.

Still, we are expected by parents to deal with behaviours between students that occur outside these boundaries.  It used to be that when there was a dispute between students outside of school, the parents would meet to resolve it, but now parents demand that schools do that for them.  One more reason why I never wanted to be a school administrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, for those that are arguing that her freedom of speech is absolute, can her parents punish her for the speech? Is so, why? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Yes, starting at the batteries. The trim motor ground had some corrosion where it bolts onto the zinc at the bottom of the engine bracket. Everything else, including the solenoids, was checked during the hour I mentioned. He also pointed out that it would be really, really unusual for both up and down solenoids to simultaneously fail, simultaneously start working again, and simultaneously fail again. Especially since I can hear them clicking.

If both fail at the same time, did you check the relay? A little moisture in there, and a relay will become an intermittent relay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

More importantly, for those that are arguing that her freedom of speech is absolute, can her parents punish her for the speech? Is so, why? 

It seems the Supreme Court case isn't about her rights.

It's about a public institution's ability to regulate speech outside of the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Up here in the GWN, we told our incoming grade 8's and their parents at the beginning of year assembly that their behaviour was a school responsibility, and they were subject to discipline, from the moment they arrived at the school bus stop to the moment they walked away from the bus stop.  This established a clear boundary for them to prevent misunderstandings.

Still, we are expected by parents to deal with behaviours between students that occur outside these boundaries.  It used to be that when there was a dispute between students outside of school, the parents would meet to resolve it, but now parents demand that schools do that for them.  One more reason why I never wanted to be a school administrator.

I accept my responsibility to monitor and deal with behavior while students are at school, be they mine or not.

I am not comfortable with the idea the school bears responsibility when students are not at school, or at a school-sponsored event.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I would suggest that in your way, you're as big a liar as Dog.... trying to push your dysfunctional fairy-tale philosophy. You're a hypocrite because you do not practice it yourself, as proved by your own youthful insult/mockery of school & teacher being kept private rather than published to the world and demanding the consequence-free RIGHT!! FREEDOM!!! to do so.

And there's not even gunz involved, this time.

- DSK

Normy is the only person in PA who takes an even hand of illuminating Constitutional issues of all kinds ... guns, speech, search, eminent domain, state's precedence.

I've long had a complaint that Second Amendment folks didn't seem to care much about the First, Tenth and Fourth. I remember a shitfight that consumed a week about Fourth Amendment violations in Watertown, MA. Normy is the only person here who seems to care enough to devote a chunk of his life to the activities of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights. This thread is just one of many, all useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, benwynn said:
22 hours ago, Burning Man said:

100% agree with that.  We have absolutely become a country full of irresponsible spoiled children.  But like it or not, the 1st am allows irresponsible spoiled children to say childish things when it comes to what the gov't can or cannot do to abridge your speech.  

Oh goody.... Another "Our generation is better than the one following us."   It's been a real crowd pleaser since.... I don't know.... The fucking 40's?

You do realize that I was talking about pretty much all of us across the generations act like spoiled Children these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counts of the indictment are luxury, bad manners, contempt for authority, disrespect to elders, and a love for chatter in place of exercise. …

Children began to be the tyrants, not the slaves, of their households. They no longer rose from their seats when an elder entered the room; they contradicted their parents, chattered before company, gobbled up the dainties at table, and committed various offences against Hellenic tastes, such as crossing their legs. They tyrannised over the paidagogoi and schoolmasters.

This dates to 1907 and is a summary of ancient Greeks bitching about their kids back in the Socrates era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You do realize that I was talking about pretty much all of us across the generations act like spoiled Children these days.

I do now.  What a difference two gin martinis make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

What if you wrote "Fuck work", without specifying your employer?

It depends. Was i on PA, or LinkedIn?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

You do realize that I was talking about pretty much all of us across the generations act like spoiled Children these days.

I do now.  What a difference two gin martinis make.

Us Boomers are among the worst.

Of course, many of us are beset from both sides too... taking care of aging parents AND still housing/feeding kids & grandkids

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites