School Power Over Student Web Speech? 369
Petey_Alchemist asks: "In the wake of the Pope John XIII student weblogging ban, the online lives of students are once again being examined by their academic institutions. News outlets are covering a series of recent events--most notably the expulsion of a Fisher College sophomore (who also happened to be President of the Student Government) after he posted in a 'controversial' Facebook group. Facebook, for those of you who don't know, is an incredibly popular social networking site for American college students. The fact that you must have a college email account to join provides some modicum (re: illusion) of privacy, but doesn't keep faculty or administrative members from joining and patrolling the website.
Bottom line: Facebook, Pope John XIII, and other online student speech cases are popping up all over the place yet no case defining the amount of control a school has over a student based on that student's web speech has come before the Supreme Court. When will this happen? Moreover, what will be the result when it finally does?"
They just don't... (Score:5, Funny)
Frantic, hot, recursive wget'd jealousy.
Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
2 cents,
Queen B
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
That may or may not be, but if it didn't state specifically in the school's code of conduct that I was going to have my off-campus speech regulated, and they expelled me for that, I sure damn well expect my tuition to date refunded and a clear note made in my transcript that I was not at fault for the expulsion. Now, if it does state that in their code of conduct, I suppose they can do that, but you'd have to be an idiot to go there. I guess it's good practice, in a sense, since the SC, in its infinite wisdom, has agreed that employers can restrict speech pretty much all they want.
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
The head of department went massively overboard on the disciplinary proceeding and tried to have me expelled on a personal grude (after I complained she covered up our initial complaint about the lecturer concerned). Eventually it was tacitly admitted she was pursuing a vendetta, and I was let go with a severe punishment (to set a precedent), but a suspended one (so as long as I did nothing else wrong in my time left there - about 6 months, by that point - I basically just got away with a token slap on the wrist).
I learned some hard lessons as a result of the experience, and the crux of the matter is this:
1) Universities/colleges are private clubs.
2) Private organisations make their own rules, and can freely disregard rules we otherwise take for granted in everyday life, such as "freedom of speech".
3) Most universities don't make a complete copy of their disciplinary rules and regulations easily available before you enroll there... and even if they do, they're pretty much all the same so there's not much to choose between them.
4) If they perceive you're fucking with one member of their club (a "important" one anyway, like a member of the teaching staff, tenured professor, administrative employee, whatever), they will close ranks and will all fuck you. You have attacked their "club", so the whole club comes gunning for you.
5) Because they're a private club, this is all entirely legal, and above-board.
Sample interesting details of a typical UK university disciplinary process:
i) While you're accused of (or being investigated for) an academic or disciplinary offence, you have no right to a lawyer. Contacting any form of legal representation is itself a further disciplinary offence.
ii) You do have the right to be represented by a member of the Students' Union. These people are generally untrained volunteers, and may not even know the disciplinary process prior to taking on your case. You may also not be informed of your right to representation at any stage.
iii) Merely being accused (not even necessarily found guilty) of an academic or disciplinary offence and having to take time to defend yourself, even under threat of expulsion, is not considered grounds for an extention on a single coursework deadline.
iv) Offences such as "abusing, harassing, threatening or insulting a member of the university" mean exactly that. If you state "X is bald" and he doesn't like the fact he's bald, you can be hauled up in front of the university authorities, regardless of the fact he is bald. Unlike libel/slander, truth is no defence.
v) If you publically assert a lecturer is fundamentally unqualified to do his job, you commit an academic offence. Providing documentary evidence that you're right makes it a worse offence - it doesn't mitigate it.
iv) By submitting coursework to the university you permanently sign over all IP rights to the university. Some universities claim rights to all IP you produce while a member, even in your spare time and on your own equipment.
So yeah. Schools, universities and colleges aren't fair, aren't democratic, and aren't even (arguably) ethical. That said, if you shut up and keep your head down you're fine, and it's a great opportunity to spend 3-5 years getting wasted and having fun.
Just don't insult a faculty member while you do it, and never, ever stand up for a point of principle.
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Informative)
Clemson University, where I am attending, is a different matter. As a state instit
Re:They just don't... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:They just don't... (Score:2)
I was thinking PgetD jealousy.
When asked, (Score:3, Funny)
state school (Score:2)
Re:state school (Score:4, Interesting)
* The policy-makers have their heads firmly lodged in their asses -- the excuse I always get is "our lawyers said this is OK". I guess their lawyers don't understand what a court ruling against them means.
If you care about your rights online, I suggest you do what I did -- cancel your account if the policy is unreasonable. You can get free e-mail anywhere these days. If their policy interferes with your classwork, be sure to let the University's higher-ups know about it. Schools have no right to tell their students what is and is not acceptable speech, especially schools funded entirely by the government!
Re:state school (Score:2, Funny)
So do the American thing. Sue. Since they already lost once, failing to update their policies (after a reasonable time period) shows bad faith, along with clear disregard and contempt for the court's authority. Judges don't like that. In fact, they often bitchslap people/organizations for that.
Re:state school (Score:2)
I don't think I was damaged by their actions. Plus, I don't have time or money, so I guess in that sense, they win. If they want to convince all of their good students to transfer somewhere else, then let them. Then they'll go away and they won't be a problem.
This is the same school / computer center that told Dan Bernstein that he couldn't work on his djbdns anymore because "only viruses use port 53".
Re:state school (Score:4, Insightful)
The most widespread example is student-run newspapers in high schools and colleges. Students are punished for taking positions in their writing that are critical of the institution, especially at the high school level. Students (and I know this from observing the situation myself at my high school) have been suspended for attempting to run editorials or stories that don't toe the party line. You could argue that they're using school funds, so why should the school print something critical of itself? Because being a state institution, the faculty (in theory) should be required to allow any speech, no matter how damaging or critical.
In practice, not so much. Courts have routinely decided in the schools' favor when these cases have gone to trial. The message this sends to the students is very disturbing (to me at least): Your rights end when you walk through the door. The (required by law) act of attending a public school (barring the home-schooled and those who attend charter schools) requires that the students surrender what IMHO is the most important civil right that American citizens enjoy.
Is it any wonder that these students have no respect for authority? Everyone acts so shocked when the students have total contempt for the school and everything it represents; they don't stop to think that they're teaching them one thing (Americans have lots of rights) but practicing another (You have no rights, shut up or you're getting suspended.)
Here's a free clue folks: Treat people with respect, and you'll get respect back. Don't treat them like second-class citizens and then wonder why nobody shows up for the pep rally.
Re:state school (Score:2)
Re:state school (Score:2)
Of course, all the things you mention are morally reprehensible, and I think people should avoid patronizing institutions that exercise their right to discriminate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:state school (Score:4, Interesting)
The brainwashing that goes on in those schools can be scary sometimes.
-Z
Re:state school (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason some of them don't is that they don't want to get caught doing it and then suffer the consequences.
clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally it would be a violation of the right to assemble for the government to put restrictions on how people can associate privately, and a violation of the right to free speech if government tried to interfere with people calling each other "spics" or any other term of opprobium they please, in a private setting.
Where you might have become confused is, first, by the fact that public organizations, e.g. public schools, transit agencies, et cetera, are bound by the same Constitutional rules as the government itself. And, furthermore, government is certainly within its rights to, as a matter of policy, deny public assistance to private organizations Congress finds objectionable, and Congress frequently does just that.
Finally, things like the Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination in any activity that can plausibly (or even with a stretch) be defined as commercial. So it's not illegal, if you privately sell your home, to refuse to sell it to black people, but it is illegal if you are "in the business" of selling or renting -- and that is defined very broadly -- or if you use a broker, et cetera. This is all justified under the Constitution as relating to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
So Congress has no power to ban the Ku Klux Klan, nor can it ban its meeting in private homes in which signs with racial epithets are posted, and the KKK can completely exclude blacks from membership, and if it runs a boarding house for its members it can exclude blacks from there, too. But the KKK is not likely to be granted tax-exempt status, and is not likely to receive permission to meet on public land, e.g. in a public school, and if it applies for a public grant to promote its activies I expect the application will be turned down.
Private universities are frequently "blackmailed" by the federal government into various policies considered in the public good, from allowing both sexes and all races to enroll (although this tends not to be applied against female-only or black-only colleges) to allowing military recruiters on campus. This works mostly because even private universities receive enormous chunks of their budget (like, 40% or so) from the federal government via grants of one kind or another.
Personal Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
The lesson: don't be stupid about what you post on publicly viewable websites, such as blogs. You never know who's going to read it.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2, Interesting)
These agreements can force you to not drink, do drugs, or be slanderous. Bethel in St. Paul requires that no student on campus dance. Ever.
If you sign away the rights, you sign them away. If you say they can A. to you because you do B., don't be mad when they catch you doing A. and B. comes down with a vengence.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
No, she should fight this in court on the grounds that the school has no right to limit what she does off-campus, in her own free time, even if it's illegal
That's absolutely true. It's equally true that she has no right to force a private institution to allow her to attend./p
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
There's that and it cannot really be proven via photo alone that she was drinking alcohol. It wouldn't be hard to make a liquid that looks like an alcoholic beverage. Not sure if it matters, but I'm really curious if the pictures of her were taken at the school. Legal or not, that would be pretty bone-headed. Heh.
The post you replied to had a p
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Was the student photographed drinking on school premises?
2) Was the student photographed drinking during school hours?
3) Was the school visible in any of these photos?
If not, then the school has no say at all in what said student does in their own personal time. This is like my company firing me for being in a pub brawl. Yeah, I probably shouldn't be in pub brawls, but it's none of the companies business what I do outside of work hours.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
Personally, I don't think it's any of the university's business what crimes you commit off campus, but that's the way things are.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
DUI is a serious offense, and someone who is prone to driving under the influence can be percieved as a threat to the college. Kicking somebody out under these circumstances is easily justifiable in my mind. They were convicted of a crime, and as such, certain rights of theirs are restricted.
On the other hand, there is nothing illegal about keeping a blog. A school punishing students for an activity they perform outside of school that is also perfectly legal outside of school is
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are commiting crimes on campus that is a good reason for their being concerned you might commit crimes on campus.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is not. Being an employee vs being a student are very different situations.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
That's hardly proof. "Oh, I was kidding." or "I didn't post it, someone figured out my password" The second is actually possible, since facebook doesn't keep a comment log, AFAIK (and I'm on it)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2)
The lesson: don't be stupid about what you post on publicly viewable websites, such as blogs. You never know who's going to read it.</I><BR><BR>
Actually, I believe the lesson is "before exercising your first ammendment right, consider whether or not any private institutions are going to use it to discriminate against you."
<BR><BR>
I personally find it sickening that the First Ammendment is viewed with such dismissal in America, but hey. It's your country, your constitut
Further points on the subject... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really quite interesting to see how much disciplinary latitude schools have. The trend that I discovered--after we actually tried a case in Mock Trial regarding an infraction of the student handbook--is that, generally speaking, a student handbook is the rule of law for a school (barring any outright infringements on students rights.)
Therefore, schools have quite a bit of latitude in terms of punishment if they have a "detrimental conduct" clause. I myself was disciplined essentially for posting critical comments of a fellow student on my own webpage, as I posted earlier. [slashdot.org]
What I find really interesting, though, is the role the Internet is going to play in our public lives from now on. I wrote an extensive post in the other thread, [slashdot.org] but to sum it up...well, if today's journalists are willing to scour through a high school yearbook of Samuel Alito in order to find hints about his political beliefs, is it so hard to believe that my generation (speaking as a college student) will find themselves hamstrung by acts of folly conducted on the Internet? It's quite easy to connect to my pyromaniac website [toydestruction.com] to porn and warez websites. Never mind my blog [peteyworld.com], livejournal, slashdot and assorted forum accounts.
It's an electronic goldmine for the next generation of muck raking journalists to sort through--with ever more powerful search technology.
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
Wait 'til that shock hits...maybe then people will really self-censor. Today, you've got expelled college students. Tomorrow...e-scandals?
--Petey
Absolutely (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:5, Funny)
So basically you're saying that the next President will be better than the one we've got now?
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:2)
There ought to be a college study done one day to prove that getting As and MBAs is useless the majority of t
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:2)
Methinks the uselessness here has more to do with "MBA" than it does with "A," if you see my point.
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:2)
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
I'll take that over a former coke sniffing, alcohol abusing, draft dodging, duty shirking President.
Re:Further points on the subject... (Score:2)
I'll take that over a former coke sniffing, alcohol abusing, draft dodging, duty shirking President.
In all fairness, most of that slur applies to our past two presidents. What I want is a president that knows how to do his job, preserves civil liberties, and doesn't give money to the rich at everybody else's expense.
Freedom of speech should previal (Score:5, Insightful)
If the erosion of freedoms starts now, I fear that by the time I die, the world will be much, much different from the heydays of the internet when everything was open and without restrictions...I fear that we will have a very strict and monitored society where your every move will be logged and your every thought will be scrutinized for compliance with the dominant peoples' satisfaction.
Re:Freedom of speech should previal (Score:2)
the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:5, Insightful)
The kid suggested "eliminating"(executing) a campus police officer AND solicited others to attempt what can only be termed entrapment.
Furthermore, you don't have protections of freedom of speech with ANY organization except the government. I'm really tired of people claiming that they have "Freedom of Speech" every time they get in trouble for spouting whatever they feel like at work, or school, or on private property. EVEN FURTHER, those rights do not include liable, slander, or assault (ie, "I'm going to rape you with this baseball bat!" is not constitutionally protected speech) to name a few. There are CENTURIES of precedence on this issue.
If you RTFA: "Fisher College spokesman John McLaughlin said, ''Cameron Walker was found to be in violation of the Student Guide and Code of Conduct.""
THAT, boys and girls, is why he was expelled. It's not the fact that he had a web log (I refuse to call them blogs); it's that he threatened the life of a school employee. It's pretty fucking clear-cut to me, and I'm really tired of hearing a lot of whining about "oh, poor him". The guy did something completely unjustified and COMPLETELY stupid. He knew the consequences (especially since he was class/school president) of violating the school's code of conduct; it was a private school. His speech was not protected, and furthermore, is most likely criminal in nature.
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:2)
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:5, Informative)
The kid suggested "eliminating"(executing) a campus police officer AND solicited others to attempt what can only be termed entrapment.
Or getting him fired. I read some of the passages, and the methods seemed to be a petition, digging up dirt, or entrapment. That isn't murder.
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly in the legal world, you don't get such a distinction. Prosecution would argue that he had plenty of other wordings to choose from, but that "eliminate" has a strong connotation, particularly if one is speaking about a police officer.
The officer would then be asked about how he interpreted the statement- which is mostly what matters. It's how the victim int
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:2)
Sadly in the legal world, you don't get such a distinction. Prosecution would argue that he had plenty of other wordings to choose from, but that "eliminate" has a strong connotation, particularly if one is speaking about a police officer.
Not a lawyer, but I would argue that the suggested methods don't lend themselves to murder.
It's how the victim interpreted the assault, not how you intended it.
Well, I didn't see anything about an assault, and most places I look tend to disagree - it's down to your
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:2)
Neither am I, but I do know that assault is the THREAT of violence. Battery is actually DOING IT. Well, at least, that's the historical reading. Google it if you're curious.
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:3, Insightful)
I do know that assault is the THREAT of violence.
And the legal definition that I found seems to require that the victim know about it, presumably at the time it's committed. At best he coould be charged with conspiracy, if intent to commit murder could be proven.I still maintain that it looks like an attempt to oust an officer that's been harrassing students, which isn't actually a crime.
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd be surprised how many students who might not be as familiar with law or technology as you believe that blogs and such, while publicly accessible, enjoy some modicum of privacy. The thought is that, in the vastness of the Internet, nobody is going to actually read yo
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:2)
You do have freedom of speech at public schools, because public schools are the government.
Re:Freedom of speech should previal (Score:2, Insightful)
Let schools do whatever they want (Score:2, Interesting)
But the solution to this problem is simple -- if you're a student at one of these pro-bra
Re:Let schools do whatever they want (Score:2, Interesting)
Facebook (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the facebook isn't a blog, it's a social networking service.
While we're at it, there isn't much that you could do in facebook that would be all that damaging. Naked pictures are banned... other than that, you could join a group with a controversial name, but there isn't much in that. I'm a member of "My name's Justin biotch." Lots of people are members of "I went to a public school, bitch." Not here, since most of the kids here are wealthy Ivy Leaguers, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but, you know, whatever.
I worry more about what I say on Slashdot.
Re:Facebook (Score:2)
I grew up near W&M. I almost went there for my PhD. I'm at Cornell now. W&M is a pretty nifty place. I dated a girl there for a while. Rock on.
Re:Facebook (Score:2)
Re:Facebook (Score:2)
Re:Facebook (Score:2)
That said, it was interesting to see how many people instantly looked up the dude who was charged with rape [dogstreetjournal.com] as soon as the news got out. Needless to say, he deleted his account about a day later.
Facebook is certainly an interesting beast.
Oh, and I'm a member of the Facebook Group entitled "I'm Not offensive, You're Just a Pussy"
Re:Facebook (Score:2)
That aside, there's little harm in Internet talk. I strongly disapprove of any drug use, but as long as people aren't doing it on my property, it's not really my business.
Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
If a college has a defined code of conduct--or, in my school's case, an honor code--and there is photo evidence of the infraction online, than why can't that evidence be admissable? I mean, if you were a school admin and someone showed you a picture they snapped themselves of someone shooting up, you'd consider that to be good evidence, right? Why should that change just because it was posted on Face
Re:Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:3, Funny)
No [revelwood.org] reason [museumofhoaxes.com] at [iranian.com] all [wikimedia.org].
Re:Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure that the "right of free speech" should be something that non-government agencies should be able to ignore. Our lives are dominated by interaction with "private" agencies- be it a private school you attend, or the company you work for, a store you shop at, or a website you post to. If free speech isn't protected at any of these places, then where IS it protected? Is the middle-lane of the state-owned freeway the only place I can express my opinion without fear of consequences?
Private agencies shouldn't be allowed to punish an individual for LEGAL acts that they simply don't like.
Of course, no one wants the government telling them what they have to put up with. And I agree with that completely, but maybe there's some room for compromise. Maybe.
Re:Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:2)
But what he apparently did was attempt to launch a conspiracy:
Freedom of speech usually wins (Score:5, Informative)
The end result: loss of freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Speech is one of those things that is widely misunderstood. It is simply the ability to speak freely and without government interference. The government is restricted from barring you from exercising your right to speak.
That does not mean that you have that right everywhere. Your rights end, goes the phrase, where mine begin. Private property is one space where you are restricted in your speech. Public property, on the other hand, is where you ought to be unrestricted. Private sector entities (individuals, companies, and organizations) have the right to bar you from activities of the entity if they do not approve of your speech. This used to be an inherent right.
If we force private institutions to accept any and all free speech, despite the fact that it may injure, slander, or be antithetical to the institutions' charter, then we are in essence forcing them to act as a government agency, i.e. statute-restricted non-discriminatory agency. The institutions do not have the right to act as they deem appropriate, but must act in accord with governmental regulation.
Constitutional Amendments like the ERA were big steps in usurping the rights of private institutions. If we follow this line of thinking through, where schools ought to be prevented from punishing students who break school rules, then we can see that the end result is that schools and government move closer to each other and the value of private schooling is diminished.
Will it go that far? Hopefully not, and the school will realize what a mistake it is making. However, the odds are more likely that the growth of government will continue unabated and it will absorb all educational institutions as time goes by, piece by piece, right by right.
Re:The end result: loss of freedom (Score:2)
Since the relationship between a private school and the pupil is essentially a business relationship, if the school sanctions a student for conduct that is not specifically forbidden in the agreed upon rules then the school has committed fraud. Fraud is a criminal act and would subject the school's administration to criminal penalties as well as civil liability.
LK
Re:The end result: loss of freedom (Score:5, Informative)
The ERA is not a constitutional amendment; it was a proposed constitutional amendment. The civil rights legistlations are based on the principle that the private sector is a large part of American life, and that we don't want to let people of a certain race, religion, or gender be arbitrarily excluded from a large part of American life.
Here the ideal to be upheld is that an American is permitted to express his or her opinion and to talk freely; if the associations the schools had with their students were voluntary, like those a college has with its students, it would be different. The value of private schooling should not be that it produces a student terrified of exercising his or her rights, or worse, unfamiliar with them.
The 11'th commandment (Score:5, Insightful)
11. "Cover thine own ass"
He didn't. He did it all out in the open. If he had kept his little conspiracy among "friends" and at least used an anonymous website instead of broadcasting his plan and name to all-and-sundry, then maybe his scheme might have succeeded. But in this case, he's learned a lesson. Don't Get Caught. If anonymity worked for the Federalist Papers, then it should have been good enough for him. Why he didn't use even an alias (because the website _required_ him to be a verified student), is beyond me.
About his scheme: If the university cop was truly harrassing students, there were _far better_ ways to nail the guy than enticing other students to "get arrested" for fun and profit.
--
BMO
What's the big deal? (Score:2, Informative)
a student just collected $117,500 (Score:2)
Details at the URL.
Hmm (Score:2)
sites that rate college teachers (Score:4, Interesting)
Downhill (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I grew older. I realized no country is inherently cool, when you look at the society and politics and not just action movies. USA seemed reasonable though, I remember a history (or geography) lesson in elementary school when a teacher described the basic ideas of the constitution, and the emigration from Sweden->America in the previous centuries. Inspiring.
Fast forward til now. Do I awe you? No, because in my opinion (which will be modded down really freaking fast), your country is going downhill. You are teaching religion as science, I don't even think fundamentalist muslims do that. Then you sort-of ban freedom of speech by forbidding blogging, of all stupid things to ban (whatever happened to land of the free?), introduce laws like DMCA, and are actively trying to destroy the whole worlds intellectual property laws.
Think about it.
Regards,
Swedish citizen.
Re:Downhill (Score:2)
You just can't help folks who don't want to be helped. Everyone gets the impression that these fringe groups are the mass majority, this is untrue, they are just a motivated and very VOCAL minority, who just has to shout louder than the larger percentage of normal folks, who are more often occupied with the massive amount of work that it takes to just survive in a free market economy. After all - who cares what happens in Kansas s
Re:Downhill (Score:2)
HELP!!!!
backlash (Score:2, Interesting)
But in the big picture, I think what you are seeing is that the US is going thru the birthing pains of the information age. All the people who were used to controlling information are panacking, and the peoples of the world who have been exposed to US cluture via the internet are suffering culture shock all over the planet - causing m
Re:Downhill (Score:4, Insightful)
The EUCD, the software patent legislation (which might just be happening anyway), the joint effort of ministers Bodstrom of Sweden and Clarke of the UK when it comes destroying civil liberties in Europe, the less-than-perfect freedom of press in Sweden (not to mention the debate about journalists blogging on their own time) - it's a road paved with mostly good intentions to guess where.
While I'm all for critizing the US for the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT Act, let's not pretend we (swedes/europeans) live in a perfect society.
In fact, I'd like to argue that it would be easier to turn this development around in the US than in Europe. Due to differing civic cultures, and a much more clear tradition of focusing politics on civil rights and liberties in the US compared to Europe in general, and the social democratic countries in particular.
(Even though you didn't really claim that Sweden was 'better' in your post, I felt obligated to point out that it isn't.
Never. (Score:2)
That is because, in the vast majority of these cases, the schools involved are private, not public, institutions, and thus they are completely free to limit student speech as they see fit.
Re:Never. (Score:2)
Google Search (Score:2)
Actually, I think a written letter letting the Dean see that the scope and "bad press" of her action stretches far beyond Massachusetts would be better than a five emails expressing the same sentiment. I'm not familiar with this situation beyond th
Re:Google Search (Score:2)
(just kidding)
To answer your basic question (Score:2)
Any court, let alone the Supreme Court is unlikely to want to hear such a case. Isn't this is a matter of non government private contracts? When you enroll with the school you ag
Re:To answer your basic question (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not true. You cannot give away your constitutional rights, no matter what you sign.
Re:To answer your basic question (Score:2)
I did drag a prior employer into an arbitration regarding an uncontitutional "company rule" and won.
The company was so messed up it went under anyway.
Dude stick up for yourself (and others like you in the process). Caving in means you get no security - OR - freedom.
History repeats itself (Score:2)
People speaking out against the Solviet's, Nazi's, Slavery, Segregation, etc. etc.
Widespread incidences (Score:2, Interesting)
RTFA (Score:2)
Anyone have more context?
The Privacy Issue (Score:2)
Re:this is college (Score:2)
Re:Duquesne University sanction will backfire. (Score:2)