School Bully - Assualt on Freedom of speech

[glenn kangiser]

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2011/11/25/gov-sam-brownback-narrowly-survives-high-school-students-mean-spirited-tweet/

The Governor of Kansas, Sam Brownback, felt it was appropriate to spy on the students visiting the capitol.  When Emma Sullivan casually tweeted a joke about him to others, his spies told him, he called her principal and got her in trouble for it.

  Emma Sullivan

I do not feel it is fair for a principal to bully a student at the request of a Governor who seems to be involved in many scandals according to a search on the net.

Please support Emma's and your right to free speech by emailing both the Principal and the Governor and voicing your support for her freedom of speech as well as abuse of power to bully a student exercising her rights.

I won't publish the e-mail address here but will link the websites and the address is right there.

School    http://www.smsd.org/schools/smeast/

KS Governor   https://governor.ks.gov/contact-the-governor/contact-governor

Please don't let these authority figure bullies make a student think the Constitution is already totally dead.

[NM_Shooter]

I'm on the principal's side on this, although I think he'll be brow beaten to ease up.    Her actions probably will make the governor think twice about having school children on a visit again. 

I think that we frequently wave about the first amendment as though it is permission to say absolutely anything, regardless of the impact on others.  Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. 

Using the first amendment as a tool to hide behind while hurling insults is not the reason it exists.  An argument could very easily be made in the other direction about this girl being the bully.  Those of us with teenagers fully understand how bullying has transitioned using social media. 

While she certainly has the right to express her opinion, she should do so in a way that is articulate, and not just be, well, bitchy.  As a kid on a school trip, she is an ambassador of her school, and as such she represents that school.  Failure to demonstrate respect (to anyone) should be disciplined.

I have coached kids in the past.  If any of them had acted rudely or insulted someone without apology, they would have been off my team.  No exceptions.  If it happened a second time, even with apology, they would have been off my team.  No exceptions.

[peternap]

Gotta disagree with you NM. You're painting the 1st amendment with too broad a brush.

It keeps the government out of the fight, not the public.
With the exception of obvious threats, I can and do, call politicians everything on earth. I do this in writing and get a special amount of gratification, in person.

Using Westboro as an example is comparing apples to oranges. The Government has to let them have their say but I don't. If it was one of my relatives being buried while they put on a show, life would get real interesting real quick. The fact that hasn't happened yet, is more disturbing to me, than what they say.

That's the difference. Government is out of the censorship business (I wish ) but citizens aren't.

Now admittedly, I haven't read the story so I don't know what school she attends but if it is a public, tax supported school, they had no business interfering and it appears they have reversed their stance according to headlines.

If it was a private school they have a perfect right to tell her to apologize. sit down and shut up.

[dug]

I have yet to "tweet" in my life but as I understand it seems to be a random thought, a whisper shared among supposed friends. In a pre-cyber world this incident would be akin to having plants among the crowd listening for unflattering whispers.

I reject thought policing, and support Emma.

[NM_Shooter]

Peter, Let me ask you these:

Do you support allowing children in class to say whatever they want?

What about in the hallway, between classes.  Are you okay with them being openly disrespectful to teachers, administration, or verbally attacking their peers?

What if a kid, when told by a coach on a sporting team to do something, told the coach to "go pound sand" (or much worse).  The coach benches the kid.  Who do you support?

Everyone wants to act out from some hedonistic position, and then not be held accountable.  That's not right.  And just because the supreme court says so, still does not make it right.  (Rights and right not being the same thing).

[Squirl]

It is a public school.

I agree with the differentiation between government and private regulation of speech.  In general, government agencies such as public schools and government offices shouldn't be forcing apologies for disagreement.  Everything is decided on a case by case basis.  This case has many facts that support that the government shouldn't be involved.  It was non violent and non disruptive.  It wasn't even obscene.

Private individuals have a right to regulate speech.  Twitter is a private company and if it chose to regulate tweets, it can. 

If I were at the governor's office, I would have immediately fired the staffer who thought this was a bright idea.  Looks like he is sticking to it.  I do reject most of the statements in the articles that "It was just intended for her 19 followers."  This is also a lesson to teenagers who don't understand that the internet is public and forever.

[NM_Shooter]

With the exception of obvious threats, I can and do, call politicians everything on earth. I do this in writing and get a special amount of gratification, in person.

And when you do that, you represent yourself, and only yourself.  This girl was on a school trip and as such represented both herself and the school. 

If she wanted to do what she did on her own time then I would still think that she was reprehensible, but I would say the school had no business to interfere.   

But she didn't.  She acted inappropriately during a school sanctioned outing, and should be disciplined.   

[rick91351]

Everyone wants to act out from some hedonistic position, and then not be held accountable.  That's not right.  And just because the supreme court says so, still does not make it right.  (Rights and right not being the same thing).

If I had to choose sides I have to side with you Shooter.  I also have to remember - rights and right not being the same thing!

But I still question why a politician would be stupid enough to take a teen to the woodshed.  Pretty clear most teens already know everything.   Way WAY WAY out gunned there my dear Governor and the masses lined up to take their shot as well.  Let her get a few years under her belt.  Kicked around by life and figure out things are not pie in the sky after all.  This throne she now sets on has set her up for a great fall. Me thinks the foundation is cracked and a leg is broken.......   

[Squirl]

This girl was on a school trip and as such represented both herself and the school. 

I don't see how this is the case either ethically or legally.  Attending school is usually both a requirement by the government and personal right.  I don't see how she has the obligation to waive her rights and be held accountable to representing an entire school. 

If posting anything to twitter was during school hours considered inappropriate behavior, they could easily have disciplined her for that or banned all twitter or cell phones during school hours. For this to be fair, they would also have to discipline all students who tweeted anything during the trip. What they found inappropriate was disagreement with government.  That is the reason why I view it more as regulation of speech than behavior.

[peternap]

And when you do that, you represent yourself, and only yourself.  This girl was on a school trip and as such represented both herself and the school. 

If she wanted to do what she did on her own time then I would still think that she was reprehensible, but I would say the school had no business to interfere.   

But she didn't.  She acted inappropriately during a school sanctioned outing, and should be disciplined.

You're still missing the point NM.
What I'll tolerate them doing or saying...even at school, and what the school has a legal obligation to tolerate, are light years apart. As I explained many hundreds of thousand times to the kids when they were growing up, "this family isn't a Democracy, do what you're told".

And no, when I say or do things on a legislative level, I am a registered lobbyist and do represent others.......who feel exactly the way I do

[peternap]

To take it a little further NM, Glenn points out that the Government looks at this site occasionally. I suspect that's true although this a pretty mild place.

I have a right to say a lot of things that I don't.

I don't because they would offend other members here and my silence is out of respect for others, not because I give a hoot whether the Government likes them or not.

If she was my daughter, she'd probably be grounded but I wouldn't allow the school to have any say in it at all.

[NM_Shooter]

Help me understand your position Peter.  Answer the three questions I posted with your perspective.

[peternap]

Help me understand your position Peter.  Answer the three questions I posted with your perspective.

I thought I did but you had to read between a few lines

Peter, Let me ask you these:

Do you support allowing children in class to say whatever they want?

That's a broad category. No, they could not say what they wanted. Politically, I would support them giving their positions no matter how politically incorrect they are...but I, as a parent and ultimate custodian of the kid until they're gown, would not tolerate disrespect of the teacher or school Administration. Disrespect and disagreement are different things and those are my rules, not the School's.

What about in the hallway, between classes.  Are you okay with them being openly disrespectful to teachers, administration, or verbally attacking their peers?

Same answer as above.

What if a kid, when told by a coach on a sporting team to do something, told the coach to "go pound sand" (or much worse).  The coach benches the kid.  Who do you support?

Same answer as above with a little extra.
Being on a sporting team is an extracurricular activity. It's not mandated that the child be on it and in fact the conditions are moderately strict. A certain Grade Point Average is required, the child has to be n good standing in the school. It's really a privilege that can be revoked for a number of reasons, refusing to adhere to the dress code, off premiss alcohol or drug abuse...many things, so they can be removed from the team.

At one time most parents took their role as teachers seriously. We're the ones that taught morals, ethics, responsibility and common courtesy. If the school had a problem, the school would call the parent and it would be dealt with at home.

Allowing the school to circumvent the protections in our Constitution is nothing short of Government Programming. Hitler was a proponent of that.

[Texas Tornado]

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/28/brownback-apologies-over-reacting-students-tweet/

[NM_Shooter]

Peter, please tell me why that is not hypocritical.  I don't read between the lines when trying to understand someone, as my speculation on someones's position is nothing more than speculation. 

Why do you condone a student being disrespectful at a school sanctioned extracurricular activity such as a visit to the governor's office, but not in a classroom / sporting situation? 

What about the kids who don't have parents who discipline, and these kids verbally abuse others while in school?  What then?  I think this is actually the real underlying issue behind all of this.  Parents don't teach their kids to be civil, nor do they lead by example.  Even if the target of her expression is a non-popular governor, that does not relieve her of an obligation to be decent to others or be held accountable in some fashion.

Keep in mind that I also support her position to feel however she wants (I also agree with her view of the governor).  I resptect her right to express this opinion in whatever non-violent means she wants on her own time.  If she wants to express her opinion during an extracurricular event sponsored by the school, then I expect her to be civil in her delivery of that message.   

As a volunteer in our public schools, I see a lot of kids who run absolutely roughshod over the staff and student body.  They are accountable to nobody, yet no one has the balls to tell little Johnny to act civil or he's going to get whacked.

[Squirl]

Shooter, that is an interesting idea that this may not be a school activity.  I looked that up and the usual slip shod reporting came to light.

The Youth in Government program is a YMCA program outside of school. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YMCA_Youth_and_Government
http://eckan.org/youth_government.html

Although it is promoted at the school.
http://www.smsd.org/schools/smwest/club481.htm

Apparently, She was not in school or even on a school activity.  The Youth in Government progam is a separate entity that told her principle to discipline her.  She was never even on a school trip.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/hohs_one_minute_recess_emma_sullivan_vs_kansas-210560-1.html?zkMobileView=true

[peternap]

You keep missing the point NM.

I DON'T CONDONE IT AT ALL.

The point is that it is illegal, unconstitutional and inappropriate, for the Government in any form or level, to sanction free speech. That includes the Governor, his aids and the school.

It is the girl's parents that are responsible for that. End of story.

Now...many parents these days won't take that responsibility. That's not my problem. I did when my kids were young (Still have to once in a while ).

There are people who allow their kids to shoot each other. I'm not going to surrender my 2nd amendment rights because someone else isn't doing their job.

[kenhill]

She was there representing the YMCA or school club with an interest in youth in government.

She was disrespectful in that she made poor use of her time by tweeting instead of listening and with the stupid words she chose.

She offered nothing constructive.

It is a good lesson in the social network world is not private.

She should appologize and while she is at it, write to the Gov and let him know why she is dissatisfied and what she would like to see him change.  That would be a good lession for a Youth in Government member.  Expecting an appology is not a violation of the freedom of speech.  You can have freedom of speech and still be held accountable.

Agreed on respect.  We need to call PEOPLE out.  Are you proud of the language you hear youth use in the mall?  Our expections on behavior are way too low....

[NM_Shooter]

You keep missing the point NM.

I DON'T CONDONE IT AT ALL.

The point is that it is illegal, unconstitutional and inappropriate, for the Government in any form or level, to sanction free speech. That includes the Governor, his aids and the school.

It is the girl's parents that are responsible for that. End of story.

Well, we can't hold the girl's parents responsible, because she is 18. 

If this was not a school trip, then the school needs to butt out. 
If I am missing your point, it is probably because I am thick headed, and you are not being articulate enough.  That is an issue with this sort of exchange.

What it appears that you are saying, is that it is unconstitutional to limit any form of free speech "in any form or level" at all.  If that is your standpoint, then it must apply to hate speech, child pornography, treasonous communications, incitement to riot, etc. 

I get your point, and I disagree. 

[muldoon]

The point seems simple to me, freedom of speech includes speech you find offensive.  If you only want to allow speech you agree with, then there is no such thing as freedom of speech.  It's as simple as that. 

[peternap]

I get your point, and I disagree.

No...you don't NM, but I give up.

[NM_Shooter]

The point seems simple to me, freedom of speech includes speech you find offensive.  If you only want to allow speech you agree with, then there is no such thing as freedom of speech.  It's as simple as that.

This is the crux of it. 

We don't have freedom of speech.  Never did.  Never will. 

But....I believe that an offense taken at incivility does not impede on what the founding fathers intended to be freedom of speech. 

I believe that they meant for that to mean that if a person has a beef with the way that something is going, they have a right to express themselves without fear of reprisal. 

While I do not hold a person responsible for expression of opinion (unless malicious or damaging in nature), I do hold them responsible for means of delivery (e.g. civility).

 

[peternap]

Oh Well

http://news.oldva.org/?p=256

Goodbye to bad trash, Doug Wilder

Doug Wider is going away...again.

As a tribute to him, I can say he has conducted his life as Mayor in the same manner as when Governor. He is arrogant, lazy, combative, narrow minded, wasteful. I could go on but to sum it up, he is a useless thing taking up space and using air and has left the city in much worse shape than it was before taking office.

Thus is Wilders Legacy. I think I'll play the state song, the real state song, (Carry me back to Old Virginia) to celebrate his leaving.

Just so you don't go away empty handed, Old Virginia would like to give you a well deserved.........

OXBUTT AWARD

[peternap]

Or......



http://news.oldva.org/?p=87

Saslaw Drops his pants again

Instead of interviewing with a Virginia News Service concerning his insulting remark on Monday, Senator Saslaw ran back to mama and spoke to the Washington Post. He is one of THOSE people you know. WRVA asked for an interview yesterday.

The Senator asks how gun owners know it was referring
to them.

I have seen public figures squirm quite often, however, Saslaws squirming sets a new LOW. There were only three major groups there that day that you could have been talking about. The antigun people....but they are your buddies....the PRO GUN people, you are acting like it wasn't them...or a group seeking funding for mentally handicaped people....That's very, very low.

Senator, I hope you know that most of the state is laughing at you now!

Editor

#########################################

VA-ALERT: Senator Saslaw steps in it again!Democratic Senator Saslaw just can't help himself. Rather than
contritely apologizing to gun owners, Saslaw is obsessed with striking
out at us.

In the following Washington Post blog, Saslaw doesn't deny making the
"Deliverance" statement, but asks how gun owners know it was referring
to them.

How about because it was obvious to anyone with more than a
kindergarten education, Senator? You support every anti-gun bill that
comes your way and we are to believe you are disparaging the anti-
gunners?

But even if you were referring to the anti-gunners, as a Senator you
should have more decorum than to make such an offensive statement
about ANY group, even the anti-gunners.

Adding insult to injury, Saslaw said this about gun owners who might
think that his "Deliverance" comments were aimed at them: "some
people must have one hell of an inferiority complex."

From the frying pan into the fire. Swift move, Senator.

[Native_NM]

The troubling aspect to me was that the girl lied about what she said she "said".