Student's suspension for IM buddy icon upheld by US court | The Coffeehouse

Skriker V1.0
Need more money...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/im_aim_icon_suspension/

This is quite extreme.. what happned to Freedom of speech and expression!!!

wkempf

Skriker V1.0 wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/im_aim_icon_suspension/

This is quite extreme.. what happned to Freedom of speech and expression!!!

This is hardly extreme. What's extreme is what so many people think "freedom of speech" means.

1. Just because there are things you can't say in do in certain situations, such as at work, does not mean you have no freedom of speech.

2. Not all speech is covered under the concept of free speech. For example, slander and exciting to riot. If the kid had an AIM icon that showed a gun shooting a specific teacher in the head, he's lucky he only got suspended. This could be construed as a threat, and much harsher legal actions could have, and probably should have been taken.

The "Bong hits for Jesus" case was a little extreme. This one is not.

nightski

wkempf wrote:

Skriker V1.0 wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/im_aim_icon_suspension/

This is quite extreme.. what happned to Freedom of speech and expression!!!

This is hardly extreme. What's extreme is what so many people think "freedom of speech" means.

1. Just because there are things you can't say in do in certain situations, such as at work, does not mean you have no freedom of speech.

2. Not all speech is covered under the concept of free speech. For example, slander and exciting to riot. If the kid had an AIM icon that showed a gun shooting a specific teacher in the head, he's lucky he only got suspended. This could be construed as a threat, and much harsher legal actions could have, and probably should have been taken.

The "Bong hits for Jesus" case was a little extreme. This one is not.

I am confused. The article apparently says he got suspended because of the AIM icon he used while at home? This is really bad, I can't find any justification for the ruling. I mean if he was using the icon while on a school computer then I understand. But now schools have authority over what you say at home?

wkempf

For the most part, I think we're headed that way because we no longer have respect for the rights we have. With rights come responsibilities. The Bong case, though I'm not sure how I think it should have been dealt with legally, illustrates this point nicely. The kid was out of line. Not for what he said, but for where, when and how he said it. The fact that he wasn't actually in school is the only part of this story that gives me pause. He has the right to say what he wants to, but the school should have the right to remove the disruptive influence as well. Once your rights infringe on mine, you're abusing your rights and deserve the consequences of your actions.

But again, that case is much more gray than this one. This one, to me, is pretty darn black and white. The kid should have gotten more than a suspension.

wkempf

nightski wrote:

wkempf wrote:

Skriker V1.0 wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/im_aim_icon_suspension/

This is quite extreme.. what happned to Freedom of speech and expression!!!

This is hardly extreme. What's extreme is what so many people think "freedom of speech" means.

1. Just because there are things you can't say in do in certain situations, such as at work, does not mean you have no freedom of speech.

2. Not all speech is covered under the concept of free speech. For example, slander and exciting to riot. If the kid had an AIM icon that showed a gun shooting a specific teacher in the head, he's lucky he only got suspended. This could be construed as a threat, and much harsher legal actions could have, and probably should have been taken.

The "Bong hits for Jesus" case was a little extreme. This one is not.

I am confused. The article apparently says he got suspended because of the AIM icon he used while at home? This is really bad, I can't find any justification for the ruling. I mean if he was using the icon while on a school computer then I understand. But now schools have authority over what you say at home?

Ooookay. Teach me to only read half an article and then comment. This one as basically as gray as the Bong one, then. At least in so far as the school suspension is concerned. However, it's an even better illustration of what I was saying about disregarding responsibilities in the name of "my rights". The kid did screw up. And I still think there should have been consequences to his action.

Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.

nightski wrote:

wkempf wrote:
Skriker V1.0 wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/im_aim_icon_suspension/

This is quite extreme.. what happned to Freedom of speech and expression!!!

This is hardly extreme. What's extreme is what so many people think "freedom of speech" means.

1. Just because there are things you can't say in do in certain situations, such as at work, does not mean you have no freedom of speech.

2. Not all speech is covered under the concept of free speech. For example, slander and exciting to riot. If the kid had an AIM icon that showed a gun shooting a specific teacher in the head, he's lucky he only got suspended. This could be construed as a threat, and much harsher legal actions could have, and probably should have been taken.

The "Bong hits for Jesus" case was a little extreme. This one is not.

I am confused. The article apparently says he got suspended because of the AIM icon he used while at home? This is really bad, I can't find any justification for the ruling. I mean if he was using the icon while on a school computer then I understand. But now schools have authority over what you say at home?

But the image was bought into school. It says somewhere that it was bought to the teachers attention after someone supplied him with a copy.

JonLumb

Lloyd_Humph wrote:

nightski wrote:
wkempf wrote:
Skriker V1.0 wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/im_aim_icon_suspension/

This is quite extreme.. what happned to Freedom of speech and expression!!!

This is hardly extreme. What's extreme is what so many people think "freedom of speech" means.

1. Just because there are things you can't say in do in certain situations, such as at work, does not mean you have no freedom of speech.

2. Not all speech is covered under the concept of free speech. For example, slander and exciting to riot. If the kid had an AIM icon that showed a gun shooting a specific teacher in the head, he's lucky he only got suspended. This could be construed as a threat, and much harsher legal actions could have, and probably should have been taken.

The "Bong hits for Jesus" case was a little extreme. This one is not.

I am confused. The article apparently says he got suspended because of the AIM icon he used while at home? This is really bad, I can't find any justification for the ruling. I mean if he was using the icon while on a school computer then I understand. But now schools have authority over what you say at home?

But the image was bought into school. It says somewhere that it was bought to the teachers attention after someone supplied him with a copy.

Yes, it was brought into school, but not by the pupil in question. According to the article, it was a fellow pupil who "brought it to the attention" of a teacher. Where I went to school, the kid that brought it in would probably have been given a "good going over". If he had asked him to remove it because he didn't like it, then fair enough, bring it to a higher power, but there is no indication of this having happened.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Chinmay007 wrote:
You can run around town in a KKK outfit saying "kill all the n*****" and no one can touch you. This is freedom of speech.

Er... no. The government can't touch you (that's the Freedom of Speech part); anyone else can beat you senseless without infringing on any of the constitutional freedoms.

Chinmay007 wrote:
I all am getting from this article is that apperently high school kids don't have any.

Rightfully so. He can always go somewehere else to get an education, after all he's free to do just that.

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

Chinmay007 wrote:

PaoloM wrote:

Chinmay007 wrote: You can run around town in a KKK outfit saying "kill all the n*****" and no one can touch you. This is freedom of speech.

Er... no. The government can't touch you (that's the Freedom of Speech part); anyone else can beat you senseless without infringing on any of the constitutional freedoms.

Right and they well (or at least should) be arrested for battery. You didn't know anything to break the law, they did.

PaoloM wrote:

Chinmay007 wrote: I all am getting from this article is that apperently high school kids don't have any.

Rightfully so. He can always go somewehere else to get an education, after all he's free to do just that.

Not rightfully so. There is no age requirement for freedom of speech last time I checked. And if this is a public school, it is bound by the Bill of Rights - they shouldn't deny him the right to freedom of speech.

Then you didn't check hard enough Smiley

There have been a number of rulings that infringe on the rights of schoolchildren (vs. adults).