|
| Thread: How much control should public schools have over student behavior? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted February 04, 2013 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
on his computer
on his school-issued computer.
Point is, it was HIS LAPTOP. In private he should be able to have whatever backgound he wishes. Nazi concentration camp, bombing of WTO, rape of nanging, it's not the school's jurisdiction anymore.
Quote:
the district policy states students are prohibited from “sending or displaying offensive messages or pictures,” and cannot access, send, create or forward pictures that are considered “harassing, threatening, or illegal.”
The school policy also agrees with me.
The article states that his issue was having the wall in school where it's publicly visible to other students and teachers.
And what he got suspended for was challenging the teacher's judgement and not instantly changing the wallpaper.
Which the school has admitted wrong and the suspension has been lifted.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 08:18 AM |
|
|
No, you are wrong. The article clearly says that the Laptop is property of the school, not the pupil. And obviously, even if it was his, in private he still can't have stuff like a child porn foto as a wall paper.
Now you can debate obviously about how a picture like that warrants this kind of attention, but there is also no doubt about it, that the school can tell pupils what they accept as wallpapers on THEIR computers and what they don't accept.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 10:40 AM |
|
|
School issued laptop is the same as school issued books. School is the owner not the possessor. Same thing if you buy a car ang give it to your son. Your name is in the owner spot on the registration but as the possessor is your son, your son is the one with the rights and responsibilities regarding the car. He will pay the taxes, insurance and drive it wherever he wants. It is his car, your right is to make it yours again, not disallow him certain areas of the city for driving. Unless you make a specific contract stating that the in the terms of his possession.
Naturally anything illegal cannot be allowed, people don't have rights for breaking the law. That has nothing to do with the school and everything to do with the police. Though I highly suspect babies raped by baboons is a documentary picture and thus not child pornography, you know, like the vietnamese girl with burn marks.
PS. If it's private, he can have that child pornography there too. He doesn't have the right to possess child pornography but he has the right to privacy, which is way higher right than probe people's background pictures randomly to find offensive/copyright infringing material giving him de facto right for having whatever he wants as his background in private.
Except in USA, naturally, where right to privacy doesn't exist.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 11:03 AM |
|
|
You seem to have somewhat strange opinion on property rights.
The laptop is property of the school - as is a car that I buy. If I allow my child to use it, it's still my car. Even if I give it exclusive using rights, I'm still the owner - should something untoward happen, the item must be returned to the school.
That in turn means, the owner makes the rules for "personalization" of item, whether the user likes it or not.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not clear whether the Laptop in question can leave school at all (is used exclusively by one person and can therefore be taken home), or whether it's a shared one with a couple of users.
Be that as it may, the pupil has no ownership rights whatsoever.
Lastly, the question hasn't been what he does at home and in private - the question was, what he does while at school (for all to see), and I don't see any reason to discuss something that isn't the issue here.
I'm also a bit sick of the whole privacy debate. A computer screen used in school is NOT private, not by any stretch - as wouldn't be an exercise book used in school.
That said, generally this kind of friction is a good thing for young people, because oftentimes they do things, without understanding what they may mean for others; provocation is part of becoming a grown-up, and adverse reactions are only a sign that things may matter, still. With the recent and current discussion, wallpapers on school pcs that show assault rifles ARE provocative, and adverse reactions are to be expected and to be considered natural. I don't think there is reason to make a public fuss about the school's reaction, which may be considered harsh, but it's not the task of the school to make it as easy as possible for the pupils.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 01:34 PM |
|
|
You can see him using the laptop at home so it's obviously his private one.
If you give your car to your kid, with him as the possessor, or rent an apartment to someone, they are allowed to put up whatever posters they want on their walls/ceiling, unless you specifically specified that as forbidden in the terms for the possession. Wallpapers aren't any different, any reasonably reversible change to the possessed item is allowed by default.
My first post on this page concludes the actual news issue with what has happened in the case. You didn't seem to be interested in continuing that discussion.
You might also want to go back and read my first post concerning the wallpaper issue. If you didn't want to discuss about what was the case in private then why did you reply to it at all?
Assault rifles on your laptops are not provocative. Had he had a picture about a regular M16 on an US flag no one would have questioned him even once. He had an AK-47 with a bayonet on an yugoslavian flag which made all the difference.
That said, everything is provocative to someone. My post that everyone should have their opinion and there is nothing offensive in it obviously provoked you.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
|
You compare apples to oranges. The PC isn't rented - he's not paying, as with a flat. He is allowed to use it, and the thing is owned by school.
What the guy does in private, isn't up to debate - up to debate is what he did or does at school.
You said, that you can hold in private any opinion, and that's true, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT MAKE IT PUBLIC. If you make it public, you may be subject to all kinds of reactions.
That would mean, if he takes the thing home, he can use whatever he wants as a wallpaper, provided he makes sure no one gets to see it, that is, it STAYS his private opinion.
Strictly spoken, this means, everytime he goes to school with it he must delete every debatable content, since the Laptop as such ISN'T HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY - the school may check whether their property isn't abused.
You said: Quote:
There's nothing offencive on having an opinion on something. CCCP flag plus a nuclear missile is totally okay wallpaper for class.
Now, that may be your personal opinion, but since that "statement" is made a) publicly and b) with and on school property, you are simply wrong, since it's the same as draping a USSR flag with a nucear missile over your desk or chair in school.
I hope that's clear now.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course you realize that this picture is a pretty massive political statement, right?
I read the rest of this post, and I still don't get why its a statement to anything. It looks cool, and beyond that, I just don't see it.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 02:58 PM |
|
|
Even if it was a political statement, would it matter? Would that be a bad thing?
On the contrary, I'd say that it could promote a healthy and constructive discussion regarding that particular statement.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 02:59 PM |
|
|
The flag of a defunkt state with an AK-47 on it? What about the old German Third Reich Svastika flag with a Tiger Tank on it? Or a Confederation flag with an AK-47 or an M-16?
Not to mention the assault rifle school shootings of late - those give added fuel for controversy.
Now, note that for me the problem isn't the boy or the picture or the reaction of the school - the problem forme is the fact that there are obviously those who are making a fuss over this issue.
The boy got a ban of three days at first, supposedly because he didn't remove the wallpaper on request. So what? If you want to really rate the incident, you'd need a paper from the boy, what made him pick that foto, and if he'd say "it looked cool and I didn't think anything about it", it would be time for him to write an essay about how stupid it is to simply take pictures as wallpapers without checking whether they may have a certain meaning or be somewhat sensible.
Other than that - wtf?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 03:04 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 15:04, 05 Feb 2013.
|
|
"Son, I'm not going to force you remove that wallpaper. But be mindful that some people may take offense at it. In that case, you'll have some explaining to do with those people."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 03:20 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah, except that it were SCHOOL shootings, and the teacher may have been - likely, considering his reaction - one of those who took offense.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 03:29 PM |
|
|
"Three-strikes your-out", slip
Students name: Getanaldobirt Smuddlemass
S1- Did hug the Janitor...check
S2- Pitched his peas...double-check
S3- Desktop-infraction...triple-check (enacted with the introduction of wooden desktops)
Dear Parent/s
Since your child is clearly antisocial & anti-learning, he must be educated at "the home".
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 03:39 PM |
|
|
The car you have given possession of to your kid isn't rented either. The possession, and thus control, of the object in question is given to the person, whether there is a payment or not, is irrelevant. Just for note, there probably is a payment of the kid doing his schoolwork.
First of all, the school would have to inform the kid of the possibility of such checks beforehand. Second, having his gun wallpaper wasn't breaking the agreed terms on the usage of the laptop in any way as can be seen from the resulting cancellation of the suspension. Third, he is allowed to store, create and access offensive pictures on the laptop as per school policy.
Quote:
The flag of a defunkt state with an AK-47 on it? What about the old German Third Reich Svastika flag with a Tiger Tank on it? Or a Confederation flag with an AK-47 or an M-16?O
I see no problem with none of those options. You could just as well have a judaic cross and a sling drawn on your notebook cover. Or how about a roman eagle and a gladius? They're just as legal to have on show as the Svastika is - outside of Germany that is.
Unless the school rules forbid political statements on the school property, which I believe they don't.
If they can be considered political statements at all.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 04:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since the laptop belongs to the school, the district policy states students are prohibited from “sending or displaying offensive messages or pictures,” and cannot access, send, create or forward pictures that are considered “harassing, threatening, or illegal.”
That's what the article says, so obviously you can forget your "given posession" thing, since the terms or use are clear.
Now the two things that are debatable are
1) what constitutes "offensive, harrassing, threatening or illegal" pictures;
2) what penalty will be given, if a picture considered as such is not removed on request.
You may add,
3) Who decides about this and has the final say.
That's all which is relevant here.
School reasoning was:
Quote:
Although we cannot specifically discuss student discipline, we can certainly agree that violence in schools is a sensitive and timely issue. Students, parents and staff are on edge, and the daily news delivers more reasons for caution. All of us must work together to protect our kids and to cultivate an environment that is conducive to learning.
Which simply means that somewhere in the school someone clearly found that picture offensive in connection with the recent school shootings (and probably not without them).
Whether the 3-day ban was withdrawn or not, doesn't seem to be the question - the question is, whether he has to remove the wallpaper or not (the 3 days are just a penalty given for the failure to do so).
With the Laptop belonging to the school, fighting makes no sense.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 06:07 PM |
|
|
|
If the school owns the computer, then yes he should remove it. If not, no. Basic property rights?
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 07:22 PM |
|
|
The correct english term seems to be possessor for the controller of property so I assumed having/giving possession was the logical conjugation. I might be wrong there, feel free to find the right terms for the subject. I'm not an expert on law english.
It was definitely not illegal, harassing nor threatening picture. Offensivity is a very bad wording for a policy to begin with because everything is offensive to someone. No definition is made what is the meter for measuring this offensivity. There won't be a single wallpaper that won't be offensive to someone.
A breach of contract regarding the terms of use for the laptop should lead to penalties regarding the use of the laptop.
Why would they remove the penalty if it was justified? If the picture didn't break the terms of use, he didn't have to remove it and the penalty was unjustified.
Quote:
If the school owns the computer, then yes he should remove it. If not, no. Basic property rights?
If you have rented an apartment and want to have a poster on your wall you are not allowed to because your landlord doesn't like GLBT-posters?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 07:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The correct english term seems to be possessor for the controller of property
The sole controller of property is the OWNER. If the owner allows someone else to use said property, it's under specific terms. General law dictates the limits of those terms, but the details are up to the partoies involved. In this case the user - pupils - are simply allowed to use the item, but under certain terms, that are partly quoted. Pupils quite probably do not have to accept the terms, but can instead use THEIR OWN laptops. IF they use those, they are object to the "terms of use". That simple.
Quote:
It was definitely not illegal, harassing nor threatening picture. Offensivity is a very bad wording for a policy to begin with because everything is offensive to someone. No definition is made what is the meter for measuring this offensivity. There won't be a single wallpaper that won't be offensive to someone.
That is no point, because it's not you who is to judge that. It depends on terms. I, for example, wouldn't consider a pornographic wallpaper as illegal, harrassing, threatening or offensive, but whether it's illegal depends on the law, and the rest is quite probably up to the OWNER to determine, provided it's within the limits of the above cited general law. The question here is whether something is offensive for the staff of the school, and in light of recent events they have a point.
Quote:
A breach of contract regarding the terms of use for the laptop should lead to penalties regarding the use of the laptop.
I would agree with you. It seems, though, that in this case part of the problem is the fact that the pupil wasn't prepared to remove the wallpaper.
Quote:
Why would they remove the penalty if it was justified? If the picture didn't break the terms of use, he didn't have to remove it and the penalty was unjustified.
Because they may feel that the penalty was too harsh.
Quote:
Quote:
If the school owns the computer, then yes he should remove it. If not, no. Basic property rights?
If you have rented an apartment and want to have a poster on your wall you are not allowed to because your landlord doesn't like GLBT-posters?
Not the same, because neither is the laptop rented nor is the apartment taken into a public building and the poster exhibited.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 08:33 PM |
|
|
The first three: Illegal, harassing and threatening are defined by the law, I haven't checked the US laws on the subject but I'm condfident it won't fit into any of those categories.
There are no laws in the US that state pictures with a gun and the yugoslavian flag are illegal.
It is not harassing because there are no people involved, the yugoslavs do not exist anymore, even if they did I highly doubt that'd be classified as harassment.
Threatening picture is understood as an implication to cause harm on an entity. Classifying s single gun on an old flag would be far fetched even with the recent events. Especially since it wasn't sent to anyone.
Offensivity is subjective as previously agreed. There is no defined meter for it in the terms of use so it can be assumed to mean general offensive material, ie. racist or explicit images. Or anything from too bright and shiny colours to too depressing black. Generally people use common sense and assume the former.
He did change his wallpaper. It isn't clearly stated anywhere but I got the impression the kid questioned the teacher's orders which led to the punishment. A knee-jerk reaction from questioning authority if you will.
If they felt the penalty was too harsh they wouldn't have issued it to begin with. Or they would have shortened/changed it to something else, now they canceled it completely.
The laptop was rented for schoolwork. It doesn't have to involve money to be considered an equal contract. You can hang the poster on your wall so someone can see it through the window. Then it is exactly the same.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
He did change his wallpaper.
The rest of your post doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2013 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the school owns the computer, then yes he should remove it. If not, no. Basic property rights?
If you have rented an apartment and want to have a poster on your wall you are not allowed to because your landlord doesn't like GLBT-posters?
Yes.
|
| |
|
|
