1984

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: 1984

    I don't disagree with the intent of the law but it appears it was drafted poorly and as a result overreaches its intended goal.  Certainly no student should be punished for telling the truth, even if that truth results in discomfort for the teacher or administrator. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: 1984

    Its a cyber bullying law; as with all actions the legal test comes down to the intent of the individual.  Those with malicious intent should pay for their actions.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: 1984

    I don't beleive the intent is to suppress dissent, kids already have their freedom of speech curbed to some extent in a school environment because there are codes of conduct that include speech already.  For instance, kids can't walk around schools cursing or calling other students names without getting into trouble.  The issue is when the internet comes into play it is very easy to setup fake facebook, twitter, etc accounts and pretend to be someone else.  People with good photo editting skills can manipulate pictures to make it seem that a person is doing something that they were not, and unfortunately by the time the dust settles and thr truth is found someone may have already been suspended or worse. 

    This dynamic applies to the workplace as well.  People have been fired for badmouthing their jobs on facebook and other sites regardless of the accuracy of their statements.  The bottomline is there are appropriate avenues available to students and employees to air greivances.  Blasting someone in a social media update is not one of those avenues and doing so may have severe repurcussions, particularly for employees of a company. 

    That said, the law appears to be too broad and should be amended or nullified until the correct language and definition can be found. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 1984

    Kids, much less teenagers, often have a precarious grip on the "truth", even in the best of situations.

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 1984

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kids, much less teenagers, often have a precarious grip on the "truth", even in the best of situations.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Politicians have less of a grip on the truth than anyone else.

    [/QUOTE]

    Except maybe the people who elected them.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1984

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Its a cyber bullying law; as with all actions the legal test comes down to the intent of the individual.  Those with malicious intent should pay for their actions.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong.  Intent alone is not enough.  A wrongful action is necessary.  A malicious intent to tell the truth about someone is no crime at all.  It is protected as Freedom of Speech.  That said, harassment activities clearly are not protected.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: 1984

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong.  Intent alone is not enough.  A wrongful action is necessary.  A malicious intent to tell the truth about someone is no crime at all.  It is protected as Freedom of Speech.  That said, harassment activities clearly are not protected.

    [/QUOTE]

    Which means what?

    Lawsuits flood the courts?

    [/QUOTE]

    Got to have an arrest first, but yes, it will end up in court being attacked on Constitutional grounds.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     

Share