Thursday, January 29, 2009

New Comments On CT Free Speech Case

Updated Now & Then ...

Some Reasons For Faith
In The American People ...

-- hopefully that bill passes. It is absolutely ridiculous that the administrator's capricious decision was allowed to stand. Did she even name any of the said douchebags "by name"? Stupid frackin' judges!

-- "it simply noted that officials could not reasonably be held liable for their decisions given the confused state of the law"

Its not about the school officials and their confusion over the law. It probablly wouldn't matter what the law said. Their actions were to get back at someone who publically disagreed with them. It occurs in just about every school system accross the country: a bunch of overpaid empty shirts who feel the need to exert control over the students.

-- I have raised a daughter who also stands up for herself and she earned her Master's degree, makes six figures and is highly successful because she doesn't let others push her around. She was taught to respect others when they show you respect and that she has the right to speak out against adults when they don't show respect. RESEPECT IS EARNED.

-- Bravo!!! What's next... two kids standing in CVS talking about a teacher, it being overheard and then they get in trouble for it??

-- Calling the principal a douchebag is not slanderous (or libelous in print) and thus not otherwise actionable under general legal principles, so it is hard to understand why it should be a problem here. Particularly since the case deals with a public official's conduct. Kids and their parents routinely say negative and offensive things about their schools, teachers, etc. (have you ever sat around with a group of parents of school aged children?). Do we really want school officials to be able to retaliate in such circumstance?

-- Incredibly douchy douchbags. In particular the douchebag on the bench making these bizarro rulings.

-- This is not hate speech. This is not using school resources. This is a personal opinion and should be protected. This is NO different than if the student wrote this in her personal diary and showed her friends off school grounds. I hope she sues the school and shuts it down from lack of funding. Seriously.

Eff you and eff anyone who thinks that a personal opinion posted on a non-school web site should have any consequence at school at all.

For all of you who think there should be consequences: The [principal] can have a personal dislike for this student and he can voice that OPINION whenever he is asked for a PERSONAL REFERENCE, or if he choses to share that opinion outside of the school environment. I doubt that this student would WANT a douchebag like this [principal] as a personal reference, so I doubt it will even come up.

This is about CONTROL and POWER TRIPPING. I had to put up with a ton of this kind of crap in High School so I can relate to her frustration and I would have done the exact same thing.

No one should have any kind of "qualified immunity". All that means is that school officials are NOT accountable, while the students are having to deal with the most outrageous bullpucky imaginable. I was in high school over 20 years ago, was not any kind of discipline problem, and graduated with honors. If I were in high school today, I'd surely be expelled 10 times over and (without exaggeration) probably tazed or shot for standing up for my rights. I never took any crap from any of my teachers or the school officials.

-- I guess free speech is contingent on it not being convenient for others to hear what you are saying?

-- Her blog is campus territory? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I think this girl is awesome and I hope she sues this idiotic school into the poorhouse--it will be THEIR actions that caused it, not hers.

-- The main reason to have "free speech" is to allow criticism of the government. The student was criticizing a public official's performance on the job. Do you see why it's important not to squelch that?

-- The school administrators are the employees. They are there to serve the public, not to rule over them.

-- Good for you Avery! You stand up for yourself. The reason that we are in all the messes we are in is because parents beat the idea of "respect" into their children so much that no one will stand against wrongs anymore. Ignore them and keep speaking out. You are right, and it sounds as if there area number teachers on here flooding the posts against you. Shame on all of you adults who take advantage of teens by hiding behind "respect."

-- Let's just be real and say we don't allow juveniles to speak freely because we want them to grow up as proper workers who don't talk back to their bosses and be done with it, eh? "Free speech" is a joke in this country. There's a pretty big asterisk next to it that is conveniently ignored because we wish people would just learn not to say things other people don't like...

-- Another thin skinned educrat gets his shorts in a wad over the sort of name calling that happens every day in our schools. Is it pretty? No? Does the principal need to react this way? Only if he's as petty and thin skinned as most of these folks.

-- Respect is earned. This idea that people in a position deserve respect is ridiculous. If you need help with this idea, please read anything by George Bernard Shaw or Mark Twain, they made a living pointing this out and people thought it was funny because it's true.
Schools are obviously more about getting children to respect authority, and less about them growing into an understanding of the world and gaining valuable skills.

I find it odd that so many people want our next generation to be respectful, and not more driven to do things. She was trying to do something, and the take home from this is that she should just listen to the old guard and not talk back.

  • JI Story On CT Free Speech Bill

  • What They're Saying About Travesty Kravitz

  • Another Tip Of The Hat For Senator Gary LeBeau In Free Speech Case ...

  • CtNewsJunkie: Senator Gary LeBeau Files Landmark Free Speech Bill
  • No comments: