Citizens Know The Score
Even As Courts
Shield The Government Class
-- It takes an affirmative action on the part of the person receiving the speech in order to make it on campus action. The speaker does not make it become on-campus, the listener does, whether by accessing the page pro-actively, or subscribing to it
-- This is a public institution, funded by taxpayers, not a fiefdom for these administrators to run capriciously as they see fit! They need to grow a fucking thick skin and realize that they aren't despots, they can't unilaterally make decisions for such ridiculous reasons.
They should not have the right to punish her for something written and published outside of school just because administrators made the effort to read the comments on campus. The comments weren't magically published on campus, the readers brought them there, not the writer.
-- For all such douchebags out there: this is a public school. They do not have an arbitrary right to censor their students. Internet postings are not "on campus speech." If the school principal listens to his student who called in to Howard Stern or Love Line, does that make the student's call "on campus speech?" This argument suggests that anything that can easily make it onto campus via network, phone, radio, TV, or any other medium automatically qualifies as "on-campus speech." If they don't want that to happen they can prevent unrestricted internet use on-campus.
How exactly did the livejournal posting get to the school? Answer: it probably didn't. These douchebags probably read it at home. And if they did read it on campus, then these douchebags were either on break, or wasting tax-payer dollars reading livejournal.com! So why, exactly, should we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were policing "on campus speech" when it required them to go to a third-party time-wasting blog in order to even be aware of it?
The truth is, this girl is actually a model school representative. Instead of just acting as the student rubber stamp of the administrator's policies, she tried to change things that she cared about and get students involved in these issues. And it sounds like it worked. And it sounds like the douchebags at the central office didn't like that one bit. They want their students to keep in line and not challenge their authority.
Having gone to public school myself and dealt with many of these administrators, I can attest that they generally have low IQs and something to prove. A lifetime of dealing with talk-back kids makes them even more cranky and insane. And in my experience, public schools are poorly run, do a bad job of teaching students, and make seemingly arbitrary decisions about which programs to support based on who whines the loudest or who knows a guy in the central office. But heaven forbid an actual student should make the complaints!
If you can't challenge the decisions of a public school to eliminate programs that you care about, or encourage students to speak up about things they want, then where can you do it? I guess we pay our taxpayer money to these schools so they make our kids shut up and keep in line. Why shouldn't they be able to police their actions outside of school too? This result just exposes student govt. for what it is: a way for the school to pretend that students actually have a voice in how there school is run.
Nope, it's run by a big mess of douchebags.