Do School Administrators Not Realize Students Have Access To The Internet?
from the why-bother? dept
We've had a few stories recently of school administrators trying to stop the publication of a school publication because they didn't like the contents. In some cases, the students just route around the administrator and publish online. But, an even bigger point is, what good do the administrators think they're doing in trying to censor content in the first place? Take, for example, the story of a principal blocking the publication of a student magazine at Orange High School in Orange, California. Apparently, the principal was upset about a cover story about tattoos, claiming (bizarrely) that the photo on the cover, of a (faux) full back tattoo that included the magazine's name ("Pulp") and the school's mascot, glorified "gangster" culture, specifically because the text was spelled out in old English lettering. Really.However, the details show that the real concern had nothing to do with "gang" issues. The principal wanted the article to include extra information about how tattoos were permanent and not easily removed. As Lee Baker at the Citizen Media Law Project points out:
Although it may be helpful for students to be reminded of the difficulty of tattoo removal, such a concern should not give a school principal the legal right to suppress student speech.Still, the bigger issue from my perspective is understanding exactly who the principal think he's preventing from "harm" in this action. It's not as if students don't know about tattoos or how to find out more info on tattoos. Those students have access to this wonderful thing we call "the internet." They can also probably walk into any number of tattoo parlors. Blocking the publication in a school magazine because the principal doesn't like tattoos hardly seems likely to actually stop anyone from getting a tattoo.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: orange high school, publishing, students, tattoos
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The idea isn't to stop kids from getting tattoos, it is to stop them from glorifying gang style tats. You need to understand how signficant an old english lettered tattoo can be to a gang member to understand the significance. Otherwise, you are once again flailing around and blaming people for things without truly understanding the subject. Put that in your econ 101 and smoke it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Olde English style lettering is not reserved for use by lads with guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"However, the details show that the real concern had nothing to do with "gang" issues. The principal wanted the article to include extra information about how tattoos were permanent and not easily removed."
Troll spotted, stop replying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To grow up without real life experiences and no street-smarts, will have them getting run over left & right in the REAL WORLD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why? Because - sadly; I seen the result of the opposite.
A guy I knew in college lived a very sheltered life growing up. When he finally got into college, it was like all the tension on a rubber band than had built up over 18 years was released all at once. Fast Cars, Fast Girls, and a Buzz - he couldn't get enough... Until on one wet, rainy night he ran his Mustang into a concrete wall at 2 in the morning - had cocaine in the car - heck I didn't even know he was into that... He died in ICU about a week later.
Too much, too fast is never good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
like a 6 year old eating their weight in candy and the parents letting them with a simple warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree, but the last paragraph of the article addresses that. The point is that this doesn't protect them from a damn thing. The photo's still available, only now on a wider-publicised website instead of a local school paper, meaning many more kids will see it - i.e. more harm (if any way there to begin with), not less.
The glorification of gang culture is already out there and has been going on since before these kids were born. Information on tattoos and how to get them is also freely available both online and off, while the style of lettering is not directly tied into gangs in any specific way - the main gang connection is that 2Pac had them and he was the thug poster child (and thus imitated by wannabe gangstas).
Nobody was protected here, it only makes the administrator look out-of-touch and reactionary while being utterly ineffective. The real harm to children is when people like this do exactly the wrong thing to make it look like they're doing something. I'm sure there's more appropriate things for Orange High to be doing than restricting access to free speech in order to block a style of artwork already freely visible on iTunes. there's no problem with protecting children if the actions taken do just that. This doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Pussy
it's censorship. i don't think the tattoos would be anything gang related, but stupid soccermoms like you, think all tattoos are gang related.
i do however agree with the school's right to censor the contents of what is in fact, the school's publication. the students are representing the school, in their own media, so it does not belong to them 100%. simply the credit of writing it.
they should just publish the content under their own website, completely separate from the school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i agree.
old english letters were invented by black gangs to symbolize their black gang super powers and like you, i think black people are scary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can also, based on this principle's thought process, only assume that all gang's are British people from several centuries ago, in which case they are of little threat as they are dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Realize that these "kids" are young adults, not children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if protecting them from harm is really the issue then the children should be informed about said harmful issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
School Admin and Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sing along
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
waiting for the mandate
Underline and Bold fonts will be barred from all tattoo parlors as well as any other font style.
Thank you"
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree. The simple fact is that the Principle simply wanted a few cautionary statements *added* to the piece. He wasn't trying to *remove* information.
The fact that the kids publishing the piece didn't want the cautionary statements moved them from reporters to *proponents* of tattooing.
In effect, they were trying to stifle the *principal's* right to a little free speech as I see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The best education I got was by sitting outside and watching people. I did it as a child in the ghettos of NY. I then joined the ARMY and sat back and watched people in foreign countries. But the best time was when I was in Special Forces, training foreign soldiers, meeting their families, watching them and learning their cultures.
Now I use that information as a drug and gang enforcement officer.
Again... I learned nothing in school, other than my teachers were pussies and were afraid of their own shadows. GFL out there kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You notice that in the article?
Personally - I'd rather my kids were properly instructed on what their RIGHTS are, rather than the possible ills of a Tattoo - if I had to choose.
But schools aren't about that now - neither is half this country. People go on about how 'this and that' is good for the kids; while they think it's ok to take away rights, "for the children". Schools don't teach kids about real History anymore.
My son's best friend - who is a Sophomore never heard of the Nazi's - like... umm, isn't that a rather significant part of History? They don't seem to do much in the way of civics to teach kids about their rights and the constitution. Instead, they want to teach them all this "feel good" - "protect the kids" bull crap that doesn't help anyone and in the end, will cause a great many problems.
So how is it good for the kids to show them that free speech is ok to be suppressed? Seriously - people with that mentality really should find a nice happy socialist country to move to.
So if we take away rights to "protect the children" - who's going to protect them when neither they or us have any rights anymore? Don't hand me 'the government' - statistics and facts well prove the police can't really 'protect' any individual now, nor does congress care about our rights - they just care about their bank accounts, power, and rights for those that enhance their banks accounts and power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about the image and liability
As far as freedom of speech, it does not exist here. It is well established that students within a school context do not have the same free speech rights that they do outside the school.
"Blocking the publication in a school magazine because the principal doesn't like tattoos hardly seems likely to actually stop anyone from getting a tattoo."
This logic in itself is not enough. You could just as easily say, "Blocking the publication of pornography in a school magazine because the principal doesn't like pornography hardly seems likely to actually stop anyone from seeing pornography on the internet." That is true, but that does not, in itself, mean that the school should support it in a school publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's about the image and liability
If there was worry about parental backlash, killing the article was the best option. This is just heavy-handed editing that will make the article suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Free Speech Issue
Sorry, guys, this is not a free speech issue. If the magazine is a school-sponsored publication, the school gets editorial rights. Just like Oprah can change what gets into her "O" magazine, the school administration can do likewise.
If the students want free speech, tell them to organize in someone's basement, hit the streets to sell advertising, and hire their own printer to print the magazine. If they want the school to publish the magazine for them, they have to bow to the whims of the school administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Free Speech Issue
...or post it online.
..oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: tattoos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a pissing match
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to Real Life
From what I have read, the principle exercised editorial judgment based on the school and surrounding culture and readers. The students have not been "censored", the government has taken no steps to prevent them from saying or writing what they want and publishing it with their own money.
The Editor-In-Chief axed an article because the writer(s) refused to modify it as directed. Had this been a real publication the writer may even have been terminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the kid had to do was add a line saying, 'if you're gonna go for one of these, be sure you get the right one, 'cos once it's there it aint coming off!' and everyone would have been happy.
I appreciate the need for a well balanced artical that addresses its subject matter from all angles. Otherwise it's just a meaningless rant...much like this blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know that wikipedia is not a good thing to source, but why the hell does it need to be blocked? It's not like its porn or anything.
School administrators can be so stupid - the one at our school is an ex-special-needs teacher. She (yes, she) knows nothing about computers, I don't think she even knows what Linux is.
Right clicking is disabled, and much more. The computers are vegetables. You'd think all this security would stop hacking and other bad things, but you underestimate the stupidity of the admin. She does not know what a proxy/circumventor is (I've asked her, she gave me a glazed look), which gets around the filtering. ALL the usernames and passwords are stored in a standard format making it EASY for brute forcing (I have hacked my own password many times through the mail server)
School admins are ridiculous sometimes, there should be a law against schools hiring idiots. WE'RE BEING REPRESSED LOL.
I feel better now;
Email me if you want details for the mail server xD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Administrators Responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a reply to this idiocy
P.S. im 17 i know i may seem rebelious and it may be that reason alone why i wrote this but please understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]