Teens Sue School After Being Disciplined For MySpace Photos
from the no-free-speech-until-you-graduate? dept
We've seen a bunch of stories lately about schools handing out discipline for activities done online, and conflicting court cases on the subject make it fairly unclear where a school's authority to discipline students ends. In the latest case, two sophomore high school girls posted private photos to their MySpace accounts from a sleepover. The photos are described as "racy." While they were set to private, someone copied them, and eventually school administrators saw them and banned the girls from extracurricular activities for a while and also required that the two girls apologize to the (all male) coaches' board. It also required the girls to undergo therapy sessions. All this because they posted some silly photos online? Beyond the question of whether or not the school even has the right to discipline these students for events that had nothing (at all) to do with the school, the punishment also seems to go well beyond the "crime." Kids do silly/stupid things all the time. And, yes, these days there are cameraphones and social networks that make these things easier to record and distribute, but it doesn't change the fact that kids are kids. I doubt there are many adults out there today who didn't do something silly or stupid as a teen. For those of you who are a bit older, imagine if cameraphones and social networks had been around then? Would you have wanted to have been suspended from school activities? The whole thing seems like a huge overreaction.
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: discipline, school, teenagers
Companies: myspace
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A couple of observations of this oddness:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and that someone is the parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hence, why other people feel the need to pick up the slack.
Still, if it didn't happen on-campus, the school should butt out. If the pictures are being passed around the school, they should punish whoever brought the picture to school and/or whoever published a photo marked "private".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, see, this is where I start having a problem. That I may disagree with the parenting being done by others doesn't mean that I should "pick up the slack." Nor should anybody else, except in situations where there's a clear and present danger, to borrow a phrase -- and on the face of it, this is not one of those situations.
Telling the parents that I feel that they could do a better job, OK, if I'm really sure that there's a need, but nothing more forceful than that. I don't have the right to impose my own sensibilities on others like that, and I don't think anyone else does either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and that someone is the parents.
Nah, they're too busy to deal with the kids. That's the Schools job, haven't you kept up with the times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe the school thinks that they had any right to punish the students for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the school. It didn't happen at the school or during school, How did the school even catch wind of the 'racy' photos?
I think the entire thing is absolutely ridiculous, and the school is wildly overstepping their jurisdiction in even *thinking* that they have *any* say in what students do outside of school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that this whole situation is infuriating, but it's only ridiculous if you haven't been paying attention to the trend, and it's only over-stepping it's juristiction if you admit that is is NOT the job of the school (or teacher) to raise these kids. More and more, that's not something a lot of people are willing to admit, ask these kids spend less and less time interacting with their relatives. Parents aren't parenting their kids, so if the schools don't who's left?
The really frightening thing, though, is that in this case a lot of people are going to see "young girls pantomiming sex acts" and they'll agree that the girls should be punished for such behavior. But what about when schools start punishing kids for other behaviors which may not be so generally unacceptable? The way things are going, parents won't be ABLE to take responsibility for raising their kids, because they'll have lost all control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The really frightening thing, though, is that in this case a lot of people are going to see "young girls pantomiming sex acts" and they'll agree that the girls should be punished for such behavior.
"""
What is even more amusing is that performing the ACTUAL acts, and getting pregnant, results in absolutely no punishment or negative consequence from the schools at all. I'm not saying whether it should or should not, just pointing out the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does if they distribute pictures of themselves doing it. "Just pointing out the fact."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I blame parents for not banding together to stop b/s like this from happens. I also blame them for the disturbing trends of young girls sexting and posting pictures of themselves on the internet. You can't even use the excuse about not knowing about the internet anymore as most people having kids now have limited experience with the internet. At least enough to know that MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter are seen by millions of people. So perhaps it might be prudent to remind your lovely daughters and sons to not show their hot little ass off on MySpace...because that shit never really goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smooth move.
Seems to me they already have an extracurricular activity. :)
FTA:
In the photos, the girls wore lingerie and pretended to lick a penis-shaped lollipop.
The true criminal is people who sell penis-shaped candies to children knowing full well those children are going to pretend to lick them. I'd be way more concerned if they actually licked said candy instead of just pretending. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smooth move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the children?
...and playing hardball too. Kudos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A couple of observations of this oddness:
1. This is a public school, not a private/Catholic school, which I found REALLY odd. What authority does a public high school have regarding the mental health of a child in terms of actions taken OUTSIDE it's walls? The only thing that's even close is the involvement in suspected child abuse cases. But semi-lewd photos taken at a sleep over? Where does a public school district get the balls for mandatory therapy? And for what? Truly...what is the therapist supposed to say?
"Your body is a private thing. You shouldn't be showing it to anyone. Nevermind all of the advertisements, TV shows, movies, and Disney teen singers grinding their vulva onto a pole. YOU need to be modest."
2. Are they similarly disciplining the people (boys?) who went out of their way to distribute the photos around the school? Isn't THAT the only reason the school even was brought into the picture? It's not like any of this was done at the school, so even if they're making the argument that they're punishing because it's causing a major distraction at the school....it was the DISTRIBUTORS that caused the distraction, no?
3. What the hell is the deal with making them apologize to an all male coaches board? And this is AFTER they are banned from sports? Was the point just to get them in front of a bunch of grown men to vocally discuss the fact that they took semi-lewd photos? That's got to be borderline psychological ABUSE. Plus, God help me, but what was the boner factor on that Coaches Board?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
Yes, you do have to see them. You have to study them, in fact. In a private room. At home. With all the lights off and a healthy supply of hand lotion...
Look, I know talk like that is disgusting, but REALLY what is the reason for the apology to the all male coach board? It just smacks of somebody getting their rocks off through a highly charged, naughty feeling activity couched in policy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
Dear Coaches,
We're sorry we gave you all boners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rule #1. Never put anything online you don't want to be seen.
Rule #2. Never put anything online you don't want to be seen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that the offenders are probably avid Masnick fans and believe that once a picture is shared with them then they ought to be able to distribute it as they see fit.
Sorry, you don't get to blame the distributors if you're anti-copyright. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently the school district had just cleared the terms of a old racism lawsuit and they had to shut me up cause the people exerted racism against me. The line "As the principal I decide your rights, not the constitution" was the funniest part.
So yeah, administrators have the belief that they are God's second hand (even above the parents) when it comes to students.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My senior year I had to hike down the street over to the university to use their time sharing system, if all the CRT terminals were taken I had to make do with a teletype terminal (think those old clunking things you always here in news room sets on movies.) And dodge the real students asking us for help with their cobol homework.
Facebook? Ha! Sure, we had facebook. It was the school bulletin board. And the bathroom walls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The schools are to blame
What I find hypocritical is schools teach kids everything about sex and then go after kids when they practice what the school teaches them. Schools teach kids about sex because as they say, "kids are going to do it anyways." The schools are only adding fuel to the fire.
The school should of notified the parent's of what the kids have done and let the parent's handle it. Personal life and work/school life was always kept separate but you have a few who put them together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the boys?
After all, thats public nudity if the rules are all the same.
Maybe they should be flagged as sex offenders for the rest of their lives too...
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the boys?
After all, thats public nudity if the rules are all the same.
Maybe you went to a "conservative" school that didn't have "sex" education, but there are some basic anatomical differences between boys and girls of which you do not seem to be aware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the boys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schools...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me, I think a school's authority should end when there is not another link tied to the school with respect to an incident. To be more clear in this case, the school should be able to punish the girls if they took racy pictures on school ground and/or uploaded the pictures on MySpace during school hours. Anything outside school time and property should be a parenting(?) issue. I don't know about private schools (I never went to one), but I suppose different rules could be applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very dumb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You hear lots of people talking about how awesome public school socialization is. This is the result.
These girls are simply doing what they learned. The school things it can play both sides by punishing behavior that they learned (unofficially) in school.
You can't punish your way out of this situation. Punishment only makes the action seem more valid and real to the kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
HOWEVER, banning them from extracurricular activities? Yeah, there's a basis for it, and it's that as performers and/or competitors in those activities, these girls would be representatives of the school.
I think the school does have a right to say who they will and won't allow to act as their representatives based upon what that person posts on the internet, especially material that calls their character into question.
Now did the school make the right call? Well, that's tougher still because it's hard to know if the girls really thought the photos were private or not. If it's clear there was a big mistake here, then there's not really a character issue and the school might want to reconsider.
If it's clear that they intended the photos to spread or knew that it was likely, well it's pretty hard for a school or (anyone else really) to want to be represented by stupid people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
Looking back, it's entirely logical to assume that some "friend" might take them and run with them, but they did have at least some expectation of privacy in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
So the question is, "Is it okay for a school to have truly stupid people represent them?"
I followed up by sending this question to over 1000 public school principles - oddly, none have responded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
No "reasonable" expectation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm cool because I sext
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't have it both ways
When I was in school, it was expected my parents would meet with me at the end of the school day to review my lessons and make sure I do my homework, address any issues, make sure I ate correctly and exercised.
With all of the pressure and responsibility on the school and none on the parents WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? When anything goes wrong with the child, blame the school. Columbine: bullies in the school. School's fault.
Parents, teach your children not to simulate sex on any object and the school will never have to deal with this. Teach them not to simulate sex on camera is also a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't have it both ways
Teachers and school administrators would do well to remember that their JOB is to educate, and anything beyond that is overstepping their authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly and Stupid things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Silly and Stupid things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Silly and Stupid things?
The school's authority to decide who will represent the school in clubs, sports, etc. based upon activities that take place outside of school is clearly enumerated. It's also well founded.
AND it doesn't violate free speech. They've drawn the line here: You can say whatever you want, but don't expect to be our representative if you act like a dope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like a double standard.
If the teenagers had engaged in sex, gotten pregnant and had abortions, they'd still be on the team, but a couple less than flattering pictures on a private social networking site and they are suspended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems like a double standard.
If the teenagers had engaged in sex, gotten pregnant and had abortions, they'd still be on the team, but a couple less than flattering pictures on a private social networking site and they are suspended?
If they had posted *pictures* of themselves engaging in sex, getting pregnant and then having abortions, I imagine they'd have also been off the team.
The point is, there is a difference between doing something and making pictures of yourself doing it (think: using the bathroom).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
I suppose we're damn lucky the Internet didn't exist and the worst that could happen in a Polaroid camera and photocopier.
I know exactly what would have happened, if the copies had shown up at school. Anyone caught distributing the images would have been in detention for weeks. Anyone caught making them would have been suspended. Anyone in the images would have had their parents called.
Public schools have always overreacted to such things. In the same way that lawsuits have destroyed any chance of an effective universal health care system in the US, they've also destroyed any chance of a world class public school system.
Next time you see a lawyer, be sure to thank them. Next time you *use* a lawyer remember, you are *part* of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is screwed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF mate???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF mate???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who caused the disruption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geek 3 Computer Repair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]