Teens Sue School After Being Disciplined For MySpace Photos

from the no-free-speech-until-you-graduate? dept

Mon, Nov 2nd 2009 1:03pm — Mike Masnick

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

69 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:12pm

A couple of observations of this oddness:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:15pm

The one who should be disciplined is the person who violated the teens' privacy by copying the photos and passing them around. It was probably a vindictive school mate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:18pm

It does seem a bit extreme of the school, but someone must think of the children
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:19pm

Re:
I don't really think that even that should be an issue (for the school), unless they were being passed around on the school grounds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:23pm

At my former HS, they made every student that wanted to participate in any school sport/club/extracurricular activity sign this ridiculous policy that basically gave the school the "right" to kick you off/out of the activity for anything you did that violated "school policy"...at any time...in any place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:25pm

Re:
"but someone must think of the children"

...and that someone is the parents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:28pm

Smooth move.
banned the girls from extracurricular activities for a while

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:29pm

Think of the children?
Man, thank God the children are thinking for themselves.

...and playing hardball too. Kudos!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:30pm

Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
You're shooting blanks. Does that happen often?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:31pm

A couple of observations of this oddness:
Alright, let's try that one again...

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 thread ]
Another Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:47pm

Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
Especially since they probably all had copies of the pictures. After all, you have to see what it is you're banning them for, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:48pm

The person that took the private pictures and made them public is the only one that deserves any kind of discipline. With all of the national stories about school shootings and cyberbullying stiring up fear its no wonder that the schools overreact. Seems like the school might be stuck, damned if you do and damned if you don't, so they err on the side of caution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 1:57pm

Re: Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
"Especially since they probably all had copies of the pictures. After all, you have to see what it is you're banning them for, right?"

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 thread ]
rollinginsanity, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:07pm

So why didn't the school just pass it on to the girl's parents? Seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jacob, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:08pm

I was threatened expulsion my senior year because I posted a note to Facebook with an exact word for word retelling of an event that happened between some students and I in the parking lot (they waited for me by my truck).

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 thread ]
viperfl (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:10pm

The schools are to blame
I did stupid things when I was a teenager. I look back and think how stupid it was. I never went to the extreme as some kids do today. It's true kids will be kids and it's the parent's responsibility.

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 thread ]
Rick, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:16pm

What about the boys?
So when the boys practice or play sports and play shirts versus skins - do the boys not wearing shirts get disciplined too?

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 thread ]
interval, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:26pm

Re: Smooth move.
Perhaps 40 years ago and before this would have caused a scandal and shame and calamity and so-on, but today, its a bit of an over-reaction. And certainly none of the school's business, online or not. What's that school gonna do, police the internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:29pm

Schools...
The schools are WAY out of line on this. The schools have absolutely no authority to discipline these girls! The school is trying to assume the role of 'God' in this matter. And its a matter that does not involve the school, its property or their behavior while in school. IMO, these girls should collect big on this one!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:29pm

"conflicting court cases on the subject make it fairly unclear where a school's authority to discipline students ends."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:36pm

Re: A couple of observations of this oddness:
Plus, God help me, but what was the boner factor on that Coaches Board?

Dear Coaches,
We're sorry we gave you all boners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary Boaz, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:42pm

suspending kids from extra curricular activities is ridiculous. those types of things are aimed to keep teenagers busy with constructive things rather than drugs drinking or god know what else. If i hadn't have been suspended from those sorts of things because i didn't have decent grades i probably would have saved my mother thousands on lawyers and been surrounded by kids that strive to do well. they might have rubbed off on me. its crazy. HELP THEM NOT PUNISH. PUNISHMENT MAKES MOST KIDS EVEN MORE REBELLIOUS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re:
"In the photos, the girls wore lingerie and pretended to lick a penis-shaped lollipop."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 2:52pm

Re: What about the boys?
So when the boys practice or play sports and play shirts versus skins - do the boys not wearing shirts get disciplined too?
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 thread ]
Mike, 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:09pm

Re:
I completely agree with the sentiments of the article, and it's a sad indication of how government is growing even more prevalent in our private lives. That said since no one's done squat about this you can hardly start complaining now. For decades now we've been letting schools raise our children and now we're surprised that schools are taking the mommy/daddy act outside of the building?

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 thread ]
MonicaS (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:10pm

Very dumb!
This is dumb on so many levels, it could be its own platformer video game. First off, schools can do anything to punish a student for what they do out side of school grounds. Anymore then you could sue a teacher for being a bad teacher while at home. This is why we separate the different parts of our lives. So what I like to listen to loud music at home and annoy my neighbors, I don't want to get laid off at work for it. And I agree that the punishment did not fit the crime. Any reasonable parent would be filing some sort of lawsuit, if not to follow through with it, to at least send a message. Monica S Los Angeles Computer Repair http://www.sebecomputercare.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MonicaS (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:13pm

Oops... sorry, missed the whole suing bit! =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re:
"but someone must think of the children"

...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 thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: What about the boys?
Maybe you need to Google '/s'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:24pm

The schools are responsible for sex education.

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 thread ]
Jason, 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:31pm

Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
Suspending the girls from school would be patently wrong. It's outside their scope of authority.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:45pm

Re:
Nope. It'd be great to think they deserved punishment, however the girls put the photos online.

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 thread ]
Michael Long, 2 Nov 2009 @ 3:58pm

Re: Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
Apparently the MySpace page containing the photos was set to "private", meaning that only approved friends could see them.

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 thread ]
Jason, 2 Nov 2009 @ 4:09pm

Re: Re: Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
I totally agree it's possible. I've seen dumber. It's just not likely, and it's still pretty stupid.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 4:12pm

Re: Re: Well, it's tricky, isn't it?
... they did have at least some expectation of privacy in the first place.

No "reasonable" expectation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval, 2 Nov 2009 @ 4:18pm

Re:
@Jacob: "I was threatened expulsion my senior year because I posted a note to Facebook..."

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 thread ]
schwim (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 4:27pm

I'm cool because I sext
Pics or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 4:30pm

Parents have the responsibility not the school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Morals In Memphis, 2 Nov 2009 @ 5:06pm

Can't have it both ways
These days the parents put so much responsiblilty on the teachers and school to raise their children. They are expected to make sure they behave properly, pass all classes, have perfect health, etc.

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 thread ]
bigpicture, 2 Nov 2009 @ 5:19pm

Silly and Stupid things?
Well then just let them continue to do silly and stupid things in public. Maybe one day they will want to apply for a job, there are no "individuals rights" against NOT being hired. And prospective employers where the worth while jobs are never, never do any background checks. Right? So it does not matter what character defining information you have out there in public forums. Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 5:29pm

Seems like a double standard.
Let me see if I have this right.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 5:45pm

Wow
I went to a friggin' Catholic school in a conservative location. We routinely did stuff every bit at nutty.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 6:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Hence, why other people feel the need to pick up the slack"

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 thread ]
Zak Jones!, 2 Nov 2009 @ 6:05pm

The fuck people have to think of the children. We high school students can think for ourselves, thanks.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 6:05pm

My question is...
Where were girls like that when I was going to school?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2009 @ 7:35pm

Re: Re:
And you assume they did not want them to be seen... which is clearly not true: they did not want them to be seen by people they did not allow to see them. This is entirely different. In any case, who the girls wanted to see the pictures and who they did not want to see the pictures has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the school has any business getting involved in who the girls choose to let see the pictures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johnney (profile), 2 Nov 2009 @ 9:26pm

I'd just tell the school to GO FUCK THEMSELVES. end of story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg, 2 Nov 2009 @ 11:02pm

This is screwed up.
Since when did schools gain the same rights as parents? If the parents see no reason to discipline the children than there is no reason for the children to be disciplined. As far as how the school administrators got a hold of them. Do these people go onto myspace and specifically look for the children that go to their school? If they don't than can someone please explain to me how they would have found out about them? The only way these girls should have gotten is if the pictures were either taken at school or if they had done something with them at school such as, upload them, print them out or any of the other things that they could have done. But seeing as how most schools have site screening programs they should not have been capable of doing that in the first place. Not that they did do that. I just graduated a last year but still I remember back in elementary when all you ever heard about was how schools had to call the parents for pretty much every little thing. Even for the high school students. So I would like to know who gave the schools all this power, and when.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Los Angeles Computer Networking, 3 Nov 2009 @ 5:37am

Los Angeles Computer Support - Hire a Geek Provides Top Quality Computer Support Service in the Los Angeles area.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 7:17am

Re:
For at least the last twenty years, schools have been taking more and more of the responsibility for raising kids, and parents willingly handed over such responsibility as it freefd them up to pursue their own interests. It's been general policy for years now that schools can and will regulate student behavior outside of school hours and off school grounds, ostensibly for the sake of preserving the school's image and reputation.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 7:21am

Re: Re:
I agree with you, except that I'd put more of the burden on society/the media for the sexualization of young girls. Sex sells, and they've been selling it for decades, to the point where girls quite easily learn that the only thing they have going for them is their bodies. Add to that insecurity and a need to be accepted, and sexting is really the only conclusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 7:50am

Re: Can't have it both ways
Parents: find an alternative to sending your children to these over-reaching institutions and YOU will never have to deal with this.

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 thread ]
Mary, 3 Nov 2009 @ 8:59am

The school was offended,(whaa whaa) hand them a box of tissues. I become offended watching these day time soap operas suggesting who is sleeping with whom, and lifetime channel having a gay man on their commercials.so I don't watch them. The school needs to educate students. What these girls have done was private. The school(s) everywhere are so concerned about discipline that they forgot how to teach. Like the constitution on our first amendment, freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 9:13am

Re: Silly and Stupid things?
And this is why it's OK to allow schools to punish kids for activities outside their juristiction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 10:32am

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 thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 10:38am

Re: Re: Re:
You missed the point. Please refer back to Rules #1 and #2 in the previous AC post. Those rules override all other considerations and should be considered inviolate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
metalmankam, 3 Nov 2009 @ 10:48am

WTF mate???
some of these comments are ridiculous.. The school administrators did all the wrong, not the students. The only people that should be disciplined are the school administrators. They have no right whatsoever to get that involved in a students life, let alone discipline them for something that has nothing to do with school at all. Whoever passed the pics around is a jerk, but none of this is the school's business at all. If these students don't win in court hell will break loose on that school. I don't know what's happening to this country.. this crap just blows me away. If they had to be disciplined by the school at all, therapy? Really? Like a picture showing some cleavage or whatever it was means they have mental problems? Daddy didn't hug enough so they have to act sexy? MORONS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Nov 2009 @ 10:53am

Re: Re: Silly and Stupid things?
No, this is why it was a good thing for the school to do. The school really hasn't done anything outside its 'jurisdiction'.

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 thread ]
Jason, 3 Nov 2009 @ 11:02am

Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but pantomiming sex acts and posting it on the internet IS an ACTUAL sex act. It's simply multiplying the number of partners to the nth degree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Nov 2009 @ 11:08am

Re:
"The person that took the private pictures and made them public is the only one that deserves any kind of discipline."

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 thread ]
Jason, 3 Nov 2009 @ 11:10am

Re: WTF mate???
According to other posters here it was a tad bit more than cleavage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
j. wyatt (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 2:32pm

Who caused the disruption?
I think the 2nd poster had it right. The disruption clearly came from the person that distributed the pictures at school. It's not any different than if they took a 'Playboy' to school and showed it around. The only difference is that the people in the pictures go to the school, so the principal had an easy target. And the whole appology to the coaches thing is clearly a power play on the school's part. Why humilate the girls more? I'm pretty sure if I gave a crap about political correctness that I would call that harassment of a minor. It's a clear example of a person in a position of authority abusing that power to manipulate a person with no power. Welcome to high school girls!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 9:58pm

Re: Seems like a double standard.
Let me see if I have this right.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 10:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
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.

It does if they distribute pictures of themselves doing it. "Just pointing out the fact."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
diana, 10 Nov 2009 @ 7:23pm

Re:
My child received a MIP for alcohol during the summer and the school suspended him from all sports for his senior year. I feel if it is off of school property and not during the school year it is up to the parents to handle not the school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Geek 3 Computer Repair, 9 Sep 2010 @ 6:14pm

Geek 3 Computer Repair
Geek 3 Computer Support - Geek 3 Provides Top Quality Computer Support Service in the Gainesville Florida area.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liberar Blackberry, 30 Sep 2010 @ 6:17pm

Schools somteimes intervene where they shouldnt. it can only be an issue for them if it was happening INSIDE the school
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liberar Blackberry, 30 Sep 2010 @ 6:21pm

Schools somteimes intervene where they shouldnt. it can only be an issue for them if it was happening INSIDE the school
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Desbloquear Blackberry, 22 Jan 2012 @ 1:05am

I think this is really bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]