Three teenage students were suspended for 90 days for putting up a FaceBook page with a teacher's name and photo, and claiming the teacher was a member of the 'North American Man/Boy Love Association'.
The Students are now suing the school in federal court trying to reverse their suspension. The students are defending themselves by claiming the event (Facebook Page) took place outside of school and that it was a parody and therefore protected speech.
I DON'T THINK SO.
They might have thought it was funny, but that doesn't make it Parody, and they publicly, on a grand scale, slandered the name of a teacher. If anything the teacher should be suing them BIG TIME.
They brought the action back into the school when the slandered the teacher and by extension threatened the reputation of the school.
Admittedly I haven't seen the page, which I suspect has been taken down now, but unless it contained a flat out clear statement that it was a parody or spoof, I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
How is a facebook page any different than an online blog? Am I not allowed to vent about my teachers in my blog? Am I not allowed to set up a page, as a joke with my friends, to make fun of George W. Bush, calling him a monkey and a pedophile?
I don't know law at all, but as long as I've been on the internet, you're allowed to say pretty much whatever you want without legal repercussions.
edit* and isn't it called "libel" if it's in print?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
It says that the facebook was private so only 7 people could actually look at it. I don't do facebook, so I am not sure how accurate that is. And if only 7 people had access to it, then how did the officials find out? If it really was that private, the 90 days seems a bit excessive. But again, the fact that school officials found out makes me think that more than those 7 people saw it or someone on that list shouldn't have been (did they invite a teacher, a principal, the parodied teacher?) Were they showing it off to friends on campus?
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
In general, your particular facebook page can only been seen my people within your 'network'. This can be a work location, a geographic location or a school.
quote:How is a facebook page any different than an online blog? Am I not allowed to vent about my teachers in my blog? Am I not allowed to set up a page, as a joke with my friends, to make fun of George W. Bush, calling him a monkey and a pedophile?
My thought is that the blog is your work, and not presented as Bush's. I think it's the fact that they presented it as a real representation of the teacher and his interests that will get them in trouble.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
And believe it or not, after doing a bit of research, what they did was definitely libel, because according to the law, websites are places of publication, and only 1 person has to have seen it in order for it to be libelous.
Also, Bush libel is protected under some "public figure" clause--so we're allowed to lie about him all we want.
Of course, I don't think the kids should be suspended. I think they'll win because this falls under the case of being such a ridiculous claim that there's no way it could be true, and it was clearly a joke.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Absolutely the kids should be suspended. Are you kidding?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Yes, they should be suspended. They're lucky they aren't being sued. It doesn't matter if it was a "joke." It was libel and it has the possibility of ruining this poor teacher's reputation and livelihood. I think they got off lightly.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't see that you can say that without seeing the page first. Granted, based on what we've heard so far, it's a line crosser...but I'd want a look.
My 6th grade teacher is/was a major pedophile. We used to all joke about how he was gay. Well, he really does prefer young boys. He's just been convicted. If we, my friends and I, had gone on public-access TV and made accusations/jokes about this at some point, should we have been suspended?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm not saying what they did was right, but we all know that it was a joke, it got taken down immediately, and they apologized. Also, the punishment doesn't fit--because they didn't break any SCHOOL rules. I'd say that the teacher can sue the students and facebook all he wants, because it's definitely internet libel, but where's the grounds for suspension?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
This wasn't making accusations. This was setting up a page in the teacher's own name. If they wanted to make accusations, they had numerous other avenues. Since facebook requires people to use their real names, could this even cross over into identity theft?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Is the guy a pedophile? Is he a danger to children? That's the issue. Do the students have grounds to think he is? Granted, observational bias is probably what is making me have these thoughts, but me and my buddies were totally, completely right about our teacher. Principals, parents, and other teachers appear to have been oblivious.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: This wasn't making accusations. This was setting up a page in the teacher's own name. If they wanted to make accusations, they had numerous other avenues. Since facebook requires people to use their real names, could this even cross over into identity theft?
I haven't read that anywhere. Where are you getting this information? The link says they "identified a teacher as a pedophile"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Absolutely the kids should be suspended. Are you kidding?
Agreed. I am similarly aghast that there is debate on this.
And you bet your ass I would sue.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Three teenage students were suspended for 90 days for putting up a FaceBook page with a teacher's name and photo, and claiming the teacher was a member of the 'North American Man/Boy Love Association'.
That's what it sounded like to me.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Most schools actually now include in their handbook that they can read all internet pages (such as facebook, mypage) that are public and punish you accordingly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"I don't know law at all, but as long as I've been on the internet, you're allowed to say pretty much whatever you want without legal repercussions."
No. People often say whatever they want and are not always punished for it, but libel laws still exist. The fact that people do it does not mean it's OK to do.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
The thing is, I'm not debating that what they did was obviously wrong and illegal, and you can be sure they've learned their lesson that "joking around" online isn't the same as joking around in the living room (which is probably how they saw it).
What I'm asking (for teachers like Icarus), is whether it's right to suspend them. Are you really "horrified and shocked" that I'd be asking such a question?
*edit--I corrected myself in a later post, Chris. I was definitely wrong in my initial thinking.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
This is an attack on a teacher, not just a joke on the internet. This makes it under the domain of the schools. And as I said, most high schools have stated that they can and will read internet webpages and punish for it. If students don't pay attention to that line in the handbook, that is the student's fault.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Of course it is. We suspend kids for behavior off campus all the time. We recently suspended some girls for renting a limousine and using it to establish a traveling bar service on homecoming. They didn't bring alcohol into the dance. They didn't drink on campus or at the hotel. But their behavior was school-related, and inappropriate, all the same. This facebook page is obviously school-related--it involves a teacher, and in fact uses a picture taken from the district's own website. Their only relationship with the person they libeled was through school, and the intent of the page was to diminish the teacher's ability to carry out his job.
The threshold for enforceability of school rules is lower than that of the law, not higher. I can't arrest a kid for saying "f*** off" to me, but I can suspend him.
Yes, I really am aghast.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Well I apologize for questioning the situation at all. I'm sorry my question makes you so "aghast" to think that there are awful people like me out there.
edit* and that's my way of saying "maybe I'm wrong". It was just asking a question.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Assuming the page is unprotected speech - which means it's not a parody - then not only should the school punish them, but it should make them transfer to a different school in the system after the punishment ends. This teacher should not have to ever see them again.
If it is protected speech (most likely as parody) - which we can't judge without seeing - then punishment by the school is unconstitutional. (That's almost a tautology.) Given that the teacher isn't a public person, the line for proving parody is much more difficult than the Jerry Falwell/Hustler case was.
The accusation is per se libel in most states, and it was definitely published. If it's not protected, the teacher has a good case.
BTW, one of the factors in granting a preliminary injunction (which is what the order to let them back into school amounts to) is likelihood of success on the merits. That is, the judge thinks they have some chance of success here. It's hard to say how great a chance - there are lots of cases where injunctions are granted that end up going the other way.
quote:Is the guy a pedophile? Is he a danger to children? That's the issue. Do the students have grounds to think he is?
Apparently not: "'They're not saying it's true, they're saying it's just parody,' the students' attorney, Marc Mezibov , said Friday."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
launchywiggin, I want to approach this without rancor and ask you if you truly don't see the problem here.
I mean, I love freedom of expression and I love the internet, but I do understand boundaries. I'm curious why my boundaries (and those of Icarus and Tom and others) are so different from yours.
Schools take accusations of sexual misconduct very seriously, they have to. Even an accusation of such a thing can be detrimental to a teacher's career. Do you truly not see how damaging this is to that teacher and how utterly unfair? A prank is one thing, setting out to ruin someone's life another.
One of my professors was accused of sleeping with female students. The teacher is female. She is, as far as I know, straight. Yet, this accusation was made by a male student who was dissatisfied with his grade and disliked reading poetry by lesbian poets in this professors class.
It was still very hurtful for the professor and an ordeal for her to go through, just because some disgruntled student made and unfounded accusation.
This is not funny. It does not fall under "parody". It's very serious, and it should be taken very seriously - and the students involved absolutely should be punished.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well of course that's what they're saying now. They're trying to avoid being sued.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well of course that's what they're saying now. They're trying to avoid being sued.
If the accusation were true, then they would have a much stronger legal position. In other words, saying that it's not true made them more likely to be sued, not less.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Launchywiggin, I think the disconnect here might be that you're not considering the impact on the teacher's career. To you, this is just a joke. But the thing about it is that teachers are entrusted with a community's children, and parents tend to over-react rather than under-react when there is a perceived threat to their children. And understandably so. When a teacher is credibly accused of being a pedophile, they are immediately suspended from their job during the investigation. You don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because of the potential for people being hurt. That makes the joke not funny. You also don't call someone a pedophile as a joke -- particularly someone who works with children -- because it can wreck their entire life. The potential for hurt is to great. They can be fired, unable to find another job in their field, unable to support their family, lose the community's trust. . . because some idiot kids don't understand the seriousness of their actions. Yes, mature people are aghast at the idea. Once you have kids to feed and a mortgage and a car payment, you will be too.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm sorry you feel insulted, launchywiggin. I don't think it's insulting of me to say that I'm aghast, but I can see that the point (i.e., whether it's insulting) is debatable. But I really am shocked and troubled, so what should I say? I'm not calling you any names. I'm just expressing my natural reaction.
And I do know teachers who have been falsely accused, moved to non-teaching positions while being investigated, etc. They don't last long after that, even if cleared. Part of it is that the kids know what happened. People question whether it was true, and those who don't believe it can still use it to undermine the teacher by spreading rumors, graffiti, taunts, etc. Part of it is that the teacher himself has a newfound awareness of just how powerless he is in the face of this, and that affects his effectiveness in doing his job. He knows it could happen again. Moreover, he knows that a second accusation against him will automatically carry more weight than an accusation against somebody else. (I actually know both a male and a female who were falsely accused, but I'm using masculine pronouns for readability.) It is a career-destroying event, and, in the name of protecting kids, we really have no way to protect ourselves from this. We are left vulnerable on purpose; I am aghast when someone exploits this vulnerability, because its presence is a sign of our commitment to protecting kids above all else.
This is serious stuff.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Well of course that's what they're saying now. They're trying to avoid being sued.
Claiming they did it as a malicious prank will make them less likely to be sued? Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
That assumes the he's not a pedophile. I figure there's an excellent chance that there's truth behind the accusation. I had plenty of male teachers in school. Only one did I ever have that "creepy" feeling around, and only two were ever widely said to be gay. Of those two, the one I had that creepy feeling around was the pedophile.
We didn't go around making baseless accusations about this stuff when I was in school. We were usually right.
If they were really trying to hurt this guy, they could have found much more damaging ways to do it. From my point of view, he's guilty until proven innocent. Granted, I'm just basing that on my personal experience...but how many of you have a former teacher who has been convicted of sex with underage students?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
For teachers, it seems like the moment they are ever accused of being pedophile, their career is over, guilty or not guilty. So even something meant as a "joke" can screw up a teacher's life something awful.
The kids who perpetrated the joke should be disciplined, especially so that they fully understand the ramifications of their actions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
We used to joke about my 6th grade teacher all the time.
We were right.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Your post is evidence of why the charges are so damaging and why the kids deserve to be suspended and sued too. You don't know jack about the guy, but you assume there is merit to the charges. Lots of other people will too.
By the way, you're wrong about there being more damaging ways to hurt a teacher. That's it. That's the big gun. You destroy his career, his standing in the community outside of his career, you may even plant doubts in the minds of friends and relatives. And you're also wrong in your contention that no students are sophisticated enough to know this.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"but you assume there is merit to the charges"
Can you see, given my experiences, why I would?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Because one time a guy you thought was gay turned out to be not gay but a pedophile? How many other pedophiles do you think you've crossed paths with that didn't strike you as odd? (Surely you don't believe you've only ever met one?) How many guys have struck you as gay without being gay?
Plus the evidence in this case is against you. If there was anything at all to the charges, the kids would try to use it to defend themselves from a libel suit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you see, given my experiences, why I would?
Can we see why you would generalize from a single anecdote to a general principle? Yeah, I bet everyone here can. I know it doesn't surprise me at all that you do this.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Because one time a guy you thought was gay turned out to be not gay but a pedophile?"
No, because I only had 2 teachers who anyone ever accused of being gay. One of them gave me a very creepy feeling several times, not the other. The one that gave me that creepy vibe? The pedophile. I had plenty of male teachers, but only two that were believed/rumored to be gay by all the kids. I'm just saying. It proves nothing, but...the smart thing to do (in my book) would be to ask several dozen recently graduated students of this accused teacher "who, of all your past male teachers, would be most likely to be a pedophile?". If you had asked me that the day after I graduated high school, I'd have said "Robert Watson, my 6th grade social studies teacher" with absolutely no hesitation.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
You are the perfect example of why these kids need to be dealt with harshly. If he's innocent (and I presume that he has been investigated, because as Icarus said, these things are taken very seriously), his reputation has been ruined. People like you will always believe he was guilty and he'll be treated as a criminal regardless of what the courts say. If he's innocent, he doesn't deserve that, and the kids that caused the situation deserve to feel some serious consequences.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Right, I'm the problem.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: It proves nothing, but...the smart thing to do (in my book) would be to ask several dozen recently graduated students of this accused teacher "who, of all your past male teachers, would be most likely to be a pedophile?". If you had asked me that the day after I graduated high school, I'd have said "Robert Watson, my 6th grade social studies teacher" with absolutely no hesitation.
In my book, the smart thing to do would be to use steven as an infallible pedophile dowser, travelling the land being brandished like a magic wand and ridding us of evil-doers.
Like Batman, or at least one of the tools on his equipment belt.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If it is protected speech (most likely as parody) - which we can't judge without seeing - then punishment by the school is unconstitutional."
Umm. Schools punish students every day for protected speech. I'm fairly certain that schools have a lot of leeway for punishing students for speech infractions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Umm. Schools punish students every day for protected speech. I'm fairly certain that schools have a lot of leeway for punishing students for speech infractions.
No, they don't. Less student speech is protected than in normal circumstances, but if it is protected, punishing for the content of the speech is constitutional.
As I said, it's a tautology.
Edit: I think we're just saying the same thing two different ways.
[ December 22, 2007, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I believe the courts have ruled that what is protected speech for an adult is not necessarily protected speech for a student at school. Otherwise, you would not be able to have school uniforms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course, I don't think the kids should be suspended. I think they'll win because this falls under the case of being such a ridiculous claim that there's no way it could be true, and it was clearly a joke.
This is nonsense. First of all, it's not clearly a joke-except in hindsight, now that they're rightfully getting their asses chewed in a big way.
Supposing I were to say about a teacher, "Man, that guy hates *insert racial slur here*!" Unless I happen to be performing at a comedy club while saying that, it's not a joke. Even if I am, it's not funny.
I haven't gotten to say this in awhile, so I'm grateful for the opportunity! Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of speech.
What would you say if the teacher had posted on his website, "Johnny likes to have sex with barnyard animals!"
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Right, I'm the problem.
It's normal and natural, because we want to protect our kids. But it doesn't change the fact that if he's innocent, his life is still hell now.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
His life is still hell either way. The difference is perspective.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Teachers who are accused of pedophilia should be ostracised even if they're innocent?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I guess I just didn't realize how seriously people would take a claim like this. To me, it seems like such a ridiculous claim that nobody would consider it without real evidence (like a student coming forward about being molested). These kids admitted they were just joking around. It just strikes me as an immature joke that students make to each other all the time--something they'd write on the bathroom wall--and they extended that to facebook, not realizing that it's not the same.
Everyone here seems to think they were malicious and deliberate and fully aware that they were going to cause him a lot of grief (which is totally possible), but I can definitely see how a couple students who were joking around with each other on the their computers wouldn't see the gravity of their actions.
*edited to add: I DON'T think they shouldn't have to face the consequences of their actions. I do understand how what they did was seriously wrong. But I also see the possibility that they didn't realize the difference between facebook and "the burn book" from mean girls.
[ December 22, 2007, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Launchywiggin ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think steven is coming from the perspective that surely no one would accuse someone of being a pedophile without reason. I also just want to point out that the difference between being gay and being a pedophile is HUGE. They are not interchangable and should not be used interchangably. (I know a woman who found out her son was gay and immediately assumed he lusted after 12 year old boys).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just to remind everyone, including steven, none of the students have accused the teacher of being a pedaphile.
And, to broaden steven's experience, I had a high school teacher accused and acquited. It ruined his teaching career; first he moved schools, and last I heard he'd been forced to seek for employment in another field. He was a good teacher who supported himself and his kids on a teacher's salary, and had given a lot to the high school over the years, in terms of helping kids and participating in extracurriculars. From what I can tell, even though all the other students got a "creepy" feeling around him, he was a stand-up guy.
Now, my PE coach, who everyone thought was great, was the one caught soliciting a 15-yr-old girl on an internet site. I'm glad we don't convict based on "creepy" feelings.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Everyone here seems to think they were malicious and deliberate and fully aware that they were going to cause him a lot of grief (which is totally possible), but I can definitely see how a couple students who were joking around with each other on the their computers wouldn't see the gravity of their actions.
If they were malicious and deliberate I would be more in favor of a harsher punishment, like expulsion. The fact that I believe they were just stupid kids who didn't think about the consequences of their actions makes me think 90-day suspension is about right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Everyone here seems to think they were malicious and deliberate and fully aware that they were going to cause him a lot of grief (which is totally possible), but I can definitely see how a couple students who were joking around with each other on the their computers wouldn't see the gravity of their actions.
90 days suspension should make them see the gravity of the situation quite nicely.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The thing is, launchy, a claim like that can end a teacher's career, permanently... even if its not true. Thats why its taken so seriously.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What steven seems to failing to realize is that not everyone accused of pedophilia is actually a pedophile. They may very well be perfectly innocent.
Another really damaging effect of the students' "joke" is that actual victims of abuse may be taken less seriously when they report actual crimes.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
To be fair, a 90-day suspension probably *is* an expulsion. In our district, once you hit ten days of OSS, you are recommended for expulsion. Now, it being a public school district, kids expelled from their school can generally just transfer over to another school in the district. It may make transportation an issue, because they will likely have to provide their own transportation.
If I were the teacher and the suspension were overturned, I would quit.Particularly if it were ruled "protected speech." Nationwide, and certainly in my district, we are currently in a teacher shortage. If the message were sent that you have no protection from even the most egregious libel and character assassination, I think that would exacerbate the problem. I'm not sure it's good for society for that message to be sent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I have a difficult time imagining not one but several teenagers didn't know that calling a teacher a pedophile is serious business, 'joking' or not.
I find it much more plausible to imagine that they knew that was a real possibility, but simply didn't care, because they thought they were safely off school grounds.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Icarus, I read entropicalisle. Calling me a tool is not necessary. Or is that not what you meant?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am wondering why they made that specific claim. I am on the "they should TOTALLY be in trouble for this" side. But I do hearken back to the teacher who gave extra credit to the girls who wore short skirts and crossed their legs, and graded based on how much he liked you/cute he thought you were, and had married one of his students the month after she graduated, and... He taught at my high school for at least 35 years before they finally fired him. Numerous complaints were filed, his classes were half-full because of transfers out, he did little real teaching-- but he "had tenure" and the school district wouldn't touch him. Until one of the students' parents (both lawyers) threatened a sexual harassment suit... And all of a sudden, he was gone in less than 10 days, as quietly as possible...
So see, if that's where my mind goes, it DOES have a negative effect on his career. I would at the very least look very closely at his employment record before interviewing him if I was in a position to hire teachers and heard such a claim had been made about him, even in jest.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is the important and critical thing to consider, just because you think something is a joke or funny, that by no-means means it is 'Parody'. To be 'parody' you have to be parodying something. What is the parody?
They risked destroying this teacher on every front. Even with retracting the accusations, and claiming it was 'all a joke'. The shadow is going to follow this teacher forever. It has the potential to break up his marriage, alienate him from his own children, it can destroy is teaching career and influence his ability to get a job forever.
This also threaten the credibility and called into question the judgment of the school. They are now forever clouded by the thought amoung some that they may have allowed a pedophile to teach in their school.
REAL DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE HERE, and real consequences need to be suffered. A 90 day suspension is getting off easy. They could very well find themselves facing millions of dollars in liability, and potential criminal charges.
I can point a loaded gun at your head, and claim it is all a joke, but if the gun goes off, you won't be any less dead because I thought it was funny.
This is as grossly negligent and as potentially damaging as the proverbial shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.
As to whether the Teacher can sue, it depends on IF he was actually damaged. If he can no longer effectively teach in this school. If he has a shadow hanging over him that prevents him from getting future employment. If he personal life starts to crumble under the shadow of the accusation. Then he has a very serious lawsuit available to him. He has been irrevocably damaged, and someone has to pay for that damage.
Just because you/they think is funny does erase the illegality and liability of those actions.
Thinking 'it's funny' is never justification for harming someone else. 'It was just a joke' is NEVER an excuse.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Icarus, I read entropicalisle. Calling me a tool is not necessary. Or is that not what you meant?
I did not call you a tool. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
steven, I called you a tool. But it was just a joke, so no harm done.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: ...Until one of the students' parents (both lawyers) threatened a sexual harassment suit... And all of a sudden, he was gone in less than 10 days, as quietly as possible...
This sort of incident is a BIG problem. Too many schools don't want to be associated with the the person accused of or convicted of (insert sex crime here). Even when they are presented with pretty compelling reasons to have charges pressed they quietly let him go so he can go do more damage somewhere else...
(androgynous pronoun use)
When I was a newly licensed driver, I was pulled over several times for speeding or other infractions, and I was told more than once by an officer that because my license was clean, he wasn't going to ticket me. While I was grateful for this, it illustrates how a person can continue committing crimes and no one will step up and make the accusation that may fix the problem.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, he didn't go on to something else. As far as I know, he retired a couple of years early (with the corresponding partial loss of benefits) and part of the agreement was that he was not to teach any more. His wife continued to work and AFAIK they did have some investments that had allowed them to pay off the house years earlier, so he mostly stays home now. Yes, I would like to see him in trouble for the years of discomfort and problems he caused his students, but, well, at least he doesn't have the opportunity to do it any more.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Wow... I had a totally different reaction then nearly everyone else here. I can't imagine taking an accusation of being a member of NAMBLA seriously, ESPECIALLY on Facebook. If I saw "NAMBLA" listed on someone's Facebook page then I would immediately assume it was a joke (and I suspect so would everyone else in my school). NAMBLA has been parodied a ton on T.V (I've seen Jon Stewart parody it numerous times), and I was under the impression that NAMBLA itself had virtually turned into a joke. Hell, it's such a fringe organization that it's basically a self-parody anyways. I thought that the only reason so many people knew about it in the first place was because it had been parodied so much.
It honestly took me a moment to understand how the students' actions even constituted an accusation of pedophilia. I'm not kidding.
Maybe it's a generational thing?
I initially wouldn't even have considered the NAMBLA label an issue. I would have punished the students for impersonating a teacher. Obviously my opinion has changed since I see that so many people take such a thing seriously, but I still think a 90 day suspension is absurd in the extreme. There's a difference between punishment and revenge. As it is, the school is clearly seeking revenge. If the school wanted to punish the students they would have either given them detention or suspended them for a few days. What they decided to do was cripple these students' futures. Now the students have no chance of getting into a top school (and it would be unfair to assume that they are slackers, I can think of a few smart kids in my school who could believably do the same thing).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Maybe it's a generational thing?
How old are you? I'm 24. And I don't think a 90 day suspension is "revenge." I think it takes into account that these kids don't seem to get that what they did was wrong. If they had owned it honestly, I would have been less likely to think a whole 90 days was warranted. But this sends a clear message that impersonating another online is not okay, baseless accusations of pedophilia are not okay, and what you do on the internet does have repercussions-- even if what you do is done in jest.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: What they decided to do was cripple these students' futures. Now the students have no chance of getting into a top school (and it would be unfair to assume that they are slackers, I can think of a few smart kids in my school who could believably do the same thing).
Any association of a teacher with child abuse of any sort is taken seriously enough that these kids may have crippled the teacher's future. I figure the consequences are pretty fair.
I am honestly baffled that there are people who don't see connecting a teacher with a pedophilia organisation as serious. I'd say "maybe it's a parent thing," except I don't have kids.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Assuming the suspension holds, wouldn't the kids still be able to do a year or two at a community college, then transfer to a regular school?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I'm 24, have no children, went to a school where a teacher was a pedophile, and have seen NAMBLA used as a joke on the same shows as mentioned above, but I think a 90 day suspension is well within the bounds of just punishment for these kids. There is a huge difference between Jon Stewart parodying something and some kid associating his teacher with pedophilia.
The damage from these kids could be life altering, while no damage is generally done by a professional comedian's comments on a parody program. It is somewhat ridiculous to attempt equating these two things.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Assuming the suspension holds, wouldn't the kids still be able to do a year or two at a community college, then transfer to a regular school?
Yes. I know lots of people who do that who have excellent GPAs and records anyway, because it's so much cheaper.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Last year my school expelled a kid for threatening to vandalize my car. I think what these kids did is far more damaging than what that kid did to me, and they should be expelled. I can't imagine continuing to teach the kids who had tried to destroy my life like that; that teacher shouldn't have to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Also, Bush libel is protected under some "public figure" clause--so we're allowed to lie about him all we want.
And that's a good thing, too. Otherwise, Hollywood would be bankrupt. Except for Tom Selleck, probably.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, Bush libel is protected under some "public figure" clause--so we're allowed to lie about him all we want.
I missed this my first time through. This is not true.
Defamation actions brought by public officials require the official to demonstrate actual malice, which can be done by showing that the defendant knew the statement was false or that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of the truth.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I think it takes into account that these kids don't seem to get that what they did was wrong. If they had owned it honestly, I would have been less likely to think a whole 90 days was warranted.
Their claim of innocence came after the 90 day suspension. It's not clear that they would have protested a less punishment.
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Any association of a teacher with child abuse of any sort is taken seriously enough that these kids may have crippled the teacher's future.
If there had been a serious investigation of the claim then maybe it could have. As it is, it was exposed to be a hoax and the kids were severely punished. If the teacher has trouble getting hired because of it then it's the fault of an irrational and paranoid employer, not of the kids.
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I am honestly baffled that there are people who don't see connecting a teacher with a pedophilia organisation as serious. I'd say "maybe it's a parent thing," except I don't have kids.
Not appreciated at all.
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: The damage from these kids could be life altering, while no damage is generally done by a professional comedian's comments on a parody program. It is somewhat ridiculous to attempt equating these two things.
I think you misread what I wrote because I never equated the two. Given the media's portrayal of NAMBLA I assumed that nobody actually took the organization seriously. The actual members of NAMBLA may be serious but, like I said, it's such a fringe organization that I find it surprising that anybody views it as a serious threat ("anybody" as in anyone in general, not necessarily related to Hatrack. I googled NAMBLA and came up with a couple of ridiculous lawsuits that had been filed against it.)
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Assuming the suspension holds, wouldn't the kids still be able to do a year or two at a community college, then transfer to a regular school?
Yes. I know lots of people who do that who have excellent GPAs and records anyway, because it's so much cheaper.
It depends on what you want to do. Two years of community college would probably not be adequate preparation for someone to enter junior year at, say, Princeton or any other top-notch school.
EDIT: Removed an extremely arrogant non-obvious self-plug by myself. I can't believe I actually included it in the first place.
[ December 26, 2007, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Just so you know, that was my initial reaction, too, Threads. It's such a ridiculous joke compared to an actual accusation, which SHOULD be taken seriously. It was done on facebook for pete's sake.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I am honestly baffled that there are people who don't see connecting a teacher with a pedophilia organisation as serious. I'd say "maybe it's a parent thing," except I don't have kids.
Not appreciated at all.
Why not? How is that different from:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Maybe it's a generational thing?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Assuming the suspension holds, wouldn't the kids still be able to do a year or two at a community college, then transfer to a regular school?
Yes. I know lots of people who do that who have excellent GPAs and records anyway, because it's so much cheaper.
It depends on what you want to do. Two years of community college would probably not be adequate preparation for someone to enter junior year at, say, Cornell Engineering. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I don't see why they need to. When public schools expel you, they don't leave you diploma-less. Instead, you transfer to another school in the district and get your diploma there.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Their claim of innocence came after the 90 day suspension. It's not clear that they would have protested a less punishment.
Their PUBLIC claim of innocence. I bet they were spouting the "it was just a joke, it didn't hurt anyone" all the way from the principal's office home. And you don't know any better than I do-- unless you happen to be one of the kids, which I doubt.
quote:It depends on what you want to do. Two years of community college would probably not be adequate preparation for someone to enter junior year at, say, Cornell Engineering.
Well, they don't have to enter as a junior. I've seen people go in as a sophomore or even a freshman, depending on what is warranted. I've known people to go from community college to schools like UC Berkeley and Caltech, just because they messed around in high school, went to CC to appease their parents, and then when they finally wanted to go to college were able to get in with their CC grades.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:When public schools expel you, they don't leave you diploma-less. Instead, you transfer to another school in the district and get your diploma there.
But they were suspended, not expelled.
And my district (well, the one I grew up in) has been known to expel kids from the district, meaning if you get expelled from one HS the only options open to you are private school, transfer to another district (and they don't have to accept you) or continuation school. Get kicked out of the private schools and continuation school and you're pretty much out of luck once you're 16, you can take the CHSPE or GED.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
At most schools I am familiar with, a 90-day suspension is an automatic expulsion, as I mentioned above.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Expelling kids from a district is not impossible here; but still, most expulsions here are just from one school. You'd have to be considered a real threat to get expelled from the whole district--especially given that we do have a few options for really "incorrigible" kids.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm much more concerned with whether or not the teacher is a decent human being or not. Does he care whether or not his students learn? Does he care about them as people? Perhaps that's not logical, but, to me, that might be a factor if I were to decide the punishment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is neither logical nor fair.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
steven, you're advocating judging this by what -might- exist in the teacher's heart?
I don't think that's feasible.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I said "might" be "a" factor. I was thinking out loud. Why do people take my musings so seriously?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ah, I see, Icky. In my district, the only automatic expulsion is attacking a teacher. But they were a tough district in general and probably about half the kids who were expelled were expelled from the district.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, and steven, I don't see why anything the teacher does or does not do, other than being a member of NAMBLA (which he isn't, so that makes it libel), would matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I said "might" be "a" factor. I was thinking out loud. Why do people take my musings so seriously?
That is an excellent question. You're quite right. I should not have taken you seriously. I should know better by now.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Works for me, kate. I like you, but I don't take you seriously.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'll weigh in as another person who is astonished that someone would consider blowing something of this magnitude off as a "joke." The assigned suspension seems appropriate and reasonable to me.
I'm well aware that Threads and Launchywiggan disagree with this, but so it goes.
---
Edited to add: Whether or not some young folk would take it seriously isn't the point. What is more relevant is what unwarranted repercussions the teacher would face from this, and such repercussions would primarily occur in the minds and actions of other adults, particularly those of standing in the community (that is just the way power works).
Regardless of whether a few given young folk would care about it, the predominant view of the cross-section of adults here (parents, medical people, legal people, other teachers, non-parents with other longterm investments in their communities, etc.) is that this would likely have a crippling effect on this fellow's future life, and for no good reason.
The fact that some of the kids might think that is idiotic is rather beside the point. The teacher would primarily be judged by his peers in the community, and the rolled eyes of some students would not change that.
[ December 23, 2007, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I really doubt anyone would take this seriously. How could they?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
steven, several people, including I*, have explained our reasoning for why this could have repercussions earlier in the thread.
*I? Me? "I" passed the stand-alone test, but it just doesn't read right to me in that sentence.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think you are right and that "I" is the correct usage, ketchupqueen.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't I would take the actions of these students very seriously, given the situation. You're going to have to convince me that the students thought that anyone would take this seriously.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And all it takes in today's climate is a whiff of controversy before people start to back away from you, especially if you are a teacher. People generally seem to figure that if there's smoke, there is at least a bit of fire. That may well be borne out in this thread, too.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I don't I would take the actions of these students very seriously, given the situation. You're going to have to convince me that the students thought that anyone would take this seriously.
steven, that is not necessary to establish culpability. Intent may make a difference in what charges can and should be laid, and what punishment should thus follow, but ignorance of outcome doesn't mean (in our society) that you are absolved of responsibility for the outcomes of your actions.
Additionally, often the measure is not just whether these people knew, but whether a reasonable person should have known. And that is assessed by what is known by others in that community. I can't imagine that most students of that age would not know that joking around about a teacher being a pedophile could have negative consequences for that teacher. I suppose there is data somewhere, or students at a comparable school could be surveyed -- but I honestly doubt that many judges would require that step.
So, it may not be convincing to you, and you certain have the perogative to make up your own mind. However, the real world consequences both for the teacher and the students are indeed likely to be reliant on other standards than yours.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm not saying you're wrong. I think I know what my personal response would be, given the situation. I'd probably observe the guy more carefully, and ask other students, in private, if they had any suspicions of the teacher prior to the website prank. I would draw no conclusions without having asked quite a few students. However, I can't say that everyone would be as thorough. I'd hope they would, but I have no real idea, you know? Thoughts?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I know. I really wish that people were all sensible, rational, and thoughtful. Good grief, a veritable Eden!
If only the world would bend to my formidable and exacting will. *grin
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm probably LESS rational than most people, on average. However, I do think my approach to this exact type of situation is a pretty intelligent one, as a direct result of my life experiences. So, tough call.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's "several people, including me, have..." -- because the "including X" bit doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the sentence. Consider "several people, including President Nixon, have" or "several people, including you, have" or "several people, including multiple random aliens, have..." "Me," in this case, is the object of the act of inclusion.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I don't I would take the actions of these students very seriously, given the situation. You're going to have to convince me that the students thought that anyone would take this seriously.
steven, don't you see that YOU are evidence of the real damage that this teacher faces? YOU have suggested that he may likely be a pedophile, based on your experience in sixth grade and no knowledge of this guy other than the hoax. You've never met this guy, and you think there may be something wrong with him. YOU have suggested investigating the teacher's behavior and judging his heart before punishing the students, implying that the circumstances may be mitigated by his failings. WHY should HE be investigated? He is the victim here! Do you favor investigating victims of other crimes as well, to ascertain to what extent they were "asking for it"?
Now what if you weren't just some crackpot on the internet, but a member of the PTA? A neighbor? A local gossip?
(Sorry for the caps, but I'm on a cell phone and it's easier than italics.)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Joe, yelling with caps doesn't make me more likely to listen. Reasoned arguments would.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It happened to be a reasoned argument that included capital letters, steven.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Umm, calling me a "crackpot" is, pretty much by definition, not the best way to convince me of anything. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
steven, I did not yell at you. I explained the caps in my post. Again, you seem to have difficulty reading my actual post.
Please do not call me Joe.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Whatever makes you happy, Icarus. Did you get my email?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's "several people, including me, have..." -- because the "including X" bit doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the sentence. Consider "several people, including President Nixon, have" or "several people, including you, have" or "several people, including multiple random aliens, have..." "Me," in this case, is the object of the act of inclusion.
In this case, isn't "including me" a present participle verbal phrase that uses a linking verb?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm posting on a cell phone while standing in line at Panera. I don't even know which e-mail addy is associated with this account. I'll check when I get home.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with Tom. The subject is "people." "Me" is the object of a preposition. FWIW.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Icarus, I emailed you from the address on your entropical profile.
The grammar issue is just beyond me. The last time I studied grammar was 8th grade English class.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I agree with Tom. The subject is "people." "Me" is the object of a preposition. FWIW.
That's right -- "including" can be a marginal preposition.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I got your e-mail. I understand. Somewhat.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I really doubt anyone would take this seriously. How could they?
I think most people err on the side of caution. Even if an accusation of pedophilia/molestation/sexual assault has been proved incorrect, people remember. Your name is subconsciously associated with the crime. I think it is fair to say that a lot of people will avoid you or use caution around you JUST IN CASE you really did perpetrate those crimes. It is safer to avoid someone accused of rape and acquitted in case they really a rapist, than to give them the benefit of the doubt. It isn't justified, but it is common enough that false accusations, whether in jest or malice, leave most people tarnished.
In the few cases of this that I've had experience with, the individuals and their families inevitably choose/are pressured to move somewhere else and get new jobs, etc.
I am also confused as to why someone *wouldn't* take the issue of NAMBLA or someone's alleged association with it seriously. NAMBLA is a real organization, with many members, that advocates and crusades to legalize the sexualization of children. That is a serious issue. And as another poster mentioned, there is a huge difference between Jon Stewart making a joke about them and accusing someone of being a member simply for kicks or because you don't like them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's "several people, including me, have..." -- because the "including X" bit doesn't have anything to do with the rest of the sentence. Consider "several people, including President Nixon, have" or "several people, including you, have" or "several people, including multiple random aliens, have..." "Me," in this case, is the object of the act of inclusion.
THAT is why me "sounded" right to me. Thanks, Tom.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Is the guy a pedophile? Is he a danger to children? That's the issue. Do the students have grounds to think he is? Granted, observational bias is probably what is making me have these thoughts, but me and my buddies were totally, completely right about our teacher. Principals, parents, and other teachers appear to have been oblivious.
Dude, if you think a teacher is really a pedophile, you go to the police. Otherwise, non-public figures have legal protections against unsubstantiated accusations. A teacher being accused of pedophilia is possibly the worst thing you can do to them. It can and has ruined careers.
-Bok
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I am honestly baffled that there are people who don't see connecting a teacher with a pedophilia organisation as serious. I'd say "maybe it's a parent thing," except I don't have kids.
Not appreciated at all.
Why not? How is that different from:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Maybe it's a generational thing?
Nevermind. I had read it as an indirect way of saying my parents raised me improperly. Now I understand what he meant.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: Whether or not some young folk would take it seriously isn't the point. What is more relevant is what unwarranted repercussions the teacher would face from this, and such repercussions would primarily occur in the minds and actions of other adults, particularly those of standing in the community (that is just the way power works).
It might also be instructive to understand why this accusation would be interpreted differently by students then by adults. However, I don't have a good way of finding a general answer to that.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: Whether or not some young folk would take it seriously isn't the point. What is more relevant is what unwarranted repercussions the teacher would face from this, and such repercussions would primarily occur in the minds and actions of other adults, particularly those of standing in the community (that is just the way power works).
It might also be instructive to understand why this accusation would be interpreted differently by students then by adults. However, I don't have a good way of finding a general answer to that.
But both students and adults have access to the accusation/fraud. And the teacher will have to deal with the consequences from both groups. The students may have seen it as a joke, but their jokes has graver consequences in the adult sphere. Therefore those consequences should weigh into the disciplinary action just as much.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think crackpot was a personal slight; it was pretty much a generic term for anybody who opines on an internet forum. But I retract it and apologize for offending you.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:I don't I would take the actions of these students very seriously, given the situation. You're going to have to convince me that the students thought that anyone would take this seriously.
steven, don't you see that YOU are evidence of the real damage that this teacher faces? YOU have suggested that he may likely be a pedophile, based on your experience in sixth grade and no knowledge of this guy other than the hoax. You've never met this guy, and you think there may be something wrong with him. YOU have suggested investigating the teacher's behavior and judging his heart before punishing the students, implying that the circumstances may be mitigated by his failings. WHY should HE be investigated? He is the victim here! Do you favor investigating victims of other crimes as well, to ascertain to what extent they were "asking for it"?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Well put, Icarus.
You know, Steven, it occurs to me that if your career as a professional Internet troll doesn't pan out, you'd make an excellent member of the Saudi Arabian judicial system.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: Whether or not some young folk would take it seriously isn't the point. What is more relevant is what unwarranted repercussions the teacher would face from this, and such repercussions would primarily occur in the minds and actions of other adults, particularly those of standing in the community (that is just the way power works).
It might also be instructive to understand why this accusation would be interpreted differently by students then by adults. However, I don't have a good way of finding a general answer to that.
But both students and adults have access to the accusation/fraud. And the teacher will have to deal with the consequences from both groups. The students may have seen it as a joke, but their jokes has graver consequences in the adult sphere. Therefore those consequences should weigh into the disciplinary action just as much.
I meant why do students interpret it differently than adults (assuming that is the case)?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lack of experience with real-life consequences of their actions?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm coming back to say that I don't agree with steven at all in this thread. I think I've shown a great deal of naivety, based on the fact that most of the older folks are appalled at my initial reaction, so I'll try to explain.
I think the disconnect for me--was that I see a huge difference in 1. going to the principal and accusing a teacher of molesting children and 2. writing "I am a member of NAMBLA. Signed, Mr Johnson" on the bathroom wall.
I DO understand the severity of the first claim--how the accusation alone can end the teacher's career. If that's what these kids had done, by all means, 90 days or more. But how how serious is the second? It seems to me the type of thing that would get 2-weeks suspension, erased, and ignored.
Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't consider the facebook page to be an ACCUSATION of anything. It's a joke page that got taken down quickly, and if everyone didn't make a big deal out of it, nobody would care. The fact that they made such a huge stink with punishing them makes it a much bigger deal for Mr. Johnson, who now has Stevens asking whether he's fit to teach.
[ December 23, 2007, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Launchywiggin ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
A bathroom wall and the internet are not equivalent, to me.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lack of experience with real-life consequences of their actions?
That doesn't answer why adults take it seriously. Though he wasn't responding to you, I think Launchywiggin made a relevant point:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't consider the facebook page to be an ACCUSATION of anything. It's a joke page that got taken down quickly, and if everyone didn't make a big deal out of it, nobody would care. The fact that they made such a huge stink with punishing them makes it a much bigger deal for Mr. Johnson, who now has Stevens asking whether he's fit to teach.
All I've managed to get so far is that it's serious because it could negatively impact the teacher's career and that it could negatively impact the teacher's career because everyone takes it seriously.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: A bathroom wall and the internet are not equivalent, to me.
We're talking about Facebook though. Who in their right mind would admit to being a member of NAMBLA on their Facebook? That inconsistency alone would have clued me in that it was a joke.
[ December 23, 2007, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Threads ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kq =! rivka
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, much as I love her, we're not the same person. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Although it would explain my eldest's recent obsession with ketchup.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And to respond:
quote:We're talking about Facebook though. Who in their right mind would admit to being a member of NAMBLA on their Facebook? That inconsistency alone would have clued me in that it was a joke.
Not all adults and/or members of the community are that internet savvy. And for that matter, they wouldn't even have to see the page. Word gets around about accusations like that, and the word that it was a joke would not necessarily get passed accordingly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Word gets around about accusations like that, and the word that it was a joke would not necessarily get passed accordingly.
Bingo.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lack of experience with real-life consequences of their actions?
That is definitely a huge part of it. My friends and I used to say that if you were going to kick someone's Trash, you'd better go ahead and do it before your 18th Bday.
The younger you are, the smaller your world tends to be.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Word gets around about accusations like that
I absolutely agree that if the teacher were accused of anything, it would be a problem.
I just see a big difference between an accusation of pedophilia and what they did.
I also agree that the bathroom wall and the internet aren't equivalent, but it's an important comparison to make.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm coming back to say that I don't agree with steven at all in this thread, where CT clumped me with him on the last page.
But I didn't:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm well aware that Threads and Launchywiggan disagree with this, but so it goes.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I meant why do students interpret it differently than adults (assuming that is the case)?
I'm a big believer that the biggest difference between kids and adults is the number of steps down the chain of cause and effect they look. These kids probably looked a couple steps down the line, decided they weren't likely to get caught, and were done considering it.
A savvy teen might have considered carefully who to invite since someone running their mouthes six months from now could still get them in trouble. An adult would consider how this effects their fifteen year plan and wouldn't bother for lack of stock options.
The other issue is that adults are much more likely to have seen this happen once or twice. I'd seen a guy get away with molesting his kids by high school, but I'm pretty sure I was the exception. As we've all noticed with steven's reaction, you're a little more sensitive to an issue when you've seen it actually happen.
Then there are all the emotional issues that go with adults who have responsibilities towards children and realize how amazingly ineffective they really are. No matter how hard we try, we really can't stop bad things from happening to kids. If this guy really molested someone, then we've failed the child. If he didn't and we go too hard on him, then we've failed each other. It's really a no-win situation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the people minimizing this 'joke' are correct and it's really not a big deal, and people shouldn't have taken it seriously or been upset.
Even if that's objectively true somehow, that doesn't change the fact that people do take it seriously and it is upsetting to most, and that a few kids should change to suit the conventions concerning pedophilia claims rather than expecting protection when the rest of the world doesn't bend to their 'joke'.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I'm coming back to say that I don't agree with steven at all in this thread, where CT clumped me with him on the last page.
But I didn't:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm well aware that Threads and Launchywiggan disagree with this, but so it goes.
eek! I'm sorry! Edited!
And I'll say again that it doesn't seem like a claim to me, not in the dangerous sense. I DO think pedophilia claims should be taken seriously.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: eek! I'm sorry! Edited!
No worries. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:it doesn't seem like a claim to me, not in the dangerous sense.
The problem is drawing that line. Maybe, just for our hypothesis, let's say that this was NOT a "dangerous" claim against the teacher. Well, what if the next such claim was more widely seen, and did more damage? And the students who did that one insisted that that was a joke, too?
The law doesn't really distinguish between the two. If it's untrue, has the potential to be damaging if it's believed, and is published, not marked as parody, then it's libel. Period. (At least, that is my understanding.) The line is drawn there because that way there aren't any shades of gray about what is or isn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I don't I would take the actions of these students very seriously, given the situation. You're going to have to convince me that the students thought that anyone would take this seriously.
steven, that is not necessary to establish culpability. Intent may make a difference in what charges can and should be laid, and what punishment should thus follow, but ignorance of outcome doesn't mean (in our society) that you are absolved of responsibility for the outcomes of your actions.
Moreover, intent is often measured only with respect to the action, not the results. That is, it's clear the students intended to post information they knew to be false. Especially in a civil context, this makes them culpable for the results for which that disclosure is the proximate cause. Whether they knew that result would occur is often immaterial (although knowledge would make punitive damages more likely).
Note that this is true in many criminal charges. For example, stealing an old watch is grand larceny in most states, even if the thief thought it was worth $1. The intent is to steal. By engaging in that act, the thief "owns" all the consequences.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Edited!