http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1512215/20051025/index.jhtml?headlines=true&_requestid=133701 Students can be suspended for a lot of odd reasons these days — wearing "objectionable" T-shirts, cross-dressing for prom, planning elaborate senior pranks — but a principal at a Catholic high school in Sparta, New Jersey, has added another offense to the list: having a blog. The Reverend Kieran McHugh stunned the 900 students of the private Pope John XXIII Regional High School at a recent assembly when he told them that, effective immediately, they would have to dismantle their personal pages on sites such as MySpace.com and Xanga.com and any other blogs, or face suspension. McHugh said he was taking the unusual measure to protect students from online sexual predators who may be lurking in cyberspace looking for personal information on children, including their pictures, diaries and gossip, according to a report in New Jersey's The Daily Record newspaper. Many of the students were reportedly outraged at the school's attempt to regulate their home lives. According to the Record, a majority of them protested the new rule, arguing that it violated their free-speech rights and that the school should have no say on what they do at home. "I don't see this as censorship," McHugh told the Record. "I believe we are teaching common civility, courtesy and respect." Popular community sites such as Xanga and MySpace got the school administration's attention when it learned that a student had communicated online with someone who lied about their identity, age and where they lived, though McHugh would not elaborate on the specifics of the case. "If this protects one child from being near-abducted or harassed or preyed upon, I make no apologies for this stance," McHugh said. A diocese spokesperson did not return calls for further comment at press time. MySpace, which would not comment, is the fourth most viewed site on the Internet in the U.S. Both public and private schools have made efforts in recent years to keep campus computers from accessing certain online content, but McHugh's attempt to regulate home access to social networking sites is reaching across boundaries, according to Kevin Bankston, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San-Francisco-based online civil liberties defender. Bankston said he believed the school's real motivation was to suppress negative comments about Pope John posted by students. "If you look at the policy itself," said Bankston, "it's not preventing children from releasing personal information in a way that might be harmful to them. It's trying to restrict information related to the school and its staff on the Internet, including private communication, like e-mail. So it's a blanket ban on discussing school at all using the most common modern medium for discussion of things." According to a copy of the school's Internet policy, included in the student handbook, while there is no prohibition on students having personal Web sites, there are rules when it comes to the school. The policy, which a source at the diocese said was five years old, says that because the Web is a "public forum with unrestricted access," the school "restricts permission for the posting of information related to the school, our staff and our students on the Internet." It states that the posting of any information "in any format" related to the school "on any Web site, bulletin board, chat room, e-mail or other messaging system" that is deemed threatening or impugning to the character of another person is subject to disciplinary action. According to the Record, some students had posted derogatory comments about the school in their online profiles. The paper quoted one parent, who had never heard of MySpace, praising the policy, saying that it fit with the reason she sent her kids to the private school. "They take the safety of the child into consideration first," said Mary Kaye Nardone, mother of two Pope John students. A constitutional law expert told the Record that a case could be made that the school added the new restriction after families had already signed a contract with the school for the year. "I think it's a bad idea and I think it's probably illegal — I think the students have some rights," said Rutgers University Professor Frank Askin, director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic. Askin said he was not aware of any similar case, but added that there is no clear First Amendment violation because the school is a private, not government, entity. So far, no student has been suspended as a result of the ban, and McHugh said he believes the majority of them have complied with the order.
Since this is a private school, I think they have the right to ask stuents not to have web blogs. If they do not like this, they can always go to a public school or another private school.
I'm no lawyer, but, generally, no they can't. You cannot regulate a person's free time. It would be no different than telling kids they couldn't watch a certain TV show or go to certain movies. The only way the school could know would be to peer into the private lives of students, most definitely an invasion of personal privacy. Now, they can tell them all day long that they are not allowed to do those things during school hours or on school grounds just as they would enforce a dress code, but after school and at home is off limits.
It seems almost suspicious to me. Why would they try to regulate their private attempts to express themselves? They are trying to cut the kids off from a form of personal expression. Does the school have anything to hide???
No, they can't. Not only would it require them to follow girls around, which is called stalking, but it is a total infringement upon our first amendment rights. Now, if you willingly sign a contract that stipulates that, you are outta luck. But, these kids and their parents didn't sign a contract giving away their freedom of expression on the net or anywhwere else, so the school has no right to ask them to nor the ability to enforce it legally.
Good. The last thing we need is more whining teenagers with a venue to vent out their daily "woe is me" bs. I think there shold be an age minimum on blogs.
These parts of the article are what came as predominant to me. I side with hotballa on this. Remember, this is MIDDLE SCHOOL, not High School or college.
I beg to differ Swolydiddy. They have absolutley zero right to restrict what a student does offcampus after school lets out in the privacy of the student's home. just another example of religious types thinking they can control aspects of people's lives they dont like.
This policy is sound. A blanket ban on blogs is not. though i can't imagine anything more painful than trying to read a whiny-assed blog from some private middle school snot's perceptions of the great injustices of the world...
What if a kid wanted to rent a billboard that says their H.S. sucks, or a particular teacher. I don't think its as simple an issue is that this is on the kid's free time. Blogs are public, and if these kids are posting things about the school or others than they may have a right to step in.
That is covered under slander or misrepresentation. It does not require any additional enforcement. Since the vast majority of people who blog do not threaten anyone in their blogs, this should never be a reason for shutting them down completely. As to the idea that middle schoolers shouldn't have an outlet. Why exactly not? Should we confiscate their diaries? Should they all only be allowed to speak when we say so? When I was in middle school (it's been a while), we had opinions that were valid and reasonable for our age. Kids have a right to express themselves just as adults do. Age has no relevance on that.
but the blog is still public for anyone out there to see. Honestly I don't know where I come down on the issue. When I first looked at this thread I thought, "yeah that's ridiculous", but its not that simple. We always talk about freedom of expression, but that's a freedom guranteed by the gov't. For example, most of the guys in this forum who are employed are supposed to always be on their best behavior whenever representing their company in and outside work, and most employment policies state that. And that goes beyond getting to drunk at some function, I'm sure it also refers to what opninions you express.
An outright ban is nuts. I may not want to read their blogs...but they should not be stopped from posting them. I do agree with a pretty sweeping policy regarding comments about the school or about other individuals, though. I wouldn't want to be the kid who gets hurtful comments written about him or her for all to see in what could be a very public forum. Those comments may not cross the line of 'slander' -- but they could create a very inhospitable environment for that poor kid. And a code of conduct that requires respect for their fellow students isn't completely out of line in my book.
Why can't they judge on a case-by-case manner? Instead of banning all blogs, why not punish those whose blogs could be considered as slanderous to the school or harmful to the overall harmony of the school? Zero tolerance policies are generally bad ideas, IMO. All this policy is doing is making it more likely that the kids will have a bad opinion of the school. As a private school, I'm guessing they do have the right to punish you if you portray the school in a negative light. However, I'm not sure that there are many businesses out there that don't even allow you to express anything.
I'm not a lawyer either, but private schools can certainly regulate students' free time. They can tell kids to not see certain movies; enforcement would be difficult, but they can use school discipline when it comes up. My wife's school said the student's couldn't smoke or drink in public off-campus in the school uniform. It's no invasion of privacy to watch what people do in public or post in a public forum like a blog. If there is some problem with objecting parents having already signed the contract, I'm sure that's easily rectifiable. I think bnb's right here. The policy doesn't seem to say at all the same thing that the article, the school, the parents, etc, says it says. Something that is already covered by law like slander will still be covered by school policy so that they can either handle it in-house without bringing in the law. My deed restrictions ban the sale of narcoctics; you'd think the police would have that one covered already, but the HOA would like to be able to put liens on people's houses as well.
As a parent, the idea my child's school is going to dictate what they can or can not do outside of school is incredibly offensive. That is a role for parents and the legal system, not the school. If my child were in a private school where this kind of policy was put in place I would would find another school.
