RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

User Posts

School: Sioux Central

Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

ConSource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-300

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT permit schools to punish students for statements they make outside of school on the internet.  Although there are certain instances where schools are able to punish students for statements outside of school.  Such as a 1-to-1 school, my school Sioux Central for example, where every student has their “own” MacBook to take home with them.  The school really owns all the laptops and should have the ability to punish the students if the statements about the school where made on the school laptop either at home or any other place.  If the object(laptop, iPad, or other device) is owned by the school and is letting the students use them, the school should have the ability to discipline any student doing any act on the school’s device in which violates the schools rules in their handbook or elsewhere.  If the student posts a statement regarding the school on the student’s own or friend’s computer off school campus, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the student’s freedom of speech rights.

225 years ago, in the year 1787, the original Constitution was proposed in Philadelphia as The Bill of Rights.  When they wrote the first ten amendments, I don’t think they had computers, cell phones, or the internet in mind.  They weren’t expecting all the technology we have now.  So it’s hard to base court cases now with all the technology we have with the Amendments which seem old to some of us.

Social networking is an amazing resource when used properly.  Of course, like all things, there are some people who abuse their ability to use it.  Social networking is a new way people use to vent their problems and stress, which can be very bad.  The venting online could consist of insulting bosses, co-workers, teaches, or fellow classmates.  When back in the day, people would get with their best friends and discuss their problems and stress.  That group of 2-4 people are the only ones that find out about your stress. When you post your furies on Facebook and Twitter, the whole world can now see what your stressing with in life.  And this of course, starts gossip.

If schools really want to be able to punish students for statements they post about their school or teachers, the schools should be able to put a section in their handbooks about off campus speech harassing.  When the student signs and hands in the book at the beginning of the year, it gives the school the right to be able punish students for any remarks about them in any form on the internet.  This is one possible solutions to regulating off camps Internet harassing speech.  Schools with the 1-to-1 system do need to take the extra step and regulate what a teen can do and say on his or her computer to other students which can harm the student.  Schools should have all social networking websites blocked at school for the purpose of harassing other students or teachers or remarks about the school.

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Florence v. Board of Freeholders of Burlington County, NJ

Written by olsonaplc-300

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

It was obvious that Mr. Florence did not have a criminal background, and was not any threat to to society.  Yet, in jail he was housed and searched with people who did have criminal backgrounds or were a threat to society.  Prisoners capable of harming other people and are a threat to society should not be roomed in the same area as prisoners not capable of harming others.  The prisoners that do not have a criminal background could get hurt and beat up by the others who do have criminal background.  There is just one problem: deciding who is criminally dangerous.

Students without any criminal backgrounds should not be treated the same way as dangerous criminals who have been found guilty of crimes.  I think this because students do not know as much information about life as most adults do.  Therefor, the punishment for doing something bad should not be as bad as it would be for grown adults.

florence

This post has been awarded the
Florence v. Board of Freeholders Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Well done!


Rehberg v. Paulk

Written by olsonaplc-300

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The Supreme Court allows certain government individuals to be absolutely immune from suit because maybe the individual has high authority in a business or government and if he got a law suit, it would change the economy or the nation.  The individual which has received a suit, could change his views on subjects and try to convince citizens what he believes.  He then could begin to change government.  No it would not change my answer learning that Congress passed Section 1983 in large part as a response to violent Ku Klux Klan problems in the South after the Civil War.  There are some people that do big things and when one little mistake comes up, there is always someone trying to and a suit on them or get them is trouble and if they lost money they may leave their job and stuff might happen that would have if he was still there.  Some people take this out of hand and think that they can do whatever they want and get away with it without getting in trouble at all.  Those people should liable to citizens.  The government officials are suppose hold the view of their citizens so they should be liable to them.  Some police officers believe that they can do a lot of stuff since they are part of the law and get away with it.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)