The "Right" to Humilate Onself

[chanel]

When that happen Immie they might have a case. But this is not it,

 

[Jon]

I do think the school was wrong for making the girls apologize to the athletic board, especially since apologizing to the board did not make the girls eligible to play sports. It should have been a choice: either apologize and play sports, or don't apologize and don't play sports.

I still stand firm that the girls violated the rules of eligibility to play sports, and that the school has every reason to deny them the privilege of playing sports.

The coach has every right to cut the girls from the team for any reason. No argument there.

I still do not believe the school has the right to discipline them for breaking that rule. If they can discipline these girls for this offense, how long before they are disciplining students for proselityzing other kids simply for inviting them to church on a summer Sunday morning?

Immie

I think you are missing the point. The "discipline" in this case IS cutting them from the team. They are not being suspended, expelled, or even getting detention or merits or any other form of discipline.

 

[Tech_Esq]

While the photos in question were taken during summer recession, they were viewable online during the school year. The behavior of the girls is not the only issue, it's the displaying of said behavior for people to see.

But, it was not public. According to the article the page is only viewable by "friends".

Seems to me like the girls need to do a better job of choosing their "friends".

Immie

It was viewable, period. Other students could see them. Plus, if these girls are like the other people I know on MySpace, they'll accept friend requests from anyone. But that's not the point. They are not "private" just because they are only viewable by friends. They are still public.

There was no indication that what was on there was indecent. So teen age girls had a lolly at a slumber party shaped like a penis. OMG....Have you been to Spencer's Gifts and Gimmicks lately? Let's be real.

And they were in their undies joking like they were stripping. Note....not that they were ACTUALLY stripping (in which case, you might have a point). In the case where they were ACTUALLY doing what they were simulating, there might be a point in all of this, but they weren't. They took a pic of a fairly tame and clearly posed joking activity. Just girls being silly. And the school made a federal case out of it.

They are just plain wrong.

Now, again, the parents may wanna take the little tramps out behind the woodshed and explain to them why this is a problem, but this is NOT school business.

 

[Ravi]

But, it was not public. According to the article the page is only viewable by "friends".

Seems to me like the girls need to do a better job of choosing their "friends".

Immie

It was viewable, period. Other students could see them. Plus, if these girls are like the other people I know on MySpace, they'll accept friend requests from anyone. But that's not the point. They are not "private" just because they are only viewable by friends. They are still public.

There was no indication that what was on there was indecent. So teen age girls had a lolly at a slumber party shaped like a penis. OMG....Have you been to Spencer's Gifts and Gimmicks lately? Let's be real.

And they were in their undies joking like they were stripping. Note....not that they were ACTUALLY stripping (in which case, you might have a point). In the case where they were ACTUALLY doing what they were simulating, there might be a point in all of this, but they weren't. They took a pic of a fairly tame and clearly posed joking activity. Just girls being silly. And the school made a federal case out of it.

They are just plain wrong.

Now, again, the parents may wanna take the little tramps out behind the woodshed and explain to them why this is a problem, but this is NOT school business.

Why are you calling them little tramps after stating that what they did was no big deal? Damn, we did much worse at slumber parties when I was that age. Girls will be girls...it doesn't make them tramps.

 

[Immanuel]

I do think the school was wrong for making the girls apologize to the athletic board, especially since apologizing to the board did not make the girls eligible to play sports. It should have been a choice: either apologize and play sports, or don't apologize and don't play sports.

I still stand firm that the girls violated the rules of eligibility to play sports, and that the school has every reason to deny them the privilege of playing sports.

The coach has every right to cut the girls from the team for any reason. No argument there.

I still do not believe the school has the right to discipline them for breaking that rule. If they can discipline these girls for this offense, how long before they are disciplining students for proselityzing other kids simply for inviting them to church on a summer Sunday morning?

Immie

I think you are missing the point. The "discipline" in this case IS cutting them from the team. They are not being suspended, expelled, or even getting detention or merits or any other form of discipline.

No, I don't think that I am missing the point... who is dishing out the punishment here, the school or the coach?

I believe the coach has every right to cut any students he doesn't want on the team even for disciplinary reasons. What I don't believe is that the school should be disciplining these students for something that was not done on their premises, on their time or while under their supervision.

Where do we draw the line? The next time a child talks back to his parent is the school going to come in an blister his ass because the parent does not believe in corporal punishment?

Immie

 

[manifold]

Damn, we did much worse at slumber parties when I was that age.

Link please.

 

[Immanuel]

Damn, we did much worse at slumber parties when I was that age.

Link please.

Quick! Let's all run to Ravi's Myspace page before she can delete the evidence.


Immie

 

[manifold]

I have to agree with Ravi on all counts.

Barring them from extracurricular activities is ok, but making them apologize to a bunch of dudes who probably beat off to the pics before they were taken down seems like total bullshit to me. And what those girls did doesn't make them tramps, sluts or whores.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It was viewable, period. Other students could see them. Plus, if these girls are like the other people I know on MySpace, they'll accept friend requests from anyone. But that's not the point. They are not "private" just because they are only viewable by friends. They are still public.

There was no indication that what was on there was indecent. So teen age girls had a lolly at a slumber party shaped like a penis. OMG....Have you been to Spencer's Gifts and Gimmicks lately? Let's be real.

And they were in their undies joking like they were stripping. Note....not that they were ACTUALLY stripping (in which case, you might have a point). In the case where they were ACTUALLY doing what they were simulating, there might be a point in all of this, but they weren't. They took a pic of a fairly tame and clearly posed joking activity. Just girls being silly. And the school made a federal case out of it.

They are just plain wrong.

Now, again, the parents may wanna take the little tramps out behind the woodshed and explain to them why this is a problem, but this is NOT school business.

Why are you calling them little tramps after stating that what they did was no big deal? Damn, we did much worse at slumber parties when I was that age. Girls will be girls...it doesn't make them tramps.

I was being a little tongue in cheek. Sorry to confuse.

 

[Jon]

There was no indication that what was on there was indecent. So teen age girls had a lolly at a slumber party shaped like a penis. OMG....Have you been to Spencer's Gifts and Gimmicks lately? Let's be real.

What does Spencer's Gifts have to do with anything? Stick to the issue.

And the school made a federal case out of it.

No, the school banned the students from playing sports for violating the rules. The parents made a federal case out of it because they see dollar signs. And since the ACLU is involved, it's our dollar paying for it.

No, I don't think that I am missing the point... who is dishing out the punishment here, the school or the coach?

The school, because the school determines who is and is not eligible to play sports.

What I don't believe is that the school should be disciplining these students for something that was not done on their premises, on their time or while under their supervision.

Yet the school reserves said ability in their handbook, and the girls violated the rules. Thus, they are punished.

Where do we draw the line? The next time a child talks back to his parent is the school going to come in an blister his ass because the parent does not believe in corporal punishment?

Irrelevant to the issue. Again, the girls broke the school's rules of acceptable behavior to represent the school in sports.

 

[Xenophon]

Two Indiana teenagers have sued their school district after they were punished for posting suggestive photos on MySpace.

The girls, 10th-graders at Churubusco High School in Churubusco, Indiana, say they were humiliated after the school banned them from fall semester extracurricular activities and forced them to apologize to the all-male Athletics Board (composed of varsity coaches). The girls also had to attend three counseling sessions.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed the proposed class-action suit on behalf of the girls and all present and future students at the school who participate or may participate in extracurricular activities. The ACLU argues the district violated the girls’ First Amendment rights and should not have punished them for activities conducted outside school. The suit names the girls’ high school, school district and principal.

According to the complaint, the photos in question were taken at a slumber party (.pdf) that occurred during the summer school break. The girls were photographed “pretending to kiss or lick a large multi-colored lollipop shaped phallus.” Other pictures showed them in lingerie with dollar bills tucked into the underwear.

The girls each posted the pictures to their MySpace pages. Only “friends” could view the photos on their pages. But after someone copied the images, they found their way to the school principal.

According to the school’s student handbook, the principal “may exclude any student-athlete from representing Churubusco High School if his/her conduct in or out of school reflects discredit” upon the school or creates a “disruptive influence on the discipline, good order, moral, or educational environment” at the school.

The ACLU says the photos were meant to be a joke shared among friends and had “no effect on the school whatsoever.” The girls’ self-expression has been curbed as a result of the school’s activity, the suit alleges. They’ve since become afraid to post any photos or otherwise communicate in writing to friends for fear of garnering additional punishment.

The suit seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages. It also seeks a temporary injunction preventing the school from punishing the girls and a permanent injunction to strike any mention of the incident from the girls’ student record and to destroy the counseling reports.

Teens Sue High School That Punished Them for Racy MySpace Pics | Threat Level | Wired.com
____________________________________________________________

"They’ve since become afraid to post any photos or otherwise communicate in writing to friends for fear of garnering additional punishment." Isn't that the point?

The school is going to lose big, it clearly over stepped its authority.

 

[KittenKoder]

Censorship going over board ...

 

[del]

SCOTUS has ruled in numerous cases that schools have the right to mete out this kind of punishment for off campus activity. the most famous case was probably morse v. frederick, but there have been others.

yea, but that was a fucked up decision all the way around the block. Hell, under this definition a kid couldn't wear half of the band t shirts available... OFF CAMPUS.

don't shoot the messenger; i didn't agree with the ruling.

 

[JW Frogen]

I have always been a fierce advocate of the right to humilate myself.

I am the George Washington, the Nelson Mandela, of this right.

Give me humilation or give me dull conformity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lawbuff]

No, the school banned the students from playing sports for violating the rules. The parents made a federal case out of it because they see dollar signs. And since the ACLU is involved, it's our dollar paying for it.

Just because the ACLU is representing the students, how are WE paying for it?

 

[lawbuff]

Rules that are found to be UNconstitutional, and the suit will tell so or not, have no future force of law.


Violation of a rule, does not mean necessarily the 14th AM can be bypassed and the students punished for it as the school deems fit.