James O’Keefe’s OMG catches grooming teacher

The student takes their phone, places it on the perimeter of the classroom, starts recording the entire class period. The phone is NOT in their hand. It's NOT a distraction and it requires no physical activity by the student.
What part of this is hard to understand?
If the school has a cell phone ban, the student still has their phone in their possession.
Yes, details would need to be agreed upon, but a camera is a camera.

I'll try to type slower for you.

A cell phone ban doesn't mean that students leave their phones at home.
The student typically STILL has possession of their phone, it's just asked to be put in their backpack.

If they volunteer their phone for filming that day (one of 4 or 5 or whatever number you desire), they aren't 'using their phone' they are providing a free camera service.
A camera is a camera, what is your objection?

There is no "Passing the cost" onto a couple of families.
What is this imaginary cost you speak of?
I have already explained why a mandatory camera that records every minute in the classroom is better just relying on students to record at their own descretion
 
I have already explained why a mandatory camera that records every minute in the classroom is better just relying on students to record at their own descretion
And I explained that the student places their phone on the perimeter of the classroom and the phone films (all by itself) the entire class period.
There is no "discretion'.
The phone is out of their hands and filming just as a camera phone was designed.
 
And I explained that the student places their phone on the perimeter of the classroom and the phone films (all by itself) the entire class period.
There is no "discretion'.
The phone is out of their hands and filming just as a camera phone was designed.
I would rather have a camera livestreaming in every classroom all the time, accessible to parents 24/7
 
He also recorded interviews with people from Planned Parenthood, and then edited in new questions, which made it appear that PP was profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. What the PP Rep said was accurate, but it was in response to an entirely different question. That one lead to a defamation suit by PP, and a conviction on fraud charges.
That's another stupid lie.

The defamation suit was tossed out of court.
 
Back
Top Bottom