Students suspended for liking racist photos on Instagram

Kids today never would have survived school in the 80's and 90's.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I gave you a star for the Columbine reference, not just for the whole post. I was thinking of that earlier. That adds to the school's perspective of why they did this. I agree the punishment for liking those posts are too much because it's too ambiguous but these days we have to be careful.
I wish I knew how it came to school's attention. I don't believe that they were invading students' privacy.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

There are two issues here:

• The 'racist' act of drawing something that others see as 'racist' or the act of 'liking' it.
  
  
• The act of actively examining after-school activities.

The former I find disgusting, but it is not illegal. I remember a story some time back where an artist came under fire for making a statue of Jesus submerged in urine (or some such silly stuff). I thought it was disgusting, too. Yet, I never said any legal action should be taken by the artist, only that I found it disgusting and didn't care to see it or support it in any way.

In the same vein, drawing a 'racist' picture is not and should not be illegal. Looked upon with disgust, sure. Not illegal, and therefore not actionable by government authority... like a school. I would only support action taken against the student if there were a credible threat implied toward others in the school, or if done during school hours on school property.

The latter may well be illegal. Schools have the right to police students, in order to maintain a peaceful environment conducive to learning. As part of this, they can enforce certain societal standards on those actively in the care of the school. That active care stops the moment a child walks away from the bus toward their home, and restarts when the child enters the bus in the morning. What happens during that time not in school is not under the jurisdiction of the school.

The proper response, and this assumes the accidental discovery of the post, would be for school officials to notify the parents of the post, explaining that similar actions during school hours would be punishable and requesting the parents investigate and take action. If the school is actively searching the students' Facebook posts, then I believe the parents have a legal case against the school itself for invasion of privacy and perhaps malicious prosecution.

In other words, as disgusting as I find the picture, I find the action by the school to be orders of magnitude worse and if not illegal, then highly, highly abusive of their authority. And for those living in California who are tired of the stereotype episodes like this are giving them, stop the episodes like this and the stereotypes will stop as well.

TheRedneck

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

The school punishing the students for liking the posts: unacceptable. Notify their parents. Let their families deal with it on that level. Beyond that, it's ultimately on the parents to put their foot down and keep an eye on their darlings.

Now, the picture of the student with the noose around his/her neck. I'm torn on this one. I see death threat there, so I feel the parents AND the authorities should be notified. Too many times we've seen things like this go unremarked, and then later on, something horrible happens, a student is murdered and people act shocked because the kid's Facebook page contained threats or other things that indicated something was not kosher and nothing was done.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Another student most likely TOLD on them, as expected should be done, and he's riding the constitution down with it as a reaction to being narked on.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

Yeah basically it's the responsibility of the staff and students to report any kind of cyberbulling and threats.

a reply to: Pandaram

"morans" not "morons"

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
Why is it racism that is the censored speech that's always fought over in 'free speech' violations?

No one seems to give a damn about people censored in other circumstances.

It's often remarked by these same right wing retards your free speech has limits of consequence, when it's appropriate for their agenda.

This is a limit of consequence. Duh. You don't think there is a racist website you can move your activity to instead of sprawling it all over one of the most public formats on the planet? It's against Facebooks T&C to be racist; it's extremely loosely enforced because they don't like dealing with 'free speech' asshats who really are just racists veiling their hate in American Constitution. I wouldn't be shocked if Instagram was similar.

People that defend this as 'free speech' as sick in the head for not addressing the content. It's one thing to fight for others to have freedom in their words, it's another to support the message they're sending. I often wonder what side you're really on. "Free Speech" or "Die Blacks".(It's almost ALWAYS black people aswell)

Why can't people understand that defending someone's right to free speech isn't the same as advocating or condoning their message?

Not that difficult to understand.

"Die black's" ? Lol, no comment...

Cant wait to start reporting students for playing rap songs(racism, advocating various crimes, sex, shooting, general degeneracy) based on some of the logic in this thread.

Do we really want to go down this road and apply it equally?

a reply to: jellyrev

The difference is that it's a specific student they drew a noose on.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I clearly made that distinction bro, address my comment that this argument is always tied to racism and explain that?

I'll be glad defend anyone's rights to say anything, including you telling me to # off and possibly some words of my mother, but my point is the 'story' is always a white person being a racist and demanding the ability to have free speech.

Really seems like non-issue if he wasn't an asshole. My observation is racism is the only consistent 'free speech' issue but I still respect that right. An unexplained one. But you yourself can # off telling me I don't understand the difference after my first post, and now this one.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

hmm I see. The person's specific name is given on the art?

a reply to: jellyrev

It's a picture of him and the coach.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

Well 3 of the 4 students that got suspended were actually Asian.

I may have misinterpreted your post, I thought you were implying that we (ATS) only complain about free speech when it's racism, which isn't true because the last 5 threads on free speech had nothing to do with racism.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Mordekaiser

Well 3 of the 4 students that got suspended were actually Asian.

I may have misinterpreted your post, I thought you were implying that we (ATS) only complain about free speech when it's racism, which isn't true because the last 5 threads on free speech had nothing to do with racism.

That is what I'm implying, but based on your ability to at least comprehend that point, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I was more implying the news stories in general, not ATS, but yes generally that point- Free Speech is always a hot topic when it's over if a white person can be racist.

WHY do such coastal FOOLS believe WE accept their social morays when the state is Pervert Central ,anyway,much less the clown car ,government?

a reply to: Mordekaiser

The issue is the pinnacle of being allowed to express yourself verses holding unpopular opinions.

Free Speech is used as a massive scapegoat for hate comments, and rarely applies to other areas. That's why the freespeech arguments bug me, despite my support.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Oh, I can believe they were actively searching social media. I've seen it done. I even limited my kids' access to it when they were young, because I had seen it used against other students.

That's a problem with technology. Social media has become some kind of public diary, where people feel they can say whatever's on their mind whenever it happens without any reservations or consequences. But it's dangerous in the extreme to not exercise some kind of filter on what one says. Most adults understand that there are some thoughts just not acceptable for public consumption, but kids don't always have the forethought to realize that. There are studies that show that the brain continues to develop until around age 25, and the last area to develop is... forethought.

I find it interesting the insurance companies figured this out long ago; that's why car insurance rates drop at that age.

Personally, I'd like to see a minimum age of 21 to join Facebook, but allow users between 12 and 17, and users between 15 and 19, and between 18 and 23, to join their own 'kiddie' version that only parents and other kids can access. But that's not going to happen... and I digress...

I would say that everyone has had some violent thought at some time or another. Most just keep it between their ears. The vast, vast, vast majority of those evil thoughts never go anywhere... they're fleeting images at odds with the true personality and are forgotten minutes after they appear. Social media has given us a glimpse into those deep, dark thoughts from the perspective of a child without forethought, and we have discovered that those who commit atrocities always have dark thoughts. Duh. They also always have two feet. They always breathe oxygen. They always have Internet access. Shall we use those characteristics as a guideline for legal action?

"You stand accused of the crime of having a propensity to commit murder, as evidenced by the fact you have two ears on opposite sides of your head. How do you plead?"

Columbine is the basis for the fear, yes, but are we really preventing another Columbine? Or are we just replaying the Salem Witch Trials against those who cannot understand what is happening to them and why?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Subrosabelow

Now, the picture of the student with the noose around his/her neck. I'm torn on this one. I see death threat there, so I feel the parents AND the authorities should be notified. Too many times we've seen things like this go unremarked, and then later on, something horrible happens, a student is murdered and people act shocked because the kid's Facebook page contained threats or other things that indicated something was not kosher and nothing was done.

I should have included you in the last post I made to Deaf Alien. My response is the same. We don't just need a yardstick with which to find similarities in those who committed atrocities, but also to find differences from those who do not commit atrocities. I do not think Facebook always accomplishes both these objectives.

To use perceived threats as a reason to justify watching someone, sure. Just not to declare them guilty and sentence them.

The picture was socially unacceptable, and there should be consequences. I just think maybe better consequences for both the student and society would be the sharp snap of a leather belt contacting buttocks than the sound of a door sliding into its locked state for the first of many times to come.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: jellyrev
Cant wait to start reporting students for playing rap songs(racism, advocating various crimes, sex, shooting, general degeneracy) based on some of the logic in this thread.

Do we really want to go down this road and apply it equally?

You mean the same rappers that Michelle Obama invited to the White House? Black people can't be racist, remember?

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: DBCowboy

“When fascism comes to America it will be called anti-fascism.”
- Huey Long
supposedly

Fascism would be a step up for these people, call them what they are, Communists.