Federal Judge Declares Cyber-Stalking Legal.

[Andering REDDSON]

Federal Judge Declares Cyber-Stalking Legal.

The judge’s decision to reverse the school’s disciplinary action is not only blatantly, wrong, but in fact the exact OPPOSITE of the actual law; Firstly, school’s are special environments, one of few where “freedom of speech” really doesn’t exist. If not, instructors inherently could not even grade papers for fear of infringing upon such rights.
More importantly, however, is the specifics of this case; This isn’t a “cyber-bullying” case this is a blatant cyber-stalking case, regardless the claim that it was not “dangerous.” The simple fact that these backstabbing comments were made in the way they were (where the instructor can not respond to or even perhaps even be aware of them) where some third party would inevitably see them and react violently is the inherent danger. Had a male (student or otherwise) made the same page about a female school member, they would have been charged with a crime, not an infraction. The decision by Justice Barry GARBER’S ruling to allow Katherine EVANS to sue the school’s principle victimizes the victims, and rewards the victimizer. ¿Where’s the justice here?

[RapeKarenX]

Justice Exists?

[AWDracer]

Originally Posted by Andering REDDSON

Federal Judge Declares Cyber-Stalking Legal.

The judge’s decision to reverse the school’s disciplinary action is not only blatantly, wrong, but in fact the exact OPPOSITE of the actual law; Firstly, school’s are special environments, one of few where “freedom of speech” really doesn’t exist. If not, instructors inherently could not even grade papers for fear of infringing upon such rights.
More importantly, however, is the specifics of this case; This isn’t a “cyber-bullying” case this is a blatant cyber-stalking case, regardless the claim that it was not “dangerous.” The simple fact that these backstabbing comments were made in the way they were (where the instructor can not respond to or even perhaps even be aware of them) where some third party would inevitably see them and react violently is the inherent danger. Had a male (student or otherwise) made the same page about a female school member, they would have been charged with a crime, not an infraction. The decision by Justice Barry GARBER’S ruling to allow Katherine EVANS to sue the school’s principle victimizes the victims, and rewards the victimizer. ¿Where’s the justice here?

Originally Posted by RapeKarenX

Justice Exists?

It is clear that both of you didn't even read the article. In the case of the OP (Redsson), he deliberately misconstrued the article to suit his personal agenda. Karen, clearly, if you had read the article, you would know that Redsson pulled out an article online and pretended that the article talked about cyberstalking. He made it seem like the judge actually ruled cyberstalking legal (but that was not what the article was about at all).

The article talked about free speech. Redsson, you're a fucking idiot.

Where exactly in the article does it say that cyber stalking is legal? Cyber stalking is going online to a page like Myspace and Facebook and telling them that you want to meet them because they're hot, and then proceeding to annoy the hell out of that person. Cyberstalking could also be using info gathered from internet to find that person for whatever purposes it may be.

This article was talking about how people using online pages such as Myspace or Facebook are ALLOWED to voice criticisms/opinions online, as long as it doesn't violate any of the constitutional rights that are given to everyone (in most 1st world countries). It means that the principal can't suspend students based on what they write on online pages as long as it is not defamatory or libel.

GTFO out of here Redsson. People should read the articles before commenting on them first (Yes, I'm talking to you Karen)

[RapeKarenX]

Never claimed to have read the article. Just being a snarky bitch.

[Andering REDDSON]

AWDracer- I’m sorry you didn’t read my comments; It’s a shame you didn’t notice the duality of standards that allows the student (who isn’t anymore) to continue her harassment of the instructor years later. That’s really YOUR problem, however, not mine.

Karen- Well, in theory it’s supposed to, yes.

[Andering REDDSON]

Just a sampling of related comments:

First Amendment or not, she broke Facebook's ToS by creating a group targeting a particular person or group. Not only is the group subject to removal by Facebook, but so is the girl's account.
"Note: groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist, or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account."
- Facebook Group creation page
Her suspension is another matter, but I've seen schools suspend kids for doing less than inciting hatred. Then again, I've seen schools do nothing about the physical and verbal abuse of other students.
She'll need to do a lot of growing up, however, if one lousy person is enough to push her into the mess she's created. There are crappy people out there, girl, including some very crappy teachers and professors. Get over it. less

What I find disturbing here are the large numbers of posts that seem unconcerned with cyberbullying and harrassment, which should not be tolerated whether initiated by a student or an adult. This seems to be one of the regrettable legacies of the social networking mentality.
The First Amendment has never been carte blanc. Speech can injure, and in such cases, courts can issue penalties. If the teacher in this case could show damage resulting from the Facebook postings (demotion, loss of future employment opportunities, different treatment by students or peers, doctor-quantified proof of emotional duress) she could possibly win a libel lawsuit. And when an individual acts with malice--as appears to have been the case with this vengeful student--the courts are more likely to favor the plaintiff.

I'm pretty sure that if this was the other way around--if the teacher had created a webpage criticizing the student--it would NOT have been protected as "free speech."

fyi... The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress, it is not a gaurantee of that citizens will not face reprecussions of slanderous speech or a prohibition against liable and slander prosecutions. Read it for yourself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This sound like another case of cyberbullying. The difference is that that young girl directed it towards an adult and not a classmate. She was soliciting hate. " "To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred." I bellieve the school system and the teacher in particular had a right to be concerned. Now she probably is going to try to sue the school when it all started with her ignorance and irresponsibility. Although Miss Evans has a right to free speech she also has to understand that what comes out of her mouth can come with consequences and that the teacher has a right to defend herself against malicious postings like these whether they are true or false. There are two sides to every story and there is no mention of what exactly the teacher did to deserve this type of bashing.

FrustratedMI If that didnt qualify as "bullying" - that spells bad news to other kids who are getting bullied on facebook, which is simply an extension of the school.
However, this is going to be interesting to see how the courts decide when it comes to people getting fired for saying something as simple as "my job sucked today"...if thats not free speech that should be protected, i dont know what is!

if she did this to another student it would be labeled bullying and have a lot of consequences, i dont think it should be any different for a teacher. It was a little over the top to take her out of AP classes, but she is totally deserving of some kind of punishment. i think her suspension should stay on her record, as an "honor student" she certainly showed a lack of honor.

A teacher also has the right to carry out his/her profession without being cyberbullied. While I won't defend the principal's reaction, I can't believe that Ms. Evans' creation of the facebook page isn't drawing much criticism. As a culture, we seem to let children do almost anything as long as their actions are non-violent. We excuse so much behavior that shouldn't be accepted...
Also, there's an unspoken mentality that teachers are naturally supposed to submit themselves to the mockery and ridicule of children because 'it's their job'. OK, kids make fun of teachers, but there need to be limits. For me personally, cyberbullying goes beyond the limits of what is acceptable. We've all had lousy teachers, we've also all had at least one great teacher who possbily helped us grow more than our own parents at some point in our youth. If as a culture we have lost respect for the profession of teaching as well as the professionals who teach, let's at least grant teachers enough civility and leave them alone so that they can do their jobs.

Does someone have to die or be intimidated for it to be called cyberbullying? No. It's the intent on causing emotional/mental or physical harm that matters.

Yes, her blog falls under freedom of speech, but just because you CAN say something doesnt mean you SHOULD say something. Her parents should be embarrassed, if you can even call them parents. There is a time and a place for everything and this girl will find out the hard way I am sure. I hope the teacher starts a blog about her, the worst student and most disrespectful person ever!!!

I can promise you this, if I were that teacher, once I found out about the blog, I would have sued her and her parents for defamation of character. Then she would have to prove in court that I am the worst teacher ever. Maybe if you start holding people accountable for their freedom of speech, they will learn that just because you can speak freely, doenst always mean you should.

She made a facebook page saying she hated her teacher, but I thought the courts stand was hate is illegal, guess that only applies to gay agenda's.

Some of the sentiments were repeated more than once, especially the idea that had the instructor presented her opinions in the same fashion, she would have been fired on the spot. I was not aware that Facebook prohibited such activity (first comment, btw), but the general gist is, “It’s her own fault she got suspended for this. Learn from it and move on.”

[RapeKarenX]

Originally Posted by AWDracer

People should read the articles before commenting on them first (Yes, I'm talking to you Karen)

No intent on commenting on the article. Was commenting-once again- about the idea of justice. Wanted to discuss theory of justice with Andering REDDSON. Sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way. Like I said- I was a snarky bitch. Peanut gallery.


Andering REDDSON: "Karen- Well, in theory it’s supposed to, yes."

Theory smeary. In theory there should of been a Palestinian state already. Israel's defensive and offensive attacks should be considered terrorism as well. Fair is fair. And expanding Gaza? WTF? What's the point of oppressing and making refugees of you neighbors. Promote peace not war.

In theory politics isn't about posturing but consensus and problem solving.

[RapeKarenX]

Originally Posted by AWDracer

The article talked about free speech. Redsson, you're a fucking idiot.

Was that necessary? Sure you are practicing free speech- but do you want to really call a person a fucking idiot for starting a discussion, whether you agree or not, that's outside of the usual pointless banter?

Name calling is your right, but do you want to disrespect someone unnecessarily? You can argue your point without it.

And NO I do not have to read that article. Wasn't commenting on the article and can care less about this ruling. Appreciative for the post and know I will see comments posted related to the article.

I'm the fucking idiot for going off topic. You can call me that!

[touriquet2001]

Originally Posted by RapeKarenX

I'm the fucking idiot for going off topic. You can call me that!

never get another chance , so ...

fucking idiot !!!!

j/k karen

[RapeKarenX]

Love the abuse (in RP). Thank you.

[Andering REDDSON]

Originally Posted by RapeKarenX

Theory smeary.

Well that's true.

[snarkopo]

Seems to me the Judge made the right call.

[touriquet2001]

in a blatant attempt to hijack the thread ...

Originally Posted by RapeKarenX

Israel's defensive and offensive attacks should be considered terrorism as well. Fair is fair. .

how can a "defensive attack" be considered terrorism ??? unless of course it is a preemptive attack which of course turns it into an offensive attack .

[RapeKarenX]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

in a blatant attempt to hijack the thread ...



how can a "defensive attack" be considered terrorism ??? unless of course it is a preemptive attack which of course turns it into an offensive attack .

EXACTLY. Defensive is just another excuse to fire rockets!!!

[Andering REDDSON]

None of those people need excuses to do anything anymore. Just the fact that they are all still breathing makes enough excuse for anything anymore.

[RapeKarenX]

Now, what action do we take next?

[ego]

We rape KarenX!

[Andering REDDSON]

Actually, that’s a pretty good idea.

[RapeKarenX]

If that was the solution to create Palestine- ok. But you guys make it happen FIRST!!

[Andering REDDSON]

Originally Posted by RapeKarenX

If that was the solution to create Palestine- ok. But you guys make it happen FIRST!!

No, I don’t think that will solve ANYTHING (though I could be wrong, but certainly not about Palestine).
It’s still a good idea.