How can they ban what people do in their spare time??! Who gave them the right to tell people what they can or cannot do off school property and time??? Does anyone else here see the blatent infringements on "Right of Freedom of Speech", "Right to privacy". Although it doesnt surprise me that the R.C.C. would do something like this, just another attempt at "controlling the masses", all , of course, said and done with the best intentions. Wonder what Jesus would do if he went to that school?

It is unsurprising to me that lower and middle schools try to censor the outside world. Their fiefdom is insular, and often ruled by an iron fist.

In the early 90s, when I was in grammar school, I remember being told by the principal that the Microsoft antitrust trial was inappropriate for recess.

At a parent-teacher meeting, parents were told that at they hadn't sanitized the internet yet. The truth is they'll never control communities that cater outside the mainstream, like slashdot, somethingawful, and onegoodmove.

We cannot be grateful enough for having an unfiltered medium. It is a sign of hope, when the future grasps for an unailenable right.

The cell phone? Drug dealers use it. The Ipod? A distraction The laptop? Here's pencil and paper.

It sure is an abridgement of the students' rights, and in a public school, it would never fly. But, these are private schools, and as such I think they can place whatever restrictions on admittance that they want. How many parents pull their kids is another matter entirely.

"'An unsupervised blog is an inappropriate use of their time,' she said," is the the sort of statement that makes me worry about humanity in general.

Three words:

Livejournal friends only.

Religion has always supressed Free Thought; so what else is new....?

I think people are getting worked up over nothing.

The problems with blogs for kids is that kids don't know when to stfu. One of the local schools had two kids claim one of thier teachers was gay (wasn't) and proceeded to post pictures of said teacher and his home address and phone number (which tbh was in the book but anyway). They got suspended as far as I recall.

Another listed people who he would beat up and where and what he got from them. Stupid bully. Expelled.

There was also a site that allowed you to rate your school/teachers which was blacklisted from many schools for similar reasons. ( http://www.ratemyteachers.ie/ )

Of course this is in Ireland, and the libel laws are a bit more strict then the US.

how can a school (private or not) demand that a student not communicate? Isn't one of the purposes of schooling is to learn how to communicate and express yourself?

Self-discipline is the magic here - my experience lately is that children do not have self control and therefore you have the situaton that Hobbes mentions.

Bolgs and SMS and mobile phones are natural extensions of the youth of today - as are iPods and personalised music selecting. I would dare say that any of us oldies would have loved to have those liberties in our day - but for me, dirt wasn't even invented yet. :)

The more you restrict your youth - not mentor them - the more rebellion you experience. Give them opportunities and discuss boundaries and you will have young people who will be leaders of their generation.

my 20p

You people are crazy.

Children are not full citizens. They should not have free and unfettered 'rights'. In fact it is the growth of the concept of kids 'rights' that has resulted in so many problems including children having the power to get teachers fired, having 'property rights' in public schools, and other such idiocy.

Rights are bestowed upon those who have the rationale to use them. Children are not rational beings. What next, let nine-year-olds vote?

Hey Joe,

Then why are rights "bestowed" upon retarded people? They can vote. Some possess less rationale than the high-school kids in the story. Bottom line, the very same ideal that protects individuals in free speech. If these kids were caught saying these things out loud, nothing would happen, but when written, they carry more impact - it's tangible evidence of someone's thoughts, thoughts which could be considered tasteless or offensive. You can't enforce laws on taste, bad or good, it's similar to attempting to enforce laws on morals. The beauty of the first amendment.

Now, I do feel that the parents are partially responsible and the actions of the children should be under scrutiny, but suspending children for a lack of tact and too much candor is wrong, even if the kids are dicks.

"Then why are rights "bestowed" upon retarded people"

Political correctness. Doesn't make it 'right'.

And showing how a current system occasionally fails does not invalidate that system. Sure there are some 16-year-olds who are smarter and more mature than some 18-year-olds. Some 30-year-old people can't drive; some 12-year-olds can. Note our markedly different interpretations of these facts. You seem to think that means 3-year-olds should get driver's licenses. I say that's retarded.

"You can't enforce laws on taste, bad or good, it's similar to attempting to enforce laws on morals. The beauty of the first amendment."

You're living in a dream world - we accept limitation of the first amendment every day. No nipples on CBS.

The 1st amendment is an ideal. The real world is its application. We always try to live up to the ideal, but in reality we must make compromises.

Anyone who advocates giving kids in schools more 'rights' has obviously never had to work with kids. As it is, it is impossible for teachers to even keep kids under control due to the 'rights' they are granted. Children are immature and irrational. You cannot grant the same rights to immature, irrational people as those who are mature and rational.

Currently we assume that when you hit 18 you are an adult and worthy of the rights of an adult. Further regulation would probably be good. But we should at least enforce the system we have.

"You seem to think that means 3-year-olds should get driver's license." When in the hell did I imply that - great stretch, Joe.

"You're living in a dream world - we accept limitation of the first amendment every day. No nipples on CBS."

I don't think so Joe, you might want to read the opinion that Justice Rehnquist wrote in the Flynt case (Hustler Magazine v Falwell) before you try that legless argument. Free speech protects your friends who picket abortion clinics with tasteless signs with vile pictures and slogans, while yelling insipid things at the people walking in. So, nipples on CBS is not a good thing for all people watching, BUT, this issue was about cyber-space and people's freedom of expression in that venue, even that expressions that lacked taste or decency. The very speech that while hurtful to an individual, was not inciting violence or unlawful action. Similar to the crap you say here.

I never advocated giving them more rights, I simply said that that they shouldn't get nailed for things said on the internet when they would never get nailed for half of the crude shit that actually falls from their mouths while in classes...pay attention to what I was saying and don't turn this into more of your witless rantings off subject again.

Joe, I think the major thing you're feeling to recognize is that we limit rights, not give them. We limit kids in schools, it is true, schools could not exist otherwise. However, every limit must therefore have a rationelle, just like limits to your rights.

This one doesn't work to me, its too heavy handed. You can ban content without banning form, a blog is like a journal, there's nothing wrong with the form. There is something wrong with some content, which is what should be banned. I mean, just because kids swear or spread rumours by mouth or pen we don't tape their mouths shut or take their pens. There's nothing wrong with the form of expression if you use it correctly.

Anyone who advocates giving kids in schools more 'rights' has obviously never had to work with kids. As it is, it is impossible for teachers to even keep kids under control due to the 'rights' they are granted. Children are immature and irrational. You cannot grant the same rights to immature, irrational people as those who are mature and rational.

Joe, for some reason you seem to think that all adults are rational and mature. Sounds like an ideal, not an application. Kids I would definately agree are less mature than adults, but don't kid yourself -- most adults don't deserve the rights they're given, even if they understand them.

Isn't it a decision for the parents whether they allow their children to have weblogs. Isn't it the parents responsibility to regulate childrens use of the internet. I know a private school can make their own rules, but why would any parent send their children to such a school.

That's right, it's up to parents. That's why I blocked access to MySpaces.com from my home network. Those of you who think this is harsh limitation of freedom, I say: go and see the terms of use on these sites. These sites are for mature teens, dating sites in fact. My kid, being 14, claimed to be 18 in user profile. And it's not about "friendship-kind" dating, too. This site and its community is explicitly sexually oriented. So, there you have it.