Today's discussion revolves around what people can and can't say online, and what they should and shouldn't say online. In preparation, I had you read Chapter 8 of
Say Everything as well as these sites:
- Student Suspension for Myspace Profile
- The Rutgers Suicide and Social Networking
- Wikileaks
- Pentagon Asks Media Not to Publish War Leaks
Each site presents a free speech dilemma created by the internet. In addition,
Say Everything mentions several instances of potentially troubling online speech. Choose one instance from the articles or book chapter and write a response comment to the following questions:
- First, how do you view the speech? Is the action something that should be permitted? Encouraged? Frowned upon but allowed? Give us your reaction to the speech act.
- Second, how should we as a society respond to the speech? If it is negative, can and should we prevent it? If it's positive, how can it be encouraged/protected?
After you finish writing, post a response comment to another student by using the @ symbol. If possible, respond to someone who wrote about the same situation that you did.
Also,
here's more info on the Myspace student suspension.
The “free speech” act of creating a fake MySpace for a real person is a negative act. I think this is negative because readers of the page could think that it was actually the person it is portraying and it could affect the life as well as the career of the person it is portraying. In the case of the principle he could have very well lost his job over the fake MySpace as well as been arrested just for the accusations that were presented on the MySpace, even though it wasn’t his and he didn’t create it there were still some suggestions of him flirting with students and inappropriate things like that.
ReplyDeleteWhat could be done about this issue? I don’t think much could really be done about it because MySpace is open to everyone you create any type of profile that you want to, using anyone or no one’s name – you just have to be willing to suffer the consequences if caught. I think this is something that will keep occurring but maybe not to the extent of students vs. principles but maybe friends vs. friends in more of a fun and joking way, yet still just as detrimental to the person it is being done to.
In the book, Say Everything, Rosenberg talks about Heather Armstrong whose infamous blog coined the term "dooced" as Dooce was the name of her blog. She lost her job and offended her family by being brutally honest about her workplace and family religion on her blog. While I think her act should definitely be frowned upon, I don’t think it can really be banned because instances such as hers hurt no one but the author. She never mentioned where she worked or names of coworkers, yet her company didn’t want her writing about these things regardless. While the act is definitely not positive, it is not necessarily negative either. The blog actually had quite a following. The person who was hurt the most was Armstrong herself, along with offending the people she cared about.
ReplyDeleteHence, I don’t think there is any way to try to prevent instances such as this since the author is writing at his or her own discretion. As Heather now advises other bloggers, “never write about work on the internet” and always think about if you would feel comfortable having others read what you are writing about.
I'm choosing the student's suspension over the false myspace profile.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all - I think the school was out of line suspending the student. The role of school is not to police the personal lives of students, and it is not to act as an arbiter of absolute moral truth and rightness, it is not there to arbitrarily issue punishments when the principal gets his feelings hurt.
The school was in no place to suspend that student. If, however, the actions of the student were libelous, or were breaking any other law, then the student should be held accountable in whatever legal way is most appropriate. The school isn't some feudal castle, these kids are still Americans, and are still afforded the basic rights that we all are afforded. I don't think that the school should have the right to arbitrarily punish students as it sees fit, because it goes against some of the basic freedoms afforded to us. If their actions were indeed against laws - than by all means they should be prosecuted. But, it has nothing, *at all,* to do with school. If they had created the same page about a celebrity, would they have been suspended?
According to this,
http://www.cyberbully.org/cyberbully/docs/cblegislation.pdf
"The legal standard enunciated by the courts governing when school officials can
respond to off-campus online harmful speech is that school officials may impose
formal discipline only when such speech causes, or threatens to cause,
substantial and material disruption at school or interference with rights of
students to be secure (Tinker standard). The Tinker standard reflects an
appropriate balance between student free speech rights and the school interests
in ensuring student safety. It is strongly recommended that the Tinker standard
be specifically incorporated into the legislation."
I don't think that this "speech causes, or threatens to cause,
substantial and material disruption at school or interference with rights of
students to be secure"
One of the examples that document provides of speech sufficiently offensive so as to require action:
"Some high school students created a “We hate Ashley” profile on a popular
social networking profile. On this “slam book” profile, they have posted cruel and
vicious comments about Ashley. They invite students to send Ashley email
messages telling her how ugly she is and how no one likes her.
Three students were involved in a school altercation. One was African American.
Two were Caucasian. The principal addressed the situation and thought it had
been resolved. Shortly thereafter, the two Caucasian students created a
threatening racist profile on a social networking site. This site contained
references to dragging African-American people behind cars and lynchings.
Other students at school linked to the profile. The African American student
found out about the site and has told the Black Student Union."
These girls did not condone lynchings, they made some mild sexual jokes - without revealing his age, name, or district.
It appears that the principal was simply offended, and abused his power and position as a school administrator to enact punishment that he deemed appropriate. He should have taken legal recourse.