Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[temporal1]

Can anyone explain to me how outside protests are not spreader events but outside hymn sings and church gathers are?

I can: it is about political agendas instead of authentic science.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1036

[temporal1]

“Justices rule for student in ‘cursing cheerleader’ case”
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 33c29a9e0e

imho, parents, and schools and churches, and places of business, must be allowed to have rules for minors/dependents.

treating minors/dependents as adults is a regrettable decision.

[Ken]

“Justices rule for student in ‘cursing cheerleader’ case”
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 33c29a9e0e

imho, parents, and schools and churches, and places of business, must be allowed to have rules for minors/dependents.

treating minors/dependents as adults is a regrettable decision.

It was the right decision as reflected by the 8-1 vote.

You are the one who is here constantly complaining about what you think is the improper influence of public schools on student lives and family values. And now you want to see the role of public schools expanded even further into the outside-of-school activities of their students?

In this case it was a teenager who was nowhere near her public school, posting Constitutionally-protected speech during a weekend on a private social media account that had nothing to do with the school. This ruling restricts public school administrators not parents. Of course parents can set rules for their teenagers. Her parents are free to impose any discipline they want. They can take away her phone. They can pull her off the cheerleading squad. They can punish her as they see fit short of actual illegal child abuse or neglect. The Supreme Court said nothing about parental rights in this case.

As for the school? Schools have tremendous ability to regulate student speech during school itself. I myself have sent students to the office to be disciplined for using profanity in the classroom. That is not constitutionally protected. In addition, schools are completely free to regulate student speech on all school-administered platforms. Schools can regulate computer use and censor/filter student access and speech on school-issued chromebooks and other devices. My daughter's school-issued chromebook is highly regulated and filtered. She can't even receive or send outside email on it that that doesn't come from a school address. If she wants to send grandma an email she has to use our home computer. The school will block it because the address isn't a school account. Unless you are a teacher you can't even reach any student using a school-issued device. That is to protect the students. Schools can also regulate student speech on all school-managed portals like school email accounts, school web sites, and Google Classroom, which is sort of like Facebook for school classes. It is where teachers post up class assignments and resources and students can ask questions or chat on classroom forums. Schools are absolutely free to regulate student speech in that context. Indeed, it is their responsibility to do so. Students have been suspended at my school for bulling and inappropriate postings on school-related forums. As they should.

I think the Supreme Court ruled exactly correctly here. Where do you see school authority stopping if not outside school property, outside school time, and outside of school-administered forums? Do you think school administrators and teachers should be monitoring what churches their students go to on Sunday? And discipline their students if they go to churches that may not share the values of the school administration? Should schools regulate what books or TV shows they watch on their free time? Should schools monitor what sort of opinions they are getting exposed to by their parents? Where do YOU think school authority over the outside-of-school activities of their students should stop if not at the line that the Supreme Court just drew?

[temporal1]

How nice you’re so interested in what i think. Thoughtful to ask.

To begin, i think the case should have been thrown out before a ruling.
Next, in a world where adults are not hired and/or fired for “unacceptable” social media posts, i see little reason for minors not to expect repercussions for vulgarity. Cheerleading is an extra privilege, not comparable to adult employment.

“Swearing on social media really could cost you your job”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/ ... employers/

i’m also for minors not having access to smartphones, basic cellphones are sufficient; i’m for minimum age and training requirements for smartphones - similar to motor vehicle driving requirements. including continuing ed and updating licenses, i.e., licenses are not “for life.”

Because of the 8-1 ruling, i’m considering there may be more i’m overlooking. However. i’m not there yet.
i would think this would be a frivolous suit and not worthy of court time.

[Ken]

How nice you’re so interested in what i think. Thoughtful to ask.

To begin, i think the case should have been thrown out before a ruling.
Next, in a world where adults are not hired and/or fired for “unacceptable” social media posts, i see little reason for minors not to expect repercussions for vulgarity. Cheerleading is an extra privilege, not comparable to adult employment.

“Swearing on social media really could cost you your job”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/04/ ... employers/

i’m also for minors not having access to smartphones, basic cellphones are sufficient; i’m for minimum age and training requirements for smartphones - similar to motor vehicle driving requirements. including continuing ed and updating licenses, i.e., licenses are not “for life.”

Because of the 8-1 ruling, i’m considering there may be more i’m overlooking. However. i’m not there yet.
i would think this would be a frivolous suit and not worthy of court time.

The case is about how far school authority (i.e. the reach of the government) extends into the private lives of students.

The case was not about whether or not children should be punished or suffer consequences for misbehavior on social media. Yes they should. But by their parents.

In this case the school administrator could have simply picked up a phone and notified the parent that their child was acting out on social media and then left it up to the parent to determine what consequences were appropriate. Just like they might do if they see a student out late at night running with a wrong crowd, or anything else they might see kids do outside of class that they think the parent should be aware of. That would have been the proper way to address the situation if the school administration thought it was something that needed addressing.

[temporal1]

i’m all for empowerment of parents, and parent involvement in schools - regardless of description of school.
however, i’m no longer convinced public schools value this strategy, whereas my experience with private schools is the opposite, they depend on and require parent involvement.

imho, public schools are more+more hamstrung by politics, unions, and fear of litigation. the well has been poisoned.

[Ken]

i’m all for empowerment of parents, and parent involvement in schools - regardless of description of school.
however, i’m no longer convinced public schools value this strategy, whereas my experience with private schools is the opposite, they depend on and require parent involvement.

imho, public schools are more+more hamstrung by politics, unions, and fear of litigation. the well has been poisoned.

I find it is largely an issue of demographics. The schools I have taught at that are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (i.e. poor) tend to have very little parent involvement. And no matter how much the schools try to generate parental involvement they tend not to get much. On the other hand, the schools in affluent neighborhoods have obsessive parental involvement that usually goes way overboard. Parents are often way over-involved. Go to a PTA meeting in some wealthy suburban neighborhood for a taste. You would think it is the parents running the school not the administration. The happy medium is sometimes hard to reach.

[Josh]

i’m all for empowerment of parents, and parent involvement in schools - regardless of description of school.
however, i’m no longer convinced public schools value this strategy, whereas my experience with private schools is the opposite, they depend on and require parent involvement.

imho, public schools are more+more hamstrung by politics, unions, and fear of litigation. the well has been poisoned.

I find it is largely an issue of demographics. The schools I have taught at that are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (i.e. poor) tend to have very little parent involvement. And no matter how much the schools try to generate parental involvement they tend not to get much. On the other hand, the schools in affluent neighborhoods have obsessive parental involvement that usually goes way overboard. Parents are often way over-involved. Go to a PTA meeting in some wealthy suburban neighborhood for a taste. You would think it is the parents running the school not the administration. The happy medium is sometimes hard to reach.

Ken,

Would you support this decision if the young lady’s remarks had been racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.?

Or do you think schools should be allowed to police such speech off campus?

[Ken]

i’m all for empowerment of parents, and parent involvement in schools - regardless of description of school.
however, i’m no longer convinced public schools value this strategy, whereas my experience with private schools is the opposite, they depend on and require parent involvement.

imho, public schools are more+more hamstrung by politics, unions, and fear of litigation. the well has been poisoned.

I find it is largely an issue of demographics. The schools I have taught at that are at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (i.e. poor) tend to have very little parent involvement. And no matter how much the schools try to generate parental involvement they tend not to get much. On the other hand, the schools in affluent neighborhoods have obsessive parental involvement that usually goes way overboard. Parents are often way over-involved. Go to a PTA meeting in some wealthy suburban neighborhood for a taste. You would think it is the parents running the school not the administration. The happy medium is sometimes hard to reach.

Ken,

Would you support this decision if the young lady’s remarks had been racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.?

Or do you think schools should be allowed to police such speech off campus?

I think schools should police student conduct at school as well as outside of school when students are using issued equipment or participating on school-managed forums. Which are just an extension of the school itself in this day and age of virtual learning.

I don't think it is the role of public schools (i.e. the government) to be regulating student conduct outside of school settings. That is the role of parents. My opinion doesn't change no matter what sort of content is involved. Frankly I'm rather surprised that people here don't agree with me on that. It isn't about whether or not student conduct should be regulated outside of school. Clearly it should. The question is whether that is the proper role of school administrators.

How far do you want the public schools inserting themselves into the outside lives of their students? It is a slippery slope.

Do you want public schools monitoring the vaccination status of the households that their children live in?
Do you want public schools to monitor whether parents use corporal punishment (spankings) in the home?
Do you want public schools to be monitoring the diets of their students when they are away from school?
Do you want public schools to be monitoring what type of religious or political activities are happening in student homes?
Do you want public schools to be monitoring whether parents abuse alcohol or drugs or anything else that might make the home "unsafe"?

That all sounds more like Communist China to me than the United States. And the slippery slope begins when you start saying that schools have a responsibility to police the welfare of students (i.e. student conduct) outside of any school context.

Again, if school administrators think a certain student's outside-of-school conduct needs addressing they are always free to pick up the phone and let the parent know. That has always been the case and nothing about this case changes that one bit. Technology makes that very easy. I can click on the name of any student in my electronic gradebook and pull up a parent phone number or generate a parent email. It is super easy to contact parents if you have any concerns about their child.

[RZehr]

I'm really happy to see the strong-majority, SC decisions in both the Catholic Foster case, and the cursing cheerleader case.
I like to see religious rights live on. And I like to see at least a milquetoast hand slap in the general direction of cancel culture.