School Fascism at all-time high?
February 26, 2002 8:45 PM   Subscribe

School Fascism at all-time high? Okay, forget the various and sundry suspensions for alcohol, fighting, or bringing anything even vaguely pointy to school. This guy took innocent pictures of girls in his school with their knowledge using his own camera, and posted them to his own web site. Are we a little overboard here?
posted by umberto (24 comments total)

 
via Obscure Store. And what exactly where the parents going to base a lawsuit on anyway?
posted by umberto at 8:48 PM on February 26, 2002


I think that where I grew up anyway, students could not be disciplined by the school for things they did on their own time, outside of school property. True, he took the pictures at school, but the supposed crime was putting them up on his website, which he probably did at home. I suppose the girls' parents would sue for invasion of privacy. Just guessing, though. This is ridiculous; and in my view it's really not the principal's place to interfere at all.
posted by bingo at 9:28 PM on February 26, 2002


If anyone can get in touch with the students running the forum, it's been /.'ed. I'd be happy to host the forum temporarily.
posted by SpecialK at 9:29 PM on February 26, 2002


One time I sent a private email of that nature to a bunch of my friends, and someone let a copy reach the aministration of my high school. It had nothing incriminating in the email and I was suspended for 3 days because they found it offensive. I didnt think that was very fair either.
posted by MarkO at 9:37 PM on February 26, 2002


The pics were taken on school property, so the school would feel they have a right to get involved. Also if the pics were posted online, that would be public exposure to ...shall we say unauthorized extracurricular activities on school property, which means the reputation of the school and its administration is at risk.

If you were to do the same at your workplace, but posted your pics at home, bet your ass your employer would have yours in a sling. I see no difference here.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:38 PM on February 26, 2002


I know at the HS where I went, we had to sign forms at the beginning of the year saying we agreed to the school policies- which consisted of exactly this. You could be smoking a cig off campus half way around the world, but if a teacher caught you, it was against the rules so u could be disciplined at school (and i know many cases where it happened). Granted, it was a private school, but being clueless of the public school world, but does signing a form like this occur in public schools?
posted by jmd82 at 9:52 PM on February 26, 2002


if I were parent, I definitely would not want my daughter displayed like that on the internet. the school acted appropiately.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:02 PM on February 26, 2002


ZachsMind: To me the difference is that students are not employees of their high school, or their principal, and the school is not a private business, it is a nonprofit entity that has a specific purpose, and I don't think that purpose has anything to do with students' private websites. If a law is being broken, someone can call the police.

Also, I admit to a personal prejudice that high school administrators are by and large insignificant people on a power trip. I think they should supervise the teachers, make sure no one gets killed in the school, and otherwise stay in their offices and shut up.
posted by bingo at 10:11 PM on February 26, 2002


Jmd82, I think similar policies were at my high school *cough* years ago, and it was a public school. It may be wrong and it may even be fascist, but the reasoning behind that is from a school administration's perspective, if a student is caught doing anything questionable, it could be reflected back at the school as an example of their not educating the children correctly. School admins claim they punish unruly children for their own good. That's only partly right. They're also covering their own butts and saving their own skins.

Young people tend to act as if their actions have no consequences. They rebel and go out of their way sometimes to break the rules if nothing more than to prove to themselves that they do have freedoms, but in actuality their actions affect not only themselves directly, but everyone they know indirectly. Or they can affect as many people in a favorable manner, depending on what the young person opts to do. No one person is an island. None of us can act with impunity.

I'm not saying young people should stop rebelling. It's what young people do. The younger generation should always challenge the older generation. It helps keep society challenged and improving. Young people rebelling is like ...anaerobic exercise for humanity. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 10:31 PM on February 26, 2002


I guess I don't understand what the objection would be even if this were a workplace question. If no one is being libled, if these are simple head shots and bios, if the people in question knew what the pictures were for and had no objection, then I can't imagine there being an issue.

So glad I don't have a "real" job, sometimes.

Except for reversing his position on taking the pictures and using them, this does not seem to be an extremely 'rebellious' act. This is the kind of petty nonsense that lessens respect and dilutes any sensible influence authority might have.

And McSweetie, call me decadent, but I have daughters. And if someone put up a head shot and a short bio of one of them on a list of "hot girls at school", I would merely applaud him his good taste. After checking to make sure it was just a head shot and a bio, naturally.
posted by umberto at 10:44 PM on February 26, 2002


Schools treat children as cattle, I suppose it's proper training so that they will obey the state without question.

For exercising free speech, schools suspend their students regularly. Cattle aren't supposed to talk back, they are just supposed to move from stall to stall, passively obedient.

Just try this article, or this one, or this one, or maybe this one.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:40 AM on February 27, 2002


damn principal's been watching too much boston public. moooooooo. moooo.
posted by quonsar at 6:58 AM on February 27, 2002


Might be worth noting that if this is the same article as Obscure Store & Reading Room had, then the guy titled his page with "Hottest 10 Babes" and posted biographical info.

In these days of weirdos, I sure as heck wouldn't want any of my kid's info on the net.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:29 AM on February 27, 2002


Whether or not the girls' photos and biodata was put up online without their parents' permission is an issue which has nothing to do with the school whatsoever. If the parents have a legit beef with that, then it's their responsibility to find an appropriate remedy to that problem. While calling a lawyer may be the first thought in our overly litigous society, calling the kid and saying "Take my daughter off your website" would probably work just as well. And from the article, it did. When he was requested to do so, he did.

It should be noted that you can find hundreds of 14 and 15 year olds with their own websites with their own pictures of themselves (or even live webcams) and far more detailed personal data than a few-sentence blurb. It's up to each parent to determine what is an appropriate level of "exposure" for their child.

Does the school have a rule against taking pictures on campus during class hours? If so, punish the student for violating that rule. Did the student defame the school by using the school name on this website? Let the school pursue an action against him for that. Otherwise, nothing in this instance has anything to do with the school, and this suspension and forced transfer were way out of line.
posted by Dreama at 7:45 AM on February 27, 2002


if I were parent, I definitely would not want my daughter displayed like that on the internet.

Then you should raise your daughter in such a way that she would not voluntarily participate in such a project, as these girls did.

The only connection the school has to this incident is that a row of lockers was used as the backdrop.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:50 AM on February 27, 2002


if I were parent, I definitely would not want my daughter displayed like that on the internet.

So what? They're not your pictures. It's not your website. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.
posted by jpoulos at 7:52 AM on February 27, 2002


In these days of weirdos, I sure as heck wouldn't want any of my kid's info on the net.

As long as there's no contact information shown, and as long as the pictures were taken with consent, and as long as the pictures aren't anything more than head shots, what's the problem? I don't see how it directly affects the girls involved if some weirdo happens to look at their pictures.

I think the school's being extremely misguided here and is overstepping its bounds: nobody is being hurt by this at all, and it has little to do with the school directly beyond the fact that the girls all go to the same school as the boy who made the site. Perhaps they should focus their attention on things that are closer to their mandate, like education.
posted by biscotti at 8:14 AM on February 27, 2002


Mars saxman:

>> if I were parent, I definitely would not want my
>> daughter displayed like that on the internet.
>
> Then you should raise your daughter in such a way that
> she would not voluntarily participate in such a project, as
> these girls did.

How many fingers are you counting on, Mars? A high-school freshman is still in the middle of being raised.

Now then, darling, you did very well with "don't play with matches" and "don't drink Drano," today we'll talk about "don't permit your face to show up on some older male's website with the term 'hottie' attached."


biscotti:

>> In these days of weirdos, I sure as heck wouldn't want
>> any of my kid's info on the net.
>
> As long as there's no contact information shown, and as
> long as the pictures were taken with consent, and as
> long as the pictures aren't anything more than head
> shots, what's the problem?

To reiterate: the problem is weirdos. The kids are highly identifiable, by name and school attended); any drooler who might be attracted to one of these very-underage "10 hottest" could have contact information in five minutes. As for consent, kids consent all the time to stuff ranging from silly to unwise to deadly. That's why anybody who wants a kid's consent also has to get a note from mom 'n' dad.
posted by jfuller at 1:27 PM on February 27, 2002


A high-school freshman is still in the middle of being raised.

You're going to raise her until she's 30?

To reiterate: the problem is weirdos. The kids are highly identifiable, by name and school attended); any drooler who might be attracted to one of these very-underage "10 hottest" could have contact information in five minutes.

The hottest 10 freshman girls are likely to have their pictures in other media that is not that difficult to access as well; for example, the school paper (as homecoming queen candidates, etc.), which is probably online. Or, for that matter, droolers can hang out at the school or go to the games.

As for consent, kids consent all the time to stuff ranging from silly to unwise to deadly. That's why anybody who wants a kid's consent also has to get a note from mom 'n' dad.

You think she's going to ask you for permission to lose her virginity? Most 15 year old girls (and boys) are already doing all sorts of things their parents don't know about. True, you legally have the right to restrict them from all sorts of activities, but that doesn't mean you should, and it doesn't mean it's always good for them when you do, or that they're going to listen to you, or that they should listen.
posted by bingo at 2:24 PM on February 27, 2002


Gotta love it when kids tell parents how to raise kids...
posted by five fresh fish at 5:13 PM on February 27, 2002


> You're going to raise her until she's 30?

High school freshmen are 15 at your school? You must be in the slow class. Parents keep trying to raise their kids as long as they live. John Ashcroft's mom still has hopes.


> Most 15 year old girls (and boys) are already doing all
> sorts of things their parents don't know about.

...which is no news to parents. That doesn't entitle them to quit trying, though, because nothing entitles them to quit trying.
posted by jfuller at 5:44 PM on February 27, 2002


High school freshmen are 15 at your school? You must be in the slow class.

Um, well, typically kids are 18 when they graduate, so in ninth grade, yeah, 15 would be about right. Is this some kind of a trick question?
posted by kindall at 6:46 PM on February 27, 2002


Yeah man...you graduate at 18...high school is four years...what country are you in?
posted by bingo at 7:04 PM on February 27, 2002


five fresh fish: Was that directed at me? Not that it matters, but I'm not a kid...
posted by bingo at 11:11 PM on February 27, 2002


« Older Speaking of Pat Robertson...  |  Avant-no -- Avantgo puts limit... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments