Girl, 12, 'interrogated' by school staff until she gives up Facebook password

[gitana1]

What are we going to do about parents who continue to let their children ignore the rules? This girl was called into the office on 2 previous occassions, I don't believe that her parents didn't know this was happening. Schools are critized for not protecting the kids when a shooting happens, but when they do punish a child we call them out on that. The fact is that we do not have the whole story here. MOO

The school should only be involved in things that:
1. Evidence that there is a threat to the child's welfare, such as signs of abuse, neglect, or suicidal ideation
2. Relate directly to the health, safety and welfare of all students and staff.

This child was on FB but that is a parenting issue, not a school issue. Her comment that a staff member was mean to her doesn't sound like much, unless there was more to the story or something we are not hearing. If not, it has nothing to do with the health, safety and welfare of the staff or other students. A call to the parents and a conference with them, the child and possibly the hall monitor would have been in order if the school felt they needed to explore the issue.

That's right she has to have what the legal world calls clean hands and by being under age and lying about her age could cause the lawsuit to be thrown out of court.

What I remember from law school is that the doctrine of unclean hands applies if the plaintiff did not act in good faith.

The fact that this kid went against FB's policy by having a page while underage, would have nothing to do with her complaint against the school, that they humiliated her and breached her 1st amendment rights, rights to privacy, etc.

It would be different, IMO, if she was suing FB for some act.

Bottom line, I think the tactics used against this child, if there is no more to the story of what she posted, were punitive and out of line. There are much bigger things to worry about than a kid posting innocuous comments outside class.

I agree with those who state that if the school came across posts that caused them concern, such as an indication the child was being sexually abused or making threats against another, they should have reported that to the police and left it to the police to investigate. Otherwise, anything less than potentially criminal conduct should have resulted in a call to the parents.

What they did was wrong, IMO. And if they have so much time on their hands to worry about such postings, I believe they are missing much more important things occurring under their noses. Such as real abuse or perhaps failing students, crummy teachers, etc.

This, to me, (with the assumption that there isn't more to the story) is just another example of mediocre bureaucrats who are keeping busy with nonsense because they lack the intelligence to do their actual jobs. :moo:

 

[Velouria]

Actually let me rephrase that they refused to hear the cases. The issue here is if they violated her first amendment rights and he fourth amendment rights.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-student-social-media/

Refusing to hear a case and a ruling against an appellant are clearly not the same thing. Absence of a precedent is not a precedent in and of itself.

 

[Jacie Estes]

I have read about 5 different versions of the story so far. This started in 2010. I believe this little girl is angry because she had to go to a new school, where she felt she wasn't liked by the school monitor and then was mad because someone turned her in, then a mother turned her in for talking about sex on the computer to her son, that is when the password was demanded. The school claims they did have a parents permission. So I wonder if the dad said o.k. and that is why the little girl was so upset, her dad gave her up. I think there may be a divorce or separation, because the mother is suing. The school says they're not going to comment because they haven't received any complaint yet. Then I read there is a complaint. It's confusing. With time the true story will come out it always does.

How does any of the girl's circumstances make it acceptable for the school to abridge her rights? These are two seperate things.

 

[Jacie Estes]

:banghead:

Although the school says the mother was aware of the situation and okayed the school to get her daughter's FB password, it is not clear whether the mother was informed of these specific FB posts, or whether Mom just signed a generic "I have been informed of school policies concerning Internet use" forms at the beginning of the school year-----I know I signed plenty of those for my kids who attended public high school, but I sure never considered that they would interrogate my kids and
have a deputy in the room flashing his tasar!



Nope, no threats. The articles state she said the monitor was mean. So, yep, totally agree, HECK NO!



I really believe, and please forgive me if you disagree, that schools have become an arm of the government, attempting to mold model citizens....and they regularly, routinely overstep their boundaries.

JUST AS AN EXAMPLE:
One of my boys was attending school for the first time as a ninth grader, and the school was made aware of another student's threats to "pull a Columbine."

The school did not inform parents----we learned of the threats when our kids came home and told us! I could not believe the school would keep such pertinent information from parents, but when I complained, I was informed that public schools consider themselves to BE the parent in absentia......honestly, the school did not understand why I was upset.....I had signed a form at the beginning of the year saying it was ok for the school to make decisions in my absence. Since I was a stay at home mom, and live about a quarter of a mile from the school, I figured I would always be available and never be "in absentia". But what the school meant was that they did not even have to inform me ahead of time, regardless of whether I was available or not.



You have a very valid point, and I am admittedly biased when it comes to public schools. However, the use of a cuss word doesn't bother me, as it has nothing to do with the school's actions.

I am looking forward to hearing the other side of the story, but if no threats
were made by the 12 year old, then I predict the school district will be paying out a settlement.

I am a parent who reported our child's school to child protective services when our child came home from school injured several times from bullying. My first phone call to CPS I was in tears, but I persevered. The end result was a big investigation of the school and uncovering of on-going problems. The principal lost their job at that school. I don't regret what I did; our child's safety comes first before ANY bureaucrat's job. No, we didn't sue but our child knew that someone had their back. yea, I'm a mama bear. LOL

 

[LinasK]

Don't you think it is the schools business that she was talking about an adult school monitor? Then she went on to want to know who turned her in. From what I understand she was new to that school, so she didn't know people very well.

Nope! My daughter has told me some of the moms who are noon-duty aides at her elementary school are mean, and I believe her because I know the parents she's talking about! They can be mean! That's not a threat.

 

[Hopeful One]

Don't you think it is the schools business that she was talking about an adult school monitor? Then she went on to want to know who turned her in. From what I understand she was new to that school, so she didn't know people very well.

No. She can talk about a school monitor outside of school. How is that the school's business?? We now aren't allowed opinions?? That doesn't sound like the free country we're supposed to live in.

 

[legalmania]

Refusing to hear a case and a ruling against an appellant are clearly not the same thing. Absence of a precedent is not a precedent in and of itself.

The link below has several cases that both affirm and dismiss the issue of social media rulings. There is no absence of precedents because the courts feel there is just no foundation because of the Supreme Courts refusal to hear these cases. Tinker v. Des Moines has set precedents for the last fifty years but the lower tribunal feel it's time to redress that case.

http://blogs.haynesboone.com/index....-schools-may-punish-off-campus-online-speech/

 

[legalmania]

No. She can talk about a school monitor outside of school. How is that the school's business?? We now aren't allowed opinions?? That doesn't sound like the free country we're supposed to live in.

If the school feels it's a disruption to the school according to Tinker then they have every right. This is something the Supreme Court is going to have to address because the lower tribunal have both affirmed and dismissed cases.

 

[legalmania]

Refusing to hear a case and a ruling against an appellant are clearly not the same thing. Absence of a precedent is not a precedent in and of itself.

Actually all it means it that the lower decision stands. O.K enough fooling around I have a very important case coming up on the 20th of April and I need to get to work. Try to get back on later to answer some of your questions. Bye for now.

 

[annalia]

Regarding the school's claim that they had permission, I agree with the comments that it was probably the standard forms that are required at the beginning of the year. It wouldn't make sense that the school would notify the parents about this particular incident, the parents gave them specific permission for them to have access to her password and then turn around and sue the school. There also wouldn't have been any need for the interrogation.

Reading some of what's been reported, the school claimed that the girl saying that she hated the hall monitor because she was mean amounted to bullying. That's preposterous. It would be bullying if the girl said she was going to do something about the hall monitor being mean.

And the last incident when the mother contacted the school because the girl was talking about sex with her son, did the boy have to turn over his password as well? Did the school search all of his messages?

And WTH was the mother even calling the school for??? Talk to her son, call the girl's parents, good heavens that's absurd to involve the school over that!

When my kids were younger I was a stay at home mom, I got a call to sub in the cafeteria. My kids were horrified, they said all the kids hate the lunch ladies because they're so mean. I guarantee that kids all over the country say similar things to what this girl said.

JMHO

 

[Velouria]

The link below has several cases that both affirm and dismiss the issue of social media rulings. There is no absence of precedents because the courts feel there is just no foundation because of the Supreme Courts refusal to hear these cases. Tinker v. Des Moines has set precedents for the last fifty years but the lower tribunal feel it's time to redress that case.

http://blogs.haynesboone.com/index....-schools-may-punish-off-campus-online-speech/

Yes, the lower circuit courts have issued rulings regarding schools and social media, however it was misleading to imply that SCOTUS had somehow affirmed the right of schools to limit a student's off-campus speech simply by refusing to hear cases and yes, letting those decisions stand. There are at least as many, if not more, rulings in favor of the student petitioners.

Even if one wishes to argue that a 50 year-old ruling like Tinker should serve as precedent in this case, it states that the speech must cause or be likely to cause "substantial disruption". I don't see how under the most favorable interpretation you could find that this child's posts met the minimum standard, and even then, there is no provision that would entitle school officials to access to her private, off-campus information.

I do agree with you on one point, however. SCOTUS needs to step us and address this issue sooner rather than later.

 

[Velouria]

And the last incident when the mother contacted the school because the girl was talking about sex with her son, did the boy have to turn over his password as well? Did the school search all of his messages?

And WTH was the mother even calling the school for??? Talk to her son, call the girl's parents, good heavens that's absurd to involve the school over that! (respectfully snipped)

Maybe this boy's mother should keep HIM off of Facebook? Is HE old enough to have an account??

I agree, annalia. I would have called the girl's parents and/or blocked her from my son's page.

 

[Nova]

The link below has several cases that both affirm and dismiss the issue of social media rulings. There is no absence of precedents because the courts feel there is just no foundation because of the Supreme Courts refusal to hear these cases. Tinker v. Des Moines has set precedents for the last fifty years but the lower tribunal feel it's time to redress that case.

http://blogs.haynesboone.com/index....-schools-may-punish-off-campus-online-speech/

Does anyone have an opinion as to why the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases re social media? The lower courts seem to be begging for guidance.

TIA.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Does anyone have an opinion as to why the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases re social media? The lower courts seem to be begging for guidance.

TIA.

They're lazy. :biglaugh:

In all seriousness, social media is relatively new, at least from a legal perspective. They will probably get around to it at some point, but it will probably be an extension of Tinker and the subsequent free speech cases that center on students inside/outside the classroom. I don't think it's all that different than standing outside the school holding a sign, which is something they've already covered.

 

[Gardenlady]

Maybe this boy's mother should keep HIM off of Facebook? Is HE old enough to have an account??

I agree, annalia. I would have called the girl's parents and/or blocked her from my son's page.

It's just another example of some "slutty" girl corrupting an innocent boy. because, you know, I'm SURE the boy didn't want to talk about sex at all. Probably forced into the conversation. hoh:

Yes, sarcastic... But I swear given all the anti-woman news lately, I wouldn't be surprised if tha was the mom's attitude.

Good thing this girl wasn't talking about birth control...she might have been expelled! :what:

 

[angelmom]

Does anyone have an opinion as to why the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases re social media? The lower courts seem to be begging for guidance.

TIA.

IANAL, but I wonder if they are waiting for a case that would be a good line in the sand. Some of these are a little out there, and might be used as precedent when they really don't have that much in common. For instance, a case where there was a true threat OR a case like this one where LE was involved for activities that were not on school property at all and involved no threats or discussion of other minor students.

 

[legalmania]

Does anyone have an opinion as to why the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases re social media? The lower courts seem to be begging for guidance.

TIA.

They expect that the Supreme Court will probably address a case eventually. Here is a link to 5 predictions pertaining to social media. I don't think this case will be heard by the Supreme Court either. I think it will have to be something so outrageous that a Senator or State Representative gets involved. JMO.

5.One of the most actively litigated issues in social media law right now is the question of when public schools can discipline students for what they write online. Is the post punishable behavior, or is it free speech protected by the First Amendment?
Supreme Court precedent currently says that student speech can be punished when it causes a “substantial disruption” in the classroom. This guideline was foggy enough before the advent of social media. Now, it’s anyone’s guess as to when a fake profile mocking a high school principal, or snarky comments about a fellow student, can be said to cause a “substantial disruption” in the school environment — especially since the posts are usually made outside school property. Federal and state courts across the country have decided several of these cases already, with no clear standard emerging. In all likelihood, that brightline standard will continue to be elusive until the Supreme Court takes up the issue — which is unlikely to happen as early as 2012.


http://mashable.com/2012/01/05/social-media-legal-predictions/

 

[menmo]

Snipped by me for space

I am jaded, because IME kids aren't always as innocent as we would like.

I also don't see a problem with my dd being in a conference room with 3 adults from the school. Let's see the principal, the counselor and the teacher. Yep I would have no problem with that situation. MOO

I am jaded, too, because IMO adults aren't always as innocent as we would like.
Seriously I get so aggravated at the kids always getting a bad rap like an adult in an authority position would never do this or that. I say to all that think that way take a look around WS and see all the adults in charge of children that have harmed them. It's sad and wrong! :maddening:
I know that some children can and do lie, but really, so can and do adults!

Maybe this boy's mother should keep HIM off of Facebook? Is HE old enough to have an account??

LOL I was just thinking the same thing. That momma may have gotten rid of one girl but there is a whole school of girls that I'm sure are going to lure her precious son into sin. For every one momma gets rid of there's 10 more likely lining up. Then what? Report them all?? Really? I say parent your own child well and pray it's good enough to get them through the rough spots. It's not easy being a kid.

I do say that I worry about any 12 year old that's already having sex. Having a childhood is important.

MOO

 

[angelmom]

That momma may have gotten rid of one girl but there is a whole school of girls that I'm sure are going to lure her precious son into sin. For every one momma gets rid of there's 10 more likely lining up. Then what? Report them all?? Really? I say parent your own child well and pray it's good enough to get them through the rough spots. It's not easy being a kid.

I do say that I worry about any 12 year old that's already having sex. Having a childhood is important.

MOO

I agree with your post, but I don't think that it said she was actually having sex. She posted something about sex - two totally different things!

 

[Donjeta]

If the school feels it's a disruption to the school according to Tinker then they have every right. This is something the Supreme Court is going to have to address because the lower tribunal have both affirmed and dismissed cases.

JMO and I could be wrong but I think what they did and the consequent lawsuit probably disrupted the school much much more than a twelve-year-old posting on her private FB that somebody-or-other was mean.