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

[legalmania]

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.

We have something in the law called "but for doctrine" (see meaning below) if RS was following FB rules and following the laws of the FTC, the school would have never had any reason to question her." But For" RS posting on FB this would have never happened. This was not her first rodeo,in early 2011 she was put on detention and asked to apologize to the adult monitor the first time for posting that the adult hall monitor was mean to her , the principal claims he was able to get her post by a screenshot, shortly thereafter she posted again on FB "who the F turned me in, again she was put on in school detention for a day and was banned from the school ski trip." The principal was then called by a mother claiming RS was posting to her son on FB about sex. That is when her e-mail and FB password was requested. The school says they had a parents permission to access her account. She continued to cause problems with the school principal by posting on FB with people that were connected to the school. I honestly don't know if the boy went to that school." But for" RS in my opinion she was the driving force for the school disruption.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/but-for-test/

 

[butwhatif?]

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!

MOO

RSBM

ITA! And I think because of what we see here, we need to educate our kids to use their voice when something isn't 'right'. And I'm not just talking about physical or sexual abuse. General abuse of power should be called out too.
If we teach our kids that they must always respect all adults or all teaching staff just because they are older then we are sending them a dangerous message.
I can't see that this other case has been posted here, but here's a good example of why we shouldn't teach our kids to have blind respect and follow the directions of those in authority.

A tenured teacher at a San Diego high school has been put on paid leave while the district investigates an allegation that she refused to allow a 14-year-old student to leave class to go to the toilet and instead told the girl to urinate in a bucket.
The student was instructed to go to another room out of view of classmates, urinate in a bucket and then dump the urine in a sink, according to the claim.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ins-of-being-forced-to-urinate-in-bucket.html

In a situation like that, I would want my kids to go against the teacher and just take off to the toilet.

Back to the FB interrogation-
Ideally this girl would have told her parents, and her parents could have helped gauge if the hall monitor really was targeting her and being 'mean', and if she was, then they could have discussed it at the school.

The parents should have been monitoring her FB acc, regardless of if she was under 13 or not. And IMO it was the parents, not the schools responsibility to ensure that she was using it responsibly. I don't think that the 'I hate so-and- so because she was mean to me' is irresponsible. It's a 12 year old venting and voicing her opinion, which she's entitled to.

Over here, schools will take NO action at all over what goes on regarding FB since it can only be used outside of school, and that's how it should be.

IMO,The only time a student should get into trouble at school regarding FB is if they are using it on their phones during school hours. But that would be for breaking a school rule- not for the FB content.

If there is bullying or threats, then that's a police issue. And the post should also be reported to FB.

I'm not sure that I agree with the law suit based on the little information we have, even though I think the actions they took were OTT. What is it with deputy sheriffs being at schools over the most miniscule things these days?

I have set up a FB acc for my 8 yr old. But only I have the password.She uses it to keep in touch with friends from her old school, and we use it as a learning tool. By the time she is actually allowed to have a FB acc she is going to be aware of all the reasons why she should or shouldn't post certain things, why accounts need to be kept private etc.

JMO

 

[Donjeta]

We have something in the law called "but for doctrine" (see meaning below) if RS was following FB rules and following the laws of the FTC, the school would have never had any reason to question her." But For" RS posting on FB this would have never happened. This was not her first rodeo,in early 2011 she was put on detention and asked to apologize to the adult monitor the first time for posting that the adult hall monitor was mean to her , the principal claims he was able to get her post by a screenshot, shortly thereafter she posted again on FB "who the F turned me in, again she was put on in school detention for a day and was banned from the school ski trip." The principal was then called by a mother claiming RS was posting to her son on FB about sex. That is when her e-mail and FB password was requested. The school says they had a parents permission to access her account. She continued to cause problems with the school principal by posting on FB with people that were connected to the school. I honestly don't know if the boy went to that school." But for" RS in my opinion she was the driving force for the school disruption.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/but-for-test/

JMO and everybody is free to disagree but those things became a school disruption because the school made it so. A child saying that Mr/s So and So is mean outside of the school environment can be ignored by the school and frequently is. A lot of the time they don't even hear about what the children talk among themselves. I remember having several conversations about teachers me and my buddies were annoyed with for one reason or another and it never became any disruption to the school whatsover because they didn't know or if they knew they didn't react or think that they'd have to punish us for having an opinion they didn't like. And the other student's parent could have dealt with the conversation about sex without involving the school by calling the girl's parents or banning her own kid from Facebook. Maybe there is something we're not being told but so far I haven't seen any reason to think this child is a dangerous criminal who needs to have LE involved in her business. It was a complete overreaction to call the deputy and to go through her FB account. They could have just reported her account to FB and have it closed.

 

[sherbetjello]

Actually I respectfully disagree. If I post something negative on facebook from home regarding my workplace I can be fired. There have been cases, it has happened.

But usually this happens because people have added jilted coworkers, or the boss themselves. If you look back, that's not smart to add the people you work with and then go on a rant about the workplace -- nothing good will come of that. However, if you are 12, and the only ones on your page are other 12 year olds, I mean... this doesn't really compare to the workplace because I can't ask a 12-year old to have logic or reasons for their "emotions" -- which are many. As an adult, I sort of expect most to have the restraint to hold back how they really feel out of responsibility, or "unexpected" and "expected" behavior systems.

The comparison to me is apples to oranges.

I would be so angry if I walked into work and my boss was like "give me your password, I want your password right now" as the cops stood there. I am sure this 12-year old was scared *****less, which brings me to this article:

http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/0...sk-for-facebook-passwords/?xid=rss-topstories


And here it is, for the adults. NOW is there a problem with this?

 

[Nova]

JMO and everybody is free to disagree but those things became a school disruption because the school made it so. A child saying that Mr/s So and So is mean outside of the school environment can be ignored by the school and frequently is. A lot of the time they don't even hear about what the children talk among themselves. I remember having several conversations about teachers me and my buddies were annoyed with for one reason or another and it never became any disruption to the school whatsover because they didn't know or if they knew they didn't react or think that they'd have to punish us for having an opinion they didn't like. And the other student's parent could have dealt with the conversation about sex without involving the school by calling the girl's parents or banning her own kid from Facebook. Maybe there is something we're not being told but so far I haven't seen any reason to think this child is a dangerous criminal who needs to have LE involved in her business. It was a complete overreaction to call the deputy and to go through her FB account. They could have just reported her account to FB and have it closed.

I basically agree with you, but I also think it's fair to distinguish between a public FB post and a private conversation.

I'm still not comfortable with schools disciplining students for non-violent off-campus behavior, but a Facebook post is more similar to giving an interview to be published in the local paper than to the after-school venting sessions we used to conduct after school hours.

 

[Nova]

...And here it is, for the adults. NOW is there a problem with this?

Yes. I've heard of colleges demanding that and I find it appalling.

I'm glad I'm not faced with the choice of compromising my principles or giving up on the college of my dreams!

 

[kgeaux]

Yes. I've heard of colleges demanding that and I find it appalling.

I'm glad I'm not faced with the choice of compromising my principles or giving up on the college of my dreams!

I'd have to delete my account before attending any interviews! And there is nothing wrong with my FB posts or friends, it's just the principle!

 

[doublestop]

a Facebook post is more similar to giving an interview to be published in the local paper than to the after-school venting sessions we used to conduct after school hours.

Not if it's a private Facebook page, which hers was, wasn't it?

Then it's more like talking in a conference call, and someone tapped your phone.

 

[Donjeta]

I basically agree with you, but I also think it's fair to distinguish between a public FB post and a private conversation.

I'm still not comfortable with schools disciplining students for non-violent off-campus behavior, but a Facebook post is more similar to giving an interview to be published in the local paper than to the after-school venting sessions we used to conduct after school hours.

I thought they were private FB posts...? (As far as any posts on FB are private.) The principal had to be given screenshots to access the posts so they weren't visible to people without access to her page.

Someone with access to private conversations could choose to report them to school officials back then and someone with access to private FB posts can choose to report them to school officials now. I don't see that much of a difference really except that it's easier to prove what was said on FB.

 

[Nova]

Not if it's a private Facebook page, which hers was, wasn't it?

Then it's more like talking in a conference call, and someone tapped your phone.

Thank you to doublestop and Donjeta for the correction. Yes, a private FB page is less public than a newspaper article.

But depending on the number of people who have access, it is still more than a private conversation.

And a private page can become a public page at any time in the future.

So while you're right that I took the analogy too far, comparing a private FB page to a private conversation (as I myself have done above) isn't totally apt either.

 

[legalmania]

The ACLU is asking for the school to change it's policy on one of it's counts. All we can do now is wait for the school to respond to the complaint and see what the depositions say, because in all fairness the school hasn't given it's full account of what happened. I just find that this girl being a new student and already getting a detention and banned from the school ski trip is going to disrupt the school. I'm sure the kids were talking about the new girl being in trouble. As far as the boys mother maybe she tried to talk to the parent but the parent refused. We just don't know what happened, but the boys mother isn't talking the students aren't talking the only one who is talking is the girl through the ACLU.

 

[Nova]

I'm sorry, but even if the girl's mother DID ignore requests from the boy's mother to discuss that matter, I still don't see how an off-campus conversation about sex becomes the concern of the school. (BTW I wouldn't be surprised if the girl's mother IS part of the problem here, since the girl still had her FB account after two detentions.)

Surely that isn't what the court meant when it ruled there had to be a "significant disruption of the classroom".

 

[mysteriew]

Here is kind of my take on this. If I had a facebook and was working, more than likely I would have complaints about my boss at times. I would be furious and probably vengful if the boss called me in and demanded my password. Why would this kid be any different? It isn't like she was talking about or planning any crime.

The other thing I am curious about, is was her facebook public? If it was public why would they need her password? If it was private, then why would they care?

 

[legalmania]

I'm sorry, but even if the girl's mother DID ignore requests from the boy's mother to discuss that matter, I still don't see how an off-campus conversation about sex becomes the concern of the school. (BTW I wouldn't be surprised if the girl's mother IS part of the problem here, since the girl still had her FB account after two detentions.)

Surely that isn't what the court meant when it ruled there had to be a "significant disruption of the classroom".

If you read the Blue Mountain School District v. J.S. you will find similar circumstances to this case. Below is a summary of the case. I do agree that the mother may be part of the problem here since she didn't seem to do anything as long as her child was the problem but when the school did something to her child then she got involved.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/jsvbluemountainschooldistr.htm

 

[annalia]

If you read the Blue Mountain School District v. J.S. you will find similar circumstances to this case. Below is a summary of the case. I do agree that the mother may be part of the problem here since she didn't seem to do anything as long as her child was the problem but when the school did something to her child then she got involved.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/jsvbluemountainschooldistr.htm

Those rulings were in favor of J.S and another student, correct?

The full Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in this case on June 3, 2010, and a year later it ruled in favor of J.S. and Layshock. The school districts appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court. On January 17, 2012, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the 2011 ruling in favor of the students' free speech rights to stand.


Why wouldn't the mother get involved when the school did something to her child, how does that make her the problem? Perhaps it wasn't until the school really crossed the line that she needed to get involved.

 

[legalmania]

Those rulings were in favor of J.S and another student, correct?

The full Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in this case on June 3, 2010, and a year later it ruled in favor of J.S. and Layshock. The school districts appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court. On January 17, 2012, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the 2011 ruling in favor of the students' free speech rights to stand.


Why wouldn't the mother get involved when the school did something to her child, how does that make her the problem? Perhaps it wasn't until the school really crossed the line that she needed to get involved.

Yes in that particular case J.S.won, however there are numerous cases that kids have lost, so for now they are ruling on a case by case basis, unless the Supreme Court gets involved. It says that the kid asked for a jury trial but the case ended up en banc? I would have been interested to know what a jury would think. If my kid got detention I would have my child remove her profile from FB. If my child got a second detention I would put a password block on the computer and the kid couldn't get on unless it was to do homework or something, and it would be done under my supervision. If my daughter at 13 was having sex talks with a boy not only would I meet with the parent but I would make sure they weren't seeing each other behind my back. It just reminds me of Cindy and Casey it all started out as harmless lies and look how it ended up.

 

[legalmania]

Just to be fair I am posting a 2nd Circuit Decision that was won by the school, the circumstances are similar.

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202536513648

 

[Soulmagent]

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/

So when these children grow up ,they are already trained to not speak up or out agaisnt schools,or goverments or injustice because it may lead to them being punished for substantial disruption (a facebook post) and they may be held indefinitly under some new sci fi terrorist law....:waitasec:

So I know I said this before but ,the school is training our children that the constitution does not apply to them.

These kids are the people who will be the next to stand up for our rights and it looks as if they will not have a clue what those rights are , leaving all of us vulnerable to losing them.JMO.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes in that particular case J.S.won, however there are numerous cases that kids have lost, so for now they are ruling on a case by case basis, unless the Supreme Court gets involved. It says that the kid asked for a jury trial but the case ended up en banc? I would have been interested to know what a jury would think. If my kid got detention I would have my child remove her profile from FB. If my child got a second detention I would put a password block on the computer and the kid couldn't get on unless it was to do homework or something, and it would be done under my supervision. If my daughter at 13 was having sex talks with a boy not only would I meet with the parent but I would make sure they weren't seeing each other behind my back. It just reminds me of Cindy and Casey it all started out as harmless lies and look how it ended up.

JMO, I don't think there is any evidence that there is any baby killing involved in this case.

All these comparisons equating this MINOR CHILD to famous murderers or adults infamous for throwing their children into the bushes just because she posted on FB are out of line imo.

 

[annalia]

Just to be fair I am posting a 2nd Circuit Decision that was won by the school, the circumstances are similar.

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202536513648

But in this case the student urged other students to contact the school, the circumstances don't seem similar to me at all. The disruption stemmed from the other students bombarding the school.

A 12 year old girl saying that so and so is mean and I hate her is something that anyone working in a middle school would have heard many times before. Seems to me there are some thin skinned folks at that school. And maybe this hall monitor was truly picking on this child. Just because she's the adult doesn't automatically make it ok, that the child was forced to apologize for feeling this way doesn't sit well. It seems like there wasn't even any counseling for the girl to see if maybe there was a valid issue. I can recall my kids at that age, if I looked at them crooked at one moment in time i was the wicked witch of the west and tears would flow, at another time there would be no problem. They're middle schoolers, drama and hormones are running high, if adults don't know that or can't handle that then they shouldn't be working in a middle school.

As far as the sex talk, not the school's business either, certainly doesn't warrant the school forcing the student to hand over her fb password.

Unless the school does this to all students on a regular basis, unless the school monitors every student's facebook, myspace and every other social media to make sure that no student ever talks about sex, to make sure that no student ever talks about anyone at the school.

It's a huge leap to say that this child could be the next casey Anthony.

JMHO