HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
High School Students Told To Delete Facebook Profiles
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Metrocall
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 952
Their parents?...
ROFL No one is forcing their parents to have their children go to that particular school. Context much?
lol signed a contract. tell them to fuck off, it's their personal life
This nonsense over facebook profiles is getting out of hand, employers asking for the login details, schools suspending kids for posts on Facebook. Schools are supposed to teach the students, not be their goddamn parents.
This nonsense over facebook profiles is getting out of hand, employers asking for the login details, schools suspending kids for posts on Facebook. Schools are supposed to teach the students, not be their goddamn parents.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
This.
ninjaturtle
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,327
So, when did Hitler turn Jewish?
Only freedom haters would think this is ok. How does going to a private school give them the right to tell people what they can do in their private time? They don't have that right!
That is not what the issue is. Show me the law that states this school has the legal authority to tell them what they can and can't do in their private time. I guarantee you won't find any such law. Some of you yanks are are treasonous fucks.
Wonder why it wouldn't let me edit my own post.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Can't you just hide your facebook profile? It can't be found unless you know the persons EMail right?
Starcrossed
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,160
Oppressive.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
Shadowplay
n00b
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 31
While I would agree with most that this is a pretty stupid thing for a school to do, they have the right. There's conduct rules outside of school that the parents agree to; if a student is arrested or caught smoking pot outside of school hours, they can expel them.
They're a private school so they can pretty much set whatever rules they want. A public school would not be able to get away with this.
And by the way, I'm not a freedom hater.
Shadowplay
n00b
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 31
If only that were true...it would make a teacher's life so much easier.
Laws don't state what a person or entity is allowed to do, they state what they are not allowed to do. There are many discrimination laws out there, but they generally only apply to protected classes (race, religion, sex, age, etc.). And while I am not familiar with New York law, I can guarantee you there is no law that prohibits a private school from discriminating against people with Facebook profiles. So the school almost certainly can make them take down the pages and there is nothing the government (or anyone else) can do about it. If the students and their parents don't like it, they can go to another school.
I know they bring up the contract in the article, but this really isn't a contract law issue. This school has a particular set of rules, and they can require students to follow them whether they sign a contract or not. Again, this is a private institution, so they can come up with whatever rules they want, as long as those rules don't violate the law. So whether the kids are 18 or 8, the school can make them follow the school's rules whether they signed a contract or not.
All of that being said, I agree that this just seems over the top. If I were their parents, I would pull them out of the school.
I thought about this, and the conclusion that I can draw would be that the schools cannot directly order the students to delete the said facebook pages, albeit they can enforce action against the parents instead.
Keep in mind that the parents hold total legal custody of their children, and as such the parents should bear the contractual responsibilities when they agreed with the enrolment terms. This would mean that the school, if it so wish, should address ONLY the parents about this and enact action ONLY to the parents.
Keep in mind that the parents hold total legal custody of their children, and as such the parents should bear the contractual responsibilities when they agreed with the enrolment terms. This would mean that the school, if it so wish, should address ONLY the parents about this and enact action ONLY to the parents.
Yes, action against the parents. Like kicking their kids out of the school(because the parents let their kids violate the contract), or imposing increased tuition costs(if that's a penalty listed in the contract).
The whining going on about how this is against freedom, can't make minors do this, blah blah blah is absolutely silly.
Yes, if you(the parents in this case) sign a contract with a private entity(the school) with a term(student can't have a facebook account), that is a legally binding contract. Don't like it? Put your kids in another private school or public school instead. The first amendment limits the government, not a private organization(and "Facebook user" is not a protected class of individuals either) from entering a voluntary contract with customers(the parents). The contract was that the parents control their children, and the parents are apparently failing to do hold their end of the bargain. It's really that simple.
You live in the same world I do?
You know the one where going to a private school can and is forced on kids by their parents? Or the one where the choice is sometimes go to the private school or go to the public school with the knives, guns and gangs?
This is no different then the school that decided to expel a kid for swearing at 230 am at home.
Private schools have to follow the same laws the whole rest of the country does too. Lots of places put things in contracts that arn't legal and cant be enforced because all to many people are willing to lay down and take it "because it's on paper."
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
Private schools have a long legal precedent that says they can enact all sorts of rules. They are a private institution and the child, while having a right to an education, does not have a right to enrollment in whatever private institution they would like.
It's a stupid rule, but there is no real grounds to challenge it.
It's a stupid rule, but there is no real grounds to challenge it.
Shadowplay
n00b
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 31
We're not talking about laws here. There's nothing illegal about a company or private organization refusing service to an individual, as long as it's not discriminatory. I liken it to one of those "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" signs at restaurants. If you want to patronize that establishment, it is understood that you must follow their code of conduct.
I would agree that the school's "modesty" policy is a little too far reaching for my tastes, but the parents, who almost certainly share the same ideology as the school, agreed to it when they enrolled. Education is not a monopoly. if they don't like the policy, there are other options available.
Many people fail to separate contractual laws from constitutional statutes.
Keep in mind of this fact:so long as the contract is 'enforceable, doable and agreed to', a contract can have certain constitutional rights waved by the parties involved. Normally speaking, you require criminal breach in agreement terms to make the argument that the contract is null.
The modesty policy does not produce unreasonable duress on the parents (the consignee), nor to the affected 'third party' (the pupils). It would be very difficult for the parents to show that the contractual term of not using Facebook prove to be completely unreasonable an action. Moreover, the parents exercise full jurisdiction on access of Facebook for minor!
The challenge that not providing access to Facebook stifled free speech would be retorted with the following points:
1. Facebook usage for minor is only 'valid' with parental consent.
2. Facebook is not the only avenue to exercise free speech.
3. Parental limitation to free speech do not fall under the purview of the American First Amendment.
If anything, the parents are wilfully breaking their contractual terms in having their child(ren) using Facebook.
There is an interesting point about proving if those accounts are really that of the pupils'. I do think that some parents may stand to press on this point, although producing a convincing argument on the school's part that the name and persona match the pupil is not hard for the school. Remember, this is not criminal court, so a reasonable benefit of the doubt is all that's needed here to make the point that the contract is wilfully breached by the parent(s) from the school's point of view.
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,583
I'd tell them to mind their own fucking business.
And they expel you/your kids.
Personally I think its pretty stupid to expect kids to not have a facebook, and to expect to be able to police it as well. However, you signed up for the school so I don't see how you could argue with them on the point. They aren't responsible to educate you/your kids if you aren't willing to abide by their rules.
As a teacher ... I wish that were the case. Truth is far too many parents are completely failing at properly raising and disciplining their children and treat the school system as a daycare.
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
Contracts cannot take away constitutional rights, no matter how much power the school thinks it has over the students.
And that is really what this is all about.
It's the Parents job to deal with these things, not the Schools.
I would fire the schools board for misappropriation of school funds.
And that is really what this is all about.
It's the Parents job to deal with these things, not the Schools.
I would fire the schools board for misappropriation of school funds.
no.....school today are there to be the parents.....cause parents don't want to deal with the kids.
bigstusexy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,194
I look forward to John Stewart's comments on this.
Why whine about the contractual clause? This is un-enforceable. There is no way for the school to prove that an individual has an account and those accounts are kept for eternity on their database, even if they are deleted. Any kid going to that school can just hide their profile to the public and that is the end of that.
Society seems to be determined to have rules and laws in place that have no hope of ever being enforced. I suppose useless rules weed out the 2% of the people that can't figure out how to get around them.
Society seems to be determined to have rules and laws in place that have no hope of ever being enforced. I suppose useless rules weed out the 2% of the people that can't figure out how to get around them.