I've been away a long time and it is time I broke that fast as well as pick up the old series on Children's Rights.
The original story, for those just joining in, involves a middle school girl who is intimidated into revealing her facebook password to school officials who then had her suspended because of the things she had posted.
For today's installment I would like to lay out another scenario. A woman is home alone. Two police officers arrive at the door. They ask to enter the home and the woman says no. They ask if she's hiding something and she again says no. The officers say they can get a warrant and she should just let them in and she tells them to come back when they do have a warrant. Now comes the turning point, the officers barge past the woman and begin searching her home despite her resistance.
An elementary school child could tell you that the above scenario is a violation of the fourth amendment which bars against illegal search and seizure. Now the question is, how does this relate the case of a middle school girl and her facebook page?
The comparison starts with the middle school girl being equated to the woman home alone. The school officials can be equated to the police officers since they both hold a position of authority. The house itself is just like the girl's facebook page in that it is personal property. Both items of personal property are protected from general view, one by a password and the other by locks, designed to keep out anyone besides the owner and those allowed in by the owner. Without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or the owner's permission, authorities can not enter or view the contents.
In the case of the middle school girl, the school officials obviously didn't have a warrant. Exigent circumstances are only granted when it is believed that someone is in imminent risk of physical harm so comments on a facebook page hardly qualify. As for permission, intimidating the person into giving you access is not considered acceptable and a 12-year-old girl is very easily intimidated.
Showing posts with label Series A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Series A. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
When do Children Obtain their Civil Rights?- Day 3
The saga continues today on Children's Rights vs. school authority. Ler's comment to Day 2's discussion is a nice lead in to today's discussion. He said:
"How does this teach values such as freedom of speech?"
And I would say this does the exact reverse. If we allow schools, one of the few forms of authority children see at a young age, to censor students to this extreme we are in essence teaching them that government censorship is okay. What is a school, after all, if not an agent of the government? I give greater leeway to private and parochial schools because they are not an agent of the state and therefore not bound by the tight standards of government agencies, but I would not encourage this trend in any organization.
It is a basic psychological principle we are dealing with called conditioned response. In a nut shell, a conditioned response is a learned trait resulting from a particular set of stimuli. As an example, if every time an infant sees a bunny rabbit someone plays a really loud noise in the baby's ear that baby will flinch, cringe, cry, etc. Conditioned response says that, eventually, if you show that baby a bunny rabbit the baby will have the same reaction, even without the noise. Children are extremely impressionable and in this case a child is being conditioned that, if she speaks her mind, she will get in trouble. Specifically, if she speaks out against authority (her school and it's agents in this case) she will get in trouble. Without any interfering influences, this child would eventually stop speaking out in order to avoid getting in trouble. That is the essence of brainwashing.
The child in the original news story is fortunate to have parents who are willing to stand up for her rights and show her that she should speak her mind, but not all children are so lucky. The ability and courage to speak out against authority is an important check on any powerful figure or organization. Children should learn early to observe and question authority, never bow down to its will or be intimidated into silence. That is the essence of freedom of speech.
"How does this teach values such as freedom of speech?"
And I would say this does the exact reverse. If we allow schools, one of the few forms of authority children see at a young age, to censor students to this extreme we are in essence teaching them that government censorship is okay. What is a school, after all, if not an agent of the government? I give greater leeway to private and parochial schools because they are not an agent of the state and therefore not bound by the tight standards of government agencies, but I would not encourage this trend in any organization.
It is a basic psychological principle we are dealing with called conditioned response. In a nut shell, a conditioned response is a learned trait resulting from a particular set of stimuli. As an example, if every time an infant sees a bunny rabbit someone plays a really loud noise in the baby's ear that baby will flinch, cringe, cry, etc. Conditioned response says that, eventually, if you show that baby a bunny rabbit the baby will have the same reaction, even without the noise. Children are extremely impressionable and in this case a child is being conditioned that, if she speaks her mind, she will get in trouble. Specifically, if she speaks out against authority (her school and it's agents in this case) she will get in trouble. Without any interfering influences, this child would eventually stop speaking out in order to avoid getting in trouble. That is the essence of brainwashing.
The child in the original news story is fortunate to have parents who are willing to stand up for her rights and show her that she should speak her mind, but not all children are so lucky. The ability and courage to speak out against authority is an important check on any powerful figure or organization. Children should learn early to observe and question authority, never bow down to its will or be intimidated into silence. That is the essence of freedom of speech.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
When do Children Obtain their Civil Rights?- Day 2
Today I'd like to continue my previous discussion found here about a young girl who was intimidated into giving up her facebook password to school personnel.
Day 2 in my series concerns parenting. Specifically the growing trend of schools usurping the place of parents and parents letting it happen.
In this incident the school has taken it upon themselves to regulate what a child is doing outside of school hours. I can understand that, if the student was truly making sexual comments about another student on a public forum such as facebook, it could cause a disruption in school. But what ever happened to calling the parents and expressing your concern about what is going on outside of school? It is completely within a parent's rights to pry into a minor child's life, including social media, especially when there is suspicion that the child is doing something harmful to them self or others.
Allowing schools to regulate this behavior puts us all in a huge gray area. That is evidenced by the first time this girl got in trouble for posting that she "hated" one of the school monitors. Every child, at some point or another, criticizes a teacher or other school professional. And the truth is sometimes the criticism is justified. To suspend a child for school for saying no more than that they hated someone is a ridiculous level of censorship.
Day 2 in my series concerns parenting. Specifically the growing trend of schools usurping the place of parents and parents letting it happen.
In this incident the school has taken it upon themselves to regulate what a child is doing outside of school hours. I can understand that, if the student was truly making sexual comments about another student on a public forum such as facebook, it could cause a disruption in school. But what ever happened to calling the parents and expressing your concern about what is going on outside of school? It is completely within a parent's rights to pry into a minor child's life, including social media, especially when there is suspicion that the child is doing something harmful to them self or others.
Allowing schools to regulate this behavior puts us all in a huge gray area. That is evidenced by the first time this girl got in trouble for posting that she "hated" one of the school monitors. Every child, at some point or another, criticizes a teacher or other school professional. And the truth is sometimes the criticism is justified. To suspend a child for school for saying no more than that they hated someone is a ridiculous level of censorship.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
When do Children Obtain their Civil Rights?- Day 1
Children are people, are they not? Certainly they are smaller, generally less intelligent, hindered by lack of experience and still developing brain chemistry, but they are members of the Homospien species which makes them human and endowed with the same natural rights as each of us. As a civilized society we have established certain cultural standards that says that children, in general, are dependent (i.e. do not have independence) until they reach the age of 18. Until they reach that age their interests and safety are in the care of their legal guardian who is most commonly a biological parent. This custodian is the holder of all of the minors rights and freedoms, which is why police cannot interrogate a child without the presence of their guardian or if the guardian has waived the right to be present.
With that idea established, I find this article from MSNBC highly disturbing.
The article is loaded enough with issues that I've decided to make it into a brief series treating on the following subjects:
Day 1(today): children's rights
Day 2: parenting
Day 3: brainwashing
Day 4: search and seizure
Day 5: right to privacy
Day 6: freedom of speech
Today's topic I have already about covered but I would like make one additional note:
Now that I have established that the parents/guardians are the holders of a child's rights, I'd like to make a pointed observation about the article. It states "The school district doesn't dispute that it obtained the girl's password, but does say it had parental permission." This raises a very important question of how the lawsuit was brought. Are we really meant to believe that a 12 year old contacted the ACLU and is pressing this lawsuit without the go ahead of her parents? Possible, but highly unlikely. The odds are that, when their daughter came home crying and they figured out what had happened the parent(s) put things into action.
If password prying is a "standard practice" at the school, as the ACLU claims, then odds are that either they have informed parents in the past and obtained permission or, more likely, other students have been too intimidated to tell their parents. After getting in trouble at school, kids are unlikely to come home and tell their parents which could result in even more punishment at home. If the former is the case then I have much fewer issues with the circumstances, but if it is the latter as I suspect this school better be seeing a severe reprimand in the near future.
With that idea established, I find this article from MSNBC highly disturbing.
The article is loaded enough with issues that I've decided to make it into a brief series treating on the following subjects:
Day 1(today): children's rights
Day 2: parenting
Day 3: brainwashing
Day 4: search and seizure
Day 5: right to privacy
Day 6: freedom of speech
Today's topic I have already about covered but I would like make one additional note:
Now that I have established that the parents/guardians are the holders of a child's rights, I'd like to make a pointed observation about the article. It states "The school district doesn't dispute that it obtained the girl's password, but does say it had parental permission." This raises a very important question of how the lawsuit was brought. Are we really meant to believe that a 12 year old contacted the ACLU and is pressing this lawsuit without the go ahead of her parents? Possible, but highly unlikely. The odds are that, when their daughter came home crying and they figured out what had happened the parent(s) put things into action.
If password prying is a "standard practice" at the school, as the ACLU claims, then odds are that either they have informed parents in the past and obtained permission or, more likely, other students have been too intimidated to tell their parents. After getting in trouble at school, kids are unlikely to come home and tell their parents which could result in even more punishment at home. If the former is the case then I have much fewer issues with the circumstances, but if it is the latter as I suspect this school better be seeing a severe reprimand in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)