[Shadow0000]

Be honest, how many school districts have you been involved with... upper levels I mean. My tally is three, and all of them are as evil and soul sucking as any bank

Is a battle that you loose before it starts, some schools are usually so evil that it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you will be guilty...it's really strange to see that the school admit is wrong until you have solid evidence.

I remember once we were assignated the task of making a magazine, we asked and were prohibited to publish an article makin a critic evaluation about school's matters, not even if the article was well-read and review first by the school superior, it was just considered as "offensive bulliying material", though even the material doesn't named or reference directly or inderectly anyone.

If they expell that kid I'm pissed.

If you're pissed you can write a critical evaluation about the school, oh! no I forgot, you can't, or they will silence you too...

[Mefustae]

From the "letter", the kid sounds like even more of a tool. He decided against sorting it out internally and privately, and the school called him on it. I'm really hoping the little bastard gets expelled now.

[Ghostavo]

The messages don't seem like libel. Neither of them.

I'm still unsure why the school would bother to expel him for something he did outside of the school. In fact, he phrases it perfectly fine (apart from grammar )

there's nothing you can do about us posting about parties we've been to and how much liquor we had or how much pot was smoked, the police need to do a better job, you are not the police.

[NGTM-1R]

He's pretty much got an ironclad defense against libel, since the school is in fact attempting to bully him into submission...

He posted about the school, after he left, while not on school property. There is zero rationale here for the school getting involved. This is barely even offensive by the standards of, say, Livejournal posts about schools.

And why in God's name is the school even looking at his website, which they supposedly blocked!?

[Annorax]

He's pretty much got an ironclad defense against libel, since the school is in fact attempting to bully him into submission...

He posted about the school, after he left, while not on school property. There is zero rationale here for the school getting involved. This is barely even offensive by the standards of, say, Livejournal posts about schools.

And why in God's name is the school even looking at his website, which they supposedly blocked!?

You seem to forget that if it's a private school, then it can do basically whatever it wants. The students agree to whatever the school feels is appropriate by simply going there. I've seen articles about private schools that have expelled students for simply having blogs, regardless of where they're being maintained. I've seen articles about private schools that have expelled students for "immoral conduct harmful to the reputation of the school", which basically boils down to "student or relative is suspected of not being heterosexual". I've seen students expelled and charged with terrorism in a federal court for calling a teacher an asshole in a blog. The world's gone to hell in a handbasket, and we can't do anything about it.

[Ghostavo]

Since it is a school district, I assume it's public no? 

[Cobra]

My opinion:

It's a goddamn webpost. He says he doesn't like a school that he posts ON HIS OWN WEBPAGE does NOT mean he has to get expelled. First amendment, people!

[Polpolion]

And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose

Notice how I didn't mention what part I thought was good.

[Kosh]

And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose

Notice how I didn't mention what part I thought was good.

Except for their universities, Texas schools rank as amoung the worst in the US.....which is saying quite a lot.

[SadisticSid]

From the "letter", the kid sounds like even more of a tool. He decided against sorting it out internally and privately, and the school called him on it. I'm really hoping the little bastard gets expelled now.

Huh? This wouldn't even be an issue had the school [district] not made it one in the first place. Just because he didn't state his case very eloquently doesn't mean he's automatically in the wrong. Furthermore, it seems the truth to his allegations is now immaterial; by threatening him with expulsion for performing a perfectly legal activity outside of school, they've bullied him by any definition.

[Polpolion]

And the ones in Texas are O.K. too, I suppose

Notice how I didn't mention what part I thought was good.

Except for their universities, Texas schools rank as amoung the worst in the US.....which is saying quite a lot.

At least academically...

[Mefustae]

From the "letter", the kid sounds like even more of a tool. He decided against sorting it out internally and privately, and the school called him on it. I'm really hoping the little bastard gets expelled now.

Huh? This wouldn't even be an issue had the school [district] not made it one in the first place. Just because he didn't state his case very eloquently doesn't mean he's automatically in the wrong. Furthermore, it seems the truth to his allegations is now immaterial; by threatening him with expulsion for performing a perfectly legal activity outside of school, they've bullied him by any definition.

Once again i'll point out that we don't know what exactly was on the kid's website that warranted the school's attention, so no judgements can be made on whether the school was right or wrong to "bully" [I use that term loosely, as we don't know what exactly they did] the owner of said website.

The fact is that that, along with insults and grammar that would make Bobb blush, the kid dares the school to take action against him in his "letter", so I don't understand how anyone can shed tears over the school calling his bluff. I mean, hell, i'm all for freedom of speech, but i'm also for the freedom of making sure little s***s like this kid get their comeupance for acting like brats.

I am certain that every single person on HLP wouldn't hesitate to smack this kid upside the face if they were the subject of his inane rantings, so I fail to comprehend why so many jump to defend the "rights" of someone who shouldn't have them in the first place.

[Ghostavo]

Ever heard of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."?

Also, check Goober's post, as there is a link to his blog.

[Mefustae]

Ever heard of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."?

Keep in mind that I subscribe to the school of thought that rights should not be given, but earned. Y'know, Starship Troopers style, where rights are earned through service to the state, not simply bestowed upon everyone to use and abuse.

[Ghostavo]

Ever heard of "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."?

Keep in mind that I subscribe to the school of thought that rights should not be given, but earned. Y'know, Starship Troopers style, where rights are earned through service to the state, not simply bestowed upon everyone to use and abuse.

You do know Starship Troopers "style" policies as you say are borderline... fascist?

[Mefustae]

While the movie was definitely a fascist take on the universe, considerably Nazi-esque to be more precise, the book was more anti-communism than pro-facist.

Still, is the idea that rights and freedoms should be earned through individual sacrifice such an undesirable view? Personally, I believe it would lead to a better, considerably more coherant society where those that shouldn't have a voice, quite simply, don't.

[Ghostavo]

While the movie was definitely a fascist take on the universe, considerably Nazi-esque to be more precise, the book was more anti-communism than pro-facist.

Still, is the idea that rights and freedoms should be earned through individual sacrifice such an undesirable view? Personally, I believe it would lead to a better, considerably more coherant society where those that shouldn't have a voice, quite simply, don't.

Democracy is good because everyone is heard and bad because everyone is heard.

Besides, such a plutocracy doesn't really choose who is best to have a voice. One can be a total idiot and still go through such services and get a voice while one can be Stephen Hawking and not be able to do such services.

Going back to the topic at hand, I assume the US at least pretends to be a democracy, so shouldn't that view prevail in such matters until there is a regime change?

[Mefustae]

Democracy is good because everyone is heard and bad because everyone is heard.

Democracy just plain doesn't work, it's as simple as that. It's definitely a better concept than communism in that it kind of works in practice, but - just as Communism before it - western Democracy is slowly collapsing.

Besides, such a plutocracy doesn't really choose who is best to have a voice. One can be a total idiot and still go through such services and get a voice while one can be Stephen Hawking and not be able to do such services.

Sure, it has its flaws, but so does any other system, especially democracy. One plus is that politicians would actually be individuals of substance, rather than those with the largest net-worth or best connections.

Going back to the topic at hand, I assume the US at least pretends to be a democracy, so shouldn't that view prevail in such matters until there is a regime change?

Why should a view of equality and freedom be propagated in a nation ruled by inequality and social oppression?

[SadisticSid]

Mefustae: Let's say you lived in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iraq. If rights can only be earned by service to the state, then it must mean that you serve the state in implementing one or more of its policies. So would you still earn your rights if it meant aiding the state in the genocide of Jews, hunting down of political dissidents, or gassing Kurds? One of the great concepts behind the idea of universal rights is that a corrupt or morally-bankrupt state cannot stifle its opponents.

What you're on about is not "individual sacrifice", because individual sacrifice needs to be judged to be so by some authority. When that authority is the state, it gives the state tremendous power over what an individual can and can't do. That's utterly authoritarian, and can't be described as anything but fascist.

[Ghostavo]

Democracy just plain doesn't work, it's as simple as that. It's definitely a better concept than communism in that it kind of works in practice, but - just as Communism before it - western Democracy is slowly collapsing.

Every system of government collapses eventually.

Sure, it has its flaws, but so does any other system, especially democracy. One plus is that politicians would actually be individuals of substance, rather than those with the largest net-worth or best connections.

Idiots would still be idiots, and geniuses would still be geniuses. The last two candidates in the US for presidency "served their country", and I wouldn't call either individuals of substance.

Why should a view of equality be propagated in a nation ruled by inequality?

If it's already ruled by inequality, then the first step to reverse it would be to propagate such views of equality. If it isn't, then it is its duty to propagate them.