Sunday, September 16, 2012

postheadericon Demanding A Student's Facebook Password A Violation Of First Amendment Rights, Judge Says


For some strange reason, many schools adhere to the idea that students are not U.S. citizens and therefore do not enjoy the same rights as "adults". The rationale for the limitation of these rights usually involves the word "security", a word that has been (ab) used in several ways to reduce the rights of U.S. citizens grown elsewhere.



This does not mean that all schools, or most, violate the rights of students, but the total number of reported incidents is not very reassuring. Fortunately, some decisions were made that should at least set a precedent for those extended range administrative challenge.

On 6 September, the decision was made in a lawsuit against Minnewaska Area School District (Minnesota), who is a student of twelve who was forced to give authorities school password for your Facebook account so they can search for messages deemed inappropriate.

RS was a student twelve years at Minnewaska Area High School. She sent a message on his Facebook page on a hall monitor at her school adult




"[ I do not like] a person school because Kathy [Kathy] was mean to me. "was



The position only friends can access it. One of his friends brought the message to the attention of management. The Director RS in his office and told me RS "They felt that the message about bullying Kathy is inadmissible." (?) Following this message, RS was forced to apologize, detention given and received an entry in his disciplinary record. R. S. was penalized a second time when he expressed his disgust that someone had told him ("I want to know who the f% $ # told me.") ["$ #% f" in the original] this time was sanctioned by "insubordination" and "hazardous and noxious substances and boring articles." (?)


Venkat Balasubramani added his own punctuation some of the most ridiculous statements of dubious officials or school. The first is the head of "bullying unacceptable" (there is a "permissible" variety?), A general term that is used so often by school administrators as "public disorder" is used by the police.
In essence, "RS" was punished for "being a child" (ie, not as something that happened at school, complain, being betrayed and complain that, etc.). handling of this incident is the first school seem to be so touchy and vindictive to punish the child.
This
is not the end of the story, however. The school also received a complaint from a parent who was about RS "sexual problems" with another student "online." For some reason (probably designated "species of concern for his safety"), the school has decided to withdraw from class RS and grilled on the details of these conversations. Apparently, their answers were not good enough, so three trustees and of tasers police interrogated until she abandons her Facebook password. they began to register your account, including private messages, evidence of these conversations. Still not satisfied, they decided to continue their e-mails private. After this traumatic incident and intrusive, RS decided to continue the school district for violation of their constitutional rights. The court agreed with her in two states:
claims First Amendment: The Court has no difficulty concluding that taking these allegations as true, school officials violated the First Amendment rights of the RS . The court said that the messages on social networks are protected as they are a "threat" or reasonably calculated to reach the school and pose a risk to the safety or risk of significant disruption to the school environment. R. messages S. The were not real threats. Even if the statements were reasonably calculated to reach the public schools, there was no possibility of interruption.



requests Fourth Amendment: The Court also stated that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the RS as they rummaged through his Facebook page and your email account private. Private e-mails and letters were other private conversations, and subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Facebook private messages are no different. There was no evidence that the police have adapted their quest to minimize intrusion. Even if they did not have an underlying basis to look first.
If the allegations are true (and handles court noted that "if"), the school will probably write a check clearing. This decision, a response to the motion to dismiss the school also alleged violations of privacy (although not reject allegations of "intentional inflection of emotional distress"). It seems that the school is to discuss the facts as presented, if its argument that the violation of Facebook policy RS (she is 12 years old and "have" to 13 to register for an account) means that has constitutional rights unless otherwise

Find best price for : --First----Amendment----Facebook----Balasubramani--

0 comments:

About Me