Posted on 05/29/2009 6:35:48 AM PDT by meandog
Go on a public website and call your boss a douche bag by name. Does he have a right to fire you? I’d say yes, so this is probably the right decision.
I’d say no and would be happy to challenge his action in court. There are huge swaths of the internet devoted to kvetching about bosses/jobs.
Exactly. If she had called Bush or Reagan a d-bag, she would have received the Key to the City and honorable mention in the School Board newsletter.
The School Board's action was nothing more than retribution that they would NOT have been able to carry out if they had been Joe Q. Public.
The board is guilty of abuse of power -- she did this on a blog, not in the school cafeteria.
> No disrespect intended,
None taken
> but your philosophy goes to the very heart of the debate over abortion, IMO.
I agree. And I think our viewpoints are probably quite similar, perhaps for different reasons but.
Recall that I said that everybody deserves Respect. That also applies to children. Adults should Respect children for who they are, and also for who they will become: the future of our Species, the future leaders of our Nation, the people who will choose which old people’s home we go into...
Children deserve Respect, and they also deserve Protection, in exchange for them having Respect for Adults.
Abortion is the ultimate form of Disrespect. Not only is an Adult not showing Respect for an infant yet unborn, but the Adult is saying “you’re not even human” and denying this infant the Protection due, and denying the infant life itself. And then as a final act of Disrespect, discarding the remains as if it were so much medical waste.
Liberals support Abortion because Liberals are Disrespectful: just have a read of DU for proof. Things sometimes get spicy over here at FRee Republic, but there’s usually some modicum of Respect and Decorum here. That is because we are Conservatives. We believe in Respect. It is therefore no surprise that we also oppose Abortion.
Perhaps ...but your boss is compensating you for your work, is he not? This girl is not paid by the school, she is required to engage in some sort of education program (homeschool included) by most state/local and community truancy standards. School officials, like elected leaders, are not bosses. They have certain implied authority over conduct and discipline of subordinate minors in school but such authority ends once a student steps out of the bounds of campus.
If this girl had gone to Catholic school as i did the nuns would have clobbered her the next morning and she probably would be expelled.LOL!
HOWEVER, I'd also challenge this decision simply on the merits of Free Speech.
Reprisal is not in any School Board's charter last time I checked. When they can regulate and punish kids for things they say out of school and off campus -- that's going too far.
And so do I.
Wow ! What a hot topic. I won’t weigh in on my opinion (it’s very different than half of the opinions expressed here) but I will, however, weigh in the involvment of a Supreme Court nominee on it.
Why is this nominee even being asked about it ? A classier, more traditional supreme court isn’t so quick to make decisions - to go looking for fights. This question is a very important one, and one with many valid points on both sides. We must remember that.
On a lighter note, If she continues to call people douchebags on a public forum - the only punishment handed to her is that she be forced to apply for a job at a local news network.
bazing !
> HOWEVER, I’d also challenge this decision simply on the merits of Free Speech.
I wouldn’t, because it would send the wrong message to my child. I am not willing to fight my child’s battles when my child has done the wrong thing. When that happens, there are consequences that shall be experienced. In this case, no running for school government
> Reprisal is not in any School Board’s charter last time I checked. When they can regulate and punish kids for things they say out of school and off campus — that’s going too far.
I disagree. School Government is a school function which they are perfectly entitled to regulate. The daughter, in this case, showed Disrespect and very poor judgment, and could be counted upon to be a bad example for other students. Therefore the school was right to nip that in the bud and disallow her candidacy.
It is immaterial whether it happened out of school and off campus. Had this brat, say, committed arson and burned down the local newspaper stand, or been a bully and beaten up kids after school, or sold drugs for the local street gang, the school would have been equally justified in acting as they did.
You may say that there is a degree of difference between those offenses and calling the school officials “Douche Bags”, and you’d be right. Nevertheless, the degree of offense has no bearing on the principle: the school has the right to bar unsuitable role models from school government. Arsonists, bullies, and drug dealers are unsuitable role models.
Rude, disrespectful brats are also unsuitable role models. She was a rude and disrespectful brat. She was barred and it was right that it was so.
Well said and I think you covered every point perfectly.
Arsonists, bullies, and drug dealers harm people and destroy property. She did not — she used words. Should they regulate her words in a public place? In the privacy of her home to her friends? Her thoughts?
Free speech is free speech.
Authority can be abused by a parent, school board or government. They are elected officials — criticism comes with the job. If they don’t like it, perhaps they should return to the public sector.
Out of a sense of respect, perhaps we should not criticize Obama. I have respect for the office. I’d salute him were I in uniform. But I have nothing but loathing and disdain for him as a person, politician and leader.
It’s a good thing the government is not punishing those who express a disliking for Obama — or that might seem an abuse of power too...
(grin!) thanks!
Was this an isolated incident? If not, and this was some sort of accumulated punishment, I might see a gray area where this was justified. But it still leaves more questions to be answered....
What if she had used another word besides d-bag? Like moron. or idiot. Is there a line that was crossed?
What if someone overhears conversations at school where someone calls the principal a dbag?
What if the same conversation took place at someone’s home?
> Arsonists, bullies, and drug dealers harm people and destroy property. She did not — she used words. Should they regulate her words in a public place? In the privacy of her home to her friends? Her thoughts?
Yes. Absolutely. Showing Respect is an obligation that falls upon us all. She should have learned that long before this. Her mom should have taught her Respect. Her mom is culpable and remiss because she clearly did not do so.
> Free speech is free speech.
Of course it is. And sometimes exercising your right to Free Speech comes at a cost. In this case, the cost was being denied the opportunity to participate in school government. Free Speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
Next time you get a speeding ticket, get lippy with the cop: you have the right to Free Speech. He, in turn, has the right to take an hour or so writing you up, checking your registration, checking your license, checking your tail-lights...
> Authority can be abused by a parent, school board or government.
In this case it wasn’t. The school is within its rights to decide who has the opportunity to run for school government. Nobody has the “right” to run for school government: it is entirely optional.
> They are elected officials — criticism comes with the job. If they don’t like it, perhaps they should return to the public sector.
This may be so. And if the brat doesn’t like not participating in school government perhaps she should learn to moderate her tongue and show Respect for her elders.
> Out of a sense of respect, perhaps we should not criticize Obama.
Perhaps we shouldn’t call Obama a Douche-bag. Respect doesn’t mean that we have to agree with him, or defer to him, or kow-tow to him, or like him, or vote for him. But we don’t really have license to abuse him either, and if we do choose to abuse him we should be willing to take our lumps for doing so. Most if not all of us are willing to, apparently.
> I have respect for the office. I’d salute him were I in uniform. But I have nothing but loathing and disdain for him as a person, politician and leader.
Fair enough. But would you call him a Douche bag, if you knew that as a consequence he could do something to you? Something that was within his legitimate power to do?
Loathing and distain can be done Respectfully. In fact, it’s more fun to do so.
> It’s a good thing the government is not punishing those who express a disliking for Obama — or that might seem an abuse of power too...
Never you fear: if things go as they seem to be going, that day may well be at hand soon.
> Was this an isolated incident? If not, and this was some sort of accumulated punishment, I might see a gray area where this was justified. But it still leaves more questions to be answered....
It’s hard to say for sure: we know that she had an event cancelled earlier by the school. What caused that we aren’t told. This cancellation caused the “douche-bag” incident. My guess would be there was more to the story than what we were told.
> What if she had used another word besides d-bag? Like moron. or idiot. Is there a line that was crossed?
If she were my daughter she would have been punished for Disrespect had she used any of those words in her blog about her School Superintendent. “Douche-bag” certainly would remove all doubt as to the lack of Respect, but they are all bad. No child has the right to call their School Superintendent names: that is Disrespectful. Full stop.
> What if someone overhears conversations at school where someone calls the principal a dbag?
As it is hearsay evidence it would get a warning from me, as a parent.
> What if the same conversation took place at someone’s home?
Same same. Hearsay evidence. Warning.
No child has the right to be Disrespectful. Ever.
Wrong. The kid did it off school grounds, teh school had no jurisdiction to provide any form of punishment.
And school IS NOT about teaching kids respect for authority.
> Wrong. The kid did it off school grounds, teh school had no jurisdiction to provide any form of punishment.
Wrong. The school is well within its rights to regulate who gets to run for Student Government and who doesn’t. Running for Student Government isn’t a “right”.
Sure, she has the right to Free Speech. But sometimes Free Speech carries consequences. There is no such thing as the Right to Consequence-Free Speech. In this case, the consequence was to be denied the opportunity to run for Student Government.
And yes, it is perfectly OK and expected for the school to require students to be Respectful. It is a societal norm that should be taught in the home and reinforced at school: just like not picking your nose, and like washing your hands after going to the toilet.
The school would have been remiss if it had not punished the girl for being Disrespectful — even if it was after hours.
I’m not questioning the disrespectful part of this. I would have punished her for sure if I were her father.
However, from the court’s point of view only, this would seem to give “rights” to those who have been “offended”.
> However, from the court’s point of view only, this would seem to give “rights” to those who have been “offended”.
That’s certainly one way to look at it, and it’s a legitimate viewpoint.
Another way to look at it is the Court refusing to recognize a Right to Consequence-Free Speech, and allowing the girl to experience the consequences of her behavior, and declining to get involved in what is rightly a school’s prerogative to decide who may participate in school extramural activities and on what basis. This is how I see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.