backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 37 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Oct 12 at 11:24 PM
Facebook landing students in hot water for comments about schools and teachers

Social networking is booming with websites like Facebook and Twitter growing exponentially. As the growth rockets more and more users are turning to using the mediums to vent frustrations and anger at people and institutions.

One recent example is when the infamous Jack Thompson recently filed suit against Facebook for alleged violent threats against him on the Facebook "I Hate Jack Thompson" group. Students around the country are also finding that resorting to calling teachers and faculty at colleges and high schools out on Facebook rather than merely talking about them behind their back in the lunchroom can have dire consequences and result in suits.

MSNBC reports that the first amendment right to free speech is being increasingly challenged by the educational system in America.

A student named Nicholas Blacconiere at the Salon Professional Academy in Elgin, Ill. Has found himself in a legal jam after posts on Facebook where he aired his ill feelings towards the school. The beauty school field suit against Blacconiere for $50,000 for unauthorized use of the school's logo and emotional damage caused by the defamatory comments.

This isn’t the first incident of schools suing students or punishing them for saying things off campus against the school or the school staff. One case that started two years ago is still pending and involves Katherine Evans, a student in the Pembroke Pines Charter school in Florida. Evans posted a page on Facebook called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I have ever met," which featured a picture of the teacher and an invite to others to express their feelings of hate for the teacher. The page landed the student in the middle of an ACLU lawsuit.

In Evans' case, the Facebook page landed her a three-day suspension and removal form advanced placement status in her senior year, which was critical to college placement. Evans' ACLU lawyer Matthew D. Bavaro said, "It is ironic that high school is where students first learn about First Amendment rights, including the right to free speech, yet it is Katy's high school that unconstitutionally trampled those very rights."

The constitutional right to free speech of students in high school and college is increasingly challenged by educational institutions and courts are often leaning towards siding with the educational institutes reports MSNBC. Robert L. Shibley from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said, "You have sort of an Orwellian atmosphere at universities, and especially at high schools. Administrators feel they have to tamp down (online speech) or somebody's going to sue the high school."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/2009 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 1
Is usually on the wrong end of every issue. But they have it nailed here. Great statement by ACLU dude.




RE: ACLU....
By FITCamaro on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: ACLU....
By HrilL on 10/7/2009 6:11:39 PM , Rating: 4
For a person that speaks of their rights opening on Daily tech I find this odd coming from you. ACLU fights to have anything that limits our rights. No matter if they are for the greater good or not. I have to agree with them. You shouldn't let fear control you. Freedom is the most important thing in life and people and governments try to limit the freedoms we have or once had.


RE: ACLU....
By amanojaku on 10/7/2009 11:17:35 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously. Look at his statements:

quote:
FITCamaro: This is the same group that advocates for rights for illegal immigrants
Here is the ACLU's reason for defending illegal immigrants:
quote:
The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as the authors and ratifiers of post-Civil War amendments, all understood the essential importance of protecting non-citizens against governmental abuse and discrimination.

When the government has the power to deny legal rights and due process to one group of people, it puts all our rights in danger.
The ACLU doesn't say illegal immigration is ok, it's says illegals have rights up until the time they leave this country. Like, it's not ok to murder them just because they aren't citizens.

http://aclu.org/immigrants/index.html
http://aclu.org/immigrants/34989res20080423.html
http://aclu.org/immigrants/34870pub20080411.html

quote:
FITCamaro: fights to have anything remotely religious removed from public
They'll help a kid say what they want about a school but then help some moron sue a school because a teacher wore a cross around their neck claiming violation of church and state.
Here is the ACLU's position on religion:
quote:
The ACLU is definitely opposed, however, to putting the government in charge of deciding which religious symbols and expressions should be endorsed and financed. A cross in front of a church is perfectly fine. The same cross on a courthouse lawn is unconstitutional.

The ACLU believes that the religious education of children should be directed primarily by parents, families, and religious communities - and not the public schools. They are, in fact, public schools and not Sunday schools.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26527res2...
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103....

quote:
FITCamaro: fights against policies to increase security in airports
You mean the Patriot Act? Like how they wanted to give lists of terrorist names to airports? I was all for that aspect of it, until several coworkers got detained because their names were the same as terrorists. It seems bad information is worse than no info at all: terrorists still manage to blow stuff up while the innocent guys get humiliated. Or how about that illegal spying? Yeah, love it!
quote:
ACLU Welcomes New Airport Security Measures; Says They Must Be Effective, Respectful of Privacy and Non-Discriminatory

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/14791prs20010920.h...
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocat...

quote:
FITCamaro: and pretty much anything else where they can f*ck over the majority of the American people.
Since when is defending your personal rights equivalent to screwing the majority of people over? America is made up of people, and there must be a balance between what's good for one and what's good for all. For right or for wrong the ACLU thinks it's contributing to that balance.

quote:
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. These rights include:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

http://aclu.org/about/index.html


RE: ACLU....
By HrilL on 10/8/2009 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 1
I'd have to agree with the ACLU. They fight for human rights within the frame work of the constitution.

As for the illegals I have to agree with them too. Say you were in our country and you are accused of a crime. Some people seem to believe they are guilty from the start and should get a trial where the prosecution has to prove they actually did something.

I can't believe people on Daily Tech are so against your informative and well resourced post. I'd have to bet it was the religion part because well so many people are into something that is completely made up and shouldn't have anything to do with public money ie. public schools, courts, polices departments, even politics.

We should make it illegal for Politicians to freely come out and say what religious beliefs they have. If we have separation from church and state then why do they feel that they can mix the two in order to gain votes?


RE: ACLU....
By FITCamaro on 10/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: ACLU....
By omnicronx on 10/8/2009 2:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
Please Fit.. the political system of today in general completely misinterpreted the Constitution in the way that the founding fathers intended. Whats to say your interpretation is not just another example to add to that list. If the US operated in the way in which the founding fathers actually intended, it would be an entirely different nation. These days politicians and rights groups will use the wording of the constitution to their advantage in any way possible, regardless of if they are using it in the way it was intended.

Or am I suppose to believe that the founding fathers actually intended for the 'right to bear arms' to include automatic weapons with 200 round clips.

The Constitution has been so over-analyzed over the year I would be surprised a fraction of their intentions have been realized today.


RE: ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 4:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the US operated in the way in which the founding fathers actually intended, it would be an entirely different nation.


If by different you mean "better than it is today", I would agree.

quote:
Or am I suppose to believe that the founding fathers actually intended for the 'right to bear arms' to include automatic weapons with 200 round clips.


How does that change the right? You think these men were stupid enough to believe times would never change ? Men who, they themselves, formed an entire nation in their lifetime ? You consider them shortsighted...wow, that's ballsy.

And honestly, who is asking to be able to carry full auto Ak-47's around on the street ?? Give me a break man. But when a teacher, who has a government issued concealed permit, can't bring a little six-gun to work when an ex boyfriend has threatened her life... yeah, that's totally a violation of her rights and is putting her life at risk.

You "living document" people can shove it. All you do is seek to weaken and marginalize the Constitution for your own gains. The Constitution is timeless and applies to ANY era or generation, because it deals with absolutes. Time does NOT water down absolute rights, ideals, and freedoms.


RE: ACLU....
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2009 10:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
First off, what shoulder mounted firearm has a 200 round clip? The answer is none.

Second, people do own weapons like M-60s and other WW2 era guns which are belt fed. The assault weapons bans grandfathered all those weapons in and they can still be bought and sold, they're just expensive.

Third, it is the right to bear arms. That's any weapon you want. So yes. While obviously the founders had no concept of M16s and M60s and such, they intended for the citizens of the nation to be able to have the ability to throw off the government should it ever try to deny the people of their rights. Or should they ever need to protect themselves of any enemy, foreign or domestic. So while you might not wish to own an "assault" weapon, some people do. Some just want to own one to say they have it. And it should be within their rights to do so. But liberal policies have put a stop to many right's of the people. Owning certain guns being one of them.


RE: ACLU....
By amanojaku on 10/8/2009 11:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that I have liberal tendencies, but I am a DEVOUT believer in the right to bear arms in defense of one's country from a declared threat, or from the highly unlikely event that the government somehow sends tanks and airplanes to flatten our preschools.

Which means that few individuals really NEED a gun, but all should have the right to bear them. I can tell you I wouldn't expect to see one at work unless I was a policeman or hunter. Which is kinda the point: expectations.

I would quit my job if I thought there was a danger posed by someone with a gun, assuming I exhausted all other efforts like HR and/or the police. On the other hand I wouldn't freak out if I saw someone in public with a concealed gun who was behaving normally. A one time occurrence could mean anything, while a pattern of behavior implies a very specific outcome.

If someone makes a 200 round automatic weapon I'm all over it. If it's like the FN P90 I'm getting four; two for my hands and two for my shoulders, and I'd dare anyone to tell me I was crazy. I mean, seriously, I have EIGHT HUNDRED rounds I can pop off in you in 15 seconds while inexplicably retaining my limbs. What are you gonna say? "Where can I get me some of those?" That's what you're gonna say!


RE: ACLU....
By karielash on 10/11/2009 1:21:03 PM , Rating: 2

The Super Glock has a 200 round drum clip and has for several years (automatic pistol), The Chinese variant of the AK47 has several extended drum options up to and above 200 rounds, the (M1928) Thompson has a 200 round drum option (probably still one of the best high power/capacity guns ever made.... at least imo). You could also look at various Nato variant weapons that have high capacity drum clips.


RE: ACLU....
By 91TTZ on 10/9/2009 1:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or am I suppose to believe that the founding fathers actually intended for the 'right to bear arms' to include automatic weapons with 200 round clips.


1. The average public is not allowed to own fully automatic weapons unless they get a special permit.

2. There aren't any guns with 200 round clips.

3. The guns that gun control advocates like to publicize as "evil" are hardly ever used in crimes. They like flashing pictures of M-60's and other military equipment but when is the last time someone went on a shooting rampage with an M-60? These guns are easy targets because they look threatening but they'd be completely impractical to carry around and commit a crime with. All of these tactics are for emotional effect and not logical in any way.


RE: ACLU....
By Gzus666 on 10/10/2009 11:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or am I suppose to believe that the founding fathers actually intended for the 'right to bear arms' to include automatic weapons with 200 round clips.


The 2nd amendment was intended as a way for the people to take back their government back if it was found to be going against the founding principals. As such, they should have the right to be equipped to do so. If people actually looked into writings and quotes of the founding fathers, you will see their amendments were well reasoned and explained in depth.


RE: ACLU....
By eldardude on 10/9/2009 4:06:08 AM , Rating: 3
Bollocks!

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." - Thomas Jefferson

"The United States is in no manner founded on Christian principle." - George Washington


RE: ACLU....
By Gzus666 on 10/10/2009 11:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because the "separation of church and state" clause of the Constitution is completely misinterpreted by liberals today. If you actually do some research into what the founders intended, you'd see that.


This shows you don't actually understand it. They were clear in their writings outside the constitution that they didn't want the church involved in government matters and vice versa. Also, most of them were deists or atheists. Even the religious ones knew that these two things should be separate.

Get over it, religion does not belong on our money, in our schools, in front of our courthouses or anywhere in the government for that matter. It was added to our money and to our pledge later on by religious nutjobs. It is against the constitution to do as such, which is breaking the basis of our country. When you push that line, you teeter on treason in my opinion. If you want to worship wacky sky gods, be my guest, but don't push it on others.


RE: ACLU....
By FITCamaro on 10/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: ACLU....
By omnicronx on 10/8/2009 1:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
FIT.. nothing really separated legal/illegal immigration back then, so obviously the founding fathers never made that statement. Unfortunately for your point of view, the wording they did use technically does give illegals rights.

If they were to use the world 'citizen' back then, it would mean that any immigrants at all, legal or not would not have any rights.

So whether you like the organization or not, the wording is quite clear. You don't get to choose which parts of the constitution should be adhered too, and the wording of 'persons' is quite clear, whether you like it or not..


RE: ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 4:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but the idea that our Constitutional rights apply to NON citizens is another liberal fabrication of reality.

They also didn't say "in our borders" either. So I can play your game too. According to your line of logic that would give us the right to attack and conquer any nation where it's people weren't granted United States Consitutional rights by it's government. Wouldn't it ?? I mean, since you are being so cute on TECHNICALITIES, it makes sense...

Oh and they DO use the word sovereign a lot in the document. Go look up the word and realize how stupid your logic is.


RE: ACLU....
By HrilL on 10/8/2009 8:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but when our founding father wrote the document immigration was completely accepted and new people coming here were Americans just as much as the people already here. They didn't take into account that one day we'd like to close our doors. The founding fathers themselves were immigrants for the most part or their parents were. So he is right about the constitution covering everyone.

At the time only white male land owners had a vote. So are you trying to say the constitution should only really cover white male land owners? I think not.


RE: ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 8:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”


RE: ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 8:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
And you are forgetting one thing, while THEY might not have officially wrote about the issue in the Constitution, they left us something more important : The ability to legally change the laws of this country.

And guess what ? We legally made illegal immigration illegal. So sorry, the Constitution does not apply to people here ILLEGALLY. Criminals don't enjoy the same rights as us.

This is a stupid debate.


RE: ACLU....
By Gzus666 on 10/10/2009 11:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
You are both a bit annoying about it. At the end of the day, they aren't citizens, so they don't get all the rights of a citizen. Also, they are people, as such you should treat them as people. You don't step on people from other countries just cause they happen to have fled a country to try to make life better, you would likely do the same if put in that position, it is the nature of life to try to survive.

You are a jerkoff, plain and simple. You are under this impression that everyone should be stepped on and squashed. They should be treated as humans and deported or ask them to apply for legal citizenship. We don't have the space or resources to sit and lock them up, encourage citizenship instead and push for tighter borders. The reason for this is not hatred, we just can't support them the way they are trying to do it. Make it legal and you are OK by me.

Now, on that same note, they shouldn't get all the same benefits we get while being illegal, then there is no incentive to become a citizen. In the end, you are both wrong for different reasons.

The best solution would be to just make Mexico part of the US and move on. Puerto Rico is pretty much there already, we just don't call them part of us.


RE: ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: ACLU....
By Motoman on 10/12/2009 4:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What could Mexico possibly offer the United States ?


TACOS!


RE: ACLU....
By Gzus666 on 10/12/2009 8:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't just decide to "make" other nations part of your own. And I doubt even if we were to suggest such a thing, that Mexico would ever go along with it.


Right, I forgot they could stop us with their overpowering military presence. Oh wait, that isn't the case. I'm also sure they would hate to become part of a country with a stronger economy and stronger dollar.

If we took Mexico, we could clean it up and use a lot of the land. Large parts of land are open and it is really nice.

http://www.indexmundi.com/mexico/natural_resources...

I'm sure we would hate getting natural resources from that country as part of the deal and all that extra land. Christ, we paid for Alaska and we don't get crap from it, at least Mexico has something in it.

I doubt we would pay anything, just do a little Manifest Destiny, not like we haven't done it in the past. They would probably be quite willing to join in that.

You are a nationalist bigot, that is pretty much the driving force behind everything you say. I remember a certain group of folks who shared similar ideology, I believe they were called Nazis.


RE: ACLU....
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2009 11:24:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right, I forgot they could stop us with their overpowering military presence. Oh wait, that isn't the case.


So you accuse me of wanting to "crush" illegals, but here are implying we should take over Mexico by force ?

Alaska is loaded with resources fool. So are other states. The problem is the greenies won't let us take them. Why would it matter how rich Mexico is in resources if we have already proven we don't have the willpower to use our own ?

And again, debating on 'taking over Mexico' is so stupid and beyond reality that I hate you for making me point out how moronic you are.


RE: ACLU....
By Fallen Kell on 10/9/2009 1:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But after they performed the tap, they had to report it and show why.


Actually, that is a complete and utter fallacy! That was how it was suppose to work. That was how it was defined in the laws on the books, including different telecommunications acts. However, the Bush administration looked at the laws and said we don't like how that is interpreted, and then said it was ok to not have to go before a Judge and report that the tap had taken place because it was too time consuming for an active anti-terror investigation to make down when and why they intercepted a conversation, because it would expose their operations and field capabilities if they even let a Judge know that these taps were occurring (even after the the fact).


RE: ACLU....
By Fallen Kell on 10/9/2009 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But after they performed the tap, they had to report it and show why.


Actually, that is a complete and utter fallacy! That was how it was suppose to work. That was how it was defined in the laws on the books, including different telecommunications acts. However, the Bush administration looked at the laws and said we don't like how that is interpreted, and then said it was ok to not have to go before a Judge and report that the tap had taken place because it was too time consuming for an active anti-terror investigation to mark down when and why they intercepted a conversation, because it would expose their operations and field capabilities if they even let a Judge know that these taps were occurring (even after the the fact).


RE: ACLU....
By Pythias on 10/12/2009 1:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
pfft.

quote:
“We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal.”
-Roger Baldwin Founder of the ACLU

Doesn't sound like LIBERTY to me at all.


ACLU
By Chaser on 10/7/2009 4:41:31 PM , Rating: 3
....also has a horrendous appetite to use the legal system to trounce on college student's free speech rights and freedoms as well.




RE: ACLU
By Gzus666 on 10/10/2009 11:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
Care to explain how?


By kattanna on 10/8/2009 11:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
freedom of speech does not cover libelous speech.

and since people are posting this online, what they are doing is now out in the public domain for all to see. And as such, can be held accountable just like everyone else.




By Kenenniah on 10/9/2009 5:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
What's sad to me, it that many people do consider this defamatory speech.

quote:
"Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I have ever met,"


Obviously, this is pure opinion and it is not provable as false. For all anyone knows the teacher may be the worst this girl ever met. In fact, this is the whole point of free speech. The ability to criticize those in authority.

Now if statements move from the realm of opinion to stating facts and those facts can be proven false, then you can yell libel.


backfire
By HostileEffect on 10/8/2009 1:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what happens when they screw up the life of a kid who already doesn't like his school, or perhaps is on the edge of reason and a lawsuit is the last nail?

Allowing kids to vent with words may be the best solution.

Yes, someone had to say what everyone else is thinking.




RE: backfire
By tmouse on 10/9/2009 8:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder what happens when they screw up the life of a kid who already doesn't like his school, or perhaps is on the edge of reason and a lawsuit is the last nail?


Possibly the same thing that could happen when a drunk driver finally loses his license after multiple arrests, and he may be at the "end of his rope".

What's your solution do not enforce any laws because there is some small fraction of the population who may be "at the end of their rope" and go ballistic?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from all consequences, there are many exceptions and as pointed out many times most of the 1st amendment rights apply to the government vs people, not people vs people. There are well established laws concerning slander & libel. There is not a single reason why these laws should not be applied to the net, provided of course that the people doing the posts are under the jurisdictions of these laws.

quote:
Yes, someone had to say what everyone else is thinking


Everyone was not


By androticus on 10/8/2009 12:36:00 AM , Rating: 1
Private actions -- including by schools -- against individuals for their expressions is NOT a violation of those individuals' right to free speech.

Freedom of speech means THE GOVERNMENT may not use force to suppress expression or to promote a specific viewpoint. It has nothing to do with private non-coercive actions in response to the expression of others. Using force against those who are simply exercising THEIR rights to free action, in retaliation, is a violation of THEIR rights.

And the fact that some schools are operated by the government is a contradiction of our system -- government schools should be abolished, but while they exist, the citizens who pay for them have rights and their representatives can certainly take prudent reasonable actions in response to attacks against the schools or teachers.




By Shining Arcanine on 10/8/2009 8:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think that you do not understand how things work in the US. In the US we have state governments that can do whatever the heck they want. They all banded together and formed the federal government over 200 years ago so that they wouldn't have to worry about dealing with other countries or fighting amongst themselves.

While the federal government has no authority to do anything in education, the state governments can do whatever they want, including making their own schools. If you don't like it, complain to your state legislature.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki