Let's Outlaw Duct Tape in the Classroom....

[dales]

Much ado about, almost nothing.

Major gas bag.

yrs,
rubato

Then why did you comment?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Years ago, if a picture like this was taken, it would have been posted on the school bulletin board and the school would have had a laugh about it and any time someone brought out a roll of tape, the kids would have some fun either copying or remembering the "fun" class when it happened.

Now-a-days everything is a crisis. Everything is an event. Everything needs to be analyzed and scrutinized and vetted down to the very tiny particle of what happened, how can we prevent it from happening again, AND MOST OF ALL, WHO IS AT FAULT. We need a witch hunt and a witch to burn at the stake. Because without that witch to burn, we will not be satisfied nor compensated for the "emotional" pain people went through. And in this case, it seems the only ones with emotional pain were not involved at all (aka school board).

Stop the planet, I want to get off.

[Big RR]

You still don't get it, and obviously never will. So you win, ok? Happy?

I get it.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong in your Scooter kinda way.

btw - I wasn't trying to "win", I was attempting to get you to understand my point of view, which I believe to be correct.

Come on Joe, these weren't older adolescents, they were middles chool kids, I don't know what grade they were in, but they could be as young as 11 or old as, what, 13? These are kids who cannot enter into contracts, who generally cannot travel by air unless special custodial arrangments are made, who can't even legally walk into a PG-13 movie (except the oldest). Now if you don't think they need any special protection from their own stupidity or imnpulsiveness, that is your business, but the law clearly does. And having their pictures plastered on the internet by someone in authority is one decision that maybe they're not equipped to make.

Sure, it's no big deal here (so far as we know), but what if one of the kids is on the run with his or her mother (or father) from an abuser? What if this is used by a stalker? Don't they have a right o be protected? If the school doesn't have a policy, it should. And even if it doesn't, a teacher has no business poosting ANY photos (funny or not) of his or her students in public media.

Sure, I agree she shouldn't be fired (absent a policy that clearly states a penalty), but it should be made clear to her that this behavior is not tolerated.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Understood BigRR, but in the rule of gun control, shouldn't we shut down the internet. After all, it's the medium that is the problem not the person.

Can't put enough emotes in that statement.

[Big RR]

Well oldr, you can start your crusade to ban the internet, if that's what you want. Maybe we should try to ban teachers using it first?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I was thinking "common sense" but that seems to be in short supply lately.

[rubato]

Its a new medium and we are learning by experience what we think the boundaries should be in how it is used. Children are an area of especial concern and anything which effects them is prone to a larger response, even hysteria.

This is just a way of moving the debate into a larger public sphere so we can decide what we think about it.

Publishing photographs online is different than any way they were distributed before. It has different consequences re privacy or perhaps the 'right' to control how your or your children's images are used.

Her actions were innocent in intent and there is no evolved and articulated 'rule' broken so she is innocent of bad intent and probably innocent of even a lack of due care; since the latter is not defined.

However, people were made uncomfortable by the act because of things about it which are emergent, not predictable. So its something to be discussed.

The hystrionic reaction is pure gasbaggery. It needs thought and discussion.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I agree completely with everything in rube's last post.

(Assuming of course, that in the last line of his post , the "gasbaggery " he mentions refers to the overreactions of the posturing ninnies who are trying to get the woman fired over this, and was not intended as just another gratuitous shot at Joe.)

[Joe Guy]

Come on Joe, these weren't older adolescents, they were middles chool kids, I don't know what grade they were in, but they could be as young as 11 or old as, what, 13? These are kids who cannot enter into contracts...."

The point I made earlier that Scooter and now you appear to have missed is that the parents of these children, the people that could enter into contracts on their behalf, don't appear to be the ones who are complaining, according to the article.

Sure, it's no big deal here (so far as we know), but what if one of the kids is on the run with his or her mother (or father) from an abuser? What if this is used by a stalker? Don't they have a right o be protected? If the school doesn't have a policy, it should. And even if it doesn't, a teacher has no business poosting ANY photos (funny or not) of his or her students in public media.

What if the teacher has an illness that makes her want to post pictures on facebook? Shouldn't she be treated as a victim? What if the kids told her to do it? Maybe they are responsible for triggering her disease. Of course, then it would be the kids' parents' fault and the parents should be monetarily liable.

Sure, I agree she shouldn't be fired (absent a policy that clearly states a penalty),.....

That's the issue and the point I've been making all along. The school board doesn't seem to be enforcing a policy. They are just overreacting to an innocent act.

...but it should be made clear to her that this behavior is not tolerated.

"This behavior" needs to be defined. If the school board is paranoid about liability from a stalker or evil abusing parent, they might not want the kids to be seen at the school by anyone and put 10 foot walls around it and of course, arm the teachers.

[Joe Guy]

I agree completely with everything in rube's last post.

(Assuming of course, that in the last line of his post , the "gasbaggery " he mentions refers to the overreactions of the posturing ninnies who are trying to get the woman fired over this, and was not intended as just another gratuitous shot at Joe.)

I don't believe rubato was taking a shot at me.

But for a moment I thought you had written that post...

[Lord Jim]

for a moment I thought you had written that post...

So did I Joe....

Thoughtful, logical, well reasoned, even handed, concise....

Not what one generally expects from the keyboard of Mr. Rube....