Never once said she wants to ban memes, only that the decision is entirely up to her regardless of whatever law you might want to bring into it. Your victim complex got old like 3 posts ago.
Never once said she wants to ban memes, only that the decision is entirely up to her regardless of whatever law you might want to bring into it. Your victim complex got old like 3 posts ago.
And no, she is not above the law, wtf is that shit? By your logic she can just punch a kid if she wants to. You are not making any sense.
Nah you're just overexaggerating. Calm down girl, for reals.
Because of the context, if the memes can be taken as inflammatory in nature then the P has every right to censor them regardless of what laws are normally in place. It works out great honesty.
I am starting to think you didn't read the law. She needs to have it in writing BEFORE the paper is made. That is the law. We need to have written rules. That is what the meeting is for. To have written rules. This is what the thread is about, to clarify on the rules. She cannot do that unless the rules are already written, which they are not. Do you not get this? Do you not understand we every year get observed to see whether we can remain open as a charter, and now that we have an official paper they could very well ask for these rules? 6 charters were shutdown this year because of not doing things correctly, and while this alone would not shut us down, it can ding us. Why not get the rules made before that happens?
And yes, you can get dinged for stupid shit.
Last year we got dinged for the lockdown toilets not being in clearer sight and for teachers having poster papers on top of cabinets.
double
The rules are already there; if the memes in the school paper are inflammatory to someone, and become disruptive in class, the P has every right to discontinue it.
Given that you understand that the California Student Free Expression Law gives students wide latitude for expressing free speech, I'm sure you also see that an administrator is going to use "obscene, libelous, or slanderous" and "disruption of the orderly operation" to justify limiting it in order to limit their perceived possible liability.
So if you are looking for a way to defend not censoring your students to the principal, instead of looking at the language of the law, it seems you would be better off finding where the law has been tested and that battle already fought:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-...l/1443339.html
http://www.splc.org/article/2015/06/...story-censored
On a side note, I never did journalism in high school, but copy-pasting memes seems a lot like promotion/glorification of plagiarism and not quite the critical analysis or generation of original ideas I'd have have expected from such a course. I mean I get why it would be a fit in a modern student's "comics section" in terms of amusement appeal, but even then it's still not original work.
Edit: although I suppose that's technically the way syndication works
No. How many times do I have to say this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...ion_Code_48907
School authorities can only prohibit publication of stories in school newspapers if they are obscene, libelous, slanderous, or likely to incite others to commit illegal or disruptive acts. Additionally, school districts may not censor, even if the above conditions are met, if the district has not adopted in written form rules and regulations including reasonable provisions for the time, place, and manner in which issues of censorship may be addressed or settled. Thus, even if material falls within the realm of obscene, defamatory, illegal, or disruptive, all reasonable restrictions on school newspapers, school officials may not censor student material simply because no written school district regulations governing publications exist.
I appreciate this post for trying to have a little more meat to it. I think people are confusing where my issue is and stuck on the meme part. If she wants to ban memes, that is irrelevant. What I want is clear rules and expectations so we are obeying the law.
A secondary part to that is to give the students clear expectations that are aligned with the law. The teacher meme is notable as an interesting thing because the AP's concern was he didn't want the students thinking in his words, "Fuck school." And as soon as I told the students I had to remove the memes one's response verbatim was, "Fuck this school." It does more to create this idea that they ban on whims which is definitely not a way to make kids think the school is doing the right thing.
Having clear expectations that are followed consistently, does.
People here correctly identified your XY problem and thus their posts seem off topic to you. (You ask about problem Y, which came up when trying to solve problem X, instead of asking about problem X.)
Feel free to talk law with a principle, though.
I appreciate your passion. I'll give ya that.
It's honestly a passion for rules. This was thrown on me last minute at the beginning of the year (was supposed to just be yearbook), and hopefully I can pawn it off another teacher for next year. The silver lining is that this will create less work for me, not more. Which is what I need.