Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

66 comments

Not enough (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37414812)

I always wanted to be more than Facebook friend with my female school teachers.

Re:Not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37414950)

They haven't repealed those laws yet.

Re:Not enough (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415056)

like being their student? :)

We have schools because we flirt w/ the opposite sex. Chances are some guy back in the day wanted to impress his date and boom structured education.

Re:Not enough (1)

wesleyjconnor (1955870) | more than 2 years ago | (#37416310)

Agreed, my year 10 math teachers barely concealed breasts taught me more about fluid dynamics than anything at uni

Re:Not enough (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418972)

Agreed, my year 10 math teachers barely concealed breasts taught me more about fluid dynamics than anything at uni

I initially misread that as "my 10 year old math teachers barely concealed breasts" and began to worry in many diferent ways at once.

Re:Not enough (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37417988)

Well, I for one say ; I'm hot for teacher [youtube.com]

After all, what could possibly go wrong ?

It is the seventh sign (0)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#37414890)

A stupid law gets repealed.
Repent now.
Won't someone think of the children?

Re:It is the seventh sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37414964)

If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?

They started it by telling all those lies about me. Damn slanderers.

-- God

My Dog Ate My Homework (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37414930)

No really! Don't believe me? Check out my facebook pic.

Of course the teacher is my friend. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37414934)

Of course the teacher is my friend. For the same reason I went to the protest. For the same reason I joined her at the Wisconsin capitol. Yes, she's my friend... or should I say, "comrade".

Re:Of course the teacher is my friend. (0, Offtopic)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415020)

Fox-piss flavor Kool-Aid, yum yum!

Wait, what? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#37414952)

Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

Re:Wait, what? (3, Informative)

Slyfox696 (2432554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415038)

Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

This was actually just a clause in a much larger piece of legislation that got passed, much of which was good legislation to help protect children. It was just this specific clause that got repealed.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

jacksonyee (590218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415476)

Yet another great example of our congressmen throughly reading the very laws that they vote upon...

If only most Americans had somewhat decent interest in politics beyond the narrow confines of our own lives, we could catch things like this much sooner before they became a media worthy issue in the first place. Oh well, at least this is one win for sensibility in this case, unlike some of the recent SCOTUS cases. Cheers!

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37416104)

Fine rant, but this has nothing to do with congress.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37416898)

How is this informative? It sounds like spin. Please provide examples of how the original law "was good legislation to help protect children." Thank you.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37417120)

Why don't you just fucking read it? This isn't wikipedia where we masturbate to eachother's citations, we're supposed to have a brain to think for ourselves.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37417390)

Amen!

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you that you're supposed to be an unpaid tutor, and abused, for the honor of being subservient to an lessor intelligent and lazy non-peer. Ohhh - lucky you! The only thing worse is some dip shit who sincerely believes saying, "citation needed", is appropriate or polite; especially when its actually extremely well known and/or readily available on any search engine. Without fail, people who say that with a straight face in informal settings are complete fucking idiots.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Slyfox696 (2432554) | more than 2 years ago | (#37420022)

It's not spin, it's a matter of reading the bill for yourself. While I won't be nearly as mean about it as the ACs, I would suggest a little legwork on your own would go a long way in answering the questions you seem to have. I'll provide the link for you: http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf [mo.gov]

Re:Wait, what? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418648)

US Citizens have a right to free speech - they can freely speak to anyone they like on any forum

So either this was unconstitutional, or children and Teachers are not Citizens ...?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37419020)

US Citizens have a right to free speech - they can freely speak to anyone they like on any forum

So either this was unconstitutional, or children and Teachers are not Citizens ...?

So I suppose facebook banning under thirteens is a fucking crime agiainst the US constitution?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37419174)

facebook != The Government

Re:Wait, what? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#37454550)

Facebook are a private company they can impose any rules they like (with a few specific exceptions) you are not forced to join and agree to them, the rule for under 13's is because they cannot be legally bound by the rules...

The Government wanted to stop private citizens speaking on a public forum ... that is against the constitution

Re:Wait, what? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37419370)

Freedom of speech applies to non-citizens as well. It applies to everyone living in the US.

Voting in federal election and running for federal office (and jury duty if you call that a right...) are limited to citizens.

Expression, speech, assembly, petitioning the government, worship, bearing arms - those freedoms apply to everyone living in the US (in theory...)

Re:Wait, what? (3, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415060)

Well, it's better than clinging in to it and pretend it's good to save face, no?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37420380)

Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously repeal it?

Wasn't this law unanimously passed in the first place? Now that the stupidity of it has been unanimously agreed upon, they unanimously rep

It's politics in Missouri, I don't know what you actually expected.

It would be helpful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37414966)

...to include "Missouri" in the headline for clarity.

Thanks... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415108)

Mary Kay Leteurneau thanks you, Missouri!

Re:Thanks... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37416484)

You joke, but we have a real problem with that here in WA. I'm not sure if we're better at investigating allegations than they are in other parts of the country or if it's more common here, but either way it's something we have a real problem with.

Or it could just be that we're ahead of the curve on men's rights and are more likely to prosecute sexual abuse of male minors.

Re:Thanks... (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37416944)

Well that's because most people think men's rights are nuts.

I have a B.S. in social work, and let me tell you what, any time I came to the front of my classroom - where I was usually the only guy, at the least in a very, very small minority - I was looked at like a crazy man for mentioning men's rights.

Re:Thanks... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37419834)

That's how that works. My TESL program was pretty much just me and one other man with the rest of the program filled out by women and I definitely got my share of threats for daring to point out that most of the figures are heavily sanitized to make things look a lot worse for women than they really are.

What the shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37415128)

Do parents no longer invite teachers over for dinner? When the flying fuck did becoming emotionally invested in the education and well-being of your charges become taboo?

Re:What the shit? (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415298)

It's simply redrawing the line of what is appropriate social contact. Frankly, it's refreshing that we aren't assuming that all teachers who speak to kids outside of school hours are engaged in grooming behaviour.

Re:What the shit? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415336)

there is a huge difference between adults inviting adults for dinner and an adult chatting up your kid right before bedtime on their buddy list

Missouri State supports pedophilia (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37415146)

Is how I read the article. I have said it before. There is no reason what so ever that any adult should have any relations with anyone under 18.

The more laws we make the more criminals we can find. I think everyone should be thrown in jail. It is the only way we can support the kids.

-You are a faggot.

Re:Missouri State supports pedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37415256)

brilliant.

Re:Missouri State supports pedophilia (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37419060)

Why is this modded as a troll when it is so fucking obviously sarcastic?

Illetronic Communication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37415250)

Who the heck really wants to share the existing social retardation spewed out today with current and past teachers or professors? And what professors would want to be bombarded by useless communication from literally thousands of students a year. Congressional action was at most intrusive and unnecessary. My perspective does not form an opinion regarding "big" government, but this is just simply idiotic and a waste of time. This shows you how easily a congress can be influenced and swayed into any direction for illegitimate reasons.

If some event did spark the debate, then it further indicates the attention span and forethought capable by many members holding political power and responsibility. I'm sure that whatever happened is already covered through existing law and collegiate rules and regulations.

- Some random person

Re:Illetronic Communication (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415392)

you obviously didn't even bother reading the summary

professors? thousands? congress? big government?

ok these are teachers, your lucky if they have a bachelors degree, not professors.

most teachers do not teach every period, so if they only do 4 classes in a day with ~30 students each your 10 fold off

this was senate, there is a difference, and it was the local state senate, which I assure you has the time for these sorts of questions, that is why they are there.

Food for thought (2)

mariox19 (632969) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415424)

I recall hearing this, once upon a time: "Why would anyone want to be friends with a teenager? They don't know very much, and their taste in music stinks."

Re:Food for thought (1)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415642)

Indeed, I remember when I realised how much of a muppet I was when I was a teenager ...

I hate to think I will realise how much of a muppet I am/was when I thought I was an adult...

Seriously though, if a teacher wants to be a mentor it's commendable - we need a less creepy way of doing this.

Re:Food for thought (2)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#37416674)

This law blocked, as I understood it, any form of social media communication between teachers and their minor-age students at their schools that could not be monitored by the parents and administrators.

School-run social media sites which DO allow for parental and school administrator oversight WERE allowed.

School-hosted email accounts which DO allow for parental and school administrator oversight WERE allowed.

Teachers can still talk with students after class, in the hallways, in the cafeteria, on the playground, etc. To suggest that teachers need PRIVATEcommunication with students that neither their parents nor employers can know what is said between them is simply insanity.

Imagine you are a parent of an attractive 14 year-old girl, and you go to school to pick up your daughter and you find her in a teacher's office, with the door closed, and you are prevented from entering the room until they are done speaking... I bet you'd wonder what they were talking about - imagine the teacher saying "It's none of your business." That is effectively what the teachers argued for in this case.

Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?

I think these teachers place more importance on being "special friends" with their students, not teaching them - I can think of no other reason why teachers need "private" communication with their students...

Re:Food for thought (3, Interesting)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37417022)

The law says that teachers cannot "have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student." Aside from the bad wording (which leads to questions about whether "Facebook" is considered a website or whether each Facebook page is considered a separate website), this law doesn't just say the teachers can't talk secretly. It says that the teachers can't use a site that *allows* secret talk. Just the fact that methods of private communication exist on the website makes use of the website illegal, regardless of whether the teachers use them.

It also prohibits teachers who are parents from communicating with their children over Facebook, since parents' communication with their children is not normally visible to school administrators.

Re:Food for thought (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37419102)

It also prohibits teachers who are parents from communicating with their children over Facebook

I think I'd be quite worried about a teacher who had to communicate with their kids via Facebook.

Re:Food for thought (2)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418890)

Devil's Advocate mode initiated

Imagine you are a parent of an attractive 14 year-old girl, and you

.. whore her out every weekend. Or you frequently beat/abuse her. She wants to talk with someone she knows well and trust about it, and the teacher is the one person she both knows, and trust to handle it discreetly.
But, she is not allowed to talk to any teacher privately, and she can't make herself talk about it to some complete stranger either.

What then?

From wikipedia:

Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, mothers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbours; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.

And, from this page [about.com] (general abuse, not sexual abuse specific):

In 2007, more than one-half (57 percent) of all child abuse cases and reports made to CPS agencies came from professionals who came in contact with the child, including teachers, lawyers, police officers, and social workers.

From your post:

To suggest that teachers need PRIVATEcommunication with students that neither their parents nor employers can know what is said between them is simply insanity.

I would say it would be simply obvious, not insanity. To follow your logic all the way through, no one should have any private communication to any person below 18 years of age.

End question : Are you still so certain that no teacher should ever have private communications with a student?

Re:Food for thought (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37419176)

I don't see how preventing the teacher from communicating via facebook stops them from having an old fashioned face to face meeting (which would be more appropriate in this case anyway).

Re:Food for thought (1)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37421138)

Simple question - Why do teachers who work in the same building the students are in some 200 days a year and can interact with them in person, in private, on campus NEED the ability to interact with students secretly on social media websites?

Because it is both their as well as their students' inalienable right to. Free speech, you know. Have you heard of it? The fact that it can be used for nefarious things is understood and agreed to be an acceptable risk. If you disagree with this fundamental notion, then please move to another country more in line with your thoughts and desire for authoritarian control.

Not to mention this law prevented communication with current as well as former students. You know, even after they grow up and become adults capable of making their own decisions. It was a bad law, which was obviously in violation of the 1st amendment and was rightly repealed.

Re:Food for thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37415650)

Yeah, but they're way tighter than those easy 21+ year olds...

Students relation with teachers (1)

vishal dogra (2439174) | more than 2 years ago | (#37415616)

What Missouri law is suggesting teachers or students to keep them at length on Facebook, since they feel, teachers or students cannot be friend. The decision is orthodox. In the new perception, can't we make both of them more close, so that they can go along leaving any hitch beside. http://www.infosphaira.com/latestarticles.com [infosphaira.com]

Re:Students relation with teachers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37416072)

What the, I don't even... :-S

Re:Students relation with teachers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37416234)

Looks like it was machine translated from some other language.
Lets translate it to another language and then back again!

What of Missouri law by offering teachers and students to keep them away from Facebook, as they say, teachers or students, can not be a friend. Decision Orthodox. The new perception, we can not do with them more closely, so that they can go together leaving the device nearby.

captcha: vetoed!

Punching bags are people too (2)

pefisher (774697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37416228)

This law went far beyond Facebook; (Zdnet said) it limited any internet communication that wasn't visible to both the school district and parents. It's nice that a judge indicated he was going to find it unconstitutional. That happens so seldom in this day and age.

Giggity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37416878)

Back to thinking about the children!

dangers of technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37417192)

Won't anyone think of the children?
This law prevents teachers and students from communicating [anywhere that those conversations can be tracked, recorded, or monitored]. This way, if a student and teacher wanted to have an illicit conversation, they'd have to do it the old-fashioned way: in person and secretly.

Children need right of choice (2)

MrNthDegree (2429298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418066)

Parents (If one can even use the plural in most cases) should have no right to dominate childrens' lives any more than the school system does or big media do. Child protection laws are all a sad joke which make bad assumptions about the intelligence of young people who happen to be below the age of 18. Due to child protection laws, a lot of young and talented people cannot find their place in the world until they are much older, this is wrong.

Parents very often do not recognise true potential in their kids and it should be up to the child as to who he/she communicates with in private. Teachers spend longer with classes of children at key times in any one given child's life than the parents do in many cases and teachers of specialist subjects are the best at identifying aptitude for a given subject. Students with an aptitude for a subject should get special attention to help them reach their true potential.

In addition, social networking is no more risky than keeping a student for face-to-face chat at the end of a class, when will people realise this?

Re:Children need right of choice (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#37421530)

As much as I agree with you about the intelligence of young people being underestimated, I also feel that parents do in fact have the right to dominate children's lives. Wisdom and intelligence are two separate things and while there are plenty of young intelligent people, I've found that there aren't nearly as many wise ones. Admittedly, these unwise young people are often the product of coddling parents, but I wholly support a parent's right to discipline/etc. I do agree, however, that many child protection laws are a joke.

Just because one can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37418208)

...doesn't mean one should. In today's litigious society, a smart teacher would only interact with a student in official ways. No solo meetings, and certainly no media based contact. That simply has to be the way, until parents decide to abandon their hysteria.

In soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37418350)

In soviet russia, friends don't let friends befriend politicians and teachers on Facebook. Or something like that....

Govt. Sticking its nose where it doesn't belong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37418614)

How gracious of our government to vote themselves to stay out of people's personal business. Lets be honest, the whole thing was just a bad idea, and an alienation of personal rights in the first place....

Re:Govt. Sticking its nose where it doesn't belong (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418938)

OK, this was a bad law and its repeal is a good idea, but how does it qualify as the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? The teachers are government employees who have a government mandated relationship with the students. For the most part, the teachers would have no relationship with these students if it was not the law that these students must be in the classroom that the government hired these teachers to take charge of.

Bad idea (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418642)

Teachers, like parents can't be friends with students/their children.

Friends are supposed to be equals, these other relationships are not.

Teachers and students can be friends only when the student has left that school. Parents and kids can only be friends when the kid has left home. Otherwise it's entirely inappropriate.

Also: Cool parent is an oxymoron.

Re:Bad idea (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418950)

Also: Cool parent is an oxymoron.

Until you become a parent when "cool child" becomes the oxymoron.

Why would teachers want that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37418790)

So why would teachers want that? I get the few actual points in the article, like if teachers use e-learning platforms like Moodle. But why would a teacher want to be friends with their students on Facebook? To be able to check up on them, see whether they behave in their spare time? Do students get bonus points when they post a Facebook status like "I did my geology homework first thing this morning. It was very interesting!"?

Might as well just legalise paedophilia (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#37418936)

n/t

Re:Might as well just legalise paedophilia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37419390)

Might as well just legalise paedophilia

Let me guess, you also think Obama is a socialist muslim zionist atheist out to destroy america

Re:Might as well just legalise paedophilia (1)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37421168)

Um, not for nothing, but I believe those who believe all teachers are predatory pedophiles just waiting for a chance to strike their poor helpless children are more likely to be liberal whiners who love Obama.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...