Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Connecticut News Blogs)   High School Student: "Why are you blocking conservative political websites but not liberal ones?" Administrators: "Sorry, we meant to block *all* political websites." WTFark: School goes on to compare Democrats and Republicans to KKK and Nazis   (blog.ctnews.com) divider line 107
    More: Asinine, CRP, censorships, Woodbury, Liberty University, school boards  
•       •       •

1242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2014 at 10:26 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-19 09:12:53 AM  
School administration is dumb-farkin'-anti-American-ass.

The correct answer isn't to block both sides of the argument because you got caught only allowing one viewpoint.  The correct answer is to unblock both.

I think that as a matter of law, the school district, being a publicly funded government entity, is on very, very shaky ground in blocking the websites of both the Republican and Democratic parties.   That's pure political speech, which gets the highest protection under the law, even within a restricted rights area like a school.

And neither site would fall under the exceptions for decorum, disruption, or indecent speech.

If I were that kid, I'd sue the school district to unblock those sites.  I can't see how he'd lose.
 
2014-06-19 09:22:14 AM  
dittybopper:   I can't see how he'd lose.

Kids/students have less rights than those over 18 years of age. Sad but true.
 
2014-06-19 09:42:57 AM  
State GOP Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. condemned the district's Internet access policy.

"If it's true, it's very troubling and constitutes a dangerous form of censorship," Labriola told Hearst Wednesday. "I call upon the school district to give equal access to political viewpoints across the spectrum."


Doing good...I'm with him right up to there.

The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators."

Now I want to cockpunch him.

As for the larger topic, open the damned firewalls and be equitable about it.
 
2014-06-19 09:52:49 AM  
"The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators."

Nice to see mature, not at all inflammatory language used by the state GOP chairman with such ease. Very professional. This will surely help ease tensions and close the divide between parties.
 
2014-06-19 10:22:18 AM  
I'd block site by site, and be agnostic to political leaning.
Anytime a site called for or implied a call for some kind of violence or divisively hateful action, favorited!.
And I'd keep a record of why each of those sites was blocked that I could show to any concern trolls that happened along.
 
2014-06-19 10:30:52 AM  
I am just going to assume a blog is poorly researched.
 
2014-06-19 10:31:08 AM  
FTA: "It was appalling to see that it was very one-sided," Lampart, who is bound for the Christian-oriented Liberty University in the fall and is in the process of starting up a Young Republicans chapter in Woodbury, told Hearst Connecticut Media Wednesday.

Good thing he's going to such a prestigious academic institution renowned for it's thoughtful, open-minded atmosphere.
 
2014-06-19 10:31:52 AM  

dittybopper: That's pure political speech, which gets the highest protection under the law, even within a restricted rights area like a school.


Alas, we have slid a long long way from Tinker.  From the eye rolling Bethel School District v. Fraser, to the horrible opinion in Morse v. Frederick, the Court has reduced the statement "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." to more of a truism than I like.

Not saying you are wrong, just venting at the downward trajectory of rights since the Warren Court.
 
2014-06-19 10:32:13 AM  

unlikely: I'd block site by site, and be agnostic to political leaning.
Anytime a site called for or implied a call for some kind of violence or divisively hateful action, favorited!.
And I'd keep a record of why each of those sites was blocked that I could show to any concern trolls that happened along.


Hence, the state GOP chairman's statement would be blocked.
 
2014-06-19 10:32:42 AM  
All sites should be unblocked and there should just be rules about not going to porn sites. It seems insane to have some blacklist that has to be kept and be updated.
 
2014-06-19 10:34:36 AM  

Teiritzamna: dittybopper: That's pure political speech, which gets the highest protection under the law, even within a restricted rights area like a school.

Alas, we have slid a long long way from Tinker.  From the eye rolling Bethel School District v. Fraser, to the horrible opinion in Morse v. Frederick, the Court has reduced the statement "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." to more of a truism than I like.

Not saying you are wrong, just venting at the downward trajectory of rights since the Warren Court.


Would it be possible to give a quick rundown of those two cases for those of us who aren't fluent in High Legalese?
 
2014-06-19 10:36:35 AM  
State GOP Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. condemned the district's Internet access policy.
"If it's true, it's very troubling and constitutes a dangerous form of censorship," Labriola told Hearst Wednesday. "I call upon the school district to give equal access to political viewpoints across the spectrum. The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators."


Thus the school's block on conservative political websites is justified.  Thanks, Jerry Labriola Jr.!
 
2014-06-19 10:37:44 AM  
Is the site espousing hatred towards a class of Americans?  Then I think it's fine for a school to block it.  The issue is, there are a lot of right-affiliated groups that are hate groups.  Groups that refuse basic civil rights to gays or who espouse policies that tell poor people or minorities they shouldn't be allowed to vote probably don't need to be given time by public school students trying to learn about civics.

The amount of teacher-hating and rumor-mongering in this article tells me that there's some bullshiat going on.  A crappy blocking system that wasn't fully implemented deserves criticism, but the rampant "what if" of this article tells me that there's some attention whoring going on.  Someone who wants to be a Young Conservative in college before he gets there probably has a good chance of being another James O'Keefe, who poisons his way through public discourse by breaking the law, intentionally cutting out any evidence of his 'interviews' that would contradict his argument and giving his interview subjects basic decency.

Personally, I suspect that someone in the school managed to get access to the blocking software and set it up so that this stunt could happen.  That's the kind of shifty crap O'Keefe would do.
 
2014-06-19 10:37:57 AM  
*headdesk*

check that

*headthroughthedesk*

check that

*headbustingthroughthedeskandleavingacraterinthefloor*

How the superintendent didn't mow down the door of the school district's attorney with a copy of the First Amendment and this policy and ask him exactly how to reconcile this.

/suspect the student is a douche, but even a douche finds fertile ground every now and again.
 
2014-06-19 10:38:44 AM  
Liberal websitesMSNBC
Mother Jones
Associated Press
Google
Wikipedia
Brittanica
Al-Jazeera (English)
Al-Jazeera (terrorist)
Conservative WebsitesAmRen
Stormfront
Home page of the American Nazi Party
VDARE
Any white student's union website
Infowars
Glenn Beck's "The Blaze"
Tucker Carlson's Home for Angry, Doughy Racists
Ghost Andrew Breitbart's Mouldering Corpse (now with extra homophobia!)
WorldNetDaily
FreeRepublic
The Chronicles of Skinnyhead: One Potato's Meteoric Rise to Quasi-Sentience
Liberal websites will contain news, fact, and opinion pieces meant to inform people about the world. Conservative websites contain exhortations to commit mass shootings in the name of "revolution" and tips for how to use code words to talk about the enemies of the White Race.I wonder why one might be censored.
 
2014-06-19 10:41:52 AM  

dittybopper: School administration is dumb-farkin'-anti-American-ass.


Yea, that's not being a bit extreme at all...
 
2014-06-19 10:42:25 AM  
Having a persecution complex must be emotionally exhausting. Just imagine, having to feel intense outrage and ecstatic vindication, simultaneously, every single day.
 
2014-06-19 10:42:57 AM  

Headso: All sites should be unblocked and there should just be rules about not going to porn sites. It seems insane to have some blacklist that has to be kept and be updated.


You're going to allow children who. you have been placed in your custody to watch self described porn. Why don't you just sign the school building over to the lawyers?
 
2014-06-19 10:44:58 AM  
I have heard of many cases where a school's netnanny software had the reverse bias--you could get to the RNC website, but not the DNC.  This happens because many schools go looking for a "family friendly" web filter and either knowingly or unknowingly end up buying one created by a religious outfit.  This came to light when one student in Cherry Creek (a ritzy neighborhood of Denver) was trying to write a paper about evolution for her biology class, and found all the most useful links blocked.
 
2014-06-19 10:45:05 AM  
"While doing research for a assignment on gun control in the school's library...."

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM PEW PEW PEW

Gun Control, LOL.

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM PEW PEW PEW
 
2014-06-19 10:45:19 AM  

Car_Ramrod: dittybopper: School administration is dumb-farkin'-anti-American-ass.

Yea, that's not being a bit extreme at all...


It isn't just extreme, it's literally Hitler
 
2014-06-19 10:47:05 AM  

Headso: All sites should be unblocked and there should just be rules about not going to porn sites. It seems insane to have some blacklist that has to be kept and be updated.


Thanks, Parents!

/seriously
 
2014-06-19 10:47:07 AM  

Epic Fap Session: FTA: "It was appalling to see that it was very one-sided," Lampart, who is bound for the Christian-oriented Liberty University in the fall and is in the process of starting up a Young Republicans chapter in Woodbury, told Hearst Connecticut Media Wednesday.

Good thing he's going to such a prestigious academic institution renowned for it's thoughtful, open-minded atmosphere.


Nothing more punchable than a young Republican.
 
2014-06-19 10:50:04 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators."

Nice to see mature, not at all inflammatory language used by the state GOP chairman with such ease. Very professional. This will surely help ease tensions and close the divide between parties.


I always wonder about these people.  He actually has some legitimate lines of complaint / arguments that he could use that people on the left, center, AND right could support.  Than he just goes full retard.  Is he an idiot or does he just like to stir up idiot supporters who are scared and have low self-esteem because of THE LIBERALS?
 
2014-06-19 10:50:15 AM  

qorkfiend: Bethel School District v. Fraser


http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667 - Bethel V. Fraser

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278 - Morse V. Frederick
 
2014-06-19 10:51:05 AM  
Oh please..

"...tried unsuccessfully to visit the websites of Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association"

Weapons are a totally reasonable block

"...anti-abortion and traditional marriage organizations"

Traditional Marriage: Those can be some pretty shaky grounds with a lot of hate-speech.
Anti-Abortion: Those sites can be downright gruesome.

That's a load of crap, there's no violation of free speech there.  Yeah, the Connecticut GOP site got blocked, so you go in and undo that, it's not hard.  That stuff happens.  What a persecution complex.
 
2014-06-19 10:51:32 AM  

tudorgurl: qorkfiend: Bethel School District v. Fraser

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667 - Bethel V. Fraser

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278 - Morse V. Frederick


Thanks
 
2014-06-19 10:52:19 AM  

SovietCanuckistan: "While doing research for a assignment on gun control in the school's library...."

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM PEW PEW PEW

Gun Control, LOL.

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM PEW PEW PEW


It's fine as long as your gun whispers.  It's a  library, after all.
 
2014-06-19 10:52:29 AM  

qorkfiend: Would it be possible to give a quick rundown of those two cases for those of us who aren't fluent in High Legalese?


Sure, i will do all three.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Tinker involved a couple of students who decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.  The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and decided that any students wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. The protesting students were suspended.

The Supreme Court, 7-2 held that  the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. This is where the quote i used came from:

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."

However, in what appeared to be a minor concession, the court held that schools can preclude certain types of expressive conduct if it is disruptive to the learning environment.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

In Bethel the Court confronted a case where students at an assembly made a speech filled with sexual innuendo (ex: ""I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds.")  In other words, the kids were Farkers.  The school suspended the students.

The Supreme Court seized upon the disruption language of Tinker and held 7-2 that a school could punish speech it found inappropriate if that speech was disruptive, vulgar or objectionable.  This opened a rather large crack in Tinker, allowing schools to preclude lots of expressive conduct as long as the school characterized it as disruptive.

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)

A class in Alaska was allowed out to watch the Olympic torch go by.  A group of students, who hadn't even been at classes earlier that morning, joined the group on the sidewalk and unfurled a sign reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS," hoping to get on the local or even national news (i.e. again, Farkers).  The school suspended the students for violating the school's drug policy and increased the suspension when one of the students protested the abrogation of their rights and quoted Jefferson (No really!).

The Supreme Court, in a fractured plurality of 4-1-2-1-3 (yes, those numbers overlap), held in relevant part that the speech was within the school's ambit to control, even though it happened outside school grounds, that the message could be seen as pro-drug and thus disruptive and within the scope of the Tinker exception.  That because drugs are so bad, a school can totally trample a student's right to free speech because . . . um . . . reasons.  And that the Principal wasn't worried about being embarrassed, but was sincerely interested in preventing the scourge of Jesus smoking a bong.

Stevens' dissent is pretty epic:

"the school's interest in protecting its students from exposure to speech "reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use"...cannot justify disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more."

And

"Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible."
 
2014-06-19 10:52:59 AM  

Epic Fap Session: FTA: "It was appalling to see that it was very one-sided," Lampart, who is bound for the Christian-oriented Liberty University in the fall and is in the process of starting up a Young Republicans chapter in Woodbury, told Hearst Connecticut Media Wednesday.

Good thing he's going to such a prestigious academic institution renowned for it's thoughtful, open-minded atmosphere.


I think they get scholarships or special dispensations for whining about liberals like this.
 
2014-06-19 10:53:32 AM  

pueblonative: Headso: All sites should be unblocked and there should just be rules about not going to porn sites. It seems insane to have some blacklist that has to be kept and be updated.

You're going to allow children who. you have been placed in your custody to watch self described porn. Why don't you just sign the school building over to the lawyers?


 what is self described porn? is narration involved?
 
2014-06-19 10:53:41 AM  

qorkfiend: tudorgurl: qorkfiend: Bethel School District v. Fraser

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667 - Bethel V. Fraser

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278 - Morse V. Frederick

Thanks


You bet. :) Oyez.Org is the bomb-diggity.
 
2014-06-19 10:54:03 AM  

qorkfiend: Teiritzamna: dittybopper: That's pure political speech, which gets the highest protection under the law, even within a restricted rights area like a school.

Alas, we have slid a long long way from Tinker.  From the eye rolling Bethel School District v. Fraser, to the horrible opinion in Morse v. Frederick, the Court has reduced the statement "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." to more of a truism than I like.

Not saying you are wrong, just venting at the downward trajectory of rights since the Warren Court.

Would it be possible to give a quick rundown of those two cases for those of us who aren't fluent in High Legalese?


Bethel - Student made several double entendres during a school assembly and the court ruled that the school was allowed to suspend him even though the speech was lewd but not obscene.

Morse - 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case. School could punish a kid even when he wasn't on school grounds because they have a duty to prevent harmful activities.
 
2014-06-19 10:54:07 AM  
It's a GOP talking head complaining the loudest about this, so I'm going with "never happened."
 
2014-06-19 10:54:22 AM  
Right wing political sites encourage domestic terrorism.
 
2014-06-19 10:55:31 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Right wing political sites encourage domestic terrorism.


Sponsor? Direct? Cause?
 
2014-06-19 10:55:59 AM  

tudorgurl: You bet. :) Oyez.Org is the bomb-diggity.


Google Scholar is better
 
2014-06-19 10:56:15 AM  

lockers: Car_Ramrod: dittybopper: School administration is dumb-farkin'-anti-American-ass.

Yea, that's not being a bit extreme at all...

It isn't just extreme, it's literally Hitler


I mean, I understand they're being a bit heavy handed with the blocking in order to cover their asses, and censorship is not something to aim for, but to call them anti-American because of their policies is really stupid. Labels like that shouldn't be used willy nilly.
 
2014-06-19 10:57:29 AM  

dittybopper: derp


Conservative sites ARE hate sites, generally. I'd tell you to pay attention to reality, but I know your religious beliefs in Republican Jesus don't permit that.

/Why are all you Republicans such damned liars?
 
2014-06-19 10:57:30 AM  
They don't have civics classes that ask kids to compare and contrast political parties' stances on various issues?
 
2014-06-19 11:03:20 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Conservative websites contain exhortations to commit mass shootings in the name of "revolution"


Butbutbutbut TINSTAAVC.
 
2014-06-19 11:03:59 AM  

Tomahawk513: Oh please..

"...tried unsuccessfully to visit the websites of Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association"

Weapons are a totally reasonable block

"...anti-abortion and traditional marriage organizations"

Traditional Marriage: Those can be some pretty shaky grounds with a lot of hate-speech.
Anti-Abortion: Those sites can be downright gruesome.

That's a load of crap, there's no violation of free speech there.  Yeah, the Connecticut GOP site got blocked, so you go in and undo that, it's not hard.  That stuff happens.  What a persecution complex.


Yeah weapons are a reasonable block...if the NRA was offering no questions asked gun sales on its web site.
You also know there is no hate speech exemption to the First Amendment, right? And doing a paper without researching positions, even those that are deplorable, isn't so much doing a research paper as spewing talking points.
And it's not that hard to do. You know what is, doubling down on the derp when called on it to make yourself look reasonable.
 
2014-06-19 11:04:25 AM  

Teiritzamna: tudorgurl: You bet. :) Oyez.Org is the bomb-diggity.

Google Scholar is better


Meh, potato, potato
 
2014-06-19 11:05:44 AM  

dittybopper: I can't see how he'd lose.


You can't even see your tiny penis, so of course you can't see how he'd lose.
 
2014-06-19 11:06:01 AM  

Headso: pueblonative: Headso: All sites should be unblocked and there should just be rules about not going to porn sites. It seems insane to have some blacklist that has to be kept and be updated.

You're going to allow children who. you have been placed in your custody to watch self described porn. Why don't you just sign the school building over to the lawyers?

 what is self described porn? is narration involved?


threegirlsonecupanddunkeyporn.xxx
 
2014-06-19 11:07:35 AM  

Teiritzamna: dittybopper: That's pure political speech, which gets the highest protection under the law, even within a restricted rights area like a school.

Alas, we have slid a long long way from Tinker.  From the eye rolling Bethel School District v. Fraser, to the horrible opinion in Morse v. Frederick, the Court has reduced the statement "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." to more of a truism than I like.

Not saying you are wrong, just venting at the downward trajectory of rights since the Warren Court.


Except this isn't about student speech.  It's more akin to a student's right to hear speech, censorship of school library books and the mess that is Board of Education v. Pico.
 
2014-06-19 11:07:47 AM  

unlikely: I'd block site by site


Hi, this is the internet. You must be new here. One thing you'll find in your journeys around here is that it is absolutely farking immense. Just... so big. I think you'll find your endeavor positively Sisyphean.
 
2014-06-19 11:08:38 AM  

Teiritzamna: qorkfiend: Would it be possible to give a quick rundown of those two cases for those of us who aren't fluent in High Legalese?

Sure, i will do all three.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Tinker involved a couple of students who decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.  The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and decided that any students wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. The protesting students were suspended.

The Supreme Court, 7-2 held that  the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. This is where the quote i used came from:

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."

However, in what appeared to be a minor concession, the court held that schools can preclude certain types of expressive conduct if it is disruptive to the learning environment.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)

In Bethel the Court confronted a case where students at an assembly made a speech filled with sexual innuendo (ex: ""I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of ...


Thanks. The creeping broadness of the interpretation is pretty obvious when viewed from this light; one important detail that Oyez.org had left out of Morse was that it was off school grounds.

One thing I've been wondering is how the Court might have decided if it had been a religious-themed message, like "Abortion Doctors Are Baby Killers" or something. I have the sneaking suspicion (ok, I'm almost 100% certain) the Court would have ruled the exact opposite way.
 
2014-06-19 11:09:42 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Conservative websites contain exhortations to commit mass shootings in the name of "revolution"

Butbutbutbut TINSTAAVC.


There is no such thing as a venture capitalist? Sigh. If only.
 
2014-06-19 11:10:03 AM  
Andrew Lampart couldn't right click.

Yet the 18-year-old high school senior from Woodbury could left click with relative ease.


s3.amazonaws.com
Also, politics is a category in most web filters. When you enable it, the computer can't tell the difference between neo-nazi politics and tea party politics.

Just like the rest of us.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report