school confiscates cell phone, lawyer dad is mad?

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is seizure of property ok if it's a knife?

[/ QUOTE ]

i responded to that already. if the property does not present a threat of harm it is fine...

if it presents a threat then the owner does not have the same rights. if it is actually used to inflict physical harm then it is even more imperitive that action is taken against the owner.


this is very very obvious stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a cell phone camera that can take upskirt photos of 12 year old girls presents no threat of harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again......

This is a crime and should be treated as such.

Thought crimes are not (yet) crimes, nor are "potential" crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's school. It is reasonable for parent to believe that the school provides a safe environment for their child. This includes emotional as well as physical safety.

Being able to prevent something that is reasonably foreseeable (adolescents taking unwanted pictures of other students) is not being the thought police, it's accepting responsibility for the minors that are under your control.

Our district has a zero tolerance policy on bullying. This includes 3 people teasing the kid with braces or glasses. That policy is in place to prevent much worse things from happening. I'm sure this is unacceptable to you because it prevents the students from expressing their 1st Amendment rights of free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

so just to clarify. You are comparing bullying someone to carrying a cell phone on you?

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/

Some folks here seem to get a little too much enjoyment out of striving to make the school more gulag-esque.



[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is the responsiblity of the school to try and provide the most safe and condusive environment to learning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it working? (Either the environment part, or the teaching part)

Part of this problem is that we get what school we get. If we had choices I'd imagine the environments would be much more diverse.

[almostbusto]

4_2_it: that policy is unacceptable because its a zero tolerance policy. zero tolerance policies are necessarily inefficient decision making systems. i think everyone sees why so i won't explain further.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is seizure of property ok if it's a knife?

[/ QUOTE ]

i responded to that already. if the property does not present a threat of harm it is fine...

if it presents a threat then the owner does not have the same rights. if it is actually used to inflict physical harm then it is even more imperitive that action is taken against the owner.


this is very very obvious stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a cell phone camera that can take upskirt photos of 12 year old girls presents no threat of harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you think cameras in general pose a threat and should be outlawed in schools as well?

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here is one, what if you leave school early and drive off, can they take your car for 30 days too?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They will just revoke his parking privileges and junior can then either ride the bus, ride with friends or get dropped off by mommy.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. and this is NOT analogous to seizure of property! its a perfectly reasonable punishment for a perfectly reasonable rule.
to kind of get back on track, i see two different problems here.

Problem 1: does a school have the 'right' to seize property as a punishment? (obv an entity doesnt have rights, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at)

Problem 2: does a school have the right to carry and enforce a no-cell-phone policy?

The second problem is easy - whether the rule is silly or not, the school can certainly create such policy, and enforce this policy in fair methods. I can see the need to enforce a no-cell-phone-use policy in class because it creates distractions. This is hardly any different from disallowing gameboy use in class. Should they be able to play their gameboy during lunch or free periods? I claim yes, but if the school's rule is otherwise, I don't have much recourse other than just ignoring the rule and accepting a just punishment if I get caught.

The first problem is more sticky - and so far in this thread there are several different camps of opinions. I wonder, though, if once you cleanly separate the two issues, its possible that some of the people in the "you break the rule, you accept the punishment" camp would be more willing to examine whether this punishment is just? This, iirc, is the crux that the lawyer in the OP was getting at.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
4_2_it: that policy is unacceptable because its a zero tolerance policy. zero tolerance policies are necessarily inefficient decision making systems. i think everyone sees why so i won't explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i don't think everyone sees why. i do not.

i think zero tolerance policies are excellent. things such as, if you are convicted of murder on three separate occasions you must spend life in jail. i think that's a good zero tolerance policy.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
It's school. It is reasonable for parent to believe that the school provides a safe environment for their child. This includes emotional as well as physical safety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa dude. They schools can barely teach to read and write and you expect them to nurture your childs emotional well-being? That's a stretch. I'd settle for reading, riting, and rithmatic.

[ QUOTE ]

Being able to prevent something that is reasonably foreseeable (adolescents taking unwanted pictures of other students) is not being the thought police, it's accepting responsibility for the minors that are under your control.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we just skip right to government uniforms and a rubber room then? Why dilly dally around?

[ QUOTE ]

Our district has a zero tolerance policy on bullying. This includes 3 people teasing the kid with braces or glasses. That policy is in place to prevent much worse things from happening. I'm sure this is unacceptable to you because it prevents the students from expressing their 1st Amendment rights of free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you are razzing your buddy you could catch a case?

No wonder we are a nation of pansies now.

[daryn]

that whole car analogy is dumb. they don't have to seize his car haha.. they just revoke the parking pass and the problem takes care of itself! he can't drive to school anymore.. no car! how could you remove the cell phone from the classroom though? i don't see a way, besides maybe putting cell phone jammers in every classroom, which i'm for! even that probably wouldn't work.. they'd probably still bring them in to play games on or something

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is seizure of property ok if it's a knife?

[/ QUOTE ]

i responded to that already. if the property does not present a threat of harm it is fine...

if it presents a threat then the owner does not have the same rights. if it is actually used to inflict physical harm then it is even more imperitive that action is taken against the owner.


this is very very obvious stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a cell phone camera that can take upskirt photos of 12 year old girls presents no threat of harm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again......

This is a crime and should be treated as such.

Thought crimes are not (yet) crimes, nor are "potential" crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's school. It is reasonable for parent to believe that the school provides a safe environment for their child. This includes emotional as well as physical safety.

Being able to prevent something that is reasonably foreseeable (adolescents taking unwanted pictures of other students) is not being the thought police, it's accepting responsibility for the minors that are under your control.

Our district has a zero tolerance policy on bullying. This includes 3 people teasing the kid with braces or glasses. That policy is in place to prevent much worse things from happening. I'm sure this is unacceptable to you because it prevents the students from expressing their 1st Amendment rights of free speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

so just to clarify. You are comparing bullying someone to carrying a cell phone on you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess reading comprehension hasn't been taught in 3rd grade class yet.

My point is that a zero tolerance policy is an acceptable way to enforce school conduct and behavior. I will try to use words with 4 letters or less for your benefit from now on.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4_2_it: that policy is unacceptable because its a zero tolerance policy. zero tolerance policies are necessarily inefficient decision making systems. i think everyone sees why so i won't explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i don't think everyone sees why. i do not.

i think zero tolerance policies are excellent. things such as, if you are convicted of murder on three separate occasions you must spend life in jail. i think that's a good zero tolerance policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the 3 strike policy.

Zero tolerance policies = Zero thought.

Like your little girl accidently leaves a baby aspirin in her coat and gets sent up the river/expelled because there is "zero tolerance for drugs" in school.