Thou Shalt not Blog

7 comments

As posted on mtv.com: "Students can be suspended for a lot of odd reasons these days — wearing "objectionable" T-shirts, cross-dressing for prom, planning elaborate senior pranks — but a principal at a Catholic high school in Sparta, New Jersey, has added another offense to the list: having a blog."

I am shocked...

SEO aside, I feel that the adoption of blogs by the youth should be a positive thing. I can understand where there could be room for concern over certain information and sentiments being distributed/adopted by people of a very influential age, but please, schools should embrace this willingness to blog and be part of a community, and their involvment could perhaps help steer kids to using the technology in a positive way.

Reminds me of the old take on sex education, if you ignore it then it doesn't exist

Comments

> Reminds me of the old take

> Reminds me of the old take on sex education, if you ignore it then it doesn't exist

No, you just redefines it as the previous US president did - according to the latest study I saw on this US youth don't think oral sex is "sex". Oh how I love those non-sex actions :)

If anything...

it can improve a students punctuation, grammar and spelling. Before I started “blogging” about 5/6 years ago all of these were worse off, but in the end I always made sure that I proof read my articles so that people who did find something of interest would be able to actually read what I was saying.

Innit.

Isn't that 1st Ammendment Stuff

I would think that is restricting freedom of speech. It then brings into question the definition of blog. So would a forum be against the roolz?

Quote:
The Reverend Kieran McHugh stunned the 900 students of the private Pope John XXIII Regional High School.....said he was taking the unusual measure to protect students from online sexual predators"

I think the Rev. should keep worries about sexual preditors to the offline variety. The Rev is doing nothing but protecting himself against criticism.

It is really a worthwhile article to read. The Rev needs a press officer. He is wrong in so many ways.

A case of

the pot calling the kettle black?

The church sure has had it's share of sexual predators exposed over the past decade.

Depends what exactly the

Depends what exactly the students were blogging about though - schoolkids ain't the most subtle people in the world - they start bitching about the school, teachers or other pupils then it's a serious matter.

If you read the tone of the article then you can see there's clearly been some drama that has gone unmentioned (quite rightly so if it involves schoolkids).

McHugh said he was taking the unusual measure to protect students from online sexual predators who may be lurking in cyberspace looking for personal information on children, including their pictures, diaries and gossip

Remember being a kid? How much of that stuff is appropriate to be online? Which of your mates are shagging each other...who got drunk on cheap cider at the weekend...

But I think the core issue is from this:

"I don't see this as censorship," McHugh told the Record. "I believe we are teaching common civility, courtesy and respect."

*Something* prompted that comment.

It states that the posting of any information "in any format" related to the school "on any Web site, bulletin board, chat room, e-mail or other messaging system" that is deemed threatening or impugning to the character of another person is subject to disciplinary action.

Of course the whole issue of controlling what students do at home is ridiculous, but it's most likely just a piss poor attempt at resolving some kind of bad situation that had occured.

At worst, it might just be a way of the school to save face if some pupils have been bitching about teachers. But pupils blogging about each other's private lives is dangerous territory and brings in concerns of bullying, harrassment, etc - the school has a responsibility to address that.

Not saying that's what happened, but it's a possibility.

MG

There seems to be more

There does seem to be more to the story but IMHO that does not give the Rev the right to make such demands. I went over to the original article in NJ but it seems you have to pay for it. However there is what seems like a letter to the paper here from someone who points out what is possibly the real problem

Quote:
Some say the school's dander was raised because some of what was written on the site has been critical of Pope John High School. We have no way of knowing that, but it hardly seems out of the question.

I would also think that IM clients would be much more dangerous to children and it seems the Rev didn't bother to ban those!

WNBC TV picked it up and ran

WNBC TV picked it up and ran a blurb on the local news last night. The report implied that some kids [were | might be] posting their cell phone numbers, addresses and [maybe] some inappropriate photos that might make them targets of predators.

But of course, instead of the parents and school sharing the responsibility to educate the kids in safe blogging practices, and taking the responsibility to monitor the kids' computer use (as all responsible parents should), they took the easy way out.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.