quote:
Originally posted by Jinnai:
like company email isn't the property of the recipient.[This message has been edited by Jinnai (edited 08-18-2004).]
I have read something about this, actually. Those disclaimers are rather ridiculous. Just because they say it's company property doesn't mean it is.
Walkmans (and their counterparts) are forbidden in my school, because it disrupts attention in class, and is anti-social everywhere.
But that’s in Belgium.
quote:
Originally posted by Jinnai:
Yes and it is something that is a form of social engineering and is manditory.
quote:
Well not our state supreme court. And since the federal court hasn't...so maybe where you are they can't do that, but they can here.
quote:
Nope. They have some powerful lawyers too. I heard someone did bring them to court once but not only was it tied up, the lawyers put the parents under enough counter-litigation to last for years.
quote:
[edit 8th should be 4th]Not here. And not in the courts because the lockers are not the property of ths students, like company email isn't the property of the recipient.
What is in the lockers is the property of the students and that is how that case was won. Part of the argument was based on the idea that once you 'give' or in effect 'rent', since taxes pay for the schools and buy the lockers it is a form of renting it back to the taxpayer, they have no right to enter without just cause and prior warning.
For the school year that locker is the properity of the student, or at the very least all that is inside is student properity and therefore one can argue that since that which will be searched by opening the locker is student properity it is still a 4th Amendment violation.
quote:
They usually don't but they had cut locks before, but always with warnings that anyone with locks during a certain period could have their's cut. Again they had some good lawyers. I think they said they'd compensate for the locks if nothing illegal was found and the only time they did that was when they had the local athorities with them.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-18-2004).]
quote:The asinine Bush tests.
Or did you mean yes to the asinine Bush tests?
quote:They've said during school hours its the schools discretion whether they can be turned on, even between classes and lunchtime, but before other times they said it was okay or something close to that.
Try challenging it, they might get it to the point of prohibiting usage when class is in session, but they cannot ban them from the schools, at least those I know of and attended.
quote:Perhaps, but doubtful. Most of the parents here either didn't care or sided with the school for trying to upset the status quo.
Which means in time they might not be able to do that anymore, at the very least the parents are watching them like hawks now as is the media I imagine so they will probably not try it again.
quote:As to the email thing, it may be bull, but its the law. I know because my dad is in charge of United Health Care's Tenchonology Diviison which deals a lot with such issues. There wass a case that went US Supreme Court several years ago about someone who sent an email that critisized their boss and got fired because of it. They sued and lost because they said they email originated from company computers, though the court also said it wasn't a matter of where it originated, but merely the fact it was on a company pc.
Yeah that e-mail thing is bull, once it is sent it is not property of the company anymore then a paper letter you send to your grandmother is your property even after she opens it and reads it.What is in the lockers is the property of the students and that is how that case was won. Part of the argument was based on the idea that once you 'give' or in effect 'rent', since taxes pay for the schools and buy the lockers it is a form of renting it back to the taxpayer, they have no right to enter without just cause and prior warning.
For the school year that locker is the properity of the student, or at the very least all that is inside is student properity and therefore one can argue that since that which will be searched by opening the locker is student properity it is still a 4th Amendment violation.
quote:Yes they do compensate students for locks that are cut and they do give warnings before cutting them as well.
Now that IS a violation, the lock is student properity to destory it is highly illegal. Even if they had not lost a 4th Amendment suit they have to tell people to remove them not cut them off, unless they pay the students for the destoryed locks.
Again this was several years ago, though still recently. I'm in college now. However I know people who still attend there are little has changed.
Making people wearing unform does not change what they are inside. I come from the place where all public school kids have to wear uniform. Only the private school kids(rich kids) do not have to wear uniform. I used to have regret, because I had to wear ugly and uncomfortable unifroms all the time. In the summer time, students’ clothes got soaked wet. Moreover, all boys were required to shave their heads. It make us look some dumb guys from Jim Carey’s movies. Girls were not better off. The unified hair cut make their hair look like slice of water melons. Believe it or not, I had one of the worst fashion sense in my school. The uniform code still got my nerve. In addition, it doesn’t reduce the drop out rate. When studnets don’t do well in their class, their teachers already classify them as losers. They are put in some laid back classes, so teachers can put more attention on the “smarter ones”. Those laid back classes had reputation for gathering teenage delinquents. Thus, I beleive that uniform is not key to erase inequality. Ignorace, rather than look, plays more important role for students’ achievement.
Forgetting we are way off topic, here it goes again…
quote:
Originally posted by Jinnai:
The asinine Bush tests.
quote:
They’ve said during school hours its the schools discretion whether they can be turned on, even between classes and lunchtime, but before other times they said it was okay or something close to that.
quote:
As to the email thing, it may be bull, but its the law. I know because my dad is in charge of United Health Care’s Tenchonology Diviison which deals a lot with such issues. (…)
Site me the exact law with web link toward company e-mail, because this is a different issue, if you challenged ownership of the e-mails sent from the company, rather then those sent over company computers that say the Boss has less brains then vaccuum, (which should still fall under 1st Amendment I say), it might be a different result in ruling. Also you never answered my question, does that apply to a letter you send on paper to your grandmother, so if she throws it out she is destroying your propriety? Ask yourself that and see if that law makes sense, if it does not it probably has little legal footing to stand a challenge.
quote:
As to the school lockers, same principle except that in addition people at school are not considered to have the maturity and intelligence level as adults (not my words). But they’ve said that because you don’t purchase the use of the lockers and the fact the people using them are students and are not eligable for all rights, responsibities and priveleges of adults for above reasons they vourt said the schools can do random locker searches. Whether or not you agree the fact that they can and do in many places use these technigques does can have a chilling effect. [
Once again however in my opinion and that of many others, including I think one of the laywers and/or perhaps the judge You Do Purchase The Use Of Your Locker or do you deny that if there were No Taxes the schools would not still exist? Perhaps as private enterprises but NOT through Tax Payer Money Which Buys The Lockers the students use, much like highways are considered to some extent public properity and not restricted in the use of, lockers in this case were considered private properity of the student since only one person at a time could use them, and yes that means each year that “ownership” changed hands.
quote:
Yes they do compensate students for locks that are cut and they do give warnings before cutting them as well.
Again this was several years ago, though still recently. I’m in college now. However I know people who still attend there are little has changed.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-19-2004).]
quote:[img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]
Originally posted by SCDawg:
Forgetting we are way off topic, here it goes again...
quote:Well its a losing battle. They may win a few batles, but the war is won...unless they want to go through the courts on the premise that the federal goverment withholding money in an attempt to force them into standards is a violantion of the seperation of federal and state regulations here where states have control over education.
Well in my opinion those serve no purpose, having a family that keeps in touch a fair amount means lots of opinions come to me. Most of those with kids taking these tests say it is outrageous, they have kids capable of acing these tests (I know my cousins and it is very possible they could, especially after I hear some of the questions from these tests) and yet they are stuck with "gifted" kids almost year after year. Yes those children who in the un-PC 1980's, when pre-owned cars were still called used cars, and executive assistants were still secretaries, we still called mentally retarded, who just happen to pass that test because we cannot leave any child behind which in a sense does drag down and hold back the more intelligent and more capable children, different issue I don't want to go further into as my views are even more scathing then has been hinted at about these tests. These tests though are not a great example of forced social engineering since it is one almost everyone I know is fighting against and questions, including school districts who know they will never be able to have all kids pass unless then hand an answer sheet out with the test. So the fight does not come from the children or parents alone it also does some of the school systems. So you have all sides fighting along with each other, thus it is not a very effective form if it is one.
quote:Oh they have done so. A tons of students once skipped out on an assembly at the end of school in highschool so they ended it shortly and had people go to their classes and gave in-school suspension to everyone who hadn't checked out at the office beforehand and wasn't listed as absent a suspension which was over half the school.
So before gym, before assemblies, before health screenings (that yearly test I am not sure they do anymore) that is fine but not between classes? That is a rule once again that is being fought and they cannot really enforce, if many of the student body joined together to wear walkmans between classes, during lunch, etc they couldn't suspend tons of students it would look bad, and their parents might back them, which is less likely if that many refused to ware uniforms.
As to the rule against it, as it was ruled by the state supreme court that way and the us decided not to take the case it might be a bit harder.
quote:There were a few who cared, but not many...less than 1% of the student's parents did. I can't say why as i'm not them, but its likely that they figure its either always been that way, their's no use fighting ot they thought it was a good way to do discipline.
Why would the parents fear that, keeping the status quo? Are they not more concerned with someone beating up their kids who has less legal grounds, based on past precedent, to do that they themselves as parents do? If they don't care about that the school must have some wonderful propaganda ministers to keep the parents quiet and not caring. Those parents I have known, those of my friends over the years, would find some way to keep watch over the teachers and the first one to hit would have a separate law suit brought against them, away from the general one you said is currently against the school district. Perhaps I just know a bunch of "radical mavericks" when it comes to parents and friends (their children).
quote:Ok try i'll do that tomorrow or over the weekend. Right now its late. But it doesn't apply to anything on your own personal computer because you own the computer's HD space which is where the email is stored on. Thus is a company stores their email on hotmail, hotmail is the owner, not the company. Same idea with paper mail, except by sending it, its like sending a gitt, you are religquishing your claim to it once its recieved.
What you said above is different, now you are saying they sent something across company computers criticizing a boss, while they should not have been fired for that since they did not send it to the boss and I think spying on the e-mail is worse then anything and would find a way to challenge it again on different grounds since if companies have that much power Big Brother does exist. (The link is for those that do not know that reference, look under both purpose and introduction on that page and it gives a good layout of the term).Site me the exact law with web link toward company e-mail, because this is a different issue, if you challenged ownership of the e-mails sent from the company, rather then those sent over company computers that say the Boss has less brains then vaccuum, (which should still fall under 1st Amendment I say), it might be a different result in ruling. Also you never answered my question, does that apply to a letter you send on paper to your grandmother, so if she throws it out she is destroying your propriety? Ask yourself that and see if that law makes sense, if it does not it probably has little legal footing to stand a challenge.
quote:Well first to ownership. At most you could say its being leased free of charge from the local authority, and that means its still in control of the governent which people pay taxes to, either state or local depending on how each state sets up their schools. This means they don't own it, but are merely using it and just as a landlord has a right to enter to check an apartment without notice, so do schools. They are also considered to be public property as well here because it is funded by taxpayer dollars, but even if it was a private school, it would be the property of that school. They can't take anything in the lockers except contraband, like drugs though and they have to report that. Anything else is illegal if not done in the presence of law enforcement.
Once much bullshit, if they are adult enough to be responsible for their own failures in school, then they are adult enough to handle personal propriety since dealing with the responsibility of failure is a lot harder then grabbing your toy truck and shouting "MINE" which even little kids know how to do and often do with each others toys. In the case of my school on this argument I believe part of the judgment said something along the following "Students will never gain a level of understanding on how to protect their own propriety or their rights under the Constitution if they are never given a chance to learn them and how to defend those rights starting in their school years. Therefore since that which is inside the lockers is propriety of the respected student, ownership of the locker matters less then that which will be searched when the locker is open, therefore locker searches are a violation of the student's privacy and personality right to security in their own possessions as granted to All Citizens Regardless of Age, Race, Reglion, Creed (etc.) Under the Law as stated in the 4th Amendment of Constitution of the United States of America". Or something to that effect was the judgment, I remember reading it and loving it and remembering enough at one time to quote it to teachers that tried to demand I open my locker from time to time. Yes I was a smartass but one with the law on my side in that case.Once again however in my opinion and that of many others, including I think one of the laywers and/or perhaps the judge You Do Purchase The Use Of Your Locker or do you deny that if there were No Taxes the schools would not still exist? Perhaps as private enterprises but NOT through Tax Payer Money Which Buys The Lockers the students use, much like highways are considered to some extent public properity and not restricted in the use of, lockers in this case were considered private properity of the student since only one person at a time could use them, and yes that means each year that "ownership" changed hands.
quote:I don't disagree with the last statement. In fact i totally agree...but the laws and their enforcement here are far different than where you are.
[QUOTE]Bigger issue is no warning and cut it off, compensation is great and at least gives them some means to avoid yet another lawsuit but I would still think is on thin ice since they are not a legal body in pursuit of a law breaking and have no choice but to destory properity, they are a bunch of, in my exeperince with public schools, overzealous idiots that have more concerns with keeping a tight grip on power then they do any sense of what is remotely right or wrong.[/B]
[This message has been edited by Jinnai (edited 08-19-2004).]
I am having trouble seeing where your quotes start and mine end, can you please edit to make it clearer, I can make out some so what I can I will try to reply too at this time.
quote:
Well first to ownership. At most you could say its being leased free of charge from the local authority, and that means its still in control of the governent which people pay taxes to, either state or local depending on how each state sets up their schools.They are also considered to be public property as well here because it is funded by taxpayer dollars, but even if it was a private school, it would be the property of that school. They can’t take anything in the lockers except contraband, like drugs though and they have to report that. Anything else is illegal if not done in the presence of law enforcement.
quote:
This means they don’t own it, but are merely using it and just as a landlord has a right to enter to check an apartment without notice, so do schools.
Look at it this way too, you enter without notice and stuff is moved around and perhaps stolen or accidentally misplaced, who the hell has to take the fall if I say something is stolen, well you for being the one to obviously enter without notice, which is why that law is also in place, to protect you the owner from me seeing something that shows you entered, hiding something and saying you stole it.
Also you cannot deny it is a violation of your rights can you that the owner just enters?
Okay think of it in this example. You are the perfect tenant, pay your rent on time, take care of minor repairs, never have a complaint against you, keep everything in tip top shape and clean, but he searches and finds you play gasp Bishoujo games which he knows to be “porn” and worse sees one or two with “young looking characters” in it so then he also knows you to be a pedophile, so he kicks you out. Is that right? You like playing these games you do in them what you never would in life, what right does someone who is paid on time, who is given a “perfect” tenant have to kick you out based on something he had to look under your bed, behind extra blankets or whatever you keep under there to find, and something you never do outside of your room on the weekend and is not a violation of your rental contract?
And if you answered he owns the place, I’m sorry you do not get to pass Go or collect 200 dollars. In truth he has no right to kick you out just for something he had to dig to find that is not against the rental contract and does not happen outside of the computer (in the case of these games). This is something that has been proven a few times in a few courts. The people move anyway by choice, but they at least get back rent or something paid to them by the owner who also has to cover moving expenses.
quote:
Thus though for my school sytem atleast searches and seizures are ruled differely.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-19-2004).]
quote:What i am saying is not my personal view on whether its right or wrong just the laws where i live and how they are enforced.
Originally posted by SCDawg:
Yet once again I don't give a damn who built it, if it is built with taxpayer money (short of military institutions) it is not anyone's private property at the very least it has to be public property, and public means public and once again are you saying to me that once I put my stuff in the locker it is your stuff because you claim ownership of the locker? If not then you are searching my stuff each time you open the locker and once again that is a 4th Amendment Violation. Geez especially the law needs a warrant. If the police came to watch I would demand a warrant be present and I think once again at least in my school system the law would be forced to based on the judge's ruling about lockers and 4th Amendment rights.
quote:Well he does own the place which gives him the right to enter at any reasonable hour (in some places any hour) to make sure you're not breaking any of the complex laws usually...That doesn't mean he can eject you if he does find something. He has to report it to the local or federal athorities if its a crime or can force you to pay if its something like mold growing over your walls. Same thing with someone who searches a locker. They can't do anything except reprot it to the authotiries unless you've vandalized it. They can if its against the school rules comfiscate it, but they have to call you in for a chance to defend yourself.
Actually at least within my state the owner [b]does not have that right to just enter without notice unless spelled out in the contract and no one tries to put it in there because even that is questionable under the laws.Look at it this way too, you enter without notice and stuff is moved around and perhaps stolen or accidentally misplaced, who the hell has to take the fall if I say something is stolen, well you for being the one to obviously enter without notice, which is why that law is also in place, to protect you the owner from me seeing something that shows you entered, hiding something and saying you stole it.
Also you cannot deny it is a violation of your rights can you that the owner just enters?
Okay think of it in this example. You are the perfect tenant, pay your rent on time, take care of minor repairs, never have a complaint against you, keep everything in tip top shape and clean, but he searches and finds you play *gasp* Bishoujo games which he knows to be "porn" and worse sees one or two with "young looking characters" in it so then he also knows you to be a pedophile, so he kicks you out. Is that right? You like playing these games you do in them what you never would in life, what right does someone who is paid on time, who is given a "perfect" tenant have to kick you out based on something he had to look under your bed, behind extra blankets or whatever you keep under there to find, and something you never do outside of your room on the weekend and is not a violation of your rental contract?
And if you answered he owns the place, I'm sorry you do not get to pass Go or collect 200 dollars. In truth he has no right to kick you out just for something he had to dig to find that is not against the rental contract and does not happen outside of the computer (in the case of these games). This is something that has been proven a few times in a few courts. The people move anyway by choice, but they at least get back rent or something paid to them by the owner who also has to cover moving expenses.
quote:Perhaps on some stuff such as the use of the bat for discipline, but as i said the other stuff is on public property and even if they are personal belongings, the fact they are stoed on public property changes everything.
[b]No offense but I could not go to school there, it sucks and is far too restrictive on the rights of the individual, ACLU might have a field day with half of what you have said that school does, beating the kids, cutting locks, random searches while police with no warrants seize things (even illegal substances they must have a warrant to seize in such a search as random locker searches or that is my understanding of federal law) from the locker.
quote:
Originally posted by Jinnai:
Well he does own the place which gives him the right to enter at any reasonable hour (in some places any hour) to make sure you're not breaking any of the complex laws usually...That doesn't mean he can eject you if he does find something. He has to report it to the local or federal athorities if its a crime or can force you to pay if its something like mold growing over your walls. Same thing with someone who searches a locker. They can't do anything except reprot it to the authotiries unless you've vandalized it. They can if its against the school rules comfiscate it, but they have to call you in for a chance to defend yourself.
The big differeance here is not what the type of situation though, its the location of it in what we've been discussing mostly. Public Property. Public proterty and people and stuff on it do not have the same rights and privleges as on private property. Its why they are termed differently.
First since we are off topic and you seem to be blindly quoting law (I too quoted some law but only those I felt were just), rather then seeing if they are just and do not violate any Civil Liberties, this will likely be my last response. I have no fault with what you are doing, but I know the law is often in error and is often in violation of Civil Liberties in these matters. After this let's try to get back to topic, agreed?
All I can say about the lockers is let's leave it alone, you are quoting law in your area, I am quoting both law in my area and Civil Liberties I believe the law in your area grossly violates, and it would not be the first time laws have done so nor sadly will it be the last time. Also if it's my stuff that never changes, you yourself admit that fact. So laws are no laws, under the 4th Amendment and within my Civil Liberties, they have no rights to go through my private property on public grounds. Or, let's use this example of the slightly absurd, if you have a girlfriend or a wife, do you want people saying she is public property so we have a right to randomly search her through a strip search just in case you happen to be hiding stolen money and a gun in her panties along with drugs in her bra?
Yes that is something that sounds ludicrous but so is saying because I put a locked brief case down next to a park bench when eating a hot dog the police have a right to force me to open it on no legal grounds whatsoever and for no better reason then I am carrying the brief case while wearing a Georgia Bulldogs cap and Philadelphia Eagles sweatshirt while sitting in the middle of a Tennessee Volunteers and Dallas Cowboys fan mecca of a town. Yet in effect that is the type of law you are quoting in terms of the power the schools are given, and if you don't like it and don't agree with it, don't quote it, find a reason it is unjust and make that reason stick in your defense for standing against the law.
As to the owner thing, sorry thanks for playing but that is still not the right answer. Yes he can make sure you are not destroying the place but that is what is called an eyeball inspection, he looks but never touches anything, so he walks around and looks at the walls, looks at the stove, looks at the bathrooms, Perhaps looks under the sink, but never under the bed, never in your closets or in your dresser drawers anywhere where he has to snoop to look for things.
Unless it is specifically spell out in the rental agreement he has no rights whatsoever to go through your stuff that you put in a drawer, under a bed, etc. Why do you ask? Well thank the ladies for this one, enough lawsuits of perverted landlords going through their drawers to get to their, well drawers (panties) and either keeping them or stupidly selling them or displaying them to the ladies they stole them from, has made this law pretty much a national law that works for both genders.
Also this continually sounds like Big Brother and you frankly scare me, if you accept this simply because it is law. Like I said, never quote laws you do not agree with question them fight them, say this is bullshit and find reasons to support that it is bullshit. You are blindly, or seem to be blindly, accepting these things and I say never do that, always question when something is not right such as the locker crap you are quoting and the powers you seem to think the owner has, or do you like the thought of him finding something like the games which he can use to evict you and trust me even if he does not have the law on his side he will try and you will not want to stay there, or schools going through you locker and maybe planting something because you *gasp* speak out for student rights? Or do you like the idea of these Gestapo tactics being used in this nation?
It is their tactics you described to me, have someone else snoop, that person's get a cookie for reporting you to the authorities and you take the blame. Spy on your neighbor, trust no one, that is what the laws you are quoting can easily encourage, not to mention this is also what every security agency wants us to do in order to "be safe", so if you do not agree with them find a way to fight them and do so, laws do not have to be agreed with simply because they are laws, as I am sure you are aware.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 08-20-2004).]
quote:Agreed and this last post will be much more closing and mellower in nature. I'm not sticking up for my laws but nor am i condoning them as they have some level of practicality. They are neutral, its merely how they are used and interpreted that makes them abusive or not.
Originally posted by SCDawg:
[B]First since we are off topic and you seem to be blindly quoting law (I too quoted some law but only those I felt were just), rather then seeing if they are just and do not violate any Civil Liberties, this will likely be my last response. I have no fault with what you are doing, but I know the law is often in error and is often in violation of Civil Liberties in these matters. After this let's try to get back to topic, agreed?[b]
Many things may be violations of civil libertiers at my former school and elsewhere, but its a matter of what the populace will tolerate and after 9-11 the populace has become more compalcent about sacrifising civil liberities for overall secrutiy, for good or bad.
Anyway that's my say. Its just in how people interpret and impliment laws.
Any more games out there like Oshiete Onechan Sensei? I mean besides Menou-kun no Oshiete Onechan Sensei.