article here
Interesting article, I am not so sure she should have to apologize although the principle made a good point that she represented her school.
Is she in any school activities, if so then yes she does if not then she is just a citizen that attends a public school system which she has to.
So do students give up the right to free speech simply because they attend a public school?
Quote:
(CNN) -- A high school senior, who faces a Monday morning deadline to apologize to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for a disparaging tweet, has said she will not write the apology letter.
"I don't think I should write the letter, and I don't think it would be the best move for me," Emma Sullivan, 18, said late Sunday night. "At this time, I do not think an apology would be a sincere thing for me to do."
Sullivan said her parents and many of her peers support her decision.
The teen made national headlines last week for a tweet she said was intended just for her friends.
During a Kansas Youth in Government field trip to the state Capitol on November 21, Sullivan wrote: "Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot."
The Shawnee Mission East senior said she did not actually talk to Brownback, and the post referenced a joke she had with a student on the trip.
The next day, she was called into the principal's office.
"I had no idea what it was about or why I was being called into the office," she said. "I had never been in trouble before."
A Brownback staffer had notified the principal, she said.
"My principal told me he needed to do damage control and was really upset," Sullivan said. "He said I was an embarrassment to the school and the school district and that I had been disrespectful."
The principal then asked her to write a letter of apology to Brownback and his staff. He set Monday as the due date for the letter.
Sullivan said she did not know what will happen when she does not turn in the letter Monday. But she hopes the tweet will bring attention to the issue of free speech.
"I hope there won't be any consequences and that my principal and the governor's office can move on," she said. "The issue is relevant and, if anything, is a starting point of dialog with the governor about his policies and how our First Amendment rights can be taken away."
Sullivan said she has not heard from the governor's office directly. But, following the media attention, her Twitter follower count has rocketed from 65 to more than 4,000 in the last week.
"I hope that the governor realizes the power of the people and how people can make things happen," she said. "I also hope he will spend his time doing more productive things."
either way I like this chic and her response to her situation!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota Tebaldi
willing to do the naughty dance.
“A girl should be two things: who and what she wants.” ― Coco Chanel
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ― Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I do hope she stands her ground on her right to free speech. This dood is wiping his butt with the constitution and really deserves to be called out on it. (>_<)
either way I like this chic and her response to her situation!
I agree totally. I like her standing up to him
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imnotgoing Sideways
I do hope she stands her ground on her right to free speech. This dood is wiping his butt with the constitution and really deserves to be called out on it. (>_<)
Well, legally I'm not sure under age people have the same rights adults have. Long history of courts ruling against children having identical rights as adults. I kind of hope she stands her ground so it goes through the court system and we see how it's rules
__________________
Brian Johnson (Breakfast Club) "Can you describe the ruckus sir?"
It has been my view that our constitution awards everyone the same inalienable rights. Adults may have more freedoms and privilege, but rights are rights regardless of age, gender, or status. (>_<)
2 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)
Well, legally I'm not sure under age people have the same rights adults have. Long history of courts ruling against children having identical rights as adults. I kind of hope she stands her ground so it goes through the court system and we see how it's rules
I believe that the courts have held that children have limited free speech in school, school related activities, and school publications. However, take school out of it and a child has the same free speech rights as anyone, limited by her parents legal prerogatives of control.
Her tweeting was not school related and her parents don't seem to have been involved.
__________________
2 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)
This is gaining some air and an updated article on CNN.
Thank God the Governor stated the bold.
Quote:
(CNN) -- There is a new scandal breaking involving an elected official, a young woman and Twitter. And, nope, it's not what you think.
This one involves 18-year-old Kansas high school senior Emma Sullivan, who was on a school trip last week to the Kansas state Capitol as part of the Youth in Government program. On her way back from the event, she jokingly tweeted to her then-65 followers on Twitter the following about Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot."
When you tweet to 65 people on Twitter, it usually just ends there, quickly evaporating into the cybersphere -- tweets are truly the epitome of ephemeral.
That is unless you happen to tweet about the governor of Kansas. In a move that would have undoubtedly impressed Richard Nixon, the Kansas governor's director of communication, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, is charged with the daily monitoring of any negative comments about Brownback on social-media websites.
Jones-Sontag, finding this 73-character tweet by a high school student a threat to the good name of the governor, bolted into action. She contacted the Youth in Government organizers and expressed her outrage over the tweet. In turn, the event administrators, no doubt concerned that the governor's director of communication had taken the time to contact them, informed Sullivan's high school principal.
Sullivan soon found herself in her principal's office being scolded for nearly an hour. Bottom line: The principal has mandated the student write a letter of apology to the governor that is due Monday.
Sullivan, who says she was making a political comment on Brownback's conservative policies that she disagrees with, announced her refusal to apologize for criticizing the governor.
To me, there are a few issues that quickly jump out:
• Who else has the governor confronted for making negative remarks about him? Recent polls indicate that Brownback has a 52% disapproval rating -- with a majority of Kansas residents unhappy with his work. Responding to these type of tweets could become a full-time job.
• Is the governor spending taxpayer dollars to monitor his critics on social media?
• Which websites does his office monitor? Obviously Twitter, but what about Facebook and Foursquare? What about MySpace or Friendster? You never know -- someone stuck in 2007 could still be using those websites and making disparaging remarks about Brownback.
• Why is it that a conservative such as Brownback -- who generally opposes government regulations -- wants to regulate free speech? Is there an exception to his philosophy of less government when it is a regulation he likes?
• Can Brownback demand an apology from me because I tweeted this: "Rep Governor Brownback of Kansas demands that teen apologize for tweeting he sucks. #Brownbacksucks" -- and because I'm one of the people who boosted Sullivan's Twitter follower count to more than 7,000 since this story broke?
But the biggest question to me: Does the First Amendment apply in Kansas?
The message of Brownback's office and of the high school principal is alarmingly clear: If you criticize the governor, you could suffer consequences. That is something you hear about in a Third World nation that does not guarantee freedom of speech, not the United States of America.
We need to be especially vigilant in protecting freedom of speech when it involves commenting on the actions of our elected officials. That is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Having to apologize to an elected official for criticizing him or her, however, undermines our nation by creating a chilling effect on free speech.
Brownback did announce this afternoon: "My staff over-reacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize."
He should be applauded for that. It sends an unequivocal message that criticism of our elected officials must not be limited in any way, and in fact, should be encouraged -- especially by the younger generation of Americans learning about our government.
However, it is still troubling that state funds are used to monitor social media websites to determine if anyone is mocking the governor. It has an eerie Big Brother feel, not to mention that it's a waste of tax payer dollars.
Brownback should end that practice today, making his focus solely the issues facing all the residents of Kansas -- not whether he's popular on Facebook and Twitter.
Location: Down by the bay, where the watermelons grow
Posts: 10,228
My Mood:
Quote:
That is unless you happen to tweet about the governor of Kansas. In a move that would have undoubtedly impressed Richard Nixon, the Kansas governor's director of communication, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, is charged with the daily monitoring of any negative comments about Brownback on social-media websites.
...
However, it is still troubling that state funds are used to monitor social media websites to determine if anyone is mocking the governor. It has an eerie Big Brother feel, not to mention that it's a waste of tax payer dollars.
Well, that might not be completely honest. A lot of politicians have staff that monitor their mentions (negative or not) in social media because 1) it's a good way to stay informed on public opinion in realtime and 2) it makes a politician look trendy or hip or at the very least more in touch with his constituency to offer comments on Twitter or even respond to some tweets. There's nothing diabolical or money-wasting about that.
This thing does illustrate the danger, though, that an "overreacting staff member" or the politicians themselves could decide to pressure those who post about them negatively. I think all we need to do to safeguard against that problem is make sure incidents like this always make the news.
__________________ "...Dakota will grow up to be very scary... but in a HOT and desireable kind of way." - 3Ring Binder
I believe that the courts have held that children have limited free speech in school, school related activities, and school publications. However, take school out of it and a child has the same free speech rights as anyone, limited by her parents legal prerogatives of control.
Her tweeting was not school related and her parents don't seem to have been involved.
Like I said (or implied) I don't know the actual legal rulings but as I remember it's not "settles law" even after 200+ years. There is the old "legal age" thing which is used for all kinds of stuff.
I'd like to hear Trout's opinion on this and if he is familiar with specifics.
I know what I think should be but not what it actually is.
Like I said (or implied) I don't know the actual legal rulings but as I remember it's not "settles law" even after 200+ years. There is the old "legal age" thing which is used for all kinds of stuff.
I'd like to hear Trout's opinion on this and if he is familiar with specifics.
I know what I think should be but not what it actually is.
I don't have any familiarity with the subject. I don't do Constitutional law as a general rule. That's one of those areas of practice where you need a great big firm to back you up. It doesn't actually pay any bills, but it generates a lot of press, which helps the big firms with collateral business, and it takes up a ton of resources. It's an interesting area, but I have to keep the lights on and the roof over our heads, so it's not for me.
I don't know why kids don't have the same Constitutional protection as adults, though. They ought to. Schools should have the (very narrow and limited) right to limit speech on their campuses in order to maintain order and accomplish their mission. It's not a public common, IMO. You don't, for example, get to parade into the offices of the IRS and scream epithets over a megaphone. You can probably get away with that outside, but certain areas of government property have limited access and limited free speech rights. The government can also limit the free speech rights of its employees in certain circumstances. Students aren't employees, but I suppose you could draw a parallel.
student has no free speech?
Linear Mode
