Don't forget kissing professional athletes:
OK, maybe that was a different Morgana.
Sorry - I couldn't resist.
Posted on 11/02/2009 4:04:30 PM PST by varyouga
Two Indiana teenagers have sued their school district after they were punished for posing suggestive photos on MySpace.
The girls, 10th-graders at Churubusco High School in Churubusco, Indiana, say they were humiliated after the school banned them from fall semester extracurricular activities and forced them to apologize to the all-male Athletics Board (composed of varsity coaches). The girls also had to attend three counseling sessions.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed the proposed class-action suit on behalf of the girls and all present and future students at the school who participate or may participate in extracurricular activities. The ACLU argues the district violated the girls’ first amendment rights and should not have punished them for activities conducted outside school. The suit names the girls’ high school, school district and principal.
According to the complaint, the photos in question were taken at a slumber party (.pdf) that occurred during the summer school break. The girls were photographed “pretending to kiss or lick a large multi-colored lollipop shaped phallus.” Other pictures showed them in lingerie with dollar bills tucked into the underwear.
(Excerpt) Read more at trueslant.com ...
Does anyone have a link to the pictures? (Since they are alleged to be so harmless)
The little sluts’ parents presumably have no problem with this?
While they are in bad taste, were they illegal and if not I can see where the school might be in a bit of a bind on this one, overstepping its bounds somewhat.
Methinks a couple of nouns are switched. Unless some freakishly deformed male with a series skin condition was present...
Schools punish kid's extracurricular activities all the time for activities outside school. Kids caught drinking, smoking, using drugs can all get kicked off sports teams. Somehow sexualizing underage children is something ACLU/liberals go out of their way to protect.
““pretending to kiss or lick a large multi-colored lollipop shaped phallus.” Other pictures showed them in lingerie with dollar bills tucked into the underwear.”
I went to slumber parties as a teenager...............DAMN! WTF?????? What ever happened to baking cookies, watching Star Trek, and calling boys on the phone? SHEESE!!!!!!
So these girls are upset that their flagrant display of sluthood was frowned upon? Lord help us.
LOL, nice catch.
The school is just trying to impress upon the children that the state owns them 24/7.
So....being punished for acting slutty is humiliation, however being 16 and acting like a total whore ISN’T?
If you want to take a picture of you in underwear licking a lollipop thats your right as an American. Not really the best idea but it is your right.
On the other hand...
If you sign an agreement about character and whatnot I would say this violates it.
Realistically we need pictures to rule innocent or guilty here.
No, they're only upset because they were held accountable for it.
I’m from before your time my dear (said in creaky wavery voice), we weren’t allowed to call boys. We were barely allowed to sleep over other people’s homes—a very very few well-known to my parents, the homes on either side of ours, and that was only for the few short years before my teens that we didn’t live in the country. Then we were too far from most of our school friends to sleep over.
Yep. We watched The Princess Bride and giggled a lot.
What a world.
They have no standing. The school is “in loco parentis”
Yes, the parents should address the problem immediately. The school, however, has NO business overstepping its constitutional bounds into the private lives of students, especially when the pictures were taken over the summer, off school grounds, and kept on a private, password protected account on a third-party company's server in which the school had no economic interest.
This is a perfect example of why I hate government intervention in our lives so much. What they did was legal, done on private property, and on their own time. The school has no right to infringe upon their behavior, whether or not it is patently stupid. That's the parents' job (and they should be punished for it, not doubt).
If something is legal - it's none of their d*** business. The moment we open that door, who is to say they won't change it and suddenly say other conduct is unacceptable?
The ACLU needs to look up Howard vs. Colonial School District for the legal precedent.
The only bind is when idiotic parents, backed up by groups like the ACLU, stand against an institution that seeks to reinforce quaint little concepts like modesty or self-control.
Welcome to the world of "zero tolerance" my friend....coming to a workplace near you.
On a side note, 16 year olds only became “kids” a little over 100 years ago. 14 year olds used to get married and 15 year old boys would start careers. Im not sure when teenagers became classified as kids, but I do not think it is fair to them.
“The school is just trying to impress upon the children that the state owns them 24/7.”
Yup, as it always has been for athletes.
I was reading on another board concerned with contemporary standards of modesty, about some trend called “prostitot”, with little baby girls wearing fishnets, tiny high heeled shoes, little tiny hot pants with words written on the rearend, etc. A lady told of seeing a middle-schooler—not even a teen!!! for pity’s sake—wearing a shirt to school that said “boytoy”. Eye candy for perverts, was the consensus. The people who had these children will answer to an angry God one day.
Moral turpitude is a old-school defense against immorality in public associations and venues. The school did the right thing, imo, for such public behavior by the young ladies is reasonably expected to serves as an “attractive nuisance” to the members of sports teams, where one of the main social motives for sports teams is the development of good character.
Yes but they were also raised with different (and harder, stricter) standards. Can you see most 14 year old boys today, being capable of doing what those 14 year olds had to do to raise a family? Too many 30 year old people aren’t even ready these days—as witnessed by the parents of these girls (if they had a problem with it, surely the girls wouldn’t be suing)
Agreed in whole.
I don't think so here. If they were punished by not being allowed to graduate, or through a suspension, then I would agree with you. But they're being banned from the extra-curricular activities, which courts have ruled are privileges and as such, they can be banned when their behavior outside of school activities reflects poorly on the school.
Mark
No, they're only upset because they were held accountable for it.
No, they're only upset because they were held accountable for it, by a sate entity that has no authority to do so. These girls were on summer break,not on a school function. Unless they signed some conduct pledge, what they do on their time isn't big brother's business.
If this was my kids I'd kill em. But I would be in the school's face for over stepping its bounds here. This is a parent problem, not a Big Brother one.
Shall we as a culture condemn ourselves to the cultural death of “girly-manism” such as now seems to be aplace in Japan?
Don't forget kissing professional athletes:
OK, maybe that was a different Morgana.
Sorry - I couldn't resist.
You mean when being a 16 year old was middle aged?
But the school needs to prove that these pictures " materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." In loco parentis doesn't mean a school can dictate your child's behavior in all things at all times. What students do out of school, that doesn't effect the school , they have no say in.
40 years go you would have been right.
I’m not sure, but I think I know to what you refer. (I make it a point to not what the trends in popular culture are, if I can help it. I have a niece who loves those Japanese bands with the boys who look too delicate to breathe).
The depravity is a two-sided coin. I don’t think women need to degrade themselves to make real men feel masculine. It was done in a much better way in previous generations, when women were much more modest. This is what the excesses of women’s lib have led to, not prudery.
Yes, how dare those little harlots allow men to see them without their Burqas. This is an outrage!
Then they need to prove that these girls are a danger to the other students, as the drug-dealing student in Howard was.
Cute. You are aware that in our society, there are many many degrees between burquas and nudity?
Honestly it does not surprise me that the parents are suing......they feel it was “none of the school’s business” because the girls were not boozing or doing drugs. In fact...you want the truth? The girls were in practice for their future career as poll dancers when the turn 18. As far as their parents/ACLU is concerned it is a legal business when they are 18 and they need all the practice they can get.
About 5 years ago, a friend told me about a time when his 12 year old daughter came over to his house for the weekend (he and her mother are divorced), and as she was getting ready to go out to a movie with some friends, he noticed that her t-shirt said "Hottie" on the front... He was not amused, and explained to his daughter that she was not going out in that shirt, and demanded to know where she got it. It turns out that his ex-wife bought it for her. That evening he got a hold of his lawyer and they started working on getting custody of both of his children.
Mark
In principle, I agree with you, but get this: most students are required to sign a conduct pledge now, or they can't attend school, and hey...you didn't know they could still punish you in the summer? Off school grounds and off school time?
As long as you are enrolled in their district, yes they can! Parents have given them permission to! Those Code of Conducts are about as big as the phone book, giving school districts all kinds of power they can abuse.
What you’ve posted is so (intentionally) vague that ANY school could make the case. So, in essence, yes, they can run your child’s life.
Stone them! Stone them! Stone them!
ROTFLMAO
Good for him! I hope he wins/won. He is saving his daughter from becoming a future statistic of one negative sort or another.
Well I almost always disagree with the ACLU, so no sense in changing the record now ;)
I can see it if they were raised that way. But because society has gone soft on teenagers, we are supposed to prolong them growing up?
By the time they hit puberty, they start finding out about birds and bees stuff. Then, when they get to about 15-16 they are strong enough for work and smart enough for subjects like calculus, Shakespeare, and robotics or strong enoug for football/basketball/gymnastics. But were supposed to treat them like kids? Just doesnt make sense to me.
True, but the school will counter they presented a danger to themselves with all that sexual suggestion. If one of those girls were attacked, either by a jealous rival or rapist, who would be held responsible?
I don't agree with what these girls did, but the school district took the zero tolerance sledgehammer approach and now they are getting sued. This could have been handled with a lot more discretion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.