[Windcatcher]

I could not disagree more. Had the student reacted in this way merely at the verbal request to end the call (which in and of itself would have been an immoral request, as has been extensively discussed here), you might have a point, but such was not the case. The teacher physically tried to take the phone from the student when the student verbally refused. In other words, the teacher followed an inherently immoral request with physical coercion of said immoral request and precipitated the student's response. When people act in a blatantly immoral manner, authority or no authority, they should be opposed. Perhaps the student could have found a more sympathetic way of opposing the teacher, but I cannot fault his motivation in any way. The teacher should be upbraided up one side and down the other, and I see no difference between an adult telling her off (with profanity if need be) and this student doing it.

[leadpenny]

In case you didn't notice, murdocj has a website.

[murdocj]

I think the rule about no cell phones is a sensible one. And the student broke it. The teacher was enforcing a sensible rule, not making "an inherently immoral request".

I know not everyone (and probably very few on FR) will agree with me.

Both sides should have acted better.