Non OU Related

[MsProudSooner]

This is the first I heard about this:

http://newsok.com/article/5475819?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=NIC-Facebook

 

[SoonerBounce13]

wow. kids gotta learn that nothing is private on your phone anymore

 

[AdaSooner]

Yeah, read that story over the weekend.

That's quite a price to pay for a foolish prank that went south in a hurry. Kids have to realize that jokes about being a "shooter" don't go over well these days. Hopefully, he'll learn from his mistake.

 

[DenverSooner]

I think what they did to that kid was unconstitutional. He did not make a threat. You have to make assumptions to get to that is threat. I have a huge problem with how children are treated like they don't have Constitutional Rights. It looks like this will pass but they could have seriously jeopardized this kids life over speech.


Another interesting thing is Trammel going to his defense. I wonder if you would see that had he signed with OU?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

i completely understand why the school did what they did. They just had a threat that they had to evacute the school for and then they see this picture at the same time. put yourself in their shoes. You have the school closed due to a threat and somebody sends you a picture of a kid holding a gun with the caption whose the shooter or whatever it was. yeah, i'm not taking chances with students' lives

 

[DenverSooner]

i completely understand why the school did what they did. They just had a threat that they had to evacute the school for and then they see this picture at the same time. put yourself in their shoes. You have the school closed due to a threat and somebody sends you a picture of a kid holding a gun with the caption whose the shooter or whatever it was. yeah, i'm not taking chances with students' lives

He didn't send that picture to anyone. It is speech and they violated his rights.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

He didn't send that picture to anyone. It is speech and they violated his rights.

He did send it to someone. He snapchatted it. Somebody took a screenshot of the snapchat and put it on twitter. Then the school saw it on twitter. nobody's free speech was violated

Honestly, as a parent, if the school did nothing they would be in big big trouble. Imagine if the shooter of sandy hook posted a picture and ambiguous comment on twitter before his attack. The school saw it and did nothing b/c they incorrectly thought it would violate free speech. wowzers

The school acted appropriately. Tough lesson to learn. Once you send something to somebody else, it is public. The school's first priority is to keep students safe. they did that.

I assume you think suspending someone b/c they called in a bomb threat to get out of a test is a violation of freedom of speech?

 

[DenverSooner]

He did send it to someone. He snapchatted it. Somebody took a screenshot of the snapchat and put it on twitter. Then the school saw it on twitter. nobody's free speech was violated

Honestly, as a parent, if the school did nothing they would be in big big trouble. Imagine if the shooter of sandy hook posted a picture and ambiguous comment on twitter before his attack. The school saw it and did nothing b/c they incorrectly thought it would violate free speech. wowzers

The school acted appropriately. Tough lesson to learn. Once you send something to somebody else, it is public. The school's first priority is to keep students safe. they did that.

I assume you think suspending someone b/c they called in a bomb threat to get out of a test is a violation of freedom of speech?

The school did not act appropriately. Kids took a photograph and put a caption on it. That is free speech. They didn't do it at school.

The caption read who is the shooter now. Explain to me how that is a threat. Don't refer to external things. Just focus on the picture and words and explain how and why the reader should interpret it as a threat.

Your comment that once you send something to someone it is public seems to suggest that we can no longer say what we want if we say it in social media. That is nonsense. This is our most important right and we are fools to look the other way as PC thought takes over.

Would you suspend the kid for saying the same thing without a gun in the picture? If so why?

Would you suspend the kid for just having a picture with a gun? If so why? Is a picture of a human holding a toy or real gun not expression?

Finally, this is nothing like calling in a bomb threat. Calling in a bomb threat is a crime. It is not protect speech. It is clearly a direct threat to society. Not once did I remotely say kids have a constitutional right to make bomb threats.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Lol ok dude. For some reason you really get hung up on free speech cases. Funny thing is you are almost always on the wrong side of understanding the law

But you are an attorney so you are right...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DenverSooner]

Lol ok dude. For some reason you really get hung up on free speech cases. Funny thing is you are almost always on the wrong side of understanding the law

But you are an attorney so you are right...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I disagree with you and you attack my professional competency rather than explain how the kids statements were a threat.

Perhaps you are a bit insecure.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

So I disagree with you and you attack my professional competency rather than explain how the kids statements were a threat.

Perhaps you are a bit insecure.

I didn't attack you personally. I've seen you use your profession as a crutch when people disagree with you about freedom of speech.

When the school is closed b/c of a threat against the students of the school, and then a picture is seen by the principal of a student with a gun saying who is the shooter...umm hello!


So tell me why you think he speech was restricted?

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I think we have gone back and forth on this topic before. I'll bow out and let others discuss