Sure. Then again what are schools? Training the future workforce to become the future workforce. If we accept it from employers (monitoring employees during their down time) then isn’t monitoring students during their downtime simply the next step? Got to start that conditioning early on, otherwise, they might question it later. Indoctrination centers, don’t you know?
You might be right. It’s hard to justify this in my mind, it should be a job for parents.
2 Likes
Are schools receiving tax dollars?
I’m sure you did. I bet you were fairly compensated for it too. 
Seems like a slippery slope. They would need to prove the students actions would cause a disruption at the school. I think there are cases where a students speech, outside of school, warrant action by the school. Threats of violence for example. In this case, it seems harder to prove.
1 Like
Many, if not most, have some kind of code of ethics as a condition of employment.
An employee’s comments can harm a business, but I don’t see how the school was harmed in this case. It wasn’t a school function and the school wasn’t harmed, so it’s a job for parents.
2 Likes
Not hard to do, that claim can be made about anything.
Prior restraint. If it causes a disruption at school, you punish the disruption. Not the original off campus cause.
If two guys get in a fight over a girl in a bowling alley on Friday night, then fight again at school on Monday morning, what do you punish them for?
Academics are trying to reform society and have been since at least reconstruction.
Why does it have to be “a job” for anybody?
Now you’re getting it!
I don’t buy that either. I’m not representing my company when I’m not acting as an employee. Hell most people don’t even know where I work. Then again, most people are dumb and freely give out that information without being asked. But then, can’t really legislate away stupid. For some reason, we seem to keep trying though.
3 Likes
I think a more apt example would be if that student posted on social media that he was going to fight someone at school the next day and the school suspended him for it.
There are many contracts you sign with employers where you agree to not participate in certain activities during your off hours.
A couple companies I worked at prohibited my taking part in political protests. If I wanted to work there, I had to agree they could fire me if I did so.
Schools are government institutions. The 1st Amendment directly applies here.
That’s between you and your employer, not the government.
Two examples of different things, but I like yours too.
Sure. People willingly give up their rights daily. For nothing in exchange. What else is new?
I added in that public schools are a government institution. The First Amendment is directly applicable here.
So this concept, is this entities of the government trying to impose order, as in “law & order”?
No it isn’t. What I do on my off time isn’t any of my employer’s business. Unless I’m representing my employer. Which I’m not. Good luck proving otherwise.
Ha…not hardly.
