Merged Brownback cries about teen tweet

[sarge]

Heard a more detailed story on a local radio show this morning. I haven't really tried to confirm the details yet, but according to the story, the woman was tweeting during school, from school - a practice that is expressly forbidden by policy. If so:

1. The principle would have been perfectly justified in administering an appropriate punishment - something he didn't do.

2. The principle would have been correct to require the woman to write an appology for the actual offense (tweeting during school hours).

3. The official from the Governors office was wrong to get involved, policy violation or not.


Whether or not she was guilty of violating a school policy, her tweet was juvenile, and is embarrasing for the school. Whether she violated a policy or not, the principal was justified in lecturing her about the inappropriate nature of the tweet under the circumstances.

What will likely happen, now that the general public has an ill-informed opinion, is that the woman will become a momentary heroine for the fight the power class, and policy violation or not she gets treated with kid gloves.

 

[Upchurch]

{snip details}

1. The principle would have been perfectly justified in administering an appropriate punishment - something he didn't do.

Agree.

2. The principle would have been correct to require the woman to write an appology for the actual offense (tweeting during school hours).

To whom?
If the teacher or the principal or her fellow students: Okay, maybe.
If the Governor: I disagree. She would have broken a school rule, not any state rules. The Governor wouldn't play into it at all.

3. The official from the Governors office was wrong to get involved, policy violation or not.

Agree.

Whether or not she was guilty of violating a school policy, her tweet was juvenile, and is embarrasing for the school. Whether she violated a policy or not, the principal was justified in lecturing her about the inappropriate nature of the tweet under the circumstances.

I disagree. The principal might have been justified about lecturing her about the inappropriateness of tweeting on school time, but the nature of the tweet? Why?

 

[cwalner]

You've never heard the "sucks eggs" version? The implication is of a geek not a perv.

This is the first time. Putting the E in JREF. Thanks everybody

 

[sarge]

To whom?
If the teacher or the principal or her fellow students: Okay, maybe.
If the Governor: I disagree. She would have broken a school rule, not any state rules. The Governor wouldn't play into it at all.

To the school, of course. Anything else wouldn't really make sense.

I disagree. The principal might have been justified about lecturing her about the inappropriateness of tweeting on school time, but the nature of the tweet? Why?

It is always inappropriate to act an ass when representing anyone other than yourself. If the tweet went out on school time from school grounds - or when the student was particpating only because of her status as a student, then she has responsibilities to the school that trump her right to freedom of expression.

If she wants to call the Governor an ass on her own time, fine. Based only on what I've learned in this thread, he seems to be a near-perfect ass. It is not okay for her to call the governor an ass when she is acting as a student of the school.

 

[Bri]

2. The principle would have been correct to require the woman to write an appology for the actual offense (tweeting during school hours).

An apology for violating school policy? How often do students have to do that for other policy violations (other tweets of text messages, for example)? Who would the apology be written to?

Whether she violated a policy or not, the principal was justified in lecturing her about the inappropriate nature of the tweet under the circumstances.

What does the appropriateness of inappropriateness of the tweet have to do with the school's policy of not tweeting during school hours? At best, he would have been justified in lecturing her about not tweeting at school, but not so much about the content of the tweet.

What will likely happen, now that the general public has an ill-informed opinion, is that the woman will become a momentary heroine for the fight the power class, and policy violation or not she gets treated with kid gloves.

The television news report I saw emphasized the "vulgar nature" of her tweets, so I don't think she was treated with kid gloves. In fact, I thought she had actually said something truly vulgar, but it appears that the worst she wrote was say that the governor "sucked" and she used the hashtag #heblowsalot (which could refer to hot air).

-Bri

 

[DavidJames]

The message I'm getting here is people get pissed off if someone ****s with a Republican. Oh, the '*'s do not refer to a sexual act.

 

[BenBurch]

This is the first time. Putting the E in JREF. Thanks everybody

Of course people are always making something filthy out of "sucks eggs."

Aleister Crowley used such in the title of chapter 69 of "The Book Of Lies" for example.

 

[Travis]

The hashtag #heblowsalot is also ambiguous. How many kids describe a show or song they hate as "this blows?" Do you really think the kid is indicating the show or song is performing a sexual act?

 

[sarge]

An apology for violating school policy? How often do students have to do that for other policy violations (other tweets of text messages, for example)? Who would the apology be written to?

Answered

What does the appropriateness of inappropriateness of the tweet have to do with the school's policy of not tweeting during school hours? At best, he would have been justified in lecturing her about not tweeting at school, but not so much about the content of the tweet.

Answered

The television news report I saw emphasized the "vulgar nature" of her tweets, so I don't think she was treated with kid gloves. In fact, I thought she had actually said something truly vulgar, but it appears that the worst she wrote was say that the governor "sucked" and she used the hashtag #heblowsalot (which could refer to hot air).

-Bri

She is an adult that acted like an ass while engaged in a school sponsored event during school hours. So far, the tone of the reporting has focused on the Gubmint and the School trampling on her (non-existant) rights to freedom of expression. In other words, kid glove treatment.


She was clearly attmepting to impress some other immature person(s) with the brazen nature of the actions she lied about having taken. That itself is considerably more vulgar than the words in her tweet.

 

[Bri]

Answered

Do you suppose they make everyone write apology letters to the school every time someone tweets, using their cell phone, or text messages someone during school hours?

She was clearly attmepting to impress some other immature person(s) with the brazen nature of the actions she lied about having taken. That itself is considerably more vulgar than the words in her tweet.

She was joking to her friend about having told the governor to his face that he sucked. She didn't actually say anything to the governor at all. Big deal.

What I find really immature is the governor's staff combing through tweets looking for people saying mean things about him and then telling on them.

-Bri

 

[Spindrift]

She was clearly attmepting to impress some other immature person(s) with the brazen nature of the actions she lied about having taken. That itself is considerably more vulgar than the words in her tweet.

No that is what's called being a teenager. Teenagers do incredibly stupid things without too much thought. And not just the 'bad' ones.

 

[sarge]

No that is what's called being a teenager. Teenagers do incredibly stupid things without too much thought. And not just the 'bad' ones.

And then they suffer consequences for it. This is not a child - she is an adult. She can vote. Her conduct merited censure. She was not a victim, no matter how stupid the reactions of the governors staff.

 

[DavidJames]

And then they suffer consequences for it. This is not a child - she is an adult. She can vote. Her conduct merited censure. She was not a victim, no matter how stupid the reactions of the governors staff.

It's not the black and white. She is guilty of breaking school rules. She was a victim of the "overreaction" by Brownback's staff.

 

[Nova Land]

Heard a more detailed story on a local radio show this morning. I haven't really tried to confirm the details yet, but according to the story, the woman was tweeting during school, from school - a practice that is expressly forbidden by policy.

If that were actually the case, then there was some major mis-reporting going on.

This, for instance, is from the CNN story linked to earlier in this thread:

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback apologized Monday for what he called his staff's "overreaction" to a disparaging tweet directed at him by a high school senior during a state Capitol visit...

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.

That's three times in the space of the story where it indicates the students went on a field trip and that the tweet occurred during the trip. That makes a lot more sense than the hearsay radio story.

The rule against tweeting during school hours makes sense when kids are in the classroom. Tweeting, when they are supposed to be paying attention to the teacher, would clearly be a problem. But does it apply to kids when they are traveling to or from the site of a field trip?

I am not currently a grade school student so I can't speak from direct experience, but I strongly doubt that kids are normally forbidden from texting and tweeting when riding on school buses.

It's one thing to say she broke the rule if the policy in the past has been to forbid students from texting while on field trips. I suspect that is not the case. I can see no good disciplinary reason why kids riding in a school bus would be forbidden from texting, and the amount of effort it would take to enforce such a prohibition would be more trouble than it's worth.

If there are any high school students around, perhaps they could clarify this for the rest of us.

But unless CNN and other media sources issue a correction to their story and say this did not happen during a field trip, I think those of you concluding she owed the school an apology for tweeting on school grounds are being a bit premature.

 

[rwguinn]

If that were actually the case, then there was some major mis-reporting going on.

This, for instance, is from the CNN story linked to earlier in this thread:




That's three times in the space of the story where it indicates the students went on a field trip and that the tweet occurred during the trip. That makes a lot more sense than the hearsay radio story.

The rule against tweeting during school hours makes sense when kids are in the classroom. Tweeting, when they are supposed to be paying attention to the teacher, would clearly be a problem. But does it apply to kids when they are traveling to or from the site of a field trip?

I am not currently a grade school student so I can't speak from direct experience, but I strongly doubt that kids are normally forbidden from texting and tweeting when riding on school buses.

It's one thing to say she broke the rule if the policy in the past has been to forbid students from texting while on field trips. I suspect that is not the case. I can see no good disciplinary reason why kids riding in a school bus would be forbidden from texting, and the amount of effort it would take to enforce such a prohibition would be more trouble than it's worth.

If there are any high school students around, perhaps they could clarify this for the rest of us.

But unless CNN and other media sources issue a correction to their story and say this did not happen during a field trip, I think those of you concluding she owed the school an apology for tweeting on school grounds are being a bit premature.

Don't confuse the issue with FACTS, you Liberal long-haired wierdo hippy pinko communist freak, you! (Obscure NM '70's reference)
Crap. I thought I was a conservative...

 

[Travis]

I'm still wondering why someone from the Governors office was following the tweets of a high school girl. That's just creepy. Brownback type creepy even.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's not the black and white. She is guilty of breaking school rules. She was a victim of the "overreaction" by Brownback's staff.

If she was in violation of aschool rule against tweeting, the m ost that that dimbulb prinicipal has the authority to do is to levy the exact same penalty, regardless of the content of the tweet, that would be levied on someone ttweeting about what an awesome poetry class she just left.

The principal is an authoritarian nutjob.

 

[Checkmite]

How very Freudian!

Actually, the origin of this form of "sucks" derives from the insult "Go suck an egg!", not oral sex. Whose mind is in the gutter, Checkmite?

eta: cwalner, too.

I wasn't referring to the "sucks" comment; I was referring to the hashtag with which she ended the tweet.

 

[Joey McGee]

I wasn't referring to the "sucks" comment; I was referring to the hashtag with which she ended the tweet.

It's the same bloody thing...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blows

1. blows 218 up, 38 down

see sucks

"your project blows"

Thanks for managing to make this even funnier though

 

[Checkmite]

It's the same bloody thing...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blows



Thanks for managing to make this even funnier though

Well no; Upchurch offered an example of a non-sexual context from which the "sucks" adjective derives; you can't do the same thing for "blows". It derives solely from a slang term for a sex act. Thanks for trying, though.

No, "I read it on Urban Dictionary" does not mean anything, either.