Lewiston Blocks Students Blog Site

16 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Don_Sausser on December 05 at 7:59 a.m.

  Yes, finally someone who agrees with me regarding anonymity in public forums.

• 

  Bigguy on December 05 at 8:30 a.m.

  Yes, definitely. Lewiston is teaching students about personal responsibility and I applaud them for taking this stand.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 05 at 8:36 a.m.

  Following behind yesterday’s post about Mary Souza’s repeated attempts at (incorrectly) outing pseudonymous commenters on the Press site, I think it would be wise to look at the history of anonymous commentary in this Country and ask ourselves ‘Why does Mary Souza hate Andrew Hamilton, Thomas Paine, John Jay and James Madison?

  Preserving Anonymity On The Internet - Critical Essay

  “Controversial and thought-provoking speech has frequently been issued from under the cover of anonymity, by writers who feared prosecution or worse if their identities were known.”

  ‘The Supreme Court has consistently held that anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.”

  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2666_129/ai_67328805/

• 

  Phaedrus on December 05 at 8:38 a.m.

  BTW, if I was a LHS student, I would sue the district, I think the US Supreme Court might be on the student’ side.

• 

  keithincda on December 05 at 8:54 a.m.

  you’re lawyer must love seeing you come through the door Pheadrus. What with all the threats of lawsuits you have been tossing around lately. Your starting to sound like your buddy Larry Spencer!

• 

  Phaedrus on December 05 at 9:06 a.m.

  What with all the threats of lawsuits you have been tossing around lately.

  My memory must be going, I don’t remember “tossing around” ” threats of lawsuits ” Do you have a list of them?

• 

  fortboise on December 05 at 11:05 a.m.

  Definitely a teachable moment.

  While “the Supreme Court has consistently held that anonymous and pseudonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment,” as the article Phaedrus points us to notes, the question of what public school students can and can’t do with school resources and/or under the school name is likely not so cut and dried.

  H.S. students have other outlets for their anonymous and pseudonymous expression these days. I’m ok with the broad description of what the district did. Perhaps they had a lawyer advise them, even?

• 

  Bigguy on December 05 at 11:11 a.m.

  Phaedrus:

  Students do not have an unlimited level of First Amendment rights when engaged in school sponsored speech - which the Lewiston School District sponsored site would be. The students are free to say anything they wish outside the school sponsored programs and whoever they malign are free to sue them for slander or libel. The school is not suppressing their right to say what they want - just the time and place - all of which have been upheld clear to the US Supreme Court (see Fraser vs. Bethel School District).

• 

  Phaedrus on December 05 at 11:24 a.m.

  Thanks for the perspective guys.

• 

  hhuseland on December 05 at 1:42 p.m.

  When you stack up adult misbehavior on line, especially sites other than HBO, then add the teen dimension, harassment would be pandemic if fake names were allowed in a campus publication. Of course, I’m on record as opposing most, if not all fake names. I agree that people in sensitive occupations that could be retaliated against, might be OK. Politicians, and party officials, no, because the should grind their respective axes in public, not in secrecy.

• 

  keithincda on December 05 at 5:40 p.m.

  Pheadrus, I was referencing you sayin you were going to sue regarding every election (or something like that) in the state if Brannon is successful with whatever the heck is going on in that city election mess.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 05 at 6:14 p.m.

  keithincda, gotcha!

  (IF — and it is a BIG IF— Brannon and his wacky buddies succeed in getting an ‘activist judge’ to do what State Law doesn’t do then I would definitely have to see how happy those Reagan Republicans would be if every race their candidate won was contested in the same manner. Remember what they say about being careful what you wish for.)

• 

  hhuseland on December 05 at 9:39 p.m.

  @Phaerus

  Those guys aren’t Reagan Republicans. I wuz there. Reagan was a consensus builder and the great compromiser. He knew that alone, he couldm’t pass legislation. Both in the California 8 years, he sat down with Jesse Unruh, alias “The boss” and found those areas of agreement that were available. Later, during the presidency, He sat with Tip O’neil much in ghe same way. Then they would retire to the executive level, where they would sample some of the old sod.

  Reagan was not a right wing whacko or even close to that. He was a small government guy that like many, got caught up in the rality of the office and did what he could. He was credited for breaking up the Soviet Union, and I believe will be noted in history as one of the great ones.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 05 at 9:54 p.m.

  Herb, I agree. As mamaJD has said, this group of folks probably wouldn’t let the real Ronald Reagan join.

• 

  hhuseland on December 06 at 9:05 p.m.

  Phaedrus, I cherish the brief moments where we agree on something. Anything.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 07 at 9:17 a.m.

  So do I, Herb, so do I.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic