Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It stopped being private when the teacher handed over the phone. If they weren’t texting during school hours they wouldn’t have been caught either. We are all responsible for what we put out there
My thinking, too. It's like two people having a conversation among themselves, but there's a third party they don't now about around the corner to me. Not a private conversation. The teacher let students use their phone. That was her second mistake, first being a part of the conversation at all
Last edited by Joe the Photog; 06-06-2022 at 12:32 PM..
It was a PRIVATE conversation on PRIVATE devices between people who apparently had no issue with what was being said quietly among themselves. This was not meant for anyone but the six of them to see and they all had an expectation of privacy. They should not need to worry about having a professional filter on in that circumstance.
You can keep using all caps to define it as a private conversation, but the teacher handed the phone over to a student. That's when it stopped being priivate. Not like the students went through the phone. A message popped up on the screen. They had to look at it just to swipe it off the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook
No one who is reasonably smart should assume any texted or email or other internet conversation will remain private.
Right. This should be common sense, but apparently it is not with some folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone
There is no such thing as privacy anymore. It does not exist.
When you send your words out electronically, it's not private anymore. Private would be the teachers talking among themselves where no one could listen. My understanding is a private conversation is when two or more people talk in such away that cannot be recorded. Here, they consented to the recording by participating in a text message.
You can keep using all caps to define it as a private conversation, but the teacher handed the phone over to a student. That's when it stopped being priivate. Not like the students went through the phone. A message popped up on the screen. They had to look at it just to swipe it off the screen.
Right. This should be common sense, but apparently it is not with some folks.
When you send your words out electronically, it's not private anymore. Private would be the teachers talking among themselves where no one could listen. My understanding is a private conversation is when two or more people talk in such away that cannot be recorded. Here, they consented to the recording by participating in a text message.
As far as the superintendent’s ability to discipline the teachers for the five teachers on the texting stream, it will be considered a private conversation and therefore constitute free speech. Remember, schools are government entities, the courts have ruled there are free speech rights parameters for teachers.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
You can keep using all caps to define it as a private conversation, but the teacher handed the phone over to a student. That's when it stopped being priivate. Not like the students went through the phone. A message popped up on the screen. They had to look at it just to swipe it off the screen.
Right. This should be common sense, but apparently it is not with some folks.
When you send your words out electronically, it's not private anymore. Private would be the teachers talking among themselves where no one could listen. My understanding is a private conversation is when two or more people talk in such away that cannot be recorded. Here, they consented to the recording by participating in a text message.
The conversation was not directed to the child or children. It’s not private to law enforcement if they get a subpoena to see it, so it’s private domain, however, in Massachusetts- they declared that “no one can reasonably expect a sent text message to remain private”, by their judicial court. That’s a state law. So where you live makes a difference.
As far as the superintendent’s ability to discipline the teachers for the five teachers on the texting stream, it will be considered a private conversation and therefore constitute free speech. Remember, schools are government entities, the courts have ruled there are free speech rights parameters for teachers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump
The conversation was not directed to the child or children. It’s not private to law enforcement if they get a subpoena to see it, so it’s private domain, however, in Massachusetts- they declared that “no one can reasonably expect a sent text message to remain private”, by their judicial court. That’s a state law. So where you live makes a difference.
No one has ever accused me of being a legal scholar. My question is does handing over the cell phone deem the conversation not private anymore? Asking because I do not know.
This was a PRIVATE conversation, not for public viewing. I get this indicates that some of these teachers are probably not appropriate for teaching in a school that is 94% minority (54% Hispanic, 40% black) but I honestly don’t see how it can be legal to fire teachers over a private conversation where all, with perhaps the exception of the teacher who idiotically allowed students to use her phone, had an expectation of privacy. Their superintendent, of course, disagrees with me.
This is a school that has a 97% free lunch/2% reduced lunch population, in other words only 1% of their students do not live in poverty. What is more, only 8% of the students score proficient in Math with 9% scoring proficient in Reading/Language Arts. I sure this is very difficult school to teach at regardless, and these were 8th graders which can be one of most challenging grades under the best of circumstances, so I don’t doubt they were frustrated as the kids were probably also engaging in end-of-the-year hijinks.
Reason #6754 why teachers should never, ever lend their phones to students…. and this idiot did it so they could make a ticktock video, of all things.
But, bottom line, if the teachers fight it they will get their jobs back, despite one or two who probably should look elsewhere for a job.
No one has ever accused me of being a legal scholar. My question is does handing over the cell phone deem the conversation not private anymore? Asking because I do not know.
My husband says depending on state laws that answer might be different for the person who owned the phone and the other five. In most states the five are still protected by the reasonable assumption that it was a private phone call. He says it is less clear cut for the teacher who allowed the students to use her phone since she is assumed to know that the phone had text preview. He did say there are a couple of states that have ruled text messages are not assumed private if a participating party in the text shares it, so the question might be whether the teacher allowing the students to use the phone constitutes also sharing the text, but regardless New York is not one of those states.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
So the problem is they got caught not having a proper mindset fit to teach?
All six? I do 100% agree the one making the “class announcement” comment probably needs to find a different profession, but I have heard more than one or two good, caring, effective middle school teachers make a similar comment about the student instigating a fight.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
My husband says depending on state laws that answer might be different for the person who owned the phone and the other five. In most states the five are still protected by the reasonable assumption that it was a private phone call. He says it is less clear cut for the teacher who allowed the students to use her phone since she is assumed to know that the phone had text preview. He did say there are a couple of states that have ruled text messages are not assumed private if a participating party in the text shares it, so the question might be whether the teacher allowing the students to use the phone constitutes also sharing the text, but regardless New York is not one of those states.
But being a jerk/obnoxious is not a constitutionally protected right.
I don't see this as a private free speech issue. You are dissing your "customers" in a discussion with co-workers.
No one has ever accused me of being a legal scholar. My question is does handing over the cell phone deem the conversation not private anymore? Asking because I do not know.
I think it would be dubious. For practical intents and purposes the conversation that may have been privately published is now no longer so. There might be legal remedies that could be pursued against the students who were handed the phone. They were given it with permission to do A and instead chose to use it for a different purpose. In other words hacking, unauthorized use of a computer system. Prosecutorial discretion though. They're not going to pursue hacking charges because some kids were using a phone they had permission to use and opened up a notification which they did not have permission to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
