Persuasive Speech On Privacy In School

Schools should take action if there is harm being done to others. In Document A of” Should Schools Be Allowed to Limit Students’ Online Speech?”, they surveyed a random sample of 10-18 year-olds from a large school district in the southern US. It shows that girls are more likely to be cyberbullied. It also shows that girls are more likely to cyberbully somebody else. According to the graph, 25.1% of girls have been cyberbullied in their lifetime,

A young boy was once sitting on his computer when he saw an email from one of his peers. He opened the email, and soon enough realized he was being bullied. However, the young boy let the cyber-bullying get out of control. His parents told the school about it, but there was nothing they could do. The boy had to go to a new school where he wouldn’t be bullied. There are many problems like this that get out of hand, so much that the school can do nothing to help. Many people blame the school for not helping, when there is nothing they can do about it. Therefore, schools do not have the responsibility to respond to and protect students from the challenge of cyber-bullying, even if it’s off campus.

There is an increase in cyberbullying due to technology, the school has the right to protect their students, and it affects how teachers work. Numerous individuals trust that punishing students for what they say outside of school goes against the First Amendment, yet in the event that it disturbs the wellbeing of the student body, something should be done. At the point when students are included with cyberbullying, it unquestionably goes past the school's doors and influences not only the student, but the general population around

Document A shows that nearly twenty percent of students are cyberbullies, and more than twenty percent of students have been cyberbullied. According to Document B, cyberbullying affects one in ten teachers personally. Cyberbullying affects the privacy, confidence, productivity of teachers and students alike. It is as large a problem as actual bullying, and the quick spreading of everything posted online amplifies the effects of cyberbullying. Schools everywhere concentrate so much of their effort to combat on-campus bullying, they have no excuse to overlook cyberbullying, which affects as many people, and as at least as dangerous as actual

When posed with the question whether schools have grounds to punish students for their off-campus online speech, J expressed that the implications of the question are quite broad and require some nuance in approach. Public schools do have grounds to punish students for their off-campus online speech, but only in limited and specific circumstances. Threats of violence and harassment (such as cyberbullying) directed at members of the school community should certainly be dealt with by school administration. However, online speech that is merely controversial or vulgar, without threatening the safety of a specific person or groups of people, should not be addressed by school administrators. S agreed that public schools cannot control what a student says online off-campus except when it involves the safety of the school and/or students. If a student threatens to bring harm to others, be it staff or their peers, the principal

On the issue of whether or not schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech, I firmly believe that they shouldn’t. Doing so directly infringes upon the student’s first amendment rights to the freedom of speech, and for what? Numerous surveys have shown that cyberbullying isn’t a huge problem. Further, one document affirms the conclusion that cyberbullying is just another phase in the long-running evolution of bullying. With this essay, I aim to convince you that schools should not limit their students’ online speech, using my vast knowledge as well as cold hard facts.

Cyberbullying is defined as, ¨...bullying that takes place using electronic technology¨ by stopbullying.gov. Recently, schools have been taking actions to punish students for what they do or say online. There have been many debates and trails to figure out whether or not schools should have the power to limit and punish students’ speech online. The Supreme Court ruled that if online speech is disruptive, schools can punish students. School districts should not have the power to limit online speech because online speech does not affect most students and teachers, is not very disruptive, and free speech is a precious right.

Students do not always realize that their free speech can go against certain limits that the Supreme Court has issued on this freedom. The US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights suggests that harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a students' ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by the school. (Doc. G) In consonance with this, it is the school's responsibility to address harassment incidents to protect students' privacy rights. Allowing full access to the first amendment in schools can often result in the violation of the fourth amendment by infringing privacy rights. There are many forms of harassment that can violate students' civil rights. According to the same department, harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the civil rights laws that the OCR enforces. (Doc. G) Cyberbullying often falls into these categories which are all violations of civil rights, and many schools may not have proper standards for this violation. It is the school's responsibility to protect the civil rights of students, teachers, and administrators, so they must take a stand against discrimination, including online speech. Not only does cyberbullying contravene with civil rights, it also causes emotional

Higher education law attorney Dana L. Fleming voices her controversial opinion in favor of institutionalized involvement in social network protection in her article “Youthful Indiscretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?” (Fleming). Posted in the New England Journal of Higher Education, winter of 2008 issue, Fleming poses the question of responsibility in monitoring students’ online social networking activities. With a growing population of students registering on social networks like Facebook and MySpace, she introduces the concern of safety by saying, “like lawmakers, college administrators have not yet determined how to handle the unique issues posed by the public display of their students’

Kids need to watch what they post online. For example, If a student post something online about bullying school officials should be able to punish them for it. Fourteen states have passed an anti-cyberbullying law, so if the student is punished by school officials first, they are less likely to get in legal trouble. Schools should get to punish kids for misbehaving online, because it might save lives. In addition, Kids should not be misbehaving online. Kids should know what is right and what is wrong. According to Joseph Maneen, “If the students have done something worth taking the social media password, of course the school should take it.” Kids need to do what is right online, because it might ruin their reputation. Furthermore, Schools and Police officers should be able to check people's phones because it can help keep our cities safe. According to the Detective Chris Grider, “Checking phones helps to establish

Schools and the public are wasting time and resources on the over-exaggerated issue of cyberbullying. Today, schools are wasting much of their time worrying about cyberbullying and in popular media it’s mentioned too much. Schools should not be allowed to limit online speech. It’s not needed since most students haven’t been cyberbullied, cyberbullying hasn’t been proven to be very disruptive and online gossip is not common.

This can result in severe consequences for both the students and the school. Colleges such as Harvard have been denying the entrance of students due to inappropriate and explicit content posted on social media. Many high schools have begun hiring outside companies to monitor their student’s posts. The question arises: By doing so, are they violating these students First Amendment Rights? Approximately 92 percent of teenagers say they use their electronic devices daily (Ray Bendici, “Schools Step up Social Media Monitoring”). Twenty-four percent of which say they constantly use the internet. Although schools have a good intention for monitoring student’s accounts; to stop bullying, to find racist and explicit content, and to stop any threats; some schools go so far that they are violating both their student's privacy and First Amendment

Cyberbullying is a very controversial topic these days, some may think that to prevent this school should limit students’ speech, others argue that it prevents students right to learn.

At High School One (a pseudonym) a rural 2A high school in Central Washington State. There are just over 1,000 students between 9th and 12th grade, with nearly 80% of the students identifying as white and just under 20% identifying as Hispanic. All students at High School One will be equipped with their own, school provided, Chromebook as part of the one-to-one implementation beginning with the 2016-17 school year. As this involves more than 1,000 students being connected to the internet for daily assignments, tests and score reporting, the ethical and legal issues of privacy are something teachers at High School One need to be aware of. In the 2016-17 school year, I will be teaching 152 students split between three sections of 10th grade World History and 11th grade U.S. History.

The Center presented the officials with a made-up scenario in which a student, using the web, threatened to inflict bodily harm on another student. On a scale of one to ten, one meaning no law enforcement role was required and ten requiring a “significant” role, the respondents rated the situation a 9.1. This was the scenario that drew the strongest approval of police intervention (Patchin). Interestingly, one of Rebecca Sedwick’s tormentors told her to die via a Facebook post (Slifer, Fla. Girls). In such a case, the Cyberbullying Research Center instructed law enforcement officials to discuss publicly the consequences of cyberbullying for education and deterrence purposes (Patchin). Obviously, talking things over cannot prevent everything, but it increases awareness in school administrators and parents. The Center also asserted officers should “discipline students for conduct outside of school if it infringes on the rights of other students or causes material disruptions to the school’s learning environment” (Patchin). Ultimately, the Center left interpretations of cyberbullying incidents and the required responses to the officers themselves. In fact, the Center more clearly defines law enforcement’s role in cyberbullying cases in its general statement found on its homepage. The document says officials should