Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cpt_Micha Oct 31, 2009 6:35:41	www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33554218/ns/us_news... Seriously, prime example of Moral Guardians in action folks.
#2 cherubaddon Oct 31, 2009 8:29:04	This is so weird... I remember when I was in America for one year, someone got expelled like every other month for smoking outside of school. I never got what was up with that. To me, what you do with your free time is your business and yours alone. But then, the Supreme Court would seem to disagree...
#3 willpell Oct 31, 2009 8:46:06	Annoying, yeah.  But at least I can be happy that 80% of poll respondents agree with me that this isn't the school's business.
#4 Cpt_Micha Oct 31, 2009 8:47:26	If anything this is the girls and the parent's business. ( I would go so far as to say it's not even their parents issue either)
#5 Klirshon Oct 31, 2009 8:57:20	What I don't get at all is why the girls had to apologize to the male coaches of the school... Were they offended by a picture of the girls pretending to lick a novelty lollipop? I don't see how, it isn't like the lollipop was representing them...
#6 Cpt_Micha Oct 31, 2009 8:59:09	No doubt because the coaches are probably impotent and thus the symbol of a working phalus offends them?
#7 Mechalibur Oct 31, 2009 9:12:25	2 dozen people witnessed the attack and didn't call the police? What the **** is wrong with people?
#8 Cpt_Micha Oct 31, 2009 9:15:29	It's thinking like that, which lead to various fascists to taking charge throughout history, my friend. Please, you and I both know what teens do. You know what you did as a teen. it's no different. Furthermore, it's not right for a Government run institution (or any for that matter) to do what they did when you are not on the grounds. Or doing anything remotely related in anyway shape or form to the organization. Also, the sort of thing that happened there isn't anything new. Or even remotely new. It's been happening since the dawn of time, and likely will continue to do so.
#9 Mechalibur Oct 31, 2009 9:17:06	Of course! It's the liberals who are gang-raping students, how could I not see this? (Edit: Gang-**** isn't censored?)
#10 Cpt_Micha Oct 31, 2009 9:20:43	Don't ask me what gets censored and for what reason.   *insert old timey roll eye smiley* And it's pretty hard to tack that one on liberalism. Seriously? Personally I blame just a lack of parenting, and various mental disorders. People aren't taught Ethics and true Goodness. They never have been. Take care of your own and that's it is what most people are taught. I also blame lawyers, who would have probably helped the soon to be convicts sue whoever assaulted them while raping the poor girl.   By the way Enraged; **** has nothing to do with how a girl acts in many cases. Hell **** has very little to do with the actual sex itself, and everything to do with control in most cases. Around ten years ago I remember hearing about how most people won't stop a ****, but they'll easily run into a burning building to save someone.
#11 Klirshon Oct 31, 2009 9:39:30	Perhaps that is why they say to shout fire instead of ****. It isn't just liberalism, it's the utter lack of common decency in society. The girls were just being immature. These thugs however are  heartless, selfish [Censored] that took an opportunity to force themselves upon a helpless young girl. The cowards that did nothing should be ashamed of themselves too, truely a lack of common decency.
#12 The_Silversword Oct 31, 2009 10:00:49	Around ten years ago I remember hearing about how most people won't stop a ****, but they'll easily run into a burning building to save someone. I guess thats how Im different. I would totally stop a ****, but i tend to stay away from burning buildings.
#13 pbn Oct 31, 2009 10:51:23	The school is enforcing its code of conduct.  That code of conduct is set by the community, in the form of the school board.  This is almost EXACTLY like some poeple wishing to tell others how to play their games.  Communities, and the standards therein, will differ.  There is no right or wrong way.  If it works for them, fine.  The error was with the girls thinking that they somehow had privacy on-line.
#14 cherubaddon Oct 31, 2009 12:03:47	I'll agree with the Captain here - this is none of the school's business (if it was a public school; if it was private, which I didn't gather from the article, I'm fine with it making its own rules). A state-run institution has no business sanctioning a bunch of teenagers for doing what teenagers do - if parenting fails, a public school would be about the last ones I'd want involved. @t_E: Is there a school rule preventing "whores" from attenting sports?
#15 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 12:06:10	There is nothing "whorish" about sexual experimentation in teenaged girls. It was a freakin' joke intended for limited viewing. I talked to my wife and she told me things like that often happened at sleep-overs when she was young. It was kids being kids. I personally like a girl that knows how to give head and the more practice they get the better. Is that sexist? I don't think so since I am also the kind of guy that returns the favor if you know what I mean.
#16 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 12:15:16	Suppose a lot of students see the two.. um... "ladies" on you tube. Now those students have a predetermined opinion of those... "girls"... who are acting very un-student like as well as un-lady like. Now, during school, those young... "ladies" will be subject to ridicule, bias, groping, advances, and who knows what else.... disrupting the schools ability to educate, and perhaps even causing confrontation in the school. This school is simply trying to prevent any harm, damage, disruption to the school and its processes. It is not the schools fault if parents can't control or teach their kids to be responsible, well mannered, and mature people. Looks like one big "what if". The article didn't say anything about any of that happening. The school seems to have acted proactively. I have a problem with kids having sex before their ready (as in not adults) but licking a lolly pop isn't sex. It's playing around. As far as I know, there weren't any boys in the pics, just two girls having a little fun. That's all it was. Two sixteen year old girls having fun.
#17 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 12:20:35	There is nothing "whorish" about sexual experimentation in teenaged girls. It was a freakin' joke intended for limited viewing. I talked to my wife and she told me things like that often happened at sleep-overs when she was young. It was kids being kids. I personally like a girl that knows how to give head and the more practice they get the better. Is that sexist? I don't think so since I am also the kind of guy that returns the favor if you know what I mean. Which may be fine for adults, but these kids are not adults. And just because some label it as "experimentation" does not make it right or acceptable. If I get caught smokin' weed, do you think the cops would just say, "why, he is simply experimenting. we will let him go and not even take his grass."   See, this is the big problem. Stop trying to malke excuses for bad behavior. I suppose you consider kids masturbating wrong too. Should we tie our children to their beds at night spread eagle so they can't touch themselves or would that be subjecting them to experimentation in bondage? Sex isn't dirty and young people experimenting with it isn't dirty either.
#18 EscherEnigma Oct 31, 2009 12:54:13	While I do think it is beyond the schools authority, if the parents can't do their job any better, then someone has to! So you've reversed your position on the governments right to do the parent's job when they prove themselves unable? On topic, whatever my opinions of the "joke" itself, I always find it odd when people get themselves in a tizzy about what people do when they're not around you.  While the application of the laws and policies seems to be questionably fair, I find myself uncomfortable with the underlying assumption, that the school can punish someone for something they do that's completely unrelated to the school.  But this isn't really anything new, just the most recent event in a long series of schools doing (what I consider) questionable things in the pursuit of preserving their previous "moral framework". As for why the girls were forced to apologize to the all male coaching staff... I suspect they were just apologizing to all the coaches, who happened to all be men.  Which leads to unfortunate implications/images, sure, but isn't really that special.
#19 pigknight Oct 31, 2009 13:02:33	In before lock. Where'd they get the pics anyway?
#20 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 13:04:28	The school is enforcing its code of conduct.  That code of conduct is set by the community, in the form of the school board.  This is almost EXACTLY like some poeple wishing to tell others how to play their games.  Communities, and the standards therein, will differ.  There is no right or wrong way.  If it works for them, fine.  The error was with the girls thinking that they somehow had privacy on-line.   Bingo.  The key is community standards.   It doesn't matter if we think it's vulgar or not.   Obscenity is set by the local community.
#21 Ragnar_Lodbrok Oct 31, 2009 13:23:18	This just doesn't seem right. The school is a government run establishment. Thus, this can be considered the government messing around with peoples' rights (as has been stated). Haven't 'bad' countries started with this? Also, this proves that a tribal society is better (in my opinion), and that even nations based against tyranny will slowly drift towards tyranny (in my opinion).
#22 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 13:27:15	If you want to be ruled by conservitive values, live in a conservitive community. The girl's parents did, and this is the result.  If you think you'd want your daughters treated the same way move to their community.   If you don't think the school was right, don't send your girls to that school.     It's silly to think that this sets a universal precedent.    It's just following the precedent of community standards.
#23 EscherEnigma Oct 31, 2009 13:29:28	The school is enforcing its code of conduct.  That code of conduct is set by the community, in the form of the school board.  This is almost EXACTLY like some poeple wishing to tell others how to play their games.  Communities, and the standards therein, will differ.  There is no right or wrong way.  If it works for them, fine.  The error was with the girls thinking that they somehow had privacy on-line.   Bingo.  The key is community standards.   It doesn't matter if we think it's vulgar or not.   Obscenity is set by the local community.   ... If the material had been claimed to be obscene, the girls would have been facing prosecution and expulsion, not being kept out of their school's athletic program.  Since they are not, I find it questionable whether anyone was trying to claim the pictures were "obscene".
#24 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 13:29:45	This just doesn't seem right. The school is a government run establishment. Thus, this can be considered the government messing around with peoples' rights (as has been stated). Haven't 'bad' countries started with this? Also, this proves that a tribal society is better (in my opinion), and that even nations based against tyranny will slowly drift towards tyranny (in my opinion).   'government' is far to broad a word.   The school is run by a local government.  Likely the city or the county.    It's better to think of it as being run by the local community.   Local communities have the right to set standards.
#25 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 13:33:24	The school is enforcing its code of conduct.  That code of conduct is set by the community, in the form of the school board.  This is almost EXACTLY like some poeple wishing to tell others how to play their games.  Communities, and the standards therein, will differ.  There is no right or wrong way.  If it works for them, fine.  The error was with the girls thinking that they somehow had privacy on-line.   Bingo.  The key is community standards.   It doesn't matter if we think it's vulgar or not.   Obscenity is set by the local community.   ... If the material had been claimed to be obscene, the girls would have been facing prosecution and expulsion, not being kept out of their school's athletic program.  Since they are not, I find it questionable whether anyone was trying to claim the pictures were "obscene".   I'm well aware we're not talking about a case of obscenity.   We're just talking about a case of vulgarity.     Both are defined by the local community.     If the girl's families don't like it, they can move to a different community.
#26 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 13:39:35	The behavior was base, provocative, and irresponsible, and painted the young girls in a less than flattering light. If you don't mind your daughters acting this way and think it is appropriate, move to a liberal neighborhood.   or if you think the school taking action is inappropriate.   They could have left it to the parents.
#27 EscherEnigma Oct 31, 2009 13:46:02	Very nice rhetoric going off on random tangents, Hater, but  I'm still left with the curious situation where you fully support the government stepping in to play moral guardian, but with you downright horror-stricken when they step in to protect the long-term health of a child. Now, that's not entirely indefensible (I can think of a few off the top of my head) but I find it curious, none the less.  But hey, I suppose we can chalk that up to me being a dirty liberal [british slang for cigarette]-y agnostic of the younger generation, no?
#28 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 13:47:46	The girls and their parents are well within their rights to sue on the basis that what the girls did wasn't bad enough to warrant expulsion from school activities and a forced apology for a joke. Also you had to draw a pretty long line to equivacate the licking of a lollipop to "asking to be raped." You may fear the indoctrination of children into liberal mindsets but I fear the indoctrination that says sex is dirty and so children should have no exposure to it whatsoever even when they become natuarally curious about the subject. Two girls licking a lollipop (even if it is shaped like a penis) isn't vulgar. Two teenage girls being ostracized from school because parents or other kids were raised with puritanical views of sex is the real vulgarity.
#29 Fox_Reeveheart Oct 31, 2009 13:51:47	They could have left it to the parents. Maybe the best solution, but the parents may have done nothing. What if the school did nothing, and the girls ended up being "attacked" or groped or bullied? Because the video led some to believe the girls were "lose" or "easy" or "whores"? Then the school would be liable. Ehhhh I don't like that arguement too much.  If anything that shows that we need to change how GUYS think (and i'm a guy saying this).  I don't want to have to say "don't ever act provocative, because guys might **** you thinking you're easy".  Girls should be able to act a bit playfully sexy if they want, but then again how old were they?  I thought I read they were 16?  Thats plenty old enough to do what they did in that video if they want.  As long as they aren't posing nude or something or committing and actual sex act for REAL there shouldn't be a problem.  But from what I understand these girls are in high school.  We have a double standard when it comes to how girls act and boys act.  We want to really really shelter women too much but when a guy gets aggressive (like man-****-ish)  and getting with a lot of girls, he's seen as a rolemodel. As cenk uygur would say "LET'EM GO!"  The school had zero business and frankly lately I been seeing too many stories of kids getting punished by school for something that school had NOTHING to do with. I'm pretty sure fox news was totally on the school's side if they ever got a hold of that story :O  What does that tell you?
#30 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 13:54:04	Two girls licking a lollipop (even if it is shaped like a penis) isn't vulgar. Two teenage girls being ostracized from school because parents or other kids were raised with puritanical views of sex is the real vulgarity. That is according to YOUR definition of vulgar.  That's likely your communities definition of vulgar. With the exception of the hated, that's even this community's definition of vulgarity.   It's up to a local jury to determine girl's community's definition of vulgarity.
#31 EscherEnigma Oct 31, 2009 13:55:53	The school is enforcing its code of conduct.  That code of conduct is set by the community, in the form of the school board.  This is almost EXACTLY like some poeple wishing to tell others how to play their games.  Communities, and the standards therein, will differ.  There is no right or wrong way.  If it works for them, fine.  The error was with the girls thinking that they somehow had privacy on-line.   Bingo.  The key is community standards.   It doesn't matter if we think it's vulgar or not.   Obscenity is set by the local community.   ... If the material had been claimed to be obscene, the girls would have been facing prosecution and expulsion, not being kept out of their school's athletic program.  Since they are not, I find it questionable whether anyone was trying to claim the pictures were "obscene".   I'm well aware we're not talking about a case of obscenity.   We're just talking about a case of vulgarity.     Both are defined by the local community.     If the girl's families don't like it, they can move to a different community. Actually, we aren't talking about vulgarity.  We're talking about the decision of the administration that the girl's actions would be disruptive at school and to punish them for that perceived potential disruption. The vulgarity/obscenity isn't an issue.
#32 Fox_Reeveheart Oct 31, 2009 13:59:26	Two girls licking a lollipop (even if it is shaped like a penis) isn't vulgar. Two teenage girls being ostracized from school because parents or other kids were raised with puritanical views of sex is the real vulgarity. Yes it is! ESPECIALLY if it is shaped like a penis! These are sophmore girls, not 20 something wanna-be porn stars!   So you would be fine with your 16-17 year old daughters posting themselves on the internet, provocatively licking a penis-shaped lolli pop? And you think that's ok? Really? WOW... No I wouldn't be ok with it, you're right.  It's still vulgar.  But guess what, thats MY business, not the school's.  I'll deal out punishment, NOT the school.  They have zero business with my family affairs.
#33 EscherEnigma Oct 31, 2009 14:01:43	Quite likely, but that's still not at issue here. The American Civil Liberties Union, in a federal lawsuit filed last week on behalf of the girls, argues that Churubusco High School violated the girls' free speech rights when it banned them from extracurricular activities for a joke that didn't involve the school. They say the district humiliated the girls by requiring them to apologize to an all-male coaches' board and undergo counseling. The ACLU is arguing that it violated their free speech rights and humiliated them.  It never questions the vulgarity/obscenity of the photos, just the rights of the school to punish them for something it wasn't involved with. And so, the question is not whether or not the pictures were vulgar/obscene, but whether the school had the right, or should have the right, to punish them as it did.
#34 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 14:02:52	It boils down to people with backward beliefs trying to legislate morality and that is just wrong.
#35 Fox_Reeveheart Oct 31, 2009 14:07:16	If it happened during a school event (even a field trip in which you are just with school officials) or on school grounds whether or not school was in session, then the school absolutely has a say in what happens.  But this was during summer vacation when school is completely over with (I think they still have senior-old-folk swimming exercise classes, at least they did at my school I think). I don't want the school acting as some sort of police force ALL YEAR round.  I would hate the idea back when I was in high school and I hate it now being 24 years old. Just because it might be disruptive?  Who cares.  Now if the person was maybe a danger to other students.  Say a student got sent to juvy for a few months over spring break for stabbing someone (i'm not sure how that all works), then sure the school can say "We think he/she is a danger to other students and don't want them here."
#36 Tony_Vargas Oct 31, 2009 14:21:25	I really shouldn't let myself get sucked (npi) into this, but how is this a dangerous precedent?  Surely public schools have been suspending kids for inapropriate behavior for as long as there have been public schools.
#37 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 14:28:38	Two girls licking a lollipop (even if it is shaped like a penis) isn't vulgar. Two teenage girls being ostracized from school because parents or other kids were raised with puritanical views of sex is the real vulgarity. Yes it is! ESPECIALLY if it is shaped like a penis! These are sophmore girls, not 20 something wanna-be porn stars!   So you would be fine with your 16-17 year old daughters posting themselves on the internet, provocatively licking a penis-shaped lolli pop? And you think that's ok? Really? WOW... What does the shape matter? A popsicle looks like a penis too. I guess I shouldn't let her have one of those either. Oh, and lets throw out ice cream cones too. It was a picture of a girl eating candy. That's all. I would explain to my daughter that the internet is dangerous because there are perverts in the world that think little girls are sexy no matter what they do. My little girl will grow up with the belief that sex isn't dirty but can sometimes be dangerous. That's how I would raise her. I am of the belief that if a guy thinks "Oh I want her so much" because she's eating candy at the age of sixteen then that is a problem with the man. Not her. As grown people we are supposed to have control over our urges and it is unacceptable for an adult to have sex with a minor no matter what she was doing on the internet as joke. My daughter would know that and know that I wouldn't blame her at all for the actions of an adult. Period.
#38 generalhenry Oct 31, 2009 14:35:16	I really shouldn't let myself get sucked (npi) into this, but how is this a dangerous precedent?  Surely public schools have been suspending kids for inapropriate behavior for as long as there have been public schools.   If the girls where simply suspended for vulgarity there would be no case or at least no national attention.   The case is about the nature of the punishment.
#39 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 14:46:40	My point is that no matter what the girls do it can be seen as sexual for people looking for it. If it were a popsicle, it would be just as repulsive to you. I would argue that licking a popsicle is even more provacative because it mimics the size better. Have you ever seen the lollipop in question? I have. They're about an inch long and looks more like a sucker than it does a penis. The picture was meant as a joke and meant to be seen by a select number of friends but one of those friends, probably from a family that thinks all sex is filthy and no one should have it (even married couples if they aren't looking to have kids) decided to spread the pic around with the intention of causing the girls problems. And what do you know, it worked.
#40 Idolis Oct 31, 2009 15:00:38	The picture isn't the problem. It is where your and the theoretical kid's mind went upon hearing about it and seeing it. Suddenly, it isn't a joke. Your and several other posters opinions make me worry more about the kind of people you are and not what kind of people these girls might be.
#41 Mistform_Mage Oct 31, 2009 15:55:52	there are girls at my highschool who do lick genuine penises and they aren't looked down on. Really? What do you guys do? Stand on your heads?! Ha. My point still stands.
#42 pigknight Oct 31, 2009 15:58:56	In order to see how vulgar this is I think we should see the pictures.
#43 mynameisjake Oct 31, 2009 19:25:25	The_Hated's, I mean, The_Enraged's point in attempting to link the first news story with the gang **** is pretty clear. In his mind, women who behave provocatively are encouraging ****. It was only a generation ago in the U.S. that how a woman dressed and her sexual history could be introduced at trial by the accused to disprove a charge of ****. Wear a short skirt? Strike one. Have sex with your boyfriend? Strike two. No witnesses? Strike Three. Case dismissed. Rapist goes free. When The_Hated, oops, sorry again. When The_Enraged disparages "modern liberalism," he is also condemning the bellief that women have the right to dress, speak, and behave as they please, without those things being used to justify sexual assault.
#44 mynameisjake Oct 31, 2009 19:40:59	Never said it justified it, only that it encourages it. What "encourages" sexual assault is neanderthals trying to justify **** by pointing a finger at the victim instead of the perpretrator. Or pointing the finger at "liberals" for that matter. Anything to draw attention away from the fact that the one thing that links ultra conservatives in this country to ultra conservatives around the world is their fervent belief that women are a problem that must be controlled, covered from head to toe, and blamed for the behavior of men.
#45 Klirshon Oct 31, 2009 20:05:47	Great... all this talk about dressing like a **** made me think of Dave Chappelle in Killin' Them Softly. "'Just because I'm dress this way, does not make me a ****.' Which is true, gentlemen that is true just because they dress a certain way, doesn't mean they are a certain way don't ever forget it. But ladies you must understand that is [Censored] confusing."
#46 WolfLordBran Oct 31, 2009 20:10:50	Great... all this talk about dressing like a **** made me think of Dave Chappelle in Killin' Them Softly. "'Just because I'm dress this way, does not make me a ****.' Which is true, gentlemen that is true just because they dress a certain way, doesn't mean they are a certain way don't ever forget it. But ladies you must understand that is [Censored] confusing." Thank Yeenoghu for Chappelle! In his infinite wisdom, he has delivered unto us sanity! *sacrifices a goat to the Almighty Chappelle* I like this idea. Just because I use an avatar of a gnoll, doesn't mean I'm a gnoll. All it means is I like gnolls and I decided I'd pick one for my avatar. I shouldn't be hunted down for XP by a group of LG paladins just because I chose something to represent me that happens to be CE. Just because some girl wears cleavage-showing shirt, doesn't mean she's a ****. All it means is she picked that shirt from her dresser/closest and decided to wear it. She shouldn't be ridiculed and labelled as a **** because of it.
#47 Klirshon Oct 31, 2009 20:48:02	As for the topic at hand, really I feel it should be the parents' responsibility to discipline their daughters and not the school. This was something that did not involve school or school related activities. Sure what they did was boneheaded and immature (not so much the licking of the lollipop but posting it on MySpace for it to be circulated amongst "friends"), yet that should be the parents' job to punish the girls as they see fit. If the parents don't, so be it. Maybe the girls would grow up to realize that what they did was stupid, or maybe things go for the worse. Whose to say that the girls already knew what they did was dumb but thought it would be funny amongst "friends" of theirs. The thing is jokes can be offensive to people. Learning when and where to tell/show such jokes is the key.
#48 EscherEnigma Oct 31, 2009 21:12:38	I'm confused.  Why does it matter if someone "looks like a ****"?  Fact is, even if they are a ****, I don't see how that's an excuse for ungentlemanly behavior on my part.
#49 Klirshon Oct 31, 2009 21:16:28	Some men are pigs and go nuts when they see a sexually provocative woman nearby. Then again, those ones typically go nuts on any woman they see...
#50 bone_naga Oct 31, 2009 21:35:32	Ok, seeing how I have a daughter, I'm going to weigh in on this one. First off, the school has no business punishing these girls for this. Unless it occurred on school property, during school hours (like if they skipped class to do this), or they were viewing/distributing the pictures on school, then the school should have no say in it. Does that mean nothing should happen? No, if the school discovers something like this, they should immediately inform the parents. However, everything after that should be in the parents' hands, not the school's. Second, it is not always as simple as not having your kid go to that school. We have a public school system. Not everyone can afford private schools. Not everyone can afford to quit their job and move because they don't agree with the majority of the community that they reside in (and in the case of military personnel and their families, there really isn't a choice, you're stuck until the end of your contract). There are some cases where I would say yes those are the school's rules and if you don't like them tough ****. This isn't one of them. The school should not be trying to determine what its students can and cannot do on their free time. Finally, I am in no way condoning those girls' activities. Personally, I am appalled at the way many parents allow their children to dress/act. However, this is not an issue for the school, it is an issue for the parents. I would like to think that I am raising my daughter better than that, and if I saw pictures like that, well she would not be a happy camper, that's for damn sure, but that is for me to deal with, not the school. EDIT: And on the whole **** issue, I disagree that any women, no matter how dressed, is asking to be raped. I completely agree that if you want to be treated like a respected member of the community, then maybe you shouldn't have your ass cheeks hanging out of your miniskirt. But that is a far cry from saying that said miniskirt gives men the right to do whatever they want to you.
#51 pbn Oct 31, 2009 21:37:31	I'll reiterate, now that everyone has gotten totally astray.  School policy is set by the school board.  This is NOT set by government (federal, state OR local).  The school board is populated by community members (often with a SINGLE local government official acting in an advisory role).  The school policy AND the particular punishment that was alloted to these two individuals (which, from what I read - DIFFERS than that specified in the school policy - policy calls for 1 year expulsion from EC activities, it seems to me they got a "plea bargain" for a quarter expulsion, in return for an apology for the coaches that run those activities) are both subject to suit.  However, again, this is NOT a case of "government" enforcing its rules on anyone (although, many of the people here seem eager to enforce their own views upon the community, or in lieu of such, have government, in the form of the court system, to do just that).  For the record, the reason why this WILL most likely go to SCOTUS, if pursued, is because if the school policy is overturned - it will effect EVERY school in the US.  THAT, in my opinion, is the truly dangerous precedent.  Let's turn over full control of our community to the Fed.  Sorry, as a libertarian, I need to ask - why the socialist attitude?
#52 pbn Oct 31, 2009 21:40:11	Oh - and for all of those that say the school has no right - when was the last time you attended a meeting of your local school board? edited to add: After all, you could insure that your school doesn't produce such a policy, if it matters so much to you.
#53 gvematthew Oct 31, 2009 21:43:33	Acting/dressing like a **** will get you treated like a ****... especially if people don't really know you. Certainly even a liberal can see that? I believe you are missing a very big point here... Even a '****' does not deserve to be sexually assaulted or raped.
#54 pbn Oct 31, 2009 21:55:02	PBN... I'm really starting to like you... I didn't think you were allowed to.  After all, I'm on the other side of the aisle (sometimes), remember?