"Constitutional rights" and the First Amendment doesn't extend a blue-sky license to say or post whatever you like. For example, it is still illegal to engage in libel, slander, to make false claims about products, to misrepresent yourself as a law enforcement officer or many other things, to threaten to kill someone or harm people or property, et cetera. |
There's EVERYTHING wrong with Common Core. Most of us are working hard behind the scenes to dismantle it. |
Exactly. Free speech certainly extends to this. Next up is tracking us all down to silence us against speaking out about Pearson. |
Oh, please, drama queen. There's already an entire 100+ page thread where posters repeatedly tried getting specifics of what's "wrong" with Common Core out of you but all anyone could ever get was 2 or 3 examples of standards that you thought were "poorly worded" despite other several posters being able to explain what they meant. |
Err, what? Free speech extends to posting a question AFTER the test? Or if you throw the word contract in there, then the student can do anything, constitutionally-speaking? |
Shame on you. God, I hate right-wingers. |
Left wing hates it too. It will be a goner next year! I will dance on Common Core's grave. |
Are you a 1L? Students may have reduced 1st Amendment rights in some cases, but they certainly retain 1st Amendment rights. Especially for speech outside of school. |
Your point is? All 1st Amendment rights have exceptions - that's not the question here. I'm not saying student should be allowed to post test questions to allow other's to cheat. |
Please pay attention. Nobody is saying that students have the right to publish actual test questions to help other students cheat. The point about the contract is separate. You can contractually agree with a private party no say or refrain from saying specific things; this has nothing to do (usually) with the First Amendment. But it would be incredibly disturbing to me if Pearson was trying to gag students from, say, criticizing the PARCC via a confidentiality agreement. |
We're arguing about 2 different things here: can a student tweet a picture of a test question (no, she shouldn't have done that), and can Pearson monitor tweets and social media, looking for this? |
Student did not post the test question. But almight Pearson and its PARCC is not to be questioned, apparently. I love how they are running scared on their TRACX program. Weasels! |
My DC in a MCPS elementary school took PARCC this week. I asked her if anyone at school told her not to talk about the test. She said no. Don't know how Pearson or MCPS would enforce no talking about the test with the elementary school kids. |
No, this is predominately a Tea Party cause. No self-respecting liberal objects to it. |
On the latter, the answer is yes, of course they can. Last I checked social media and particularly Twitter were the very definition of public domain. Why do you think people should be able to post things to social media without consequence? That's an extremely peculiar way of thinking. And, schools monitor the social media behavior of their students all the time. See this for a recent example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/01/29/arlington-schools-officials-urge-students-to-keepitclean-on-twitter/ Why do you think it's improper for Pearson to monitor social media? That doesn't make any sense. |