Student in Court Over Suspension For YouTube Video

kozmonaut writes "A model student is in court this week over 40-day suspension for posting a mocking in-class video to YouTube of 'Mongzilla', a high school english teacher. The student is arguing he had First Amendment rights to publish the video, though it was filmed without permission in the classroom. 'Kent School District lawyer Charles Lind says the suspension had nothing to do with online criticism of the teacher. Rather, it was punishment for the disruption created by the students secreting a video camera into Joyce Mong's class and dancing in a mocking, disrespectful manner while her back was turned. "It's quite clear that the district is talking about conduct in the classroom and not the videotape," Lind said.'"

The teacher may have something to say.

[iknownuttin]

The teacher was in frame and the video was published on the internet. Where's the model's release? This isn't a news item so it's arguably warranted.

Try getting a man on the street photo published sometime, you'll see.

The Video in question

[baboonlogic]

Mongzilla [youtube.com] is still up on Youtube.

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[cyphercell]

Funny, I was never expelled for 40 days and I remember tossing my text book out the window in complete defiance. This kid posts a video of other kids dancing behind the teachers back, note he didn't record the video, and he gets expelled for 40 days. That's 10% of the school year, for postiing a video on the Internet outside of class.

Artistic?

[benhocking]

You obviously haven't watched the video. It shows him insulting the teacher in class by waving his hand at her as if she smells, holding up fingers behind her head, doing a lewd dance behind her - all in a row. It's a self-incriminating video, giving the school the evidence it needs to suspend him. That said, a 40-day suspension is obviously over the top.

Re:Perfectly reasonable

[untaken_name]

First this isn't an issue of privacy, it's an issue of your personal rights to not have people take pictures and videos of you and do whatever they want with them.

Uhm. How is your 'personal right to not having your picture taken' NOT an issue of privacy? Oh, right, because then you'd have to admit that in PUBLIC, you don't have a right to PRIVACY. You have a right to privacy in private, not public. That's the very reason that we have two words: private, and public. I know it's confusing, but when you are not in private, you are in public. Do you think that everyone who makes a travel video with a camcorder has to get a release from everyone who is shown in it? What a hellish world your world would be.

Say if I were to take a picture of some random person walking down the street, and then put the caption 'pedophile?' on it then just stuck it on the internet for free. If they found out about that they'd want to break every tooth in my head.

Depends on if it were true or not, and if you could prove it. See, instead of breaking your teeth, they'd just sue you for libel. If you couldn't prove they were a pedophile, they'd win. They're not suing you in this case for taking their picture, because they can't. They're suing you for lying about them.

Most people don't know about the protocol for this sort of thing.

Including, apparently, you.

Generally it's only professional photographers and the media pay attention to this stuff because they can easily be sued for showing somebody on TV.

Funny, I doubt that newscasters get releases from all the people walking by in the background of their reports, yet they aren't sued into oblivion. I wonder why? Could it be because those background people are in PUBLIC and have no expectation of PRIVACY? Maybe.

Generally because nobody knows about it.

Damn, already made this joke in this post. Oh well.

Re:Artistic?

[flosofl]

Unless there's a definition of "mores" I'm unfamiliar with.

This definition [merriam-webster.com] is the only one I'm aware of for "mores". Is there another?