Many teachers are now expressing their frustration online, and Natalie Munroe's blog may lead to her being fired. Image: Flickr / wlscience / CC-BY-SA

Everyone gets a little frustrated at work or other people now and again. On Natalie Munroe’s blog, the high school teacher ranted about her students and job. When that blog was brought to administrator’s attention, Natalie Munroe was suspended, and she may be fired.

The contents of the Natalie Munroe blog

Natalie Munroe is a high school English teacher in Feasterville, Pa. The 30-year-old started a blog in 2009 in about her life and thoughts on being a teacher. In the 80 posts on her blog, she talked about her students about 25 percent of the time. Though the blog has since been taken down, it is available as a cached page. She says things such as: “Kids! They are disobedient, disrespectful oafs. Noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS.” as well as coming up with a list of “alternate” report card barbs such as:

I hear the trash company is hiring.

I called out sick a couple of days just to avoid your son.

Rude, beligerent [sic], argumentative f**k.

Just as bad as his sibling. Don’t you know how to raise kids?

Nowhere near as good as her sibling. Are you sure they’re related?”

Shy isn’t cute in 11th grade; it’s annoying. Must learn to advocate for himself instead of having Mommy do it.

Does the Natalie Munroe blog count as free speech?

When Natalie Munroe’s students found their teacher’s blog, they brought it to the attention of administrators. The administrators suspended Munroe, and are considering firing her. Munroe has hired a lawyer, who says that they will be fighting these actions on the basis that a personal blog counts as free speech. Munroe was careful to not provide any identifying information about her school or her students. Administrators may be able to fire Munroe based not the fact that she admits to blogging on school computers and on school time.

Other blogging teachers

Natalie Munroe is not the only teacher who blogs about her frustration with the educational system. “Fed Up With Lunch” is a blog kept carefully non-identifying that expresses the anger at the school lunch program. Teachers walk a fine line between expressing their frustration about the system they work in and keeping their jobs.

Sources

AOL News
Yahoo News

Student in Texas is fined for swearing. CC by Horia Varlan/Flickr

In one Texas classroom, there is a new punishment for swearing. A student who let loose one swear word has been charged $637. The 17-year old senior was technically ticketed for disorderly conduct and abusive language.

Swearing student has to pay $637 in a fine

On Oct. 6, 2010, Victoria Mullins swore in front of one of her teacher at North Mesquite High School in the Dallas area. The teacher reported to the school resource officer that Mullins had shouted “You trying to start !@*#?” in the classroom. A ticket was issued by the officer. The ticket cited the misdemeanor offense of abusive language and disorderly conduct. The original ticket was for $340, and Mullins pleaded not guilty. Then, the 17-year-old didn’t show up to the court hearing. That added a collection fee, no-show penalty and arrest warrant fee onto her original ticket. The total adds up to $637, payable to the state of Texas.

Fine means working – really

Victoria Mullins is no longer fighting the misdemeanor ticket. She is going to pay off her debt to the state working as a restaurant server instead. Tipped employees in Texas don’t make very much. In fact, $2.13 is what she will be getting as her base salary. Taxes then have to be taken out of her wages. She may be getting as little as $1.82 an hour if she doesn’t bring in tips. In order to pay off her swearing, Mullins might have to work 350 hours. As to the reason she swore in class, Mullins said “a kid who is really obnoxious, starts stuff with everyone and always gets on my nerves was bothering me.” She also said she is sorry about disturbing the class.

The First Amendment

Mullins has been told that she could have had a case if she’d showed up for court and brought up the First Amendment. Some say she was exercising free speech. However, two mitigating factors mean that a First Amendment argument most likely would not fly. A classroom isn’t considered public space, which is the first problem. Furthermore, disruptive speech isn’t protected.

Article cited

CBS News

The Supreme Court says animal cruelty is illegal, but now animal cruelty videos are protected by the First Amendment. (Photo: Creative Commons)

In an 8-to-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court has struck down a 1999 animal cruelty law, paving the way for animal cruelty videos to fall under the blanket of First Amendment freedom of speech protection, which includes everything from criticizing the government to extolling the utility of payday loans. Reuters reports that the previous law was intended to prevent the sale of “crush” videos, a disturbing fetish niche depicting the torture and killing of small animals beneath a woman’s high-heeled shoe. Now the Supreme Court claims that the 1999 law was broad enough to make such things as bullfighting and the sale of some documentaries illegal. Concerned that this could be viewed as government censorship, the Supreme Court struck down the law as invalid under the First Amendment.

Animal cruelty and animal cruelty videos: One’s illegal, the other isn’t?

Justice John Roberts, whose 20-page opinion expressed the view of the majority regarding animal cruelty vs. animal cruelty videos, wrote that “there is no evidence of a similar tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty.” Thus, Robert Stevens of Virginia, who made and sold videos of pitbulls, hogs and wild boards fighting each other may very well have his 2005 conviction in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769 (still under appeal) overturned. While Justice Department lawyers argued that animal cruelty videos should be treated like child pornography (not protected by Free Speech), the Supreme Court didn’t agree. The lone dissenting voice – Justice Samuel Alito – said “the law could be validly applied to at least two broad categories of expression: crush videos and dog-fighting videos,” according to Reuters.

Advocacy inciting lawless action

Here is the U.S. Supreme Court’s take on free speech:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government may not prohibit speech that advocates illegal or subversive activity unless ‘such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’ (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]).”

Notice that advocacy inciting lawless action is not permitted. The common Brandenburg test cases the Supreme Court cites involve situations where politically charged or subversive speech is held to be “mere hyperbole” since they do not connote a threat “intended to be acted on at a definite point in time.” It could be argued that animal cruelty videos involve a filmmaker who is complicit in a clearly illegal act. If the real act of animal cruelty in and of itself is illegal, then why should filming such acts with the intent of taking credit card orders and deliver not fall outside free speech protection? It’s no longer a matter of intent once the act has been filmed; the illegal act has occurred. Furthermore, developing an audience for such films might be considered inciting further lawless action, as the commercial success of such animal cruelty videos could prompt parties to film future videos.

What about obscenity?

This is an area the Supreme Court has had trouble defining clearly over the years. Justice Potter Stewart once said “I know it when I see it,” which didn’t help matters. But there is the Supreme Court’s three-part test to determine obscenity:

The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that its predominant theme appeals to a “prurient” interest

It depicts or describes sexual activity in a “patently offensive” manner

It lacks, when taken as a whole, serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (refers to Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 [1973]).

How do crush videos and animal cruelty videos stack up? The average person likely would not find that either incites sexual desire, but would they appeal to another’s prurient interest? Absolutely; it’s why they’re made in the first place. Regarding the second point, the average person likely finds both types of videos offensive. Finally, regarding a lack of value, neither type of video is literary or overtly political. However, some people could conceivably attribute artistic or scientific value to crush videos or animal cruelty videos. These are people you don’t want to know.

Related Video:

Paul Shirley: Haiti hater? (Photo: themightymjd.com)

One of the great things about living in America is that we have the right to free speech. Everyone – including athletes – can blog about their political opinions without having to fear a masked hit squad coming to their door in the middle of the night. Such is one of the hallmarks of living in a free country. However, free speech can backfire on the speaker, particularly in the popular media. That’s the bed former NBA benchwarmer and freelance music critic Paul Shirley has made. His Haiti opinion has gotten him kicked off ESPN and will no doubt color how the public perceives him for some time.

Where’s the human compassion for the 200,000-plus departed?

In their blog coverage of the Paul Shirley Haiti comments, The Nation suggests that as a cultural critic, Paul Shirley could use some time behind the woodshed. On his blog, Shirley writes, “I haven’t donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don’t give money to homeless men on the street… If I use history as my guide, I don’t think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.” So he’s saying a cash advance of relief would be… a bad thing.

As if that wasn’t enough, Paul Shirley calls Haiti out some more

“Dear Haitians – First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded. As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?

Sincerely, The Rest of the World”

The Nation has a field day with this

They point out that not only is Shirley’s knowledge of Haitian history lacking – a history that included a U.S. occupation that “left behind a 98 percent illiteracy rate, a broken economy, and a U.S.-trained military schooled in the art of repression.” The Nation challenges Paul Shirley to work in a sweatshop, to “try to live on a dollar a day or care for someone H.I.V. positive who has no access to medicine.” Then Nation writer Dave Zirin caps it with an epic blast:

Dear Paul Shirley, I only wish your father had taken your own advice and worn a condom. Go to hell.

Sincerely, Dave Zirin

Give money or give time?

It’s a difficult question, particularly for those among us who cannot travel to Haiti to help the relief effort. Most will settle for a cash advance to help the cause. Yet others like Paul Shirley are skeptical that monetary aid will be well spent. One reader on the SBNation blog had this to say. Perhaps Paul Shirely should pay attention:

“It is unfortunate that every relief dollar can’t go directly into saving Haitian lives, but if you indeed have thought this through then I encourage you to leverage your thoughts into action rather than justify your inaction – maybe think about how you could actually help Haiti in the long term once the celebrity concerts are done and the short-term giving has dried up. Or get in touch with an NPO down there to see what they are doing and how you could help besides giving money. There are so many better responses than just to say ‘I won’t be giving to this cause.’”

Are Paul Shirley’s Haiti comments a warning, a stumble, or both?

Related Video: