First of all, let me start out by saying that the fact that this is a Catholic school is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The issue that is important here is that it is a private
school. The fact that it is also a Catholic school has no bearing whatsoever on the contract the parents agreed to. Non-Catholic private schools do the same sort of thing all the time.
Is it too much to ask for people to not make sweeping, derogatory generalizations about religions or people you don't agree with? We get it. You don't like Catholics or their "ignorant" ways. Once again, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. So stating it repeatedly doesn't help anyone's argument in this particular case, nor is it proof of anything.
Also, a point no seems to have made yet is that if the students need to write that badly in a journal, they could always use pen and paper. You know, pen and paper, the method that has been used for thousands of years? If they want their friends to read it, they could always let them borrow it. Children have survived for thousands of years without blogs or Internet chat. I think these students should be able to survive for four years of their life without being allowed to write in a blog. If being able to write in a blog is that important to a child, then they may want to explore alternate, safer forms of journal writing, as I described above.
In response to the question of "where does it end," my answer is quite simple: with blogs and other things that are considered unsafe for children online. There has been no evidence whatsoever that this school intends on taking it any further. Until that happens and until we hear of students and parents complaining, there is no danger here. As I said before, children have survived for thousands of years without blogs so they should be able to survive four years without one.
Additionally, there is a major difference between disallowing blogging and disallowing a trip to Disney World. Cyberspace and the physical world have different laws and rules. What may seem like a vast violation of rights in the physical world actually may not be on the Internet. Also, one would assume that if a child were to go to Disney World, they would be with either their parents or their legal guardian(s). In other words, there would be someone there to help protect them potential predators. Blogs and the Internet are a different matter since the threats aren't as obvious or as noticeable (see my example below).
Another point I should make is that regardless of where parents send their children to school, they are always
allowing the school to tell their children what to do. Yes, schools can tell children what is and isn't allowed on school property. However, schools do something else that is even more important than simply telling children what they can and cannot do: they indoctrinate children. Regardless of the type of school children are sent to, they are indoctrinated with a core set of beliefs and values. So simply by letting their children go to school, parents are letting schools tell their children what they can and cannot do. A school telling a child that blogging can be irresponsible is no different than telling them that having unprotected sex is irresponsible. Both can have severe and permenant consequences (see below for an example of why blogging can be dangerous). With the Internet becoming a bigger and bigger part of people's lives every day, children need to be taught the dangers of the Internet, as well as the Internet's power.
Cheile, on Nov 3 2005, 11:51 PM, said:
by lying to them, no doubt. or twisting their words, as corrupt private schools like this are KNOWN TO DO.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions that are based purely on personal opinion and very little information. Have you visited this school, interviewed the children going there, talked with the administration, talked with the parents? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in that article that suggests that this particular private school is corrupt. Disagreeing with a rule that a school makes doesn't automatically mean that the school is corrupt. There were plenty of rules at my high school that I disagreed with but I didn't jump to the conclusion that the administration was corrupt. In fact, they were the exact opposite.
(and before you start claiming i have no proof, i think Nonny's and my experiences are proof enough. adults rarely see the problem until the damage has been done but that's off topic. just a side point relating to the original.)
That isn't proof. Those are personal experiences with two private schools. The experiences the two of you had are unfortunate but they don't automatically imply that all
private Catholic schools are like that. So unless you went to this particlar private school, you have no proof.
the original article made a mention of a VAGUE rule about "responsible Internet usage". to any NORMAL parent, that means keeping the kid out of porn sites (obviously!) and maybe out of chat rooms. and not letting them have free rein (i.e. time limits, machine not in their room) only NOW is the diocese claiming that rule is about blogs with some lame excuse about cyberpredators.
Define "normal parent." For you, normal means staying away from porn sites and possibly staying out of chat rooms. Other parents may find blogging to be equally irresponsible and dangerous, and I would agree with them.
Some parents may find blogging to be irresponsible and dangerous because many blogs are open for everyone
in the world to see. That is extremely dangerous. All it would take is the name of the school and an IP address. Then all you would need to do is perform a trace route on the IP address, which would pinpoint the region of the planet the student is from. Once you know the region, finding the school would be trivial. All of this could be done in a matter of minutes. So the "excuse" about cyber-predators is hardly "lame." It is a very real threat and concern.
The point you seem to be missing is that the parents agreed to let the school determine what is and isn't safe for their children to do online. If the school feels that blogging could be dangerous for their students, then that is within their right, and I honestly think that that sort of reasoning is justified. They are the ones defining "responsible Internet usage." The parents have put their trust in the school. Otherwise, why bother signing such an agreement and why bother spending thousands of dollars for their children?
maybe if the diocese did their research they'd realize that perverts don't waste their time keeping journals.
The issue isn't that the "perverts" keep journals. The issue is that they can easily read
them and track children online and may even be able to find them in real life. That
is the danger. See above for why this is dangerous.
Edited by NeuralClone, 04 November 2005 - 03:06 AM.