School board suspends teacher for appearing with rifle on Facebook page

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9781795&nav=menu1362_2


Teacher placed on leave for questionable Facebook posting

Posted: Feb 3, 2009 04:36 PM EST



BEAVER DAM (WKOW) -- Beaver Dam school officials placed a middle school teacher on administrative leave after discovering a photograph of the teacher with a gun on the teacher's Facebook page....

I guess only public employees further up the food chain are allowed to do this

See the photo at #5, and subsequent discussion. Musn't encourage the proles to think
they're allowed to act like the overclass...

[alexandria]

1. At least it was not a student with her on facebook..

They could argue he was a consenting adult..
A gun in the pic, hang here now and then have the trial....

[guntard]

17. At least one college student in California has gone to jail for having gun pics on MySpace

Some details here.

Resolution of the case is that almost all charges were dropped after he spent a few weeks in jail and about half a year defending himself.

Note the half million dollar bail. Rapists and axe murderers don't get half that bail requirement. Corwin's mother had to sign over her house to get him out of jail.

These gun grabbing idiots sure have their legal priorities screwed up.

[iverglas]

34. now, just exactly how accurate is that claim?

According to your stuff:

he is to be charged with nine counts of manufacture, possession or sale of assault weapons (CPC 12280), plus two counts of possession of deadly weapons (a shuriken and sap gloves, CPC 12020), as well as a single count of receiving stolen property. ... According to news reports linked to below, the warrant for Corwin’s arrest alluded to the MySpace page, and no other justifications of the warrant have yet been revealed. We haven’t actually seen the arrest warrant, but if the sole basis for its issue was the MySpace page, this has disturbing implications for the right to free expression by all Americans, not just gun nuts.

Makes my head hurt, that does.

If I posted pictures of myself on the internet playing with the Crown jewels, and was subsequently charged with possession of stolen property in connection with the theft of the Crown jewels, I'll bet you'd say I was arrested for having jewel pics on MySpace, and my freedom of expression had been infringed.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

2. see the photo below

In the photo, teacher Betsy Ramsdale is training a rifle at the camera.

... Middle school parent Jennifer Buzzell said the teacher's decision to post the photograph was concerning.

"I don't think it's appropriate," Buzzell told 27 News. "I'm not sure why this would be on the computer at all."

"I don't see anything wrong with it," school parent Mark Hagstrom said. "She's on her time to do what she wants."

School parent Chad Van Loo said the photograph sends the wrong message.

"With the way things are going these days, with the kids bringing guns to school and bomb threats, (photograph) is something to be concerned about."

Fucking duh.

We're all aware that students read their teachers' Facebook pages, right?

The photo:



I'll bet somebody really sees a parallel between that and Dianne Feinstein holding a firearm while speaking in public.

Me, I see a parallel to this one.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/09/15/kimveergill_narrowweb__300x363,0.jpg

Google Kimveer Gill if you don't recognize it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Yet another example of not understanding the basics of the US constitution

[iverglas]

4. mmmmmmm hm.

I guess you had something to say. If you feel like saying it, do feel free.

Let there be no abridgement of the freedom of speech, after all.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. I don't need to add much, your foolishness on this topic is more than enough

[Chulanowa]

6. Funny how the "basics" generate such argument, isn't it?

Perhaps the dumbing down of our language is the true problem here. The 2nd amendment can, and has been interpreted several ways.

And there's the natural question... How much "Arms" is too much arms? How much is too little? A board with a nail in it is an armament. So is a nuclear bomb. I still haven't seen a smooth answer why the board is "too little" and the bomb is "too much" from the gun nut set. After all, since the entire point is defense, and nukes are the best deterrent in the world...

[bossy22]

7. ????

i dont see anyone in the pro-gun camp advocating personal ownership of ordinances. The line is drawn at anything that isnt a personal weapon- a weapon that a single person would operate. you dont see regular soldiers carrying nuclear weapons, C-4 explosives and anthrax vials...they carry some form of a carbine/rifle and a pistol.

[Chulanowa]

9. I know, and that's my point; Why not?

Why are guns the be-all, end-all of the 2nd amendment? Why is a slingshot too little, but a rocket launcher too much? Why are kit guns good and zip guns bad? Why are regulation against nonviolent felons good, but regulation againnt members of violent groups with no criminal records themselves bad?

:shrug:

[rrneck]

10. I think it's

because "arms" in the twenty first century means some type of "firearm". In the bronze age "arms" would have meant melee weapons. That's why you see the phrase "common use" thrown around so much. If you want to defend yourself nowadays, that means a gun.

[Chulanowa]

14. It seems to be self-reinforcing, though

"It means guns, so we use guns, which is why it means guns!"

:shrug:

If someone I think is a danger to me has guns, then shouldn't I have something better? Perhaps a battery of surface to surface missiles in case a bunch of crazy gun nuts in white sheets proud southern gun owners rides up on my house or something? :rofl:

[rrneck]

31. Yes,

the self-reinforcing nature that you describe is called an arms race. While a board with a nail in it or a slingshot can be used for self defense, small arms are the tool of choice because they are the best tool for both the job of individual attacks on people and defense against those attacks. Your attitude betrays a woeful arrogance and lack of empathy for the victims of crime. Do you have a solution for the problem of self defense before the police can respond, or are you satisfied to simply fling rotten vegetables from the sidelines at other peoples solution?

Your attempt at levity is entertaining, but it reveals the same bigotry and small mindedness that is the hallmark of the caricatures that you attempt to use as an example. You'd fit right in at a Klan rally.

[Chulanowa]

46. Yeah, I would - I'd be the guy swinging from the tree

You'd probably be the photographer commemorating the event. Hey, if you want to play that game, we can play. I have yet to meet anyone with a military base worth of guns who didn't scare the brown off of me. Frankly I wouldn't trust most of them - and many of the posters here - with a grapefruit spoon.

How am I showing a lack of empathy for the victims of crime? I'm just asking where the standards come from, who draws the lines between what's too little, too much, and enough, and the reasons for doing so. Frankly I think the ones who show a lack of empathy for the victims of crime are those who cluck their tongue and go "If that person had only bought a gun!"

Yep. It's the rape victim's fault for not dropping $400 for a pistol.

[rrneck]

60. Hurts, doesn't it, when you feel like

someone assumes the worst of you without ever having met you? When they make assumptions about you based on gross caricatures and misinformation, and then use unnecessarily inflammatory language to make unfounded accusations? You should know better.

This is not a game. It is a serious problem regarding the safety of every citizen in this country, no matter which end of the barrel they're on or who owns it.

Your question was asked and answered. The "standards" come from common use. Private citizens have no use for "surface to surface missile batteries", "nuclear bombs", "rocket launchers" or any other silly example you use to overstate your case. "Zip guns" are bad, well, because they aren't very good guns.

There is no "smooth answer" for what is an appropriate firearm, although demanding one aids in your exaggerations, because it is technology in a culture that is constantly developing new technology all the time in response to a changing culture. Hence the term "arms race". With every new technology developed, people, inventive critters that they are, come up with all sorts of tactics and strategies to either put it to use or circumvent it to their advantage. By casting the issue in the most simplistic and overstated terms you do nothing to further the discussion or help solve the problem of self defense and gun violence in this country. There are no simple "smooth" answers, mkay?

Which brings us to the question I asked of you before your flight from sarcasm into umbrage: Do you have a solution for the time lag between assault by a criminal and the arrival of emergency services to aid the individual being assaulted? I confess that I don't have an answer to that question, but we would all appreciate the benefit of your wisdom if you would take the issue seriously enough to give it some consideration.

[Chulanowa]

76. Please, do tell me...

Why my mockery of the Klan offends you so much. I called them "proud southern gun owners" - Now, show me that they're not. Please. I want to be proven wrong here. :)

Doesn't hurt much. it must tickle in fact, 'cause I'm laughing. At you, not with you, if it's important to you.

I received an answer, but not one that solved my question. I was told that "arms" means anything a single person can use. A single person can use all sorts of weaponry, however.

You say I'm overstating my case. I'm not making a case. I'm asking a question. How much is too much? Where is the definitive cutoff point? Why is one gun "cool" and another gun "not cool"? Why do folks such as yourself (yes, I'm assuming) support a ban on full-auto rifles but pitch an unholy fit if folding stocks are banned? I guess if I am making a case, it's that the bounds of what's acceptable and what isn't, and what's enough and what's too little, seem completely arbitrary.

There is no solution. A gun is not a perfect answer to every problem presented by crime. Once an assault has begun, that weapon - gun, knife, viking broadsword, what the fuck ever you're carrying - is of limited utility. Pardon the pun, but there is no "magic bullet"

[iverglas]

82. I think it can best be phrased this way

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
World without end.
Amen.


The problem with all this that it's supposed to be about the "natural right" of self-defence, which obviously existed (haha) long before any gun was a glint of steel in anyone's mind. Long before steel. Before minds, too. Amoebas got a natural right of self-defence, after all.

If that's what it's about, then I want crocodiles in my moat, and a rocket launcher under my bed; why would I depend on hitting my mark with some pocket pistol, or on the bogeyman in my bedroom not being equipped with Kevlar? And I wish never to walk abroad at night without my trusty tiger by my side; nobody gets the drop on me then.

I don't need no stinking gun, me.

Giggle on.

[rrneck]

92. Well, lets see...

My first post #10:
I think it's because "arms" in the twenty first century means some type of "firearm". In the bronze age "arms" would have meant melee weapons. That's why you see the phrase "common use" thrown around so much. If you want to defend yourself nowadays, that means a gun.

Your reply #14:
It seems to be self-reinforcing, though If someone I think is a danger to me has guns, then shouldn't I have something better? Perhaps a battery of surface to surface missiles in case a bunch of crazy gun nuts in white sheets proud southern gun owners rides up on my house or something?

Your sarcasm is as transparent as your defense. It was unwarranted and unwelcome. Gun owners are just people who own guns; no more, no less. Associating anyone with the KKK is rude and uncalled for.

As a courtesy to you, I will answer your questions again.

1.How much is too much? Where is the definitive cutoff point?

There's not one. A law is a codification of popular consent. The people of the United States have decided through Supreme Court rulings, a mountain of case law, and choices in the marketplace that weapons classified as "small arms" are appropriate for recreation and personal defense. Before 1934 machine guns were "cool". Now they're a lot less "cool". In another sixty years, plasma pulse rifles may be cool. Or not.

2.Why do folks such as yourself (yes, I'm assuming) support a ban on full-auto rifles but pitch an unholy fit if folding stocks are banned?

I am, of course, speaking only for myself here. I don't necessarily support a ban on full auto weapons. They're fun to shoot, and if someone wants something that basically sends four hundred bucks a minute downrange that's fine with me as long as nobody gets hurt. The regulations regarding full auto weapons seems about right, but you should ask someone who owns one, (or would like to) how they feel about it. As far as the "folding stock" issue goes, it just makes no sense if you want to regulate a firearm. The AWB was an attempt to regulate something so poorly that nobody would want to buy anything that even had a chance of getting them into trouble or losing their capital investment. The idea was to ruin the market for just about any firearm short of a flintlock. It didn't work. If you want to regulate a weapon, regulate the speed, quantity, or power of the ordinance that it fires.

3.I guess if I am making a case, it's that the bounds of what's acceptable and what isn't, and what's enough and what's too little, seem completely arbitrary.

The parameters of acceptability are arbitrary because people are arbitrary. Beyond basic physics and the capabilities of the human body, who the hell knows what they will come up with next? In 1950 the notion of a laser aiming device on a pistol would have been something from outer space. Generally speaking, an acceptable weapon for recreation or personal defense is considered some type of pistol, rifle, or shotgun capable of no more than semi automatic fire and capable of engaging a target no more than about a mile or so. Others on this forum can elaborate on the subject much better than I can about the particulars in that regard. That's as close as we can get, and the current laws reflect that attitude. I don't think we can parse the issue any more than that because small arms are dual use technology. They can be used for both good or ill, or even just plain fun.

Pardon the pun, but there is no "magic bullet"

Your pun is duly pardoned and heartily enjoyed. Yes, yes, yes. Deadly force should only be used at the uttermost need. It doesn't always work. That close to the edge of the envelope anything can happen, and death is frequently the result. To my mind, it is always wrong to kill, every time, period. Sometimes it is unavoidable. Welcome to the human condition.

But every object in our lives has meaning. It is surrounded by a context that influences everything we think and do. This thread is about what the mere image of a gun means, and that meaning depends on the media, the context of the presentation, and even the orientation of the weapon. The issue is impossibly complex, as even a cursory glance at this forum will attest.

Doesn't hurt much. it must tickle in fact, 'cause I'm laughing. At you, not with you, if it's important to you.

I don't much give a shit. When your sense of humor improves, it will be my pleasure to laugh right along with you.

[jmg257]

15. Read the early Militia Acts - pretty easy actually to understand the intent of "arms". nt

[Chulanowa]

47. So then "Arms" means...

Muzzle-loading non-rifled black powder weapons?

Well, if you're going to define "Arms" based on 18th century law, well, there you go.

[tburnsten]

49. It means contemporary arms. At the time they were written,

yes, muzzleloading black powder rifles and handguns were the cutting edge, in common use arms. Not any more. 'arms' is a floating definition depending on what era we are in. For the past hundred years and the foreseeable future arms means bolt action, lever action, pump action, single shot, and self loading metallic cartridge rifles and handguns, revolvers, shotguns, basically any firearm that can be bought today is likely to remain contemporary for many decades or even some centuries to come. Until we move on to phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range, we will probably be stuck on metallic cartridge rifles and handguns, and shotguns. I really don't think they will ever leave common use again, I believe firearm technology has basically reached its pinnacle already and any improvements we make on them now are just going to be minor performance enhancements. The basic devices are going to be much the same.

[X_Digger]

51. pew! pew! pew! (sorry, playing with my mock phaser) n/t :)

[Hoopla Phil]

96. What about light sabers? Are they covered?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[jmg257]

56. It did then, because just like today, it means rifles, pistols, bayonets, knives etc in

common use, and esp. those military arms applicable for militia duty (and their accoutrement's), those applicable for self-defense, and for gaming, sport, etc. Personal arms the people would be expected to supply themselves.

Sooo...like it meant muzzle-loaded muskets and rifles and pistols and shotguns and swords then, today it means primarily guns like M4s & M16 rifles and their derivatives, M1As, M9s, M1911s, SIGs, Glocks, M40s, M1S90 & M4 shotguns, etc. in calibers 5.56, 7.62, 9mm, .45, etc. along with 15, 20 & 30 round mags, ammo, knives, bayonets etc., but also hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols, & revolvers in all varieties - these are all covered under "arms".

[krispos42]

115. It's pretty simple, I think

We know that all rights are subject to specific restrctions in the name of protecting the rights of others and the public safety. For example, you can't falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and you can't libel somebody. These are all specific restrictions on the First Amendment. The police don't need a warrant to chase you into your house if they're in hot pursuit of you or if they has reasonable suspsicion that crime is being committed. Specific restrictions on the Fourth Amendment.


In a similar fashion, the dividing line between highly restricted and generally available is based on public safety. Fully automatic weapons are restricted for the same reason explosives are: they have indiscriminate lethal potential.

Consider: a manual-action gun (bolt-action, lever-action, revolver, or pump action) a or semi-automatic gun can only fire one shot per pull of the trigger. This means that every shot the shooter fires is under his or her control.

However, with explosives, incendiaries, biological, and chemical weapons (which includes nukes), there is a broad area of indiscriminate destruction. This is obviously an unreasonable threat to public safety.

Fully automatic firearms have the same broad area of indiscriminate destruction. And this is why the dividing line is where it is.

[benjaminwright]

125. facebook legal

To deter employers from viewing social networking pages, employees might post on their pages legal terms of service under which employers agree to scram. This idea should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation, just a topic for public discussion. Details: http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2007/11/privacy-advocates-such-as-nyu-professor.html --Ben

[iverglas]

128. pfft!

And the author of that is not a lawyer, he just plays one on the internet?

:rofl:

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Sen. Feinstein said her AK-47 was unloaded so it was OK with you

She swore up and down that her rifle was unloaded (after she was called on it):



Di-Fi has mad gun handling skillz that those grubby proles
simply cannot possess. Doubleplusungood for those people
to try this kind of thing.

Next thing you know, they'll be banging on about 'equal under law' and that
all that rot...

[iverglas]

21. I'll bet this is somehow relevant

to the case at hand.

I can't see a single point on which the situations are analogous, but hey, maybe that's just me, eh?

[appal_jack]

69. DiFi's handling is certainly worse than the teacher's

"I can't see a single point on which the situations are analogous, but hey, maybe that's just me, eh?"

Yup iverglas, it's just you.

But for the sake of conversation, let's compare the situations:

1) A schoolteacher posts a pic on Facebook of her aiming a rifle. This is undoubtedly bad judgement, but grounds for firing? If there is a person behind that camera, then she is violating one of the cardinal rules of gun safety (NEVER point a gun at something you do not intend to destroy), but it is equally plausible that she is using a tripod and timer. Since we can't see her trigger finger, we don't know whether or not she is also violating another safety rule (Keep your finger entirely out of the trigger guard until a target is acquired and a safe backstop noted). Again, it's equally plausible that her grip is entirely on the stock, and thus following this rule.

vs.

2) In order to gin-up hysteria and make political hay, DiFi brings an AK-pattern underfolder with 75-round drum attached into a filled public room. Although we can't see what is ahead of the barrel in the posted picture, it is a fair assumption that there are people in that direction. Given that the 7.62 round can penetrate multiple walls, it's basically a certainty. DiFi is NOT EVEN LOOKING in the barrel's direction. Meanwhile, her FINGER IS ON THE TRIGGER. Idiot M&^%&#$^#$*(&^!!!!

This picture proves to me that DiFi should not own or handle guns. Or be in Congress.

-app

[Taitertots]

70. Double Standard

When Fienstein is pointing guns at people in a room full of people with her finger on the trigger that is ok.
When a teacher puts a picture holding a gun on facebook, thats grounds for suspension.

[iverglas]

72. so who was talking about "handling"?

Not me.

And not the school board.

Thanks for playing.

[appal_jack]

77. I'll use small words and type slowly just for you

Situation 1:

A public servant (school teacher) is consensually photographed (i.e.- her own Facebook page) in a position that exhibits poor judgment and MAY violate one or two rules of gun safety. She is suspended.

Situation 2:

A public servant (Senator) is consensually photographed (i.e.- her own press conference) in a position that exhibits poor judgment and DEFINITELY violates two rules of gun safety. She keeps her job.

Rather analogous situations, no? Yet strangely different outcomes. One rule for the rich and one for the poor? Or is it one rule for the gun-grabber and one for the gun-enthusiast? Either way, hypocrisy abounds, and contemporaneous discussion of the two situations is rather relevant.

-app

[iverglas]

80. so who was talking about "gun safety"?

You need to go find someone who is. I'm not.


Rather analogous situations, no?

Nope. Not remotely.

[appal_jack]

87. give it up. you've been pwned.

Analogous situations of public servants exhibiting poor judgment in photographs involving guns result in different outcomes, indicating a woeful double-standard. End of story.

If you're still hot to trot, here is some more (non-gun) good (:sarcasm:) news about your friend DiFi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8173909

But I'm done: no more dancing the backpedal with iverglas for me today.

-app

[iverglas]

89. you may think you've got away with something

In that case, you may not realize I don't give a shit.

On the other hand, this may all truly go right over your head.

I don't actually give a shit in that case either, but I'll spend a nanosecond feeling sorry for you.

[Taitertots]

105. Its fairly clear

what Fienstien did was dramatically worse by a huge margin. Pointing a gun at people with finger on trigger, is the sole work of morons. Not all morons point guns at people with fingers on the trigger, but all people who do are morons. That picture would only be better if it was a motivational picture with "Gun Safety-they told me it was unloaded" as the title. If anyone else walked into a public room with an AK and my finger on the trigger and started waving it in people's faces without even looking where the barrel pointed, they would be arrested.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. You really don't support any part of the Constitution, eh?

I guess since they aren't your rights they don't matter, eh?

David

[iverglas]

22. and I thought

friendly_iconoclast was talking from way out in right field.

You must be in the back bleachers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. By all means people should be compared to serial killers because you disagree with them.

Because you are all about a constructive discussion about the topic.

David

[iverglas]

30. by all means you should misrepresent anything you like

Let me not to the publication of false pretense admit impediment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Aren't opinions wonderful.

[gorfle]

43. Yup.

I'll bet somebody really sees a parallel between that and Dianne Feinstein holding a firearm while speaking in public.

You are right, there is no parallel, and the OP was foolish to try and draw one.

Feinstein's photo was was not an intentional shot on Feintstein's part to convey a message. She was merely photographed while holding a firearm in conjunction with doing her job.

The teacher's picture was obviously specifically taken to convey a message - a projection of power, machismo, coolness, toughness, whatever. Just like the Kimveer Gil fellow.

It is indeed silly to try and compare the two. The day Feintstein takes a picture of herself posing aggressively with a firearm for the camera then we can talk.

I am not terribly sympathetic to the the teacher in this case. I support the 2nd amendment, and I support the 1st amendment. I don't have any problem with the teacher being involved with firearms, nor her expression of that fact by posting a picture of herself with a firearm on the internet.

But, the fact of the matter is, folks, people judge you based on how you express yourself, and there will be consequences when people who have power and authority over you don't like how you express yourself. You can cry and whine about how unfair that is but that is the simple fact of life. There's a reason why you don't go in to a job interview and start spouting off your opinion on politics, abortion, religion, or whatever - odds are you're going to piss off the person you are trying to get to give you a job! So why would you get on the internet and scream these things publicly and permanently to the entire world for all future employers to find out about you?

Enjoy your freedom of expression, folks. But if you cherish your ability to express yourself over tact, don't be surprised when it costs you opportunities in the future.

[iverglas]

45. yup

and see post 49 from me.


Kimveer Gill, if you haven't encountered him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimveer_Gill

Kimveer Gill (July 9, 1981 – September 13, 2006) was the Canadian shooter involved in a school shooting referred to as the Dawson College shooting at Dawson College in Westmount, Quebec, Canada on September 13, 2006. He injured nineteen people, killed one, then committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, after being shot in the arm by police.

No one would suggest that the teacher and Kimveer Gill share any characteristics.

But the pictures do. And the connotations of the teacher's picture are infuenced by the context, in which pictures like Gill's are known to viewers.

[Taitertots]

110. Holding a firearm pointed at people

How is pointing a gun at people with your finger on the trigger any less aggressive than harmlessly at a camera.
So holding an AK to someone face a few feet away with your finger on the trigger is less trying to convey a message than a shotgun pointed at the camera. There is no other reason for her to have an AK at an event like that other than to convey a message to the people there. The message is that guns are bad and she is going to show you by waving one in your face.

[krispos42]

114. If Ramsdale was dressing provoctively...

...how about a suspension for that? You know, because there's a surge in statutory rape going on between teachers and their students. Check out Fark.com if you don't believe me.

That's a valid concern for parents too, right? I mean, if we can make all sorts of assumptions about a person's homocidal potential based on a Facebook photograph, hell, let's go full bore.

Let's judge the statutory rape potential by dress and/or sexual promiscuity.


Well, not "us", not you or me or DUers... the governmental school board that has the power to hire, fire, and suspend teachers.


And I'm sure that there are more than one school board in America would like to do something about all those hellbound h-h-h-homosexuals out there, destroying traditional marriage by infecting children with teh gay.


And they have on Facebook the shows the members like to watch, right? I bet the school boards can justify some suspensions based on that.

Favorite books... woe behold the Boston schoolteacher who read Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America or the Dallas teacher that liked The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.



Either the school board has the right to dictate what a teacher does and does not do in his/her private life outside of schoo or it doesn't. If the school board doesn't, the board should shut up and quit embarassing themselves. If the school board does, they'd better start compensating these teachers a hell of a lot more for the intrusion.

[iverglas]

119. misrepresent what you like; nobody gives a shit

If Ramsdale was dressing provoctively...
...how about a suspension for that? You know, because there's a surge in statutory rape going on between teachers and their students.

Why? What has a "surge in statutory rape" got to do with "dressing provocatively"?


That's a valid concern for parents too, right? I mean, if we can make all sorts of assumptions about a person's homocidal potential based on a Facebook photograph, hell, let's go full bore.

Who is this "we", Caucasian chap?

Somebody must have made some assumption about somebody's "homocidal <sic> potential". And I must have missed it.


Favorite books... woe behold the Boston schoolteacher who read Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America or the Dallas teacher that liked The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

Why?

How might it affect students or any other part of a school community to know this? How might students' learning experience be adversely affected by knowing tihs about a teacher?

Exactly what is the analogy you are proposing here?


Either the school board has the right to dictate what a teacher does and does not do in his/her private life outside of schoo or it doesn't.

Actually, a school board does not have that "right", and nobody is claiming it does. Assigning it that "right" would be an obvious violation of fundamental rights.

A school board is entitled to assign consequences for its employees' actions outside the workplace where those actions might reasonably be expected to impact adversely on the employer's ability to operate its business/organization in the best interests of the business/organization. I think you'll find that most employers feel entitled to do that.

[krispos42]

123. Yet you responded

Why? What has a "surge in statutory rape" got to do with "dressing provocatively"?

Exactly.

Who is this "we", Caucasian chap?

The plural of "I".

Why?

How might it affect students or any other part of a school community to know this? How might students' learning experience be adversely affected by knowing tihs about a teacher?

Exactly what is the analogy you are proposing here?

Why, it goes to the moral character of the teacher, of course! How can my precious snowflake learn when Godly/unGodly influences from the teacher are affecting him/her?

I find it amusing you want me to explain my analogy. How should I respond? Hmmm... something like "I said what I said and if misinterpret or misunderstand it, that's your problem that you should remedy".

Yeah, that sounds about right.

A school board is entitled to assign consequences for its employees' actions outside the workplace where those actions might reasonably be expected to impact adversely on the employer's ability to operate its business/organization in the best interests of the business/organization. I think you'll find that most employers feel entitled to do that.

Such a bland statement has such loaded potential, doesn't it?

[iverglas]

124. so?

Why, it goes to the moral character of the teacher, of course! How can my precious snowflake learn when Godly/unGodly influences from the teacher are affecting him/her?

What does that have to do with this case?

What analogy are you proposing?

Speak up, now.


A school board is entitled to assign consequences for its employees' actions outside the workplace where those actions might reasonably be expected to impact adversely on the employer's ability to operate its business/organization in the best interests of the business/organization. I think you'll find that most employers feel entitled to do that.
Such a bland statement has such loaded potential, doesn't it?

Really? Don't you people have any laws at all? No courts? If you do, I can't imagine why you'd say that.

[krispos42]

127. Ladies first.

Oh, apologies, that was a patriarchal, sexist, misogyonistic comment on my part. Though as I'm a gun owner, I'm sure such behavior was anticipated.

How about, hmmm... since you started with comparisons, you go first?

Really? Don't you people have any laws at all? No courts? If you do, I can't imagine why you'd say that.

:rofl: Good one!

[rrneck]

11. I'd be uncomfortable

with a teacher who put an image of themselves like that online for public consumption. Not so much that I think she might crazy or dangerous, but I would wonder why she would put such a confrontational image of herself where everyone could see it. It shows poor judgment.

[guntard]

18. There is nothing confrontational about the mere image of a firearm

At least for most of us in the gun rights community, there isn't.

If for some reason I ever got a teaching job, firearms would remain a component of my on-line presence.

[iverglas]

23. and your comment would be relevant

to ... what?

The image in issue here is not "the mere image of a firearm", so why are you talking about the mere image of a firearm?

[tburnsten]

27. Isn't it only about the mere image of a firearm?

Or is posting an image of yourself doing nothing illegal while holding a legal object one of those rights that just shouldn't be exercised?

[iverglas]

32. but of course it is!

There's no teacher in the photograph, there's no teacher in the photograph aiming a firearm at the viewer of the photograph with her finger on the trigger, there's no history of individuals who have engaged in this sort of activity subsequently engaging in violent acts, there's no history of firearms assaults on students and teachers in schools ... there's no reason at all for anyone to consider the posting of this photograph on the internet where it is certain to be viewed by students, parents and other members of the school community as likely to cause anyone in that community distress (students and other members of that community being well aware of multiple past incidents of firearms violence in schools and all being apprehensive of it happening in their school) or give anyone cause for concern about the teacher's regard for the individual and collective welfare of her students and their school community.

Nah. It's just a picture of a gun.

If the teacher posted a picture of herself making sexual use of a cucumber, it would just be a picture of a vegetable. Or of somebody holding a legal object while doing nothing illegal, and exercising a constitutional right by posting it on the internet.

[tburnsten]

38. I'm sorry, I am not clear on how a viewer is in danger because of the photo

Maybe you could clarify for us how an electronic image could possibly discharge and harm a viewer?



Fucking yourself with produce, while it must be plenty of fun, is inappropriate for someone who works with children in a serious way. Holding a gun is not.

[iverglas]

40. well, no wonder!

I'm not surprised! I'm not clear on it myself! In fact, I have no idea how it could be so! Who said it was? S/he must be crazy!!!


Fucking yourself with produce, while it must be plenty of fun, is inappropriate for someone who works with children in a serious way. Holding a gun is not.

Holding a cucumber isn't either, bub.

[tburnsten]

41. Holding it with your orifices is not the same as just holding it

And holding a gun, not to anyone's head, isn't inappropriate either.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Huh?

Do Teachers have no private space? No 'off-duty' time? Who cares what a teacher does with a cucumber. It might be a big deal if she identified herself on her site as Ms. XXXXXXXXXXX from XXXXXXXXXX school, etc.

She could be playing with ten cucumbers and a watermelon for all it matters, as long as it's not linked to her work with students/teaching.

[tburnsten]

103. I was thinking in a very public space such as social sites on the internet

Obviously if she is as fond of cucumbers as iverglas seems to be that is her business and she should have fun with it.

[gorfle]

52. Come on!

Maybe you could clarify for us how an electronic image could possibly discharge and harm a viewer?

Fucking yourself with produce, while it must be plenty of fun, is inappropriate for someone who works with children in a serious way. Holding a gun is not.

Come on folks! How can you defend this twit?

This is not an issue of freedom of expression.

This is not an issue of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is about people making a judgment call about you based on what you post on the internet.

If you post pictures of yourself on the internet with guns or dildoes, don't be surprised if it has an impact on your future employment!

[tburnsten]

102. I'm surprised at you gorfle

"This is not an issue of freedom of expression.

This is not an issue of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is about people making a judgment call about you based on what you post on the internet.

If you post pictures of yourself on the internet with guns or dildoes, don't be surprised if it has an impact on your future employment!"



you sound right now like one of the many whose line of thinking is that you are free to do anything legal you want, but actually doing it is just asking for trouble. Posing sexually while holding a job with children is significantly different than posing with a gun while having a job with children, even if it is a shitty, unneccessary photo.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. You can't see that.

Her finger may well be on the side of the action, which would be proper placement when not firing the weapon. Her left hand on the foregrip prevents you from possibly making that determination.

[iverglas]

73. I actually don't give a fig

She could have her finger up her nose, for all I care, and for all the school board cares, I'm sure.

The posture is that she is holding the firearm in fire-ready position, aimed at the viewer.

That is what is inappropriate.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I think you guys are reading into it a bit much.

I've never taken a picture like that, but I can think of plenty of people who have, and it hasn't been a problem.

At worst, I would call it distasteful.

[iverglas]

79. do stop to consider the context

School communities in the US have been frequent targets of firearms violence -- frequent in the sense that once is a lot, a dozen times is enormous.

People who have committed firearms violence in school communities have posted material on the internet not too different from this teacher's photograph -- I trust you compared the picture by/of Kimveer Gill. Cho did it as well.

How is anyone who is not a close friend of the individual in question to know what the intent behind posting such a picture is? Why would members of a school community who did not know an individual well not feel some degree of apprehension when they saw it?

All teachers know that their students go looking for them on Facebook and elsewhere on the net. Only an idiot teaches school and thinks that anything about him/herself on the net will not be seen by students. The picture must therefore be considered to have been intended for students to see. When you post something on Facebook, you intend the entire world to see it.

Had there been no firearms attacks on school communities in the US, had there been no weird people posting menacing pictures of themselves with weapons on the internet, the picture might just be dumb. In context, it is more problematic than just dumb.


Here's another one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491250/Outrage-martial-arts-obsessed-teacher-poses-guns-chilling-internet-photo.html



That's a teacher in the UK, and that's from his Bebo page. (The guns are apparently fake.)

Part of the context is his personal background -- apparently he is a creative and inspiring teacher who does not tolerate bullying in the school, and martial arts are his hobby.

But there is more to the context, and it includes a couple of horrific mass murders in the schools in the UK. And there are people who are familiar with that part of the context and know nothing at all about the teacher beyond what's on his Bebo page.

Children and other members of school communities are entitled not to feel endangered when they are in the school. Every teacher is aware of the underlying apprehension about these kinds of events felt by children who hear about them on the news. Dealing with the children's feelings of insecurity when such events happen in other schools and other places is part of a teacher's job. A teacher who doesn't realize that pictures of him/herself in poses like this are likely to generate such feelings among at least some segment of his/her school community is an idiot.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. The context as I see it.

A small icon. Not a big picture, emblazoned on the site. I'm curious, does the original site actually identify her, specifically, by name? For instance, I post with a pseudonym here. I don't want any of my posts hurting future employment chances, for instance.
Was there anything about her facebook site that identified HER, either as a teacher, or a particular person?

We had shootings in schools when I was in school, I saw a pistol, a pair of throwing stars, and a large hunting knife. I never understood the insecurity bit about it. I simply had all three tossed from school. One came back for vengeance, I dealt with it. Big deal. School is all about learning how to deal with the real world. I didn't really understand that at the time, but it is what it is.

If the teacher was using her facebook site at school, with that icon, or identified herself as a teacher I can understand the concern. If she just identified herself by name, I could maybe see a little concern, but I'd also be concerned why the kids are looking into her private life. From your vegetable example (or whoever started that comparison, I don't know), would it be bad for her to do that, and maybe have a kid peeking in her windows to catch her at it? Where do you draw the line of privacy?

Do you know if she identified herself, specifically, or as a teacher on facebook? How discoverable was this to students?

[iverglas]

112. did you see post 2?

How identifiable was she to students? Rather identifiable, I'd say.


From your vegetable example (or whoever started that comparison, I don't know), would it be bad for her to do that, and maybe have a kid peeking in her windows to catch her at it? Where do you draw the line of privacy?

Uh ... somewhere above a Facebook page that gives your name and location and contains at least one photograph of yourself??

That's called "publicity", not privacy.


School is all about learning how to deal with the real world. I didn't really understand that at the time, but it is what it is.

Yes, yes, the life is tough, gotta get tough to deal with it school of thought. Patriarchy in all its glory.

School is all about learning a lot of things. Some of them are reading, writing, mathematics, foreign languages, various natural and physical sciences and social sciences, a few arts ...

If all that children are supposed to learn at school is "how to deal with the real world", put 'em on the farms and in the factories. Just like the olden days.

These are the modern days. The days when children are supposed to have equal opportunity to learn the things that interest them and that will enable them to succeed in life on their own terms to the extent possible. Children who are subject to or even afraid of violence don't have the full opportunity to do that.

Some children might look at that photo and think "cool". Other children might look at it and feel insecure, and find it difficult to learn from a teacher whose image in their mind is of a person aiming a firearm at them. It is not your place or anyone else's place to tell any child what or how s/he ought to feel, or to dismiss how a child does feel, when the context is such that it is perfectly predictable that some children would feel that way. Those feelings are not irrational, or delusions; they are a predictable response to children's experiences, which include their knowledge of firearms violence in schools. It is part of the school's job, and a teacher's job, is to provide children with a secure environment in which to learn, not to put bizarre images in their heads that could exacerbate feelings of insecurity.

[tburnsten]

104. You do know that shots cannot come through your computer screen don't you?

[rrneck]

29. It's confrontational

in the context she presented it. The gun itself is no big deal, especially if you are used to them. And the camera was probably on a tripod or something so nobody would have been in danger, but having the viewer staring down the muzzle of the gun makes it confrontational. If you walked around a corner in real life and saw that, you would be confronted. In real life it may be the last thing you'd ever see, and that's what the average viewer will feel when s/he sees it. Images have power and, much like bullets, when you let them go, you can't call them back.

If I were a teacher I wouldn't want my students to see me exhibiting a perfect example of poor gun handling, namely pointing a gun in an unsafe direction. Much better to see me at the range or in the field than trying to emulate some B grade movie poster. It's about the same as flipping off the viewer while holding a beer and wearing a Big Johnson tee shirt. It might be fun for personal consumption, but to put it in view of the public is unprofessional.

Having said that I think an official reprimand that made the news was heavy handed as well. Somebody in the front office should have just made a phone call and said, "hey, bad idea".

[gorfle]

48. It's not a "mere image of a firearm".

I'm extremely pro 1st and 2nd amendment.

But you are a fool if you post a picture of yourself on the internet and don't expect people to make judgments about you based on the context.

So you put a picture up of yourself like that lady did and you've basically written off future employment with anyone who takes a dislike to it.

Enjoy putting your passions on display for the world, but don't be surprised when it has repercussions.

[Indy Lurker]

12. I think the school is right

This isn't about the first or second amendment, but about showing a lack of good judgment.

It's not about the first amendment, no one is arguing she can't post this material, only that doing so shows poor judgment.

It's not about the second amendment, no one is arguing she can't own firearms, only that this pose in this photo shows poor judgment.

There are a lot of actions that fall within the rights that are protected by the constitution, and while engaging in such actions are legally protected, they do not guarantee your employment will continue.

For example, it is perfectly legal to wear Clan garb and attend Clan rallies, or appear in sexually explicit videos, but these activities, while completely legal, and constitutionally protected, would also get a middle school teacher placed on administrative leave or terminated.

Also, the school must address workplace violence. Had the school not addressed this Facebook photo, and this teacher then went and shot some kids, they would certainly have been held responsible.

I think administrative leave, and a psych evaluation would be appropriate.

[TellTheTruth82]

16. psych eval for poor judgement?????!!!!!

NT

[Indy Lurker]

62. not for poor judgement...

...for safety.

I would want someone from the metal health field to certify that this person is not a danger to them self or others before they return to work.

As I eluded to up thread, I wouldn't want the sole responsibility for putting this person back in the classroom should they later snap.

I run a manufacturing plant, and if I found a picture such as this for one of my workers, it would warrant further investigation, at the very least, running a new background check (with consent)

When dealing with the safety of others in your charge, whether it's school children, or an employee's co-workers, an abundance of caution is always prudent.

[iverglas]

75. if it had been a student, and not a teacher

Would teachers (and parents, and other students) not be calling for the school board to take a very close look at the situation, and quite likely to suspend the student while the investigation was conducted?

Would the union not be backing the teachers?

And would posters here, while none would undoubtedly admit it, not be feeling just a tad nervous if one of their children's classmates posted a similar picture on Facebook?

I would hope they would, anyhow.


I run a manufacturing plant, and if I found a picture such as this for one of my workers, it would warrant further investigation, at the very least, running a new background check (with consent)

When dealing with the safety of others in your charge, whether it's school children, or an employee's co-workers, an abundance of caution is always prudent.

Indeed.

[rangersmith82]

113. So because she posed holding a legaly owned fiream she should be fired??

Fucking pathetic!!!

She is a gun owner, explain to me what law she broke??

Is there a rule that says teachers can't own guns?? I didn't think so.

I hope she sues the crap out of them.

[iverglas]

118. misrepresent what you like; I don't give a shit

[iverglas]

122. dang, eh?

In the immortal words of Phil Ochs ...


When I'm gone

There's no place in this world where I'll belong when I'm gone
And I won't know the right from the wrong when I'm gone
And you won't find me singin' on this song when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

And I won't feel the flowing of the time when I'm gone
All the pleasures of love will not be mine when I'm gone
My pen won't pour out a lyric line when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

And I won't breathe the bracing air when I'm gone
And I can't even worry 'bout my cares when I'm gone
Won't be asked to do my share when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

And I won't be running from the rain when I'm gone
And I can't even suffer from the pain when I'm gone
Can't say who's to praise and who's to blame when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

Won't see the golden of the sun when I'm gone
And the evenings and the mornings will be one when I'm gone
Can't be singing louder than the guns when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

All my days won't be dances of delight when I'm gone
And the sands will be shifting from my sight when I'm gone
Can't add my name into the fight while I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here

And I won't be laughing at the lies when I'm gone
And I can't question how or when or why when I'm gone
Can't live proud enough to die when I'm gone
So I guess I'll have to do it while I'm here


I'll still be laughing at the lies myself, of course.

[guntard]

19. I agree this is probably poor judgement on the teacher's part

But we are talking about a teacher, not a brain surgeon.

If every public school teacher with demonstrably poor judgment was suddenly culled from the rolls, we wouldn't have very many of them left.

[iverglas]

24. hmm

1. Jaywalking

2. Dangling a child over the edge of a 12th storey balcony


Both are "poor judgment", eh?


If every public school teacher with demonstrably poor judgment was suddenly culled from the rolls, we wouldn't have very many of them left.

Was somebody proposing that this be done?

[tburnsten]

28. So posting a photo of yourself with a rifle is the same as dangling a child from a 12th story ledge?

[iverglas]

33. you betcha

I mean, if you say so.

I thought I was saying that jaywalking and dangling a child from a 12th storey balcony were the same.

You were the one pretending that someone had said that POOR JUDGMENT was a basis for suspending this teacher, and I was just giving some more examples of POOR JUDGMENT.

We all know that what was actually said was that POSTING A PHOTOGRAPH OF YOURSELF AIMING A FIREARM AT THE VIEWER, WITH YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER, is good basis for suspension, not that "showing poor judgment" was good basis for suspension.

Even you know it.

[rrneck]

35. Just a small note

in the interest of accuracy. We can't tell if her finger is on the trigger in the image.

[tburnsten]

37. You were comparing the other poster's statement to jaywalking/dangling children

So you were, by proxy, comparing what he was actually saying to jaywalking and dangling children. I don't believe anyone else here is having a discussion about either jaywalking or dangling children from 12th story balconies, did you just say it for fun, or was it, like everything else you say, a snide comment about someone else having the audacity to do something legal even though some ninny somewhere may not approve?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

71. so, as I was saying

The claim was made (by necessary inference) that someone had claimed that poor judgment was a basis for suspending a teacher.

No one did that, and you know it.

Someone did, quite correctly and quite reasonably, say that posting this photograph on the internet was

(a) grounds for suspension
and
(b) a demonstration of poor judgment


No one said that all demonstrations of poor judgment should be grounds for suspension, and nothing was said from which anyone could legitimately infer that someone meant that.

Aristotle is a mortal.
Not all mortals are men.

Posting this photograph on the internet was a demonstration of poor judgment.
Not all demonstrations of poor judgment are grounds for suspension.

The statement made:

If every public school teacher with demonstrably poor judgment was suddenly culled from the rolls, we wouldn't have very many of them left.

was not relevant to what had been said.

Just as the statement:

If all mortals were men the human race would be extinct in a generation

would not be relevant if someone had said "Aristotle is a mortal".

The fact that Aristotle is a man does not mean all mortals are men.
The fact that one demonstration of poor judgment is grounds for suspension does not mean that all demonstrations of poor judgment are grounds for suspension.

The posting of the photograph in question is grounds for suspension NOT because it demonstrated poor judgment, but because it was a particular manifestation of poor judgment.

Just as Aristotle is a particular manifestation of a mortal.


It really makes no difference whether you really can't understand this, or you understand it perfectly well and post things like you just did anyway.

[gorfle]

53. Hooray! Indy Lurker gets it!

Thank you.

[Indy Lurker]

59. I occasionally get it.

Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

[guntard]

20. I just made a friend request of Betsy Ramsdale on Facebook n/t

[gorfle]

63. What will future employers think of /your/ association? n/t

[guntard]

93. Future employers will be interested almost exclusively in how I can make money for them

They won't give a toss about old Betsy.

[gorfle]

100. Well you're wrong.

If you don't think the internet is used to find details out about people, you just haven't been paying attention:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5695383
http://www.rushonbusiness.com/2006/06/employers-use-g.html
http://www.helium.com/items/1231565-employers-googling-employees

"Employers are able to find out all kinds of information on the Internet including the sorts of information that are illegal to ask in an interview. (Such as age, marital status, whether or not the individual has children, arrest record, value of your home and more)."

"A quick Google search could land your blog in the hands of a future employer, who may use it to form an impression of who you are and what you stand for."

The simple fact of the matter is that a big part of the interview process is trying to feel out the character of the person to determine if they will be a good fit in your organization. You might have all the requisite skills, and that makes for a good resume. But don't kid yourself that employers aren't using the internet to try and ferret out more information about you that reveals more than a resume and an interview might.

You don't want to be the guy that missed out on a chance at a dream job because the hiring manager didn't like the picture he found of you on the internet.

[guntard]

106. I don't do job interviews

People who hire me already know all about me.

[X_Digger]

25. Bad gun handling if a person was taking that pic

Otherwise, questionable judgment. Not sure that she should lose her job, though. Just ask her to take it down. End of story.

Hrmm.. the more I think about it though.. if it were a cartoon representation of her holding a gun would it create the same kind of attention? If she weren't pointing it at the camera would it get the same coverage? Not sure what about this is drawing attention- the fact that it was (apparently) a real gun or that she had it pointed at the camera.)

[rrneck]

36. A good observation. Photographs, even

in the age of Photoshop, have a special claim to credibility. We always assume in a photograph that the individual was actually there doing what the image depicts when in a drawing no such presumption is made. In this case, it would have confrontational power even if we knew that no one was actually holding the camera. We do it all the time at the movies, it's called the suspension of disbelief.

And indeed, if the image had a gun in a less confrontational context, it surely would not have drawn so much attention.

[iverglas]

44. exactly

If the teacher were a competitive shooter (who knows, maybe she is?) and her Facebook page contained photos of her competing, descriptions of events and prizes, and that sort of thing, it would be entirely proper. Just as pictures of her cucumbers and agricultural fair blue ribbons would be if she were a vegetable growing hobbyist.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

55. I'd certainly hope so..

And indeed, if the image had a gun in a less confrontational context, it surely would not have drawn so much attention.

I'd hope so, especially in a state outside of those with very restrictive gun laws.

[Taitertots]

42. Gun owners beware

If you post a picture of yourself holding a gun you have bad judgment and grounds to be fired. According to some people here pictures of yourself with guns is akin to pornography and a precursor to violent acts.


Edit: Reminds me of the professor I had who brought in a video he made at an NFA event. He is shooting his machine guns (legal NFA) and someone lets him shoot a flame thrower.

[gorfle]

54. Everyone beware!

If you post a picture of yourself holding a gun you have bad judgment and grounds to be fired. According to some people here pictures of yourself with guns is akin to pornography and a precursor to violent acts.

It's not just gun owners who need to beware.

Everyone needs to beware what they post about themselves on the internet.

You can post a picture of yourself fly-fishing and you might piss off a future employer who thinks it's cruel to fish.

Feel free to publish to the world anything about yourself you like. But don't be surprised if it bites you.

[Taitertots]

57. Fired for fishing?

The law should still protect people from unfair labor practices like firing people for fishing, having guns, being gay...

And getting bitten for something totally legal, safe, and not explicit is unfair labor practices. I hope the union fights for her on this. It would be like a teacher getting fired for having pictures of a fishing trip or hunting trip.

[gorfle]

58. You betcha.

And getting bitten for something totally legal, safe, and not explicit is unfair labor practices. I hope the union fights for her on this. It would be like a teacher getting fired for having pictures of a fishing trip or hunting trip.

Aside from the fact that the photo is far more aggressive and provocative then a photo of someone on a hunting or fishing trip, the simple fact of the matter is, people will judge you.

Who's to say you won't be facing a hiring manager some day who is a member of PETA and isn't going to hire you because they find a picture on your MySpace page of you hunting?

Is it fair? Of course not. Are they ever going to admit they didn't hire you (or they fired you) because they didn't like that you hunt? Of course not. They will simply come up with some other reason, like they always do.

It is folly to expose yourself on the internet. I have never understood the whole social networking craze. It seems like every week we are hearing of someone else who got screwed over because of something they posted on one of these web sites. Why risk it? Why ask for trouble?

[Taitertots]

65. Yeah people will be bigots

They may hide their bigotry with any number of other reasons. This was not the case with the OP. There is little that can be done to stop people from being bias and unfair when it is secret except stop it when it is in the open.

Aggressive and provocative?
Because she is pointing it at the camera. It is not close to being sexual, depictions of illegal activities, depictions of violent acts, or even in a threatening connotation. What threshold for keeping your job should we have, you can only point that gun no less than 25 degrees away from the camera.

[gorfle]

78. Yes they will.

Aggressive and provocative?
Because she is pointing it at the camera. It is not close to being sexual, depictions of illegal activities, depictions of violent acts, or even in a threatening connotation. What threshold for keeping your job should we have, you can only point that gun no less than 25 degrees away from the camera.

The stance absolutely, under no uncertain conditions, will be considered aggressive by more than a few people. It will provoke emotions of fear, anger, and disgust. This is what I meant by being provocative, not sexually provocative.

I have no doubt that her boss took one look at that picture and though, "Holy shit, when the parents see this picture my phone is going to be ringing off the hook!"

My personal threshold for insuring present and future employment is to limit the exposure of identifying material about myself online, and certainly not to post things that I know will be controversial and potentially damaging.

You might find pictures of me online some day engaging in responsible behavior with a firearm. But you won't find me posing for the camera like she did. John Kerry had no problem posing for pictures looking like a hunter. He would never strike a pose like the teacher did. It doesn't take a genius here to figure out the difference in perception and why one photo is far less controversial than the other.

[Taitertots]

83. A fraction of people agree with you

There are some people who might be upset by the picture.

A picture of me with a dead deer hanging from its neck with its abdomen wide open and me smiling next to it with an "assault weapon" would upset some people
A picture of a gay couple might make some people upset
A picture of a interracial couple still offends some people
A picture of someone driving a hummer offends the naturalists
A picture of anyone holding a gun offends some people

Just because someone might get offended by something doesn't mean that person should be fired. It means some people need to get a thicker skin. Had that picture depicted illegal, unsafe, or pornographic images I could see them having a case against her.

[iverglas]

84. now, who said "offended"?

Oh, that's right, you did.

Just because someone might get offended by something doesn't mean that person should be fired.

Lucky nobody said they should, eh??


A picture of me with a dead deer hanging from its neck with its abdomen wide open and me smiling next to it with an "assault weapon" would upset some people
A picture of a gay couple might make some people upset
A picture of a interracial couple still offends some people
A picture of someone driving a hummer offends the naturalists

And a picture of a schoolteacher pointing a gun at the viewer of the picture makes some people think she might not be quite right in the head.

C'mon. Would you have voted for John Kerry if his campaign literature showed him aiming a gun at your nose? Hell, even if his Facebook page did.

I liked that one. ;)

[Taitertots]

91. Admit it you found it offensive

Or would you choose to break the thesaurus trying to come up with as many synonyms as you can to describe you vitriol over the photo.

You probably would feel the same emotion if I posted a picture of me standing next to a gutted deer smiling holding an assault weapon.


Who said anything about an election?
I wouldn't care if he had a picture like that. Are you one gun picture away from voting republican?

[iverglas]

95. I found it rude

I think pointing a firearm at me is rude.

Of course, I would also think that someone who posted a picture like that on his/her Facebook page was a moron. Not for posting it. Just for having the idea of taking the picture in the first place. It's the kind of idea that only a moron (oh, okay, or a deranged person) would have.

I'm not a student or teacher or other member of her school community.

So what I find it is of the utmost irrelevance, really.


The only emotion I'd feel if I saw a picture of you "standing next to a gutted deer smiling holding an assault weapon" would pretty much amount to boredom. Kind of like when I see pictures of people watching NASCAR races and boxing matches, and playing video games. I have no desire to participate in / watch any of those activities, and am unlikely to want to associate with people who do, but there ya go, takes all kinds to make the world, and I doubt they'd want to associate with somebody who does the things I do, so everybody's happy.

You really do need to polish up those mind-reading skills, you know. Perhaps a refresher course at Madam Linda's Academy of Crystal Ball Reading and Brainwave Interpretation would help.


Who said anything about an election?

Perhaps you need some memory exercises too. Read some Rudyard Kipling. I believe it was Kim; you might get some ideas there.

The issue of John Kerry posing with a firearm during his campaign was raised. Go back a few posts and you'll see it. Try to remember why you're there when you do, and how to get back to where you were.

I wouldn't care if he had a picture like that.

Good for you. I wonder why he didn't do it?

Are you one gun picture away from voting republican?

Hahahahaha. Maybe somebody will send you the memo.

[Taitertots]

107. So your were offended

I'll take that as a yes. Strange how something so irrelevant to you draws you to post so many times about it.

So what if you are offended because you are afraid of guns. Is it really that hard to admit that you are afraid of something? Why don't you try to work through your fear instead of make everyone else prisoners to it like you are.

[iverglas]

111. so what ...

So what if you are offended because you are afraid of guns.

... if you say things you know aren't true because you have an agenda to drive?

It's not like it wasn't already obvious.

[rrneck]

94. It looked unsafe to me. Anybody points a gun at me like

that better use it. Behaivor like that would go over like a turd in a punch bowl at the range.

[gorfle]

98. I did not say they SHOULD be fired.

There are some people who might be upset by the picture.

A picture of me with a dead deer hanging from its neck with its abdomen wide open and me smiling next to it with an "assault weapon" would upset some people
A picture of a gay couple might make some people upset
A picture of a interracial couple still offends some people
A picture of someone driving a hummer offends the naturalists
A picture of anyone holding a gun offends some people

Just because someone might get offended by something doesn't mean that person should be fired. It means some people need to get a thicker skin. Had that picture depicted illegal, unsafe, or pornographic images I could see them having a case against her.

I did not say the should be fired. I'm saying it could very well get you fired.

I would never post a picture of myself drunk at a party, for example. Is it right that people would fire me or not hire me because they see me acting drunk and foolish at a party? Nope. Is it stupid to post such pictures online? Yup.

You're not going to find me posting pictures of myself doing any of the things you list online. It would not be worth the potential trouble.

[rrneck]

61. I seem to recall

some old saw about never being photographed with a drink in your hand. The same might be said of firearms. In this day and age, pictures never go away.

[slackmaster]

66. A drink, or a cigarette

:nuke:

[AtheistCrusader]

68. That's not a rifle.

Looks like an 1100 series Remington Shotgun to me, but it is sort of grainy.

[guntard]

86. It's a Benelli shotgun

And there's nothing remotely offensive about that pic, in my circles.

The people in this thread defending the school's actions have fallen for the Culture Wars bullshit. Again.

[iverglas]

88. bibbity bobbity

The people in this thread defending the school's actions have fallen for the Culture Wars bullshit.

BOO.

[Hoopla Phil]

81. I wonder if she would have been suspended had it been a picture of

her smoking a cigarette? Another legal product to own and use.

[iverglas]

85. I wonder whether she would have been suspended had it been a picture of

her holding a cigarette an inch from the virtual eye of the person viewing the picture?

I'll answer: likely not.

But then, people assaulting other people with cigarettes doesn't seem to be a major problem in the schools ...

[Hoopla Phil]

90. Ha Ha Ha Ha. Funny. Thanks, I needed the laugh.

[gorfle]

99. How about a joint?

I wonder if she would have been suspended had it been a picture of her smoking a cigarette? Another legal product to own and use.

Certainly less harmful than cigarettes.

You should ask Michael Phelps how such pictures go over. Probably cost him a few million dollars from the lost Kellogg deal.

[tburnsten]

117. Too bad weed isn't a legal item now isn't it?

Otherwise the comparison would be valid. It isn't. His comparison with the cigarette was valid because it is soemthing that you don't want to encourage students to do, but which isn't illegal or wrong. Aiming a gun at your camera, not really something you want to encourage students to do, but in now way shape or form illegal, is a similiar situation. Using illegal drugs is not the same thing at all, and you know that.

[slackmaster]

108. As long as she was willing to destroy the camera, and there wasn't a person behind it at the time

I see no problem with the photo as described.

[aikoaiko]

109. Overreaction on the part of the school adminstrators.

School adminstrators are probably just posturing to appear as if they are protective of their school children.

[Hoopla Phil]

116. Found this statement at the superintindents web page.

How very interesting:

"No person may be denied admission to any public school in the district or be denied participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be discriminated against in any curricular, co-curricular, student services, recreational or other program or activity because of the person's sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, creed, religion, pregnancy, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, handicap or physical, mental, emotional or learning disability in the educational programs or activities operated by the Beaver Dam Unified School District. "



http://www.beaverdam.k12.wi.us/bd/sup-message

[iverglas]

120. and the sky is blue

You had a point?

[Hoopla Phil]

126. The grass is green

yes

[rrneck]

121. Funny thing about Facebook

It's designed to be viral. It's made Mark Zukerberg rich beyond imagination because it puts people's private lives on public display by default. I got curious about it last fall but to see how it works you have to create an account to play with it. After I played with it for about a half an hour I went on to more interesting things but I neglected to delete the account. About three weeks ago I started getting "friend offers" from all over the place. Unless you're very careful, your image will be everywhere for everyone to see. In all probability, that teacher made the same mistake and let an image out of her control that she shouldn't have. No big deal. The news has some celeb or another making the same mistake all the time. Hell, Paris Hilton made a career out of it.

The point is - the internet is not a private place. If the image had actually been kept private we wouldn't have access to it right now.

The entire controversy is not really about guns. Sure, she is holding a gun, but what we are talking about is an image of a teacher holding a gun in a particular way in a particular context.

This is an image of a painting by Rene Magritte completed in 1929. The title is the same as the caption at the bottom of the work, which reads, "This is not a pipe".



So lets title this image and see if it works the same way - "This is not a teacher pointing a shotgun at my face".



You can't smoke that pipe, but if you and somebody else were standing in front of the work and they asked you what a pipe was, you'd point to it and say "there's one". Ramsdale never put anyone in any physical harm through the creation of the photograph. But she did allow a personal image depicting irresponsible and confrontational behavior to be put on public display. As a teacher who is responsible for impressionable children that represents a lapse of judgment. Not a particularly large lapse, but a mistake none the less. I'm sure she's a very nice person and a good teacher, but as a teacher she has a responsibility to maintain a standard of behavior that is slightly higher than those in other professions. There are no doubt parents who have little experience with firearms (or art appreciation) who would find the message that she sends troubling. Perhaps more troubling to them than it actually is, nevertheless, she has a responsibility to those parents, to the school district, and to gun owners to not pull their chain unnecessarily.

The whole issue is really no big deal, and she is no doubt catching a lot more flack than she deserves over it. But images have power, and they are just as real as the activity they depict. Here's another one that's been worth significantly more than just a thousand words: