Mo. teachers group sues over social networking law

Friday, August 19, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri State Teachers Association is challenging part of a new state law that restricts how teachers use social networking websites.

The association says it filed suit Friday against the state and two officials seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the new measures, which take effect Aug. 28.

The law prohibits private communication through websites such as Facebook between teachers and current students or former students who are still minors.

The lawsuit asserts the restrictions are so vague and overbroad that it would be difficult to know what is allowed. It contends teachers’ free speech and association rights would be restricted.

Sponsoring Sen. Jane Cunningham says she’s confident the law will withstand legal scrutiny and that critics misunderstand the restriction. Cunningham says the measure only bars private communication.

More like this story

m2thadsr 1 year, 9 months ago

"Cunningham says the measure only bars private communication." then that is what the law should of been written to say not all of the vagueness that is written in it.!

online_editor 1 year, 9 months ago

The dilemma seems to me to be precisely and unambiguously defining private communication, or as the bill calls it, exclusive access. It's unclear to me from reading the bill which Facebook settings meet this requirement and which don't because there are various levels of access to posts -- i.e., all public, friends only, friends of friends. Plus direct messages within Facebook are, by their nature, automatically private. Perhaps teachers could and should establish a "fan" page that is totally public for teacher duties only. (However, it seems one still would have to be able to turn off direct messages from everyone or else a path of exclusive access would remain.) With a fan page, the teacher's regular Facebook page could stay more restricted, while it serves as administrator of the public fan page.

dinger 1 year, 9 months ago

In reading Senate Bill 54 I believe the law as written is clear and spells out what should already be policy in all schools.

• The first sentence says that a school district has to develop a communication policy between students and employees of a school district (employees include teachers).

• The second sentence lists the minimum directions that are needed in the policy on communication between students and employees.

• The third sentence states that any school website that is used by school employees to communicate with students must be available to their bosses and the parents/guardians of a student so they can be monitored. This is a parent/guardian right to know what is being said to their child.

• The fourth sentence states that a non school website that they use to communicate with a student is not allowed unless public access is allowed. I personally see no reason that an employee of a school should have private communications with a student as that only invites trouble. There was mention the term exclusive is ambiguous and according to the online Webster definition it is “excluding others from participation”. In other words if a student and employee has a private relationship on a social network that is not allowed. This if straightforward to me that if they want to be on a social web page with a student then it has to be public.

• The fifth sentence defines what a student is.

To sum it up the bill addresses in a fairly straightforward manner on the relationship between school employees and students and is mainly common sense. What it gets down to is a law had to be created to protect employees and students from each other as adults didn’t think through the consequences of their actions. A teacher is not a student’s friend they are their teacher and should behave accordingly as being their friend can only get them into trouble as many have found out by forgetting the old saying familiarity breeds contempt.

online_editor 1 year, 9 months ago

"The fourth sentence states that a non school website that they use to communicate with a student is not allowed unless public access is allowed."

I'm puzzled why the term "public access" does not appear in the relevant sections. Instead, the bill measures compliance on non-work related sites by outlining concepts of "exclusive access" and "explicit consent agreements." After reading and re-reading back-and-forth between the relevant definitions and sections several times, I think I begin to see how one can conclude the bill accomplishes its intent. However, without straightforward terms like public access, that's one roundabout mental trip. (For those who want to read it, see 162.069 of SB54 at senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill/tat/SB54.pdf ) Thank you for contributing. I'll be quiet now and listen from here forward.

dinger 1 year, 9 months ago

I forgot to mention that I was not referring to Senate Bill 54 in it’s entirety but only to one section of it. Here is that section that deals with communication between school employees and students: SECTION 162.069 - By January 1, 2012, every school district must develop a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communications. Each policy must include appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with sexual harassment policies, and appropriate use of electronic media as described in the act, including social networking sites. Teachers cannot establish, maintain, or use a work-related website unless it is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Teachers also cannot have a nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Former student is defined as any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated. By January 1, 2012, each school district must include in its teacher and employee training a component that provides information on identifying signs of sexual abuse in children and of potentially abusive relationships between children and adults, with an emphasis on mandatory reporting. Training must also include an emphasis on the obligation of mandated reporters to report suspected abuse by other mandatory reporters. I did not address the second paragraph of the section.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune