12-31-2007, 01:13 AM
[quote MacMagus]> Students do have rights, but I don't believe that unlimited anonymous free speech about
> their profs is among them.
Again, no answer necessary....
'Just pointing out that the right to speak or write anonymously when not a matter of slander/libel or incitement to illegal acts is generally protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution under the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Also, it might be worth noting for your own edification that you are posting somewhat anonymously in a public forum wherein you frequently criticize students. Why are they not to be permitted the same privilege with regard to you?
OK, to take this point-by-point:
1) I chose my words carefully: "unlimited anonymous free speech" -- sure, I believe in free speech, but not when it can occur without consequences, as is often the case in a situation of anonymity. If you (or I, or someone else) says something derogatory that affects someone negatively, that should have consequences, and anonymity is not a shield for that. That is to say, slander is slander-- if you say something untrue about someone, you should be held responsible for what you say, regardless if it's in print (libel), spoken, or out on a website somewhere... hence why I brought up the point about the dentist rating website, and also possible websites for other occupations (e.g., web designer, taxi driver, whatever). Freedom of speech is NOT absolute -- Supreme Court decisions have ruled as much. The EFF is quite correct in that anonymous speech is protected-- but again, that assumes that what is being said is not defamatory, slanderous, or libelous-- and I could make a pretty good case that it is, in the case of the websites we're discussing.
2) I wouldn't say I "frequently criticize students". I have stated an opinion that some (not all) students show certain behaviors and tendencies. I've also been-- I think-- quite measured in my judgments-- namely that this isn't something that all students do, nor are they necessarily to blame for it, nor are they themselves even necessarily able to see how their behavior comes across. The latter point is fairly important, as a number of students may truly not realize how their own behavior contributes to a situation. We as profs have a responsibility to teach, and part of that teaching (this comes from my institution) is in student conduct-- we as profs are supposed to be the arbiters of student conduct... which is a bit of a catch-22. Here is a relevant example. It is hard to teach students when they are unruly or disruptive in class. We, as profs, are expected to "control the classroom" -- which for the most part we do... but the question comes up in the first place of why we should *have* to control the classroom... isn't it the students' responsibility, not ours, for them to conduct themselves in an adult manner? Yet we as profs are supposed to-- in some fashion-- act as disciplinarians in addition to teachers. My point is that we as profs are not responsible for everything, not nearly everything... I cannot force a student to behave properly in class (if they don't want to), nor make a student learn or do the work, and yet seemingly I get blamed if they don't.
3) vp is correct, I don't go around criticizing specific students on websites. I am mindful of the fact that even though anonymous free speech is protected, I am still responsible for what I write online.
4) MacMagus, you mentioned previously that you are a Masters student. I do think that may be coloring your viewpoint a little bit, in that -- having been where you are now, not that long ago I might add -- I can actually see both sides of this. I do believe students are entitled to their opinion. However, what about my rights as an individual and professional, not to be defamed? If you were to have people write something about you -- as a TA, graduate assistant, whatever -- which you felt was hurtful and simply untrue, how would you feel about it?
5) My general point -- which may have gotten lost in here somewhere -- was to say -- these ratings websites, regardless of whether what's being said is libelous or not-- I don't believe any of them is a good idea. It's a very dangerous road to go down, when we start anonymously posting evaluations of people in their various career tracks (or in general, see below). Just as we have guidelines for online behavior in a forum such as this, there should be guidelines for any of these websites that allow the people who are being discussed to have the comments written about them taken down. (It would be one thing if the forums/websites police themselves-- as for example MRF does-- but apparently the other websites are still pretty much unregulated, and anyone can say pretty much anything.) I'm also reminded of the recent case of a man who was accused on a "cheaters" website of having an STD: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2184494
> their profs is among them.
Again, no answer necessary....
'Just pointing out that the right to speak or write anonymously when not a matter of slander/libel or incitement to illegal acts is generally protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution under the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Also, it might be worth noting for your own edification that you are posting somewhat anonymously in a public forum wherein you frequently criticize students. Why are they not to be permitted the same privilege with regard to you?
OK, to take this point-by-point:
1) I chose my words carefully: "unlimited anonymous free speech" -- sure, I believe in free speech, but not when it can occur without consequences, as is often the case in a situation of anonymity. If you (or I, or someone else) says something derogatory that affects someone negatively, that should have consequences, and anonymity is not a shield for that. That is to say, slander is slander-- if you say something untrue about someone, you should be held responsible for what you say, regardless if it's in print (libel), spoken, or out on a website somewhere... hence why I brought up the point about the dentist rating website, and also possible websites for other occupations (e.g., web designer, taxi driver, whatever). Freedom of speech is NOT absolute -- Supreme Court decisions have ruled as much. The EFF is quite correct in that anonymous speech is protected-- but again, that assumes that what is being said is not defamatory, slanderous, or libelous-- and I could make a pretty good case that it is, in the case of the websites we're discussing.
2) I wouldn't say I "frequently criticize students". I have stated an opinion that some (not all) students show certain behaviors and tendencies. I've also been-- I think-- quite measured in my judgments-- namely that this isn't something that all students do, nor are they necessarily to blame for it, nor are they themselves even necessarily able to see how their behavior comes across. The latter point is fairly important, as a number of students may truly not realize how their own behavior contributes to a situation. We as profs have a responsibility to teach, and part of that teaching (this comes from my institution) is in student conduct-- we as profs are supposed to be the arbiters of student conduct... which is a bit of a catch-22. Here is a relevant example. It is hard to teach students when they are unruly or disruptive in class. We, as profs, are expected to "control the classroom" -- which for the most part we do... but the question comes up in the first place of why we should *have* to control the classroom... isn't it the students' responsibility, not ours, for them to conduct themselves in an adult manner? Yet we as profs are supposed to-- in some fashion-- act as disciplinarians in addition to teachers. My point is that we as profs are not responsible for everything, not nearly everything... I cannot force a student to behave properly in class (if they don't want to), nor make a student learn or do the work, and yet seemingly I get blamed if they don't.
3) vp is correct, I don't go around criticizing specific students on websites. I am mindful of the fact that even though anonymous free speech is protected, I am still responsible for what I write online.
4) MacMagus, you mentioned previously that you are a Masters student. I do think that may be coloring your viewpoint a little bit, in that -- having been where you are now, not that long ago I might add -- I can actually see both sides of this. I do believe students are entitled to their opinion. However, what about my rights as an individual and professional, not to be defamed? If you were to have people write something about you -- as a TA, graduate assistant, whatever -- which you felt was hurtful and simply untrue, how would you feel about it?
5) My general point -- which may have gotten lost in here somewhere -- was to say -- these ratings websites, regardless of whether what's being said is libelous or not-- I don't believe any of them is a good idea. It's a very dangerous road to go down, when we start anonymously posting evaluations of people in their various career tracks (or in general, see below). Just as we have guidelines for online behavior in a forum such as this, there should be guidelines for any of these websites that allow the people who are being discussed to have the comments written about them taken down. (It would be one thing if the forums/websites police themselves-- as for example MRF does-- but apparently the other websites are still pretty much unregulated, and anyone can say pretty much anything.) I'm also reminded of the recent case of a man who was accused on a "cheaters" website of having an STD: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2184494