Public School Newspaper Censorship late 2005 edition!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/28/studentnewspaper.seize.ap/index.html

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

Birth control and tattoos??? WTF, people still get het up about these topics? I feel like Hal Sparks should be narrating that article, with little sarcastic remarks about how wacky the '90s were.

That's so sad, that is seriously sad, and the guy's excuse, "We got 14 year olds reading this!" Does he seriously think 14 year olds have no familiarity with the concept of birth control and sex?

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

they tried to do this shit back in h.s. when my gf wrote a front page article (w/ banner headline) on governor hodges taking condoms out of all the health clinics

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

Makes you wonder what sex ed in that school is like! "CONDOMS DO NOT PREVENT AIDS" perhaps?

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

unfortunately they also failed to censor my smarmy, joel stein-wannabe interview with a classmate who raised goats

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

however in my experience most schools dont give a fuck, our paper got read by like 15 ppl

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

My friend Jamie and I put out an underground school paper with lots of Hunter S. Thompson-inspired drug hinting and illustrations of winged eyeballs and satirical stories about our principal. I don't think it was censored, but Jamie had to go talk to the principal about it, I wonder if he got in trouble.

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

probably not!

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

The only time we ever got censored was when we created an entire special supplement about sex topics and illustrated every single story with photographs of Ken and Barbie (and Friends) in compromising positions. They weren't at all bothered by graphic stories and frank discussion, just, like, Barbie's boobies. Whatever.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:28 (nineteen years ago)

they should have done what i did: only print one copy at a time (on double-sided A4) and make sure they knew exactly who was reading it and when.

i've been a professional journalist since the mid-nineties, but i still think "the eccles" in 1992 and 1993 (number of editions made: six) will be the highlight of my career.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

you guys and Dwight Teeter are totally overeacting.

Of course there has to be some censorship for H.S. papers

Also:
"the student had not told her parents about the tattoo"

"I have a problem with the idea of putting something in the paper that makes us a part of hiding something from the parents," he said.

This is not news. why is it on cnn?

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

The tattoo thing is merely asinine and pointless. It's a side issue thrown in by the school to distract.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:32 (nineteen years ago)

ok, well they could get in legal trouble for presenting/endorsing unauthorized biased sex education.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

It just seems poorly organized of them to release it before they decide it's not ok to release.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

A Nairn, please don't post on my threads.

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

they could get in legal trouble for presenting/endorsing unauthorized biased sex education.

so many choice bits here, but i'll just take this one:

...."biased"?

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

don't worry, I would post 1000 lines of the same word like you sometimes do.

anyway think if there would be legal trouble if there was an article in the school paper claiming Christianity as truth.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

just because he's an unreasonable, conservative, religious, implacable, right-wing fucknut; doesn't mean he hasn't got a right to speak.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

In what way could they get into "legal trouble" for that? Please name some cases, etc.

Also claiming birth control as "truth" ie presenting statistics about whether or not it works versus claiming an unprovable entity exists are kind of two different things, right? I mean spermicide really does kill sperm dead!

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

That all being said, no there really would not be legal trouble over that, I mean have you ever read a fucking editorial page?

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

you can editorialize what the fuck ever you want

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

xpost with ally

― _, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

Many states allow parents remove kids from sex education classes. Covering the same material in the school paper available to everyone goes against this.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

This sucks. Unfortunately, it's hard for students to argue when there's a Supreme Court opinion backing the schools.

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:44 (nineteen years ago)

Quick, burn all books in school libraries about the human reproductive system!!

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:44 (nineteen years ago)

Many states allow parents remove kids from sex education classes. Covering the same material in the school paper available to everyone goes against this.

No, it doesn't. Information on reproduction and most likely various forms of birth control would also be available in the school library.

XPOST

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

Covering the same material in the school paper available to everyone goes against this.

how? are they physically compelling the kid to read it, clamping his eyeballs open w/ some Ludwig Van on the stereo, and forcing the text into his head?

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

I submitted a poem to my high school paper told from the point of view of a 14-year-old girl who liked being molested by her father. Aside from a "gee, I hope you didn't actually experience any sexual abuse" comment from the advisor, that got published with no comment and little fanfare. Also, the article I wrote where I asked the student body to rat out the kid who wrote racial epithets on my computer disk so that I could beat in his brains with a bat was published with minimal editing.

― Dan (It Helps To Be The Golden Child) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

"biased sex education"

Plz explain this notion.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

some schools require parents permission to check out certain books. I remember at mine they had the sex education books stored behind the librarians desk. People have the right to let the family dictate sex education in place of the state.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

didnt cali just rule that schools can teach kids certain aspects of sex ed w/o parental approval? how is this difft from parents who tell their kids the earth is 4000 years old? (aside from the fact that understanding birth control and std prevention is actually an important, practical, life-or-death matter more than creationism or scientific ignorance)

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

(XP) Uuhhh...that's horrifying. Can't string thoughts together but OUCH.

― Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks, Nairn, for giving another datapoint for why America should be burned to the ground and rebooted.

― Dan (Fuck That Shit) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

I once wrote an editorial advocating women walk around completely topless. No one raised an eyebrow! I guess it was clear that by women I did NOT mean Barbie, so it was ok.

xpost so then only hand out the newspaper to kids whose parents are complete wingjobs. I mean just look at the ones who need permission slips to check out books and exclude them. Then distribute the paper to EVERYONE ELSE, which would increase their readership by like 18 trillion-fold from 3 dorkpants up to the entire school so hey everyone wins.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

understanding birth control and std prevention is actually an important, practical, life-or-death matter

many people teach there kids to wait until marriage to have sex and to only ever have sex with their spouse.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, and that works, too.

― Dan (Premarital Sex? Doesn't Happen. Neither Does Adultery.) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

yeah and many kids still fuck around and get knocked up (and disproportionately in the south & midwestern bible belt, regions where many parents deny their children any reasonable sex ed)

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

A Nairn,

"There" is not the same as "Their".

Also, people don't need to know that intravenous drug use spreads AIDS because they're not supposed to shoot junk anyways!

xpost

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

i dont want my kid to know that smoking causes cancer!! he shouldnt be smoking anyway!!!

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

the point is the school should err on the side of less violation of the rights of those who want to teach their own kids about sex than on the side of a student writing a newspaper article repeating information available in health class and the libraries.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

many people teach there kids to wait until marriage to have sex and to only ever have sex with their spouse.

And the fact that those people have higher STD and teen-pregnancy rates than kids who understand birth control just doesn't matter to you, does it? Nairn, Jesus Christ has turned you into a tool.

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

ignorance is not a right

― oooh, Monday, 28 November 2005 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

People have the right to let the family dictate sex education in place of the state.

Yet the state has the right to legislate sexual behavior in place of the family. Fascinating. Hypocritical in the extreme, but fascinating.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

Our point is that is a stupid, ignorant, dangerous point.

― Dan (And So On) Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

rogermexico pwns again.

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

Home schooling then.

― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

Bbbbut America is a CHRISTIAN NATION!@!@!@

― A Nairn (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

many people teach there kids to wait until marriage to have sex and to only ever have sex with their spouse.

What does this have to do with birth control?

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

married and monogamous people use birth control, too!

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

ex machina, please don't post with my name.

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 373 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

it has to do a lot with numbers, and is not always totally accurate

See, this is where math eduation comes in handy...

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 20:54 (nineteen years ago)

hint: Do other Fundamentalists (Taliban-style Moslems or Ultra-orthodox Jews to name but 2) get "equal say"? is a yes or no question.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

To be blunt, at what point do some apparently righteous ends justify the means?

I believe in total depravity, that man can never be fully righteous enough. I also believe that everything follows God's plan to an ultimate good. some apparently righteous things contradict other apparently righteous things. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 20:59 (nineteen years ago)

TS: The Earth, now Entirely Covered In Leather! vs. shoes

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 20:59 (nineteen years ago)

it has to do a lot with numbers, and is not always totally accurate.

So what you're saying is that even though they are a minority, Christian fundamentalists should get an equal say to secular atheists (or pro-science Christians) because they are a larger minority than say rastafarians and satanists? So where is the cutoff in terms of numbers? You seem to be advocating some kind of parlimentary system of ideas where losing ideas still get a seat at the table.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:00 (nineteen years ago)

I believe in total depravity

(hum to the tune of Whitney's "Greatest Love of All")

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:02 (nineteen years ago)

It would also make some Utah public schools Mormon, certain Brooklyn public schools Hasidic, etc. etc. but with some vague multiplicity of "equal say" for secularists etc.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

does total depravity follow God's plan to an Ultimate Good?

xpost: and don't forget us secular humanist Christians

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

Every potential piece of public school curriculum should be subject to a ballot initiative system with different sides getting proportional representation. So if 80% of voters think that the earth is round, 15% think it's flat and 5% think it's hollow and we're on the inside, school classes can spend a proportional amount of time covering all three points of view.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

Nairn likes to imagine that people find him "annoying" because he's CHALLNEGING THEIR BELIEF SYSTEMS! but actually it's 'cause he's IGNORING OBVIOUS THINGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS ARGUMENT.
Nairn, your "it's also an ideology!" schtick is something you Christians are really fond of telling each other, but it's not true. Science doesn't "deny" God or any of that. There just really isn't any evidence, and your feelings, the Bible, etc., aren't "evidence."
OH NO I AM ARGUING WITH NAIRN WHO HAS NEVER LISTENED TO ANYONE EVER

-- Banana Nutrament (straightu...), August 4th, 2005.

Banana was completely OTM on another thread.

― mike h. (mike h.), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

― oooh, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

Ha, we've reached the ultimate end-point of these discussions, the part where the person on Nairn's side finally admits that he just doesn't believe in earth-bound law, period (and yet he still thinks it has some responsibility to cater to his non-belief in it). Boom, done.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:06 (nineteen years ago)

does total depravity follow God's plan to an Ultimate Good?

less than total depravity would give some of the glory to man that is meant for God.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:07 (nineteen years ago)

You do realize that this will be raising the expectations for your Vegas trip with Strongo, right?

We expect pictures and police reports.

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

Do other Fundamentalists (Taliban-style Moslems or Ultra-orthodox Jews to name but 2) get "equal say"?

Yes or no.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

Ha, we've reached the ultimate end-point of these discussions,

b-b-but I'm not done avoiding work yet!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

I guess a lot of it comes down to that I think those few verses in the Bible have much more authority than any research

No, to the extent you believe as a matter of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture, you believe those verses have absolute authority over any research; you know this and I know this, and it is disingenuous and dishonest (not to mention borderline gnostic) of you to qualify the nature of your belief. Okay?

― M. V. (M.V.), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:12 (nineteen years ago)

he just doesn't believe in earth-bound law, period (and yet he still thinks it has some responsibility to cater to his non-belief in it)

I believe in earth bound law. It's purpose is to point to the depravity of man.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:12 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~chang/365/senmap/point3.jpg

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:14 (nineteen years ago)

nabisco OTM.

― I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:15 (nineteen years ago)

Nairn, you've officially crossed over into proselytizing. Fuck you, biblethumper.

― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:16 (nineteen years ago)

yes, but research such as hermeneutical research is still valuable at understanding the Bible. Other research is too. Man's understanding and research of the Bible is still in this world and faulty, but is still used by God to lead people under His plan.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:16 (nineteen years ago)

Googling Nairn's email address gives some interesting results.

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

Seriously, Nairn? That's the point of modern law? Man, our laws aren't interesting enough then, except for those laws that U.S. Customs follows to keep certain german porn vids from coming into the country.

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

you've officially crossed over into proselytizing

hey, I was pushed into it.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

why didnt god use a more effective way to teach his plan

― oooh, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

so what if I like John Zorn and David Bowie

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:18 (nineteen years ago)

why didnt god use a more effective way to teach his plan

effective for man, or for God?

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

because man is not the center of everything. God is.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

I would think that some of Zorn's stuff like Leng T'che might not sit well with you.

― 'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

either one, smartass

― oooh, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

less than total depravity would give some of the glory to man that is meant for God

This takes us down the road (and I can't remember now if this was a real heresy or invented by Borges or Sade) of glorifying God and exalting Jesus' sacrifice by sinning as frequently and grotesquely as possible.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:21 (nineteen years ago)

so he can flood the earth and make it rain frogs but he cant edit a few typos and mistranslations which cause great suffering in his holy name?

― oooh, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:21 (nineteen years ago)

hey, I was pushed into it.

Jesus came and pushed him off the shelf

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, [4] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:24 (nineteen years ago)

Nairn, what's your stance on either self-mutilation or self-pleasure?

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:26 (nineteen years ago)

so he can flood the earth and make it rain frogs but he cant edit a few typos and mistranslations which cause great suffering in his holy name?

I don't know, the few typos might make a believer rely more on faith, which would give him more glory than suffering.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

shit, its almost like the world is totally random!

― oooh, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

DEAR NAIRN:

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU TO GIVE ME A DEEP SWIRLING RIMJOB.

― elmo (allocryptic), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

Nairn, what's your stance on either self-mutilation or self-pleasure?

if these fall under self-control, I think they are fruits of the spirit. If they fall under sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I think they are bad.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck you, biblethumper.

More cursing to the choir.

I believe in earth bound law. It's purpose is to point to the depravity of man.

Laws have purposes. Facts do not. I acknowledge the possibility of knowledge of objective facts, which are facts whether or not I acknowledge them. Many of these facts are not earth-bound. The ancient light that shines into my eye when I look into the night sky through a telescope supports the assertion that the universe is older than seven thousand years. Contorting one's mind to reject facts that contradict one's beliefs is, I should think, itself utterly depraved.

― M. V. (M.V.), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

shit, its almost like the world is totally random!

yeah I know, except for it's origin and other supernatural interventions by God.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

If they fall under sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these, I think they are bad.

why u read ilx???????/

― oooh, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

What if one pleasures oneself to prevent lapsing into total Quagmire mode?

also, how are "dissensions" bad?

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:32 (nineteen years ago)

Dude, don't hate on sorcery.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

why u read ilx???????/

I think this is the one comment that "got me" the most.
I need to go for now too.

― A Nairn (moretap), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

A. Nairn, I sense that you're a good person and I trust that you'll eventually come to your senses. Peace.

― M. V. (M.V.), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:38 (nineteen years ago)

Children of the future Age,
Reading this indignant page;
Know that in a former time.
Love! sweet Love! was thought a crime.

― William_Blake, Wednesday, 30 November 2005 01:11 (nineteen years ago)

five months pass...

House Loan or [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/]House Loan[/url] or http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/ [http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/ House Loan]

― House Loan, Monday, 1 May 2006 13:03 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

House Loan or House Loan or http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/ [http://mywebpage.netscape.com/prevedloan/ House Loan]

― and what, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 17:58 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.