Put in jail for speech. Yes, in the USA.

[Beerina]

Apparently saying "Good Job, Columbine shooters" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/04/blog.arrest.ap/index.html) is a jailable offense in the United States, now.

"They knew how to deal with the overpaid teacher union thugs. One shot at a time!" he wrote, adding they should be remembered as heroes.


Particularly disturbing:

Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens is considering whether to charge Buss with disorderly conduct and unlawful use of computerized communication systems.

Speech is not disorderly unless it's encouraging a clear and immediate danger. And exactly what would be "unlawful" about using a computer communications system for...communications?

Bad taste, certainly. Arrestable? I hope he sues their ass off.

...unless that sentiment will get me arrested now, too.

[Loss Leader]

I guess the police can arrest anybody they want but I cannot believe he'll be charged and I lack the requisite whimsy to even imagine he'd ever be convicted.

[Gurdur]

... Speech is not disorderly unless it's encouraging a clear and immediate danger.
Cite the relevant laws, please, with links. Or was this simply yet another empty assertion?

...unless that sentiment will get me arrested now, too.

* dreams of that sweet day when those who make only empty, baseless assertions and never answer questions or debunkings will be thrown into dank dungeons, indefinitely *

:p

[Darth Rotor]

Cite the relevant laws, please, with links. Or was this simply yet another empty assertion?



* dreams of that sweet day when those who make only empty, baseless assertions and never answer questions or debunkings will be thrown into dank dungeons, indefinitely *

:p
Ah, the nasty version of Gurdur is back. Missed you, hope all is well at your end. Been busy?

@ Beerina.

Seems a sarcastic joke is being used as a pretext to arrest someone. George Carlin won't be pleased. I'd love to hear his take on it.

Eff me, I wax sarcastic now and again.

Watcha gonna do
Watcha gonna do
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you

00 buck.

DR

[IMST]

gah. Sarcastic joke was my impression too. Someone decided to perceive a threat. Wonder if this means that we could have had George arrested for threatening a poster during that epic thread.

[Puppycow]

I thought the internets wuz supposed to be anonymus.

Seeing he was the president of a teachers union, it seems like he was trying to put a strawman out there to make the teachers union's critics look like foaming-at-the-mouth extremists. Guess it didn't work out. In fact, it makes him look like an ass.

[m_huber]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

I believe this is the relevant law.

[epeos76]

Beerina's post seems like perfectly reasonable statement of the relevant law. I'm too new to post links but if you google findlaw.com and search the Supreme Court decisions, you'll find Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444, 448 (1969) which stands for the proposition that a state cannot forbid speech even if the speaker is advocating the illegal use of force unless the speech in question is "directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action" and "is likely to produce or incite such action."

In Brandenburg The court gave the okay to the KKK, who made much more explicit threats of "revengeance".

"Funny" little dirty research trick - when I'm looking for support for an extreme legal position as a last resort I throw in some search terms related to race or the labor movement.

[JoeEllison]

Most people seem to support laws against free speech, as long as it is against speech that they don't see themselves ever saying.

[Puppycow]

Most people seem to support laws against free speech, as long as it is against speech that they don't see themselves ever saying.

I agree. I think over 90% of people would probably agree that, for an extreme example, if a person owned property across from a school and put up a large billboard with a pornographic image, that such person could be forced to remove it and punished.

That would be a form of speech however. And so almost all of us draw a line somewhere.

[linusrichard]

Beerina's post seems like perfectly reasonable statement of the relevant law. I'm too new to post links but if you google findlaw.com and search the Supreme Court decisions, you'll find Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 US 444, 448 (1969) which stands for the proposition that a state cannot forbid speech even if the speaker is advocating the illegal use of force unless the speech in question is "directed to producing or inciting imminent lawless action" and "is likely to produce or incite such action."

In Brandenburg The court gave the okay to the KKK, who made much more explicit threats of "revengeance".

"Funny" little dirty research trick - when I'm looking for support for an extreme legal position as a last resort I throw in some search terms related to race or the labor movement.

And before Brandenburg there was Schenck v. U.S.:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

Brandenburg didn't overrule Schenck as much as narrow the rule somewhat.

Personally, I hate both opinions, and find myself agreeing with Justice Black that these standards violate the First Amendment. But, Brandenburg is the law. I'd like to think there's no way this guy can be convicted for what he said - I don't know how they could prove that these words created a clear and present danger of bringing about any substantive evils, or was directed at producing or likely to produce imminent lawless action...

To the credit of Justice Holmes, who wrote the opinion in Schenck, he backed away from it just two years later, dissenting in Abrams v. U.S., and a number of other similar cases.

[CaptainManacles]

it's not all that wacky, I don't think calling for someone's murder should be part of free speach. Though if he was obviously being sarcastic then it's definately an overreaction. But, meh, I've seen worse.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not your fathers Oldsmobile.

[epeos76]

The legal test for obscenity has literally been characterized as "I know it when I see it".

//library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

The justices used to have a weekly screening to decide whether each challenged movie was protected speech. The story is that when Justice Harlan's sight began to fail he made a law clerk sit next to him and describe each scenel.

[epeos76]

[quote=linusrichard;3214535]And before Brandenburg there was Schenck v. U.S.:[QUOTE]

So "clear and immediate" danger is not just a reasonable statement of the law, it's virtually word perfect. The police overreacted and the right of this font of masterful oratory to act like an irresponsible rule 8 will almost certainly be vindicated. That's a fair price to pay for the liberty to criticize popular opinions.

[Puppycow]

The legal test for obscenity has literally been characterized as "I know it when I see it".

//library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

The justices used to have a weekly screening to decide whether each challenged movie was protected speech. The story is that when Justice Harlan's sight began to fail he made a law clerk sit next to him and describe each scenel.

So viewing viewing porn is one of the perks of being a justice? :D

No wonder they wear those long flowing robes. ;)

[Gurdur]

Most people seem to support laws against free speech, as long as it is against speech that they don't see themselves ever saying.

Not terribly much of an argument or one-liner, when you consider that that goes for any prohibitive law imaginable. Strange, isn't it, how non-murderers support laws against murder, or non-embezzlers support laws against embezzlement, or non-rapists support laws against rape? Think that that invalidates their stance or something?


And before Brandenburg there was Schenck v. U.S.: .....
I'ld have preferred it if you had let Beerina do the work.

[Gurdur]

Ah, the nasty version of Gurdur is back. Missed you, hope all is well at your end. Been busy?
So nasty it wasn't, not at all; after all, there was a :p-smiley thrown in there, twice. In any case, you'll be getting a PM from me soonish that will explain the answers to your other questions.

Seems a sarcastic joke is being used as a pretext to arrest someone.
I don't think so, why on Earth would they want to arrest him otherwise? Not a pretext but the actual reason why they arrested him.

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you

I'll use the :p-smiley on them repeatedly.

[JoeEllison]

Not terribly much of an argument or one-liner, when you consider that that goes for any prohibitive law imaginable. Strange, isn't it, how non-murderers support laws against murder, or non-embezzlers support laws against embezzlement, or non-rapists support laws against rape? Think that that invalidates their stance or something?

Your false analogies destroy your position. No one supports being allowed to murder and rape people, while restricting others from doing so. Everyone expects free speech for themselves, but not for everyone else. They want to protest the groups and politicians of their choice, but a lot of people would take that right away from others.

[Loss Leader]

Brandenburg didn't overrule Schenck as much as narrow the rule somewhat.


The Court can play with nieceties and split hairs all they want but the solid political truth of the matter was that Brandenburg was the death of Shenck (and lots of SCt and lower court opinions had been eating away at Shenck long before that). There is no question that the behavior prohibited by Shenck would have been legal under Branderburg and would be legal today.

The fact that the SCt doesn't like to say that it's "overruling" itself doesn't mean that it doesn't do it.

[BPSCG]

Okay, I think we're coming around to a consensus that while he trod pretty close to the line, but didn't go over it.

Now, does anyone think he shouldn't be fired?

[Tailgater]

Okay, I think we're coming around to a consensus that while he trod pretty close to the line, but didn't go over it.

Now, does anyone think he shouldn't be fired?

I don't think he should have been arrested.....well, maybe held overnight and questioned to see if this is a buildup to a Columbine 2, but not formally charged.

Yes, he should be fired and probably tazed a few times.

[Rob Lister]

it's not all that wacky, I don't think calling for someone's murder should be part of free speach. Though if he was obviously being sarcastic then it's definately an overreaction. But, meh, I've seen worse.

Except he didn't call for anyone's death.

[Rob Lister]

Is this quote illegal speech?

Regarding the guy that shot the two guys robbing his neighbors hows, he knew how to deal with them, one shot at a time. He's a hero.

[Loss Leader]

Okay, I think we're coming around to a consensus that while he trod pretty close to the line, but didn't go over it.

Now, does anyone think he shouldn't be fired?


I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

[Tailgater]

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

Once this comment reaches the students, it is basically an issue of them feeling safe with the guy, even if logically they shouldn't feel threatened. He wasn't just praising a killer of teachers, but of other students. Twelve students and one teacher. It just won't fly.

[Darth Rotor]

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.
It might be that they are not arrested since they do not advocate hunting out of season, a horrific and illegal thing . . .

:duck:

DR

[sackett]

... "Funny" little dirty research trick - when I'm looking for support for an extreme legal position as a last resort I throw in some search terms related to race or the labor movement.

A belated welcome to the forum, epeos76, and thanks for your fast work digging up the cases.

Yes, it's "funny" how the law is so readily used against union men; it always has been, of course, especially union organizers.

The law and a nightstick.

[ponderingturtle]

It might be that they are not arrested since they do not advocate hunting out of season, a horrific and illegal thing . . .


I always will remember,
'Twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

I was in no mood to trifle,
I took down my trusty rifle
And went out to stalk my prey.
What a haul I made that day!
I tied them to my fender, and I drove them home somehow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow.

The law was very firm, it
Took away my permit,
The worst punishment I ever endured.
It turned out there was a reason,
Cows were out of season,
And one of the hunters wasn't insured.

People ask me how I do it,
And I say "There's nothin' to it,
You just stand there lookin' cute,
And when something moves, you shoot!"
And there's ten stuffed heads in my trophy room right now:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a pure-bred Guernsey cow.
:)

[CaptainManacles]

Except he didn't call for anyone's death.

Sure he did. He said that the proper way to deal with teachers unions is to kill their members. That's calling for the death of every union member.

[Rob Lister]

Sure he did. He said that the proper way to deal with teachers unions is to kill their members. That's calling for the death of every union member.

No he didn't. He said these kids knew how to deal with...

But even if he did, it's still not a direct threat or inciting

[Loss Leader]

Once this comment reaches the students, it is basically an issue of them feeling safe with the guy, even if logically they shouldn't feel threatened. He wasn't just praising a killer of teachers, but of other students. Twelve students and one teacher. It just won't fly.


Except the guy was anonymous. If the police hadn't looked for him for no legal reason, he'd be anonymous. If the blogger hadn't given up his IP address despite being under no compulsion, he'd be anonymous. If his IP hadn't given up his name despite not being required to, he'd be anonymous.

The whole thing stinks.

[CaptainManacles]

No he didn't. He said these kids knew how to deal with...

But even if he did, it's still not a direct threat or inciting

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

[bignickel]

I'm at a loss as to how anyone can support this.

Anyone on this board for a few years has seen plenty of sarcastic posts that rival the one that this teacher made. If it's acceptable to arrest this teacher, then it's acceptable to arrest members of this forum?

Heck, I'm sure a few people here remember a certain post about air marshals on planes, and that wasn't even sarcastic. Should the poster in question be detained at the airport, and deported next time he visits? Seriously?

[Tailgater]

Except the guy was anonymous. If the police hadn't looked for him for no legal reason, he'd be anonymous. If the blogger hadn't given up his IP address despite being under no compulsion, he'd be anonymous. If his IP hadn't given up his name despite not being required to, he'd be anonymous.

The whole thing stinks.

Then he might have a lawsuit, but after the fact, I don't see how he could be left in his position.

It does stink, because I'm sure he never intended to threaten anyone or would commit such an act, but what's done is done. Now we have a public employee, with a clear statement that he gave hero status to someone who gunned down a teacher and some students, working exclusively with teachers and students.

[Rob Lister]

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

Nope. Unless you can show precedent, you're wrong.

[Beerina]

I'ld have preferred it if you had let Beerina do the work.

I'll keep that in mind, but if I've learned the principle, I'm not going to do detailed legwork just to satisfy a detractor like you.

[daredelvis]

:)

Thank you, with that post you finally pushed The Vatican Rag out of my head. I have been genuflecting constantly for the last three days.

Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow...

Daredelvis

[Beerina]

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

Now that's a finer line. "Chavez should die", according to Pat Robertson. Maybe he should. Is saying that illegal?

The killing is probably illegal. That doesn't mean it's illegal to discuss whether it's proper to kill someone as part of a particular goal.

Or does it? Is it illegal to say, "If you hate your wife, kill her, and your problems will be over."

[DaChew]

Illegal speech or not, he was being a Moby on somebody's discussion and that SHOULD be punishable by a trip to Guantanamo.

[CaptainManacles]

Nope. Unless you can show precedent, you're wrong.

Precent has nothing to do with anything I said. I never made any claims about the legality of his actions. Put some effort into improving your reading comprehension, both for his statements and mine.

[CaptainManacles]

Now that's a finer line. "Chavez should die", according to Pat Robertson. Maybe he should. Is saying that illegal?

The killing is probably illegal. That doesn't mean it's illegal to discuss whether it's proper to kill someone as part of a particular goal.

Or does it? Is it illegal to say, "If you hate your wife, kill her, and your problems will be over."

There's a difference between saying someone should die and saying someone should be murdered. I can say "I hope Chavez has a heart attack" That's quite different from saying "Someone should poison him".

I think there's also a difference in the degree of specificity between saying something about wives in general, and picking out a specific organization, like the teacher's union. Though I suppose that statement *could* be directed at someone specific. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who ends up in hot water over such a remark.

[rwguinn]

There's a difference between saying someone should die and saying someone should be murdered. I can say "I hope Chavez has a heart attack" That's quite different from saying "Someone should poison him".

I think there's also a difference in the degree of specificity between saying something about wives in general, and picking out a specific organization, like the teacher's union. Though I suppose that statement *could* be directed at someone specific. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who ends up in hot water over such a remark.

So, for someone who has had a bad experience with the legal system, saying
"The first thing we do is shoot the lawyers" should also be arrested?

In the part of the world I come from, that is the same thing.

"Them 'ol boys needs a good shootin'" "All politicians outta be shot" are common sentiments for people who have absolutely no intention of any follow through, nor are they advocating that anyone do it. It is an expression of disgust with a system that is not working the way one thinks it should, or wishes it would.


If you look for things to be offended by, you will find them. If you look for loopholes in the law to oppress those not in power, you can find them

"

[BPSCG]

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.Protected from government punishment, but should it protect him from his employer's saying, "You showed an appalling lack of judgment that reflects badly on us, so good-bye"?

Mind you, I don't entertain any serious doubt that what he was trying to do was satirize the opponents of the teacher pay raise, that he absolutely had no intention of killing anyone, or even inciting anyone to take up his weapons and slay.

But Mark Twain could have told him that satire can be a very sharp knife, that cuts so sharply that people don't feel, or recognize the cut (http://checkplease.humorfeed.com/issues/0101/2004JuneTwain.php). And if you're not careful...

My take: An unambiguous apology ... meaning, no blaming the people who read his post, e.g., "I'm sorry you were offended..." for being a bonehead is in order, upon which the matter should be dropped.

[Loss Leader]

My take: An unambiguous apology ... meaning, no blaming the people who read his post, e.g., "I'm sorry you were offended..." for being a bonehead is in order, upon which the matter should be dropped.



Considering that you are usually far, far more libertarian than I am, I'm a little undone by your opinion. I think everybody involved should just go to hell. I guess I'd agree to the apology if it really would make the entire matter go away.

[fishbob]

Saying these kids knew the proper way to deal with them, by killing them, is implying that killing them is the proper way to deal with them. Proper means that it SHOULD happen. So he's telling people they SHOULD kill teachers. That's inciting violence. And I don't see why I should care if it's a direct threat or an indirect threat.

Do you really want the government to apply this kind of logic, then chase down and prosecute this kind of speech?

Might as well kiss free speech goodbye.

[CaptainManacles]

So, for someone who has had a bad experience with the legal system, saying
"The first thing we do is shoot the lawyers" should also be arrested?

In the part of the world I come from, that is the same thing.

"Them 'ol boys needs a good shootin'" "All politicians outta be shot" are common sentiments for people who have absolutely no intention of any follow through, nor are they advocating that anyone do it. It is an expression of disgust with a system that is not working the way one thinks it should, or wishes it would.


If you look for things to be offended by, you will find them. If you look for loopholes in the law to oppress those not in power, you can find them

"

Well, first, is saying "first thing we do is shoot the lawyers" really as obviously sarcastic as "those columbine kids had the right idea"? And I do think there is a difference between someone saying someone should be killed, and pointing to someone who commited mass murderer outside the law and saying "those people had the right idea", however, I will admit those are both rather weak points.

But my initial point wasn't even that it should be illegal, or even that they should be arrested, and I even said if they were clearly being sarcastic then it was an overreaction. I did generally imply that the thread title was a little more fire and brimstone then reality would dictate, and that this certainly wasn't as bad as it gets, which are both true. No one is knocking down doors and dragging people out in black bags, but you have a valid point about this likely being more related to power issues then any consistent legal doctorine. If the statement had been "all trenchcoat wearing teenagers should be....yada yada" then I doubt they would have batted an eye. But very few people are going to complain about hauling someone away who said bad things about teachers.

[epeos76]

Now that the teacher's identity is known, I don't have a problem with him being disciplined. Local government is responsible for its employees' conduct. A private employee would certainly expect to be fired for creating that much ill will and associating it with the company.

Firing a public school teacher is government action limited by the first amendment, but I think there is plenty of precedent protecting school boards' discretion to hire and fire. I'm not an expert on free speech, but I vaguely recall a case in which a teacher was fired more or less for protesting budget cut backs.

Is this a good rule? It puts broad authority in the hands of schools boards, but at the end of the day, they are elected officals answerable to us. As long as speech is not a crime, I think a community should be allowed some latitude in determining standards for public employees.

I think there's a limit to how much privacy and freedom can be protected by fiat. At some point, people have to act like they value these things without coercion. There are clearly cases where we would want the police to identify and question an obviously disturbed poster. I think the most frustrating part of this affair is that the IP company gave up the teacher's information without requiring the police to apply for a subpoena - a minimal test. It's also frustrating that the police failed to show any respect for the confidential information they received or for this guy's reputation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't even agree with that. He made no specific threat, he targetted no specific people (there are thousands of teachers' unions across the country, he spoke about no specific place, he didn't even invite others to do harm to anyone. I see nothing but protected speech.

Every day on Stormfront, there are people typing that it would be great if some lone wolf went down to Wall Street with a rifle and thinned out the Jewish herd. None of those people are under arrest.

Hey, we agree!

:) :) :)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except the guy was anonymous. If the police hadn't looked for him for no legal reason, he'd be anonymous. If the blogger hadn't given up his IP address despite being under no compulsion, he'd be anonymous. If his IP hadn't given up his name despite not being required to, he'd be anonymous.

The whole thing stinks.

Twice in one thread even!!!

:) :) :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

The "Boots and Sabers" blog (http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/bs_commenter_arrested/) has a post and comments on the incident including what the guy actually posted as opposed to reading it second hand from the reporter. It does add one more detail, "the the complaint was filed by a member of the West Bend school administration." It could be that unless it was a frivolous charge, the police were obligated to make the arrest. They could possibly have given the guy a summons and not booked him. Some police districts though, have special rules about mandatory arrests when assault charges or threats are asserted by one person against another. Such laws stem from past police handling of domestic violence incidents.

Here's the original blog entry:

School Compensation DB (http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/school_compensation_db/)The MJS has provided this handy database to look at all of the salaries, including benefits, for a whole slew of public school districts. Take a gander at your local district. ...

# 35 - [removed by administrator]
Posted by Observer on November 16, 2007 at 1850 hrsThe salary database is linked if you go to the blog link.

Under comments from "about me" on the blog site the author writes: "Politically, I tend to be libertarian on domestic issues, and somewhere to the right of "bomb them back to the Stone Age" on foreign policy issues." That might give some idea about what flavor blog this is. There's a lot of this kind of thing in some of those right wing social circles. Mostly guys with the attitude being a big bully solves all ills.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.

If you live in Wisconsin, you're not alone, because median household income in the state declined by $2,226, to $45,956 in 2004-'05, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:

Bonnie Laugerman Subject Coordinator $103,285, $39,142

David Lodes District Administrator $138,433, $43,007

William Andrekopoulos District Administrator $169,680, $55,307

I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!
:eek:

Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.

[gnome]

The thing about the phrase "The first thing we do, let's shoot all the lawyers" is that the person that said it was NOT trying to describe a desirable society, IIRC. It shows how much trouble you get into trying to regulate speech by its content. It needs to be avoided in all but the most egregious cases of verbal "endangerment"

[Skeptic Ginger]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:



I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!
:eek:

Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.Geesh Jerome, could you have found a more atypical example to distort the facts with.

You picked a school in some very well financed location (http://www.arrowheadschools.org/display/router.asp?docid=429). The PTA at the public elementary school here in Bill Gate's neighborhood raised $100,000 at their $50/plate silent auction. One of the items auctioned off was a "Limo ride for your child to their grade school graduation". That's all you have here, some rich kids' school in a public school district.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:



I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!
:eek:

Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.

Those aren't teachers, they are administrators. There's a difference.

Table 1. Average Salaries ($) of Public School Teachers, (http://www.nea.org/edstats/RankFull06b.htm)

22 WISCONSIN 44,299

Ta da, less than the average salary.

[CaptainManacles]

Ta da, less than the average salary.

Less then the median household income. And is that salary before or after accounting for the fact that they only work 2/3 of the year?

[3point14]

I guess the police can arrest anybody they want but I cannot believe he'll be charged and I lack the requisite whimsy to even imagine he'd ever be convicted.

Arising from this is the question 'Why was he arrested in the first place?'

Surely any officer who arrests someone who obviously will never be charged or brought to trial, much less be convicted, should be subject to some sort of censure?

Could it be interpreted as harassment?

[Kerberos]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479
And what happened to the average household size in that period?
These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:
Yes, because those are typical teachers.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Those aren't teachers, they are administrators. There's a difference.

Table 1. Average Salaries ($) of Public School Teachers, (http://www.nea.org/edstats/RankFull06b.htm)



Ta da, less than the average salary.

The NEA has an interest in massaging those numbers low.

I would like to see how they derived those numbers before taking them as anything other than propaganda.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ta da, less than the average salary.

The Number you are making a comparison to is household income, not individual salary.

[Beerina]

A drop in "median household income" could be due to factors other than an encrappifying economy. There could be an influx of immigrants and/or a bulge of younger people looking for jobs. People starting out or with poorer edumication tend to earn less, and may sway the average, even as the average "40 year old who's lived there all his life" may continue to earn more and more during his career.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics", since we're quoting Twain here... :)

[fuelair]

It looks like the teachers were trying to get back at this guy for spilling the beans.


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479

These poor teachers only making these small salaries plus fringe benefits:



I wonder were the money comes from to pay these educators?

I know, I know! From the taxes of the people making $45,000!
:eek:

Some of the fringe benefits are more that the median household income. That is two workers by the way.

Poor underpayed educators.
Administrators are not educators. They may or not have been educators but.....

[Skeptic Ginger]

Less then the median household income. And is that salary before or after accounting for the fact that they only work 2/3 of the year?You can look at that several ways. While a part time job might be nice for some people, not being able to work full time because your job only lasts 10 months can also mean that is your annual salary not by choice. I don't think teachers should be left with summer jobs at McDs or Jamba Juice. They are not eligible (I don't think) for unemployment every summer as one would who was laid off a couple months of every year.

I agree some work a light schedule though many argue they put in a lot more time. Some do, some don't, that's human nature.

[CaptainManacles]

You can look at that several ways. While a part time job might be nice for some people, not being able to work full time because your job only lasts 10 months can also mean that is your annual salary not by choice. I don't think teachers should be left with summer jobs at McDs or Jamba Juice. They are not eligible (I don't think) for unemployment every summer as one would who was laid off a couple months of every year.

I agree some work a light schedule though many argue they put in a lot more time. Some do, some don't, that's human nature.

That's a good point. It's a complex issue, but ultimately they chose the job knowing how much it's probably going to pay so at some point in time they think the benefits of that job outweigh other options.

If any arguement is to be made, I think it would be that paying teachers more will likely get us higher quality teachers in the long run.

[JoeEllison]

Less then the median household income. And is that salary before or after accounting for the fact that they only work 2/3 of the year?

Do you also account for the fact that teachers work very much more than a 40-hour week? I'm sure it all balances out.

[CaptainManacles]

Do you also account for the fact that teachers work very much more than a 40-hour week? I'm sure it all balances out.

Laughable. They work 6 hour days at most schools, with grading and tests, many teachers don't even make 40. And most salaried people work more then a 40-hour week. It hardly balances out. It's an easy job and an easy degree and you get paid appropriately, if not more then they should simply because of public preasure.

[rwguinn]

Laughable. They work 6 hour days at most schools, with grading and tests, many teachers don't even make 40. And most salaried people work more then a 40-hour week. It hardly balances out. It's an easy job and an easy degree and you get paid appropriately, if not more then they should simply because of public preasure.
:dl: :dl:
never tried it, have ya?
I am not a teacher, I yama ninjaneer--but I have been on committees and done my time with them.
You have a very perverted view.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I have a few friends who are teachers. With grading, creating lesson plans and assignments, they work many more than forty hours a week. Summers are for preparing lessons for the fall (unpaid I might add).

[Kestrel]

I think the most frustrating part of this affair is that the IP company gave up the teacher's information without requiring the police to apply for a subpoena - a minimal test. It's also frustrating that the police failed to show any respect for the confidential information they received or for this guy's reputation.

If the Internet provider had asked for a warrant before turning over the information, the police would have had a hard time convincing a judge that this teachers sarcastic comment was a criminal act. But since the Internet provider cared nothing about privacy, they simply gave the police what they demanded.

Is this really any different from Yahoo helping the Chinese track down people for the crime of speaking out against the government?

[CaptainManacles]

I have a few friends who are teachers. With grading, creating lesson plans and assignments, they work many more than forty hours a week. Summers are for preparing lessons for the fall (unpaid I might add).

I have a few friends who are teachers as well, and while they put in 40 hours, they admit that most can easily get away with not, and it's certainly not more then 40. Summers are for preparing lessons maybe your first year or two, but most of the material repeats itself, and most jobs you have to do study outside paid time.

If teaching is so rough and the pay is so low, why do so many people choose it as a career?

[Redtail]

I have a few friends who are teachers as well, and while they put in 40 hours, they admit that most can easily get away with not, and it's certainly not more then 40. Summers are for preparing lessons maybe your first year or two, but most of the material repeats itself, and most jobs you have to do study outside paid time.

If teaching is so rough and the pay is so low, why do so many people choose it as a career?

Because they have it in them help other people in some way. Like Policemen, Firemen, Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen....

Just a guess, you've never taught have you?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If teaching is so rough and the pay is so low, why do so many people choose it as a career?

I am not a teacher yet, so I can't really comment on the other stuff, but I chose it as a career because I've kinda always wanted to be one and I like it.

I really think I can help kids, and I think it makes for a wonderful opportunity for social good.[/sappy loser]

But the pay is rather low when you consider that you have to get degrees to become a teacher, and with other majors you get more money.

And my school is sending student teachers to places that had school shootings :boxedin: .

[fuelair]

I have a few friends who are teachers as well, and while they put in 40 hours, they admit that most can easily get away with not, and it's certainly not more then 40. Summers are for preparing lessons maybe your first year or two, but most of the material repeats itself, and most jobs you have to do study outside paid time.

If teaching is so rough and the pay is so low, why do so many people choose it as a career?
Some of us do it because we like helping other people learn. Your comment about the lack of yearly (at least)change demonstrates a group of possible situations: You could live in a state where they develop a 20 year plan for each subject and do not change it regardless of changes int the actual field or the emphasis in the real world on different aspects of it. You could live in a state where they developed a standard test that they plan to use on each student of that subject for the next 20 years - regardless of any changes from the curriculum group(s). You could live in a state where teachers are not required to attend programs to keep them cognizant of/using new information, procedures etc. every year - or they are not evaluated by administrators once or more times per year.
Problem is, I do not know of (and would not want to work in) any state like that - though Texas seems to be trying to go that way in Biology right now.
I don't teach all aspects of Chemistry the same way I did last year, much less 5 years ago - both because of FCAT and because there have been improvements in what we know about several aspects of Chemistry - as well as some changes in the order parts of it should be taught (the only one of those I have some disagreement with).

[fuelair]

Less then the median household income. And is that salary before or after accounting for the fact that they only work 2/3 of the year?
Actually most school systems have school for 10 months nowadays(not counting a one month summer school). That would make it closer to 83% than 67%. Even in the old 9 month system that was 75% rather than 67%.:)

[CaptainManacles]

Some of us do it because we like helping other people learn.

Which is a nice benefit of the job. Teaching is probably more fun and rewarding then something like digging ditches. However, ditches still need to be dug. We pay people disproportionally high for doing something like ditch digging compared to the educational and skill requirements. We pay teachers disproportionally low because their job is fun and very rewarding.

Your comment about the lack of yearly (at least)change demonstrates a group of possible situations: You could live in a state where they develop a 20 year plan for each subject and do not change it regardless of changes int the actual field or the emphasis in the real world on different aspects of it. You could live in a state where they developed a standard test that they plan to use on each student of that subject for the next 20 years - regardless of any changes from the curriculum group(s). You could live in a state where teachers are not required to attend programs to keep them cognizant of/using new information, procedures etc. every year - or they are not evaluated by administrators once or more times per year.
Problem is, I do not know of (and would not want to work in) any state like that - though Texas seems to be trying to go that way in Biology right now.
I don't teach all aspects of Chemistry the same way I did last year, much less 5 years ago - both because of FCAT and because there have been improvements in what we know about several aspects of Chemistry - as well as some changes in the order parts of it should be taught (the only one of those I have some disagreement with).

Well, the other possibility is my friends aren’t highschool chemistry teachers. They may have to update their lesson plans once in a blue moon to account for new general teaching ideas, but for the most part the material doesn’t change. It doesn’t require 40 hours of work every week from the first day they get off for summer break to the first day they get back, and I’m dubious that is even the case with you.

And still, all of this ignores my point that MOST jobs require you to work more then 40 hours and to study after hours without pay. If anything, teaching requires LESS of this then most jobs, besides that the base required hours they work is less then 40.

[CaptainManacles]

Actually most school systems have school for 10 months nowadays(not counting a one month summer school). That would make it closer to 83% than 67%. Even in the old 9 month system that was 75% rather than 67%.:)

most school systems have school for 180 days. Accounting for that including weekends and being generous, that's 2/3rd of the year.

[bignickel]

Can a portion of this thread be split off to the Education forum?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, the other possibility is my friends aren’t highschool chemistry teachers. They may have to update their lesson plans once in a blue moon to account for new general teaching ideas, but for the most part the material doesn’t change. It doesn’t require 40 hours of work every week from the first day they get off for summer break to the first day they get back, and I’m dubious that is even the case with you.

And still, all of this ignores my point that MOST jobs require you to work more then 40 hours and to study after hours without pay. If anything, teaching requires LESS of this then most jobs, besides that the base required hours they work is less then 40.

Evidence?

MYTH: The school day is only six or seven hours, so it's only fair that teachers make less than "full-time" professionals.

FACT: Other professionals hardly have the monopoly on the long workday, and many studies conclude that teachers work as long or longer than the typical 40-hour workweek.

Six or seven hours is the "contracted" workday, but unlike in other professions, the expectation for teachers is that much required work will take place at home, at night and on weekends. For teachers, the day isn't over when the dismissal bell rings.

Teachers spend an average of 50 hours per week on instructional duties, including an average of 12 hours each week on non-compensated school-related activities such as grading papers, bus duty, and club advising.

When the Center for Teaching Quality studied teachers' workdays in Clark County, NV, it found that not only did most teachers work additional hours outside of the school day, but that "Very little of this time is spent working directly with students in activities such as tutoring or coaching; far more time is reported on preparation, grading papers, parent conferences, and attending meetings."
MYTH: Teachers have summers off.

FACT: Students have summers off. Teachers spend summers working second jobs, teaching summer school, and taking classes for certification renewal or to advance their careers.

Most full-time employees in the private sector receive training on company time at company expense, while many teachers spend the eight weeks of summer break earning college hours, at their own expense.

School begins in late August or early September, but teachers are back before the start of school and are busy stocking supplies, setting up their classrooms, and preparing for the year's curriculum.

Linky. (http://www.nea.org/pay/teachermyths.html)

Oh, and another one (http://www.mbteach.org/Teacher-Online/oct-nov07/insidepageworkload.html), but I don't know if you only want US data.

THE TEACHERS' WEEK
The formal hours established for teaching amount to 27.5 hours per week, plus an overall amount of discretionary hours' work which brings the working week up to 35 hours. The range of hours reported ran from the statutory minimum to a handful of people who recorded over 60 hours work in the week surveyed.

Overall, the response tended towards the heavier end of workload. For the respondents at this early stage in the year, the mean of hours worked in the seven day period surveyed was 42.5 hours. This was seven and a half hours over the 35 hour week. In effect, they had worked a six-day week. These hours excluded any time taken as a break during the school day (such time is not part of teachers' contracted hours). However, the 42.5 hours included work done during breaks. The actual break time taken over the school week averaged out at 3.7 hours, or forty-four minutes a day. Work also expanded into evenings or into weekends (though people tried to avoid this). Only 12% of the sample (69 people) recorded no school work at the weekend. On average work time at the weekend was three hours. These figures simply give an idea of the length of the working week. The nature of the work and of the demands made are what make these hours reasonable or unreasonable to the people who work them.

Linky. (http://www.scre.ac.uk/spotlight/spotlight44.html)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Can a portion of this thread be split off to the Education forum?

Oops :blush: .

[fuelair]

Which is a nice benefit of the job. Teaching is probably more fun and rewarding then something like digging ditches. However, ditches still need to be dug. We pay people disproportionally high for doing something like ditch digging compared to the educational and skill requirements. We pay teachers disproportionally low because their job is fun and very rewarding.



Well, the other possibility is my friends aren’t highschool chemistry teachers. They may have to update their lesson plans once in a blue moon to account for new general teaching ideas, but for the most part the material doesn’t change. It doesn’t require 40 hours of work every week from the first day they get off for summer break to the first day they get back, and I’m dubious that is even the case with you.

And still, all of this ignores my point that MOST jobs require you to work more then 40 hours and to study after hours without pay. If anything, teaching requires LESS of this then most jobs, besides that the base required hours they work is less then 40.
Actually, unless employment laws have changed (possible) since I last had occasion to check most jobs cannot require you to take and pay for classes after you have been hired (if required, they must pay). The major exception to that is teachers who must (in Florida, anyway) have 120 hours of inservice credit to recertify each five years. Also, I am not sure about the teachers who you know, but, again in Florida, there are few subjects where the changes I noted do not occur almost annually-and that is definite in the academic classes (math, L.A, Science and SS as well as the classes required for FCAT non-passers (remedial math and LA)). And, the pay for teachers is based on the school year, not the 12 month year - some teachers have there checks reduced monthly so they are spread out over the year (i.e. they get summer checks) but that is a deferment of the money and technically saves the school system funds at the cost of interest for the teacher (I have half a MBA - so I catch that catch in it!).

And, just as a side note, enjoying your job is not something that should have any influence on your income from it - in either direction.

And, as a second side note, each day I arrive at school at 6:30 (+/-10 min.) at which time I have to park fairly far from the office door because the Teachers lot is already almost full. Though school doesn't start until 7:20 for students our official start time is 7:10 - but we are ready to go by ca. 6:40-6:50 (at least in my hallway). Other than 25 minutes for lunch (and don't get me started on our so-called planning time) we are teaching until 1:50. As the students leave, we are headed to near daily meetings (or parent conferences after which we head to meetings. The meetings are supposed to end at 2:40 and so far this year, 3 of them have - usually though they end from 3-3:20. They are educational in nature ("college" meetings, department meetings, Area of Concern meetings, subject meetings (3 a week in my case), special meetings). Most of my grading is done at home, or during lunch (the simpler stuff). Compared to some others, my day is light - when I leave each day there is still half a parking lot of teacher tag cars.

Obviously this is anecdotal - but it applies at the school I am at now, the one I moved from three years ago (too far from my house-tolls/gas had just started rising from 1.75) and the one I was at for four years before that so I suspect it is the norm for this county anyway.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Evidence?



Linky. (http://www.nea.org/pay/teachermyths.html)

Oh, and another one (http://www.mbteach.org/Teacher-Online/oct-nov07/insidepageworkload.html), but I don't know if you only want US data.



Linky. (http://www.scre.ac.uk/spotlight/spotlight44.html)



Linking to the NEA to show that teachers are not well compensated is like linking to NAMBLA to show that children want sex with adults.

:jaw-dropp

[KoihimeNakamura]

And there goes an ad hominum (circumstancial). Way not to address the argument.

[Skeptic Guy]

Laughable. They work 6 hour days at most schools, with grading and tests, many teachers don't even make 40. And most salaried people work more then a 40-hour week. It hardly balances out. It's an easy job and an easy degree and you get paid appropriately, if not more then they should simply because of public preasure.

Speaking as a husband of a teacher/administrator, I have to say that you're wrong. She and her teachers work at least 40 hours and often much more than 40. My wife's school includes a pre-school and day care so it's all year round, but even with that they are working before and after classes to prepare lessons, projects, attend seminars on new teaching methods, etc.

It's only easy if you don't try and don't work on keeping your material fresh and up to date. For instance, at my daughter's school they spent the summer learning a new writing methodology and continue to work extra hours to integrate it into their lesson plans.

I have a few friends who are teachers as well, and while they put in 40 hours, they admit that most can easily get away with not, and it's certainly not more then 40. Summers are for preparing lessons maybe your first year or two, but most of the material repeats itself, and most jobs you have to do study outside paid time.

If teaching is so rough and the pay is so low, why do so many people choose it as a career?

It is true that some teachers coast along and put in as little work as possible, but the teachers you really want to have teaching your children put in the extra effort.

A difficult job and career enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. And I think you'll find that there aren't enough people chosing a career in education. It is increasingly difficult to find good teachers that are well motivated. That may be why we have more teachers mailing it in.

[Skeptic Guy]

Double post.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And there goes an ad hominum (circumstancial). Way not to address the argument.

Are you denying that the NEA has an interest in presenting teachers as under compensated?

[KoihimeNakamura]

It is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't particularly MATTER they have an interest unless their argument doesn't rely on facts. If you think their study is wrong, then question the actual study, not the producer.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't particularly MATTER they have an interest unless their argument doesn't rely on facts. If you think their study is wrong, then question the actual study, not the producer.

Just so you remember to trust any study that is presented that does not favor your view no matter who presented it.

Feeling :boxedin:?

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. that . .what. I' msaying question the study and you're going blindly trust it.

[CaptainManacles]

Evidence?

Get a job, go live in the real world for awhile. Anecdotal evidence might not be great, but it beats the hell out of some random webpage with irrelevent information.


Linky. (http://www.nea.org/pay/teachermyths.html)

Oh, and another one (http://www.mbteach.org/Teacher-Online/oct-nov07/insidepageworkload.html), but I don't know if you only want US data.



Linky. (http://www.scre.ac.uk/spotlight/spotlight44.html)

if you can't see the BS in those links then I don't think you're trying very hard to be objective about this issue.

[CaptainManacles]

Actually, unless employment laws have changed (possible) since I last had occasion to check most jobs cannot require you to take and pay for classes after you have been hired (if required, they must pay).

I don't think that was ever the law. Maybe they can't say "take this class or your fired" but they can say "you better have skill A, B, and C" or you're fired. Which can mean taking a class, buying a book, practicing the skills at home. Acting like furthering your skills is the sole domain of educators is insane.

And, just as a side note, enjoying your job is not something that should have any influence on your income from it - in either direction.

Why not?

And, as a second side note, each day I arrive at school at 6:30 (+/-10 min.) at which time I have to park fairly far from the office door because the Teachers lot is already almost full. Though school doesn't start until 7:20 for students our official start time is 7:10 - but we are ready to go by ca. 6:40-6:50 (at least in my hallway). Other than 25 minutes for lunch (and don't get me started on our so-called planning time) we are teaching until 1:50. As the students leave, we are headed to near daily meetings (or parent conferences after which we head to meetings. The meetings are supposed to end at 2:40 and so far this year, 3 of them have - usually though they end from 3-3:20. They are educational in nature ("college" meetings, department meetings, Area of Concern meetings, subject meetings (3 a week in my case), special meetings). Most of my grading is done at home, or during lunch (the simpler stuff). Compared to some others, my day is light - when I leave each day there is still half a parking lot of teacher tag cars.

Welcome to the world of the profesional worker. Most people I know who are profesionals with degrees work far beyond a 40 hour week, and that's just time spent at the office, they probably spend a similar amount of time at home furthering skills and preparing for the next work day, besides being expected to continue their education, and attend charity functions and put in community service hours.

[Rob Lister]

I don't think that was ever the law.

you're correct. In fact, there's even a section on schedule A 1040 to account for such expenses.

[CaptainManacles]

It is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't particularly MATTER they have an interest unless their argument doesn't rely on facts. If you think their study is wrong, then question the actual study, not the producer.

The problem is that they don't present an arguement. They present claimed facts with no basis, which you can't do unless you are a trustworthy unbiased primary source, which they aren't.

[gnome]

They present facts that aren't generally well known, that IF TRUE make the case very well. It points out demands on teacher's time that people that only look at the classroom hours might not have considered. If you look at the excerpts posted, are there facts in there that you think may be untrue? Drilling down into those facts and disputing them would be far more persuasive than a general attack on the credibility of the NEA.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They present facts that aren't generally well known, that IF TRUE make the case very well. It points out demands on teacher's time that people that only look at the classroom hours might not have considered. If you look at the excerpts posted, are there facts in there that you think may be untrue? Drilling down into those facts and disputing them would be far more persuasive than a general attack on the credibility of the NEA.

Here is some real data:

Real salaries and compensation (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=683257&appSession=53159966702627&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=10&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=)

Keep in mind that the median income per household is about $46,000.

Jennifer Slonac Teacher $69,867, $30,593 Swanson Elementary

Julie L Tushaus-Hardie Teacher $69,867, $30,593 Swanson Elementary

Carol Wichter Teacher $69,867, $59,666 Swanson Elementary

Salaries and compensation for elementary school teachers in this district is from $100,000 to $130,000 per year in a state where the median income is $46,000.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here is some real data:

Real salaries and compensation (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=683257&appSession=53159966702627&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=10&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=)

Keep in mind that the median income per household is about $46,000.



Salaries and compensation for elementary school teachers in this district is from $100,000 to $130,000 per year in a state where the median income is $46,000.

Oh, a whole 3 teachers :rolleyes: . Some districts are richer than others.

A more accurate (i.e. not completely irrelevant) comparison would be to take the median income of all the teachers in the state and then compare that to the median income of all residents in the state.

ETA:

Andelee R Espinosa Teacher $25,019 $8,228 Brookfield Central High Elmbrook Sch Dist Waukesha
Karen Brent Teacher $25,019 $4,700 Swanson Elementary Elmbrook Sch Dist Waukesha
Cathy A Weis Teacher $24,700 $4,638 Burleigh Elementary Elmbrook Sch Dist Waukesha

Look at that, well below the median income.

Oh look, I can misrepresent data too.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Just what i needed, another libertarian who seems to have a hangup somewhere in reality.sys...

I don't think that was ever the law. Maybe they can't say "take this class or your fired" but they can say "you better have skill A, B, and C" or you're fired. Which can mean taking a class, buying a book, practicing the skills at home. Acting like furthering your skills is the sole domain of educators is insane.

Yes they can and do that. Somehow though, most people learn better when they have someone who knows their material.. funny.

The problem is that they don't present an arguement. They present claimed facts with no basis, which you can't do unless you are a trustworthy unbiased primary source, which they aren't

And this goes back to my statement: that is STILL an adhom attack. Although this MIGHT be a poisoning the well. While they didn't post their basis, you are still not attacking the facts, but the argurer.

Keep in mind that the median income per household is about $46,000.

I could spit fire. You know, Jerome. Being dishonest is very bad.

State Median Income Drops (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489479)

Waukesha County's poverty rate was the fifth-lowest nationwide among counties with populations of 250,000 or more at 3.7%, up from 3.5% in 2004, while median household income was $67,222, up from $64,353. In the city of Waukesha, the poverty rate was 6.5%, while median household income was $52,599. The city of Waukesha was not included in the 2004 data.

Ahem. USO DA!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Get a job, go live in the real world for awhile. Anecdotal evidence might not be great, but it beats the hell out of some random webpage with irrelevent information.



if you can't see the BS in those links then I don't think you're trying very hard to be objective about this issue.

Your evidence, it overwhelms me. For a second I thought we were supposed to be promoting critical thinking and skepticism here.

[KoihimeNakamura]

To further this:
Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/wi/

Median Household Income: $43,791 (2006)

And before I foudn out something:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=TjZ&q=median+teacher+income+salary+Wisconsin&btnG=Search

Note the first result:

Total Wisconsin Teacher Compensation Remains Above National Norm

The average salary for a Wisconsin teacher was $41056 in 2002, ... The median salaries of ten occupations rated most similar were then compared to median ...

[CaptainManacles]

Your evidence, it overwhelms me. For a second I thought we were supposed to be promoting critical thinking and skepticism here.

I don't think any evidence is going to convince you, so I'm not going to waste my time.

[JoeEllison]

I remember my high school track and cross country coach telling us that he made an extra $30 a week for coaching, which, based on the amount of time he invested coaching, came out to about $1.50 an hour. That's on top of the unpaid hours grading papers and preparing lessons and such. No study hall at my school, either, which meant that they had to do all of their work on their own time.

Anyone who claims that teachers are overpaid is an ****** moron.

[bignickel]

I asked one mod to split this thread; any other mods out there willing to do it?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I asked one mod to split this thread; any other mods out there willing to do it?

Is not the reasoning behind the jailing relevant to the tread topic?
:confused:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Anyone who claims that teachers are overpaid is an ****** moron.

Were you stomping your feet when you wrote the above. ;)

[Dan O.]

Is not the reasoning behind the jailing relevant to the tread topic?
:confused:

The sub-thread on teacher pay should be split off. Then we could get back to discussing the violation of the teachers rights without interrupting it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The sub-thread on teacher pay should be split off. Then we could get back to discussing the violation of the teachers rights without interrupting it.

I see your point.


I know that teachers have a right to disseminate published material and attacking with the force of the State a teacher who does so is a violation of the constitution and a crime against all those in a free society.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't think any evidence is going to convince you, so I'm not going to waste my time.

Wow, combining an ad hominem with a dodge, touche.

[Dan O.]

I'm surprised that Rankin v. McPherson hasn't been brought up as relating to this case.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I see your point.


I know that teachers have a right to disseminate published material and attacking with the force of the State a teacher who does so is a violation of the constitution and a crime against all those in a free society.

Anyone does. In this case, the basisappears to be...
inciting violence. ... but in this case, it's a outright crime.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Anyone does. In this case, the basisappears to be...
inciting violence. ... but in this case, it's a outright crime.

Who was incited to violence?

[Dan O.]

An editorial in the Boulder Camera (http://www.dailycamera.com/) published a few days before the Columbine massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_massacre) stated that: "Guns are the answer" and advocated using machine guns to take down miners. I haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for printing that.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

An editorial in the Boulder Camera (http://www.dailycamera.com/) published a few days before the Columbine massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_massacre) stated that: "Guns are the answer" and advocated using machine guns to take down miners. I haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for printing that.

That is because it was not aimed at the jobs program for those that have a hard time living outside of governmental assistance.

[WildCat]

To further this:
Median Household Income: $43,791 (2006)

The average salary for a Wisconsin teacher was $41056 in 2002,
You do realize that median household income is a poor comparison to median personal income, don't you? Most households have more than 1 wage earner, could be a spouse or maybe the kid has a job at McDonald's, maybe it's a household of roomates who all have jobs.

A teacher making nearly as much as the median household income is hardly underpaid. Imagine a household of 2 median-income teachers - their household income is over $82,000.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You do realize that median household income is a poor comparison to median personal income, don't you? Most households have more than 1 wage earner, could be a spouse or maybe the kid has a job at McDonald's, maybe it's a household of roomates who all have jobs.

A teacher making nearly as much as the median household income is hardly underpaid. Imagine a household of 2 median-income teachers - their household income is over $82,000.

I have pointed this out several times. It is constantly ignored.

[CaptainManacles]

Wow, combining an ad hominem with a dodge, touche.

Demonstrating that you have no idea how to identify an ad hominem only reinforces my point.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Maybe. But I think that jerome's relentless attempt to portray the teachers as make-work.. is nothing short of an outright lie. Big Lie. :|

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Maybe. But I think that jerome's relentless attempt to portray the teachers as make-work.. is nothing short of an outright lie. Big Lie. :|

You are calling the public school teachers in my family Big Liars.

They fully understand the game, they are admitted participates. They choose to do the best they can because it is easier than leaving for another career and they feel they can educate sometimes some students.

[epeos76]

I see your point.


I know that teachers have a right to disseminate published material and attacking with the force of the State a teacher who does so is a violation of the constitution and a crime against all those in a free society.

Jerome, three questions just to better understand your position: What limits do you recognize on the right of teachers to disseminate published material? Do you recognize any limits on free speech? Do you think the text of the 1st amendment is sufficient to answer all questions about how speech can be regulated?


I'm surprised that Rankin v. McPherson hasn't been brought up as relating to this case.

I just read this case over at www.findlaw.com. It's readable and right on point. In summary, after watching news coverage of an attempt to assassinate Reagan, a police employee made a remark in a private conversation that she hoped the next attempt to assassinate the president succeeded. The remark was overheard and she was fired. The Supreme Court held that under the circumstances, she could not be fired for making this statement.

Rankin makes a couple of important points:

Speech on a matter of public concern gets even broader protection than ordinary speech because its important to a functioning democracy.

Nonetheless, as an employer, the government has a legitimate interest in "effective functioning" that in some cases outweighs the speaker's interest in making a particular statement.


The Court identified several potentially important factors in deciding whether the state's interest was strong enough to trump state employees' rights.

We have previously recognized as pertinent considerations whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker's duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise

Rankin found it important that there was not


any danger that McPherson had discredited the office by making her statement in public

Our teacher posted (anonomously) to a public message board. Once he was identified his remarks reflected on the school board. I imagine they also affected his personal relationships and his ability to deal efficiently with the staff.

I still think the problem comes from the fact that his internet provider handed over his name without a second thought. Not state action though.

The police didn't take any actions to protect his identity. I don't know really know how strong the right to speak anonomously is, or even should be.


Anyone does. In this case, the basisappears to be...
inciting violence. ... but in this case, it's a outright crime.

Tokorona, laws against speech likely to incite violence are invalid to the extent that they don't comport with the constitution. The consensus earlier appeared to be that the teacher's remarks didn't meet the constitutional standard.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I agree it doesn't meet the standard. I was taking a guess at the basis of him being arrested.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, three questions just to better understand your position: What limits do you recognize on the right of teachers to disseminate published material? Do you recognize any limits on free speech? Do you think the text of the 1st amendment is sufficient to answer all questions about how speech can be regulated?

None.

None, until that speech harms another in a manner in which a violation of their rights happens. It is difficult to get to the point of speech causing harm.

The amendment is not the extent of mans right of speech, rights are inherent.

[Dan O.]

In all the shouting, nobody seams to have noticed: Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens declined to file charges against teacher and blogger James Buss. (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=695059)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In all the shouting, nobody seams to have noticed: Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens declined to file charges against teacher and blogger James Buss. (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=695059)

Woot :yahoo .

[Dan O.]

In an incident last year, the Oak Creek High School principal Paul Sigler shows how he was dealing with unruly teachers and students "One shot at a time". http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=525263

[epeos76]

None.

None, until that speech harms another in a manner in which a violation of their rights happens. It is difficult to get to the point of speech causing harm.

The amendment is not the extent of mans right of speech, rights are inherent.

Thanks. Have you read this book by Ronald Dworkin? It makes the most compelling case for a type of "natural law" that I've encountered.

http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Rights-Seriously-Ronald-Dworkin/dp/0674867114/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197494440&sr=8-2

Nonetheless, it looks like we disagree about the basis/function/meaning of rights.

I think free speech is important precisely because I distrust our ability to identify harmful speech. Even if I weren't worried about abuse or error, whether or not particular speech is harmful would still boil down to a debate about group goals. I don't think there is a universal answer.

Similarly, I think rights are primarily the result of negotiating competing goals. Even if there are inherent moral rights, I equally distrust using a legal concept that requires courts, groups, or individuals to identify them. Not only do I doubt there is a closed, identifiable group of rights, I'm worried about error and abuse.

IMSHO the best we can do is to take a functional approach and work from there. So I'd be open to arguments that it is in the best interest of society to allow teachers to hand out any material they want - say NAMBA flyers - but not that it's a crime or a perversion of the natural order to restrain them. You'd have to tell me why.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thanks. Have you read this book by Ronald Dworkin? It makes the most compelling case for a type of "natural law" that I've encountered.

No, but I will. Thanks for the link.


Nonetheless, it looks like we disagree about the basis/function/meaning of rights.

Life would be boring if all thought alike.:)

I think free speech is important precisely because I distrust our ability to identify harmful speech. Even if I weren't worried about abuse or error, whether or not particular speech is harmful would still boil down to a debate about group goals. I don't think there is a universal answer.


All groups are made of individuals. Individuals have the natural right to express their views to the group and disassociate with the group if they so desire.


Similarly, I think rights are primarily the result of negotiating competing goals. Even if there are inherent moral rights, I equally distrust using a legal concept that requires courts, groups, or individuals to identify them. Not only do I doubt there is a closed, identifiable group of rights, I'm worried about error and abuse.

Goals need not be competing. The best and proper exchange is made when the goals of both parties are fulfilled. There is no such thing as group rights, there are only individual rights. What you are speaking of are privileges bestowed upon a group by individuals.


IMSHO the best we can do is to take a functional approach and work from there. So I'd be open to arguments that it is in the best interest of society to allow teachers to hand out any material they want - say NAMBA flyers - but not that it's a crime or a perversion of the natural order to restrain them. You'd have to tell me why.

Here we have a circumstance in which a hired employee has an obligation to respect the wishes of the employer. Would Starbucks allow an employee to pass out NAMBLA flyers?