Ala. coach suspended after Michelle Obama, gay rant

[Abdul Alhazred]

Ala. coach suspended after Michelle Obama, gay rant
The Washington Times

Quote:

An Alabama high school coach and teacher has been suspended from coaching football for 10 days and from teaching his psychology class for the rest of the year, because he was recorded by a student ranting against the first lady and homosexuals. ...

Emphasis added.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Abdul Alhazred

Ala. coach suspended after Michelle Obama, gay rant
The Washington Times



Emphasis added. http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/fo...ilies/LMAO.gif

"Physician heal thyself".

[LaurelHS]

She's not a waif, but it boggles my mind that anyone would call her fat.

[joesixpack]

Ah you gotta love the Washington Times. They're a little to the right of the Post. I'm pretty certain that his suspension had everything to do with his hate speech against homosexu...er, excuse me, queers, but the Times likes to keep the anti Obama rant in there to make it seem like this disciplinary action is about Michelle, and little else. Their copy editing is top notch too,

Quote:

Mr. Grisham been head football coach at Lauderdale County High School for the past five years.

Is that what he been?

And of course there's the obligatory mouth-agape-bad-candid photo of the First Lady to underscore her putative unattractiveness.

Honestly, Ms. Obama is no supermodel, but she's certainly no dog either. The "gorilla" comparisons are really contemptible.

[TheGoldcountry]

Some of the comments are amazing. Lots of self proclaimed Constitutional lawyers who don't have a clue.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Some of the comments are amazing. Lots of self proclaimed Constitutional lawyers who don't have a clue.

You waded into the comments section? Nothing good can ever come of that.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by LaurelHS

She's not a waif, but it boggles my mind that anyone would call her fat.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Honestly, Ms. Obama is no supermodel, but she's certainly no dog either. The "gorilla" comparisons are really contemptible.

Plus she can do more pushups than most men her age.

For a 49-year-old woman I think she's hot.

[Baffled]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

For a 49-year-old woman I think she's hot.

I didn't know you were 49 years old!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by LaurelHS

She's not a waif, but it boggles my mind that anyone would call her fat.

She's big boned!!!

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Plus she can do more pushups than most men her age.

For a 49-year-old woman I think she's hot.

I don't know if I'd say "hot", but if she were my blind date her looks wouldn't be an issue at all.

[marplots]

The student who recorded him should be disciplined -- unless she got permission to do so. A clear violation of copyright laws.

[pgwenthold]

What is there to rant about with Michelle Obama? The only thing I've seen her involved in and talking about is where she makes fitness commercials for kids that air on SproutTV. Is there anything really objectionable about her (aside from the obvious)?

[joesixpack]

Copyright? This is news to me. I didn't realize that a teachers ranting about gays and politicians wives was automatically protected under copyright law. Do you have a link to the law?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Copyright? This is news to me. I didn't realize that a teachers ranting about gays and politicians wives was automatically protected under copyright law. Do you have a link to the law?

It is. This is the easiest link without delving into copyright law: http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is...y--583071.html

It falls under the same kind of rule that recording a band playing at a pub would. Copyright wouldn't apply if it were a conversation instead of a performance, since Alabama allows one party (any one) to a conversation to record it. However, lectures that teachers give are considered their property under copyright rules.

ETA: While recording a lecture is definitely a violation, note taking is still in dispute. Here's a lawsuit from 2008 about a company suing over note taking at Harvard (I don't know how it was resolved): http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fo...te-taking.html

[joesixpack]

How was this a lecture? This had nothing to do with the subject being taught.

[pgwenthold]

Where is that guy (Horowitz) who wrote about "The Most Dangerous Professors in America" or whatever? You know, the one who went on a vendetta against those commie profs? He should support this, right?

He had people recording lectures to try to find examples of profs who gave opinions unrelated to the material being taught. I almost wrote to him to report myself after I opined in a class that I was dismayed that the local college newspaper discontinued my favorite comic strip.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

How was this a lecture? This had nothing to do with the subject being taught.

Doesn't matter. If it was included in the framework, it's part of the copyright. Content doesn't enter into it. It may, when the teacher is evaluated, but they could dance around and singing Yippity Doo Dah and, as long as it's trapped in the teaching/lecture format, it's part of the "performance."

Same thing with speeches. If Randi drifts off to tell an anecdote or comments on how tasty the food at the buffet was, as long as it's in his speech, it's his property under copyright.

I should add, all this assumes the teacher has some kind of record/outline for the class. This outline, even a rough one, is the physical instantiation that triggers copyright and differentiates casual chatter from the more formal speech or lecture. A lesson plan would do.

In any case, the burden is on the student to establish material is not copyrighted (or obtain permission) before recording anything. The burden then shifts to the copyright holder to prove they did record something (but I assume she's already admitted that part).

There's also a matter of privacy. Whether or not speech in a classroom can be used to damage a person's reputation -- regardless of whether the report of what was said was accurate or not. Taking something public that was said may or may not be a violation of privacy rights.

[pgwenthold]

So what if it is copyrighted? That restricts how the material can be used, sure, but there are still fair use considerations. I don't claim to be an expert in copyright law, but I do know that there are a lot of debates about what constitutes fair use.

In addition, wouldn't copyright violations be matters of civil suit? The person who feels their copyright has been violated would have to take action against the transgressor? Roll the dice, teach. Sue the kid for copyright violation. It might extract vengeance, but it will not change the fact of what you did, and will not reverse your suspension.

[marplots]

Not a free speech issue?

How far to we go when we set out to limit what teachers can say in their classrooms?

Nanny cams anyone? I think it would be cool if I could monitor what's going on in my kids classes over the Internet while I'm at work. Especially if they are teaching stuff I disagree with. It would give me a chance to counteract all that evolution nonsense.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by marplots

Not a free speech issue?

How far to we go when we set out to limit what teachers can say in their classrooms?

We already do. The government absolutely has the authority to fire/suspend a teacher who teaches, for example, that disease is caused by aliens firing laser beams into people's butts.

Teachers teach at the discretion of the school, and the school has the authority to tell them what to teach. And if they won't teach what the school tells them, they cannot resort to claiming free speech.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by marplots

Not a free speech issue?

How far to we go when we set out to limit what teachers can say in their classrooms?

Nanny cams anyone? I think it would be cool if I could monitor what's going on in my kids classes over the Internet while I'm at work. Especially if they are teaching stuff I disagree with. It would give me a chance to counteract all that evolution nonsense.

I think it would be a good way to counteract the pseudoscience nonsense. I think my kids' school is pretty good, but I know when I was in elementary and high school there was a fair bit of absolute crap that came out of a few teachers mouths.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I don't claim to be an expert in copyright law, but I do know that there are a lot of debates about what constitutes fair use.

And yet your intuition is more right than marplots.

First, the student can record the class unless there is some instruction that it can not be recorded. It is common for students to record classes for their own note taking purposes and there is an implied license to do so unless otherwise revoked.

Second, how the student uses that recording is restricted by the implied license. The implied license is based on the student needing to record the lecture to help with note taking and to further the education of the student through taking the course. Distributing that recording to others as a spoken word album is not covered by that implied license.

Finally, taking a small portion of that recording to the administration or press to show how unprofessional the teacher is would be covered under fair use.

Lesson: If you are going to say stupid stuff in your class have a no-recording statement in your syllabus and remind the students of it when you notice someone may be recording. It will make you look like a paranoid *******, but then you probably weren't doing a very good job of hiding that anyway.

End note: The existence of a course outline is irrelevant as the recording acts as the "fixed medium" for copyright purposes.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by marplots

The student who recorded him should be disciplined -- unless she got permission to do so. A clear violation of copyright laws.

This has actually happened to some students. Not copyright laws, but recording their teachers without permission.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

We already do. The government absolutely has the authority to fire/suspend a teacher who teaches, for example, that disease is caused by aliens firing laser beams into people's butts.

Teachers teach at the discretion of the school, and the school has the authority to tell them what to teach. And if they won't teach what the school tells them, they cannot resort to claiming free speech.

The devil is in the details though. How far do these things have to be micro-managed and how much leeway should teachers have?

This was a psychology class right? The guy is expressing his opinion in this quote: “I don’t believe in queers, I don’t like queers. I don’t … I don’t hate them as a person but what they do is wrong, it’s an abomination against God. I don’t like being around queers.”

I don't know what that has to do with psychology, but he clearly says "I" -- so my question is more about scrubbing the person behind the teacher label instead of what's being presented as factual material in class. But I confess, I'm not a teacher of any sort and I'd like to hear what teachers have to say about it.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by marplots

The devil is in the details though. How far do these things have to be micro-managed and how much leeway should teachers have?

This was a psychology class right? The guy is expressing his opinion in this quote: “I don’t believe in queers, I don’t like queers. I don’t … I don’t hate them as a person but what they do is wrong, it’s an abomination against God. I don’t like being around queers.”

I don't know what that has to do with psychology, but he clearly says "I" -- so my question is more about scrubbing the person behind the teacher label instead of what's being presented as factual material in class. But I confess, I'm not a teacher of any sort and I'd like to hear what teachers have to say about it.

I'm not a teacher either, but replace "queer" with "negro" or "jew" and you will see that it doesn't' really take an expert to see the problem here.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by marplots

The devil is in the details though. How far do these things have to be micro-managed and how much leeway should teachers have?

So now that you have conceded that there can be restrictions on "free speech," the only question is where is the line, yes.

If you want to make an argument that it goes too far, fine, but don't be surprised that others, including the administrators at the school, do not agree.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

And yet your intuition is more right than marplots.

First, the student can record the class unless there is some instruction that it can not be recorded.

That is a teacher policy issue, and not a question of copyright though. If a teacher says recording devices are not allowed, they can do that and they have the authority to remove those who do.

But that has no more to do with copyright than does the teacher having a no-gum-chewing policy. A student who has a recording from the lecture despite there being a no recording policy is subject to punishment from the school the same as any other student who violates course/school policies, but has not violated any copyright laws as long as it is used within the guidelines of fair use.

This is like the ushers at performances who say you can't take pictures "because the show is copyrighted." Nonsense. You just want to have a policy against taking pictures, and that is your right (and you can throw me out for doing it if you want).

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by godless dave

This has actually happened to some students. Not copyright laws, but recording their teachers without permission.

In some states, actually a crime.

[Travis]

We need to get a teacher to go on a crazy rant just so they can see exactly far coprywrite law goes. Any takers?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Travis

We need to get a teacher to go on a crazy rant just so they can see exactly far coprywrite law goes. Any takers?

Can we make it an anti-religion atheist rant? I'm betting a good, "there is no God and those people are nuts" would do it.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

That is a teacher policy issue, and not a question of copyright though. If a teacher says recording devices are not allowed, they can do that and they have the authority to remove those who do.

But that has no more to do with copyright than does the teacher having a no-gum-chewing policy. A student who has a recording from the lecture despite there being a no recording policy is subject to punishment from the school the same as any other student who violates course/school policies, but has not violated any copyright laws as long as it is used within the guidelines of fair use.

This is like the ushers at performances who say you can't take pictures "because the show is copyrighted." Nonsense. You just want to have a policy against taking pictures, and that is your right (and you can throw me out for doing it if you want).

Amazing how the direction of the thread got derailed from what the coach SAID to the legality of the rest of us knowing what was said and the tone of it...

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Amazing how the direction of the thread got derailed from what the coach SAID to the legality of the rest of us knowing what was said and the tone of it...

That is surprising.

[Checkmite]

Indeed. Whether the student was legally allowed to make the recording or not is another issue. The legality of the recording does not change what's on it, which is awful stuff.

[Asrah]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Indeed. Whether the student was legally allowed to make the recording or not is another issue. The legality of the recording does not change what's on it, which is awful stuff.

Awful in a factual sense, or shall we admit that its just an opinion, albeit one general society shares?

If the guy wants to rant, its all up to opinion/s on where, what about, and why. Yes, laws are laws, but, in the end, they are what is THOUGHT (sometimes proven) to be the course of action in the best interests (ohh another opinionated subject) of others.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Asrah

Awful in a factual sense, or shall we admit that its just an opinion, albeit one general society shares?

If the guy wants to rant, its all up to opinion/s on where, what about, and why. Yes, laws are laws, but, in the end, they are what is THOUGHT (sometimes proven) to be the course of action in the best interests (ohh another opinionated subject) of others.

Of course it's my opinion. That's all people like us can give on situations like this, is our opinions on the matter being discussed. I was simply making the point that the method by which the recording was obtained has no bearing on one's opinion of the subject matter. If what he said was bad, the fact that the student who recorded it might have been "breaking copyright law" by publishing it doesn't make what he said not-bad.

(In my opinion) Part and parcel of the whole "freedom of speech" thing is that people who don't like what somebody's saying are free to change the channel, close the book, or go somewhere else where they don't have to listen to that person anymore. Students in a classroom, conversely, are not free to get up and leave when their teacher launches into political screeds during class time. School attendance is mandatory for the entire day; the children in this teacher's classroom were a captive audience. Therefore, teachers don't and shouldn't have carte-blanche to preach or opine about any old thing that comes to mind.

[AgeGap]

"I don’t like queers. I don’t … I don’t hate them as a person but what they do is wrong, it’s an abomination against God. I don’t like being around queers.”

Does anyone think that it comes from self hate and first hand experience?