School Committee Criticizes ACLU Report
The ACLU claims Portsmouth schools block certain content from students, including websites with information on gay and lesbian rights.
Portsmouth School Committee Chairman David Croston promises to investigate allegations made in a new report released earlier this week by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on web filtering, reports local blog Hard Deadlines.
According to the ACLU report, Portsmouth is the only district in the state to block websites with material on religion and entertainment, reports EastBayRI.com.
The report also claims the Portsmouth School District blocks material and websites which include information on gay and lesbian rights, according to EastBayRI.com.
Croston told those in attendance at Tuesday's meeting he would look into the report.
What do you think about the ACLU report? Do you think Portsmouth schools go too far in web filtering? Tell us in the comment section below!
Joe Sousa
6:28 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
American Communistic Liberals United ACLU
Out to ruin our country . Ill get that Easter bunny !!!
John McDaid
9:56 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Joe, I'm not sure how defending students' First Amendment freedom constitutes ruining our country.
Joe Sousa
10:09 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
When they fight for all the amendments, then they will have credibility . Pushing a progressive liberal agenda is what I call ACLU. RI.
The Shill
1:02 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Joe if it wasen't for the ACLU you wouldn't have any rights. I don't know how you can feel a group defending the Constitution is communist.
George Wardwell
7:51 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
The ACLU is directly responsible for a large percentage of our social turmoil in this Country. Their representatives are always the first on the scene of any issues that allow them to get media headlines. Lets furlough the ACLU and save some money.
John McDaid
9:59 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Please provide some backup for your claim that the ACLU is "responsible" for social turmoil. Also, not sure how you would "furlough" an organization which is independent from the government.
Dennis
7:57 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I think the schools in every town should filter all content that does not benefit students in an academic way. Entertainment doesn't seem to me to be good use of school time. I was young once and would have opposed any infringement of what I felt were my "rights", but IMHO, the ACLU goes way beyond "rights" and in lots of cases, causes more harm than good. Remember the student that was subjected to the horrible prayer that had been in a school for many years, but since she did not believe in religion, it was her right to have it removed... I'm not a religious person, but if I don't mind if anyone else is. I couldn't care less if a town has a "Christmas" tree or a Menorah, or something from any religion at all...
Gay rights is fine by me... I am not afraid that if gay people marry each other, it will cause more people to "become" gay. I firmly believe that a person's sexual orientation is something created at conception, not a "choice". That being said, I can't see the need for students to have access to gay rights sites during school hours. That's something that can be done outside the school. I also don't equate gay rights to gay porn as some obviously do. By the way, I am not gay, and I don't really care if anyone else is. I don't believe being gay is contagious!!!
George Wardwell
8:26 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I often wondered who provided them the money to travel around the Country protecting the rights of those who probably did not request the do so. Are they a non-profit, obtain grants from the Government, survive on donations; from whom?
John McDaid
10:01 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
This is a question of what research materials are accessible to students; one can easily imagine history term papers involving gay rights which would require this category. And while this is not the time or place to re-litigate the Cranston prayer banner, it is worth pointing out that this was settled by a court in favor of Jessica Ahlquist.
Dennis
11:14 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I don't think any research materials that have value in a school sanctioned assignment should be blocked, but using "broad strokes" to allow/disallow access to such materials is not the answer. I don't have the answer either, but feel more discussion should be done in order to come up with an informed and justified solution. As far as the prayer banner item, I understand the outcome was decided by a court, but my concern there is at what cost to the city taxpayers? I'm all for using tax money for schools... but I have an issue when something like that (someone seeking attention is terribly wronged by a prayer banner hanging in a school.... and that's my opinion about the girl seeking attention).... If she didn't want to be subjected to the horrors of a school prayer being shoved down her throat, couldn't she either avert her eyes when approaching the area, or take an alernate route to avoid the dreaded banner? As I stated before, I'm not religious, but believe it's a choice of mine... I don't think I'll sue the town because I'm forced to drive by religious buildings that don't meet my wants or needs.... The ACLU has a place, but over time it has gotten way out of hand!!! I believe that to be true about more than just the first amendment... does anyone think the founding fathers had any idea what the world would be 300 + years after the Constitution was written? How many of them were slave owners after all? Apparently, at the time it was okay to own another human being..
John McDaid
11:22 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Dennis, I agree that what is needed is an informed policy, and that's what I understand the school committee will pursue. About the prayer banner, I would just suggest that you read the court decision before imputing motives. http://www.riaclu.org/documents/AhlquistvCranstoncourtruling.pdf
nagaer40
8:06 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
It's the job of the schools to focus on academics, I would hope that they are blocking out filth on the computers. I'm curious if the ACLU would get involved if they blocked out access to religious sites. I think we all know the answer to that question.
John McDaid
10:04 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
If you read the report, nagaer40, you will find that the ACLU notes that Portsmouth, in all of Rhode Island, reported blocking sites in the "Religious" category. Here's the link: http://riaclu.org/documents/AccessDeniedReport.pdf
The Shill
1:06 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Blocking of religious sites was one of the complaints the ACLU made try reading the story before commenting.
Paul Silver
9:57 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Seems to me if the ACLU pisses people off who have attitudes like those above, then we need much more ACLU involvement...
And if they are right, that the school district is blocking access to various non-pornographic sites, such as any to do with gay lesbian rights, then that should be changed immediately... it is fine to block sites that are just for entertainment, or games... but to me, gay lesbian rights are important for school children to understand... very important...
Paul Silver
10:01 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
What is it we think is of value to our kids? that they learn that it is okay to censor content whenever they feel like it?
Chris Christensen
12:59 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
The kids do not own the computers in school. How about this...remove most of the computers and the kids can do their "research" (who are they kidding) at home,after school (used to be called HOMEWORK) on their own or their parents computers. There, they can look at any website they wish too or that their parents allow to come into their home. ACLU will not be bothering the parents over what they allow into their homes will they. Of course not!
Sandy McGee
10:24 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I just uploaded the ACLU report to this article.
Jon Sisson
11:33 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
The names I see people use to each other on here is crazy. It's sad we can't state opinions on these boards without it turning into a partisan offense.
The fact that it is the ACLU is irrelevant. I doubt that some would be as upset if it was the PTA, for example that was questioning.
The point is that times are changing. People are becoming more tolerant as a whole (despite some of the comments I see on here).
My opinion, take it or leave it, is that if the subject is somehow involved in the academic activities at the school; the kids should be able to do proper research at the school as well as at home. Whether it involves religion, sexuality, history, or dog grooming. Shouldn't matter.
Some might argue that the more controvercial topics shouldn't enter a school. But that is a key factor of why we still have a lot of our society living in the social dark ages.
And some might call me a liberal for saying that. I don't personally consider myself either or. I just think kids need to learn about the outside world before they get to it themselves. And maybe if kids had access to that material earlier in their education, they would earlier decide for themselves their own opinions on these matters.
Dennis
12:08 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Jon, While I agree with most of what you say, my reason for bringing up the ACLU (and just mine) is that it typically ends up in court with the town/city/school needing to spend taxpayer monies to get the issue resolved. I agree that kids need to learn about the world we live in, but I still think the broad strokes option of access is not what's needed. That being said, does anyone think that kids should have free access to the internet without regard to age appropriate relevance to the subject matter? Who decides what content is appropriate anyway? That decision should not be left to any one individual. Also let me state that any personal comments between individuals should not be allowed on a site such as this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and shouldn't be berated by anyone for stating them.
Jon Sisson
12:37 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Valid point, Dennis. Needless spending of tax dollars is no good.
The Shill
1:13 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Dennis don't blame the ACLU blame the towns thay are the ones bringing the issue to court. They could resolve the ACLU complaint long before it came to a court case. In most of these cases the government is clearly in violation of the Constution but would rather fight then back down. That was the case with the prayer banner and even after they lost there were those that still wanted to continue the fight. If it was your rights that were being violated would you drop it to save the taxpayers money.
East side
12:00 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
what about the minority's? Are their sites blocking anything in this area?
Jake P.
2:13 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
so the aclu is suing for censhorship. Can you explain how the Patch removed comments made about McDaid during this discussion. Unbelievable!!!
John McDaid
2:21 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
There's no lawsuit; the ACLU issued a report based on information collected from all school districts. The School Committee is looking into it. That's a First Amendment issue. Your use of Patch, on the other hand, is controlled by the Terms you agreed to when you signed up, which prohibit defamatory comments.
Jane Wolk Wheeler
5:31 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
When posting on a forum such as this, it is customary to state your opinion about the subject being discussed. Stating your personal opinions about other posters is unacceptable.
Jake P.
2:14 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
So Let me post it again. McDaid= a clueless liberal who does not pay taxes.
Paul Silver
2:18 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
clueless liberal? A very rare thing indeed... ;-)
nagaer40
3:32 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I had such a warm feeling celebrating our new Pope yesterday with thoughts of peace and joy and goodness. Then I read this story about the ACLU and yet another attack on our public schools which are going broke. They know the school districts can't afford to fight them in court so they can push their liberal agenda on the schools. We have contrasting stories of good vs evil.
John McDaid
4:41 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
This is about access to appropriate information in schools. I don't understand how defending First Amendment freedom for our kids is evil.
Jake P
5:23 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Mcdaid you are in the public eye, you are some kind of reporter, as such, you can be targeted and you should be. I believe you are a clueless liberal who likely pays zero in taxes but has no problem pushing agendas that spend the money of those paying the freight. I find you to be a big hypocrit on virtually every subject you weigh in on.
OldTownie
5:29 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
While Mr McDaid may in fact be "in the public eye", how does this translate to your hiding behind a fake name post lies?
Jane Wolk Wheeler
5:34 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Just because John comments on the same forum as you is not an invitation for you to make libelous statements about him. If you have something to say about the article posted in the patch then do so, but please keep your nasty personal attacks to yourself.
Jake P
5:52 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
old townie and Jane post at the same intervals. Same defender of the clueless liberals using different names.
OldTownie
7:32 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I can assure you that we are not the same person. Don't even know her. You are nothing more than a child who should learn to listen before speaking.
Jack Baillargeron
9:03 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I find this looking for a problem where none exist that can't be solved by merely making a list for the State software used and not allow it to be modified in house.
Then you only have one place to go for such nonsense reports.
Consider this; Portmouth is supposidly blocking, religious and information on gay and lesbian rights sites.
You can bet if it was allowing religious and information on gay and lesbian rights sites.
There would be a law suit in Court against the school district for having religous information available in the school online, of that I have no doubt.
It alsp appears the ACLU is having a slow start to the new year in RI maybe. This is a vert petty report if you read it. They should be complaining to the State about the software used for the CIPA plan, and not going after the school. But then this did make for a better headline then, (State needs to have CIPA software re-coded) lol
John McDaid
7:27 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
I find it troubling to hear First Amendment freedoms for our schoolchildren described as "nonsense," but agree that the solution is to have a consistently employed and transparent policy. I am not sure, given the state laws that give local school committees authority over curriculum, that you could do this at the state level, but that's a question for RIDE.
However, one thing. This is not the first time in this thread that the ACLU and religion have come up. I would like to remind you of the distinction between teaching *about* religion (which happens in many areas of the curriculum) and teaching *religion*. One of the things the report notes as an issue is the blocking of access to "religion" as a category, because having access to viewpoint-neutral information about the topic is an important educational resource for students.
The Shill
11:53 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Why is it that conservatives hate the U.S Constitution so much.
Joe Sousa
6:09 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
We just hate the Progressive Liberal interpretation .
American Communistic Liberals United ACLU
nagaer40
8:05 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
The ACLU is an enemy of the United States and should be treated accordingly. Those of you who vote for candidates from the democrat party are supporting this treasonous organization.
OldTownie
10:28 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
You are too funny. Take off the tin foil hat for a while, you might learn something.
Paul Silver
8:40 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Interesting propaganda from the right... it seems though that the clueless liberals have a far greater clue than those on the Conservative side... seems so many use such words as socialist, communist, and such, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, even, it remains difficult to see where their clue is...
Joe Sousa
10:40 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
We know a Progressive Liberal when we see one . They tend to trash our rights every chance they get . Standing on the heads of dead children to push their agenda . Very sad indeed .
Paul Silver
11:02 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Liberals trashing rights? I think you forgot to check on the recent (10 yrs) of actions by the GOP... even if you limit to actions, rather than to what they say (Legitimate rape, Patriot Act, so much more... it is pathetic how some people fail to see reality even when it is right in front of them...
Joe Sousa
3:15 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Paul Silver, Just for the record I said Progressive Liberal . Not Dem. or Rep.
nagaer40
11:37 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Why isn't the ACLU actively fightling comrad Finn's latest attack on our constitutional rights. Thats right, because it doesn't have anything to do with gays, athiests, minorities, gays getting married, gays in the boyscouts, gays in the military, a cross on a war memorial honoring our war heroes, someone saying merry christmas in a town hall, and the list goes on and on.
Robert Oliveira
12:04 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Since you asked nagaer40, Rep. Finn's bill in an of itself does not violate the Constitution. As many have indicated here, it also may not be good policy. However, policy is not a Constitutional matter.
I'm sorry that you have such an estranged relationship with the Founders.
OldTownie
12:08 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
You might want to read this before you rant some more.
http://crosscut.com/2013/02/05/olympia-2013/112820/aclu-nra-line-together-gun-measure/
Joe Sousa
3:08 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Hey Bobby Boy ,Define "Shall Not Infringe. " Taxing me for my protection ?
If I am poor and live in a bad part of town, I might not have $ 100. Dollars to give the town . So I either give it up or break the law. Why wont the ACLU protect my right to defend my home and person . This bill hurts the poor and leaves them defenseless or a law breaker . Very sad !
Robert Oliveira
3:33 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Joe, be happy to . . .
Shall not infringe, according to every court, means reasonable restriction.
Your example shows why it may be a poorly crafted bill; it does not show why it may be Unconstitutional.
Joe Sousa
3:02 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Again, You should read it . Mandatory for people illegally possessing guns. I have no problem sending criminals to jail . The ACLU protecting Convicted Criminals .
Paul Silver
4:21 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Joe: and how many progressive liberal Republicans do you know?
Joe Sousa
7:41 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Paul Silver , We had one till he dropped out of the party . Then there's George Bush.
The Shill
4:33 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Joe should mentally ill people be allowed to own firearms. Should convicted fellons own fire arms. The second amendment does not have a provision exempting ill people or convicted fellons from owning guns. As written even if you are in jail you still have a constitutional right to posess a firearm. Constitutional rights are an absalute and can not be taken away. Why don't you ever hear pro gun people fighting for the rights of fellons to own a gun why do you think it is ok to trample on some peoples rights but not on yours. this is an all or nothing issue everybody has a right to own guns or no one does.
Joe Sousa
7:43 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Does Comrade Finn's law stop them from owning guns ? I think we know the answer .
Paul Silver
4:37 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
2nd Amedment: Aw ell regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems to me we have long ago overreached on what this says... note the first phrase, which being good writers, I assume the Founders put this Up Front for a reason????
nagaer40
6:05 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
I believe the gun registration form has already been drafted. Certain citizens are exempt from the $100 fee. If you check off that you are gay, athiest or an undocumented worker the fee is waived. The government still wants your prints and personal data, just in case.