One of the problems with twitter and Facebook and so on is that a lot of people feel like they are posting in private when they are really doing it in public. There is the illusion of talking to friends when you are really shouting from the rooftops.
It may be an effect of the fundamental disconnect that comes from using the net overall. People sitting at computers don't see or feel the size of the crowd they're talking to, as a result it feels private when it's far from it.
Perhaps (!) they have never Googled themselves. And even if they have "proper privacy settings set" there's nothing stopping a "friend" from copypasting their words and pics to anywhere else on the Internet.
I don't think that's the point. The point is that just because information is already "public" doesn't mean it's okay (morally) to reproduce it and distribute it.
This is what bothers me most about it. Since it (posting names, addresses, phone numbers, whatever) involves minors, I wonder whether it's legal.
Okay. If the website had not reproduced it, what are the chances that you or I or X thousand (million) other people would have ever read what they posted, learned their names or their cities or the names of their schools?
The answer is "it depends." Any post about anything controversial (and using racist language in public has been considered controversial for a while) has a good chance of going as viral as putting a few rounds into your daughter's laptop.
It was already public. I'm fairly certain it wasn't illegal to re-post it. Still doesn't make it "the right thing to do." So I agree with shadowwalker.
I'm hesitant about something not being illegal to repost just because it's "public." I think this is part of the point in this thread - minors often post info about themselves that they shouldn't, and others' reposting that info could put them in danger. If one of these kids was injured by someone who reposted their info, a parent might legitimately hold liable the person who put together this compilation of tweets and other info.
For (what should be here) an obvious copyright example, Sam Harris made his book "Lying" available for free as a PDF for a week, and I got a copy (I somewhat recall that it was just a link on his site - I didn't even have to enter an, er, my email address to get it), but no doubt it would violate copyright law if I reposted it.
Also depends on whether such forums are readable by registered members only, or by anyone who surfs in. Either way, it's STILL possible for a controversial statement to be copied elsewhere, and others to register on the forum and verify that it's there before anyone on the forum knows and the post gets "sent to the cornfield."
I wonder if it mightn't have been better just to send the posts to the Head and or the school board with a note that suggests there'll be a follow up to see that it was dealt with? That would seem to be a better way to model civil behaviour.
Why get the school involved? If there are any "authorities" who should know about this, I'd think it would be the parents.
Dunno about the whole issue of what minors ought to be able to say - I mean, I think in general the less regulation of speech the better - but it concerns me that kids are welcomed in to social networks as young as 13 (officially; Facebook is the most popular site for kids 7-12, supposedly before they can sign up.)
If you're not paying for a service like Facebook or Twitter, then you are the product.
Even if you ARE paying for something, your info is still a product to the organizations you deal with, and they often resell it to others as well as use it for their own purposes.
And on a more general note, racists are also apparently upset about the American music awards last night --
Oppa Gangnam Style!
Poor racists - collated like this.
Yes, this Gangnam Style video is the first time an Asian has ever entered the American popular entertainment consciousness. #setphaserstofabulous
