Kansas teen won't apologize to governor's office for Twitter post

[waltzingmatilda]

I thought it was pretty customary in most schools to prohibit having and/or using cell phones? Or is that just another one of those voluntary "rules"?

In a classroom setting, Yes. Students are required to turn them off. But field trips are more relaxed, IMO. Especially for HS students as opposed to elementary and middle school students. (and they do bring cell phones to school at that young age!)

Just MOO due to experience working in the local school system .

 

[oh_gal]

I agree. I don't think it should be applauded/encouraged - but I don't think she should be *forced* to issue an apology. Seems like a moot point now that the school has dropped that requirement, though.

From watching the video, I got the sense that she really didn't mean to cause a stir and was surprised. I don't think she wants to be the center of attention - I think it's just something that happened. I could be wrong, but she doesn't seem - to me - to be the type of person who wants to keep causing similar issues.

I also said she shouldn't apologize. She is entitled to her opinion, and her right to free speech. I don't agree with her language, and I know...it's how many kids talk today. Doesn't make it right. If it were my daughter talking to (or about) anyone like that, there would be consequences. Otherwise, she'd think it was acceptable behavior, and in our family, it's not. Her right to express her opinion I have no problem with. I'm not saying she should be a mindless sheep. I do, however have a problem with the way she said what she said, and if her parents think that it's ok to have her talk like that...that's their problem. And yes, I do mean problem.

 

[belimom]

They found out about the tweet because one of the governor's staffers surfs social media to see what is being said about the governor. He found the tweet and the school was alerted, which, in my opinion, is a bit think skinned.





I agree with you both. We have become a nation that celebrates incivility. And that can be a horrible thing.

I disagree with the governor's policies. I agree with Emma's sentiment. I disagree with her public expression of it at the meeting and via twitter.

Perhaps the school does not have the right to demand she apologizes but they do have the right to discipline her for rude behavior at a public event when she was acting as an ambassador for the school(she was taking part in a youth in government program).

If she had stood up and firmly stated, "Governor, your cut of the arts program has hurt many students and is very unpopular. Why do you think it's okay to cut arts for students? Why is creativity less important than the beloved sports programs that would never be cut for fear? Why are creative students singled out as unworthy? I would like an answer to that." Now that would have been a speech and while challenging the governor, it would not have been rude and childish.

This was not a protest or demonstration, it was a student government event where they met the governor. She acted like a brat and her mother appears to be supporting such immature behavior.

And yes, the governor is think-skinned.

If she had actually said it and was viewed as a representative of the school, then, yes, I agree.

But she didn't actually say it. She was reportedly in the back of the group as the governor was speaking to them.

I agree with her mother - she could have said what she wanted to say much much better, but she still has a constitutional right to say it (bbm):

Sullivan's mother, Julie, said she isn't angry with her daughter, even though she thinks she "could have chosen different words."

"She wasn't speaking to the 3,000 followers she has now," Julie Sullivan said. "She was talking to 65 friends. And also it's the speech they use today. It's more attention grabbing. I raised my kids to be independent, to be strong, to be free thinkers. If she wants to tweet her opinion about Gov. Brownback, I say for her to go for it and I stand totally behind her."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...logize-for-her-tweet-about-Gov.-Sam-Brownback

 

[gitana1]

I can only repeat: attaching consequences to rights guaranteed by our Constitution is anti-constitutional.

For the governor's office to throw a snit about this, and for Shawnee Mission East's principal to harangue Ms. Sullivan for an hour about this, and then to demand a letter of apology be sent - each of these is antithetical to an American citizen's right to freedom of speech, particularly considering the means chosen in this case to exercise that right.

No it's not. The constitution itself is clear about this. Context is important.

If you ran a hotel and had an employee who encountered a hotel guest wearing a cross, let's say, and your employee told the guest "You suck, your need to demonstrate your false religion offends me!", you would have every right to fire that employee and you should fire that employee.

Yes, the worker has the right to say what he or she wants and the employer has a right to fire the employee for his or her exercise of that free speech right. That's a consequence and it is not unconstitutional.

We can say what we want. We cannot be jailed for it unless we are inciting a riot, etc. But there are certain consequences for non-jailable speech and in certain contexts, those consequences are in keeping with the constitution.

Emma, with her inability to coherently express herself in tweets or verbally, and with her childish and rude immaturity, is not a young person I would hire or want involved in any political movement I agree with, in any kind of representational or leadership role. :twocents:

Even though I agree that the governor "sucks".

 

[belimom]

I also said she shouldn't apologize. She is entitled to her opinion, and her right to free speech. I don't agree with her language, and I know...it's how many kids talk today. Doesn't make it right. If it were my daughter talking to (or about) anyone like that, there would be consequences. Otherwise, she'd think it was acceptable behavior, and in our family, it's not. Her right to express her opinion I have no problem with. I'm not saying she should be a mindless sheep. I do, however have a problem with the way she said what she said, and if her parents think that it's ok to have her talk like that...that's their problem. And yes, I do mean problem.

Sorry - I wasn't implying that you said she had to apologize - just addressing the whole issue of her being forced to do it. :seeya:

I agree - the language isn't appropriate. If she were my child - and IF she had actually said that - I would probably encourage her to write a letter apologizing for her language and then explaining her points of view on the policies she disagrees with.

 

[oh_gal]

Sorry - I wasn't implying that you said she had to apologize - just addressing the whole issue of her being forced to do it. :seeya:

I agree - the language isn't appropriate. If she were my child - and IF she had actually said that - I would probably encourage her to write a letter apologizing for her language and then explaining her points of view on the policies she disagrees with.

I knew you didn't mean "me".

 

[mysteriew]

I don't think that free speech guarantees that one can say anything they want without consequence.

The student was on a school field trip, and thus, an ambassador of the school during their time there.

Telling anybody that "they suck" (especially without saying why you might think that) is rude. I'm not sure that parents are doing their child a service by supporting this kind of lazy thinking.

A more appropriate response from the school would, in my opinion, be to have the student write a respectful letter about why they disapprove of the Governor's leadership.

BBM


:clap: To me this is ideal. It acknowleges the student's right to free speech, it doesn't make her lie in a false apology and it makes her back up her opinion with facts. Which means she may actually learn something new.

For the governor, he should have ignored her tweet. But if for some reason he felt he couldn't, why not request a letter from her asking her to outline her reasoning why "he sucked." Ask for facts, ask how what he does affects her personally. He should have at least pretended that her opinion was important to him even if it wasn't.

I do wonder, if this girl wasn't a student would the governor have reacted like this? If he had known she was old enough to vote would he have responded this way? Will Kansas voters have to worry that if they put their criticism on social media that they will get a public demand for an apology?

I don't get the big deal on the governor's part. It isn't like she stood with him in front of camera's or with important visitor's and gave him the finger. She tweeted it. So what? How many people would have heard about it if he had not made a big deal out of it? She would have tweeted it, she would have tweeted something new later in the day and it would have been forever forgotten. Instead he made an issue about it and it is now news. Now everybody knows about it. I may not be from Kansas, I may not know anything about the politics there. But I do know that the Kansas governor cannot take criticism even from a high schooler, and he doesn't care about whether other's opinions about him are valid or not. And that he has no respect for the kids of the state. I learned a lot about him when he made an issue about a high school student's tweet.

 

[wfgodot]

No it's not. The constitution itself is clear about this. Context is important.

If you ran a hotel and had an employee who encountered a hotel guest wearing a cross, let's say, and your employee told the guest "You suck, your need to demonstrate your false religion offends me!", you would have every right to fire that employee and you should fire that employee.

Yes, the worker has the right to say what he or she wants and the employer has a right to fire the employee for his or her exercise of that free speech right. That's a consequence and it is not unconstitutional.

We can say what we want. We cannot be jailed for it unless we are inciting a riot, etc. But there are certain consequences for non-jailable speech and in certain contexts, those consequences are in keeping with the constitution.

Emma, with her inability to coherently express herself in tweets or verbally, and with her childish and rude immaturity, is not a young person I would hire or want involved in any political movement I agree with, in any kind of representational or leadership role. :twocents:

Even though I agree that the governor "sucks".

Emma is not an employee. This comparison is invalid.

No one is asking anyone to hire Emma, nor for her to join or lead a movement.

The right to freedom of speech is not centered on the language chosen to express it.

Emma did not yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Emma expressed an opinion in a form of personal media beyond the scope of school rules. It is chilling to see what consequences resulted from her having done so.

 

[gitana1]

If she had actually said it and was viewed as a representative of the school, then, yes, I agree.

But she didn't actually say it. She was reportedly in the back of the group as the governor was speaking to them.

I agree with her mother - she could have said what she wanted to say much much better, but she still has a constitutional right to say it (bbm):

She posted it on a public twitter account for anyone to see, including the governor or his family.

Yeah, kids talk that way but they should learn that how they speak with each other in private is not always acceptable in public.

Does everyone know what he "sucks" and he "blows a lot" means? That is a reference to oral sex with another man's penis. Yes, it is a figure of speech but I would be very embarrassed if that was my kid or one of my students.

She was invited to go on a youth government outing. She chose to publish rude and lewd language about the governor she had just met, who took the time out of his day to speak with the kids. She should be suspended. And, IMO, she should apologize for using such language publicly.

Kids today do not realize that every potential employer, scholarship committee and college admissions board can see what they are doing and posting online, publicly. They seem to have no problem taping or photographing themselves doing drugs, or having sex or making hand gestures, using foul language or showing off body parts normally covered by a swimsuit. Well, there are consequences for those expressions of speech.

 

[LimeCola]

Ms Sullivan threw what appears to be a casual, off the cuff, insult out on social media. In no way did her tweet reflect what she later said was her issue with the Governor.

There are consequences for every action. Perhaps it is a reminder that what one broadcasts online is 'out there' for all to see, and that words can't be taken back.

I don't think Ms Sullivan should have to apologize, but I think she should. Not for her feelings towards the Governor or his policies, but for being rude.

 

[wfgodot]

But everyone who is applauding this girl and her rights is attaching positive consequences to her actions. Sometimes consequences are good. Sometimes, they're not.

I'm not applauding Emma, I'm applauding the Constitution, which protects even silly, scarcely articulate - judging by that tweet! - high school seniors. And I do applaud the exercise of free speech, as it does tend to jar the power structure and (going French now!) épater le bourgeoisie. This is a healthy thing, to be welcomed, not condemned, in a democracy.

 

[oh_gal]

Emma is not an employee. This comparison is invalid.

No one is asking anyone to hire Emma, nor for her to join or lead a movement.

The right to freedom of speech is not centered on the language chosen to express it.

Emma did not yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Emma expressed an opinion in a form of personal media beyond the scope of school rules. It is chilling to see what consequences resulted from her having done so.

Yes, it is chilling. The number of people who applaud this young lady rudely tweeting her opinion. That's what I'm upset about, anyway. Not the fact that she either a) has an opinion; or b) voiced it. Just that many are applauding her for her lack of manners and respect for society, in general.

Are we becoming so desensitized as a society that it's ok to talk like this, and no one has a problem with it? Do you all really talk like this in your everyday life? I have a sister who does...not attractive on a 50-something woman. And not someone I want my daughters to emulate.

 

[raeann]

No it's not. The constitution itself is clear about this. Context is important.

If you ran a hotel and had an employee who encountered a hotel guest wearing a cross, let's say, and your employee told the guest "You suck, your need to demonstrate your false religion offends me!", you would have every right to fire that employee and you should fire that employee.

Yes, the worker has the right to say what he or she wants and the employer has a right to fire the employee for his or her exercise of that free speech right. That's a consequence and it is not unconstitutional.

We can say what we want. We cannot be jailed for it unless we are inciting a riot, etc. But there are certain consequences for non-jailable speech and in certain contexts, those consequences are in keeping with the constitution.

Emma, with her inability to coherently express herself in tweets or verbally, and with her childish and rude immaturity, is not a young person I would hire or want involved in any political movement I agree with, in any kind of representational or leadership role. :twocents:

Even though I agree that the governor "sucks".

Exactly!!! This is what it boils down to......just because you have a RIGHT to do something does not make it the RIGHT THING TO DO.

 

[gitana1]

Emma is not an employee. This comparison is invalid.

No one is asking anyone to hire Emma, nor for her to join or lead a movement.

The right to freedom of speech is not centered on the language chosen to express it.

Emma did not yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Emma expressed an opinion in a form of personal media beyond the scope of school rules. It is chilling to see what consequences resulted from her having done so.

It is not a comparison, it is an example. The consequences for her rude behavior are not "chilling". They are consequences for publicly using nasty language about a government official that the school arranged she should meet, as a member of a youth political movement. The consequences she is facing do not come anywhere close to the chilling of free speech as it is understood in a constitutional context. At least, that is not what I learned in a year of constitutional law when I was in law school.

There is a time, place or manner restriction to our free speech rights. Not every exercise of speech is acceptable or protected by the first amendment.

Thus, Disneyland has the right to bar people from coming into the park with shirts that display the middle finger or contain vulgarities.

Emma used vulgarities associated with oral sex when discussing the governor. She did so publicly. The governor and his staffers are very stupid for calling attention to it, but they did and now her principal is embarrassed. She should be too.

ETA: The school has every right to be upset and to discipline her (although forcing an apology may not be what they can do). It would be far different and a clear violation of her free speech rights if Emma criticized the governor publicly via a tweet or to his face, WITHOUT using vulgarities, and the school tried to discipline her for that. Huge difference.

The public vulgarity is the problem here, not the general sentiment.

 

[mysteriew]

She posted it on a public twitter account for anyone to see, including the governor or his family.

Yeah, kids talk that way but they should learn that how they speak with each other in private is not always acceptable in public.

Does everyone know what he "sucks" and he "blows a lot" means? That is a reference to oral sex with another man's penis. Yes, it is a figure of speech but I would be very embarrassed if that was my kid or one of my students.

She was invited to go on a youth government outing. She chose to publish rude and lewd language about the governor she had just met, who took the time out of his day to speak with the kids. She should be suspended. And, IMO, she should apologize for using such language publicly.

Kids today do not realize that every potential employer, scholarship committee and college admissions board can see what they are doing and posting online, publicly. They seem to have no problem taping or photographing themselves doing drugs, or having sex or making hand gestures, using foul language or showing off body parts normally covered by a swimsuit. Well, there are consequences for those expressions of speech.

But the governor didn't seem to take issue with the terminology she used. It is my understanding he wanted an apology for what she said, not how she said it.

There is no indication that the governor was at all concerned about the affect the tweet might have on her future. If he was concerned about her future, he might have brought his concerns to her family in private and asked that she be counseled on the matter. Instead he has demanded an apology. Made it a very public matter, bringing more attention to her tweet.

If the governor's concern was in the terminology she used wouldn't it have been more productive to privately ask for clarification rather than publicly demand an apology?

 

[oh_gal]

I'm not applauding Emma, I'm applauding the Constitution, which protects even silly, scarcely articulate - judging by that tweet! - high school seniors. And I do applaud the exercise of free speech, as it does tend to jar the power structure and (going French now!) épater le bourgeoisie. This is a healthy thing, to be welcomed, not condemned, in a democracy.

I applaud her right to free speech. I just don't like her language. Two different issues.

Unfortunately, people are supporting one and ignoring the other, which makes it seem that they support it all. Likewise, because I don't support the way she talks, it appears that I am not supporting her right to free speech, or her right to have an opinion. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[oh_gal]

But the governor didn't seem to take issue with the terminology she used. It is my understanding he wanted an apology for what she said, not how she said it.

There is no indication that the governor was at all concerned about the affect the tweet might have on her future. If he was concerned about her future, he might have brought his concerns to her family in private and asked that she be counseled on the matter. Instead he has demanded an apology. Made it a very public matter, bringing more attention to her tweet.

If the governor's concern was in the terminology she used wouldn't it have been more productive to ask for clarification rather than demand an apology?

(above bbm)
Not necessarily. If you were out for an evening with your spouse or SO, and some young guy spoke to you in a demeaning way (with his choice of words), would your spouse or SO demand that he apologize, or ask for clarification?

 

[wfgodot]

Emma used vulgarities associated with oral sex when discussing the governor. She did so publicly. The governor and his staffers are very stupid for calling attention to it, but they did and now her principal is embarrassed. She should be too.

respectful sniperdoodle

Emma used language which is protected under the Constitution. And frankly, her principal should be embarrassed - for putting the administration's concerns about saving face ahead of the right to post on a personal Twitter account what a citizen thinks.

 

[belimom]

She posted it on a public twitter account for anyone to see, including the governor or his family.

Yeah, kids talk that way but they should learn that how they speak with each other in private is not always acceptable in public.

Does everyone know what he "sucks" and he "blows a lot" means? That is a reference to oral sex with another man's penis. Yes, it is a figure of speech but I would be very embarrassed if that was my kid or one of my students.

She was invited to go on a youth government outing. She chose to publish rude and lewd language about the governor she had just met, who took the time out of his day to speak with the kids. She should be suspended. And, IMO, she should apologize for using such language publicly.

Kids today do not realize that every potential employer, scholarship committee and college admissions board can see what they are doing and posting online, publicly. They seem to have no problem taping or photographing themselves doing drugs, or having sex or making hand gestures, using foul language or showing off body parts normally covered by a swimsuit. Well, there are consequences for those expressions of speech.

bbm

I wholeheartedly agree with that last paragraph. Most of the children coming of age in today's world can't remember a time when people didn't know something happened unless they were physically there. Back before e-mail, FB, twitter, cell phones, texts...

 

[Soulmagent]

The more speech is limited, the more freedom of speech is lost.

Sam Brownback's involvement in Kansas Youth in Government is really no more than a media event. He isn't clamoring, say, to work exclusively with the students of Shawnee Mission East. It's a block of time filled in on his calendar, a one-shot yearly deal.

Brownback can espouse his views - anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-Choice - because we have freedom of speech, regardless of how others of us feel about these matters.

Emma Sullivan was not working at a job. She is a student.

Emma's freedom of speech gives her the right to state her opinion of Sam Brownback.

It often bothers me that the schools have speakers allowed to come into my kids school and promote their opinions to my underage children.Yet my children cannot express any veiw on abortion or religion or anything controversal topic at all.

I remember one of my kids teachers promoting George Bush so much that at thanksgiving dinner one year my 7 year old said she was thankful for him. my 17 yo wore a prochoice shirt and was made to flip it inside out.

That said I have one of these Emma type kids. She is quick thinking and lippy but sometime not all at the same time. I think I will opt her out of any event like this ...:floorlaugh:

I would be conflicted as a parent over this ,the disrespect of telling him he sucked to his face could have been voiced differently but that is something teens learn to do as they mature. On the other hand it is her right to express even inmature speech and disrespectful speech.

I also think warrents should be needed for a school to reveiw a childs facebook/twitter/ etc. even if it is public. Or at very least the parents permission. JMO.