• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Can I be suspended for creating a website?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

tomsthename

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? New York

Hello,
I was wondering if I am at risk of suspension from school for creating a website to bypass the schools website filtering system? I was discussing it with a teacher, and he seems to think that the administrators could suspend me for it if they wanted to- I was wondering if anyone could back this up? I had trouble finding the answer anywhere online.

The website will not be a download; it will be an online anonymizer so it will not affect anything on the school computers at all.

Thanks!
 


HomeGuru

Senior Member
tomsthename said:
What is the name of your state? New York

Hello,
I was wondering if I am at risk of suspension from school for creating a website to bypass the schools website filtering system? I was discussing it with a teacher, and he seems to think that the administrators could suspend me for it if they wanted to- I was wondering if anyone could back this up? I had trouble finding the answer anywhere online.

The website will not be a download; it will be an online anonymizer so it will not affect anything on the school computers at all.

Thanks!

**A: what is the purpose and content?
 

tomsthename

Junior Member
The purpose of the website is simply to anonymize yourself to protect the students privacy on the internet. It was created on my home computer and is hosted by a third party.

Thanks for your help!
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
In other words, you have created a website that students can reach with school computers, enter the ip address of a (school) banned site, and have thier 'tracks' erased, thereby violating school policies on computer usage.

Now, if the above is correct, I suggest you SLOWLY read the above again. And answer your OWN question.
 

tomsthename

Junior Member
BelizeBreeze said:
In other words, you have created a website that students can reach with school computers, enter the ip address of a (school) banned site, and have thier 'tracks' erased, thereby violating school policies on computer usage.

Now, if the above is correct, I suggest you SLOWLY read the above again. And answer your OWN question.
They could use it for that, correct. However, there is a disclaimer announcing that the proxy system must be used in conjunction with all school rules, and that the user takes full responsibility for anything that they use the site for, and likewise that the creator of the site takes no responsibility for their actions. It is not used to erase tracks; it is used so tracks are never created. The site is made for privacy, but it could be used to bypass the filtering software. So just because there is the possibility for abuse, I could be blamed?
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
tomsthename said:
They could use it for that, correct. However, there is a disclaimer announcing that the proxy system must be used in conjunction with all school rules, and that the user takes full responsibility for anything that they use the site for, and likewise that the creator of the site takes no responsibility for their actions. It is not used to erase tracks; it is used so tracks are never created. The site is made for privacy, but it could be used to bypass the filtering software. So just because there is the possibility for abuse, I could be blamed?
Your disclaimer is worthless. If you have allowed other students access (either by notice or suggestion of the location of the site) then yes, you can be suspended for violation of school policy and for aiding in violation of school policy.
 

A.L.R

Junior Member
New York

Hello,
I was wondering if I am at risk of suspension from school for creating a website to bypass the schools website filtering system? I was discussing it with a teacher, and he seems to think that the administrators could suspend me for it if they wanted to- I was wondering if anyone could back this up? I had trouble finding the answer anywhere online....


Suspending you this way would not be proper, however school administrators have been known to fail in this respect when preoccupied with their objectives alongside their perceived authority. I'll offer you an alternative to confronting the school directly on this issue.

School age children in New York have a constitutionally protected right to a free public education in the district of their residence. Suspension is certainly within the authority of school officials when it is appropriate, although your example doesn't strike me as being particularly appropriate.

If your Web site is important enough for you to preserve, you might very well decide to accept the suspension, HOWEVER, the school is not then relieved of its constitutional duty to you. You would be in the position of obligating the school to fulfill its constitutional responsibility which, I suspect, then amounts to providing you with personal tutoring services. I'm guessing that the district is not going to choose to go down that road. $$$ is the language that speaks loudest, and that was most likely the leverage the school intended to depend upon for its own.

I'll urge you to be thoughtful about whatever policy the school is trying to inflict on you, but if you are persuaded that your's is an important principle to defend, go for it. The worst that can happen to you is that you will get the most private education imaginable.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
A.L.R said:
New York

Hello,
I was wondering if I am at risk of suspension from school for creating a website to bypass the schools website filtering system? I was discussing it with a teacher, and he seems to think that the administrators could suspend me for it if they wanted to- I was wondering if anyone could back this up? I had trouble finding the answer anywhere online....


Suspending you this way would not be proper, however school administrators have been known to fail in this respect when preoccupied with their objectives alongside their perceived authority. I'll offer you an alternative to confronting the school directly on this issue.

School age children in New York have a constitutionally protected right to a free public education in the district of their residence. Suspension is certainly within the authority of school officials when it is appropriate, although your example doesn't strike me as being particularly appropriate.

If your Web site is important enough for you to preserve, you might very well decide to accept the suspension, HOWEVER, the school is not then relieved of its constitutional duty to you. You would be in the position of obligating the school to fulfill its constitutional responsibility which, I suspect, then amounts to providing you with personal tutoring services. I'm guessing that the district is not going to choose to go down that road. $$$ is the language that speaks loudest, and that was most likely the leverage the school intended to depend upon for its own.

I'll urge you to be thoughtful about whatever policy the school is trying to inflict on you, but if you are persuaded that your's is an important principle to defend, go for it. The worst that can happen to you is that you will get the most private education imaginable.
are you suggesting that the school does not have the right to protect their private property? I would strongly suggest that you re-think this post in light of computer anti-hacking statutes and destruction of private property.

This is not a situation where the student is being punished for creating the website. It is one in which the student is committing a crime.
 

A.L.R

Junior Member
BelizeBreeze said:
are you suggesting that the school does not have the right to protect their private property? I would strongly suggest that you re-think this post in light of computer anti-hacking statutes and destruction of private property.

This is not a situation where the student is being punished for creating the website. It is one in which the student is committing a crime.
Quite the opposite -- I am suggesting that the state may take any and all steps it considers necessary to protect school property and has a duty to do so. What the state may not do is deprive a student or anyone else of a constitutionally protected right.

A public education is available to New York students as a protected right and is not subject to administrative decisions to the contrary. Indeed, if there were any reason to suspect student criminality of any kind, then the state has the added responsibility for prosecuting. I was of the opinion that nothing in thhis case was available to be construed as any kind of criminal activity, and even after rereading the original inquiry I find nothing to suggest differently. It is not inconceivable that I have missed something, so feel free to expand on either of the two issues you have raised.

I'll take the opportunity to mention that parentally "withholding educational opportunities" from a student has been addressed in the past as "child neglect", and it has been about the only means by which schools can legally attempt to force children into schools. On the other hand school suspensions are resorted to routinely for punitive purposes and amount to nothing less than the withholding of legal and constitutional rights. I'm not entirely comfortable defending what may be seen as the incorrigible low end of a student population, but I am no more inclined to give school authorities a free pass to a level of criminality of their own because there may be an administrative decision to the effect that they have a good reason for doing the wrong thing. Both civil and criminal penalties are available as a remedy under civil rights laws, and liability may be personal.

The right to a public education cannot and should not be confused as a right of access to a school. Administrators have the final responsibility of deciding when someone ought not be permitted onto school property and often do. That authority does not extend to withholding a student's education, however. The only reasonable alternative that occurred to me was a tutoring program, however it is certainly within the state's power to review other options that are compatible with their professional obligations under the law.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
A.L.R said:
Quite the opposite -- I am suggesting that the state may take any and all steps it considers necessary to protect school property and has a duty to do so. What the state may not do is deprive a student or anyone else of a constitutionally protected right.

A public education is available to New York students as a protected right and is not subject to administrative decisions to the contrary. Indeed, if there were any reason to suspect student criminality of any kind, then the state has the added responsibility for prosecuting. I was of the opinion that nothing in thhis case was available to be construed as any kind of criminal activity, and even after rereading the original inquiry I find nothing to suggest differently. It is not inconceivable that I have missed something, so feel free to expand on either of the two issues you have raised.
There are two issues here:

First, suspension is not legally depriving the student of an education. It is punishment. The courts have more than answered this question and have not to-date, disallowed the suspension of a student on constitutional grounds.

The fact that a student has a right to an education (free or otherwise) is not a bar to discipline. The state can offer the constitutionally protected education with other options and the student is free to exercise that right on his/her own.

As to the crime, computer hacking and facilitating the crime of computer hacking, burglary and destruction of private property are only a few of the crimes that this student is facilitating.

The website was designed for a specific purpose and unless this kid has more computer knowledge than I do (and I seriously doubt that) then his website can only gain access to the ACL list of the schools computer system by the installation of a trojan or an administrator password which belongs to the school system.
I'll take the opportunity to mention that parentally "withholding educational opportunities" from a student has been addressed in the past as "child neglect", and it has been about the only means by which schools can legally attempt to force children into schools. On the other hand school suspensions are resorted to routinely for punitive purposes and amount to nothing less than the withholding of legal and constitutional rights. I'm not entirely comfortable defending what may be seen as the incorrigible low end of a student population, but I am no more inclined to give school authorities a free pass to a level of criminality of their own because there may be an administrative decision to the effect that they have a good reason for doing the wrong thing. Both civil and criminal penalties are available as a remedy under civil rights laws, and liability may be personal.
If you have read anything in this froum regarding education and the constitution you'll see my stand on the relevant issues. As far back as 1965 I was espousing constitutional issues in the schools. Contrary to the atmosphere of the day.

However, in this instance, there is no constitutional protection for the crimes being committed and no constitutional guarantee for the student NOT to be disciplined should it come to that.

The cases you are citing have nothing to do with a school's rights and responsibilities. In fact, the school, acting as loco parentis, has more rights and responsibilities than the parent when the child is in their care.

One of those rights is to suspend certain constitutional rights such as search and seizure. A parent is not a government entity and thus does not have such suspension power.
The right to a public education cannot and should not be confused as a right of access to a school. Administrators have the final responsibility of deciding when someone ought not be permitted onto school property and often do. That authority does not extend to withholding a student's education, however. The only reasonable alternative that occurred to me was a tutoring program, however it is certainly within the state's power to review other options that are compatible with their professional obligations under the law.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I do not agree that tutoring should be an option. The FIRST option is and should always be the student taking responsibility for learning.

In this case, if this student is suspended, they are responsible for the learning they will miss. And for such a short period, I doubt any court is going to order the added expense to taxpayers for the private tutoring of a problem child.
 

A.L.R

Junior Member
There are two issues here:
First, suspension is not legally depriving the student of an education. It is punishment. The courts have more than answered this question and have not to-date, disallowed the suspension of a student on constitutional grounds.
I'm not really addressing the motive behind the suspension. Were punishment to have taken the form of breaking a student's bones, this student would be no less infirmed than if the objective were less lofty. In this case, the infirmity is specifically the product of a teaching opportunity being withheld, irrespective of the supporting rationale.

Otherwise, somewhat obtusely, New York courts determined some years ago that any seat in a classroom was sufficient to meet the constitutional obligation imposed upon the state in this respect. A parental law suit against the state predicated on the illiteracy of graduates had been dismissed on those specific grounds. If you are comfortable with this, you are quite right in your rebuttal which I would want to reject for separate reasons of my own.
The fact that a student has a right to an education (free or otherwise) is not a bar to discipline. The state can offer the constitutionally protected education with other options and the student is free to exercise that right on his/her own.
If I understand your statement correctly, I am sure I agree with you here. Discipline is not in question other than to the extent it may intrude upon a legal right. Options are fine.
As to the crime, computer hacking and facilitating the crime of computer hacking, burglary and destruction of private property are only a few of the crimes that this student is facilitating.
I apologize if I misunderstand the original inquiry, but my belief has been that the Web site can't be presumed to facilitate the commission of any crime in any respect that would be dissimilar to the use of a telephone in a contract murder. I realize that we must be mindful of somewhat of a judicial monarchy, but there are implicit dangers when resorting to the body of law as one gigantic chinese menu.
The website was designed for a specific purpose and unless this kid has more computer knowledge than I do (and I seriously doubt that) then his website can only gain access to the ACL list of the schools computer system by the installation of a trojan or an administrator password which belongs to the school system.
When this case can be made succinctly, then the discussion will need to evolve differently. I think I am correct when I say that nothing is yet evident that supports your projection as more than an attempt to mind read. This doesn't mean that you may not be ahead of the curve -- it means only that the imposition of law is inseparable from responsbilities that you and I might be inclined to dismiss while chatting over a cup of coffee.
If you have read anything in this froum regarding education and the constitution you'll see my stand on the relevant issues. As far back as 1965 I was espousing constitutional issues in the schools. Contrary to the atmosphere of the day.
I'm sorry, but I just stumbled upon this discussion and am completely ignorant of what you may have been saying in the past. I can see that I'm not even proficient enough just yet to use the site correctly, and I'll apologize for that, too.
However, in this instance, there is no constitutional protection for the crimes being committed and no constitutional guarantee for the student NOT to be disciplined should it come to that.
No crime ever has the benefit of contitutional protection, and I would agree that we should be able to discuss 'discipline' generally without getting into constitutional conflicts.
The cases you are citing have nothing to do with a school's rights and responsibilities. In fact, the school, acting as loco parentis, has more rights and responsibilities than the parent when the child is in their care.
Neither the state nor its schools have any rights at all, despite the way the subject matter is (carelessly) handled. The responsibility for education in New York is strictly a constitutional imposition upon the state and the means for meeting that responsibility is statuory. Common law addresses neither. I do understand the role that courts have awarded themselves, and with a unified court system, the failures are dramatically compounded. I mention this last point only because I don't know how to avoid it, but I'm satisfied just leaving it behind a a question to be resolved elsewhere. I am familiar with the school's 'parental' role, but I would insist that while it does imply levels of authority, it is a serious mistake to extrapolate the availability of rights of any kind.
One of those rights is to suspend certain constitutional rights such as search and seizure. A parent is not a government entity and thus does not have such suspension power.
Nonsense! The authority (not a right) to require a search prior to being admitted into a school building is certainly legitimate. A student invoking his right to refuse a search in the absence of probable cause is no less legitimate, however he has no inherent right of entry; it is not improper to deny him access were he to do so. Rights, however, are never subject to administrative distraint, and the state is not relieved of providing education for a student so doing. Civil rights, which I will define as those legislative enactments providing for 'rights' certainly can be suspended, but only by authority which itself, is the product of legislation. The 4th Amendment addresses an 'unalienable' constitutional right, one that predates the country itself and is beyond the lawful reach of any government intervention. This is not a particularly difficult argument to defend, however I do concede that it will be vigorously discounted. I don't often detect much public or legal respect for the inalienability of constitutional rights at any level.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I do not agree that tutoring should be an option. The FIRST option is and should always be the student taking responsibility for learning.
The school authorities are free to determine what options are available to them. They are not free to assign any student a responsibility for learning -- I'm not even sure I understand what that means. This is not to say that the wise student won't take such responsibility on his own initiative or that teachers won't encourage him to do so.
In this case, if this student is suspended, they are responsible for the learning they will miss. And for such a short period, I doubt any court is going to order the added expense to taxpayers for the private tutoring of a problem child.
I don't believe it ever makes sense to think in terms of reassigning the state's responsibility for public education to the the student, himself. Tempting, I am sure, but not particularly within the realm of a legitimate possibility. Courts have been known to order states to spend money, but I think you will find that law enforcement authority does not properly extend beyond enforcing the law. In this particular example, school administrators are the only ones with authority to determine how their funds will be spent and their obligations will be met, and to the extent decisions pass constitutional muster, their decision is final, as it should be.
 

xylene

Senior Member
...

A.L.R. for all the verbosity, pomp, and ... drivel... I think Mr. Breeze's point is spot on and yours is... hot air.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top