Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

Dr. Pepper is the only thing that comes to mind. The previous poster probably was thinking of something else, since Dr. Pepper doesn't seem particularly offensive, or particularly likely to have been an intended connection. More likely the intent was simply what it appeared to be: a shorthand to save having to type out "David Paszkiewicz" in full, over and over.

81771[/snapback]

I'm sure the original use of DP here was just shorthand for David Paszkewicz but another poster tried to make more out it.

I grew up in an eastern european immigrant community on the south side of Chicago and the derogatory use of the term was widespread. I don't know of its usage outside of the midwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DP stands for Displaced Person. The term was used after WWII for the people who had to leave their homes in Europe and then came to America. At least in the area where I grew up it was also a derogatory term for all recent immigrants from Europe, especially those from eastern Europe. Some people, including members of my own family, still call people DP's.

81595[/snapback]

Maybe it's a regional and/or period thing. I'm not at all familiar with either "DP" or "Displaced Person" as a derogatory term, nor would I have associated "DP" with "Displaced Person" if no one had commented on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You actually bred kids? Poor things.

Gee whiz - in light of the patent manifestation of your superlative wit and intellectual capacity, the only comeback that I can think of to compete on your plane of thought is "your mother".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kearny Senior
Paul/Rex/Guest must be OCD. Only someone afflicted with OCD would

continuously type the same trite garbage over and over and over again.

Read ONE of his posts from a year ago and you've read ALL of his posts to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Read ONE of his posts from a year ago and you've read ALL of his posts to date.

It only seems that way to someone who thinks Mr. "rectum remarks" is "witty". Clearly you don't have anything resembling the brainpower to understand any post more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twizzler

QUOTE(Paul @ Jan 17 2008, 11:05 PM)

1. Mr. Paszkiewicz was disciplined. We just don't know how. Presumably he is still teaching because they Board decided not to fire him. That's their call. It doesn't mean they're happy with him. It's very hard to fire a tenured teacher with a powerful union behind him.

Isn't that a flip-flop from you, LaClair?

It's not inconsistent in the least. The LaClairs' issue was not Paszkiewicz's discipline. Their issue was correction of his remarks. That's what Paul was discussing in his other post, which you falsely claim is inconsistent with the one above.

The point is obvious. You just do not wish to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest twizzler
I snipped two more paragraphs of the same type of stuff, since it's kind of unbelievable that somebody would need that much space to explain something so simple unless he were also trying to create a distraction.

The fact that this is still being debated a year and a half later is what is unbelievable. Equally amazing is that long explanations are needed to explain the ethical issues. However, when people put their religious dogmas ahead of everything else, that’s what happens.

Doesn't appear to cover the recording of the private meeting with Somma, Woods and Pasziewicz, does it? Where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy?

Do you mean to tell me that three adults in a position of responsibility over a minor student have a right to privacy when they are alone with that student? What is wrong with you? They have no legitimate expectation of privacy. It’s the student who needs protection in a situation like that. Matthew found a way to protect himself from being abused and manipulated by people who were more powerful than he was. You just don’t like the fact that he succeeded.

In my humble opinion there's something missing from this apologetic: a plausible rationale as to why non-deceptive methods could not have worked just as well.

Returning to the football analogy, Matthew acted in a manner that was no routinely condoned and applauded (as with a play-action pass to fool the defense). It was close to the Patriots using film to steal signs from other teams, particularly before the NFL created guidelines specifically prohibiting the practice. As with Belichek, the LaClairs are willing to use sneaky tactics to achieve what they deem is the prize.

There’s nothing humble about your opinion. You're so arrogant that you ignore everything that doesn't suit you, and this is just another example. The rationale has been provided many times. And if you want to offer what is routinely condoned and applauded as a guide to what is right (1) you’re committing one of your own favorite fallacies and (2) Matthew’s conduct is overwhelmingly approved. That is why he has received multiple awards and accolades for it, and why the only people saying otherwise are far-right religious bigots like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speedy G.
Since the ADL training program was instituted in the wake of a complaint about Mr. Paszkiewicz the school avoided the appearance of impropriety by keeping him from the chore.

Give me a break. He's being disallowed from teaching his own class. That only happens because he can't be trusted.

Paszkiewicz has said explicitly that he doesn't believe church-state separation exists. His arguments are based on false history, and illogical. You can bet the Board was none too happy with him when he wrote his infamous letter nearly a year ago, twisting the views of several of the founding fathers beyond recognition and denying established law. That's hardly a recommendation for a history teacher, and it clearly earned him the Board's distrust. They may not have fired him, but they're obviously not happy with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speedy G.
There you go lying again. For a lawyer you should be embarrassed to post this response. You cannot name 5 people who spoke out. Think about it, except for some fictitious guests on here you have not named anyone. I do not think that no one constitutes as "several". Those are the facts. I along with others have come to the conclusion that you cannot yourself from lying.

The following former students have spoken out publicly to verify that David Paszkiewicz has been doing this for years.

Andrew Lewchuk

Caroline Perez

Nicole Romaniak

Those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. If you search this board, you’ll find several others.

You haven't come to any conclusions. Obviously you had your conclusions when something happened that you didn't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speedy G.
That conclusion, according to my recollection, is typically build on an apparently unfounded assumption that other methods would not have resulted in a better outcome. It seems to me that the LaClairs' minority ideology plays the chief role in guiding their value judgment, here (perhaps with a healthy dollop of the ends justifying the means).

That seems somewhat spare in the explanation department.

You posted elsewhere about the constitutional right to privacy, LaClair. If you don't recognize that the private meeting at the school carried a reasonable expectation of privacy (a meeting that your son surreptitiously recorded, adding misleading words to the deception) then you provide the appearance of speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

When you make an affirmative claim, the other party is not required to prove its negation. You're required to prove your claim. You've been challenged repeatedly to identify what other methods would have resulted in a better outcome, or even the same outcome. And of course, you can't identify one.

And then you tell us that "the private meeting at the school carried a reasonable expectation of privacy." Leaving aside the abysmal grammar and sentence construction, just whom do you claim had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that meeting? I presume you're referring to Paszkiewicz, and maybe to Wood and/or Somma. But why don't you tell us, since it's your argument? And then, if you ever get around to telling us what the hell you're talking about, maybe you can for once in your life justify your argument instead of just nitpicking everyone else's.

Think about what you're writing for once. A reasonable expectation of privacy can exist in a variety of circumstances. Lawyer-client, physician-patient and priest-penitent relationships are three examples of relationships where the expectation of privacy is protected by law. But in each case, the expectation belongs to the less powerful party. You're suggesting that the people with the power should have it, and that's not how it works.

Other examples include a private telephone conversation. The Supreme Court has held that parties to such a conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy against the government tapping the phone and listening in. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy inherent between the parties to the conversation. Under ordinary circumstances, if two people have a telephone conversation, either party is free to publish its contents to the world. In fact, in most states, one party to the conversation may record it without the other party's knowledge and publish the recording. New Jersey is among the one-party consent states. Matthew was entirely free to record the meeting. Where's the reasonable expectation of privacy? You say it, but how do you justify it? You don't.

Think a little further about what you're saying. If Paszkiewicz has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that meeting, does that mean that Matthew couldn't tell his parents what went on? Toward the end of the meeting, Paszkiewicz said "maybe you're an atheist," as though Matthew's religious beliefs had some significance that Paszkiewicz's own Christianity apparently didn't have (in Paszkiewicz's mind). Is Matthew bound to silence regarding that remark? And if Matthew was free to tell the world what the three adults said and did in that meeting, then why wasn't he free to record it? Don't just state your wish and call it truth. Take a bold step and (1) tell us specifically what expectation you're arguing for, and then (2) justify your argument.

Think, for once, about what was going on in that meeting. Here's a student alone in a meeting with three adults. One of them is a teacher he has accused of misconduct. I'd like to see you have the balls to walk into a meeting like that as a sixteen-year-old student confronting three authority figures, let alone sit there for an hour and cross-examine a teacher who, as we now know, was willing to lie to save his behind - and oh, by the way, happens to be in charge of the grade you're going to get at the end of the term. There isn't a kid in a million who would have the balls to do that, which is why Matthew has won so many awards.

Oh yes, I forgot. Paszkiewicz didn't lie. Never mind that he denied ever using the phrase "you belong in hell." "I - I - I wouldn't even say that in church." Good God, man, can't you tell the sound of a man lying? Listen to him stammering, trying to think of how to get around the fact that the kid has him cornered. And that's just for starters. Everything is taken out of context, he says - the standard fall-back position for a practiced liar. But oh no, that's not what Bryan wants to believe. So therefore, Paszkiewicz wasn't lying. Yeah.

Why don't you be honest for once, Bryan? You want the kid powerless. That way, this would all have gone away without your fellow right wing nutcake getting exposed.

Not one of your arguments has anything to do with morality, ethics or justice, Bryan. Every one of them has to do with one thing: your personal religious and political agenda.

Think about what was obviously going to happen in that meeting. Do you really think the principal wants a messy confrontation with one of his teachers? Isn't his interest to appease everybody as best he can and end the matter? How about an honest answer to a direct question for once, Bryan? But here comes the teacher, defending his conduct and accusing the student. How many principals are going to take the student's word for it? Care to take that one on - honestly, for a change? If Matthew hadn't recorded the meeting, Paszkiewicz would have gotten away with lying about what happened. You think Paszkiewicz should be allowed to preach in class, so that's the result you wanted. You know it as well as I do.

Be honest for once, Bryan. It's good for the soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that this is still being debated a year and a half later is what is unbelievable. Equally amazing is that long explanations are needed to explain the ethical issues. However, when people put their religious dogmas ahead of everything else, that’s what happens.

So what are your religious dogmas, given the fact that you're here debating the issue?

Do you mean to tell me that three adults in a position of responsibility over a minor student have a right to privacy when they are alone with that student?

Not really. I hadn't contemplated the idea of sapient licorice until just a few moments ago. It's obvious that there is an expectation of privacy. If that's news to you then that's news to you, I suppose.

What is wrong with you?

I'm patient enough to reply to your nonsense?

They have no legitimate expectation of privacy.

Then why didn't they have the meeting during lunchtime in the lunch room? Or at least broadcast the meeting over the intercom system?

It’s the student who needs protection in a situation like that.

The elder LaClair seems to think that young LaClair was the puppet master in the meeting or something. Is he so far off? Is Matthew LaClair utterly reliant on a recording device for his stupendous powers?

The student gets his protection by the presence of the three adults (in particular Woods and Somma). I think it would have been better if at least one of Matthew's parents had been present, also. Mr. LaClair, iirc, claims that his presence was disallowed. I don't know the full story on that one.

Matthew found a way to protect himself from being abused and manipulated by people who were more powerful than he was.

Matthew was attempting his own manipulation all along. Honesty compels you to admit that to yourself even if you won't admit it here in print.

Matthew decided that he needed to protect his classmates from Paszkiewicz--whether they wanted protection or not. In the end, it was all about Matthew and what he wanted (unless there's additional spillover from the parental units).

You just don’t like the fact that he succeeded.

I haven't changed my stated opinion that I don't find the outcome at the school particularly objectionable, pending the actual content of the ADL educational sessions. I am, after all, the one on this message board who linked a widely-accepted statement on church-state separation in the schools signed by the ADL that appeared to provide a defense of Paszkiewicz (resulting in some sniping from your side that the statement did not have the force of law, if I remember correctly).

The thing I don't like is the continual misrepresentation done by the elder LaClair, the mainstream press, and various LaClairite minions. For example, Paul LaClair's early and preposterous claim that Paszkiewicz's statement about getting the "big fish" somehow amounted to an admission of wrongdoing. The context of the meeting should put that idea utterly to bed for all but the most blind and rabid LaClair supporters. And if I see the LaClairs unfairly pilloried I'll stand up for them, too. I've denounced the threats made against Matthew and cautioned others to give the LaClairs the benefit of the doubt on a number of occasions.

There’s nothing humble about your opinion.

People who know me would disagree with you. Do you really think you can unerringly judge tone in the writing of somebody else?

You're so arrogant that you ignore everything that doesn't suit you, and this is just another example.

:angry:

What am I supposedly ignoring?

The rationale has been provided many times.

It's implausible. It amounts to the unsupported claim that doing it another way would not have worked. The truth, I think, is that the LaClairs (take your pick) got their goal in mind and did what they thought would most effectively achieve the goal and used the importance (in their minds) of achieving the goal to justify the means used.

And if you want to offer what is routinely condoned and applauded as a guide to what is right (1) you’re committing one of your own favorite fallacies and (2) Matthew’s conduct is overwhelmingly approved.

... and if frogs had wings they would fly.

There's no question at all that Matthew utilized deception. Maybe you can justify it, maybe you can't. We'll probably never know if you can, because you've chosen to simply claim that a justification was accomplished while launching a few personal attacks against me.

I pointed out how Paul's attempted justification fell short, and you provided the knee-jerk reaction.

That is why he has received multiple awards and accolades for it, and why the only people saying otherwise are far-right religious bigots like you.

Sometimes people receive awards they don't really deserve. In what way am I bigoted, by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE(Paul @ Jan 17 2008, 11:05 PM)

1. Mr. Paszkiewicz was disciplined. We just don't know how. Presumably he is still teaching because they Board decided not to fire him. That's their call. It doesn't mean they're happy with him. It's very hard to fire a tenured teacher with a powerful union behind him.

It's not inconsistent in the least.

You don't think "refused to act" conveys the impression that the matter was entirely ignored?

The LaClairs' issue was not Paszkiewicz's discipline. Their issue was correction of his remarks.

Doesn't that aim conflict with LaClair's early claims that they wanted to handle the matter quietly? How do the remarks get corrected quietly?

That's what Paul was discussing in his other post, which you falsely claim is inconsistent with the one above.

I didn't make a claim about what Paul wrote. I asked a question about it. Yet you made the claim that I made a false claim about it. Your claim is false.

The point is obvious. You just do not wish to see it.

Just like when I pointed out the discrepancy over Paul's report on the timing of the Notice of Claim, right? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speedy G.

QUOTE

They have no legitimate expectation of privacy.

Then why didn't they have the meeting during lunchtime in the lunch room? Or at least broadcast the meeting over the intercom system?

Because the student has a right to privacy.

What you don't do, Bryan, is tell us what better alternatives Matthew had to accomplish the same or better results. You never will, because you can't. Matthew's "agenda" was the US Constitution, freedom of religion for everyone (not just the majority), and the quality and integrity of education, particularly in the sciences, which Paszkiewicz trashed. He asked questions, and Paszkiewicz answered or evaded, in the manner he chose. That's not manipulation by the student, though it is by the teacher who thought he held the upper hand. He was wrong and he got caught in a whirlwind, and publicly humiliated. "Waaaaaaaaa! You kicked my ass! Waaaaaa!" He did it to himself.

The thing I don't like is the continual misrepresentation done by the elder LaClair, the mainstream press, and various LaClairite minions.

In other words, pretty much everybody. Cry us a river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speedy G.
You don't think "refused to act" conveys the impression that the matter was entirely ignored?

Doesn't that aim conflict with LaClair's early claims that they wanted to handle the matter quietly? How do the remarks get corrected quietly?

"Refused to act" can mean a lot of things. As usual, you're niggling.

The statements were made in open class. That is where they should have been corrected as soon as the administration learned of them, and that is where the matter should have ended. That's as quiet as justice and the school's educational mission would have allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the student has a right to privacy.

Why does the student have a greater right to privacy in that situation than, say, Mr. Paszkiewicz? Other than the fact that it serves your argument to claim it?

What you don't do, Bryan, is tell us what better alternatives Matthew had to accomplish the same or better results.

Sure I do. What you don't do is shut your yap about what you have no clue about.

You never will, because you can't.

Already did, because I can. The LaClairs are still waiting for the apology they demanded from Paszkiewicz. That would have been more likely to occur by going to Paszkiewicz first. The inaccuracies in Matthew LaClair's letter, in conjunction with his deceptive tactics, probably made that goal of the LaClairs unattainable.

Matthew's "agenda" was the US Constitution, freedom of religion for everyone (not just the majority), and the quality and integrity of education, particularly in the sciences, which Paszkiewicz trashed.

Well, you've at least proved that you can parrot the LaClair party line.

The LaClairs subscribe to the liberal reading of the Constitution. That means, in effect, that the Constitution means what they want it to mean (especially when the courts happen to agree regardless of the justification in the law). So, yes, the goal was the U.S. Constitution--making it hew more closely to the LaClairs' religious (metaphysical) vision.

Mr. LaClair tacitly admitted as much when he agreed that he wanted to see secular humanism as the default world view in public schools.

He asked questions, and Paszkiewicz answered or evaded, in the manner he chose. That's not manipulation by the student, though it is by the teacher who thought he held the upper hand.

Heh. The entire meeting was part of Matthew's agenda, which is why he had his recording device going from the start, and the reason why he had pages and pages of quotations toss at Paszkiewicz.

"(I)f you did not say those then tell me you did not say them and I will omit them."

Omit them, Matthew? What a liar. The ones he believed Paszkiewicz denied were exactly the ones emphasized (and even then with considerable spin).

He was wrong and he got caught in a whirlwind, and publicly humiliated. "Waaaaaaaaa! You kicked my ass! Waaaaaa!" He did it to himself.

Paszkiewicz took his own statements out of context?

:blink:

In other words, pretty much everybody. Cry us a river.

Cry? As if. I'll simply expose the lies and inaccuracies. And people like you will continue to respond robotically with unsupported assertions and personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Refused to act" can mean a lot of things. As usual, you're niggling.

You admit that it can mean a lot of things, and I ask in a public forum whether or not the meaning contradicts an earlier meaning and I am supposedly niggling?

The statements were made in open class. That is where they should have been corrected as soon as the administration learned of them, and that is where the matter should have ended. That's as quiet as justice and the school's educational mission would have allowed.

So you think LaClair is being disingenuous when he says he was willing to handle it quietly? Or are you niggling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Why does the student have a greater right to privacy in that situation than, say, Mr. Paszkiewicz? Other than the fact that it serves your argument to claim it?

For the same reason a patient has a greater right to privacy than his/her doctor, stupid.

Sure I do. What you don't do is shut your yap about what you have no clue about.

How about you practice what you preach there, buddy?

The LaClairs are still waiting for the apology they demanded from Paszkiewicz. That would have been more likely to occur by going to Paszkiewicz first.

Based on what, your wishful thinking? Since Paszkiewicz is a proven liar, and didn't act even when he was taken to a meeting and had the evidence literally placed in his hands, what makes you think he wouldn't also ignore Matthew in a situation with far LESS pressure, a simple one-on-one 'confrontation' about his conduct?

The inaccuracies in Matthew LaClair's letter, in conjunction with his deceptive tactics, probably made that goal of the LaClairs unattainable.

No, what makes it unattainable is Paszkiewicz's humongous ego.

The LaClairs subscribe to the liberal reading of the Constitution. That means, in effect, that the Constitution means what they want it to mean (especially when the courts happen to agree regardless of the justification in the law). So, yes, the goal was the U.S. Constitution--making it hew more closely to the LaClairs' religious (metaphysical) vision.

What exactly do you think the founding fathers were referring to when they talked about a "wall of separation" between church and state, you idiot? It's very obvious what the Constitution says and means. The courts "happen to agree" because they're not ignorant like you and Paszkiewicz are.

Mr. LaClair tacitly admitted as much when he agreed that he wanted to see secular humanism as the default world view in public schools.

Public schools must be secular, though "humanism" itself is not inherently tied to that at all. Where did Paul say he wanted schools to promote humanism itself in public schools?

Heh. The entire meeting was part of Matthew's agenda, which is why he had his recording device going from the start, and the reason why he had pages and pages of quotations toss at Paszkiewicz.

And Matthew proved himself to be right on the mark, seeing as how he accurately predicted his teacher's dishonesty.

I'll simply expose the lies and inaccuracies.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAA!

I might as well as a boxer to do open-heart surgery with his/her gloves on.

And people like you will continue to respond robotically with unsupported assertions and personal attacks.

What a dream world you live in. You and Pastor Paszkiewicz are cut from the same cloth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speedy G.
Why does the student have a greater right to privacy in that situation than, say, Mr. Paszkiewicz? Other than the fact that it serves your argument to claim it?

For the same reason that New Jersey state law prohibits a school district or any of its employees from commenting publicly on a minor student. The teacher is in a position of public trust. He is expected to meet a level of responsibility that is not expected of the student, and he's answerable for it, to the public. That means that he isn't entitled to privacy. You may not like or agree with the law, Bryan, but better and more objective minds than yours devised it.

That's the reason. How about acknowledging that you don't know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the same reason a patient has a greater right to privacy than his/her doctor, stupid.

Let's suppose that the "patient" Matthew has a greater right to privacy than the "doctor" Somma. Does Somma therefore have no right to privacy?

How about you practice what you preach there, buddy?

For example? Or are you giving your own regarding your own lack of knowledge?

Based on what, your wishful thinking?

If human nature is contingent on my wishes, then yes.

It will nearly always be a challenge to obtain a sincere apology (Matthew specified sincerity during the office meeting) when one has deceived, attacked and misrepresented somebody else.

Since Paszkiewicz is a proven liar, and didn't act even when he was taken to a meeting and had the evidence literally placed in his hands, what makes you think he wouldn't also ignore Matthew in a situation with far LESS pressure, a simple one-on-one 'confrontation' about his conduct?

Ever heard the expression about drawing more flies with honey than with vinegar?

No, what makes it unattainable is Paszkiewicz's humongous ego.

You know him personally, then?

The LaClairs subscribe to the liberal reading of the Constitution. That means, in effect, that the Constitution means what they want it to mean (especially when the courts happen to agree regardless of the justification in the law). So, yes, the goal was the U.S. Constitution--making it hew more closely to the LaClairs' religious (metaphysical) vision.

What exactly do you think the founding fathers were referring to when they talked about a "wall of separation" between church and state, you idiot?

Does it matter, given that the phrase is absent from the Constitution? You believe in the "living constitution" just as LaClair does, no? Why would you care about the intent of the authors if you intend to interpret the document according to the current day?

It's very obvious what the Constitution says and means. The courts "happen to agree" because they're not ignorant like you and Paszkiewicz are.

:blink:

So how do you explain court reversals? Are all justices who disagree with you approximately as ignorant as I am?

Public schools must be secular, though "humanism" itself is not inherently tied to that at all. Where did Paul say he wanted schools to promote humanism itself in public schools?

Look up the word "default" and get back to me after you understand its meaning.

And Matthew proved himself to be right on the mark, seeing as how he accurately predicted his teacher's dishonesty.

Rather, Matthew fooled like-minded folks who wanted to believe him as well as fence-sitters who had no inclination to look into the matter.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAAA!

I might as well as a boxer to do open-heart surgery with his/her gloves on.

Naturally the exposure of the lies may not work on the invincibly ignorant (which may be you).

What a dream world you live in. You and Pastor Paszkiewicz are cut from the same cloth.

Thank you.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the same reason that New Jersey state law prohibits a school district or any of its employees from commenting publicly on a minor student.

More to the point, how would any of this eliminate the privacy rights of the principal and teachers, given that the courts have located privacy rights in the Constitution?

The teacher is in a position of public trust. He is expected to meet a level of responsibility that is not expected of the student, and he's answerable for it, to the public. That means that he isn't entitled to privacy.

It does? Being a public school teacher eliminates the constitutional right to privacy?

You may not like or agree with the law, Bryan, but better and more objective minds than yours devised it.

I don't believe that you are accurately representing the law, and in any case I did not present the issue of Matthew's deceptive behavior as an issue of law.

The fact that your side is trying to excuse Matthew based on the law simply helps indicate how difficult it is to defend his behavior.

That's the reason. How about acknowledging that you don't know what you're talking about.

Regarding what? Did I make a claim regarding New Jersey laws that turned out incorrect or something?

Feel free to specify the New Jersey law that removes any reasonable expectation of privacy from a public school teacher, by the way. That way you can demonstrate that you know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Twizzler
More to the point, how would any of this eliminate the privacy rights of the principal and teachers, given that the courts have located privacy rights in the Constitution?

Bryan is a troll, and dishonest one. Matthew isn't a patient and Mr. Somma isn't his doctor. Matthew is a minor student in a public school, where Mr. Somma is the principal. By law the minor student has privacy rights the principal does not have. That's not an opinion. It's a fact, and it makes perfect sense.

It's not a question of eliminating all of Mr. Somma's privacy rights. That's just another example of Bryan's disingenuous trolling. The question is whether Mr. Somma had any legally protected privacy rights against being recorded in the meeting with Matthew and Paszkiewicz, or against having those recordings published. The answer is no. You may not like it Bryan, but that's the law.

By contrast, Mr. Somma could not have recorded Matthew and then published the recording. That would be prohibited by New Jersey law, which affords minor students privacy protections that the adult principal does not have. It's not a matter of constitutional law. It's statutory, and it's also common sense.

Instead of constantly twisting everything, Bryan, make your case with reference to the law. You can't, of course, because the law you would like to use does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Let's suppose that the "patient" Matthew has a greater right to privacy than the "doctor" Somma. Does Somma therefore have no right to privacy?

Somma has privacy rights, but none that have anything to do with Matthew's right to record him and publish the recordings.

Under the law there isn’t just an amorphous right of privacy. The right wing argues that way because they don’t like the fact that the Supreme Court says we have the right as Americans to have some privacy from the government. But all the cases that have fleshed out the right of privacy have been fact specific. Some have upheld a right of privacy, and others have denied it. It depends on what is involved.

Bryan may be a troll, but his questions are unintentionally interesting. They’re good illustrations for understanding what the law isn’t, and why it isn’t.

The principal and the student are not on equal footing, and that makes a difference.

1. The principal is an agent of the state. What basis is there for a right of privacy inuring to a state actor? What would be the reasoning behind such a rule? Is there any legal precedent for it? Probably not. Surely he can’t claim national security. So what would be his claim? And if he has it, why didn’t he make it, or the school district acting on his and its behalf? Very simply, it is because while he has privacy rights, they have nothing to do with what happened.

2. It makes sense that the law protects the minor in ways it does not protect adults.

3. The principal is in a position of power over the student. Therefore, the principal has a lesser interest in preserving a record of the meeting. Whether the law allows him to record a minor student – is there any law or any legal precedent on that? Probably not. If he had wanted to record the meeting, he probably could have. He couldn’t have published because of protections afforded to the student by statute, but he probably could record.

What right of privacy should Mr. Somma have?

1. The right not to be recorded? On what basis?

2. The right not to have the recording published? On what basis?

3. Some other right? What, then?

Of course, Bryan could try to answer these points, considering them all together and as a whole, but he won’t. That’s OK. His questions are still useful, though not in the ways he intends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan is a troll, and dishonest one. Matthew isn't a patient and Mr. Somma isn't his doctor.

Am I supposed to have been dishonest about that? :lol:

Matthew and Somma were patient and doctor, respectively, by analogy to the comparison presented by Guest:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=16892

There's nothing dishonest in using that comparison in my reply to Guest.

Matthew is a minor student in a public school, where Mr. Somma is the principal. By law the minor student has privacy rights the principal does not have. That's not an opinion. It's a fact, and it makes perfect sense.

None of which touches the ethics of deceit (unless the ethic system stipulates that legal is moral, anyway), as I have already pointed out.

It's not a question of eliminating all of Mr. Somma's privacy rights. That's just another example of Bryan's disingenuous trolling. The question is whether Mr. Somma had any legally protected privacy rights against being recorded in the meeting with Matthew and Paszkiewicz, or against having those recordings published. The answer is no. You may not like it Bryan, but that's the law.

Shall I point out to you one more time that the law isn't the issue with Matthew's deceit? Perhaps you'd just disingenuously ignore it if I did ...

By contrast, Mr. Somma could not have recorded Matthew and then published the recording. That would be prohibited by New Jersey law, which affords minor students privacy protections that the adult principal does not have. It's not a matter of constitutional law. It's statutory, and it's also common sense.

Instead of constantly twisting everything, Bryan, make your case with reference to the law. You can't, of course, because the law you would like to use does not exist.

Where did I indicate a interest in using the law to make the case against Matthew's deceitfulness? Or are you just being disingenuous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somma has privacy rights, but none that have anything to do with Matthew's right to record him and publish the recordings.

That, friends, is the red herring described succinctly.

My issue was with the deceit used by Matthew. "Guest," whether deliberately or not, is creating a distraction from that issue.

Under the law there isn’t just an amorphous right of privacy. The right wing argues that way because they don’t like the fact that the Supreme Court says we have the right as Americans to have some privacy from the government. But all the cases that have fleshed out the right of privacy have been fact specific. Some have upheld a right of privacy, and others have denied it. It depends on what is involved.

Bryan may be a troll, but his questions are unintentionally interesting. They’re good illustrations for understanding what the law isn’t, and why it isn’t.

The principal and the student are not on equal footing, and that makes a difference.

1. The principal is an agent of the state. What basis is there for a right of privacy inuring to a state actor? What would be the reasoning behind such a rule? Is there any legal precedent for it? Probably not. Surely he can’t claim national security. So what would be his claim? And if he has it, why didn’t he make it, or the school district acting on his and its behalf? Very simply, it is because while he has privacy rights, they have nothing to do with what happened.

2. It makes sense that the law protects the minor in ways it does not protect adults.

3. The principal is in a position of power over the student. Therefore, the principal has a lesser interest in preserving a record of the meeting. Whether the law allows him to record a minor student – is there any law or any legal precedent on that? Probably not. If he had wanted to record the meeting, he probably could have. He couldn’t have published because of protections afforded to the student by statute, but he probably could record.

What right of privacy should Mr. Somma have?

1. The right not to be recorded? On what basis?

2. The right not to have the recording published? On what basis?

3. Some other right? What, then?

Of course, Bryan could try to answer these points, considering them all together and as a whole, but he won’t. That’s OK. His questions are still useful, though not in the ways he intends.

You're correct, to the extent that I didn't plan to create the platform for your red herring fallacy.

How are you going to make it look like you weren't creating the distraction deliberately? That is now the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
That, friends, is the red herring described succinctly.

My issue was with the deceit used by Matthew. "Guest," whether deliberately or not, is creating a distraction from that issue.

You're correct, to the extent that I didn't plan to create the platform for your red herring fallacy.

How are you going to make it look like you weren't creating the distraction deliberately? That is now the question.

But then who are you to decide what is the 'distraction' and what is the 'issue'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...