Censorship

[realeasymoney]

With more and more censorship apparent on the web, do you think escorts will spend more time using old-fashioned methods of meeting. Bars, etc. Here's one punter who hopes so.

[BryanKnight]

You can learn from the older ways of meeting your customers and integrate them into a modern setting.

An online ad will never substitute for a feeling of connection you get with a person from meeting them face to face.

You can be more physically visible in places and meet more people, like a salesperson, a public speaker, or anyone in the hospitality industry.

 

Add these techniques to your tool kit and you will adapt better in a world looking for authentic connection

[escortrod]

I think it's more likely that escorts will start reusing old euphemisms and slang, as well as inventing our own.

[samhexum]

Two gay high school students whose quotes were removed from their senior yearbook say they’re “disheartened and angry” by the “senseless censorship” behind the move.

 

Joey Slivinski and Thomas Swartz, who recently graduated from Kearney High School in Missouri,told KCTVthey submitted their senior quotes for the yearbook on time just like their other classmates — only to realize that something was amiss when they cracked open the keepsake.

 

Without warning, school district officials had scrubbed their quotes out of concern that they could “potentially offend” other students.

 

“Of course I dress well, I didn’t spend all that time in the closet for nothing,” Slivinski’s original quote read.

 

Swartz, meanwhile, had submitted this: “If Harry Potter taught us anything, it’s that no one should have to live in the closet.”

 

Slivinki, in a Facebook post last week, said he had always felt that his sexual orientation was respected in his community until his quotes were scrubbed.

 

“I put a very innocent quote as my senior quote and they took it away from me with absolutely no warning or option to change it,” Slivinski wrote, adding, “Our schools are supposed to be a place that you can express being who you are.”

 

Swartz said in a Facebook post that he didn’t need to be “protected from small minded people” and that he came out to his parents when he was 15 years old.

 

“The only people I need protection from are the people directly involved with deleting my statement and infringing upon my civil rights,” Swartz wrote last week.

 

District officials said they were trying to “protect” students by removing the quotes but acknowledged their “mistake” in offending another group of students.

 

“In an effort to protect our students, quotes that could potentially offend another student or groups of students are not published,” the statement read. “It is the school’s practice to err on the side of caution. Doing so in this case had the unintentional consequence of offending the very students the practice was designed to protect. We sincerely apologize to those students.”

 

The district’s statement also noted the “importance of inclusion and acceptance,” particularly in an educational setting.

 

“We work diligently to help every student feel safe, supported, and included,” the statement continued. “District staff participate in ongoing training around issues of diversity and support student organizations that do the same. That being said, we acknowledge our mistake and will use it as a learning opportunity to improve in the future.”

 

Slivinski and Swartz told KCTV they plan to make stickers to insert their quotes back into their yearbooks as well as those of their friends.

 

“I’m proud to be from Kearney and I’m proud to be whom I am,” Slivinski told the station. “I’m just disappointed at what happened.”

[+ honcho]

Two gay high school students whose quotes were removed from their senior yearbook say they’re “disheartened and angry” by the “senseless censorship” behind the move.

 

Joey Slivinski and Thomas Swartz, who recently graduated from Kearney High School in Missouri,told KCTVthey submitted their senior quotes for the yearbook on time just like their other classmates — only to realize that something was amiss when they cracked open the keepsake.

 

Without warning, school district officials had scrubbed their quotes out of concern that they could “potentially offend” other students.

 

I can't bring myself to "Like" what happened, but I thank you for sharing it with us.

[TruthBTold]

It is bulls***t that the school officials did not know that they would offend the students by "scrubbing" their quotes. I worked in a governmental agency for many years and the one thing you learn early on is that at the very least every student is allowed a minimum of due process before action is taken toward them. It appears that no due process was given to the students. The officials could have denied the inclusion of the quotes but such an action would only have been allowed after a process was given. Then the students could have appealed the denial and publicized the denial to the greater community. Of course, the school officials did not want that and so just went ahead and scrubbed without process.

[+ honcho]

I'm not a lawyer, and I certainly don't like that the two gay students were made invisible.

 

I do feel obliged to point out that the students were minors and vaguely recall the phrase "In loco parentis" applied to schools and minors, which suggests to me that the constitutional rights of students in relation to schools is different from legal adults and public institutions, and so, the two students would have a tougher time prevailing in a civil suit.

 

@quoththeraven is certainly welcome to speak from her much more knowledgeable perspective about this.

Edited August 26, 2017 by honcho

[TruthBTold]

I'm not a lawyer, and I certainly don't like that the two gay students were made invisible.

I do feel obliged to point out that the students were minors and vaguely recall the phrase "In loco parentis" applied to schools and minors, which suggests to me that the constitutional rights of students in relation to schools is different from legal adults and public institutions, and so, the two students would have a tougher time prevailing in a civil suit.

@quoththeraven is certainly welcome to speak from her much more knowledgeable perspective about this.

 

I certainly agree with you that it would be tougher to prevail against the Board. However, at the same time their right to due process still exists. In this particular case I would imagine the question might be whether they had a 1st Amendment right as regards the yearbook and how extensive it might be. What they had proposed for the yearbook was certainly not obscene so the question would be whether their right to express themselves as gay students was being denied and was it being denied merely because other parents felt "uncomfortable" with what they had written. Moreover, the District acknowledged their mistake.

[Chuckball]

By giving their story to KCTV, the students engaged a much larger audience than if their remarks were published in the year book. It is gratifying that they had the fortitude to expose bigotry and prejudice.

[samhexum]