War on Cameras

Fifth Grader Suspended for 'Illegal' Filming of Teacher Who Bullied Student

The war on cameras opens up a battlespace in the classroom.

|

WSVN

Around the country, irrespective of the local and state laws, some police officers react poorly to residents exercising their right to film cops in public. But police officers aren't the only government employees who find being recorded problematic to them.

A fifth grader in Florida was suspended for five days for "illegally" filming her teacher bullying a classmate. The school argues because the law prohibits surreptitiously recording people if they have an expectation of privacy, it was illegal for the child to film her teacher.

WSVN reports:

Eleven-year-old Brianna Cooper, a fifth-grader at Fort Pierce Elementary School, said her teacher had been mean to students in the past and she wanted to prove it. Inside her classroom, Brianna recorded the instructor saying to a classmate, "Don't let the size fool you. I will drop you."

In another part of the recording the teacher is heard belittling another student. "Biggest kid in the fifth grade and you acting like the smallest one," she is heard saying.

"I thought I did the right thing," said Brianna.

Her video led to the firing of that teacher. "I do think it's a good thing that this teacher is gone," said Kassie Faulkner, the girl's mother.

Florida's whistleblower laws wouldn't apply since they only cover state employees who reveal misconduct by other government employees, not eleven year olds trying to stand up to their bullying teachers.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

114 responses to “Fifth Grader Suspended for 'Illegal' Filming of Teacher Who Bullied Student

  1. because the law prohibits surreptitiously recording people if they have an expectation of privacy,

    Wait, what? Teachers in a classroom full of kids have an expectation of privacy?

    1. No. But that’s not what their real reason is. It’s just the one they’re using to cover the fact that this is retaliation for filming a teacher and a message to any other student who would think of doing it.

      I mean, this is utterly unsurprising. Think of how hard it is to fire many teachers in the first place. I’d bet a lot of money that horrible behavior by teachers towards their prisoners students is rampant, just like it is for cops towards their punching bags “civilians”. They know that they can use lies and rhetoric and KULTUR war to cover it up enough to stop most outcries, but they can’t do that if kids are recording terrible behavior to be viewed by all. So they need to nip this in the bud.

      1. The state is the biggest bully of them all.

  2. Government employees have an expectation of privacy at ALL times. You’re just a peon. You have no right to know what your betters are doing.
    It’s a great lesson for the kid, though. It’s not just teachers that are bullies….it’s bullies all the way down.

  3. The idea that you have an expectation of privacy while in a classroom teaching kids is beyond insulting.

  4. The idea that you have an expectation of privacy while in a classroom teaching kids is beyond insulting.

    1. And the squirrels so agreed that the sentiment has been echoed.

    2. i wonder whether there will be a movement to put cameras in classrooms at some point? Teachers would oppose, of course, but I could see parents wanting that for a variety of reasons.

      1. Higher-end daycare operations are starting to do that. For the helicopter parent, I assume.

        1. Or defense against the helicopter parent.

  5. The school and the state are dead wrong here. People in a public space have no reasonable expectation of privacy whatsoever. If that really was the rationale for the suspension, they’re on extremely thin ice. If the filming prohibition was school policy, that’s another matter (not that I agree with it).

  6. Great job little girl. And a 5 day vacation from jail. Sweet:)

    1. I’d take her to Disneyworld if I were her parent.

  7. Filing “expectation of privacy” along with “state secrets” as code for “government cover up”.

  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw1nUlHZHpY

    “You” means “??”!!!
    *keeps poking her head*

  9. “Don’t let the size fool you. I will drop you.”

    That’s a pretty badass line… if it weren’t in such a pathetic context.

    1. I took that to mean he was large and that wouldn’t stop him from hitting a kid. My take on govt school teachers needs work.

      1. There is absolutely nothing to say your take is wrong. I could easily see either situation. In fact, yours is the more pathetic, bullying one, so I actually would bet on that one.

  10. File this away for the next time the teachers’ union claims to care about the children.

  11. against the forces of toleration and pluralism.

    Gillespie: Moron or Prog?

    Also I’m sure those tolerant pluralist people will be very tolerant of libertarians.

    Also he admitted that the gun controllers are motivated by legitimate fears and that gun-rights folks are nutters when he would never say that Socons or Drug Warriors have legitimate fears and that there are nutty drug legalizers and social liberals.

    1. Yes. You have outted Nick Gillespie as a secret progressive. Good work you fucking moron.

      1. Has he walked back from his article where he admits he supports the welfare state?

        1. Or voting for Obama.

  12. Let’s do this by the book then.
    “Principal, the teacher is bullying the students.”
    “Really? We have a process for handling this.”
    10 years later…

    “Ok, now that all the formalities have been met, why don’t you tell me what happened. Hey, where’d she go?”

    1. Fair nuff. Not a fan of public education and the kid shouldn’t have been suspended…

      But am I the only person here who thinks what the little snowflake recorded wasn’t even close to bullying?

      1. “I will drop you” to a fifth-grader is out of line.

        1. Horseshit.

          I had teachers who would say shit like that all the time. It was a faux threat/joke. No one took it seriously.

          Kids, today, are fucking pussies.

          1. I’ll try again. Kids are pussies today. So are most teachers. One threatened my daughter and they will have a gaijin papa 40cm and 50kgs bigger in their face.

              1. Francisco, I do volunteer work at a school. I’ve seen teachers grab kids by the throat for being disrespectful. I’m the least violent person you’ll meet and I did nothing the first few times I saw it. It’s something I’m ashamed of. I have size but am no tuff guy. I don’t want my daughter who is forced to attend, no home schooling here, exposed to that shit.

                1. Where are you from that there’s no homeschooling? Germany?

                  1. Japan. Technically you can, but as will everything here that falls outside the system, it’s unbelievably difficult to get permission.

                    1. I’m not from Japan, moved here in ’95.

                2. One of the best teachers I had was my 7th grade Social Studies teacher. He was about 6’2″ and went maybe 250. He was a football/wrestling coach and his favorite saying was, “I’m gonna rip your face off.”

                  He was a big Teddy Bear and everybody loved him.

                  False bravado in keeping discipline in the classroom isn’t a threat, it’s a humorous way to manage the room.

                  I don’t have the context that this teacher used these terms in, but it sounds like a little snowflake being offended by nothing to me.

                  1. That’s fair. If the threat was authentic and not joking around, I’d have no problem.

                    1. Oops, got that backwards.

                    2. Doesn’t matter. Corporal punishment is legal in Florida. Not only can the teacher say it, she can do it.

          2. High School when I went, yeah, I’d agree, but 5th grade is a kid.

      2. Squirrels are my thoughtful response. So, yes and no.

      3. But am I the only person here who thinks what the little snowflake recorded wasn’t even close to bullying?

        Yes.

        Even the employer thought it was a firable offense. The school isn’t the one trying to get the teacher’s job back.

  13. Also don’t libertarians hate the Hays Code? Which involved movie studios going along with it after a boycott of movie theatres.

    1. The Hays Code came before the boycotts. The Catholic boycotts brought in Joe Breen. And a lot of movie buffs hate what Breen did to the movies.

      1. Point it is that the movie studios voluntarily supported the Code after Catholic Boycotts. It wasn’t the State Censor Boards or Party Hacks like Will Hays who really clamped down on Hollywood.

        1. What are you trying to get at, Winston? Should the Catholics have been forced to buy tickets to movies? Should their rights of press and assembly been suppressed to prevent the Code from taking hold?

          It’s not about the ends justifying the means, it’s about the principles.

          1. Should the Catholics have been forced to buy tickets to movies? Should their rights of press and assembly been suppressed to prevent the Code from taking hold?

            No I don’t think that. It’s more about how this boycott lead to Hollywood voluntarily adopting something that Reason didn’t like. Leads to all sorts of issues about boycotts, self-censorship, tolerance, etc.

            1. It’s NOT voluntarily. First Hays code had much more explicit statist involvement including state censorship boards. But even later, in modern times, there’s implicit coercion:
              http://ftc.gov/opa/2013/03/mysteryshop.shtm

              The FTC conducts secret shopper tests to enforce compliance with the system.

              1. It’s a bit more complicated then that. The first state censorship board was created in 1921 and the Hays Code was adopted in 1930 but the “Pre-Code” era was from 1930-1934. It was only the Catholic Boycott that caused Hollywood to create the PCA (headed by Joseph Breen) to actively enforce the Code. Hays and the censorship boards were separate from the PCA. Sometimes they didn’t even agree. Breen approved Black Fury but Chicago banned the film and many censors wanted cuts.

            2. Insofar as it was voluntary (setting aside np’s criticism and my own doubts about it the state having clean hands), then we still have every right to dislike it and complain about it. I don’t really understand where you think “issues” are arising here.

              1. I don’t really understand where you think “issues” are arising here.

                Are you being deliberately obtuse? Brian Doherty expressed similar sentiments here:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..e-thrilled

                The culture of boycott and anger about art or belief or words is not inherently unlibertarian. But perhaps it is dangerous to the truest and richest possibilities of communication and expression that should characterize a post-Enlightenment society that respects the Voltairian epigram about disagreeing with what one says but defending to death one’s right to say it (not, that is, disagreeing with what one says and letting the people who are paying to distribute that saying know that we strongly disapprove of it and would rather it not be said in public and will punish you with obloquy and boycott if you continue to say it.)

        2. The code and subsequent efforts like Comics Code, MPAA ratings (and the creation of the ESRB after Senate hearings and UFC restrictions, etc, etc) are all implicit forms of coercion. None were purely voluntarily. It was under the threat of regulation, sanctions, or criminal liabilities (e.g. obscenity, harmful-to-minor laws). It’s the equivalent of “Nice business you got there. Be ashamed if something happened to it” rationalized by do-something moral panics.

  14. Florida’s whistleblower laws wouldn’t apply since they only cover state employees who reveal misconduct by other government employees

    How about Florida’s child abuse laws?

  15. Public schools in this country are run by immoral monsters.

  16. the firing of the teacher

    Hey, something weird is going on here.

    1. I agree this is the mist shocking element of the story.

      1. The Mist shocking ending. Agreed. Saved right after you shoot your own kid.

        1. Damn your nimble fingers!

      2. I think it’s more of a fog shocking element.

      3. Mistifying

  17. Shouldn’t New York rename itself for being named after a slave trader?

  18. Matt Welch’s predictive genius:

    https://reason.com/archives/200…..as-numbers

    You should never take a politician at his word. But you should listen to what he campaigns on day after day, especially if he goes on to win big. Amid Obama’s host of illiberal campaign ideas?”fair” trade, centralized energy policy, New Deal?style infrastructure projects, more federal dollars into the sinkhole of public schools?the Democratic candidate also spiced his daily stump speech with a firm-sounding nod to fiscal responsibility. Coupled with a sorry budget situation that’s certain to get worse as a result of massive income tax losses from Wall Street, this commitment to fiscal sobriety may strangle many of Obama’s more expensive fantasies in the crib and crack open the door for ending or privatizing any number of inefficient federal programs.

    1. Hey look, it’s that piece from more than six years ago that Winston harps on. Shocking.

      Cosmotarians, amirite?

      1. He really wants attention tonight. That’s what, the 5th time he posted that?

        1. Tonight?

          Show me a top-level Winston post that’s not whining. One.

          1. Whineston.

          2. Does this count?
            https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..tu#comment

      2. Hey look, it’s that piece from more than six years ago that Winston harps on. Shocking.

        So what? It’s still wrong and shows how wrong he was about Obama. And increasingly it looks like the Democrats don’t see sense either. Libertarian Moment!

        Cosmotarians, amirite?

        Oh please, I have no truck will Lew Rockwell and Co.

        1. You should definitely ask for your Reason donation back.

          1. You Know Who Else…

    2. Welch mostly got it right.

      Except the deficit got a lot better with Obama.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. The plug learned a new phrase! Sadly it did not comprehend what the phrase means.

        1. No, I saw the Bushpigs in Action 2001-09. Big Gov Slaver assholes like no other.

          and for you Team Red nutcuppers – WE WON’T FORGET.

          1. The plug will valiantly carry on with dumping BOOOSH in every thread no matter how irrelevant it may be.

            1. Listen up dipshit.

              I am fairly old and there have only been four presidents in my adult life – Reagan Clinton Bushes Obama.

              The Bushes were easily the worst. By miles.

              1. The word of the Plug, let us pray.

              2. I guess his grasp of numbers extends to more than economics.

                1. You noticed that too, huh?

    3. I don’t think that statement is that ridiculous or wrong. A lot of Obama’s preferred policies have failed to pass – Obamacare, as bad as it was, was watered down from what he originally wanted, cap and trade hasn’t passed, spending has not been nearly as high as his budgets demanded, etc.

      1. Except they had nothing to do with his “commitment to fiscal sobriety”.

        1. Fuck off, slaver. You want Big Gov – eat shit asshole.

          1. I’ve been insulted by Shriek, what prize do I get?

            1. The Golden Plated Buttplug.

              Send $49,99 postage and handling.

              1. Shouldn’t you be needing that for your dad?

        2. I think the problem is it’s more self-contradictory at heart. He mentions “commitment to fiscal sobriety” and “expensive fantasies” in the same sentence, indicating that he doesn’t really believe either one to be fully authentic. I think your habit of going back years to find statements by Reason writers where they basically say “well, maybe hopefully politician X might be not completely terrible in this area because of these reasons” to play “gotcha” with the benefit of hindsight is pretty weak. It’s not as if that statement is a ringing endorsement of Obama given the part about expensive fantasies and the unsure nature of the whole sentence.

          1. It’s pretty clear he was saying that Obama would put his commitment to fiscal responsibility ahead of his “expensive fantasies” and would be like the supposedly fiscally responsible Clinton. There was quite a few libertarians who thought that Bush was so bad that the Democrats would have to step back like Rahm Emanuel is doing in Chicago. The old “Democrats believe in government so they are fiscally responsible” bit. Or the “only Democrats can actually cut government without the media accusing them of being heartless corporate lackeys”.

            And then there’s the fact that he likes to talk about the “libertarian moment” when his predictions are wrong and actively contradict it. Like his Obama “stealth libertarian” article ending that his successors are likely to be worse, again contradicting his prediction of a libertarian moment.

            1. Sorry the first sentence would be more proper to say: It’s pretty clear he was saying that Obama would seriously consider putting his commitment to fiscal responsibility ahead of his “expensive fantasies”

            2. Once again, he says “may” and emphasizes not taking a politician at his word. He says it’s a possibility, he doesn’t say that he clearly would put fiscal responsibility first. He also mentions the budget situation and income tax losses as key factors influencing the strangling of his expensive fantasies, so he’s not even saying Obama would deserve sole credit if that did happen. Again, is it a totally accurate prediction? No, but it’s not nearly as ridiculous as you’re making it out to be.

      2. I think it’s safe to say that Welch’s prediction has not borne out. However, considering how much of what Obama has done, never mind what he tried to do, that directly contradicts something he said on the campaign trail at some point, I do agree that Winston doth protest too much since the prediction was not as farcically laughable at the time it was made.

  19. Iowahawk is an American hero.

    Don’t let a nuclear-armed Iran distract us from America’s #1 threat – Indiana bakeries

    1. They serve yellow cake?

      1. (Black Bush) – “Yeller Cake? I got fuckin’ yeller cake!”

    2. Best response:

      John George ?@Sleuth_dog Mar 29
      @iowahawkblog No doubt, Oriented Cakes Yellowcake.

      1. Ugh,

        John George ?@Sleuth_dog Mar 29
        @iowahawkblog No doubt, Oriented Cakes (greater than symbol) Yellowcake.

  20. This is what Greek Leftists actually believe!

    biodinamica johan1974 17h ago

    I am sure that if Greece defaults it will be punished endlessly by the EU in every way the EU can dream up — unless the present leadership of the EU is changed.

    In a depressed economy, it is a terrible idea to lay off public sector workers, cut their wages or reduce pensions. Those people are putting money back into the economy. They spend it. It is stimulus and it retards further recession.

    Do you know what the “New Deal” was in the Great Depression in America? It saved America from fascism, whereas Europe succumbed.

    1. Do you know what the “New Deal” was in the Great Depression in America? It saved America from fascism, whereas Europe succumbed.

      You know, I don’t think this is entirely incorrect. What it really says, though, is that it takes one group of amoral thugs to keep out another. In other words, we’re all just hostages to the jackboot.

      1. FDR was FascismLite. That America didn’t descend into FascismPro is a function of Americans not being shitheaded Eurotrash.

        1. He sounded like Jean-Fran?ois Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.

          – Tom Wolfe

        2. CCC = RAD

    2. Those people are putting money back into the economy.

      I wonder where this guy thinks this money comes from to begin with? It aint from producing anything of value, that is for sure. It is directly drained from the economy.

      1. Look man, a dollar spent is a dollar spent. It does not matter what that dollar was spent on or where it came from, the economy is driven by spending!

        Somehow this view of the economy is not what people mean when the say “voodoo economics”.

      2. When you’re anti-capitalism, your belief system requires that you have no clue where money comes from.

    3. because everyone knows that the reason we spend money is to stimulate the economy

      /Tony Logic

  21. Has this article from Jessica Valenti been posted before:
    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..-body-hair

    Because, truly, it’s difficult to imagine women being offended by pictures of breastfeeding, unkempt bikini lines or period blood – that’s a standard Monday for a lot of us. It’s men that social media giants are “protecting” – men who have grown up on sanitized and sexualized images of female bodies. Men who have been taught to believe by pop culture, advertising and beyond that women’s bodies are there for them. And if they have to see a woman that is anything other than thin, hairless and ready for sex – well, bring out the smelling salts.

    So much for “trigger warnings” though I suppose Straight White Men don’t count.

    1. No, and she makes an accurate point, although imprecise. Women sanitize their own image. It’s central to being a woman. It’s nothing to do with media moguls, who merely reflect what has been an ongoing affair between men and women since time immemorial. Women sanitize and beautify because they want to be beatified. And men, slavishly, attend. It’s sexual dimorphism. Thank you, Jessica Valenti, for advancing such a brave hypothesis. Sexual distinctions exist, and men are just as susceptible to it as women.

  22. “I thought I did the right thing,” said Brianna.

    Her video led to the firing of that teacher.

    Reason ought to award this young lady a “Heroine of Freedom” medal.
    Throw in a lifetime subscription. I’ll happily chip in.

    1. Is she a lesbian pornstar prostitute Mexican who smokes pot, eats Deep Dish Pizza from foodtrucks, opposes circumcision and is a fan of the Cleveland Browns?

  23. Just found this, not sure what to think, but I’ll lay it on you anyway:

    Gangnam Style / Thunderstruck” live by the Third Marine Aircraft Wing Band

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hyn5XGEEso

  24. I liked this quote from the Greenhouse Emissions thread:

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5195122

    Every Hitler has a von Papen to show him the way. Obama has the maturity and temperament of a late Weimar-era political hack.

  25. So between Gillespie and Welch who will be the Wilhelm Kulz of our time?

  26. Florida’s whistleblower laws wouldn’t apply since they only cover state employees who reveal misconduct by other government employees, not eleven year olds trying to stand up to their bullying teachers.

    So Florida residents– the ones on the business end of the gun– they can’t blow the whistle on their own government?

    1. That’s no whistle!

  27. “The school argues because the law prohibits surreptitiously recording people if they have an expectation of privacy, it was illegal for the child to film her teacher.”

    And the punishment prescribed in this law is school suspension? I somehow doubt that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.