Group items tagged

They should take into consideration how well the teacher is doing at helping students get feedback and help, some teachers are not doing their part when students ask for help. Both students and teachers have to be working hard to communicate effectively and if one falls out it could cause students to flop more

Learning at home is not fun at all. Some teachers try and incorporate students at home, but then the students do not comply, but then some teachers don't even involve the students at home. It is extremely hard to stay focused at home when there are many distractions at home. I am not surprised at all by this statistic because we need to be in school. They need to shut down bars and restaurants before they even consider shutting down schools.

Learning online is much more difficult than in person. It's harder to stay focused. It's harder to keep up when most teachers focus only on the students who are in the classroom. Although I still think we should continue to keep A-F grades because some colleges aren't accepting pass/fail, and pass/fail affects your GPA.

I dont think we should change the A-F grading system, but I do think we should change either the curriculum or be more understanding and lax on the grading scale

i dont think we should change the a-f grades but i do think that we should change how are curriculum is or we should start being more flexible both teacher and students towards assignments i think we should be more open because this is all knew to us

I have noticed that online school is much more difficult than in person. Its hard to stay motivated and get all of your work get done. I feel like the teachers should try to include the online students a little bit more than they do. It will help keep everyone engaged and learning the things that they need too. I think there should still be an A-F format but maybe make it a little bit easier to take some stress of of students.

I think that the way that grades are being made is becoming more unfair, The way people get grades is based off of assignments instead of actually knowing the stuff, it is based on memorizing instead of learning. There shouldn't be an A-F, there should be a pass or fail based on knowledge, not assignments.

I think that doing work online is much harder than in person because I think I lose motivation to really do anything because some teachers feel like we are not really there and ignore us. I think we should still have A-F's because they are good but I wish the grades were curved a little because of these hard times.

Online school has its setbacks, but I feel like it's manageable. School has been relatively the same despite the setbacks, and I appreciate our teachers not giving us an overabundance of work to do. And the work they do give us helps with class. I feared that this year would be hard because everyone said the junior year is the hardest, but this has been like any other year.

I agree, with Michael, I thought this year was going to be really hard too, but I think the teachers have done a good job helping students when they need it, and have layed off on homework. Although it is hard to do online work, it is managable like Michael said.

I believe in our grading system, but for the pandemic there need to be some changes. This year has been a crazy rollercoaster and because of that, I think we need to slow down and take a step back. The school needs to lighten up on assignments and focus more on if everyone is understanding the material.

I never have F's but this year was my first year failing a class and I feel like online school is definitely one reason why, I don't even know what I'm doing in that class tbh. some teachers just don't do good enough to help us learn at home.

I think that this year just hasn't been great for school and I hope that colleges understand this year and the grades that come along with it.

I have learned that online school can be quite difficult for some people. The grading system should at least be altered to help students keep up.

I definitely think that this year has been hard, especially with school and the stress of being virtual. But I think teachers have done a really good job of trying to help students and try to be interactive with the online students (In my case at least,). We should keep our grading system, and maybe we could improve on being more flexible with grading.

I think that we should still have A-Fs. I do think that because of the pandemic there should be some changes, but I think that we need to have A-Fs especially for the kids who worked hard to get good grades it wouldn't be fair to them for trying hard and not getting credit.

I think that having A-Fs are still a good idea, but we need to be adaptable in what it means to earn these grades. Stress and anxiety have been really hard this year and it wears on not only students but teachers as well. Teachers have been really trying to help their students and we should appreciate that.

I think we should still have A-Fs. The pandemic doesn't need to change every aspect of our life. Personally, I had no issue learning at home and most people are simply using it as an excuse to slack off.

Its harder for students to ask questions when online making it harder to understand questions

i think that we should continue with the A-F grading scale. the pandemic doesn't really give you a whole lot of excuses. i mean i had some trouble doing some assignments because it was a little bit harder to do things at home without being able to freely ask questions

I think that we should still have A-Fs still. Teachers just need to be more considerate of things going on at home for students and how much students are struggling this year.

I think the internet in general is such a great resource and If that means the authorities use it to crack down on suspects more power to them! If the suspect post about those illegal activities then its there own fault. I think what many people don't realize is even If you delete something of of Facebook It never really goes away Its on the internet for everyone to see for forever.

I agree with Hope on this, once it's posted, it's posted. Even if you delete it, its still there.

They know the risks if they post something. They know what they are putting out there and if they do they deserve it for at least not being sneaky.

It is scary how big this virus has become and how deadly it can be to anyone. I think we need to keep trying to stay safe and help others be safe and healthy too. Especially how it was a young child that passed due to Covid is scary.

This is very horrible and I think for this reason a lot of schools are closing. It's hard to keep everyone safe when everyone is itching to get back to normal. We have to remember this is kinda real and even tho it stinks we have to try to keep everything normal.

I agree that its awful that a child passed due to the virus but I disagree when people say that they're just one of the many to come. Although unfortunately, it's true, we should use that as a reason to slow down the reopening of schools and other places. Our safety and health should always come before numbers on a chart.

This is the scary part about going back to school when there is a pandemic going on, you don't know what's going to happen, I think this is why most schools are closing and doing online because they want to keep everyone safe and still have them "in school".

that is really sad, but this is a new situation for everyone and there are no previously written guidelines for how to handle it so in reality things like this are expected until we know how to fix the problems. it's all trial and error

This is so awful and terrifying. because we all going to school 2 or 3 in week and maybe someone have a Corona and when i think that, we all have to wear mask and we should do social distance until Corona is end.

The worst thing that could happen to anyone is to lose family, That can be the worst of the pains. Also I don't think it is right to say that is was one from many to come. This is sadly true, this is not near a good think honestly they should've waited more to re open schools. I would rather keep people safe and alive then get an education!

It's terrible that this is all happening, Hopefully people listen to the guidelines that people set to stay safe and we can all get back to normal life soon. -Khuntley170

This is probably the worst-case scenario as we begin going back to school here in Iowa. The fact that this happened to a child is beyond belief. It is so scary to go to school when you are not sure if you are truly safe. We have had up to four cases here at AL, and it is only growing which is probably the scariest part.

I think it's terrible how a young child died from Covid, now his family has to mourn his death. Though there are many other cases just like this one of children dying from this virus yet schools around the country are being reopened ignoring these deaths. Not only that but opening schools could cause an impact on the spread of the virus.

I really think that this is terrible, that this and a bunch of cases like this happening in multiple states all over the country. I believe we might have opened too early to really guarantee the safety of these children and kids in class. Of course, we want to go back to normal, but we can't if we don't try to distance ourselves and make an attempt to prevent it spreading. Just because it doesn't hurt YOU doesn't mean it won't hurt others.

I agree, Mitt Romney was the clear winner. I watched the entire live debate at home and Mitt Romney was on fire. He was very prepared, but it didn't seem scripted. At the beginning of the show it explained how all debates are very detailed in their scripts, even with random comments to their opponent. He was very engaged in the conversation and stayed on the different topics and specifically pointed out his differences between what he and Obama were saying. It was a very interesting debate. The both had a lot to say, but over all, Romney was at the top of his game while Obama was a little out of it and didn't seem quite as interested.

People keep saying Mitt Romney won but I honestly don't think he did I am not judging them on how well they speak I am judging on who has the beliefs I do and who will do what I believe right for this country and in that case I believe Obama "won" the debate because no one can really win the debate granted one can look more prepared or more interested and I'll agree that Romney did do that but he didn't say the things I wanted to hear from the future president Obama did

In all honesty, from what the article mentioned, Obama did not say much to discredit Romney. I'm wondering if Obama is going to hold out and save the infamous 47% mark, vague political outline of his plan, and any other anti-Romney ideas until a later date within this election. Also, Rainie, as for not being able to win a debate, I disagree for the most part, but not in full. Political ideals fall into, "Who wins a political debate." The debate itself, is just getting people to realize what policies they believe would work. This is one situation that I agree, there can be no winner. But as to most debates, there are clear winners.

Exactly I agree with most of that Payton, I was specifically talking about this debate. I don't need them to say everything in that one debate because I don't just listen to the debate to get my information I listen to them on just regular speeches and articles all that good stuff and out of all of that not just the debate I think people should make their decision. Just my opinion

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.

I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.

the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction

I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think

I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.

an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?

Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?

I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).

Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"

Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.

Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.

That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.

I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V

Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.

Of course you would put this up Payton....