School Bullying Council

Brett Davis-USA TODAY Sports

The Minnesota Vikings went to Reliant Stadium and beat the Houston Texans at their own game, bullying their way to a win and a victory against the Green Bay Packers away from an unlikely wildcard berth into the playoffs.

The Texans pretty much slept walked through the first half, going in to the locker room down by 10 points. In honesty it could/should have been more.

As a Chicago Bears’ fan it is hard to be objective, but the Vikings dominated the Texans in the first half of this ball game. Christian Ponder found a way to move the ball down the field into scoring positions and Adrian Peterson fought for every difficult yard he could.

When was the last time you can remember Arian Foster rushing for 12 yards and fumble in the first half of a football game? Matt Schaub looked intent on throwing a pick 6 and the Vikings for everything they did right couldn’t find that one play to almost decide this game by halftime.

This game for me was won by the Vikings defense midway through the third quarter. Ponder fumbled the ball turning it over at the Minnesota 45 yard line. With the number 3 ranked offense in scoring, the Texans couldn’t move the ball to get any points at all.

Couple this with the goal line stand on the next Texans drive and really answer to what happened in this game starts and ends with the frankly savage thirst to win from the Vikings defense.

The Vikings very much look like a team who wants playoff football, in honesty if this defense can perform like this against the Packers they have a very good chance of winning at home in week 17.

Ponder still had his moments of just head scratching stupidity but this really is something you will always expect to see from the guy.

In short the Vikings went into Houston, bruised and bullied their way to a convincing win that really makes you question how the Texans are one win away from home field advantage in the AFC.

Perhaps that is the biggest compliment a rival fan can give the Vikings for their efforts today, they made the ‘best’ the AFC had to offer look ordinary, they didn’t just beat the Texans, they embarrassed them.

All this means is heading into the final week of the 2012 NFL regular season, the 9-6 Vikings hold their own fate in their own hands. After today’s performance they fully deserve to.

http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2012/12/23/minnesota-vikings-move-to-one-win-from-the-playoffs/

View full size A Steubenville football player and his parents are suing a blogger and anonymous commenters over statements they made online tying him to a sexual assault that was reported this summer. Joshua Gunter, The Plain Dealer  

CLEVELAND, Oh — A Steubenville sexual assault case that divided the football-centric town this summer has also sparked a First Amendment debate over the sharp opinions shared online about some of the student athletes who were rumored to be involved.

Should people who comment online anonymously be held legally responsible for what they say? Or, are online comments protected free speech?

Steubenville football player Cody Saltsman and his parents, Johna and James, sued a blogger and up to 25 anonymous online commenters in October, saying they made false and defamatory statements about the teen on a website. The Saltsmans asked a local judge to prevent the blogger and others from making any more statements about them and to remove the ones already posted.

Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David Henderson has yet to decide on those issues but he did grant a motion to allow Internet service-providers to reveal the identities of the commenters, who only used screen names.

Last week however, Henderson put the case on hold for further discussion.

Free speech advocates, including the Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, have stepped in to defend the rights of people to speak anonymously online.

Scott Greenwood, a constitutional and civil rights lawyer who volunteers with the ACLU, said most of the unidentified commenters are taking the ACLU up on its offer for representation.

“In this case there has been a lot of public discussion of ugly stuff that happened in Steubenville earlier this year,” Greenwood said. “This case is designed to shut down the discussion and criticism.”

Greenwood said if the commenters’ identities are revealed their speech would be “chilled.”

Saltsman, a high school junior, has not been charged with a crime. But blogger Alexandria Goddard and regular visitors to her website seized on photos Saltsman posted from the night of the reported attack and vulgar jokes he made about it afterward.

In August, Goddard told The Plain Dealer that she started her own investigation because she didn’t trust local authorities to do the right thing.

Eventually, state prosecutors took over the case and two 16-year-old football players are set for trial in juvenile court on rape charges in February. One also faces a charge related to nude photos of the 16-year-old victim found on his phone.

At a hearing in the case last month, friends of the two charged athletes described taking photos and videos of the victim as their friends sexually assaulted the teenage girl after she got drunk, threw up and was unresponsive in the basement of one of their homes.

The victim, prosecutors said, had no recollection of most of the night.

On some high school athletics forums, people lambasted the girl for drinking alcohol and going to parties.

Goddard’s blog focused on athletes and former students who appeared from their social media use to be present for the attack or who spoke freely about the attack in rude terms via Twitter or on YouTube.

“Why aren’t more kids in jail. They all knew,” Goddard wrote under the screen name “Prinnie.”

Goddard referred to Saltsman as “Cody Manson” in reference to serial killer Charles Manson and published missives accusing the teen of participating in a gang rape.

Anonymous contributors using names like “mammabear,” “completelyunbelieveable” and “AbbyLane” took the discussion further — accusing Saltsman of orchestrating the attack for revenge and sending a photo of the victim to her father.

Shawn Blake, an attorney representing the Saltsmans, said he could not comment but in legal filings he argues that the statements made by Goddard and the commenters are false and were made maliciously to inflict emotional distress on Saltsman and his family.

The lawsuit also asks Goddard and the commenters to post public retractions of the statements and write a letter of apology to be published in the local newspaper and aired on the local television station.

Goddard’s attorneys Thomas Haren, of Independence and Jeffrey M. Nye, of Cincinnati, said the case is important because it could have wide-ranging effects on the way people interact with each other online.

The say Goddard is a protected journalist and the lawsuit is a bullying tactic aimed at shutting down public discussion of the rape report, the investigation and the “disgusting” social media posts that Goddard revealed were made by many of the students and former students.

“There is no way that the Plaintiffs succeed in their mission without doing violence to the First Amendment,” Haren said in an email.

Haren also said the U.S. Supreme Court had held that people have the right to speak anonymously, a right that also has historical foundations — such as when the founding fathers authored the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius.”

Haren also argued that speaking about controversial subjects can be dangerous and can elicit violent reaction, ridicule and embarrassment. The First Amendment protects online commenters and bloggers who voice their displeasure about favoritism and corruption in society. Haren says that is what the speech in this case is really about.

“If they are successful, then any time somebody comments on a news article they will risk having their identities unmasked,” Haren said. “How many people will continue to comment, knowing that they might offend their friends, family, co-workers, and superiors. The Saltsmans have alleged defamation, but their real goal is to unmask the speakers and to vilify those who hold unfavorable opinions of them.”

Tim Smith, a recently retired Kent State University professor who specializes in media law, said that whether Goddard is considered a journalist – and therefore has the protections and responsibilities that come with that title, could be murky.

“Once upon a time the term was relatively easy to define,” Smith said. “With the development of the Internet the lines have become so blurred they are basically unidentifiable.”

And the law has yet to catch up to technology, Smith said.

In the end, Smith said, Goddard will still have to defend what she wrote and the commenters will have to defend what they wrote – if they can be located.

“Not even the staunchest of First Amendment advocates would say that you can say anything you want, anywhere and anytime,” Smith said. “You’ve got to balance rights and responsibilities.”

Smith, who was a newspaper reporter and editor for decades, said he is bothered by anonymous comments. He would prefer that people attach their names and take responsibility for their comments.

“Sure you can be held up to some abuse for saying things that harm other people. In a small town, you can be vilified for it,” he said, especially if the accusations are against people who have not been charged with a crime or tried in court.

But Greenwood, of the ACLU, argues that the broader and more important issue in relation to the First Amendment isn’t whether all the statements made were factual, it is whether people have the right to make statements anonymously or using pseudonyms.

“There is no requirement that everything being reported on the Internet be factually accurate or you would have to shut down every media site,” Greenwood said.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/steubenville_lawsuit_raises_fr.html

Other Stories

‘Booking’ A Date With Memories

Police, sidewalk sellers clash downtown Kgn

Manchester community in shock after mechanic shot dead

Appeal court upholds murderers’ conviction

Feeding of the 5,000

Saturday Social – December 22

Chronicling Gift Ideas

Actor Hugh Grant settles hack claim with Murdoch paper

Margaret Thatcher in UK hospital after operation

PHOTO: Enough is Enough

Prosecutor calls defence case a side show

HelpAge official says State’s social policies leaving seniors behind

Former exec takes Caribbean Airlines to court

New wing, operating theatre open at Tony Thwaites Wing

Finsac debtors demand meeting with Phillips

Will Buju get a new trial?

Pusey/Llewellyn verdict expected in new year

New fee structure for yachts

PHOTOS: A World Party indeed!

Cays Management Policy coming

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Actor-Hugh-Grant-settles-hack-claim-with-Murdoch-paper_13259448

A high-profile lawsuit dormant for months has begun to heat up again, with Monroe County naming several board members of a nonprofit animal shelter group as defendants.

The county successfully lobbied Circuit Court Judge David Audlin to seize the bank accounts of Stand Up for Animals Inc. (SUFA) in August 2010, after the Clerk of Court’s Office released a critical audit of the group. SUFA had a contract with the county to perform animal control services.

The audit, which was followed by a lawsuit, found that SUFA Executive Director Linda Gottwald used money designated for the Middle Keys shelter for a shelter she was starting in Michigan, and for personal bills. Gottwald has refuted all of those claims.

Monroe County recently filed an amendment to its lawsuit and has named individual SUFA board members — Veronica Jordan, Peter Myers, Sandy Taylor, Lori Farrell, Larry Hirsch and Maya Totman — and the group’s accountant, Paul Mills.

Gottwald and her attorney, Paul Kunz, argue that suing individual board members is a bullying tactic, and they claim the county is punishing people whose only crime was helping animals.

“These people joined the board to help animals,” Gottwald said. “There is no reason to punish them. They are animal lovers.”

Making them a target of a lawsuit will have a chilling effect on other animal service groups that contract with the county, as people will not want to volunteer if they think they could be sued for their involvement, Gottwald and Kunz said.

Kunz argued that the county “has no basis to sue” the board members, and they are protected under Florida law.

Both sides will go before Circuit Court Judge David Audlin on Feb. 7 to argue motions to dismiss portions of the case.

Both sides have begun to take depositions of potential witnesses. It appears the case will go to trial, as mediation in the case broke down in March.

“At this point it doesn’t look like we are going to settle,” Assistant County Attorney Christine Limbert-Barrows said.

The judge may order both sides back into mediation one more time before going to trial.

The county audited SUFA after the group requested a 24 percent budget increase in June 2010, when its contract renewal was being negotiated, which would have brought the annual contract amount to $327,000.

County staff said the increase was unjustified and recommended the County Commission reject SUFA’s bid — the lone bid — and seek new ones. The County Commission gave SUFA a three-month contract extension so staff could negotiate a better deal.

During the negotiations, the county abruptly asked Audlin to freeze SUFA’s bank accounts. The county clerk’s audit stated Gottwald had spent shelter money for three months’ rent for her home, which she sublet to interim successor Shari Blessing after Gottwald moved to Michigan.

The audit also stated that Gottwald spent $2,900 for a fence at her Second Chance Ranch in Michigan and $1,154 on a legal bill for the Michigan shelter. The audit also alleged she spent $628 for six personal water bills.

Gottwald and her attorney have refuted the findings in the audit. Gottwald contends the money she spent on the ranch in Michigan was raised through outside donations — not from Monroe County — and the $628 she used to pay for her personal water bills was a clerical error that since has been rectified.

Other allegations, Gottwald contends, are the product of an overly aggressive audit and a county-orchestrated media campaign amid contract negotiations.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled in September 2011 that the county had wrongfully seized SUFA’s accounts and ordered the funds released back to the group.

tohara@keysnews.com

http://keysnews.com/node/44453

A former middle school student who sued the Burlington, Vt., school district in a bullying case has agreed to settle for $25,000.

Henry Atkins said in the lawsuit that his arm was fractured by a fellow seventh-grader at Edmunds Middle School after two days of being bullied in 2010. Atkins, now 15, said the district did not provide adequate supervision on the bus.

District lawyer Pietro Lynn tells the Burlington Free Press the settlement allows the district to avoid a costly jury trial that would require school employees to spend time in court, away from their jobs. He says he doesn’t believe there is any acknowledgement of fault on the part of the district.

Atkins plans to work with the district to make presentations to students against bullying and harassment.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2012/12/22/219700.htm

It’s the holiday season — a time of joy, giving and, of course, parents outraged about the prospect of religious symbolism appearing at the elementary school their children attend.

Such is the case at Chief Charlo Elementary School in Missoula, Montana, where a group of protesting parents is so irate about the songs selected for the school’s holiday music program they are contemplating legal action, the Missoulian reports.

There’s been no lawsuit yet, but the parents have sent an anonymous letter to the superintendent of the Missoula County Public Schools district. They say the collection of songs is improper, unconstitutional and a form of bullying. Particularly galling to the parents are references to God and Jesus.

“With many of the children in our neighborhood up here being Jewish and Buddhist, as well as a few Muslim and atheist students, we were assured that this year it would be a secular program,” the letter read, according to the Missoulian. It was signed, “concerned parents.” There were no specific names.

The previous year, the unsigned letter said, young children sang lyrics about “their lord,” which caused discomfort among some parents as well as students.

“We have no problem with it being called a Christmas concert, it’s just the fact the material should be secular,” the missive continued. “Frosty the Snowman, Santa Claus, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer. These are things that offend no one.”

According to the Daily Mail, the parents say their children are “forced to be reformed to what is seen as the majority.” They worry that their kids could be “singled out” or “targeted” if they don’t want to participate.

The letter even suggested that a holiday concert for grade school kids can rise to the level of rank intimidation.

“Bullying is such a hot topic, yet that seems to be what is occurring here,” the dispatch said, according to the Daily Mail.

This year, each of the two concerts at Chief Charlo Elementary – one in the morning for younger kids and one in the afternoon for older kids — featured a repertoire of songs from a variety of cultural traditions.

According to the Missoulian, kids in kindergarten through third grade performed “Joy to the World,” “Up On a House Top,” “Jolly Old St. Nicholas,” “O Christmas Tree,” “O Come Little Children,” “Deck the Halls,” a Polish lullaby (with lyrics that serenade baby Jesus), a Hanukkah song, a pinata song, a Nutcracker song, and “We Wish You a Merry Christmas.”

The fourth and fifth graders in the afternoon sang “Season of Bells,” “Dreidel Spins,” “Good Christian Men Rejoice,” “Merry Merry,” “Jolly Old St. Nicholas,” and “Go in Peace.”

“Every year, there will be some kind of complaint about the Christmas music,” John Combs, the school district’s fine arts director, told the Missoulian. “We hear it from both sides. It’s too secular or it’s too sacred. There’s always something wrong with it.”

“I’ve learned in the years I’ve been doing this that you can’t win,” he said.

“If someone is really upset at singing a song, nobody makes them do it,” Combs added, according to the Daily Mail.

If the threatened lawsuit by the unnamed parents materializes, it would face substantial legal hurdles according to David Cortman, an attorney who specializes in the First Amendment at Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative-leaning nonprofit.

“It doesn’t create a constitutional crisis to sing Christmas songs at Christmastime,” Cortman told the Daily Mail. “If every time there was a piece of art or classical musical with a religious theme, we censored it, we would be eliminating much from the students’ education.”

Follow Eric on Twitter
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

‘Concerned parents’ label elementary school’s holiday concert a form of bullying

Obama Cabinet prospect began career working for Romney at Bain

Rielle and John are gettin’ it on

Prediction!

Chicago Teachers Union chief uses Sandy Hook to bash Teach For America

http://news.yahoo.com/concerned-parents-label-elementary-school-holiday-concert-form-132111065.html

Print this Article
Email this Article

“;
document.getElementById(‘premiumMsg’).innerHTML = contentStr;
document.getElementById(‘premiumMsg’).style.display = “block”;
} else if (userSingleSale == “Reguser”) {
contentStr = “”;
document.getElementById(‘premiumMsg’).innerHTML = contentStr;
document.getElementById(‘premiumMsg’).style.display = “block”;
} else if (userSingleSale == “PREMIUM01″) {
document.getElementById(‘premiumMsg’).style.display = “none”;
}

PINE BUSH — A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit alleging that the Pine Bush School District tolerated anti-Semitic bullying can be expanded to name specific school officials as defendants.

The suit, filed in March by three Pine Bush parents on behalf of five children, claims that district officials ignored repeated complaints that the kids were subjected by peers to a campaign of harassment: anti-Semitic slurs, physical assaults, swastika drawings, and students throwing coins at their children.

The families are being represented by Chester lawyer Michael Meth, and he’s being assisted by Public Justice, a national public-interest law firm.

“The kids and the parents were meeting with the superintendent, the principals, the vice-principals at the time and telling them what was occurring, and almost no action was taken,” said Adele Kimmel, managing attorney for Public Justice.

Wants policy enforced

Kimmel said the primary goal of the suit is to set a precedent, and to ensure that the district enforces its anti-bullying policy.

“If schools do not respond appropriately and show kids they are taking this seriously, the bullying continues,” Kimmel said. “And that’s what happened here.”

Superintendent Philip Steinberg, who is named in the suit, said the complaint is full of “baseless allegations.”

“I’m taking this personally, as a practicing Jew,” he said. “To me, it’s reprehensible that they’re making these claims” . The truth will come out in the end.”

Steinberg said the district has a comprehensive anti-bullying policy, and staff has worked hard on diversity. There is a diversity task force; the school teaches a course on the Holocaust, has brought in Holocaust survivors and experts from the Holocaust Memorial Center to speak to staff and students.

Kimmel said the students have been traumatized; one no longer attends Pine Bush; another took a year off to recuperate.

Claims against individuals

In a Dec. 6 decision, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison ruled that the families can pursue individual-capacity claims against Steinberg, Eric Winter, principal of Pine Bush Elementary and a former Crispell assistant principal; Steve Fisch, former Pine Bush Elementary principal; and Robert Peters, a former Crispell assistant principal.

The judge ruled against individual claims against Crispell Principal John Boyle.

Kimmel said the plaintiffs have 30 days to file more evidence on Boyle.

The district’s lawyer, Laura Wong-Pan of Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow Mayle in Hopewell Junction, issued a statement saying the school is committed to providing an environment free of harassment or bullying.

She wrote, “The District is confident that it will ultimately prevail in this case as it made concerted efforts to prevent harassment and bullying in the schools, and took all reasonable steps to remedy any instances of religious harassment that were reported.”

hyakin@th-record.com

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121212/NEWS/212120315

Lawsuit: Student bullied

Parents of a former Scranton student have sued the district, alleging their son’s civil rights were violated when he was repeatedly bullied and harassed because he is black.

The boy, who is referred to as D.B. in the suit, was an 8-year-old second-grade student at Robert Morris Elementary School “when a pattern of severe, pervasive and objectively offensive harassment based upon race commenced,” according to the civil suit filed in federal court this week.

The parents, Sharelle and Anthony Bridges, allege their son’s teacher harassed and punished him more than white children with similar behavior in the class. Meetings with the teacher, principal and other district personnel did not solve the problems, and his parents withdrew him and started him in a cyber charter school for the start of the 2012-13 school year.

As a result of the bullying and verbal abuse, the boy has become “withdrawn and isolated” and his parents “suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress,” according to the suit.

The parents are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.

District solicitor John Minora said he had not yet seen the lawsuit and could not comment on it.

Contact the writer: shofius@timesshamrock.com, @hofiushallTT on Twitter

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/lawsuit-boy-bullied-by-scranton-school-district-because-of-his-race-1.1419087

I was a big-time pessimist from the beginning of this labor dispute, but I’ve (foolishly?) come over to the optimists’ side in recent weeks. I’m still here, too.

Here are some of the CBA related things that have run through my mind of late:

• It’s so utterly embarrassing to be a fan of the NHL right now. What are the two sides even fighting over anymore? A small difference in the length of a new CBA agreement and what the limit on contract lengths should be? Transition buyout rules and yearly salary variances? The biggest issues at the start of this negotiation – the 50-50 split, capping contract lengths – have been settled for the most part and now it seems to be about who can pee farthest into the snow.

How shameful is the league? Even though a deal seems so close, to the point where the differences that remain would be completely foolish to lose another entire season over, pessimism still rules the day because the NHL’s track record is marred with bone-headedness (lack of a player partnership; negotiating tactics; third lockout, etc.). You can’t get much more damning than that.

• As much as the NHL is jerking around the players of late, we’ll eventually come to a point where it just won’t be worth it for the players to lose an entire year’s salary. Not for the bit players who make up the majority of the NHLPA, anyway. And that point should be near.

Most members of the union will never sign pacts that are five years in length, so it’s hard to imagine why that would be a major hurdle. How is it worthwhile for these players to lose a year to protect a small minority of players who will sign lucrative deals?

• Considering where we are in these negotiations and what had been put on the table by the NHL, the players will still have it pretty good compared to other major sports leagues. Be thankful guaranteed contracts aren’t the hill the owners will die on.

• This all said, players have to stand their ground to protect themselves from being trampled this time and then asked for further concessions the next time the CBA expires. If the NHL continues to operate with these tactics each time a new deal needs to be negotiated, the NHLPA will eventually have to go all-in and nuke a season (or seasons) to do what is right for them and, really, the league.

But that time is not now. All along, the players knew 50-50 was inevitable and that some kind of contract cap was on the way. They had to play the NHL’s stubborn, hawkish game to get the best deal and will likely continue to do so until the last minute. But with how far the two sides have come on the biggest issues – and assuming the NHL’s last offer would be put back on the table – it’s just not worth it for the players to lose the rest of the year’s paychecks over and enter complete uncertainty.

The players managed to keep the same contracting rules as far as free agent eligibility and their contracts remain guaranteed (they can’t just be cut like NFL players). They’ve shown the NHL that they will stand firm against blatant bullying and not be forced into a really bad deal; they’ve caused a stir and a bit of fear. The players will still make out like gangbusters under a new agreement, because they always do. The NHLPA’s statement has been made in this messy dispute.

The NHL didn’t write its own CBA correctly last time and this negotiation was about tightening up that system. You can’t argue against that desire. The NHL is, after all, a business, despite how fundamentally flawed the league’s economic and competitive goals are. There are luxuries that come with being a part of the NHL, but one must also accept that its most powerful bosses are stubborn, cold and content to sit low on North America’s sporting totem poll. Welcome to the NHL.

It’s expected the union will file its own lawsuit as a counter to the NHL’s and that, hopefully, it inspires an end to this dispute. It should end.

What’s left to bicker about really isn’t worth losing another year over. Just don’t bet on it.

Rory Boylen is TheHockeyNews.com’s web editor. His column appears regularly only on THN.com.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-nhlpa-close-yet-far-215500290--nhl.html

Instagram’s updated terms of service significantly broaden what the site can do with users’ content.

Update: Instagram said Tuesday in a blog post that it will revise its policy updates to make its plans clearer. “It is not our intention to sell your photos,” the company wrote.

Instagram shocked users with an update to its terms of service that will let the company sell users’ photos to other companies.

The new terms of use, effective January 16, are littered with changes throughout — but the biggest changes came in the section about users’ rights. “A business or other entity may pay” Instagram to display users’ photos and other details “in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.”

Even minors are subject to the new terms: “If you are under the age of eighteen …. you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision.” Users can’t opt out of the new provisions. The only way to avoid them is to delete your Instagram account altogether.

The updated terms significantly broaden what Instagram can currently do with users’ content. The current terms simply note that “Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content.”

Hammering the point home, Instagram changed the current language about users granting a “limited license” for use of their content. The new terms make it a “sub-licensable” agreement, again making it clear that Instagram can give content to third parties. It could, for instance, let a major retail chain buy Instagram photos of people shopping in their stores to run in an ad.

Instagram representatives did not respond to a request for comment. The company sent out a tweet Tuesday afternoon that says: “We’ve heard you that the updates to our Privacy Policy Terms of Service are raising a lot of questions. We’ll have more to share very soon.”

The policy changes come three months after Facebook’s (FB) $1 billion acquisition of Instagram was finalized. Facebook already has an ad product, called “Sponsored Stories,” that incorporates users’ Facebook endorsements. It led to a class-action lawsuit; Facebook is currently negotiating to settle the case. In the meantime, it adjusted the controls for Sponsored Stories, allowing users to limit what gets shared. Users can’t, however, opt out entirely.

Something like Sponsored Stories appears to be what Instagram has in mind.

“Let’s say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers and Instagram was able to feature them in some way,” the company wrote in its blog.

The rest of Instagram’s policy updates focused on items including spam, hacking and bullying. The overhaul adds much more legalese throughout.

A note at the top of the new terms, in bolded caps, says that any dispute between Instagram and a user “will be resolved by binding, individual arbitration,” unless the user opts out of the provision in writing. (If you want to do that, you need to snail mail in your opt-out statement. The address is buried in the Terms of Use: search for “Arbitration Opt-out.”)

What’s more, users waive their rights to a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

The photo-selling provisions is the one that made the headlines, though, and users took to social networks to complain.

Some people appear to be prepping to delete their accounts. One photo-export program, Instaport, crashed soon after a Wired article linked to it. Instaport’s website read: “We are expecting high traffic right now. If you have problems downloading your photos, please try again tomorrow or the next days.”

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/technology/social/instagram-sell-photos/

“It’s a way to send a message that people who are not in cars have rights too,” said Councilman Patrick Slayter. “Just because you are driving a 5,000-pound weapon doesn’t mean might makes right.”

The “vulnerable road users” ordinance was passed on a unanimous vote, paving the way for it to become law when it comes back for a second reading at a future meeting.

“Hate is hate, it doesn’t matter what it’s for, anything we can do to stop bullying,” said Vice Mayor Robert Jacob.

The ordinance is being promoted countywide by the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, which it believes will stem the number of incidents just by being on the books.

“The best laws we have are the ones that act as deterrents,” said Gary Helfrich, executive director of the bike coalition. “That has been the experience in Los Angeles. There have not been any suits filed and there has been a decline in reported incidents.”

The Sebastopol proposal is meant to provide a legal recourse by giving the ability to file a civil suit to pedestrians, cyclists, roller skaters, skateboarders and the impaired.

It is patterned after similar ordinances that have been adopted in Los Angeles, Berkeley, Sunnyvale and Washington, D.C.

The coalition and other local bicycle advocates began promoting the ordinance this summer after a series of fatal and serious car crashes in the county involving cyclists and pedestrians.

There are frequent reports that cyclists have been yelled at, slapped, had things thrown at them or dumped on them and been shot at, said Sandra Lupien, coalition director of outreach.

Bill Oetinger of Sebastopol, ride director for the Santa Rosa Cycling Club, called the harassment of cyclists “hate crimes” that leave the victim shaken and sometimes hurt.

“No one should have to put up with it,” Oetinger said. “I don’t think the non-cycling public is aware how much of it goes on.”

Jerry Meshulam of Sebastopol said that he has had people in pickups dump cups of soda on his head and throw cups at him.

“Is this ordinance going to stop that? Maybe not. The point is it gets the word out,” Meshulam said.

Linda Berg of Sebastopol, however, said she knows of cases where someone in a stopped car was run into by a skateboard rider and by a cyclist, neither of who stopped.

“Some of the bicyclists and pedestrians are guilty of not using good sense,” Berg said. “I’m not sure putting the burden on the motorist is a good idea.”

Supporters say the proposed ordinance is intended to fill perceived gaps in criminal prosecution, which has a higher standard of proof and requires such things as positive identification of the driver.

The proposed ordinance defines what harassment is and sets up a procedure for the injured party, whether it is a cyclist, pedestrian, jogger or skateboard rider, to bring a lawsuit against the aggressor, which could be a motorist or even a cyclist.

Harassment is defined as attempted physical assault and physical assault; verbal threats of assault; intentional injury or attempts to injure; distracting or attempting to distract a bicyclist, pedestrian or others; forcing someone off the street; passing at an unsafe distance of less than 3 feet; and failing to yield to a pedestrian walking or running along a road, crossing the road or crossing a public sidewalk or pathway.

You can reach Staff Writer Bob Norberg at 521-5206 or bob.norberg@pressdemocrat.com.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20121218/ARTICLES/121219536/1036/business?Title=Sebastopol-adopts-law-to-help-bicyclists-pedestrians

Students of color and those with disabilities receive harsher punishment in schools, punishments that are often a precursor to their entry into the juvenile justice system, The Washington Post reports.

Each year, more than 3 million children are expelled or suspended from schools, according to Civil Rights Data Collection figures released last spring by the Education Department. During analysis of 72,000 schools in the 2009-10 academic year, at least 240,000 students were referred to law enforcement.

“For many young people, our schools are increasingly a gateway to the criminal-justice system,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Subcommittee, at the hearing. “What is especially concerning of this phenomenon is that it deprives our kids of their fundamental right to an education.”

Removing children from the classroom puts them further behind academically, he said.

“The vast majority [of expulsions or reprimands] are not related to guns, drugs, or violence,” said Deborah Delisle, assistant secretary at the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the Education Department, said during a hearing last week. Rather, these students are disciplined for violating school ordinances, such as nonattendance, disobedience, or classroom disorderliness.

For years, advocates and some scholars have argued that zero-tolerance policies in schools has led to funneling a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos into the criminal-justice system.  

School police programs gained support in the 1990s after highly publicized shootings at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., and Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. At the same time, increased awareness of bullying led many schools to adopt zero-tolerance policies that increased suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests as a way to manage student behavior.

What years ago would have resulted in a visit to the principal’s office has now become a trip to the courthouse, Durbin noted. “Sadly, there are schools that look more like prisons than places for children to grow,” he said, evidencing metal detectors and police roaming the halls.

Nonetheless, the recent shooting in Connecticut likely will spark further discussions on whether even more school campuses should have metal detectors and police officers on campuses and playgrounds.

The hearing came two months after the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Mississippi, alleging that it operates a “school-to-prison pipeline,” which disproportionally affected minorities.

Nationally, minorities are three times more likely to be suspended and four time more likely to be expelled from school than their white counterparts. More than 70 percent of students arrested in schools are black and Latinos. Students with disabilities are suspended more than twice as frequently those without disabilities.

Andrew Coulson, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Reform, pointed to a study that suggests minority-discipline rates are not the result of racism.

He cited research that found that black and white children were sent to the principal’s office and suspended at the same rates. A school’s differentiation in punishment was more associated with demographics than race.

Schools whose student body is majority black are more likely to suspend children for an offense – and kick them out for longer periods. White students at those schools received the same punishment.  

Conversely, schools with mostly white kids dispensed less severe penalties. Black students in those schools were suspended at the same rate as their white counterparts. 

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/education/harsher-discipline-often-dispensed-to-minority-disabled-students-20121217

SANTA FE, N.M. —

A group of women accused a former Santa Fe police officer of harassing, stalking and abusing them, and now they want him to pay.

In the lawsuit, the women said they were emotionally assaulted by police officer Mike Eiskant.

“This man was using that authority to stalk, harass and intimidate these people and invade their privacy in the most egregious and frightening way that he could,” attorney Cammie Nichols said.

Earlier this year, Eiskant resigned and pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the victims’ complaints. He was also caught masturbating in his squad car while on duty as his dash camera was accidentally recording.

Now, he faces a lawsuit filed by seven women, including former fellow officer and a former city judge. The lawsuit alleges that many complaints have been made over Eiskant’s 12-year career, accusing him of abusing his power, following, bullying and intimidating women and making them feel violated. He’s even accused of sexually abusing a police informant, and the women said their cries fell on deaf ears. 

“It was essentially ignored, which then empowered him to continue this behavior,” Nichols said.

The lawsuit also names the city and Santa Fe Police Chief Ray Rael for not doing enough to stop Eiskant’s abuse. One former police officer said she felt her own job was in jeopardy because she complained about Eiskant.

“By the time there was some action taken by the police department, it was too late and Eiskant had been completely emboldened in this behavior and had gone on so long I think it was almost impossible to stop,” Nichols said.

The women are now looking for compensation for what the lawsuit claims is their embarrassment, humiliation and living in fear. They also want to prevent Eiskant for having any contact with them.

Rael and the city attorney said they cannot comment on a pending lawsuit, but said they’re carefully reviewing the case. Rael told the Albuquerque Journal that the accusations against him are not true.

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/Women-sue-former-Santa-Fe-officer/-/9153728/17802028/-/t0oj5g/-/index.html

Ian Boyne, Contributor

If you are a person struggling to make ends meet and you feel you have been personally hurt and treated unfairly by our media, what avenues of redress do you have, besides taking out a lawsuit or hoping (no guarantee) for a brief letter to the editor to be published?

If you are a public official who has been unfairly, prejudicially and consistently misrepresented in media, suffering damage to your hard-fought reputation, should you really have to wait for years for a libel case to be heard to get vindication, even if you have the money? Shouldn’t there be an independent body to which you could go to have your complaints heard and evaluated?

After all, if you have problems with medical, legal and real-estate professionals, there are bodies you can appeal to for justice, so why should it be any different with media professionals? Why should they be exempt from normal canons of accountability?

You would think that an influential group like media – particularly print, which has nothing similar to the Broadcasting Commission even – would have mechanisms to ensure accountability. Who can speak more sanctimoniously and self-righteously about accountability – ad nauseam – than media people, especially in editorials? Accountability for everybody but ourselves. And civil society allows this vulgar exemption to go on without question.

But perhaps, for good, pragmatic reasons; for people have learnt that you don’t mess with the press. We can destroy you. And when we don’t, just leaving you alone might be worse than destruction! So with all the high-profile campaign of Professor Trevor Munroe and his National Integrity Action (NIA) group over corruption, there is no focus on potential media corruption.

Now, I agree that because of our decadent political culture, the State has to receive special and particular focus. But I would like to challenge the NIA and the Jamaica Civil Society Coalition (JCSC) to also give some attention to media power and the potential for abuse there, too.

HOWLS
FROM ECHO CHAMBER

People, especially politicians who
are always fair game for attack, know the bullying tactics and
demagoguery of the media. But once any politician talks about media
irresponsibility or talks about media bias, there are the reflexive
howls from the echo chamber about censorship, threats to press freedom,
democracy, Big Brother coming after the virtuous press. The usual
conversation-stoppers. And usually it works. The politician usually
cowers under the media outburst because he knows he has no one to speak
up for him, except paid hacks or party supporters who have no
credibility anyway.

The best advice PR people can give
politicians or public officials is, don’t take on the media. You can’t
win. They command the airtime and newsprint, and even if they grudgingly
give you some space to answer, they broadcast and publish every day and
they have no obligation to give you an incessant right to reply. Plus,
there are many subtle ways to skin a cat, and if the media see you as
antagonistic, they won’t be there for you when you need
them.

Tell me, with all the investigative awards being
given out by both the Press Association of Jamaica and the Jamaica
Broilers Fairplay Awards, when last did you hear of someone copping an
award for investigating corruption or abuse of power in the private
sector? When last was there a probing, investigative series, on either
television or print, on a big private-sector company, a big
conglomerate? Anybody getting any awards for investigating unfair
competition in the marketplace? This is a free market. Any investigation
of unfair pricing, insider trading, etc.?

Now, it
could be that our big private-sector companies are as pure as the driven
snow and that the problems with companies in other capitalist markets
are totally absent here. Perhaps we only have problems with Government
and quasi-state entities. Tell me, what is the chance that you could see
an investigative series in the Observer on working conditions at the
Sandals hotels, with anonymous interviews with waiters, room-service
employees, etc.?

Do you think a bright, enterprising
reporter would go to his editor there with that idea and his editor
would say, “Great, let us prove that there is a firewall between
editorial and executive office! Let’s show Jamaica that we are not just
mouthing about press independence and freedom.” Suppose an equally
enterprising Gleaner reporter gets a tip-off about
some curious dealings in a company related to the owners of The Gleaner
Company? Do you think he would do his sleuth work, have it published and
collect an investigative award for it? (Mark you, I am not hinting that
there is anything curious going on in any business related to any
director of this venerable newspaper. And ditto with
Sandals.)

TO WHAT END?

So when the
second vice-president of my Press Association, in giving the review of
National Journalism Week, pledges that “for the next year the PAJ will
continue to increase its training courses on investigative and business
reporting”, to what end will that be put?

To
investigate only state-related entities and to learn how to write better
articles puffing certain companies? Will those investigative skills
gained be turned on big corporate entities on which media houses depend
for their survival and sustenance?

In a year when
media will be even more dependent on the scarce and diminishing
advertising/sponsorship dollar, is the PAJ going to be training more of
its members to be adept at exposing what might be wrong in our
private-sector companies, as is done in mature democracies? Or don’t we
have any problem there at all, and all we should be focusing on is a
single anti-corruption authority to chase after state
crooks?

Is NIA or JCSC (which, incidentally, includes
the powerful business groups) going to be even half as interested in
issues of the use of power in this society generally, not just state
power?

They could start with accountability in media
and by asking the Media Association Jamaica some reasonable questions,
seeing that the journalists who work in their media houses might be too
scared to host programmes and do news stories on the issue. They could
ask why, after many years of working to develop a Code of Professional
Conduct among journalists, and why, with the PAJ agreeing to a press
complaints council, there is no such council today? Not just no council,
not even a discussion on it.

Clare Forrester, in her
well-needed, highly useful weekly column on media, asked poignantly last
Wednesday, why there has been “the absence of any serious debate here
in recent months … because the Press Association of Jamaica went to a
lot of effort in compiling a new Code of Practice to replace the 1965
PAJ Code of Ethics, after many months of deliberation and national
consultation”. And yet, she notes, the issue is not even being
discussed.

Clare, whom the PAJ justifiably inducted
into its Hall of Fame at its awards banquet two Fridays ago, questions
why only the visiting British journalist raised the issue of a press
complaints commission or council. What she – and all of us – should find
even more puzzling and absolutely inexplicable is that in the PAJ’s
review, written by Arthur Hall, one of our best, there is absolutely not
a whisper about a need for a complaints council, even on the heels of
the furore over Lord Leveson’s 2,000-page report calling for a new
regulatory body to oversee the British press.

ARTHUR
HAS A NERVE!

Arthur was just reciting the usual
journalistic liturgy about reform of libel laws (long overdue, indeed):
“The issue of reform of the libel laws will also be championed,
with the PAJ determined to hold Government to its commitment that
legislation will be before Parliament by the end of the legislative
year.” He has a nerve! Not a word said about a complaints
council which PAJ signed on to years ago and yet we are holding
Government to its word when we are free to disregard ours? Such is our
psychopathological arrogance. It’s an occupational
hazard.

Claude Robinson, journalist extraordinaire,
who did a lot of work on the new Code of Conduct, expressed his
frustration with its non-implementation in January 2011. “The
Media Association Jamaica and the Press Association of Jamaica must stop
shilly-shallying and implement the revised code of professional
practice which the PAJ has accepted … the proposed media complaints
commission or council must be implemented without further delay. This
will give teeth to the code by providing the public with a body to which
aggrieved persons can seek redress from journalistic violations …
.”

In fact, precisely in an environment of
relaxed libel reforms – desperately needed – we need a council to ensure
that people’s rights are protected. The press has no prior and
privileged rights above the people. It is representative of the people,
but it is not the people, though in its arrogance it behaves so. The
press can itself be a violator of the people’s
rights.

Bruce Golding posed a simple but coercively
decisive question in Parliament when he tabled the bill setting out
libel reform, a commitment he had given in his party manifesto and kept.
He said: “There has been talk among media practitioners for a
long time about a code of professional conduct. It doesn’t exist and,
therefore, I am challenging the media to explain why it is so difficult
for a profession that is so concerned, and rightly so passionate, about
standards and ethics; why is it that the press has had such a difficulty
in establishing among themselves a code of professional
ethics?”

An answer has never even been
attempted by any journalist or media boss. Why should we? We had the
power to ignore him. After all, where is he now, and where are we? We
are still here, busy with our job of anointing messiahs and crucifying
them.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email
feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and
ianboyne1@yahoo.com.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20121216/focus/focus1.html

Enabling Cookies in Internet Explorer 7, 8 9

1. Open the Internet Browser
2. Click Tools Internet OptionsPrivacyAdvanced
3. Check Override automatic cookie handling
4. For First-party Cookies and Third-party Cookies click Accept
5. Click OK and OK

Enabling Cookies in Firefox

1. Open the Firefox browser
2. Click ToolsOptionsPrivacyUse custom settings for history
3. Check Accept cookies from sites
4. Check Accept third party cookies
5. Select Keep until: they expire
6. Click OK

Enabling Cookies in Google Chrome

1. Open the Google Chrome browser
2. Click Tools iconOptionsUnder the HoodContent Settings
3. Check Allow local data to be set
4. Uncheck Block third-party cookies from being set
5. Uncheck Clear cookies
6. Close all

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/warning-work-christmas-parties-can-be-a-health-hazard/story-e6frg6n6-1226537631769

London, Dec 16 (ANI): A woman from UK is at war with the famous Kardashian clan, claiming that the American reality TV stars have taken her product name for their new range of cosmetics.

Jay Willey from Harrogate, North Yorkshire, claims that her company sent examples of their Kroma beauty product range to the Kardashian family’s make-up artist 18 months ago in the hope that sisters Kim, Khloe and Kourtney would endorse the products.

But she has learned that the Kardashian’s have now launched their own product under the remarkably similar name of Khroma, the Mirror reported.

“I’ve been working on this for two years, since October 2010, building up the brand in the EU, contacting major retailers, trying to make Kroma an established make-up brand. Then in June this year we hear the Kardashians and their branding company Boldface are bringing out their range with a name almost identical to ours,” she said.

“We’ve been working so hard on this and now it looks like they’re taking our brand name. They even appear to have used the same font as ours on their packaging. But we are fighting back. Do they think that we will just go away? Or do they presume we are too scared to go head to head with them, or that we can’t afford it?

“I know the Kardashians themselves will be sat on a beach somewhere having their pictures taken… it’s the machine behind them that we’re taking on. It just seems so unfair. Those girls are meant to be role models. Young girls everywhere look up to them. But here they are bullying a small business, trying to ruin us,” she added.

Jay, who runs Kroma’s European arm, is joining forces with the American founding company, which has been trading since 2004, to battle the reality stars through the US courts.

But she says the Kardashian machine appears to be trying to bully them into giving up the battle.

“We’ve been in negotiation with their lawyers and ideally we’d like them to change the name, but these talks have failed,” she said.

“They want to take it to litigation in the States so they can keep the name, which could cost an absolute fortune. They estimate they will be making 45-50 million pounds a year but they made us an insulting financial offer.

“By going to litigation they think they can just make it so expensive that we’ll lose heart and disappear,” she said. (ANI)

http://in.omg.yahoo.com/news/uk-mum-file-lawsuit-against-kardashians-over-cosmetics-094102831.html

NIAGARA FALLS, ON — Animal welfare activist Phil Demers is a disgruntled former Marineland employee, who quit after the park turned down his proposal to film The Walrus Whisperer, a TV series involving him and a walrus, according to a court document filed by Marineland.

But Demers, now a vocal critic of animal conditions at the park, called Marineland’s version of events “absurd.”

Marineland filed a defamation suit Wednesday against Demers’ girlfriend Christine Santos, also a former 12-year employee, over allegations of animal abuse she made to a Toronto newspaper.

In that statement of claim, Marineland says Demers quit in 2012 to force them “to rehire him on terms acceptable to him, including approval of the proposed television series.”

When they didn’t hire him back, the former animal trainer started a “campaign against Marineland” by alleging to a Toronto newspaper animal abuse and neglect was taking place at the park.

Demers was the focus of a 2007 QMI Agency story about the perceived attachment Smooshi, a female walrus, developed with Demers.

Marineland said Demers, and later Santos, proposed to the park a series of business ideas to “personally profit from the alleged ‘imprinting’ of Smooshi on Mr. Demers.”

Marineland says Demers asked the company to market him and Smooshi in a show and for Marineland to sell T-shirts featuring the two together. According to the claim, Demers proposed to sign T-shirts after the show and charge a fee.

Marineland says around August 2011, Demers and Santos obtained a proposal for a reality TV series without the company’s knowledge and permission.

The show was to be set at Marineland “and feature Mr. Demers as its ‘star,’ interacting with Smooshi and other Marineland animals,” according to the court document.

Marineland says it declined the proposal because it would be “contrary to the best interests of the animals, specifically Smooshi,” the claim states.

The claim says Demers and Santos were upset with Marineland’s decision. It says shortly before the 2012 opening day of Marineland, Demers submitted his resignation.

Following his “failed efforts” to be rehired, Demers took part in a series of “self-initiated” interviews with a Toronto newspaper as a “self-described animal activist and member of the animal liberation movement,” Marineland says.

Demers said he couldn’t speak to the version of events described in Marineland’s lawsuit against Santos because she hadn’t been served the legal papers and he hasn’t seen them.
But the suggestion he left Marineland because he was upset the company did not accept his proposal for a television series is “absurd,” he said.

“Marineland’s absurd claims against me personally, and their continued bullying tactics serve only to further reinforce the detailed and documented revelations of animal neglect by the 15 former employees/whistle blowers,” Demers said.

Marineland’s tactic is to “muddy the waters” and distract people from problems that exist at the park, he said.

Santos had her employment at Marineland terminated in October.

Marineland says prior to August 2012, neither Demers nor Santos made allegations of animal abuse to the park or to animal-welfare and inspection organizations.

The allegations in Marineland’s lawsuit against Santos have not been proven in court.

QMI AGency could not reach Santos directly Thursday. Demers maintains she will not be commenting on the lawsuit.

QMI Agency could also not reach Toronto lawyer Paul Koven, who will represent Santos throughout the lawsuit. As of Wednesday, Koven said he had yet to see the claim filed by Marineland’s lawyers. Koven said he will reserve comment until he sees the documents and goes over them with Santos.
In the claim, Marineland is seeking $1.25 million in general and punitive damages from Santos.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/12/20121213-195838.html

NIAGARA FALLS, ON — Animal welfare activist Phil Demers is a disgruntled former Marineland employee, who quit after the park turned down his proposal to film The Walrus Whisperer, a TV series involving him and a walrus, according to a court document filed by Marineland.

But Demers, now a vocal critic of animal conditions at the park, called Marineland’s version of events “absurd.”

Marineland filed a defamation suit Wednesday against Demers’ girlfriend Christine Santos, also a former 12-year employee, over allegations of animal abuse she made to a Toronto newspaper.

In that statement of claim, Marineland says Demers quit in 2012 to force them “to rehire him on terms acceptable to him, including approval of the proposed television series.”

When they didn’t hire him back, the former animal trainer started a “campaign against Marineland” by alleging to a Toronto newspaper animal abuse and neglect was taking place at the park.

Demers was the focus of a 2007 QMI Agency story about the perceived attachment Smooshi, a female walrus, developed with Demers.

Marineland said Demers, and later Santos, proposed to the park a series of business ideas to “personally profit from the alleged ‘imprinting’ of Smooshi on Mr. Demers.”

Marineland says Demers asked the company to market him and Smooshi in a show and for Marineland to sell T-shirts featuring the two together. According to the claim, Demers proposed to sign T-shirts after the show and charge a fee.

Marineland says around August 2011, Demers and Santos obtained a proposal for a reality TV series without the company’s knowledge and permission.

The show was to be set at Marineland “and feature Mr. Demers as its ‘star,’ interacting with Smooshi and other Marineland animals,” according to the court document.

Marineland says it declined the proposal because it would be “contrary to the best interests of the animals, specifically Smooshi,” the claim states.

The claim says Demers and Santos were upset with Marineland’s decision. It says shortly before the 2012 opening day of Marineland, Demers submitted his resignation.

Following his “failed efforts” to be rehired, Demers took part in a series of “self-initiated” interviews with a Toronto newspaper as a “self-described animal activist and member of the animal liberation movement,” Marineland says.

Demers said he couldn’t speak to the version of events described in Marineland’s lawsuit against Santos because she hadn’t been served the legal papers and he hasn’t seen them.
But the suggestion he left Marineland because he was upset the company did not accept his proposal for a television series is “absurd,” he said.

“Marineland’s absurd claims against me personally, and their continued bullying tactics serve only to further reinforce the detailed and documented revelations of animal neglect by the 15 former employees/whistle blowers,” Demers said.

Marineland’s tactic is to “muddy the waters” and distract people from problems that exist at the park, he said.

Santos had her employment at Marineland terminated in October.

Marineland says prior to August 2012, neither Demers nor Santos made allegations of animal abuse to the park or to animal-welfare and inspection organizations.

The allegations in Marineland’s lawsuit against Santos have not been proven in court.

QMI AGency could not reach Santos directly Thursday. Demers maintains she will not be commenting on the lawsuit.

QMI Agency could also not reach Toronto lawyer Paul Koven, who will represent Santos throughout the lawsuit. As of Wednesday, Koven said he had yet to see the claim filed by Marineland’s lawyers. Koven said he will reserve comment until he sees the documents and goes over them with Santos.
In the claim, Marineland is seeking $1.25 million in general and punitive damages from Santos.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/12/20121213-195838.html

Print PDF

BY SAM SPOKONY  |  A teacher at an East Village middle school is under fire for allegedly bullying a 12-year-old student by showing the youth’s confidential medical information to an entire class.

“She feels helpless,” said Chanel Clark, the mother of the girl, who is in seventh grade at the Technology Arts and Sciences Studio School, on First Ave. at 11th St. “It’s been really hard on her, and now that so many of the other kids and teachers know, she’s struggling with the anxiety and depression.”

Clark explained that her daughter has been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or O.D.D. — a medical condition that causes severe behavioral outbursts in school settings, affecting a child’s ability to comply with authority figures and learn classroom material — and is currently in a psychological treatment program at Beth Israel.

As part of that program, the girl’s teachers at TASS were asked to fill out a tracking form to rate her classroom behavior each day.

Clark had instructed all of her daughter’s teachers that those documents were to be kept private. But during his Sept. 28 class, science teacher Benjamin Lewin placed one of the forms on a projector, revealing it to the girl’s peers and leaving her feeling embarrassed and ashamed.

In an e-mail to her mother several days later, Lewin admitted to publicly showing the girl’s form and apologized, saying that it was “completely unintentional,” and that it “will not happen again.”

But Clark still isn’t buying that response.

Calling Lewin’s actions “bully tactics,” she claimed that the teacher has been repeatedly insensitive regarding her daughter’s condition ever since she informed him of the Beth Israel program.

“When I first explained the importance of the tracking forms to [Lewin], he actually made a smart remark to me, and said something like, ‘Oh, I hope she won’t be a zombie in class,’ ” Clark recalled.

She added that, ever since the Sept. 28 incident, her daughter has told her that Lewin is continuing to be a “jerk” to her, and is avoiding teaching her. The girl is currently failing Lewin’s class, even though Clark stressed that she is a bright girl.

Lewin couldn’t be reached for comment.

TASS Principal George Morgan said that he hadn’t taken any disciplinary action against the science teacher, and declined to comment further.

Clark also accused Morgan of insensitivity, saying that he tried to make it seem like she was overreacting to the incident involving Lewin.

“He told both me and my daughter that she had blown the whole thing out proportion,” Clark said. “But the fact is that [Lewin] is an adult, he’s a school official, and he’s supposed to be responsible.”

The matter was initially referred to the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation, which operates independently from the Department of Education. But an S.C.I. representative said on Monday that the matter has since been referred back to D.O.E. — and apparently no investigation was actually conducted.

But Lewin, Morgan, D.O.E. and the city may soon have to face a lawsuit instead.

Clark’s lawyer, Frank Cassisi, said that he is the process of filing a notice of claim — a preliminary action before an actual suit is filed — against all the aforementioned parties for alleged damages resulting from Lewin’s conduct, as well as the teacher’s superiors’ failure to reprimand him.

Cassisi asserted that Lewin’s actions during the Sept. 28 incident violated federal laws that prevent the public disclosure of confidential medical information. He further claimed that, throughout her experiences at TASS, Clark’s daughter’s disability was not adequately handled. Specifically, he said, D.O.E. and TASS never developed an Individualized Education Plan for the girl, which is required under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Meanwhile, Clark said she’s becoming increasingly frustrated by the fact that her daughter must continue to attend TASS after this incident.

“I think it’s just a bad environment for her now,” she said.

Clark had previously attempted to get approval from D.O.E.’s Committee on Special Education to have her daughter transferred out of TASS and into a private school, but the committee denied the request, suggesting that the girl will do better in a public school.

“I disagree,” Clark said. “I think the public school has failed her, and she needs a program that’s more sensitive to her needs.”

Shortlink:

http://www.thevillager.com/?p=9014

Print PDF

BY SAM SPOKONY  |  A teacher at an East Village middle school is under fire for allegedly bullying a 12-year-old student by showing the youth’s confidential medical information to an entire class.

“She feels helpless,” said Chanel Clark, the mother of the girl, who is in seventh grade at the Technology Arts and Sciences Studio School, on First Ave. at 11th St. “It’s been really hard on her, and now that so many of the other kids and teachers know, she’s struggling with the anxiety and depression.”

Clark explained that her daughter has been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, or O.D.D. — a medical condition that causes severe behavioral outbursts in school settings, affecting a child’s ability to comply with authority figures and learn classroom material — and is currently in a psychological treatment program at Beth Israel.

As part of that program, the girl’s teachers at TASS were asked to fill out a tracking form to rate her classroom behavior each day.

Clark had instructed all of her daughter’s teachers that those documents were to be kept private. But during his Sept. 28 class, science teacher Benjamin Lewin placed one of the forms on a projector, revealing it to the girl’s peers and leaving her feeling embarrassed and ashamed.

In an e-mail to her mother several days later, Lewin admitted to publicly showing the girl’s form and apologized, saying that it was “completely unintentional,” and that it “will not happen again.”

But Clark still isn’t buying that response.

Calling Lewin’s actions “bully tactics,” she claimed that the teacher has been repeatedly insensitive regarding her daughter’s condition ever since she informed him of the Beth Israel program.

“When I first explained the importance of the tracking forms to [Lewin], he actually made a smart remark to me, and said something like, ‘Oh, I hope she won’t be a zombie in class,’ ” Clark recalled.

She added that, ever since the Sept. 28 incident, her daughter has told her that Lewin is continuing to be a “jerk” to her, and is avoiding teaching her. The girl is currently failing Lewin’s class, even though Clark stressed that she is a bright girl.

Lewin couldn’t be reached for comment.

TASS Principal George Morgan said that he hadn’t taken any disciplinary action against the science teacher, and declined to comment further.

Clark also accused Morgan of insensitivity, saying that he tried to make it seem like she was overreacting to the incident involving Lewin.

“He told both me and my daughter that she had blown the whole thing out proportion,” Clark said. “But the fact is that [Lewin] is an adult, he’s a school official, and he’s supposed to be responsible.”

The matter was initially referred to the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation, which operates independently from the Department of Education. But an S.C.I. representative said on Monday that the matter has since been referred back to D.O.E. — and apparently no investigation was actually conducted.

But Lewin, Morgan, D.O.E. and the city may soon have to face a lawsuit instead.

Clark’s lawyer, Frank Cassisi, said that he is the process of filing a notice of claim — a preliminary action before an actual suit is filed — against all the aforementioned parties for alleged damages resulting from Lewin’s conduct, as well as the teacher’s superiors’ failure to reprimand him.

Cassisi asserted that Lewin’s actions during the Sept. 28 incident violated federal laws that prevent the public disclosure of confidential medical information. He further claimed that, throughout her experiences at TASS, Clark’s daughter’s disability was not adequately handled. Specifically, he said, D.O.E. and TASS never developed an Individualized Education Plan for the girl, which is required under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Meanwhile, Clark said she’s becoming increasingly frustrated by the fact that her daughter must continue to attend TASS after this incident.

“I think it’s just a bad environment for her now,” she said.

Clark had previously attempted to get approval from D.O.E.’s Committee on Special Education to have her daughter transferred out of TASS and into a private school, but the committee denied the request, suggesting that the girl will do better in a public school.

“I disagree,” Clark said. “I think the public school has failed her, and she needs a program that’s more sensitive to her needs.”

Shortlink:

http://www.thevillager.com/?p=9014