It's common knowledge among adults that the sexting craze among teenagers has to be the nuttiest departure from normal behavior since the goldfish-swallowing fad began in the 1930's.
Back then, the only harm came to the goldfish.
Sexting can lead to irreparable, lifelong harm, even suicide, for teens.
For those still unaware, sexting is an outgrowth of the ubiquitous cell phone and has encouraged teenagers, particularly but not exclusively young girls, to push and exceed the limits of discretion by transmitting revealing pictures of themselves and/or "talk dirty" on their cells, which pictures and talk can then become property of the internet when the recipients post them on websites.
Sexting is undoubtedly a serious social problem that can develop into other problems as critical as texting while driving.
Both can result in severe injuries and sexting has already resulted in teen suicides when their nude and semi-nude photos become public.
All that said, the new New York City Department of Education proposed policy on sexting is an absurd exercise in an unenforceable and excessive abuse of power.
New York's public school chancellor Joel Steinberg defended the idea by saying, "We've always been respectful of first amendment rights.
I think we'll get the right balance here.
" "Here" referred to the plan to cut down on both cyber bullying and sexting by making them punishable and suspendable offenses.
Admirable.
Except that the plan does not merely apply to students in school during school hours; it applies to student actions 24/7.
According to a report on WCBSTV.
com, "Not only does the Department of Education want to ban sexually explicit text messaging that students may do off hours on nights, weekends and summer vacation, but they also want to punish them for it, handing out up to a 90-day suspension:" http://tiny.
cc/zsom5 Chancellor Steinberg must not be aware of a couple of realities.
First is the constitutional right of free speech as set forth in the First Amendment.
Second is the total impracticality and unenforceability of a proposal that would apply to student behaviors, socially unacceptable or not, that take place off school grounds and after the school day, indeed after the school year.
Predictably, the proposal met with all but universal rejection by students.
Less predictably, parental reaction was mixed with some opposed and some tentatively approving on the basis that whatever works to reduce cyber bullying and sexting can't be all bad.
What students do on their free time is the responsibility of students and should be monitored by their parents or guardians.
The principle of in loco parentis, acting in place of a parent, is a legal responsibility of educational institutions to act in students' best interests.
In loco parentis is inapplicable when it violates civil liberties.
It's certainly in the best interests of kids for schools to attempt to curtail both bullying and sexting but for schools to try to, or believe they have the right to, snoop on any activities conducted when kids are off premises is repugnant and more akin to life in Orwell's Oceania than to life in America.
I hate being aligned with the ACLU but it appears that sometimes, if rarely, even they are right.