Principal Vs Parents - Did You Watch It? Thoughts?

CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 19:00
Last edited 03/03/2020 - 20:24

Hi Ozbargain world.. I know this is a strange topic for a 'bargain' site but was interested in people's thoughts about the 60mins episode that aired Sunday night about the School Principal vs Parents defamation battle? The Principal won the court case (after 4yrs) which now sets a precedence for others to sue for defamatory comments…

For those who may 'have' missed it here is the link to watch it - Principal vs Parents

7News had over 100k views on their FB page about the story last Friday night and have 1k+ Comments. The media have given different views on the matter and wondered what people's thoughts were?

TIA

Poll Options

  • 42
    Yes - I agree with the Principal
  • 6
    Unsure - not enough information to form an opinion
  • 4
    No - I agree with the parents
  • 0
    Other - see comment below
Education & Work

Comments

  • gooddealmate on 03/03/2020 - 19:14
    +1

    Just be careful what you say here. She'll be watching.

    • CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 19:18
      +2

      Pretty sure we can have a mature conversation about it, right? My own opinion is those Parents have some serious mental health issues and I feel sorry for them… to a certain degree. Pretty disgraceful about the house damage though.

      • gooddealmate on 03/03/2020 - 19:23
        +1

        Not quite sure they told the whole story, there were a few bits missing as to why they were so opiononated about the teacher.

        • CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 19:48
          +2

          Yeah agree that there would be a lot more info that was missed/left out by the Jurno's. However, the home attack and he had the opportunity to say in hindsight that probably wasn't the best idea and yet he says he'd do it again?! That's messed up imo.

  • Agarwal on 03/03/2020 - 19:25
    +4

    'may have missed it'

    • CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 19:49

      Lol - for those living under a rock.. ;)

      • kahn on 03/03/2020 - 20:18
        +1

        Agarwal was pointing out your bad spelling. "may of missed it" -> "may have missed it".

        • CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 20:23
          +1

          Ahhh - yes got me on that one! Thanks for the pick up. It was grammar though - not spelling ;) I'm usually pretty good with those.

          Fixed ;)

    • Diji1 on 03/03/2020 - 20:56

      I missed it because I don't watch content with harmful commercials.

      Oh and I think commercial news and current affairs are for people who are either stupid or just have no standards.

      When I say missed I don't mean I wish I'd seen it.

      • gooddealmate on 03/03/2020 - 22:33
        +3

        You should have watched, if you did, you might have learnt that it could cause problems and possible legal proceedings by posting incendiary or derogatory comments towards others on an online forum.

        A bit like you have just done…again.

        I watch commercial news and current affairs and take offence to the fact you refer to those viewers as 'stupid' and 'have no standards'…

  • [Deactivated] on 03/03/2020 - 19:56
    +9

    Lol.

    The parents defending themselves are absolutely terrible people.

    "Standing up for the little people." Don't you hate this line?

    Their kid got expelled and they're defending the kid's action as once off, unprecedented and ultimately not even their fault as they were "egged on".

    Come on. Seriously. Come on.

    I wish the principal all the best. May her lawsuits be bountiful.

    • p1 ama on 03/03/2020 - 22:37

      Thought you were a conservative warrior. What about free speech? Are we not allowed to air grievances about others on social media now?

      • [Deactivated] on 03/03/2020 - 22:59
        +12

        Defamation and incitement of violence are the two very well defined and major exceptions to protected speech.

        They are free to air grievances. They are not free to air lies. They are very much culpable when the lies can be proven to cause damage. They are downright criminal when on top of the defamation damage they cause physical damage.

        • p1 ama on 03/03/2020 - 23:45

          The physical damage caused is completely separate to the comments that were made. Whoever caused the physical damage should be caught and prosecuted. I agree with you on that.

          The woman wrote that the principal was a "nasty, horrible person". Another woman wrote that she was a "liar, manipulator, a bully". I don't understand how this is slanderous.

          For the record, I think that what the parents are doing is stupid and they're being whiny, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to free speech. I'm certainly not a conservative, but I do agree with some conservative principles - the absolute right to free speech being one of them. We shouldn't be censoring someone because someone else got triggered.

          • HighAndDry on 04/03/2020 - 13:42
            +1

            @p1 ama: Mere insults aren't defamation. If you read the case, found here:

            https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2020/15

            You can see what was actually said that was found to be defamatory.

            Edit: for example, it was found that calling her nasty and horrible was insulting but fine, but that:

            She makes my blood boil and bought so much pain and stress upon our family and many others. All because our kids aren’t ‘A’ students which will affect her overall school ratings.”

            Was defamatory, as it's an accusation she treats lower performing students unfairly for self interest.

    • HighAndDry on 04/03/2020 - 13:33
      +1

      At least it's no mystery where the kids learnt to behave like they did.

  • djkelly69 on 03/03/2020 - 20:04
    +5

    Not really sure how it sets a precedent - if you defame someone, you can be held liable for the damage caused. It is up to the courts to decide if it was defamation or not. Can't see how this decision changes anything.

    The 'parents' did seem to have some issues, but ultimately there would have been a lot of opportunity to settle the matter before it went as far as it did, which they chose not to do. Can't really cry foul after the fact when they rolled the dice in that way.

    I don't think there are any winners except the lawyers in a 4 year court battle over some facebook comments.

    • CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 20:12
      +5

      Yeah completely agree with all what you said except for the precedent part. This is a first for teachers, from what I've read. No teacher has taken it this far and won. Gives others in the teaching world some hope that online bullies can be sued and at the least, may cause others/parents to think twice before becoming a keyboard warrior.

      • p1 ama on 03/03/2020 - 22:47
        -3

        So just to be clear, you think that someone should get sued because they hurt someone else's feelings? Don't you think that's just a bit totalitarian?

        • CrocDundee on 03/03/2020 - 22:50
          +6

          to be completely clear - I think anyone who wants to go online and post the sort of comments that were made about the Principal are cowards. To be even more clear - I believe if you defame someone where their life/work is based on your character and you want to publicly, without facts or truth, destroy that then yeah, you should be sued.

          • p1 ama on 03/03/2020 - 22:56

            @CrocDundee: Whether they're cowards or not is irrelevant. Plenty of people do things I would consider to be cowardly.

            Regarding your main point, I think this is particularly problematic. Where do you draw the line at which someone can no longer be honest about their assessment of someone's character.

            The only reason why this irks me is because none of these statements can factually be proven true or false. For example, if the parents came out and said that the principal molested their child or something, then yes, that is completely defamatory and the parents should be sued. However, all the parents did was basically say she's a bad person, along with a whole host of other things that are simply not facts. How can you ascertain whether "person X is a bad person" is a true/false statement? You see what I mean?

            Are we not allowed to, at all, comment on another person's character?

            • [Deactivated] on 03/03/2020 - 23:02
              +3

              @p1 ama: There were statements made about the principal that wasn't subjective.

              It is literally within the first few seconds of the video.

            • CrocDundee on 04/03/2020 - 10:33
              +1

              @p1 ama: @p1 ama - Yeah definitely, you can judge another person's character and discuss in the CORRECT setting. The issue here is social media where people are making false statements about a Principal.

              I could go online and say, p1 ama is a pedophile because I saw you walking down the street with a little child. How is that okay?! The parents here clearly had a grudge with the principal and didn't care about the truth and just went on venting mission to cause hurt.

              Teachers are community figures where character is #1. You defame a teachers character then it doesn't matter if it is true or not, you've gone online and destroyed their life because as we know, people run with half truths and baseless statements and claim them as facts.

              It is a little concerning that you don't seem to get that point? However, I do respect that you have a differing view of mine which is totally okay. That is how mature adults should have conversations about disagreements.

              • p1 ama on 04/03/2020 - 13:24

                @CrocDundee:

                Yeah definitely, you can judge another person's character and discuss in the CORRECT setting.

                So who defines what is the correct setting and what is not the correct setting?

                I could go online and say, p1 ama is a pedophile because I saw you walking down the street with a little child. How is that okay?! The parents here clearly had a grudge with the principal and didn't care about the truth and just went on venting mission to cause hurt.

                This isn't what is occurring. They are not saying that the principal is a pedophile, a murderer or that the teacher molested their child. The woman wrote that the principal was a "nasty, horrible person". Another woman wrote that she was a "liar, manipulator, a bully". Neither of these statements are things which can either be proven false or not false.

                Teachers are community figures where character is #1. You defame a teachers character then it doesn't matter if it is true or not, you've gone online and destroyed their life because as we know, people run with half truths and baseless statements and claim them as facts.

                I'm a teacher, so I understand this fact. However, what's being said here can apply to anybody in any profession from any walk of life. We all have the right to criticise others and others all have the right to criticise us.

                It is a little concerning that you don't seem to get that point?

                I find it a little concerning that you don't seem to understand the opposite point. What if someone wishes to speak out about their school principal but now choose not to due to the fear of being taken to court. How many problems in society have been caused by people not being able to speak the truth?

                I should note that I'm not endorsing what the parents or the principal are doing at all. I'm simply saying that the parents have the right to air their grievances and that we should not allow our sympathy for the principal crying on national TV to sway our opinion on the free speech rights of the parents.

                However, I do respect that you have a differing view of mine which is totally okay. That is how mature adults should have conversations about disagreements.

                Same here.

                • CrocDundee on 04/03/2020 - 13:57
                  +2

                  @p1 ama: Thanks for the reply. I'll try respond the best way possible but we might be too far apart in understanding about this.

                  1st - Who defines the setting? I note that you said you are teacher and if you don't already know this than that is concerning as a teacher. After attempting to sort out the issues with the Principal first, The education department is where you go. There is a protocol you follow if you don't agree with any decision made by the Principal. Every parent should know this. However, the answer is NEVER social media.

                  2nd - Maybe you don't know or are naive so to give you a little more background (I saw the original posts and comments that were made including the parents of this case and I know why the Media didn't publish all of the original comments) there were extreme comments made that imply exactly what I outlined as my example, and worse. These parents agreed with those original posts and added there own comments. The original poster of the viral heinous comments must have apologised, along with the several parents who settled out of court. The parents of this case wouldn't apologise and continued on with their rant. So this is exactly what is occurring.

                  3rd - You being a teacher makes this even more confusing to me that you seem to think the action of the parents are justified somehow? I refer to my 1st point that there is a correct path to judge/criticize a teacher. Social Media is not the answer. Even worse, destroying the Principals property and scaring the children in that manner is just down right disgusting!

                  4th - You should know now what the correct path is and our opinions obviously differ in this regard.

                  5th - Good chat!

                  • p1 ama on 04/03/2020 - 14:14
                    -2

                    @CrocDundee:

                    I'll try respond the best way possible but we might be too far apart in understanding about this.

                    I think you're still completely misunderstanding what I'm saying if you think this. By and large I actually agree with you almost completely. The only point where we seem to differ is whether the parents have the right to say the things they did.

                    I never actually said that what they did was good, effective or that they even should do what they did. In fact, I made it pretty clear that what they're saying is pretty stupid and probably won't get them the results that they themselves want.

                    However, despite my personal disagreement with them, I would not censor them. This is the main point. I think you're confusing me saying that they have the right to say what they said with me endorsing what they said or their actions. I'm simply defending their right to air their opinions without fear or recourse.

      • Almost Banned on 03/03/2020 - 23:13

        Absolutely zero precedent was set by this case - unless every case is setting precedent because there isn't one exactly identical to it before.

  • askme69 on 03/03/2020 - 20:22

    ..

  • netjock on 03/03/2020 - 22:42
    +3

    Usually when parents get mad at the teachers it is them getting mad that their outsourcing strategy isn't going to fix the problem (child) they have created.

    They've spent the first 4 years at home. They go to school 9-3 weekdays like 40 weeks a year. Most of the time they spend with their parents or grand parents, who do you think has the greatest influence on a child's behavior.

  • p1 ama on 03/03/2020 - 22:44
    -5

    I think the entire saga is stupid and I couldn't care less about the actual feud between the principal and the parents.

    My view on the "parents vs. principal" issue is that the principal had the right to expel their son, they have the right to criticise what the principal did and let the world know what they think of her. Should have been thrown out of court as a petty personal fight.

    However, that said, I think the decision by the court is terrible. This is an attack on free speech and basically censorship, given that the parents were giving their assessment of another person's character. Defamation through libel and slander is notoriously difficult to win, particularly if you are a public figure (as a principal is). As much as I sympathise with the principal, free speech is such that people will sometimes say things that we do not like and things that hurt our feelings. The social contract we have in order to protect our free speech rights is that we accept our feelings may sometimes be hurt so that we can say things which hurt others' feelings.

    The way the media has spun this case is also pretty stupid. This isn't really a "parents vs. principal" article, it should be about the fact that the next time you give your opinion on someone online, you could be sued for it.

    • ozhunter on 04/03/2020 - 03:34

      This is an attack on free speech and basically censorship, given that the parents were giving their assessment of another person's character.

      Don't know exactly what was said, but the cases against the other two parents were dismissed.

      Ms Brose was reinstated to principal a few months later and commenced legal proceedings against eight of the 34 individuals who posted criticism, the judgment said.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-28/mount-tambourine-scho…

      Not suing all of them(maybe due to legal costs) I think says she not opposed to criticism

    • CrocDundee on 04/03/2020 - 10:00

      @p1 ama - I think your perception on what 'Free Speech' and 'Defamation' are might be a little off. Totally agree that people can judge another persons character based on their own experience and although I wouldn't rant about it on social media, I understand some people do. However, you start defaming with comments that were used (the media only put a selection of comments in their article) expect to have legal action taken against you. There were a lot more serious comments made by these parents that if shared even further by the media, could have had serious ramifications on them (I recall Rebel Wilson going down this path?).

      Remember - several families settled out of court and even before it went to court, some apologised. There comments were not shared by the media. The crazy parents who took it to the end had every chance to end it. They chose not to so are now in this predicament of their own doing..

      furthermore - I heard the man say 'proudly' in the 60mins interview that during the meeting with the Principal and Deputy Principal (regarding the incident with their son), "You stand up and look out that window" speaking to the DP, "I am here to speak to the head, not the AR$#!" This is even before it blew up into a court battle. What type of person does that?!

      In this day and age where online bullying is rife among adolescent children, the parents in this case are a poor example of how to act.

  • backpaqer on 04/03/2020 - 07:56
    -1

    I didn't watch, but going by feeling, it won't be long until you need a licence to breed.

  • crashloaded on 04/03/2020 - 08:51
    +1

    I thought it was wrong that they said there was no real winners in a case like this, they forgot about the lawyers.

    The parents were dumb, they should have just apologised and moved on with their lives, now they have stress that will stay with them for a long time.

  • OzHunterNSW on 04/03/2020 - 10:18
    +6

    HaHaHaHa Un-educated armchair parents thinking they know better… look at them now - bankrupt, and still want to fight.
    It is these "un-educated" parents that run down to the school accusing teachers of calling "Johnny" a C**T…. it ends up being that "Johnny" comes from a dysfunctional family where the only show of seemingly love, is expressed in the "un-educated" flatter getting off the lounge to race down to the school and confront these teachers. The child is actually calling for help… exposing his abusive dysfunctional parents hoping someone will take them away.

    • Daeson on 04/03/2020 - 11:03

      I wish I could +100 this.

  • del preston on 04/03/2020 - 13:42
    +5

    “Revengance” 😑

    • CrocDundee on 04/03/2020 - 14:07

      That made me laugh! I actually feel sorry for the parents because they are clearly delusional and have mental health issues. They need some serious help.

    • Daeson on 06/03/2020 - 09:02

      That was a pretty good Metal Gear game from memory :P

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join