Brian (binarypunisher) wrote in bhsunderground,

For those who havent already seen this:
Image hosted by

That article appeared in Nathan Hales newspaper, and is relating to the MySpace scandal.

My points on it:

1.) Dr. Uhl isnt referred to as a Dean - only as an LA teacher, why? It seems to me it doesnt really matter that hes an LA teacher, but it does matter that hes a Dean.
2.) How did he invade your privacy? Anyone can do that, from wherever in the world. Its called the Internet, get with it people.
3.) You dont have to sign a contract to view someones profile, only pictures and their friends lists.
4.) I fail to see how MySpace as a "private domain" (I think its actually corporate - but ill let that slide) matters, or how the contract you sign matters to this issue.
5.) The 1st Amendment doesnt apply to this situation...duh...Lets see how it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...". Its not "Blanchet shall make no law...".
6.) Bullshit, I dont buy what Uhl says. Theres so many people claiming that they were threatened, I dont see how every single one of them is lying. And about "denying the attempts to cleanse Blanchets image", bullshit again. Its about the parents? That makes Blanchets argument even weaker. Saying it was "for the parents" makes it sound much more like an invasion of privacy, than covering the schools ass.
7.) This is great too, "One student who posted sexual material on her account was kicked out of the house by her father, and is now "living with friends, married to a thirty year old guy"". Does someone who knows this story want to tell me about this? I fail to see how it relates to this at all.
8.) This is my favorite part: "As the senior said to Uhl in an email, "Even my lawyer dont are still a rotten person with no morals. I would think that working at a Catholic school where morals are held at such a high standard that the teachers would have to be able to abide by them too."" hahahah, Im having trouble beginning on this one. This guys one to start talking about morals...Now, I find no wrong with what he did originally (sex, drugs, and alcohol), its his business not mine, but he broke the law. Someone explain to me how breaking the law in this case is ethical and moral. In fact, I think sex "out of wedlock" (or whatever bullshit term they use), drugs, and under-age drinking are traditionally considered unethical and unmoral. Again, I find no fault with what he did, but he broke the law as it is, and hasnt seemed to realize it quite yet.
Now this lawyer seems like a real piece of work too. He said Uhl was a "rotten person with no morals"?!? Wheres his professionalism?!?! If the lawyer in fact did say that, and would go on the record about it (or it could be proven that he did), I wonder about the lawyers credibility. You just dont say that, especially in a job like that, towards another "professional".
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
wow...thats just SILLY.

it's also a shitty article.
"One student who posted sexual material on her account was kicked out of the house by her father, and is now "living with friends, married to a thirty year old guy"

This was the main reason why there was a huge influx of people joining myspace; to see if it was really true. I heard from a friend that this girl got kicked out of her house. I think that is pretty accurate, but I am a little skeptical about the fact that she married a 30 yr old man...I also agree that this information has no relevance to the article at all.
This is a terrible, terrible article that I don't think was actually seriously researched in the least bit. I'm actually offended.

There is a completely logical reason why Uhl/Hickey deemed it completely necessary to run oft with their tails between their legs to Butler, but NEITHER of those reasons are properly covered in this article.

The main thing that got Uhl in trouble was slander, because he was accusing him of underaged drinking when the only evidence they had was him holding a can of beer. Could've been empty, he could've never brought it to his lips... There is absolutely nothing illegal about taking a picture depicting a minor with a beer in their hand. The point is, Uhl going around saying that without actual proof (and of course, the only pseudo-proof he had could only be spread against contract) held him VERY open to a civil lawsuit, especially because Alex that pristine choirboy image to uphold.

By the way, no lawyer would've said that, and this article is bullshit. Nathan Hale should be the one worrying about image issues for letting garbage like this being printed in their name.

As for 7, Anna Menendez still lives at home, I'm pretty sure. ugh. this pains me to look at.

Deleted comment

hey man. I said I was offended, I didn't say I was Edward fucking Murrow.
dr. uhl language arts my butt. haha how pathetic