No, the policy in question is in regards to BAGS, as in larger bags such as book bags, backpacks, etc. It is quite possible this kid's bag exceeds a size limit of purses allowed in classrooms. The author simply chose (as usual) to not provide the actual facts of the story in order to create outrage, mislead readers,…

The rule is not about purses - it's about bags, as in book bags, backpacks and other larger bags that the teachers decided were too heavy, large and cumbersome and created too much clutter in the classrooms. It is possible there is a size restriction on purses allowed in classrooms that this kid's exceeds.

Bags - not purses. And it applies to taking them into classrooms for their core classes (weight and bulkiness is the issue) - not bringing them to school in general. If I can find that info as quickly and easily as I did, so should the author (or anyone else) be able to. But then again, the author isn't exactly…

There's a difference between purses and bags, such as this bag, book bags, backpacks, etc.

Superintendent Don Blome told Raw Story that middle school students were forbidden from bringing their bags to class. He said the policy was applied fairly to male and female students.

Yeah yeah they do. Which you (and the author) would know if either of you bothered to actually read the story linked to in the article.

The only ones confused here are the author and all of you supporting commenters.

A bigger contribution is people like this author with her misleading story who doesn't even bother to read the story to which she links. But I highly doubt you will call her out on it.

This is jezebel - it's not about actual facts.

Do you even bother reading the stories to which you link..?

The problem here is (as usual) the lack of any actual research:

"We weren't a inner-city oh-there's-gang-violence-or-something-like-that school either, we were the middle class white school but we had so many problem kids... Given what absolute dregs of humanity attended..."

Obviously the law does not depend on you and I agreeing here - but being that you won't name the statute (or a specific case), you leave me unconvinced (and I'm sure that you don't care - nor do I expect you to).

Yes, they are defenses to two different specific charges - but both apply to the scenario I described.

I think you missed the "secretly" part - as well as the Legal Defenses part. Standing on the street - or sidewalk - and pointing a camera at someone's house is not doing it "secretly" nor is it trespassing on private property. If their bedroom curtains are open, then they are opening the view of their bedroom to the…

You might feel imposed upon or "violated" when someone takes your photo in public, but it is not a Violation in terms of the Law. There is literally no possible way to enforce any law that says you cannot photograph someone when they are out in public and in plain view, unless cameras in public were outlawed…

Well, based on what a quick search got me, it seems even in California: http://www.shouselaw.com/peeping-tom-la…

Funny how all you women on here are so eager to buy into completely misleading, selectively "reported" and fully biased, inaccurate stories - but if a man offers you one single little piece of actual fact regarding the issue, you all fly off the handle with your juvenile fucking penis insults and think it makes you…

Except in places like bathrooms, etc. - no, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public - and you don't have a "right" not to be photographed when out in public. "Public" is kind of the opposite of "private".

Ugh - that doctor... pure evil. Glad he killed himself. I hope the class-action participants get every last dime of his estate.