Schools punishing kids for what they say online

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Schools punishing kids for what they say online

By Rebecca Neal
[email protected]

A growing number of school officials in the Indianapolis area are trying to punish students for Internet commentary they deem inappropriate -- including postings on home computers -- drawing outrage from teens and free-speech advocates.

One student has been expelled at one school, another suspended. One school district has warned students they are legally responsible for postings; another will vote on a similar policy this month.

"Kids look at the Internet as today's restroom wall," said Steve Dillon, director of student services for Carmel Clay Schools. "They need to learn that some things are not acceptable anywhere."

Carmel High School used its harassment and bullying policy to expel a student Dillon said posted sexually explicit comments about a teacher on MySpace. A second Carmel student was suspended for 10 days and given community service for posting racially offensive comments about a teacher on the site, he said.

Another area school district, Clark-Pleasant in Whiteland, is trying to pass a policy that puts students -- and teachers -- on notice that they are legally responsible for anything they post online, including material deemed defamatory, obscene, proprietary or libelous. The proposed policy will come before the School Board on Oct. 17. Beech Grove passed a similar policy in the spring. "If something starts online and spills into school, we want to be able to deal with that and restore order to the school," said Clark-Pleasant Director of Technology Jim White, who crafted the district's proposed policy on responding to Internet activity.

While educators worry that postings on Web sites such as MySpace can disrupt learning, students see controlling what they post outside school as a threat to their right of free speech.

Civil rights advocates are on their side, worrying that the new policies extend government's reach too far into the personal lives of students.

"It's chilling and gives the effect that people don't know what they can and cannot say," said Henry Karlson, a professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. "How disruptive does it have to be for the school to be able to control it?"

MySpace and other social networking sites are an integral part of tech-savvy teens' worlds. Students post everything from photos and homemade videos to journals chronicling their crushes, vacations and school experiences.

To these kids, the idea of new controls is troubling.

"The school system has no right to sit there and tell us what we can and cannot do at home," said 17-year-old Kayla Wiggington, a junior at Clark-Pleasant's Whiteland Community High School who uses MySpace to keep in touch with friends. "They can control what we do at school, but when it gets home, the only people who can tell us what to do is our parents, not the school."

At this point, only a few schools in the metro area have policies targeting what students can say online. But virtually all block access on school computers to sites such as MySpace and Facebook, where students can post photos, text and other material, and the online journals known as blogs on Web sites such as LiveJournal and Xanga.

Dillon said the Carmel Clay district hoped its cases would serve as a warning to students.

"We wanted to find a couple students, prove it was them, apply discipline and then let the word get out to the other kids," he said.

Who should monitor kids?

Schools, however, must remember that students do have significant First Amendment rights in school, said Karlson, the law professor.

He said most of the policies he's reviewed do not define disruptions clearly.
"The control of student speech should be in the hands of the parents, not the school, when children are out of school," he said. "It's unfortunate that the school is regulating student activities instead of parents doing that."
The Indiana School Boards Association has seen a rise in the number of schools inquiring about disciplining students based on Internet postings and the need for new policies.

"Lots of schools are asking what they can do," said Julie Slavens, the association's staff attorney. "In the past six months, I've had more calls than ever before."

She said the association reminds schools that students do have free-speech rights, but that students must remember that anyone -- parents, principals and potential employers -- has access to what they say online.

"We're educating kids that people are watching what they say and do online," she said, "and that it's not as private as they think."

Whiteland junior Logan Sappington uses MySpace to promote his acoustic guitar duo, Hopeless Romantics. He said it's fine for schools to use the policies when physical threats are made against students, but he questions whether administrators will go too far in spying on students' lives outside school and in trampling on their free-speech rights.

"I think they should notify the parents if they hear of something," said Sappington, 17. "In the end, this is just gossip. That's all that's on MySpace -- gossip."

Slavens, the attorney, said students should be prepared for more policies -- and monitoring -- to come.

"MySpace and other sites really have a life of their own," she said. "We're going to see more and more of this in the next few months."

A few local schools' policies on Internet usage

Here are three examples of policies local school districts have adopted or are considering adopting regarding Internet postings:

Beech Grove
"Computer Usage Infractions -- Actions that do not adhere to the provisions of the authorized user policy or federal law with regard to computer facilities and equipment. Creating e-mails, Web blogs, Web sites, etc. . . . with the intent to harass, ridicule, humiliate, intimidate, or harm individuals."

Carmel Clay
"The superintendent is directed to establish administrative guidelines to ensure that students and staff are making appropriate and ethical use of computers, other equipment and networks. The superintendent shall establish administrative guidelines which comply with federal and state laws and are in accordance with any guidelines promulgated by the State Department of Education.

The superintendent shall also ensure that staff and students are adequately informed about disciplinary actions that will be taken if corporation technology and/or networks are abused in any way or used in an illegal or unethical manner."

Clark-Pleasant (remains under consideration)
Excerpt: "When you choose to publicly air your opinions via a blog, you are legally responsible for your commentary. Individual bloggers can be held personally liable for any commentary deemed to be defamatory, obscene (not swear words, but rather the legal definition of "obscene"), proprietary or libelous. For these reasons, bloggers should exercise caution with regards to exaggeration, colorful language, guesswork, obscenity, copyrighted materials, legal conclusions and derogatory remarks or characteristics."

Sources: Beech Grove, Carmel Clay and Clark-Pleasant school districts



SOME BLOGGING CASES
As schools across the country adopt blogging policies, parents have challenged their constitutionality. Here are a few cases stemming from the policies:

Colorado: Littleton High School junior Bryan Lopez was suspended after posting comments about his school on MySpace.com in February. On his profile, he discussed the poor condition of his school building and the perceived racial biases of teachers and staff. Lopez contested his suspension and was reinstated.

Ohio: Eighth-grader Jessica Schoch was expelled after posting a parody profile of a school administrator on MySpace in the spring. The Holland, Ohio, teen protested the expulsion, claiming the profile was free speech. The Springfield School Board later reversed the expulsion.

Pennsylvania: Student rapper Anthony Latour, Ellwood City, posted his original rap lyrics and recordings on the Internet. Latour, then 14, and a friend engaged in "battle rap," trying to one-up each other with violent lyrics. Anthony was expelled in May 2005 because of the violent lyrics and arrested and charged with terroristic threatening, though the charges were later dropped. He sued the Riverside Beaver County School District, which settled with Latour's family for $90,000. Latour has since filed a lawsuit against the officers who arrested him.

-- Star research

[Trainwreck2100]

Any kid that is stupid enough to post shit about their school on a public forum deserves it, if they went on TV and said that stuff the same would be expected.

Talk shit about your parents, you stupid emo bastards, but when you are stupid enough to attack a school official where anyone in the school can see it you deserve what you get.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Any kid that is stupid enough to post shit about their school on a public forum deserves it, if they went on TV and said that stuff the same would be expected.

Talk shit about your parents, you stupid emo bastards, but when you are stupid enough to attack a school official where anyone in the school can see it you deserve what you get.

They don't deserve to have their right to free speech restricted.

Look at that Colorado case at the bottom.

[dirk4mvp]

That's bullshit.

[Trainwreck2100]

They don't deserve to have their right to free speech restricted.

Look at that Colorado case at the bottom.


School's do have the right to quash certain rights though, the easiest example is search and seizure. The USSC ruled that school's can search anybody if the need is there.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

School's do have the right to quash certain rights though, the easiest example is search and seizure. The USSC ruled that school's can search anybody if the need is there.

True, but we're not talking about students and privacy rights.

[MannyIsGod]

This is pretty much complete bullshit. Students can say whatever they want about another individual when not at school. Whats next, if a student tells another student at home that one of his teachers is a "stupid cunt" then he gets expelled if school officials find out?

[Trainwreck2100]

This is pretty much complete bullshit. Students can say whatever they want about another individual when not at school. Whats next, if a student tells another student at home that one of his teachers is a "stupid cunt" then he gets expelled if school officials find out?


Here's the thing Myspace isn't a private convo between you and your friend it's basically a public forum. If the student goes on television and says the teacher is a stupid cunt would a suspension be expected then. What if he hands out flyers with the teacher's picture and stupid cunt written on it. Wouldn't you expect a suspension for those cases, how is MySpace any different.

[Leetonidas]

Here's the thing Myspace isn't a private convo between you and your friend it's basically a public forum. If the student goes on television and says the teacher is a stupid cunt would a suspension be expected then. What if he hands out flyers with the teacher's picture and stupid cunt written on it. Wouldn't you expect a suspension for those cases, how is MySpace any different.

Free Speech. We're not in school so why should we be governed by school in our homes? It's serious bullshit, and school districts need to seriously back the fuck off.

Watch me fucking get arrested for saying that too.

From 8:50 to 4:05, I'm a prisoner in school, but when that bell rings and I go home, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Here's the thing Myspace isn't a private convo between you and your friend it's basically a public forum. If the student goes on television and says the teacher is a stupid cunt would a suspension be expected then. What if he hands out flyers with the teacher's picture and stupid cunt written on it. Wouldn't you expect a suspension for those cases, how is MySpace any different.

No, I wouldn't expect a suspension.

Students don't lose their first amendment rights when they walk through the door to a school.

Tinker v. Des Moines ISD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_ District

[Trainwreck2100]

No, I wouldn't expect a suspension.

Students don't lose their first amendment rights when they walk through the door to a school.

Tinker v. Des Moines ISD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_ District

So you think a school can just sit by and do nothing when someone publically insults a school official

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

So you think a school can just sit by and do nothing when someone publically insults a school official

If I publically insult you, what's the difference?

[Trainwreck2100]

If I publically insult you, what's the difference?



I'd be hurt for one thing what did I do to you?

I'm not your authority figure, I'm sure somewhere in the handbook of any school there's something against going after faculty. A teacher's job is hard enough without some little punk posting something on a board because he can't say it to the person's face without disciplinary action. What is the difference between walking up to a teacher and saying "you are a stupid cunt" and posting it on MySpace.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

What is the difference between walking up to a teacher and saying "you are a stupid cunt" and posting it on MySpace.

There is no difference. In fact, they're the same in that it's protected speech.

The argument here is whether or not schools can do this outside of the classroom environment. There are legal rules in schools about disrupting the learning environment, which are how schools can regulate a student that calls a teacher a stupid cunt, not specifically for the language or speech.

It can be in handbooks all they want (see some of the examples I posted from the IndyStar), it doesn't make it legal.

So what type of speech should be restricted from schools? What part of Tinker is wrong? What if the students had worn armbands outside of the school and were disciplined by the school?

I'm almost certain you're not agreeing that the Tinker kids could have been disciplined for protesting the war outside of school, so what type of speech is subject to disciplinary action? Speech you find vulgar?

[Trainwreck2100]

I could care less about vulgar speech, I just don't like that HS student's think they can do whatever they want, If you go and post shit on your MySpace insulting your boss do you think you are above reprisal?

[Leetonidas]

There is no difference. In fact, they're the same in that it's protected speech.

The argument here is whether or not schools can do this outside of the classroom environment. There are legal rules in schools about disrupting the learning environment, which are how schools can regulate a student that calls a teacher a stupid cunt, not specifically for the language or speech.

It can be in handbooks all they want (see some of the examples I posted from the IndyStar), it doesn't make it legal.

So what type of speech should be restricted from schools? What part of Tinker is wrong? What if the students had worn armbands outside of the school and were disciplined by the school?

I'm almost certain you're not agreeing that the Tinker kids could have been disciplined for protesting the war outside of school, so what type of speech is subject to disciplinary action? Speech you find vulgar?

I see what you're saying. It's not like if the Tinker kids wore the armbands and posted pictures of them on MySpace they would have gotten suspended.

[Trainwreck2100]

I see what you're saying. It's not like if the Tinker kids wore the armbands and posted pictures of them on MySpace they would have gotten suspended.

Kids have been suspended for having pics of themselves surrounded by guns, that they posted on MySpace

[Zunni]

I could care less about vulgar speech, I just don't like that HS student's think they can do whatever they want, If you go and post shit on your MySpace insulting your boss do you think you are above reprisal?
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. People have already been fired for what they write in their blogs about their boss or even their company.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I could care less about vulgar speech, I just don't like that HS student's think they can do whatever they want, If you go and post shit on your MySpace insulting your boss do you think you are above reprisal?

My boss = private enterprise

School districts = publically funded

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. People have already been fired for what they write in their blogs about their boss or even their company.

My boss = private enterprise

School districts = publically funded

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

And just in case you didn't see it before.

My boss = private enterprise

School districts = publically funded

[Trainwreck2100]

My boss = private enterprise

School districts = publically funded


So any gov. worker can insult his boss on MySpace?

[Zunni]

So any gov. worker can insult his boss on MySpace?
Damn, you beat me to it.

When you put yourself out there publicly, there are consequences. The kids are probably accessing it on school computers, so then it ISN'T any different from the bathroom wall.

[KEDA]

I publically insult Joe all the time and he does the same to me, am I going to stop anytime soon because he might get mad at me?


hell no.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Damn, you beat me to it.

When you put yourself out there publicly, there are consequences. The kids are probably accessing it on school computers, so then it ISN'T any different from the bathroom wall.

Actually, the article says that kids are doing this away from school grounds.

If they're accessing it or using school materials to do it, then hey, they're subject to the rules against using school property to say what they said, not the fact that they said it.

I'm not saying there can't be consequences. Bosses can fire their employees, but I don't know the difference seen in public speech by public employees.

I'm not going to sit here, though, and say I know the law in and out about public employees and freedom of speech.

The best information I can find on the subject is Connick v. Meyes.



Connick v. Myers: Reflections on landmark public employee free-speech case

By David Hudson
freedomforum.org

04.10.01

New Orleans attorney and former U.S. Supreme Court litigant Sheila Myers says that she wishes the landmark public employee free-speech case that bears her name were not a "negative one for public employees."

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Connick v. Myers that Harry Connick, the district attorney in Orleans Parish, did not violate Myers' First Amendment rights when he discharged her for distributing a questionnaire to her fellow assistant district attorneys in the office.

Ironically, nearly 20 years later, the major players in the case remain heavily involved in the legal community in the New Orleans area. Connick, the father of famous jazz musician Harry Connick Jr., is still the district attorney.

Myers practices criminal defense law in New Orleans. Both attorneys who argued the case before the Supreme Court still reside in New Orleans.

Their lives will be forever linked in what is considered the leading public employee free-speech case. "When a federal court has a public employee free-speech case, the first precedent it looks to is Connick v. Myers," said Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein.

Neither Myers nor Connick ever saw the case as a major First Amendment case. Myers said that she thought her act of distributing the questionnaire was fully authorized. For his part, Connick sees the case as an employee who disobeyed an order.

However, the 18-year-old case has become a landmark. "The case established a doctrine that has shaped the analysis of countless public employee free-speech cases," says Robert O'Neil, author of The Rights of Public Employees.

The controversy: a transfer, a questionnaire
The controversy began after then-first assistant district attorney Dennis Waldron informed Myers that she was being transferred to a different section of the criminal court. At that time, Myers had been employed at the district attorney's office for more than five years.

Believing the transfer to be unjust, Myers told Waldron that she objected to it. During their discussion, Myers complained about some other procedures in the office. Waldron informed her that others did not share her concerns. According to Myers, she told Waldron she would obtain information on these matters.

"He said 'fine,' and I regarded what I did as fully authorized," she says. Myers distributed a 14-point questionnaire soliciting the views of her fellow staff members concerning office transfer policy. Some of the questions were:

* From your experience, do you feel office procedure regarding transfers has been fair?

* Do you generally first learn of office changes and developments through rumor?

* Do you ever feel pressured to work in political campaigns on behalf of office-supported candidates?

* Do you feel a grievance committee would be a worthwhile addition to the office structure?

After Myers distributed the questionnaire to 15 assistant district attorneys, Waldron phoned Connick and told him that Myers was creating a "mini-insurrection" within the office.

When Connick returned to the office, he informed Myers that she was being terminated for her refusal to accept the transfer. He also told her that her distribution of the questionnaire was an act of insubordination.

Myers sued in federal court, contending that she was fired in violation of her First Amendment free-speech rights. A district court sided with Myers, finding that the real reason for her termination was her constitutionally protected act of distributing her questionnaire about important public issues. The district court determined that the questionnaire had not "substantially interfered" with the workings of the D.A.'s office.

After the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, Connick appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court — which agreed to review the case.

"When the court granted cert., I had this sinking feeling," said Tulane law professor George Strickler Jr., who argued the case on behalf of Myers. "Plainly, we figured there were at least four justices who disagreed with the lower courts." (For the Supreme Court to grant review of a decision, four justices must vote to hear the case.)

Similarly, New Orleans attorney William F. Wessel, who argued the case for Connick, said that "once the Supreme Court granted certiorari, we felt we would win."

Supreme Court's decision
Strickler and Wessel proved accurate about the outcome of the high court's decision. On April 20, 1983, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Connick.

Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White phrased the issue as: "whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the discharge of a state employee for circulating a questionnaire concerning internal office affairs."

The majority's phrasing of the issue foreshadowed its result, because a key inquiry in public employee free-speech cases was whether the speech in question touched on matters of public concern.

In its 1968 decision Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court determined that school board officials in Will County, Ill., violated the First Amendment rights of high school teacher Marvin Pickering when they fired him for writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. In his letter, Pickering criticized the board of education for its allocation of school funds between athletics and education.

The high court in Pickering wrote that the problem in public employee free-speech cases was balancing "the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

White used the Pickering analysis to determine that the threshold question in a public employee-speech case was whether the speech touched on matters of public concern or public importance.

The majority ruled that nearly all of Myers' questions were private internal matters, rather than issues of public concern. "Indeed, the questionnaire, if released to the public, would convey no information at all, other than the fact that a single employee is upset with the status quo," White wrote.

However, White determined that the question of whether assistant district attorneys "feel pressured" to work in political campaigns did "touch upon a matter of public concern."

"We believe it apparent that the issue of whether assistant district attorneys are pressured to work in political campaigns is a matter of interest to the community upon which it is essential that public employees be able to speak out freely without fear of retaliatory dismissal," White wrote.

The majority then said that the next question was whether Myers' interest in free speech on a matter of public concern outweighed Connick's interest in a disruption-free working environment.

The majority sided with the employer's efficiency interests. "When close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer's judgment is appropriate," White wrote.

The tone of the majority's opinion takes a pro-employer stance. For example, White wrote that "government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter."

Four justices dissented in an opinion written by Justice William Brennan. Brennan wrote that most of the subjects in Myers' questionnaire "addressed matters of public concern that could reasonably be expected to be of interest to persons seeking to develop informed opinions about" the district attorney's office.

Brennan argued that the majority "artificially" restricted "the concept of public concern." He believed that the proper standard should be one similar to the standard articulated by the court in a student-speech case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the high court ruled that student expression could not be punished unless school officials could reasonably forecast that the expression would cause a substantial disruption of the school environment.

Brennan concluded that the majority's decision would "deter public employees from making critical statements" about the way in which government agencies operate.

Reflections by attorneys
Strickler says that Brennan was correct in his dissent when he predicted that the decision would chill critical employee speech. "The standard from the case on what is a matter of public interest has proved not to be very workable in the sense that we see very different opinions by the lower courts," he said.

He said that in the trial court, his side "showed ample evidence that the questionnaire did not cause any inflammatory uprising or 'mini-insurrection.' "

"This was the purest kind of speech by an employee," Strickler said. "This had been an easy case for the lower courts and, I think, rightfully so."

However, Strickler says that "plainly, the Supreme Court's decision establishes that public employees are more at risk for expressing dissent."

Predictably, Wessel disagrees with those assessments. He said he never viewed the case as presenting a large First Amendment issue. "I always characterized the speech at issue in this case as petty bickering," he says.

"I think the Supreme Court majority took a common-sense approach to this type of situation," he says. "If you look at the tone of the questionnaire, it was nearly 100 percent internal."

"The primary precedent from the case is that not everything said in the public arena by public employees gets the protection of the First Amendment," he says.

But Wessel, who practices employment law and usually represents employees, says that "the First Amendment is not imperiled in the area of public employment."

Ironically, it was Wessel who first interviewed Myers when she joined the district attorney's office. However, he left to private practice before the controversy. "Sheila was an excellent prosecutor," he says.

Reflections by litigants
Connick, who has been district attorney for 27 years, still is puzzled over how the facts of the case gave rise to a First Amendment Supreme Court decision.

"We should have won in the district court," he says. "We never should have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"If that case got to the Supreme Court, then any case involving a public employee could get to the Supreme Court," Connick said. "At oral arguments, I was thinking, 'What in the hell are we doing in the Supreme Court?' This case had to do with an assistant D.A. refusing to be transferred for the good of the office. All of this free-speech foolishness was nonsense."

Connick insists that Myers was not fired for the questionnaire but for refusing the transfer. "We got into this First Amendment issue, but that was totally unrelated," Connick said. "An employer should be able to fire an employee who fails to follow orders, plain and simple."

Myers, however, sees the case as a free-speech loss for public employees. She also disagrees with Wessel's assessment of her speech. "The speech goes from creating a 'mini-insurrection' to 'petty bickering,' " she says. "Who knows what label will be placed on it next.

"I think public employees were disserved by this decision," she said. "I didn't draft the questionnaire with the thought that it would be risky to my employment. I thought it was at least implicitly authorized by Judge Waldron." (Dennis Waldron is now a criminal court judge.)

Both Connick and Myers agree with the Supreme Court that speech about employees being pressured to work in political campaigns is a matter of public concern. They just disagree on whether it occurred in Connick's office.

"That is an issue of grave public concern and is absolutely improper," Connick said. "I can tell you that that has never happened in my office."

Myers says she was disappointed with her firing and by the Supreme Court's decision. "I was probably more upset at being fired, particularly because I was the first person from my family to become an attorney," she says.

However, Myers holds no bitterness over the actions of Connick and Waldron.

"It is kind of ironic that we are all still around," Myers said. "When I see them, I speak and they speak. I think there is a level of mutual respect. I did what I thought was right, and I think they did what they thought was right at the time.

"I do believe that a positive outcome for me from the case is that people believe me when I say that I'm going to do something," said Myers, who is doing a large amount of death-penalty litigation these days. "I think people believe that I will stand up for what I believe in."

For his part, Connick says that his office had better respect the rights of Myers as a criminal defense attorney. "She has a duty to represent her clients, and my attorneys must respect that duty. I don't believe most of the attorneys in my office even know that this incident happened," he said.

Myers' biggest regret, though, is that the case bearing her name is a bad one for public employees. "It bothers me that it is cited as the case against public employees."

Future of public employee free speech
The Supreme Court's decision in Connick v. Myers has been applied in different ways by the lower courts. For example, the lower courts are divided on what constitutes a matter of public concern.

"This area of the law is very confused in the lower courts right now," Goldstein says. "It is confused in no small part because of the very different factual situations that can arise and because of the very flexible standard from Connick v. Myers."

O'Neil, the founder of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, agrees that "clarity is lacking in the court's opinion. Since the decision we have had continuous confusion about what speech is a matter of public concern."

"This is a messy area of First Amendment jurisprudence," Goldstein says. "I expect that the conflicts in the lower courts will give rise to another Supreme Court case."

Connick agrees with the First Amendment experts that the Supreme Court case is "confusing." "The decision is confusing," he said. "I don't know how this case became a big First Amendment case. The main reason this employee was fired was for failing to follow an order."

Myers hopes the high court will review this area of First Amendment law. "I hope to live to see it overturned," she says

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Here's a thought for the school district issues (and more specifically, at TW and Zunni).

If a school can suspend a student for saying a teacher is a stupid cunt on MySpace (on their home equipment, on their own time), why wouldn't the school hand out the same punishment for somebody saying a teacher is a wonderful human being who deserves nothing but the best rewards in life?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

As far as the public employees question goes, here's an informational report, which does lean towards Zunni and TW's arguments.



Yet such fundamental First Amendment principles do not always apply to public
employees in the workplace. For instance, a public employee could be fired for
saying, “My superior or co-worker is unqualified and corrupt.” Even though that
employee would clearly be expressing a particular viewpoint, the Supreme Court
has recognized that “many of the most fundamental maxims of our First
Amendment jurisprudence cannot reasonably be applied to speech by government
employees.”

Why? Because public employers must maintain efficient operation of the people’s
business. For that reason, it is acceptable for government employers to discipline
employees for speech that undermines the integrity of the office or disrupts morale.
This discipline can take many different forms, including transfer, demotion or even
discharge. Unfortunately, government employers sometimes retaliate against
employees for speech that concerns an important public issue — a matter of “public
concern,” as the Supreme Court has termed it.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=public_employee_speech

[Leetonidas]

Here's a thought for the school district issues (and more specifically, at TW and Zunni).

If a school can suspend a student for saying a teacher is a stupid cunt on MySpace (on their home equipment, on their own time), why wouldn't the school hand out the same punishment for somebody saying a teacher is a wonderful human being who deserves nothing but the best rewards in life?

True, because lewd comments can be anything...it just matters how you interpret it.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=underground_newspapers

Overview >
By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment Center research attorney

Many public school students have turned to producing their own “underground” newspapers rather than writing for their school-sponsored papers. Some students wish to write about more controversial topics not covered (or allowed to be covered) in the official school newspaper. Often, school administrators respond less than favorably to these publications.

“There is a general reluctance among administrators to permit the distribution of materials that might be deemed controversial,” says Michael Steinberg, legal director for the ACLU of Michigan.

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, estimates that the SPLC receives “hundreds” of calls a year from students about underground publication controversies. Unfortunately, Goodman says, many students don’t realize they have a legal right to author and distribute such publications. “Every time I present sessions at national press organization meetings and say that students have a legal right to distribute non-school-sponsored material at school, the students are shocked,” he said.

Whether they realize it or not, students have more freedom to tackle controversial subjects in underground, rather than school-sponsored, newspapers because the Supreme Court, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, (1988) has afforded more free-speech protection for student-initiated expression. School-sponsored student speech carries the “imprimatur” of the school and gives the school more authority to regulate the content.

Students generally may distribute their underground newspapers at school as long as they do not create a substantial disruption of school activities. School officials, however, can enforce reasonable regulations with respect to the time, place and manner of distribution.

School officials have even less authority to regulate off-campus speech — particularly if that expression is never distributed at the school. But that doesn’t mean school officials haven’t tried. In fact, one Texas principal allegedly went so far as to try to prohibit a student from writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper.

Off-campus or on-campus
A crucial first question in any student underground-press case is whether the publication is distributed at school. If the publication is not distributed at school, school officials have far less control, if any, over it. In Thomas v. Board of Education, Granville Central School District (a 1979 case in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals), school officials in upstate New York suspended several students for writing an underground newspaper called Hard Times.

The students sought to model their publication after National Lampoon, a national publication specializing in sexual satire. Hard Times contained numerous articles on sexual subjects, including an editorial on masturbation. The banner across the front of the publication read “uncensored, vulgar, immoral.”

School officials suspended the students for five days for publishing “morally offensive, indecent and obscene” material. The students challenged the school in court, arguing that school officials lacked the authority to punish them because the newspaper was distributed off-campus.

Even though an occasional article was typed on school equipment and copies of the paper were stored in a sympathetic teacher’s closet, the 2nd Circuit determined in the case that any contact with the school was “de minimis,” or minimal.

“We may not permit school administrators to seek approval of the community-at-large by punishing students for expression that took place off school property,” Judge Irving Kaufman wrote. “The risk is simply too great that school officials will punish protected speech and thereby inhibit future expression.”

Substantial-disruption standard
Many underground student newspapers are distributed on school grounds. The key question in disputes over such distribution is whether school officials can reasonably forecast that the publication will create a substantial disruption at school. School officials cannot adopt policies that prohibit student underground newspapers.

In Michigan, school officials suspended two students for publishing and attempting to distribute an underground paper titled The First Amendment. One of the articles called an assistant principal “a sadistic tyrant.” In June 2002 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, Woodcock v. South Lyon Community Schools, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that school officials violated the students’ First Amendment rights. The case settled in March 2003 when the school agreed to adopt new rules regarding the distribution of underground newspapers. The school also rescinded the students’ suspensions.

Michael Steinberg, who helped represent the students in their lawsuit, said that before the lawsuit, the school took the position that students had no right to distribute underground publications at school. That view changed after the settlement, in which school officials agreed to allow the students to hand out such publications during lunchtime when the school-sponsored paper was distributed.

In other cases, however, courts have determined that schools could punish students for the content of their underground newspapers. The case of Justin Boucher is a prime example. When he was a junior at a Wisconsin public high school, Boucher wrote and distributed a publication named The Last. It featured numerous anonymous articles on a variety of subjects. The publication’s stated purpose was to “ruffle a few feathers and jump-start some to action.”

Under the pseudonym of Sacco and Vanzetti (two Italian anarchists sentenced to death in the 1920s — many believe unfairly), Boucher wrote an article, “So You Want To Be A Hacker,” which told students “how to hack the school’s gay ass computers.”

School officials expelled Boucher for endangering school property. Boucher countered that his article was mere advocacy protected by the First Amendment. A district judge granted Boucher an injunction, but the school successfully appealed to the 7th Circuit in Boucher v. School Board of the School District of Greenfield.

The appeals court wrote in its 1998 opinion that the hacker article “purports to be a blueprint for the invasion of Greenfield’s (the high school’s) computer system along with encouragement to do just that.” As such, the court ruled that it was reasonable for school officials to believe the article would cause a substantial disruption of school activities.

Prior review?
Another issue likely to surface in underground student press disputes concerns whether school administrators can review the publication before it is made available. “The overwhelming majority of courts accept the fact that prior review is permissible” in cases involving student publications, said free-speech expert Robert Richards, founding co-director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment. “I think that is unfortunate but that is the state of the law in most jurisdictions.”

However: “There is still a split,” Goodman says. “The 9th and 7th Circuit have both ruled that prior review is impermissible.” However, other courts have given school officials the authority to review the publications.

According to Steinberg, prior review is not positive for First Amendment freedoms in school because “it has a chilling effect, especially if the publication is critical of the administration.”

Value of underground student press
Given the advent of the Internet (see “Cyberspeech” article in this section), some may question whether underground publications retain their value.

“Speech is alive and well on the Internet,” says Steinberg. “However, it can be difficult to reach some students through the Internet who may not have Net access or know about the online publication. There is still a role for underground newspapers to make students aware of views and happenings that are not otherwise available through regular school channels.”

Goodman agrees that underground publications can empower students and teach them important lessons.

“Students do learn more about journalism in school-sponsored publications where there is an educator there to advise them,” he said. “A school-sponsored publication can provide better lessons about what is and is not good journalism. But, that is not the only lesson for students to learn. An underground publication can teach students that free expression really does mean something, that they really do have a voice. Underground publications are a powerful way that students can have a say about what goes on in their school and community.”

School officials hoping to avoid a proliferation of underground publications may wish to grant more freedom to school-sponsored publications. “There are more underground newspapers at schools where the administration extensively censors the school-sponsored publication than at schools where the school-sponsored publication is free to cover issues that are important to students,” Goodman said.

[spurster]

1) I think education is a privilege, not a right. There's no reason why the school should tolerate hate in any form or should tolerate open season on its teachers. A school that allows itx teachers to be treated like crap are going to be bad schools.

2) If the students were publishing facts rather than insulting lies, that would be protected speech.

3) If the problem is the teacher, then the student and parents need to talk to the teacher, and as need be, up the organization. Deal with the situation like a mature adult rather than a juvenile delinquent.

[ALVAREZ6]

I'm not gonna read that long article, but I'm assuming it's about myspacing emo bastards that have nothing better to do.

[ALVAREZ6]

Anyways, schools are really getting up tight about this Myspace bullshit. Librarians are checking every single sight you visited in a class through some system at my school. They have nothing better to do.

Although I don't have a Myspace and I never will because I don't like the idea of it, schools shouldn't be expelling students because of what they say/type on the internet. That's a little drastic. They need to get all the sand out of their vaginas and realize that students probably have been talknig shit about their own schools for decades. It's just now that with the technology that is so standard everywhere in the country, they are expressing themselves. That's all it is.

Manny is right. Pretty soon schools will start punishing students if they even hear an unproven rumor about that a student said anything negative about the school.

[mavs>spurs2]

Here's the thing Myspace isn't a private convo between you and your friend it's basically a public forum. If the student goes on television and says the teacher is a stupid cunt would a suspension be expected then. What if he hands out flyers with the teacher's picture and stupid cunt written on it. Wouldn't you expect a suspension for those cases, how is MySpace any different.

Stay off the kids myspace it's not like it is a teachers business to stalk students outside of school. Keep out of other people's business and there won't be a problem.

[Zunni]

Here's a thought for the school district issues (and more specifically, at TW and Zunni).

If a school can suspend a student for saying a teacher is a stupid cunt on MySpace (on their home equipment, on their own time), why wouldn't the school hand out the same punishment for somebody saying a teacher is a wonderful human being who deserves nothing but the best rewards in life?

The same reason that a person who says in a public forum that so and so is a thief is liable for slander if it isn't true, but nothing happens if they say so and so is an angel. That's a damn weak argument, JB.

Something I haven't seen raised here yet is what those kids did was a crime. It's called libel, AKA written defamation. To me, this is in the same bucket as trolling the social/networking sites to stop psycho school shooters. Kids need to be aware that these sites ARE being monitored for criminal activity, and act accordingly.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The same reason that a person who says in a public forum that so and so is a thief is liable for slander if it isn't true, but nothing happens if they say so and so is an angel. That's a damn weak argument, JB.

Something I haven't seen raised here yet is what those kids did was a crime. It's called libel, AKA written defamation. To me, this is in the same bucket as trolling the social/networking sites to stop psycho school shooters. Kids need to be aware that these sites ARE being monitored for criminal activity, and act accordingly.

About the weak argument part, you'd be discriminating based solely on the content of somebody's speech, since you allow praise but not criticism. It's inherently unfair.



Consider, for instance, that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits
governmental discrimination based on the content or viewpoint of an individual’s
speech. For example, a law prohibiting citizens from criticizing elected officials
would be impermissible because it would discriminate on the basis of content,
allowing praise of government officials but not allowing criticism.

Nor could the government enforce a law prohibiting criticism of the Republican
Party but allowing criticism of other parties, because this would be an even more
egregious constitutional violation known as “viewpoint discrimination.” In other
words, the First Amendment, above all else, rejects laws that favor some ideas or
viewpoints while excluding others. Such laws limit the scope of the “marketplace of
ideas,” the metaphorical public forum whose protection has been the focus of First
Amendment jurisprudence for the past 80 years.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Question: Can an opinion be defamatory?

Answer: No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").


I find it hard to believe that a reasonable person would believe, based on a student's statement, that his/her teacher was in fact, a cunt.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Zunni, it seems we're both right (at least until the SCOTUS takes a case)



Overview >
By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment Center research attorney

The Internet has revolutionized communication throughout the world, allowing people to correspond instantaneously at relatively low cost. Federal Judge Stewart Dalzell called the Internet the “most participatory form of mass speech yet developed.” However, this speech-enhancing medium has led to numerous controversies, causing many people to view the Internet as the premier First Amendment battleground.

Many Internet free-speech battles concern laws that restrict content, such as the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act, and laws that mandate Internet filtering in public libraries or schools, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act.

But the Internet has presented another, pressing First Amendment question unique to public schools: Under what circumstances may school officials punish students for the content of their online expression? In its famous 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that students do not shed their free-expression rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” In more recent times, the concern has become whether school officials can, consistent with the First Amendment, extend their authority from the schoolhouse gate to students’ personal computers. Some school officials have extended their authority by punishing students for online speech even though students created the speech off campus. In many cases, students have turned to the Internet to express themselves about principals, teachers and other students.

The area remains muddled because the Supreme Court has never addressed a student Internet speech case and has not addressed a pure First Amendment student speech/press case since 1988. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote in 2002 in J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District: “Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court has not revisited this area for fifteen years. … Moreover, the advent of the Internet has complicated analysis of restrictions on speech.”

Threshold issues: true threats and on-, off-campus speech
One threshold question is whether the student cyberspeech in question is a true threat. Under First Amendment law, true threats do not receive any First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court has not given much guidance on determining whether speech constitutes a true threat. The lower courts have developed different tests, but many ask whether an objective, rational recipient of the statement would reasonably believe it to be a threat.

Another threshold question is whether the student’s online expression can be characterized as on-campus or off-campus speech. Some people argue that school officials do not have jurisdiction over student Internet expression that takes place off campus. The matter would be one for parental, not school, discipline, they argue. Former First Amendment Center Executive Director Ken Paulson has written: “There is no legal justification for censoring a student’s expression in the privacy of his home.”

Cases outside the online arena provide guidance. For instance, a federal district court in Maine ruled in Smith v. Klein (1986) that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a student when they suspended him for gesturing at a teacher with his middle finger raised at an off-campus restaurant. The judge determined that the student’s disrespectful act was “too attenuated” with school functions to be punishable by school officials.

Similarly, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected school officials’ attempts to shut down an underground student newspaper sold off campus in Thomas v. Bd. of Ed., Granville Cent. Sch. District (1979), writing: “our willingness to defer to the schoolmaster’s expertise in administering school discipline, rests, in large measure, upon the supposition that the arm of authority does not reach beyond the schoolhouse gate.”

Likewise, a federal district court in Washington ruled in Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415 (2000) that student Internet speech created off campus is “entirely outside of the school’s supervision or control.”

While these decisions provide support for the principle that school officials do not have jurisdiction to regulate student speech created off campus, most courts that have examined off-campus online speech have applied the so-called Tinker standard. In Tinker, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could censor student-initiated expression if officials could reasonably forecast that the speech created a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or invaded the rights of others. However, the Court emphasized that school officials may not suppress student speech simply because they don’t like it or out of what they termed “undifferentiated fear or apprehension.”

At least one court (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 2002) has determined that school officials may have authority to regulate off-campus speech under a more recent Supreme Court case, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986). In Fraser, the Court determined that school officials could regulate a student’s lewd speech before a school assembly. The Court reasoned that “it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.”

Sometimes, school officials may argue for even greater control over student Internet speech under the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court ruled that Hazelwood school officials could censor articles on teen pregnancy and divorce in the student newspaper. The Court established the Hazelwood standard, which provides that school officials can regulate school-sponsored student speech if they have a reasonable educational reason for doing so. For example, if a student created a Web site on school grounds using school computers during a class, the school would have broad authority under Hazelwood to silence the expression and punish the student.

Pertinent questions for determining which standard applies in a particular case include:

* Was the content created as part of the school curriculum, such as a class project or school newspaper?
* Was the content created on school computers?
* Was the content distributed (particularly by the student who wrote the material) at school?

If the student created the material as part of the school curriculum, school officials could apply the Hazelwood standard. If the content was created on school computers, Hazelwood might apply. If the content was created off campus but distributed by the student on school grounds, most courts would apply the Tinker standard and some might apply the Fraser standard.

Student Internet cases
Students generally have broad freedom to express themselves on the Internet on their own time, using off-campus computers. However, some school officials have suspended students for their off-campus Web postings that lampooned or criticized school officials or contained vulgar commentary.

Some courts have sided with the students, saying that school officials may not censor student speech unless they can reasonably forecast that the speech will cause a substantial disruption of the school environment or invade the rights of others. Other courts and commentators have said that school officials simply lack the authority to regulate students’ off-campus behavior — on or off the Internet.

The lower courts certainly have decided the student Internet speech cases differently. For example, a federal court in Missouri ruled in Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (1998) that school officials violated the First Amendment rights of a student when they suspended him for 10 days for his home page that criticized the school. The case involved student Brandon Beussink who created a Web page at his home that used vulgar language to criticize the principal, teachers and other aspects of the school environment.

Beussink did not use school computers to create his Web page, though he did access his home page from computers in the school library. The school principal suspended Beussink because he was very upset at the content of the Web page. After he was suspended, Beussink sued alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. A federal judge agreed, finding that the principal committed a legal error in punishing Beussink simply because he disliked the content of the home page.

“Disliking or being upset by the content of a student’s speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker,” the judge wrote. “The public interest is not only served by allowing Beussink’s message to be free from censure, but also by giving the students at Woodland High School this opportunity to see the protections of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights at work.”

However, in 2002 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion in another student Internet speech case. The case involved a Web site created by Justin Swidler that contained derogatory comments about a math teacher and the principal. Much of the site was devoted to ridiculing the math teacher, comparing her to Adolf Hitler and making fun of her appearance. The site even contained a phrase that said “give me $20 to help pay for the hitman.”

School officials expelled Swidler, citing the extreme emotional distress suffered by the math teacher and the disruption the Web site caused at the school. Swidler argued in a lawsuit that his Web page was a form of protected speech.

The Pennsylvania courts, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2002, sided with the school district in J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District. In examining the case, the state high court first determined whether the speech was a true threat. School officials argued the speech was a true threat, focusing on the language about paying $20 for a hit man. However, the high court disagreed, writing: “We believe that the Web site, taken as a whole, was a sophomoric, crude, highly offensive and perhaps misguided attempt to humor or parody. However, it did not reflect a serious expression of intent to inflict harm.”

The high court then determined whether school officials had the authority to regulate the student’s Web site. Swidler argued that the Web site was beyond school officials’ control because he created it off-campus. The court disagreed, writing: “We find there is a sufficient nexus between the web site and the school campus to consider the speech as occurring on-campus.” The court determined the speech occurred on campus because the student accessed the site at school, showed it to a fellow student and informed other students of the site. “We hold that where speech that is aimed at a specific school and/or its personnel is brought onto the school campus or accessed at school by its originator, the speech will be considered on-campus speech,” the court wrote.

The court then reasoned that school officials could punish Swidler under the Fraser and Tinker standards. The school could punish Swidler under Fraser because the Web site was vulgar and highly offensive. It could punish him under Tinker because the Web site caused a substantial disruption of school activities.

Conclusion
The different results and reasoning used by the courts in these cases show that the issue of student Internet speech is far from settled. The courts are divided on several important legal questions, including:

* whether school officials have any legal authority to regulate student online expression created off-campus;
* whether and under what standard school officials can regulate off-campus student speech that is distributed at school either by the student who created it or other students;
* whether school officials have more authority to regulate student online speech if it is created off-campus but contains a link to the school’s own Web site and is aimed directly at the school audience.

Washington trial court Judge William Thomas McPhee may have said it best in his 2000 decision in Beidler v. North Thurston School District: “Schools can and will adjust to the new challenges created by … students and the internet, but not at the expense of the First Amendment.”

It will probably take a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to provide the necessary guidance to resolve these thorny issues of student cyberspeech.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

As far as legal arguments go, I'm not the guy to talk to.

At this point, I'd like to invoke the FWD Statute. When FromWayDowntown drops his knowledge, I'll go by that.

[MannyIsGod]

1) I think education is a privilege, not a right. There's no reason why the school should tolerate hate in any form or should tolerate open season on its teachers. A school that allows itx teachers to be treated like crap are going to be bad schools.
What the fuck? I think you're completely wrong. No, actually I KNOW you are.



2) If the students were publishing facts rather than insulting lies, that would be protected speech.
WTF II? Free Speech has nothing to do with opinions or facts.



3) If the problem is the teacher, then the student and parents need to talk to the teacher, and as need be, up the organization. Deal with the situation like a mature adult rather than a juvenile delinquent.Your opinion on how they deal with things is irrelevent when considering whether or not this is a free speach violation. I don't think anyone is saying the kids were being anything but little fucks, but that doesn't mean they school has a right to do whatever it wants.

[Zunni]

About the weak argument part, you'd be discriminating based solely on the content of somebody's speech, since you allow praise but not criticism. It's inherently unfair.
There are already conditions on free speech. For example: it is HIGHLY illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, but you can yell "Movie!" in a crowded Fire house. That seems a bit unfair on the surface of it, doesn't it?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

There are already conditions on free speech. For example: it is HIGHLY illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, but you can yell "Movie!" in a crowded Fire house. That seems a bit unfair on the surface of it, doesn't it?

I've never said free speech is absolute. Even in this thread and the other one I've argued about this today, I've never said it was absolute.

But to use your argument to counter mine is weak, considering the speech I'm saying is protected is not likely to cause imminent danger.



"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."

[MannyIsGod]

Why do some people choose to argue these points in the manner of an internet chain email where they use the same misinformed points over and over?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Why do some people choose to argue these points in the manner of an internet chain email where they use the same misinformed points over and over?

Who is that directed toward?

[MannyIsGod]

Anyhow who uses shit like "Free speech has limitations because you can't yell fire in a movie theater".

I'm going to use my free speech to say one word: Context.

[JoeChalupa]

All I know is that if my kid posted crap like that on the internet I'd be very upset since I know they know better than that. Many kids have simply lost respect for authority and teachers.
I wouldn't want my child to be suspended or expelled but you know what, I can understand the school's reaction, I may not agree with it...but I can understand it.

[leemajors]

From 8:50 to 4:05, I'm a prisoner in school, but when that bell rings and I go home, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want.

no you shouldn't, you're still not an adult. i don't necessarily agree with what the schools are doing in some of these cases, but i can see why the schools are acting this way. it's hard enough to keep teachers, much less get new ones on staff - it's typically a low paying, thankless job and now they have to put up with additional shit like this.

[Zunni]

Anyhow who uses shit like "Free speech has limitations because you can't yell fire in a movie theater".

I'm going to use my free speech to say one word: Context.
Not everyone is as brilliant as you are Manny. Some people need an explanation of when free speech is ABSOLUTELY limited. Sorry you've heard it before. You could always...
























SCROLL, BITCH.

[MannyIsGod]

Not everyone is as brilliant as you are Manny. Some people need an explanation of when free speech is ABSOLUTELY limited. Sorry you've heard it before. You could always...
























SCROLL, BITCH.More email talking points?

[2Blonde]

This section of what JB posted about the supreme court case of Connick v. Myers is what clarified the difference between public employees and public schools for me. The case goes on to state that if an employee puts information in the public arena that only concerns internal office affairs then it is not protected by free speech. Only information that relates to matters of public concern is protected by free speech.


Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White phrased the issue as: "whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the discharge of a state employee for circulating a questionnaire concerning internal office affairs."

The majority's phrasing of the issue foreshadowed its result, because a key inquiry in public employee free-speech cases was whether the speech in question touched on matters of public concern. ......................

"The primary precedent from the case is that not everything said in the public arena by public employees gets the protection of the First Amendment," he says.

But Wessel, who practices employment law and usually represents employees, says that "the First Amendment is not imperiled in the area of public employment."
Obviously, school students cannot be held to the same test as they are not privy to internal office affairs. Additionally they are not paid employees of the school district with an employment contract and a morality clause that legally dictates their behavior outside school sponsored events. So consequently, all of their speech outside of school, barring the exceptions of threatening & abusive language, should fall under the First Ammendment.

Regarding the Connick case, I personally don't agree with the overall outcome of the case but it is the standard right now so it's what we deal with until another case reaches the court. I think Myers should have prevailed.

But these are just my blonde opinions. :spin I'm guessing there will be several free speech cases in the next ten years or so that reach the high courts.

[ComfortablyNumb]

Teens know they can run amock on the internet and get away with it so they do. Tough shit for teachers.

[Extra Stout]

There is a need for court precedent to be made here. There has to be a line drawn between online speech that is merely offensive and sophomoric, and speech that is defamatory and abusive.

The latter is disruptive to the classroom environment.