Schools punishing kids for what they say online

[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 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/...mployee_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 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/...und_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 led 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, Wood 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 bas s that have nothing better to do.

[ALVAREZ6]

Anyways, schools are really getting up tight about this Myspace bull . 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 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 would a suspension be expected then. What if he hands out flyers with the teacher's picture and stupid 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 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 cons utional 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 .

[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 cir stances 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 cons utes 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 cons utional 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 Cons ution 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 sop ric, 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 ? 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 s, 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 cir stances 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 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 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 like this.

[Zunni]

Anyhow who uses 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, .

[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, .

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. I'm guessing there will be several free speech cases in the next ten years or so that reach the high courts.