Court: There's No First Amendment Exception In MySpace
from the free-as-in-speech dept
Just in case there was any confusion about the matter, a court in Indiana has ruled that the First Amendment applies inside of MySpace just as it does everywhere else. Apparently there was actually some debate about this seemingly obvious question after a court gave a middle school student probation for posting an "expletive-laden" critique of her school's policies on MySpace. In reversing that sentence, the appellate court noted its abhorrence of the student's language, but agreed nonetheless that it was protected. It's really hard to fathom the initial court's reasoning. There's nothing in the law to suggest that students have any less of a right to free speech than anyone else, and there's no reason to think that postings on MySpace would make things any different. However, even though the law is settled on this issue, it's likely that schools and will continue to go after students, only to be slapped down by higher courtsThank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There should be something illegal with that. Seems to me to be a case of identity theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on...
If that principal had been smart he would have gone after the impersonation instead of what was said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is not exactly true. On school grounds and in school newspapers, speech has been and continues to be legally regulated.
Depending upon the grounds on which the probationer ordered by the juvenile court was based, I think it possible that the appeals court got it wrong here.
If the juvenile court based it's probation upon the acts of posting under the identity of another, then I think the appeals court is completely off. However, the more likely scenario is that the juvenile court based its probation order on the content of the my space page.
"Free" speech does not mean that one is permitted to do anything and everything in the name of political commentary. There are boundaries.
We should not forget that with rights come responsibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't know who said it, but it holds plenty of water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech?
Everyone is. What is the defining characteristic of this case that shows it to be impersonation rather then parody? If it's taken in the context of parody, then it is protected under free speech and the student can mock the principal all they want. In order for it to have been impersonation they have to be attempting to pass themselves off as that person. As it stands, creating a false profile of someone is not impersonation because at no point did you identify your self as that person. It would be no different then mocking up an obituary or deriving an insulting character from the real person.
There really are not clear lines here, but I have to lean toward parody for the fact that it has a stronger case then impersonation. Now, if those students were going around and telling people they were the principal or signing documents as him, that would be a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech?
> to apply to this situation in this manner.
The "free speech laws" you mention is actually Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution. A bit more significant than just some statute.
> First and foremost it was defamation
> of character by impersonation, which
> is NOT protected under the First
> Amendment.
True, defamation is not protected but then neither is it a criminal offense. This girl should not be given probation over an incident of defamation. If what she did was truly defamtory, then the principal would have a civil cause of action against her and could recover damages. But in no instance should a person be imprisoned (or given probation in lieu of prison) for defamation.
> On top of that it is wire fraud, not speech.
No, it's not. What she did does not meet the elements of any kind of fraud, wire or otherwise. Mere lying does not constitute fraud. Lying is just one aspect of fraud. There has to be some pecuniary gain associated with the lying before a fraud offense is complete and by all reports, that was not the case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Society out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Society out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Society out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Society out of control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
"Free speech" specifically does not protect several forms of speech. Falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is the canonical example of one type of speech that is not protected, since it can cause harm to, or even kill, innocent people.
Slander (lies that damage someone's reputation) are also not protected. If you say something true that damages someone's reputation, or if you indicate that what you are saying is merely opinion, you're OK, but if you actually lie, you are legally liable. For instance, if you call someone a dumbass, you're probably OK since that is commonly understood to be an expression of opinion. If you say that someone has conjugal relations with goats, when if fact they don't, then you can get your derrière in a sling over it.
Since I haven't in fact seen the MySpace page in question, I have no idea whether the comments would be protected speech or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's not protected...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, Hello McFly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Court
The school was ridiculously out of line trying to punish a student for something they did at HOME! The school should be punished for trying to extend their control beyond that of the student handbook. If they tried to pull a stunt like that on my daughter (who is way too classy for that garbage anyway) I would have one fabulous lawyer on that school so fast they would be shut down and students would have to bus to a far away town just to get an education. I can't believe that the lawyer did not make THAT the case, instead of this ridiculous nonsense about free speech. Nobody underage has any legal rights to free speech or anything else in the constitution.
So we have two groups of lawyers, screwed up, parents screwed up, child screwed up, JUDGES screwed up, and of course, the school screwed up (no real suprise there). And folks wonder what is wrong with the legal system? Isn't it obvious now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]