Court Disagrees On Whether Or Not Schools Can Punish Students Over Fake Social Network Pages
from the first-amendment? dept
We were just discussing whether or not a school can punish students for their social networking activity, and now we've got two legal rulings on the subject. Unfortunately, they seem to conflict with each other, despite coming from the same appeals circuit!Both cases involved students creating fake MySpace profiles of the schools' principals. Both students were punished, but in one case the court said the school went too far ("Public schools are vital institutions, but their reach is not unlimited...") while the other said it was fine ("We decline to say that simply because the disruption to the learning environment originates from a computer located off campus, the school should be left powerless to discipline the student."). The difference appears to be that in the latter case, the school claimed that the fake profile resulted in disruption in the classroom because "students were talking about the profile rather than paying attention to class."
That seems like a pretty fine line, because now a school will have to do is suggest that students in the school were discussing an activity that took place outside of school to allow the school to punish the student for off-campus speech. From a First Amendment standpoint, that seems pretty difficult to accept -- and certainly seems to go against the principles set forth by the famous Tinker decision concerning free speech rights of students on campus.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyoneā€™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
Filed Under: jurisdiction, punishment, social networks, students
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I hope that school deals harshly with any students that are found talking about the Super Bowl rather than paying attention in class.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, the person at fault is the NFL in that case. Because the NFL created the super bowl and that is causing a disruption to class. Clearly the school should sue the NFL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not to mention Cindy. They should clearly file suit against Cindy, who finally blossomed into womanhood, thereby causing all the boys to spend more time talking about her fun-bags as opposed to the lovely curriculum sent over by the RIAA that they were supposed to be learning....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I find you guilty of making fun of the principal on the internet! You are hereby sentenced to 40 years manual labor in the gulag, and must write a 5 page essay about why the principal is so awesome. May god have mercy on your soul!"
The schools authority reaches to the end of the school grounds, period. For things that people do while they are not in school we have this other thing called "THE LAW" If you feel like you are being defamed then you can call "THE LAW" and take your case to "A COURT"
Why do so many people think this is a new concept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Court Cases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
im a dumb person syndrome
go visit now and pay me later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when does the First Amendment apply to minors?
It's always been my understanding that monors weren't guarenteed too much by the constitution at all until they become of age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since when does the First Amendment apply to minors?
Actually, the exact opposite is true. Minors can have some of their constitutional rights suppressed in ways that adults can't, particularly in the case of students, but those are the exception, not the rule. There have been several important case rulings that have highlighted minor's protection of constitutional rights. For example:
1. Public schools in particular have to prove that its constitutional violations are for a higher purpose or stem from its in loco parentis responsibilities (Derived from English Common Law, but limited by many subsequent case precedence)
2. Supreme Court ruled that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor otherwise salute the flag against their will (Board V. Barnette)
3. Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War could not be forced to remove the arm bands by school officials. As written in Tinker, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (Tinker V. Des Moines)
4. Justice Douglas wrote a dissent in a hair-length case for Olff v East Side Union, in which he stated that school rules enforcing length of hair could not be applied absolutely (404 US 1042 [1972]).
The other side of the coin, in which the courts or SCOTUS have applied the in loco parentis stipulation are normally EXTREMELY narrowly defined....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since when does the First Amendment apply to minors?
Minors cannot think for themselves, we must must not be bound by the constitution.
The mentally ill are no better then children, so they must not be given the protections lest they hurt themselves.
The poor obviously make bad choices, for if they did not they would be better off. To help them they are not covered by the constituion.
Those registered as independents clearly cannot make up thier mind. Since they are indecisive, and obviously cannot be trusted, we must limit them.
And finally...
The (Republican/Democratic) are clearlly mentally defective, since they oppose the Presental Party* and therefor they must not be afforded the same protection of the children.
*Whoever is in power at this point.
As always, the key word should be 'ALL', as in ALL INCLUSIVE. If a legitimate problem is present, it should be delt with, but stripping the rights from an entire group, NO MATTER THE GROUP, is a unacceptable threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since when does the First Amendment apply to minors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sentence is confusing
"The difference appears to be that in the latter case, the school claimed that the fake profile resulted in disruption in the classroom because "students were talking about the profile rather than paying attention to class."
I have no idea what it is you're trying to convey. But if teachers can't keep their customer's interest, they should re-evaluate their professional career choice. It's possible that they'll find more rewarding success in their longterm transaction goals by working at the local grocery checkout stand. Teachers who engage their students outside of school probably aren't particularly good at their job, and need to quietly be shown the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sentence is confusing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am sure it cost all 10-20% off our final mark but felt good to stick it to the teachers. It was really sad that the only self gratification a teacher can get is to bully there students.
BTW: There always is a Cindy in every school/work to talk about when not talking about football.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to sound like an old Codger
When did it change that the talkers are not to blame but rather the ones they were talking about?
If this ruling were to actually have any validity, students could simply talk about another student and get that student disciplined.
The school's actions are not justified. The court's ruling is unconstitutional in the latter case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unenforceable
Should this become widespread-- punishing kids for what they do at home with their own computers-- it won't be long before the kids realize that the only reason they can be punished is because they go to that school and the school has authority over them-- and conversely that it doesn't have authority over anyone else.
So... if finding some public computer at a library or something to use for their mockery pages is too much trouble, an easy solution would be to find someone (older brother, sister, friend, neighbor, etc.) who doesn't go to that school and over whom the school has no authority (but who conveniently lives in the same house or right next door) to put the fake MySpace or Facebook (or whatever) page up under their name.
How long do you think it'll take for kids to figure this out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Adam
No people just need to buck up, and stop getting so butt hurt over retarded subjects like this. Oh wait I said retarded now Sarah Palin will tell me not to use the "R" word, and then tell me I need to resign from my job. Another cause of someone getting butt hurt of something someone else had said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't just a speech issue
Would it change your mind if it wasn't obvious that the page was a parody and it said things that cast the teacher/administrator as a sex offender? Or a drug addict, etc? Realistically photo-shopped pictures of the teacher in fake compromising situations?
I think if the student was merely expressing his negative opinions on his own MySpace page it would be a clear free speech issue -- but you're dealing with a level of dishonesty here that certainly could create a discipline issue in the way it is executed by the student.
As I said, without details, this one is impossible to judge from media accounts alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't just a speech issue
Or how about this. If the teacher just opened them selves up for it. I had a teacher in school that would come in to class every Monday hung over. Hell had another teach ask a student flat out in class if he would like to go to the Bahama's with her in the middle of class. Hell I had another teacher grope girls in typing class by leaning over one should rubbing his arms on them, and looking down their shirts. Heck same guy would stare at each of the girls as they walked by. So if the person did that kind of stuff, and student brought that to light guess what they left them selves open to it.
So getting all butt hurt, and trying to all epic nerd rage on a kid for someone they say out side of class is BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't just a speech issue
The point of education is to provide a "practice" environment to teach students life's lessons in a way that they can use and apply to the real world when they get out of school. I should think school discipline would be a far better and lower level of consequence than running to the police or the court system for enforcement. The story doesn't say the school expelled the student -- just that they were disciplined.
I see no compelling reason why the school cannot use this as an opportunity to teach through appropriate discipline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also on your point of your job being impacted by anything that I do outside the doors of my place of business is false. If I go to a bar, and I get completely crap faced. While I am there I make a complete fool of myself. The people there know I work at my place of business. They don't automatically go "OMG that company hires these types of people"¯. No they do not that is the furthest thing from their minds, and the same is said of those that do not know me. Now if I go to something that is part of a company event, and I do the same thing then yes it will affect my job. The same could be said about me. If I see someone do something stupid even if I know where they work. I don't go "OMG they hired this guy to work there."
Last time I checked it was not the schools job to teach children the ways of the world or life's lessons. You are thinking about church. Schools are merely here to educate future generations so when they graduate, and enter "life"¯ they aren't complete morons. Often times that isn't the case they still come out dumber then a box of crap. Life's lessons are merely a bi-product of the social interactions of human beings, and the different interactions of their environmental situations. That is how children are taught the rights, and wrongs of the world. Even then going even earlier in child development it is the parents responsibility to make sure that their children know right and wrong. Educators cannot teach that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't just a speech issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
changing of results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]