Court Finds Law Blocking Teachers From Friending Students 'Staggering'; Blocks Implementation
from the oh-look,-there's-a-first-amendment-after-all dept
There was quite an uproar after Missouri passed a law to ban teachers from communicating with current or former students on social networking platforms like Facebook. It didn't take long before teachers sued, and it was even faster for the court to issue an injunction blocking the implementation of the law, noting that it violated the First Amendment (thanks to Eric Goldman for the pointer). The judge made quick work of it. Here's the relevant portion (and the full ruling is embedded below):Section §163.069.4 RSMo implicates the rights of Plaintiffs protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution in that it prohibits all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. Even if a complete ban on certain forms of communication between certain individuals could be construed as content neutral and only a reasonable restriction on "time, place and manner," the breadth of the prohibition is staggering. The Court finds at based upon the evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing, social networking is extensively used by educators. It is often the primary, if not sole manner, of communications between the Plaintiffs and their students. Examination of the statute indicates that it would prohibit all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. It clearly prohibits communication between family members and their teacher parents using these types of sites. The Court finds that the statute would have a chilling effect on speech.Nice to see some courts willing to recognize that a First Amendment violation is irreparable harm. Too bad not all courts agree.
Given the fundamental nature of the right implicated, a "chilling effect" constitutes an immediate and irreperable harm sufficient to support a preliminary injunction.
This isn't the end for the law. It's just an injunction barring it from being implemented until a full trial can be heard on the merits, but it sure sounds as if the court is pretty skeptical about the legality of the law as a whole.
Thank 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
Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, friending, missouri, teachers
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In a nutshell, this is an ethical issue. Its really no different than requiring the teachers to not have sex with 18 year old students. Technically its legal to do so. Ethically it is a terrible thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It would be considered somewhat inappropriate for a student and a teacher to spend their weekend together, or to go shopping together. Friending on Fezbook is pretty much the same deal, it creates a relationship that will never be equals, and could lead to bigger problems down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wish Facebook had used the term "Aquaintance" instead of "Friend"; maybe it would have avoided all this idiocy.
Here's how it would go for you then:
I don't think that as an adult, it is an issue to be a acquaintance with an old teacher. However, teachers really should not be "acquaintances" with their current students, especially if those students are under 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is probably one reason Google+ uses "Circles."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because of the pedonoia that took over America?
This crap is what hurts education, people can't bond anymore, is like trying to get rid of germs and ending up without an immune system because it is never challenged and die when from common cold after a few generations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, there are even cases where "spending the weekend together" is perfectly appropriate. For example, from 1st through 3rd grade, my teacher was also the parent of one of my friends. In 5th and 6th grade my teacher was the parent of another one of my friends. And finally, in 8th grade, my biology and physics teachers were parents of two more of my friends.
Should I have avoided going over to those friends' houses for the weekend because they were also, by definition, my teacher's houses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There may be exceptional cases, but honestly, as a parent, I would be very concerned if an adult teacher wants to be a Facebook friend with my children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should you be concerned if an adult teacher wanted to be a Facebook friend with your children? I don't know, how about you get involved with your child's life and whats going on at school. Go meet his/her teacher at a PTA Meeting and get to know the teacher and decide if you think any communication needs closer monitoring. In short, take an active role in your kids upbringing and interactions with others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happens if they get into an intimate conversation in the hallway?
What happens if they get into an intimate conversation in the classroom?
What happens if they get into an intimate conversation in the teacher's office?
What happens if they get into an intimate conversation on a class trip?
What happens if they get into an intimate conversation if they happen to pass on the street?
If the conversation is inappropriate in one medium, then it is inappropriate in all of them. Besides, if something inappropriate happened to your child, wouldn't you want a record of it that you could take to the proper authorities?
Reducing the contact that teachers have with your children is not, as you seem to believe, a good thing. As a parent, I want my children's teachers as involved as possible. It's a lot easier to learn from someone that you have a good relationship with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Facebook would allow your child (hiding in their room on your open wi-fi) to chat with their teacher without anyone knowing. I can't imagine you don't see the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very few parents restrict internet use to "only when mom or dad is in the room". It's too bad, but it's a fact of life. Your kid is way safer in a school full of kids with that teacher than they would be online chatting alone in private (and most kids also have webcams... you figure it out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TAKE THE KIDS AWAY NOW!
See it works both ways. What you don't seem to realise is that the actual laws are already in place to stop nefarious action by a person of responsibility (Teacher, priest, parent, et.al). Creating new ad-hoc and reactive laws that have huge chilling consequences far and away more restrictive than current laws that already provide an adequate ethical response are abhorrent in the extreme.
Oh and please define 'intimate', since I would suggest that a 1:1 face to face teaching/tutoring by any teacher is extremely intimate. Not to mention the familial intimacy that already is there (and covered under ethical guidelines already) between extended family (and close friends of parents) who are in a student/teacher situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strangely research indicates that 80%+ of all sexual abuses towards minors (children) are from familial relationships. ie: Extended family or close friends of families, with authority figures making up only around 5-10% at worst (strangers are the rest), though authority figures make for better news and for some reason people are more aghast at a teacher/priest/etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> childen (under 18) to use the internet
> without supervision
Their bad parenting choices do not justify a law restricting everyone else's freedom.
I am so sick of seeing this excuse constantly trotted out: "Well, you see, some parents really suck, so now we have to ban, restrict, or disallow everyone from doing X."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> "friends" with their current students
That might be true if a Facebook 'friend' was a real friendship. In reality it's just a shorthand label Facebook invented because "included in my social network" isn't as user-friendly and marketable.
Facebook "friends" aren't actual "friends". No one actually has 787 friends, although they may have that many people in their social network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Put another way, if the teacher were accused of such there is really no defense for it if they have friended the student on social media sites. Its a clear indication of more-than-professional relationship.
Given that it involves a minor and the hyper-spastic bullshit fear mongering that the media does over sexual predators in this country, i am frankly surprised that a teacher would really want to take such a risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is different
You can't tell me that communicating with a student is inherently wrong no more than you can tell me that coaches communicating with members of a little league baseball team is wrong.
This is obviously a 'knee jerk' reaction to a few (very few) bad apples in the educational system that deserve the criminal charges brought against them, however, their behavior does not warrant this type of restriction on my or anyone else’s First Amendment rights.
Remember, Freedom is not free; it is bought and paid for with the most expensive thing known to man, blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think "Friending" is what you think it means...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think "Friending" is what you think it means...
I'm generally against out-of-classroom/office contact between students and teachers because I think it is highly unprofessional and open to all kinds of abuse, favoritism, etc. However, recognizing that can and does happen, I prefer law enforcement to be able to obtain records of student/teacher contact from places like Facebook if there are questions of impropriety. This could help protect teachers from false accusations as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't think "Friending" is what you think it means...
I agree it may seem highly inappropriate but when I was outside of school and I saw a teacher they would much faster hail me out and say hi and then go on their merry way. So what are we as students or teachers supposed to do? Avoid outside contact entirely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think "Friending" is what you think it means...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's kinda like...
"Oh! Lets take up ALL the guns because some idiot is liable to shoot someone!"
That may be the case but I value gun-ownership over the few idiots...
Besides, if you make it criminal to posses a gun, then only criminals will have guns...
from my cold dead fingers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like a teacher can not 'friend' or request 'friend status' from a current student on a social network.
And if they really worried about have the teacher also fully disclose to the principle when a pre-existing 'friend' attends their class. Like in the case of a relative or maybe even a neighbor or family friend.
I see that it could a bit of an issue when a current teacher wants to a friend a student. The teachers are in a noted position of power and it makes it hard (especially for a current student) to refuse. Like my teacher who was building a house and asked each student to come over and do a little 'work' on the house - I think shingled his whole house.
Given the quick advancement of social networks it should be quickly adopted into the teachers code of conduct/ethics. Installing in law means bring in lawyers and to many absolutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precident for this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Precident for this....
One involves a private entity making rules as a condition of employment (rules which are generally not acceptable for companies to make anymore).
The other involves government obstructing an entire form of communication, not because of any wrongdoing, but simply because of the potential for wrongdoing.
The First Amendment applies only to the government, not to private entities, so your situations are not analogous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who has the ethical problem?
I believe that if you want to read something inappropriate into a FB Friendship, it is very possible. One can read something inappropriate into Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Little Women, and Peter Pan.
I think the scandal is all in the minds of those who would act inappropriately if they had a chance, and rather than allowing other people to figure that out, they go on the offense to deflect scrutiny of their own perverted little minds.
They will also be the ones making personal attacks against me in 3....2....1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of focusing on what teachers can't do, help them do what they are paid to do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Friends"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]