'Cyberbullied' School Administration May Have Violated Student's First Amendment Rights By Suspending Him
from the the-most-power;-the-thinnest-skin dept
All the cyberbullying policies and laws being put into place to protect kids seem to be invoked most frequently to protect adults -- specifically, the adults who are responsible for the crafting of these new rules. Another case of school administrators being "cyberbullied" has hit the courts. This one stems from a disgruntled student who was unhappy with his treatment during the basketball season.
Following the season's final game, Rosario was out to dinner with his family and sent a series of crass and offensive tweets about school administrators and his coach:As you can see from the emphasis Venkat Balasubramani added, this collection of tweets should have remained outside the purview of the policy used to suspend Rosario. But that didn't stop the offended parties from kicking the student out of school. Unfortunately for the administration, Rosario's family took them to court, searching for injunctive relief from the suspension. (Rosario was ultimately allowed to transfer to a different school.) That was denied due to lack of irreparable harm and the school district filed a motion to dismiss. That didn't go quite as smoothly.
1. Mr. Isaacs is a b*tch too
2. I hope Coach brown gets f*cked in the *ss by 10 black d*cks
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
4. Fuck coach browns bitch *ss
5. Finally this b*tch *ss season is over
6. Aiight I'm done y'all can go snitch now like before
7. Oh yea and Mr. DInkel's square *ss
8. AND Ms. Evans b*tch *ss boyfriend too He a p*ssy ass n*gg* tryna talk shit while walking away
Etiquette breach (while at family dinner) aside, school administrators were not happy. They punished Rosario for his tweets under a cyberbullying statute. The text of the statute read as follows:
"A member of the board of trustees of a school district, any employee of the board of trustees, including, without limitation, an administrator, principal, teacher or other staff member, or any pupil shall not engage in bullying cyber-bullying, harassment or intimidation on the premises of any public school, at any activity sponsored by a public school, or on any school bus."[emphasis added]
Rosario's family brought a "slew of other claims," but most notable is the First Amendment claim, which the court will allow to move forward.
As to Rosario's First Amendment claim, the defendants argued that the speech in question was not protected speech at all because it was "racist, violent, offensive, and hateful." The court (correctly) rejects this argument saying that the only legal basis for the speech in question to possibly be unprotected is obscenity, and this only applies to one tweet.The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech, but they need to show "substantial disruption" has occurred on campus in order to justify suspensions or expulsions. This district's policy covers a very limited area -- Balasubramani points out that its specific wording makes it unlikely to be enforceable against "activities in cyberspace," no matter if these activities happened during school events or on school grounds.
Cyberbullying policies have the built-in potential to cripple free speech, thanks to the general shift towards subjectivity, rather than objectivity. Beyond that, these policies seem to encourage a culture of heightened sensitivity and overreaction in far too many administrators.
There must be something in school administrators' DNA that causes a heightened reaction when they see their name mentioned in social media. The tweets were ill-advised at best and crass, depressing even. But I wonder whether the school would have been better off using this as a teaching moment rather than taking a harsher disciplinary approach that was not necessarily on solid First Amendment grounds.This last point is also rather crucial. The district punished a student for tweets administrators never would have seen without jumping through some extra hoops. Rosario's Twitter account was private, meaning these were only shared with followers. While the court doesn't agree this gives Rosario an "expectation of privacy" in regards to his claims of Fourth Amendment violations, it does bring into question how much work administrators had to do simply to recover the tweets that offended them so much. It should have been a teachable moment, or at worst, something that could have been ignored.
The fact that the school relied on the cyberbullying statute is telling, and a good illustration that these types of statutes are often used in an unintended manner, to improperly suppress speech. It's a stretch at best to argue that tweets from a private account—that would not have reached the coach or administrators absent their inquiry—somehow amounted to "cyber-bullying".
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: cyberbullying, first amendment, free speech, school administrators, suspensions, tweets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe it's just me but if all the attempts to protect the children seem to backfire into destroying their futures we should stop trying to protect them and maybe let parents do the parenting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now imagine having a child and imagine that child of yours looking at porn while on a school computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have a child. I am aware my child is going to see sexually explicit material before they are 18. Every parent should already be aware of this as any other outlook is hubris or naivety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it funny that "Ass" is censored, and "Fuck" isn't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Personally, I find it nearly as awesome as DH does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rosario should be thankful he doesn't live in Gambia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assault and Battery? Really?
From the PDF:
Frank Rosario alleges an assault and battery claim against Gygatz because "Gygatz approached Frank from behind and rubbed him 'shoulder to shoulder' and told him what a class act that was."
Rubbing 'shoulder to shoulder' is construed as assault?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assault and Battery? Really?
I think they used the wrong term. That isn't assault. However, it might be considered battery:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assault and Battery? Really?
*waits*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would seem appropriate for school teachers and admins to have certain training and experience in the field of not being pretentious little shits, you know - like a lot of teens are. But I suppose that is asking too much.
"The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech"
This ruling needs to be overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe they should have ceased the waterworks and called the whaaaambulance to take them to someone who gives a damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately those rulings reinforce that if your child is in public school, the government, acting through school administrators, act as your child's Third Parent, and have the same rights you do to arbitrary and indiscriminate punishment for anything they don't like, 24x7, even if you approved the conduct. But the punishment only can be enforced at school -- so banishment is the punishment preferred by school administrators.
I'd like to believe this lower court ruling would stand on appeal, and we can only see if the school doesn't feel like fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Career Choice
Or maybe their shrinks should ask more social history -- like employment situation -- before prescribing psychological coumadin or whatever anguish-intensifying meds they're giving them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Career Choice
It's the reverse of service workers (ie checkout clerks), who have to deal with "the public" but are powerless to do anything about being abused. Public Servants almost always have some unaccountable power, and are not afraid to use it maliciously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Career Choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Career Choice
If he did that in college...professors would be well within their rights to fail him and worst case scenario he would be banned for life from campus because of slander. So by learning not to do stupid shit like Rosario did, they are being prepped for college.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
RTFA before you comment, Wally.
The whole last paragraph comments on the fact that these were private tweets that the administration had to go through extra steps to even see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Career Choice
He thinks that every instance of someone not being nice should be a criminal case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
Professors have to have as thick a skin as anyone. Though they probably wouldn't be fired (as a teacher might) for saying Rosario did stupid shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
I don't know what college you went to but public remarks to that effect were not grounds for unilateral failure or banning from campus for life. That said, colleges are generally private institutions. Government run schools have to play by different rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
Unless the tweets were causing a problem in the school (which they apparently weren't), then its' not the school staff's place to teach that at all. And if it was, then a stern scolding would have been more appropriate.
There's no way a slander/libel case would have been successful. Those tweets were clearly emotional expressions that nobody would have taken as assertions of fact.
Maybe. It depends on the code of conduct for the particular college. Nonetheless, there are some big differences between the two. High school is mandatory and the students are minors (so they can't enter into contracts), for example. College is optional, and college students are adults capable of agreeing to contractual terms such as a code of conduct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
This one of many root causes for teenage rebellion.
Respect is earned not granted or given. When it is demanded, the response is predictably either in your face or insincere.
Perhaps you are, as many do, conflating respect with reverence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Career Choice
Monkey see, monkey do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant!
This will soon create a whole new generation of conflicted and deranged people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect and school
No. Did you read the whole article?
After school hours and off school grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...
being for free speech ABSOLUTELY means you give your worst enemy the freedom to say the most horrific things, OTHERWISE IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH...
ANY fucking 'tard can 'defend' anyone to say shit which nobody disagrees with or is inoffensive, or is immaterial; OBSCENE, DISGUSTING free speech is EXACTLY the type of speech which EVERYONE should support the RIGHT TO EXPRESS...
(NOT that you agree with it, but that you defend their right to say it...)
go climb on an iceberg already, wall-eye, your contribution to society is done and you are simply holding us back...
oh, AND you didn't read the details, AND you are simply saying "well, i don't like what he said, it was disrespectful, he deserves to be suspended/hung from his thumbs/boiled in oil/whatever..."
so thin-skinned you get insulted by others getting insulted ? grow a pair, wall-eye...
bad enough kids hardly have any rights as individuals, doubly bad they take out of school commentary and punish him for it, and triply bad that rebar-up-the-butt douches can't take criticism (whether deserved or not)...
cheese and crackers, SWMBO and her cohorts hear as bad or worse on a daily basis at the school where she teaches; they suspended all the kids for 'mouthing off' (IN SCHOOL TO TEACHERS IN PERSON), they'd have close to zero students left at the end of the year...
(now, don't get me wrong: it is not 'right' that kids do this, but that is REALITY, not wishes and hopes... now, the fact is these are ADULTS (read: a dolts) and PART OF THEIR JOB is to deal with the 'unfair' (and 'fair') abuse CHILDREN -repeat CHILDREN- dole out to them... if they can't deal with that, THEY ARE IN THE WRONG PROFESSION...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
Wow.
There is no sense in which this is true. Parents are the children's guardians until the age of majority, but that in no way equates to an ownership situation.
No. Rights are not "earned" -- those are privileges. People who are not respectful or productive members of society have exactly as many rights people who are.
Further, you have just as many rights as a child as you do as an adult. The only difference is that your parents exercise those rights on your behalf until you reach a certain age (not necessarily 18, it depends on the particular right). It's a bit like power of attorney.
And parents cannot exercise those rights in any way they see fit. If they are exceptionally negligent about that, then the child can successfully sue them once they reach 18 (as several child stars who had their income misused by their parents have done).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
PS... Your comment is also equally as likely to get prosecuted for slander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
He didn't go through any extra steps to "block" the adminstration, it was tweeted privately to only his followers. Although I agree, legally, it is still considered "public".
It's slander because the staff had to take extra steps to see what was going on to defend themselves.
That sentence makes zero sense. Whether something is construed as slanderous (or libelous like this case) has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone defending themselves. It's either libelous or not based on the actual wording and that is a determination made in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect and school
During school hours isn't relevant in the slightest. The school doesn't have the right to regulate speech outside of school activities and even at school activities there are limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect and school
First off, how did you jump to "harassment"? All I see is Rosario expressing his opinion in those tweets.
And yes, he most definitely was exercising his First Amendment rights. Just like you were when you typed: "Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!" below.
The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect and school
And yes, he most definitely was exercising his First Amendment rights. Just like you were when you typed: "Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!" below.
The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with."
My point is with Tim Cushing's ass is to illustrate that just because someone has an opinion, it doesn't make it right to express said opinion on public channels where everyone can see and where people can be embarrassed.
Second, slander and liable are NOT protected by the first amendment under freedom of expression.
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
Welcome to the "other step" gwiz...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
What did he tweet that was libelous? It all looks like opinion or wishful musing to me except for maybe the last tweet and even that comes off more as an opinion of someone else's actions than anything else to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Respect and school
If I said something about you on FaceBook to your peers while blocking you...and if it were slanderous in nature, how is that private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
Where do you get that from? His Twitter account was set up so that only those who were his followers could read his tweets. His teachers weren't followers, which is no fault of his own. He didn't actively block them, they were simply never the recipients of his tweets.
To give a non cyber space example, it would be like he wrote down these statements on paper and mailed them to his followers. He didn't mail them to his teachers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a side note...
Don't hit the report button, I'm exercising my first amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a side note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a side note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On a side note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should be noted my father was a teacher. Students complained about him but he was respected nonetheless. Rosario would have been suspended from my alma matar public school district for these tweets.
Now here's the thing. The kid was angry. He decided to target staff that he felt was failing him. He was failing and he blamed the staff for not working hard enough when he should have been doing his work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please cite appropriate '@'. Without the '@', its just venting.
He didn't go '@' anyone he was venting about, and only his followers/friends could see the tweets. That is until the thin-skinned admins 'caught wind' of dissonance, and spent time and taxpayer money looking for the tweets.
The school needs to hang their heads, apologize for being intrusive and childish, and let this be forgotten. The longer this goes on, the worse they look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim Cushing, I'm sorry, but he got suspended on his own merits for his disrespect and not handling the rejection like a man. Rosario is a pussy for not being man enough to accept that he got cut from the team for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now given my father was a teacher, and if some student tweeted like that about him back when I was a student...I'd would have beaten that kid to a pulp along with a few others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At first I thought you were just being authoritarian about the "respect mah authoritay" thingy. But now I see that it's just that there's only room for one bully in your world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's the thing, when a someone takes the time to teach you something you have no knowledge of and has to grade your aptitude and you slack off and do poorly..how much respect does that show the teacher?
My father was notoriously awesome as a teacher and won Teacher of the Year in my school district (which is a student and staff and board held vote) 20 times in his 33 year teaching career.
Now if a kid slacked off in his class and my dad did everything within his power to help the student falling behind, but the student still failed and then called him a douchebag (note my brother has severe Asperger's Syndrome so my dad is very patient) that kid would get a smile from my dad and get a detention.
Now imagine this kid going further with the same crap on multiple staff...you earn enough detentions there will be consequences...namely suspension.
Now what makes Rosario's case a bit interesting is he did his tweeting in the evening when a basketball game was going on....a school function....he implied that the coach and assistant coach were gay lovers and that the coach that cut him likes to take it in the ass. He likely got cut due to grade eligibility which is why he called one of his teachers a douchebag. He deserves suspension.
I would not be bullying by beating up a bully by standing up for my father's well deserved honor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No he didn't. Damn Wally, you're just making shit up to justify this situation.
He tweeted when he was at dinner, with his family, after the last game of the season.
From the article (which you apparently didn't read):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, legally it would be libel since it's written, not spoken. But, regardless, what did he tweet that would be construed as libel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
That is the indicator that it not only was public to everyone, but meant as harassment as well.
In this case everyone but the school staff and admin saw it. The digital evolution we live in as Generation Y, and X has a much bigger potential for the public to see things and therefore perceptions change due to another person's raging and ragging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what libel is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since Rosario's tweets were not the legal definition of private....Explanation footnote that I really shouldn't have to write: he blocked ONLY the administrative and school staff from seeing his tweets......back to the second part of my statement it stands that he was libel in his expression
I don't know how that could be missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For that to be true, he had to ACTIVELY block them, as in the teachers would have had to click "Follow" on his Twitter account and he blocked them. There is no mention of that. He did not block them, he simply never sent the messages to them!
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Ok, I only said that because it was a movie reference. I KNOW it doesn't mean what you think it means. Those tweets were vulgar, immature, and uninspired, but they were not slanderous.
For two reasons: One, they are obviously opinion (opinion of an idiot, but opinion none the less). Two, They weren't spoken.
Calling those tweets slanderous would be the exact same thing as me calling your comments libelous because you're lying about what the kid said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(sorry, but if you complain after being cut and put back in on an appeal you gave to the coach who may have played you second or third string and barely put you into play...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)...
anyway..tangent aside, his intent was harassment and the difference with Libel is that no damages have to happen to make it a civil case against someone as long as the opinions can drastically change public perception. The press is protected as long as they do not give opinions without reason...giving opinions with reason is editorial press and blogging. The school could have sued him but didn't. The suspension was justifiable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Is libelous under your definition of libel. It's so comical at this point I have a hard time believing you're actually arguing in good faith here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why, in your view, is it wrong for the kid to do so, but apparently all right for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
It doesn't have to be sent to them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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: Re: Re: Re:
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
So then, the US government can completely ignore Article 17 (1) when it comes to the NSA spying programs (they violate Section 215 of the Patriot Act, so are unlawful) but could invoke it (via the school) when someone calls a teacher a few nasty names?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not guilty, but that's only because your definition is absolutely and completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Step 2: Just simply tell me the WORD I got wrong and explain it to me in a way outside of "Wally stupid". We are adults and modern humans...not cavemen.
You proceeded to correct my definitions...and then attacked my opinion of the matter. You never gave a short example, you never did it without insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wasn't simply the terminology you were getting wrong. You were also not grasping some of the basic concepts involved either.
In my opinion, all of the tweets are protected speech except for #2 as stated by the court. All of this happened outside the purview of the school district and therefore their discipline was inappropriate.
Do I think Rosario's an ass who should be disciplined? Absolutely. But, not by the school because it's none of their business. His parents are the ones who should have disciplined him and if it was me the first thing I would have done is take his phone away. But being a shitty parent usually isn't against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even after this was pointed out to him repeatedly, he still lied and made up facts.
Then doubled down on his lies. Sounds like he has been taking too many lessons from Prenda and Carreon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still swatting at imaginary elves? There's no threat in those tweets Wally. Get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
Again, that's not what libel is. Hilariously though your continued use of the sexist label 'pussy' would make you libelous under your own definitions of libel. So it seems that even you understand on some level that that's not what libel is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rosario said this
"8. AND Ms. Evans bitch ass boyfriend too He a pussy ass nigga tryna talk shit while walking away
Wally, you said this
"sorry, but if you complain after being cut and put back in on an appeal you gave to the coach who may have played you second or third string and barely put you into play...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)..."
Rosario called his teacher the EXACT SAME NAME you are calling Rosario but for some reason, it's alright for you to do so in more or less the exact same way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rosario made the scond string basketball team on appeal and tweeted that he hopes his coach gets 10 black cocks in the ass...
Now given there is sufficient reason he didn't play very much during that final game, and given his tweet that was SHARED WITH HIS TWITTER FOLLWERS....WHICH IS LEGALLY PUBLIC..I would say that Wally's opinion stands to be reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why you failed to perceive the views of the staff and administrators.
Let's break this down for you.
1. Kid gets cut from team during tryouts.
2. Kid gets in on an appeal and gets third string even though he wouldn't have made the cut.
3. After final game of season kid whines on Twitter using not only homophobic but also racist stereotype metaphors that he hopes his coach gets fucked in the ass by 10 black dicks"....
That's a rather wet pussy if you ask me. Wet behind the labia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not only are you insulting the kid (which you claim is libelous), you're also being sexist. Homophobic and sexist are on the same level of stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what if he actually is a "wet pussy"? Why is it you fail to understand that you are being hypocritical? Rosario called someone a pussy and published the name calling for his followers to read. He gets expelled.
You call Rosario a pussy and published the name calling for your fellow commentators to read. Why don't you get punished? Why is it okay for you to go around calling a kid names (really, you a full grown adult are killing a kid names? Real mature you are...)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's look at this a moment please.
1. We know Rosario did not share the series of tweets with the staff and that they found out on their own through other channels
2. I'm saying basically right now that it's LIKELY that one of his followers may have reported the tweets which is why the staff found out and suspended him.
3. From the article I have been accused of not reading carefully (not by you):
"Rosario's Twitter account was private, meaning these were only shared with followers."
So what if someone retweeted that didn't have their privacy settings set up correctly? Is this possible?
4. Tweet #8"AND Ms. Evans bitch ass boyfriend too He a pussy ass nigger tryna talk shit while walking away"
And tweet number 2
" I hope Coach brown gets fucked in the ass by 10 black dick"
Both pretty offensive and derogatory to the staff there."
"As to Rosario's First Amendment claim, the defendants argued that the speech in question was not protected speech at all because it was "racist, violent, offensive, and hateful." The court (correctly) rejects this argument saying that the only legal basis for the speech in question to possibly be unprotected is obscenity, and this only applies to one tweet."
Two tweets containing Homophobic and racist comments about the staff to his peers or followers on Twitter....who can retweet as much as they wish to whomever they wish. I don't think the staff went through a couple of hacking loops to get there.
5. "The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech, but they need to show "substantial disruption""
According to the UN, everybody has the right to defend themselves from Deframation. The school staff did this admirably.
Like I said, I cannot see why Rosario cannot be suspended.
The question I have is what lesson does this ruling teach Rosario? I agree with the judge's ruling, but I can't help but imagine to think what Rosario would learn from this. I mean he's allowed to continue saying what he saying when he wants to. The punishment may have been from a minor disruption, but even if it is a private account on Twitter, can his tweets not be retweeted? What does this teach him in terms of respect and finding a better way to vent than public humiliation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it says that everyone has the right to defend themselves against unlawful defamation. The tweets weren't unlawful.
That's fair. I cannot understand why he should be suspended for speech that was not made using school property and that did not disrupt the school. It looks for all the world like petty retaliation on the part of the school simply because they were offended, not corrective action intended to resolve some kind of serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only rebuttal I have is this.
A lot of the "perceived threat" really comes into play with the fact that the only way for one of his followers to see that tweet is if they are close friends or merely classmates.
Legality aside, on a psychological level, the threat is perceived by the eye of the beholder reporting it. The problem we have here is that the person who may have reported it merely did what all humans do with perceived threats...hit the panic button. So it's likely the person reporting it may have felt threatened by number 3. Sounds crazy but it's very likely that due in part the only place this person would see Rosario is on school grounds. Almost like a bomb threat, but not as serious...almost like an unwarranted fire drill. The perceived threat of Rosario coming after that individual on school grounds is a situation that could only happen on school grounds, and my only guess outside of pettiness on behalf of the school itself, that is likely the cause of the suspension in general.
Another fair question I often asked is what if by being petty the staff were protecting the identity of the person who showed them the tweet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No more so than your words:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
This is precisely how it would have been handled in both my grade and high schools -- I know because I went to rough schools, and this kind of smack talk was not terribly uncommon amongst a certain subset of the students. The technology involved is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re:
You are using lies and deceit trying to attack this kid. You have used a written form with the intent to damage his reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not the definition of libel. Libel requires that the statements be not opinion, lies, and intended to do harm. These tweets were none of those. He obviously intended insult, but he didn't intend harm. They were obviously opinion, so they can't be lies. That kinda kills the rest of your post.
"The school could have sued him but didn't. The suspension was justifiable."
So because the school could have sued the kid and lost, suspension is OK? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take a good look and think about what the third tweet entails.
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
The school lost the case but likely suspended him for this. It's not the same level as a bb threat but the intimidation in this regaurd of fellow students off hours can lawfully be treated as harassment..in which the school can motion to have the order recinded and haven't....or as a lessor form of a bomb threat...under a bomb threat the student would be sent to juvenile hall and since this was not one, a suspension is within reason.....of course it should be noted that his Tweet there indicated he knew the school would eventually find out his comments through the grapevine which makes his statement a perceivable harmful threat...once again that is lawfully dispensable if it occurs during off school hours.
But since people are too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word...I see the judge's ruling sort of correct even though the grounds of suspension were within reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You wrote that? You actually wrote that, wally? LOL! I actually had to stop there for a moment, cause I simply could not stop laughing.
If the school had taken their policy word for word (as written in this article, which you have failed to read)
""A member of the board of trustees of a school district, any employee of the board of trustees, including, without limitation, an administrator, principal, teacher or other staff member, or any pupil shall not engage in bullying cyber-bullying, harassment or intimidation on the premises of any public school, at any activity sponsored by a public school, or on any school bus." [emphasis added]
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
However, my point still stands. You argued in defense of the school punishing this student, by saying that those criticizing them are "too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word.."
when the school, by their own written policy, couldn't and shouldn't have taken action against the student.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FWIW I also believe you might be a Wally sockpuppet based on the writing style and the substance of the arguments.
And the fact that Wally has a past history of sockpuppeting:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/19474519753/apple-plays-cat-mouse-with- in-app-purchase-hacker.shtml#c559
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Harassment had to be on school grounds.
A bomb threat is calling into a place and literally saying there is a bomb and stating you're the one setting it off.
Tweeting a bomb threat to a school would definitely be punishable because it happens on school grounds.
You failed to notice something and missed your own claims in that and the AC's rebuttal. You mentioned that the tweet only went to his followers which include friends from school and a few classmates. The AC mentioned that it is likely that one if his mere classmates could have shared that tweet with the staff. The third tweet is definitely a threat (PhD in Psychology remember??) to anyone who would tell on him.
Now given that information the AC expanded on the idea that since the third tweet, which can be perceived as a threat...as it is in the eye of the beholder and that's all US law cares about...,as long as it is a reasonable threat, it is grounds for suspension.
Now what does this mean...
It means that one of his followers may have perceived a threat from Rosario's third tweet and reported it to the staff. Since that potential threat could only be carried out by Rosario on school grounds to one of his classmates...it's fairly reasonable to see why he was suspended.
The privacy concerns were ruled against because the court perceived no threat regarding the first and second tweets. The school however got a hold of the third one and it's likely that's why he got suspended. It has nothing to do with SLAPP.
Spelling it out:
Given that the court didn't find a threat in the first two tweets, he decides to make the third tweet and rub it in their noses. That's actually illegal to do here in the US. It's called harassment and it's not covered by the foray amendment one iota...his first two tweets are not the issue, it's the third one that's showing evidence of his harassment. It's like getting a distance based restraining order and purposefully being within the radial distance of that person just to get that person in trouble or intimidate them to move.
He was rightfully suspended because he made what could easily be perceived as a threat, not because of him winning his case. Like the AC ( (I may have) said, a classmate who isn't friends with Rosario, who could likely not be seen as his friend inside or outside of school, who also follows him on twitter, could easily have perceived it as a threat and reported it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At worst, there is a very vague implication of a threat in #3. VAGUE. Not enough to say there was a threat. Did he say anything at all about harming or causing harm to anyone, in any way, any method at all of causing harm? No, he dared people to snitch on him. That is all.
So basically in your eyes, the ones doing the complaining are the ones who get to say whether something actually legally is or is not a threat? WTF?
I find your comments threatening. They threaten to lower the collective IQ of mankind. Therefore, even though I'm the one making the complaint, I'm also the one who gets to say whether you are guilty of the charge. You are guilty and I'm going to your boss, and getting you fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is because of a perceived threat of a situation that can only happen on school grounds.
The follower that reported it was likely a classmate who MAY HAVE felt a bit threatened by tweet number three. Said classmate would likely only ever encounter Rosario at school...hence the back reasoning for suspension in the eyes of the rather humiliated faculty. The tweet occurred after a school event yes but one thing we aren't told is if the staff in question was watching the film reel from the game. There's a lot of think and guess work that this causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how that could be a perceived threat. There was no threat implicitly stated or even inferred in that tweet. Even if there were, said tweet occurred off school grounds and was not directed towards the school, thus it is outside of their jurisdiction.
[ 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:
The third tweet I don't think it was directed at the students, but one of them could have seen it as such. It's likely this person may only have been a classmate of Rosario's and not someone in his circle. Either way it was said, somebody got rubbed the wrong way, and part of the issue is that the student that perceived it as a threat likely only saw Rosario at school. I think that the AC has something there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legally it would also require a jury of your peers to agree with your perception instead of them thinking you are just being a thin-skinned ninny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re:
That sure is some very interesting legal theory there that I've never heard of.
You got any caselaw or statutes that validate this theory of yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re:
No one cars about made up bullshit allegedly not a sockpuppet Wally AC. What matters was what was actually said which was a) no libelous (or any other kind of defamation) and b) not a threat to anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No Wally, I am simply trying to correct your incorrect and illogical arguments. Like when you keep saying he committed slander. I don't believe he did. But even so, only a court can determine if something is truly libelous or slanderous, not me, not you and surely not the school administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes you would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
Indicates rather clearly knew exactly what he was doing was slanderous and is provoking them after a court ruling. That's harassment in the same way as filing a restraining order against someone and then purposefully putting yourself within the distance you requested the person stay away from you in the restraining order only to get them in more trouble.
Rosario with that tweet provoked the staff and got suspended for violating their rights as the accused. It saved the kid from being thrown in juvenile hall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
No, it indicates that he was being a dick and he knew it. It also suggests that he knew that he shouldn't get into trouble and he was daring someone to say something. I do that all the time when I know I'm in the right.
"... after a court ruling"
Court ruling? Where did the kid get yelled at by a court before he tweeted?
"... for violating their rights as the accused."
Who's rights were violated? It was just an idiot kid talking smack. That's not a violation of rights. I could call you a punk ass bitch all I wanted, and you could do fuck all about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
No, it indicates that someone had "snitched" about a something he did previously. That is all.
...and is provoking them after a court ruling.
What are you talking about here? After what court ruling? AFAIK the court case is about the tweets in question which would obviously be BEFORE a court ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
All this harm from the angsty impulse-pit of a typical adolescent acne-farm whose like the school is supposed to be capable of not only educating, but understanding.
Someone needs to tell those people to grow up, shut up and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
The little shit got out of a suspension that was supposed to be based on this statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question
Is that he knows he's venting without censoring and there is nothing anyone can or really should do about it until after the fact, if at all?
Should he be too scared to vent? Should he be scared of repercussions for talking dirtier than Richard Pryor? Is that the offense? He didn't take his school prescribed fear pills?
The more I hear from the school-admin mentality in the modern age, the more I fear they are just tools churning out Fed raised clones for use in Darth-whoever's personal army.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but I know the way some "adults" act is a shame, and a sham. The people running this school are setting very poor examples for their students... the last thing this country needs is yet another generation of litigious fucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you have completely forgotten is that, in the US, they have a little thing called the First Amendment, meaning that you can say pretty much whatever you want without fear of reprisal. The school teachers and administrators, being officials of a publicly funded school, would be bound to protect the First Amendment, especially since the speech was made well outside of school grounds and school hours.
If the speech was libel/slander, they could have sued him for that in court (and that is in of and itself an extreme action), instead of unilaterally suspending him. By suspending him, they have revealed that they are not protecting freedom of speech, and that they will punish speech that they have no legal authority to punish (remember, this was OUTSIDE school grounds and school hours).
If the kid had made these remarks during school hours, fine, throw the book at him. But he didn't. He was on his own time, and he never sent the messages to the teachers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Freedom of speech means you have a right to your own opinions but only can voices them if you don't violate other's rights as you voice it.
The citizens of the US take free speech a lot further than their government does so please don't blame them for what their government is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You didn't tie these statements to anything from the article or the boy's tweets. That makes sense to me since we're looking at an obvious ranting, venting of personal opinion with no general or specific threats to anyone. But why go to the trouble to write about the limitations without citable text in the article at hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If "not offending anyone" is a requirement, then there really isn't much point.. Speech that doesn't offend anyone doesn't say anything important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
Using intimidation like that will not ever be protected by first amendment rights and the judge only went by what was specifically written in school policy. The suspension was not for the tweets but for the intimidation of other students not to rat him out. Someone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous. It is unfortunate to see that the little shit got away with it because his defense decided to focus the case away from the main reason of suspension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Someone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous."
No. This is not what libel is. There isn't even an actual threat in any of the tweets.
You're just making shit up, ignoring the facts of the case, and redefining terms over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are right, people who use colourful language are not protected by the first ammendment (and neither is anyone else is we are being honest)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You might need to upgrade that Mac 512 to use (and subsequently understand) Twitter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are correct, it was beige. I'm going to blame my monochrome monitor.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry...but where's the threat? I don't see any intimidation there. Besides, I could've sworn that for something to be considered legally a threat, it has to be specific . Number 3 up there is general, it doesn't mention any one specific, so even if one were to somehow construe a threat from that (notice how he doesn't say he'll do anything at all, he just hopes someone will snitch...) it still wouldn't count as a threat to do violence legally since he hasn't actually threatened anyone specific.
Anyway...what about libel or slander? None of his comments have been declared by a court to be so. So I don't know why you're suddenly declaring they are, and thus, not protected by the First Amendment. Were you the judge in this case?
Lastly...again, you have yet to admit to the many mistakes you made here in the comments. Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He didn't send it to "everyone else but the teachers". He sent it to only his followers on twitter which likely contained primarily his friends and a few other schoolmates. "everyone else" including the general public, you, and the teachers could not see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whether or not you try to hide the speech, the speech is offensive or obscene, etc., doesn't enter into whether or not it's slanderous.
I don't see that tweet as being intimidating at all. There's no threat. It's just cocky douchebaggery.
If someone felt threatened, that alone wouldn't be enough to make the statement unprotected speech. Also, even if it is unprotected speech, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any of the tweets were libelous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_%28disambiguation%29
Slander=Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone's reputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_%28disambiguation%29
The 1st Amendment= Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Yo ur pops "sparkling" Teaching Career
http://www.spencersonline.com/images/spencers/products/interactivezoom/processed/02426369.in teractive.a.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines
You deserve to be punished for your libelous comments on this thread. (Using yours adn your sockpuppets standards)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel, slander, and defamation
First, there's confusion among the terms. Defamation is the general term that covers libel and slander. Libel is defamation that is published in written form. Slander is verbal defamation made to the public.
Now, to be defamation, a number of conditions must be met:
1. It must consist of false statements;
2. It must be stated as fact, not opinion;
3. It must actually cause measurable harm to the subject.
Furthermore, there is a far higher bar if the person is a public official or public figure.
It is absolutely clear that none of the kid's statements could be considered defamatory. They are obviously statements of opinion, not statements of fact. (In fact, how would you prove the truth or falsehood that someone is a "bitch?") And there is no way that they actually caused measurable harm to the subjects.
Also, most states have recognized teachers as public officials. It would thus be the burden of the teacher to show that the kid knew his statements were factually false, and directly intended to cause measurable harm to the teacher (e.g. that the kid deliberately published false statements specifically to get the teacher fired).
The fact that the kid's tweets could only be read by people following him, actually acts against the notion that it is defamation, because it is not deliberately spread to the general public, and especially because none of his followers are likely to be in a position to get the teachers fired (thus no showing of actual harm).
In any case, if it were truly libel, the appropriate action would be a lawsuit - not suspension. It is unlawful to suspend a student for speech activities carried on outside of school grounds.
There is no question that the school is in the wrong here.
Hope that clears things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait isn't that what democrats are doing now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insane Cyberstalking Warrant on Me
I need help. I am begging for it, because the cyberstalking warrant for me is ---I KNOW --- WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Here is the warrant:
http://www.buncyblawg.com/2014/02/28/cyberstalking-warrant-no-2/
Re: State vs. James L. Smith, 13 CR 58245
Buncombe County vs. James L. Smith, 13 CvD 1106
Grist vs. Smith, 13 CVD 4701
Message
This is to advise that because of an illegal warrant for cyberstalking, and other salient reasons including my terrible health at this time, I have been a prisoner in my own home since the last of March of this year. An order for my arrest must have been based on the illegal warrant because Asheville police are now trying to serve this order for arrest and hold me in the Buncombe County Jail under a $5,000 bond which I cannot make. I cannot begin to tell you what outrages against the Supreme Law of the Land this prosecution is, and these other anomalies are.
The warrant is illegal because it is a crude attempt to extort me from publishing viewpoint-based speech on the internet which is addressed to the whole world, not to any one particular person, and is protected by the First Amendment, as pointed out by UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh in his law review article, _One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech,_ a 64-page downloadable PDF file which may be found here:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/30/one-to-one-speech-vs-one-to-many-speech-criminal-harassment-la ws-and-cyber-stalking/
And by Law Prof. A. H. Caplan, whose scholarly treatises in First Amendment law are also published in the internet.
Furthermore, the warrant should be quashed for failure to provide notice of the charge. I have repeatedly requested Michael Casterline, my attorney, to file a motion to dismiss this ridiculous warrant. I have drawn up the motion myself and furnished him with copies of it. In rough draft it may be seen here:
http://www.buncyblawg.com/2013/10/26/to-see-and-hear-the-rest-of-this-blaze-of-glory-youll-have -to-attend-court/
The illegal order for arrest and punitive high bond is also illegal for more reasons than that the OFA is based on an illegal warrant. My two doctors, Dr. Hemme and Dr. Goebel, both faxed to the designated courthouse numbers listed on the clerk’s website that I would be unable to attend court on 2 April 2014. I am informed that these faxes were placed in the files in the criminal case, 13 CR 58245 and the so-called civil case, Grist vs. Smith, 13 CVD 4701. These faxes were intended that in any case in which I am a party or witness, I am unable at this time to attend court because of degenerative disc disease, scoliosis, nerve root stenoses, and tremendous pain and weakness.
Therefore, any attempt at effecting my arrest, pursuing the OFA, pursuing the illegal criminal warrant, pursuing any followup on the matters, 13 CVD 4701 or Buncombe County vs. James L. Smith, 13 CVD 1106, including hearings or other matters that affect my freedom or property rights, until I am able to attend court, will be deemed a violation of my civil rights protected by the Constitutions of the United States and North Carolina, and secured by 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983; and 18 U.S. Code, Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).
In this regard you will please note that I was scheduled for emergency L-1,L-2,L-3 disc surgery by Dr.Goebel approximately a month ago and had to postpone this emergency because of so many pending court actions. And frankly, I was just too sick with fever to get to the hospital.
The object as with all of these frivolous and malicious lawsuits has been to hold me in a state of sheer terror, destroy my dignity, turn me into an outcast, plunge me into an abyss of hopelessness, steal my property, overthrow my brain, and break my heart.
This 2nd day of May, 2014
James L. Smith
199 Aurora Drive
Asheville, NC 28805
582-2828
teecrafter@yahoo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understanding why individuals get sex dolls
Good post, thanks. https://www.joysexdoll.com/female-sex-dolls/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]