School, Police Chief Must Face Lawsuit Brought By Student Suspended For 10 Days For Tweeting 'Actually, Yes'
from the farcical-behavior-could-result-in-real-damages dept
Two words, delivered in jest, are now the focus of a civil rights lawsuit filed by a suspended student against his former school and, incredibly, the local police chief. There were a million ways this debacle could have been avoided, but the school district has decided doubling-down on its stupidity was the only way out of the mess it chose to create. After all, it won't lose much more than a bit of its reputation. If the plaintiff wins, it's taxpayers who will be footing the bill for the school's self-destructive, massively stupid overreaction.
Here's where it all began:
In February 2014, [Reid] Sagehorn was an honor student at Rogers High School, a member of the National Honor Society, and a four-time recipient of the Scholastic Achievement Award. He was a varsity letterman in football, basketball, and baseball, as well as the named captain of the basketball team in 2012 and both the football and basketball teams in 2013. Prior to February 2014, Sagehorn had never been subject to any disciplinary actions by Rogers High School, aside from a single parking ticket. On October 11, 2013, he was admitted to North Dakota State University (“NDSU”), pending completion of all work for any remaining courses taken prior to his enrollment.Stellar student, but he went two words too far.
On January 26, 2014, someone anonymously posted on a website titled “Roger confessions” the following: “did @R_Sagehorn3 actually make out with [name of female teacher at Rogers High School]?” Sagehorn did not create or maintain the “Roger confessions” website. In response, Sagehorn posted “actually yes,” which he intended to be taken in jest. The post was made the same day, outside of school hours and not on school grounds. Sagehorn was not at a school-sponsored event at the time he made his post, nor did he use any school property to make the post.A non-event. Teens will be teens. Not school-related in any way but the use of a teacher's name. No one's business but the jokesters amusing themselves with a little off-color banter. But, if any rational behavior had followed this non-incident, we wouldn't be quoting parts of a legal filing.
Roughly a week later, some "helpful" parent started the stupid ball rolling by contacting the school. It wasn't until February 3 that Sagehorn was summoned to the principal's office. It quickly became clear anything resembling a proportionate response wasn't in the works.
The principal (Roman Pierskalla) called Sagehorn to the office and brought with him a fully-uniformed school police officer (Stephen Sarazin). Pierskalla told Sagehorn he was suspending him for five days for "damaging a teacher's reputation." To support his decision, he pulled a page out of the school policy manual that referred to "threatening, intimidating or assaulting a teacher, administrator or staff member." Clearly, Sagehorn's two-word tweet had performed none of these infractions.
A week later, Pierskalla talked to Sagehorn and his parents and told them he was extending the suspension another five days, giving them no reason for doing so. He further defended his unilateral extension by "getting angry" at Sagehorn's parents for "questioning his authority."
Sagehorn's parents went over Pierskalla's head and requested an open-ended hearing with the school board to determine whether the principal's actions were justified. They received two responses, both equally asinine, but one carrying potential consequences far more damaging than a blighted academic record.
About an hour later, [Officer] Sarazin called Lori Sagehorn and left her a voicemail telling her that he had forwarded police reports from the postings to the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office for their review and decision as to whether to charge Sagehorn with any crimes.Everything about this chain of events indicates the district employs too many people who cannot abide with having their decisions challenged. There's nothing in this that doesn't stink of retaliation. In addition to the school's actions, Sagehorn also had to deal with public statements made by Rogers' Chief of Police Jeffrey Beahen, who publicly called Sagehorn a felon.
[...]
[Superintendent Mark] Bezek and [Asst. Superintendent Jana] Hennen-Burr represented to the Sagehorns that they could have a hearing in front of a hearing officer to contest the expulsion. Sagehorn alleges that Bezek and Hennen-Burr also informed the Sagehorns, however, that a hearing would be meaningless and the outcome was pre-ordained. In addition, Bezek and Hennen-Burr warned the Sagehorns that the school would consider increasing the expulsion punishment through the remainder of the school year if they requested a hearing. Bezek and Hennen-Burr told the Sagehorns that an expulsion of any duration would likely cause NDSU to withdraw its early acceptance of Reid Sagehorn and therefore the only real option was to withdraw Sagehorn from school. They then presented the Sagehorns with a pre-drafted withdrawal agreement.
Here's one of Beahen's statement's:
We sent the case down for review by the county attorney,” Beahen said. “The case would be potentially criminal defamation. The student said something about a teacher that could have cost her career.”Here's another, but with additional stupid.
He said a teacher having a relationship with a student is a felony, so implying such was not taken lightly.
“The teacher is a victim, she’s being harassed,” he said.
“That’s a crime. It just wasn’t a tweet that went from Jimmy to John. It got up on this anonymous website where people weren’t supposed to use names.” Beahen said, also adding:All of the parties named in Sagehorn's suit have asked for a dismissal or, failing that, immunity. The only one walking away from the suit alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations is Officer Sarazin, who the judge has determined was little more than a passive bystander through most of this.
“It’s like screaming ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater or ‘I have a bomb’ on an airplane,” Beahen said, “If you say something on a very public forum, there are consequences. This young, innocent teacher is the victim here.”
The school attempted to claim Sagehorn's two-word reply wasn't protected by the First Amendment because it was "obscene." It brought a variety of dictionaries with it to allege that "making out" actually could be taken to mean "had sexual intercourse with," thus making his two-word affirmation akin to say he had performed a sexual act with a teacher. The court doesn't find this argument persuasive and brings something actually obscene to buttress its rebuttal.
Even if the Court were to find that Sagehorn’s post unambiguously referred to sexual intercourse, the content actually attributable to Sagehorn – a response of “actually yes” – is not nearly as graphic as the content courts have found obscene as a matter of law. [...]The school also tried the "lewd and vulgar" argument -- in the context of a school environment -- as being sufficient to shield it against First Amendment claims. Again, the court uses the school's citations against it.
The stark contrast between Sagehorn’s speech and speech that would now be considered obscene is particularly evident when this case is compared to other recent obscenity cases. Sagehorn’s post, for example, markedly differs from a student tweet deemed obscene in Rosario v. Clark County School District, 2013, cited by the School Defendants. In Rosario, the court concluded that a tweet, which was sent off-campus after a basketball game, was obscene when it expressed a hope that the basketball coach “gets fucked in tha ass by 10 black dicks.” [...]
“[G]ets fucked” is an unambiguous appeal to prurient interest. Unlike “make out,” there is no ambiguity as to whether the Rosario tweet referred to sexual intercourse.
While Fraser offers school officials significant discretion to define “vulgar” speech delivered on school grounds, Fraser is clearly limited to on-campus speech. The Supreme Court stated that such discipline is restricted to “[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is appropriate.”The school similarly had no luck with its plea for qualified immunity.
The law is sufficiently clear that on facts such as the complaint alleges in this case – a student using personal property to make non-threatening speech off-campus, that in no way impacts or disrupts the school environment – a student would have a clearly established right to free speech. The Court further concludes that a reasonable officer or school official would understand that punishing such speech would violate the student’s clearly-established right. Therefore, the Court finds that the School Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Sagehorn’s First Amendment claim. The Court will accordingly deny the School Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Sagehorn’s First Amendment claim.While Police Chief Beahen won't be facing civil rights claims, he's won't be able to walk away from Sagehorn's defamation allegations.
The Court concludes that Sagehorn’s complaint adequately pleads a defamation claim against Beahen. Sagehorn’s complaint identifies specific quotations by Beahen – for example, that Sagehorn’s post was like “crying or yelling ‘Fire!’ in a movie theater or saying ‘I got a bomb!’ on a plane” – and at least one specific media outlet to which allegedly defamatory statements were made – the Star Tribune. Sagehorn’s complaint does not include lengthy quotations or full context for the statements, but they are much more specific than, for example, in Magee, where the plaintiff alleged that the defamatory statements were “those found in the Hearing Committee determination,” with no further specificity.Sagehorn's lawsuit is allowed to proceed and both the school and Police Chief Beahen will potentially be ordered to hand over damages for their participation in a debacle that combined a complete lack of better judgment with retaliatory behavior. And all over two small words that would have gone largely unnoticed if the school's principal hadn't been so intent on overstepping the boundaries of his authority.
[...]
Further, although Beahen asserts that the complaint is too vague to enable him to identify the news reports Sagehorn quotes, during oral argument on Beahen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Beahen’s counsel offered to play for the Court the exact Fox 9 news video containing the alleged defamatory statements identified in the complaint. Therefore, the Court finds that the complaint gave Beahen sufficient information to identify the relevant statements and news reports.
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: defamation, jana hennen-burr, jeffrey beahen, mark bezek, minnesota, overreaction, reid sagehorn, roman pierskalla, school, suspension
Companies: rogers high school
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
That, I imagine, was the real drive behind such insane overreactions, the fact that the student and his parents dared to question the authority of the high and mighty idiots in charge.
This bit in particular...
'In addition, Bezek and Hennen-Burr warned the Sagehorns that the school would consider increasing the expulsion punishment through the remainder of the school year if they requested a hearing.'
Is nothing less than blatantly threatening the student and his parents if they dared to try and challenge the decision already decided on. 'Sure you can appeal the punishment, but doing so is just going to make it worse'.
Everyone involved on the school and police sides acted like petty bullies, lashing out at those that had the utter gall to stand up to them and question their authority, and every last one of them need to be fired and/or held personally responsible for their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
'In addition, Bezek and Hennen-Burr warned the Sagehorns that the school would consider increasing the expulsion punishment through the remainder of the school year if they requested a hearing.'
Is nothing less than blatantly threatening the student and his parents if they dared to try and challenge the decision already decided on. 'Sure you can appeal the punishment, but doing so is just going to make it worse'.
This is down to the fact that plea bargaining has become such a standard practice in the US that people don't realise how morally indefensible it is. This is the same tactic that cost the life of Aaron Swartz.
We need to clean out this practice wherever it occurs - it has nothing to do with justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
Unfortunately the sleazy and corrupt tend to rise to positions of authority and/or power more often than not, because they're willing to do things that the more honest aren't, and once a few of them make it they tend to rig the system to keep themselves in power and make it difficult if not impossible to oust them or take away their power.
There's also a bit of 'those in power are in power because they know better' going on, where people assume that just because someone's in a position of authority it means that they know better what should happen, since clearly they know what they're doing/talking about, after all, they're in a position of authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
It's a threat that would harm the boy's future prospects by making him ineligible for the university, and therefore his future career. Statute 609.27(1)(3) seems to fit.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?year=2006&id=609.27
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should cost their jobs. If such kind of abuses don't start putting people out of their positions and possibly into unemployment such things won't stop happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ninja on Aug 14th, 2015 @ 5:13am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, don't you love educators who just have to let people know they have a PhD or Ed.D? My father-in-law, a recently retired professor of anthropolgy (undergrad Notre Dame, PhD Ohio State) never referred to himself as doctor or even professor. Most top level academics and educators don't, but these guys who get their Ed.Ds from institutions like "St. Bidmus of the Swamp" cant help themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, no, no, nope, nononononono no! Absolutely nothing like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know about that. When you consider that the original that the original "can't shout fire in a crowded theater" statement was in a 1919 Supreme Court decision ruling that yes, a guy could be imprisoned for protesting WWI conscription, some similarities do come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, no, no, nope, nononononono no! Absolutely nothing like that.
And actually - if you think about it hard enough, shouting Fire in a crowded theatre isn't that bad.
If there is a panic/stampede that causes injury then it is clear that the authorities haven't lived up to their responsibilities in providing suitable evacuation routes and clearly informing their customers about them. So any problem is really their responsiobility.
If on the other hand they have provided good evacuation procedures then everyone will elave the building calmy and in order and no great harm will have been done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, people double check even after hearing actual gunshots to see what's going on, do you honestly believe anyone is going to jump up and run out of a theater in blind panic just because one person claimed there was a fire that no one can see or hear?
The biggest myth in the "fire in a crowded theater" piece isn't the law, it's that apparently people think everyone else instantly reacts to baseless exclamations of danger in sufficient levels to cause injury to others. Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>“It’s like screaming ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater
>>No, no, no, nope, nononononono no! Absolutely nothing like that.
>I don't know about that. When you consider that the original that the original "can't shout fire in a crowded theater" statement was in a 1919 Supreme Court decision ruling that yes, a guy could be imprisoned for protesting WWI conscription, some similarities do come to mind.
Yes, IIRC the original decision was much later described by Justice Holmes as one of his worst, and was subsequently overturned by later SCOTUS decisions. Everyone who hears this expression should learn the whole history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the past..
Now, it seems to be where you go to get Stupid. Lots and Lots of heaping helpings of Stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, school is still where you go to get smarter...
Such as the harsh lesson that people in power will abuse that power, especially if they are insecure about their position.
Not literature, composition or mathematics, but still, a pertinent lesson in the contemporary era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The crazy is getting crazier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The crazy is getting crazier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me fix this for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me fix this for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harm to her career?
Or made her well qualified to be chief inspector of schools like Chris Woodhead in the UK.
When he was a teacher he had a relationship with a 17 year old pupil (he claims it only started after she left school but his then wife says that this claim is untrue)
In 1999, he ..[said that] pupil/teacher relationships could be 'experiential and educative on both sides'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Felon"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Felon"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Felon"
I'd love to see what crime Beahen is referring to when he talks about Sagehorn being charged with felony charges. False reporting of a crime (MN PC 609.505) is a misdemeanor charge, and it is very specific in the fact requirements (materially and known false statement made to a uniformed police officer.) Even a false report of child abuse (MN PC 509.507) is a misdemeanor. Of course, MN PC 609.77 makes it a misdemeanor to provide false information to the news media:
609.77 FALSE INFORMATION TO NEWS MEDIA.
Whoever, with intent that it be published or disseminated and that it defame another person, communicates to any newspaper, magazine or other news media, any statement, knowing it to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Seems at the least to be exaggeration and at the worse to be defamation of character. Wonder if they can prove that Beahen knew that what he was saying to the media was false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tax Payers
SO SICK OF SEEING THIS!
The tax payers ARE AND SHOULD BE THE ONES FOOTING THE BILL. We are responsible for who runs the show, when we give just exactly such a minuscule amount of shit that we do, then this is what we get!
The Tax Payer, SHOULD ALWAYS FOOT THE BILL! It is literally what we voted for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Tax Payers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Tax Payers
At the end of the day, someone that WAS elected is in fact in charge, and is able to do something about this. This is why the taxpayers SHOULD ALWAYS foot the bill.
You, like most other worthless citizens, cannot seem to connected the dots and just blindly accepts the idea that 'blaming others' for what is in fact YOUR OWN PROBLEM... is a great way to go through life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
But you made your points in the worst way possible, so, reported. That's what happens when you work hard to be wrong even when you're right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
You just said that the way I delivered the message is more important than the message. This is directly associate with that apathy you spoke of. As long as you keep asking to be treated like a child with kid gloves and gentle speech you get treated like one!!! and even worse... you will continue to act like one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
If you continue to talk like that, you'll just become an old man shouting at the hills. What good is it to be right when you're also ineffective? Fight smarter, not harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
People will not even read or look at history to avoid making its mistakes.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, there is an entire industry of Media that like to report on shock value more than the story that says I am right.
Politics in his nation have been very soft compared to history and we are on the decline, history clearly rests on my side. Sure it is horrible, that is just how humans are. If you don't jolt them awake, they stay asleep!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
You're not going to jolt anyone awake. To be brutally honest, that idea is a delusion. Instead you're just going to make people dismiss you because it takes too much effort to sort through your noise and see if there's anything useful in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
But, I agree with your point - voters chose the idiot politicians who hired the idiot school officials.
If you support our current form of democracy, then the voters who elected these people are clearly to blame, and deserve to pay the damages via taxes.
I look at it as illustrating the flaws in our democracy - voters don't vary that much, they are what they are. The point of a political system is to arrange things such that reasonable outcomes happen.
Our democracy needs major reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
That's hard to get, but not as hard as getting the people to "want it".
Look at how Donald Trump is doing in the polls. If that's not an indication that people want a change - *ANY* *CHANGE* *AT* *ALL* (even if obviously idiotic), I don't know what would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
Bush Sr. was a disappointing president, going back on his "Read my lips: no new taxes" promise and alienating the voters, so they threw him out and brought in the opposite, a President from the opposite party who was (relatively) young, suave, and hip.
We all know what happened then: he turned out to be a thoroughly corrupt leader and a sexual predator to boot, and was worse than Bush Sr. After years of constant scandal, the people got sick of Clinton and threw him out and brought in the opposite, a President form the opposite party who ran on a platform of "restoring dignity to the White House."
That didn't turn out so well either. Bush Jr. would most likely have made a decent, if unexceptional, peacetime president, but he got in way over his head after 9/11 and ended up being a worse president than Clinton had. So then what happened? This should be easy enough to explain by now: the voters threw him out and brought in a new president from the opposite party who ironically enough campaigned on the same basic premise as Bush Jr. There's not much difference between "Hope and Change" and "restore dignity to the White House" when the thing you're changing is the supremely undignified inhabitant of the White House.
And so far, it hasn't worked out. We haven't seen much change except in a negative direction, and Obama's doubled down on a lot of the worst Bush-era policies that he promised to reform. Again, he's been an even worse president than Bush, and people are getting sick of it.
So what's going to happen in the next election? That should be obvious: we're almost certainly going to end up with whichever Republican candidate most successfully manages to portray himself as the anti-Obama... and he's probably going to somehow be even worse. I really hope that's not what happens, but we've got a very clear pattern established over the past few decades, and no signs of anything fundamental changing that would break us out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
How many people running are even giving a care to that?
At the end of the day, not even Trump and his rumpus will change much, at most he might be able to pull the strings necessary to resolve the illegals straining the system, but I am not so sure he really gives a damn about any of the citizens other than being the head honcho.
As long as we keep taking candidate from either party we will not be seeing any change. People just do not realize that the party system was designed to Silence 'The People' because once you get someone up there that speaks for 'The People' the party will just tell them to shut up and follow leadership instead OR ELSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tax Payers
That's why I think we need major reform to the system - the voters are not going to change, so the system has to.
Altho I'm not at all a fan of Elisabeth Warren, despite being one of her constituents here in Massachusetts. But I will say she's a lot more honest than 90% of Congress. I think she's honestly wrong about a lot of things, but not corrupt.
I'll say the same for Rand Paul, who is actually running.
Actually, I'd love to see a Warren vs. Paul election - it would be fascinating. But without reform, probably not a successful administration for whoever wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Tax Payers
Also, in the case of this particular story, it sounds like the school board backed up the over reaction of the principle, so they are just a culpable as anyone else involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When state agents mess up, the taxpayers pay
As a result, there is no motivation for them to behave responsibly and conduct themselves as would a leader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When state agents mess up, the taxpayers pay
Beyond punishing the public for not being able to see the future(seriously, how many people run for office by saying that they will abuse their authority as soon as they can or appoint others who will?) if the ones responsible never face punishment for the actions, if the 'punishment' is always shifted to someone else, then they have absolutely zero reason not to abuse their authority and position. What do they care, they're not the ones paying or losing their job if a lawsuit is filed.
Punish the ones actually responsible, and they and those in similar positions will have motivation not to abuse their position and authority. Punish someone else, and there is no motivation for them to act properly at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sagehorn isn't innocent in this matter and he should have been disciplined, which he was. His parents should have let the matter drop. But, they didn't.
Sagehorn's tweet suggested that he had sex with the teacher. If he did not, then eh should not have made the tweet. I don't think either party is going to come out of this one if this lawsuit proceeds. The Sagehorns, the school and the police chief are all going to end up with egg on their face because this is an absolute embarrassment for all parties involved.
Sagehorn falsely lied about having sex with a teacher, he made allusions to it to someone else's post, and that is a crime, even lying about it is a crime.
I think the teacher should file a lawsuit against the Sagehorn family for the tweet. The female teacher does have a case for defamation and libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, are you a troll, Roman Pierskalla, or just proving Poe's Law?
[ 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: Re:
Who, if she has a college degree, would be at least FOUR YEARS OLDER than the student.
It was that four years that caused the freakout.
But it's hard to control biology. Heinlein said "when they're big enough, they're old enough".
Juliet was 13 years old. And as her mom said, "Younger than you, here in Verona, ladies of esteem are made already mothers."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improvement: Romeo and Juliet laws
I think in 2015 all states have some kind of R&J statute, through the age ranges that qualify vary (usually 14 is the minimum age, and five years difference is the allowable threshold). It also varies between gay sexual acts and straight ones.
My awareness of savvy family judges is that if a responsible adult behaves appropriately with a partner, they have sex and afterwords she / he turns out to be underaged, but could be convincingly mistaken for being adult (e.g. looks and acts like a twenty-something) the adult has a good chance of acquittal or at worst, a commuted sentence. But that varies from judge to judge and county to county, and how rich and angry the parents are. So do not count on this.
We still have the issue that underaged kids experimenting can wind up in juvie for experimenting. If a nine-year-old and a twelve-year-old play doctor, and it becomes a legal incident, they both can end up doing time.
That's our Puritan nation for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I'm sure that many an elementary-school teacher could say the same -- but they need to be more careful about actually saying so in public.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
PS Get your mind out of the gutter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You said it yourself.
Those that escalate also have the discretion not to. Yet they did anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC#19
I'm short on time, so I will ask for clarification on only a few of them:
How could Sagehorn have truthfully lied, and would it have made any difference in the pattern of the cement between your ears?
Based on the other statements and conclusions in the post, were the first two words of your last paragraph a truthful or false lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarc
(Sarc tag added so that you have an identified example.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word "actually" has a very specific and clearly-understood meaning: "even though this might sound hard to believe, it is literally true and not a joke." So to try to claim afterwards that saying something that clearly and unambiguously accuses a teacher of actually committing a crime that could (and should) cost her her job if the accusation is true was "just a prank" is disingenuous in the extreme.
It's the act of a spoiled, entitled kid who makes life hell for everyone around him on a daily basis and thinks he's above the rules. You know, the sort who ends up becoming captain of the football and basketball teams and never seems to get in real trouble (ie disciplinary actions) because he's good at attacking his victims when there are no witnesses and/or knowing how to do things that aren't technically in violation of the rules, no matter how much anguish they cause his fellow students, not to mention a couple influential (usually wealthy) parents who always seem to have his back no matter what he does wrong. (And you know exactly the type I'm talking about. If reading this paragraph doesn't bring to mind at least one specific person from your high school days, you don't remember high school well enough.)
And now he slipped up and tormented someone in full view of the public, about as clear-cut an act of libel as you can possibly commit... and he seems to think he's still special and the rules don't apply, so when the consequences of his actions begin to become apparent, he and his family immediately play the victim card.
It makes me sick, and even worse is the way so many people fall for it! Even the court, which really should have known better, made the absurd statement that his libel of the teacher, in a public forum where any of her students could have seen it and many of them doubtless did, "in no way impacts or disrupts the school environment"! I mean, come on! I've been out of high school for plenty of years now but I can still clearly imagine exactly the disruptive impact that that would have on her ability to effectively teach and keep order in her classroom; can't you?
No, the only ridiculous thing here is the reactions of a bunch of people who seem to have forgotten all about what high school life is like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, this kid acted completely out of the school. The administrators are retaliating for thoughts and speech that don't fall within their jurisdiction. They stepped way over the line, no matter what he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a good example.
They haven't been tried in an international tribunal, but in Bush's case, because he's specifically evaded extradition (e.g. changing his lecture-circuit plans to avoid leaving the United States).
But the records are there. Enough evidence is public to note the actions were taken and were endorsed by the presidents. They could try to justify it as righteous action in context of the circumstances, but that is doubtful.
So Bush and Obama are actually as war-criminal as one can get without being yet tried or convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have clearly been out of high school for long enough that you forgot how little teenagers care for the definitions of words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can imagine a possible disruption, and I can imagine no disruption. But the administration didn't have to imagine. It was brought to their attention after the fact; they could see whether or not disruption was occurring. Furthermore, since this is a motion to dismiss, the court doesn't have to imagine, either. It must view all disputed facts in the plaintiff's favor. If the plaintiff alleges that there was no disruption - which he did - then unless that is an obvious lie, the court must assume (for the purposes of this motion) that there was no disruption. And the bar for finding disruption is high, as the court noted:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Don't see what fuss is about"
"He slipped up and tormented someone in full view f the public" - yes and no. Since it took quite a while for one parent to see this and make a stink, it might be more akin to someone overhearing locker room banter than wide public broadcast.
But beyond that - the resulting actions of the school administration and police are reprehensible and verge on criminal. The constitutional amendments are there for a reason. The guarantees of due process are there to prevent just to sort of intimidation that occurred. Threatening reprisals for insisting on your rights is an action that the government cannot allow to happen.
As for the police chief - either a crime happened - charge the young man - or it did not. (Or, the ambiguity is such that there's no point in pursuing it, which is essentially no crime). To threaten prosecution to coerce certain other behaviour is reprehensible and a violation of constitutional rights. To do so to collude in forcing someone to drop their objections to a school board action is even worse. To slander someone to coerce a certain behaviour is an abuse of position.
you may feel the student is wrong - I agree - but the petty authoritarianism of the school administration, the intimidation and denial of due process, the ignoring of constitutional rights by the principal and the police chief - that is much much worse since they should know better and should understand the limitations of their position.
The USA is a society where neo-nazis are allowed to parade through a Jewsih suburb, not because they are right and not because this is a kosher thing to do - but because even pig-headed wrong-thinking morons are entitled to say and demonstrated what they want, without fear of retaliation. the right to free speech is not reserved for those who agree with you and are polite and respectful to authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Don't see what fuss is about"
Oh, definitely. But as has been noted elsewhere, the right to free speech does not cover defamation. Libel is not protected by the First Amendment. You can't do it and get away with it by invoking the Bill of Rights. Does not work. Period.
[ 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: "Don't see what fuss is about"
You keep saying this and I know that it's correct, but my question to you is this: When does libelous speech become unprotected?
I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be when that speech was declared libelous by a court of law. Prior to that moment occurring that speech would remain protected by the First Amendment. (Any lawyers out there please correct me if I'm wrong here).
So, if I am correct in this, the tweet in question would still be protected speech since a defamation ruling hasn't happened yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you're certainly demonstrating that it isn't clearly NOT hyperbole...
Still not seeing it as the fiction trope, though.
I think you just have it out for the kid and want to see his life ruined. That is the one thing your arguments are consistently saying: this kids life should be ruined over a forum post of two words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, you're certainly demonstrating that it isn't clearly NOT hyperbole...
Or is your use of the term "ruin" hyperbole here? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this about his athleticism, then?
Speaking of ruined lives, in the rest of the blogosphere, untold amounts of online abuse goes unpunished and disregarded by authorities even when the abuse forces relocations or identity changes.
So, no, not only does such persecution not happen to normal people, it doesn't happen to normal people when such action would actually be justified.
And Sagehorn is not such a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this about his athleticism, then?
That's hardly a fair question, since for people outside of school, such "fraternization" does not constitute a felony.
My first job out of high school, as is so commonly the case for kids not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, was working in fast food. Two of my coworkers were dating. They made no secret of it, and the boss was just fine with it as long as they didn't let it become disruptive, which they didn't. At least, until one of them started training to become a shift manager. That would have changed their relationship to "fraternizing with the chain of command," as it were, and apparently that was a big no-no. But even then it wasn't that big a deal; they just transferred her to work at another branch a few miles away and everyone was fine.
Oh, I know. Some lawmakers are trying to fix that by enacting much-needed cyberbullying legislation, and it's a bit distressing to see Techdirt come out against it over and over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, you're certainly demonstrating that it isn't clearly NOT hyperbole...
For context:
This kid was a top athlete in a small, almost rural Minnesota town (been there... best thing coming out of it is I-94). He was good enough to get a scholarship to a D1 school that is best known for... hockey... and he isn't a hockey player. NDSU is not known for a strong football, basketball, or baseball team AFAIK, so he probably isn't really a top-tier athlete, just 'good enough' to get a scholarship.
He may be an athlete, but not all athletes are assholes and bullies, and some are just doing athletics because they love sports and/or so they can go to school and get a degree without putting their parents in the poor house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, you're certainly demonstrating that it isn't clearly NOT hyperbole...
What makes you think it was only one?
And what happened to me was what happened to everyone: they went strutting around like kings of the school and all the rest of us were beneath them. Thing is, I come from a long line of Americans. I've got generations of "all men are created equal" running through my blood and I don't believe in kings, so it was kind of inevitable that confrontations would occur when I didn't let them push me around, and I got singled out for extra helpings of abuse.
It's kinda funny how these things turn out, though. There were plenty of these guys, but the one I really remember, the worst of them... he was a thug, pure and simple. Big tough football player who bragged openly about putting things in his body that he shouldn't have, and doing things with girls that he really shouldn't have, and the rules never seemed to apply to him.
Eventually I graduated and got out of there. Spent a few years at college and out seeing the world, and when I finally came home and started getting caught up, I heard that he had really turned his life around. In the span of a few short years, something had caused him to clean himself up, find God, and really start to become a force for good in the community... and then he started learning to fly private planes and died in a crash. To this day I really don't know what to think about him.
Technically true. In my entire K-12 experience, I knew a grand total of one football and/or basketball player who was not.
Those aren't good odds, though, especially since my family moved around a lot during those years so I got to know a whole lot of different athletes from a lot of different schools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fictional but possible back and forth with my friends:
friend 1: Hey, I heard you were caught messing around with Mason's mom last week.
[pause]
me: Actually, yes [and try to sell the deadpan and seriousness... something the internet helps do]
[in slight disbelief but still excited]
friend 2 & 3: Really? Whoa, man, I knew it. You really did it didn't you, you sly dog.
[waiting for a few moments then cracking a smile]
me: Naw, I'd never do that... but I can't believe you assholes think I did or would.
I grew up in Minnesota, I know the culture even if I'm almost 1 generation removed from this kid. I'm betting this kid thought he was funny sending back a straight line so he could bust his friends for even asking if he did such a thing. The fact that you don't think he did this is because you can't see yourself doing this. Different culture, different context, different upbringing: doesn't mean you have to be right and he is just covering his 'defamation'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's at least consider if the statement makes any sense in context, or if there was an attempt to spread the statement as true with ill intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Beyond that nitpick, you know what? I don't think we can really know without the full context of that website, which is down. Did the site contain a lot of obviously false information such that nobody would believe what was on it, or did it contain a lot of material that was true? If the Onion and the New York Times published similar otherwise-defamatory articles, the Times would get sued and the Onion would not, because regular readers of the Onion know not to expect the truth, and it doesn't matter that some people might not know that.
The tweet is two words long. I don't know how you can say it "looks like" *anything*, without that wider context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately I doubt that any of the individual defendants have the intellectual capacity to understand the court's reasoning in its opinion denying their motion to dismiss. But then their ignorance was already established by their actions, wasn't it? Unless a settlement is reached this case will probably go to trial in 4 or 5 years, at which point the kid will hopefully get a substantial sum awarded to get his life back on track. What would be best for the kid, and society as a whole, is if all those involved in depriving him of his rights were dismissed from public service and their agencies stepped up to make things right before even more damage is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additionally, in the 80's, 'making out' was just considered light petting or kissing or necking. Here in these times, 'making out' has evolved into sex.
The tweets clearly indicate that inappropriate conduct happened between a teacher and a student and it turned out to be untrue, a lie.
Sagehorn clearly leaves the impression that he did something inappropriate with a female teacher. I would like to know just what kind of values Sagehorn's parents are teaching him.
Neither the school nor the police chief did anything wrong. The person who did something wrong was Sagehorn. Just what did he think would happen when he replied with his tweet? Clearly there's a lack of parental supervision because I doubt his parents were even aware of the tweet until after he was suspended and the school informed his parents of what had happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NO - he doesn't if he had actually actually done something he would have kept quiet about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Between all the instances of criminals getting busted for posting evidence online in the form of bragging on social networks, and the well-known tendency for guys (particularly jocks) to brag about their "conquests," (whether or not any "conquering" truly happened, to the severe detriment of many an innocent girl's reputation,) what in the world makes you think that that's a realistic scenario?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we also know who the troll is *not*
Possible insight: Pierskalla is a name that would have to be maddening. No-one has to spell Jones, Smith, or Robertson. Do you think that a lifetime of a last name like that drove him over the edge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Evolved into sex? [citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether "making out" means kissing/fondling/groping, or whether it means having sex, it's highly inappropriate (and in many cases, illegal) for a teacher to be doing it with a student. The teacher in question could, if she chose, sue for libel. It wouldn't be a slam dunk case, but neither would it be a completely stupid case. It wouldn't be a completely stupid case because the statement, on its face, was obviously defamatory. It wouldn't be a slam dunk because the context in which the comment was made makes it pretty unlikely that the student was making a serious claim of truth, that readers would interpret his post as being true, or that they'd be reasonable in doing so.
But contrary to your postings, libel is not a crime in the United States. And contrary to your apparent belief, schools do not have plenary authority over anything a student does. The school (and district) simply lacked any authority over the student's remarks, so their attempt to impose discipline over them was their first major error. Their second major error was in making a mockery of due process by threatening to make things worse if the student tried to appeal. Their third major error was involving law enforcement, when there was no conceivable way, under any possible interpretation of any relevant statute, that the kid's actions constituted any sort of crime.
The most favorable possible interpretation of the student's post was that it was a tasteless joke. There's a reasonable argument that it was defamatory. If the teacher in question believes so, she can sue for that (I don't think she'll win, but she at least has a reasonable argument). But it did not violate any laws, nor did it violate any (constitutional) school or district policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"To even claim that you were just making out with a teacher is still a felony and considered inappropriate conduct by a teacher."
Just checking.
If so. It sounds like a pretty extreme crime, like something I'd expect in Saudi Arabia or somewhere else that doesn't have freedom-of-speech protections.
In fact, a crime for saying something sounds exactly diametrically opposite to freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please pray tell what backwards part of the US a joke is considered a crime so I can avoid visiting such a place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Authority over children - use iron fist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An appropriate response. Apparently, the school didn't think a one week suspension was warranted, possibly due to the teacher requesting a longer suspension due to what was tweeted. So the suspension was extended. Then, Sagehorn's parents flew into overdrive.
The school wanted to keep this quiet, to spare the teacher and the student any public embarrassment but the parent's demands for a meeting threw this into disarray and they were forced to refer this matter to the District Attorney's office for possible criminal charges.
The Sagehorn's should have left this alone. Because, I suspect that after this civil court trial is over, that the teacher could file a lawsuit against Reid Sagehorn not to mention that there could be criminal charges coming for Reid Sagehorn after his tweet about having an inappropriate relationship with a teacher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rubbish!
If the school had really wanted to keep this quiet it would have gone no further than a 10 minute dressing down in the principal's office, followed by an apology to the teacher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Failing that, the parents demanding a meeting with higher school authorities over the subject of their son's punishment in no way "forces" the pursuit of criminal charges. Especially as the apparent cause of their seeking a review of the principal's actions was the unexplained doubling of their son's punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't need to go farther than that no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to this report he did attempt to apologize in person and ended up writing an apology a couple of days after the school first brought the issue up with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would you want to be potentially jailed and considered a felon for jokingly, or not, admitting to kissing someone older than you? The worst that should happen is someone takes you to court for defamation. At least then you can prove whether it was meant to be harmful or not. It's called Due Process, not throw them under the bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason you're incorrect is that this was a 17 year old child making a joke with his friends, completely outside the bounds and rules of his school. Had this happened even 10 years ago, it would never have made the news because it would not have been a public thing. The CHILD (and I cannot emphasize enough that a 17 year is still very much a child) made a joke with other children. It might have become a rumor, but it would have been one any right thinking ADULT (the thing I am and you should be) would have ignored it. There's no cause of action here, because there is no connection to the school. Just being a part of an organization or group does not give that organization or group the right to step beyond their authority and take action for perceived wrongs that took place outside their sphere.
The fact that it was a semi public joke that people other than the jokesters could view does not change the fact that school have no authority to police the private lives of the children they oversee for a few hours during weekdays. The fact that a child was punished for actions thousands if not millions of children have undertaken over the years is only made possible by the seemingly unending desire for control our society has these days. This wasn't said or done at school. The principal had no place to act here. The fact that you seem to believe he was right tells me one of two things: you're either in some position of authority yourself and do not want to be questioned, or you've never found yourself in the remarkably unpleasant position this child's parents found themselves in. Either way, please stop speaking from a place of incorrectness. It makes you look foolish and forces me to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's nothing "semi" about it. It was posted on a public site, and as Techdirt frequently points out, you have no expectation of privacy on things you do in public, pretty much by definition.
[citation needed] If even a single kid at my high school had publicly claimed he was having inappropriate relations with one of the female teachers, even as a "joke", the rumors would have been flying and it would be all over the school in no time flat, but that never happened, because (among other reasons) we all knew that that was over the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? At my high school, jokes about "doing" the new, young, pretty English teacher were everywhere.
Heck, it was such prevalent theme at the time that Van Halen wrote a song about a year or so after I graduated, complete with a bikini-clad teacher in the music video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an adult, I'm not saying that teacher-student romantic/sexual relationships are acceptable whatsoever. I'm saying that teenagers of both sexes, with their raging hormones do think about, talk about and joke about such things all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The interesting point here
Had the two posts in question been written on a wall somewhere in the school the (unless the culprits were caught in the act) all that the school could have done is to clean them off. Even if caught in the act it would mostly have been the damage to school premises that was punished - rather than whe textual content. In my experience exchanges as bad (or worse) than this have been written on school walls worldwide since forever. (I believe that examples can be found in Pompeii and even ancient Egypt!)
The internet version is really no more damaging to the teacher than the old, physical version
Sagehorn clearly didn't take into account that his tweet was easily traceable back to him - and the school treated it like is was a far more formal thing than it actually was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[quote]If the school had really wanted to keep this quiet it would have gone no further than a 10 minute dressing down in the principal's office, followed by an apology to the teacher.[/quote]
Seriously? Dressing down a student? That's like giving the student a slap on the wrist and he doesn't learn a damn thing other than he can do it again and he won't learn his lesson. The suspension he received was appropriate. It's his parents who decided to escalate this rather than punish their son, meet with the school, and apologize on behalf of their son.
This didn't happen. The lawsuit that the Sagehorn's filed isn't going to end well for his family. I just don't see the Sagehorn's winning. If anything, the only thing this will accomplish is that any sworn testimony can be used in Sagehorn's criminal trial as well as in a defamation lawsuit against the Sagehorn's.
If the District Attorney is smart, as well as the teacher, they would wait until after the Sagehorn's lawsuit before pursuing their own criminal trial and defamation lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Student Conduct Codes do not apply outside of school hours while not on school grounds when you are not using any school property.
That's not rocket science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Regret to inform you that is not absolute. Damn near every school - public and private - and every college in my neighborhood has policies established with due process that the school can discipline a student for misconduct:
1) off campus but wearing a school uniform or any clothing with the school's name, including commuting to and from school;
2) representing the school in any activity, including nights and weekends;
3) invoking the school's name in any context, similar to the court cases holding employers liable for off duty conduct of their employees simply because the employer's name was invoked.
This article reminds me of years ago when a college had a on-campus forcible rape complaint, and the news media jumped all over it. A few days later the police reported that the complaint was false and the complainant was now being charged with filing a false police report. Did the news media give that the same amount of coverage? NOPE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not they were established with due process has nothing to do with it - many of those codes violate the First Amendment if enforced by a public school. Go to FIRE's website and see how many public universities have red-light codes. Heck, at least one had been directly found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the school still hadn't changed it 20 years later.
If you're playing in the school football game, then you're subject to the school's rules. And playing football does involve some level of using school property - the field, the uniforms, the equipment, etc. Of course, this doesn't apply at all to the student in this case.
In any context? Bull. "The general rule is that off-campus statements are “protected under the First Amendment and not punishable by school authorities unless they are true threats or are reasonably calculated to reach the school environment and are so egregious as to pose a serious safety risk or other substantial disruption in that environment.”" (page 20 of the ruling.)
Merely mentioning the school might make it more likely that the speech reaches the school environment, but that alone cannot trigger this.
[ 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: Re:
It's pretty well established, by SCOTUS no less, that schools receiving public tax dollars cannot discipline students for exercising their free speech rights while off-campus unless it somehow causes a "substantial disruption" of the school environment. I do not believe this tweet caused any sort of disruption, except for that manufactured by the school administrators themselves.
Students DO NOT give up their First Amendment rights just because they were forced to sign a Conduct Code in order to attend a school.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-j-solove/school-discipline-free-speech_b_877203.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What criminal trial? What exactly do you think Sagehorn could be charged with? Nothing Sagehorn tweeted could even be remotely considered a threat here. All I see is the possibility of a defamation suit brought by the teacher and defamation is a civil issue, not criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Criminal_defamation
Though considering this paragraph:
"Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, $1,700), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology.[16]"
the odds of criminal defamation charges being successful are low. My guess would be that any attempt at criminal charges against Mr. Sagehorn would fail on the "with knowledge of its defamatory character" part of Minnesota's statute(609.765 Subd. 2). Given the context, it's highly doubtful Mr. Sagehorn realized the potentially defamatory nature of his remark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting. I wasn't aware that "criminal defamation" existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Unless he gets a politically ambitious PA
I'm so glad for sake of this kid that actual prosecution is still hypothetical.
For the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they were smart, they wouldn't wait, because the statute of limitations may have run out by then. So, no, it wouldn't be smart for them to wait.
And further, notice how the defamation case against the police chief is being allowed to go forward? There might be something to that. Specific statements were referenced. If you aren't aware: "vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery". This has been said repeatedly by a well respected former federal prosecutor who has his own firm. You may want to read up on Popehat.com.
And why do your charges keep changing? First it was a felony and now its a code of conduct violation? (That the school has no hope of defending if its speech because they are a public institution?) Can you cite a reference to making statements specifically about a teacher being a felony? (as opposed to a defamation charge?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, helping your child defend himself against a perceived injustice by the school is "escalating" the issue? In what world?
Also, I'm curious as to why to think the parents should apologize for the actions of their son? In most instances parents are not legally responsible for the actions of their children. I've never seen any case in which a court found parents negligent for failing to supervise their kids’ computer use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/10/15/parents-may-be-liable-for-what-their-kids-post-on-facebo ok-court-rules/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
education system
Education 6 goals (check link above) include selecting and preparing the leaders, and also the obey function.
BUT this guys clearly failed by trying to punish a leader instead of pampering him up to the top.
AND they got caught.
They should be fired for stupid missunterstanding of the 6 education goals.
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The District Attorney's office is obliged to investigate whenever there is an inpropriety of conduct between a minor child and an adult. Reid Sagehorn's comment alluded to improper conduct. Once that was discovered to be a lie, the District Attorney can bring forth criminal charges for the false allegation of sexual conduct.
Next, since the Sagehorn's have filed a lawsuit, all they have to do is wait for the lawsuit to conclude. Then, the District Attorney can use the court records, Sagehorn's testimony, in his own criminal trial. Not only that, but if the teacher files a defamation lawsuit, discovery allows her to also present that sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit.
Even if the Sagehorn's win by some miracle, any sworn testimony can be used against them by the teacher in a defamation lawsuit.
This lawsuit that the Sagehorn's have filed is only going to backfire against them because it's going to open up a whole new level of embarrassment for the family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The guy is not guilty of falsely alleging a crime. He did not file a complaint with the police alleging the teacher acted inappropriately.
"discovery allows her to also present that sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit." Um, no. She would be able to use any testimony, but discovery has nothing to do with it, because those would be public records.
But if the teacher actually waits until the conclusion of this case, she will almost certainly find the statute of limitations has expired. In Minnesota it's 2 years from when she reasonably should have discovered it, and the student was brought before the principal on February 3, 2014, so the clock has been running for over 18 months already. And we're just now getting a ruling on the motion to dismiss. You think this case, involving multiple defendants, multiple causes of action, and 4 different law firms, will go to trial and finish before February 3, 2016? That would be almost impossible.
And how much would she be awarded, even assuming she sues and wins? You don't get money based on what could have happened. She needs to prove actual damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This makes absolutely no sense. You shouldn't use words that you don't know what they mean.
I think I can assure you that the Hennepin County Attorney (whose district includes the City of Minneapolis) is not going to waste his (and the taxpayer's) time on this. He'd be laughed out of office.
It's interesting that Anonymous Cowards (hard to tell if they're all the same one, but I'm guessing) claim to have knowledge of the school's motivations in this matter. Principal Pierskalla, you're not doing these posts from the school and during work hours, are you? Now that would be a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone Doesn't Know How Gravatars Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The stupidity in here is really something else. It's like a bank robber blaming the police for his arrest after he gets caught.
WHAT THE F?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let Chris give you a break!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let Chris give you a break!
In addition, all this should have included an explanation to the student why this was a potentially serious matter -- and that repeating such behaviour would carry more serious consequences.
A Five Day suspension was almost certainly massive over-kill, but the over-reaction _could_ have been excused as merely due to concern that a potentially serious matter, brought to the school's attention by a member of the community, be seen to be treated seriously -- IF it had not been followed by the official strategy of outrageous escalation as its knee-jerk response to any objection.
The Sagehorn parents were likely motivated by some quite reasonable concern as to the likely effects of a relatively major suspension (especially over a matter of alleged "sexual misconduct") would have on their son's admissibility to a good college (and even more so, if any scholarships would be involved). So they wouldn't have felt they could afford to let the matter lie. And actually, this possibility should have been of some concern to a responsible school administration as well.
The issue isn't whether the student, Sagehorn, merited some sort of discipline -- that's a red herring; the issues are (i) how severe that discipline should reasonably be, and (ii) the draconian, abusively authoritarian response of the local officialdom to any question being raised over whether they were applying their authority appropriately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: let Chris give you a break!
So the kid and his parents seem to have accepted the five day suspension as taking his lumps for saying stupid shit. Then objection when the principal wanted to beat the kid up a hell of a lot more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not blaming anyone other than Sagehorn for the contents of the tweet, which could possibly (remotely possible, IMHO) raise to defamation.
I am however blaming the school and the police chief for exacerbating an issue which really has nothing to do with them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do understand that (1) a mere lie (if that was what happened) is not a criminal offense, right? The First Amendment allows you to lie. (2) It was a JOKE. Defamation law does not apply to mere hyperbole, which this clearly was.
You seem very confused about the law (not to mention not understanding statute of limitation issues with your argument about when the teacher should file a defamation claim -- which she'd also lose).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The use of the word "actually" suggests otherwise. You do realize that using "it was just a joke" to weasel out of the consequences of your hurtful deeds is one of the oldest lame excuses in the book, and is so widely recognized as such that TVTropes has its own page dedicated to it? (The "Real Life section at the bottom is worth checking out.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for "hurtful deeds" it's highly difficult to believe their was any malicious intent given the context. This is just a stupid kid making a stupid joke, and happening to do it on the internet. The potential ramifications of the joke were likely never considered by the kid until he was summoned to the principal's office to be questioned about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once the kid said it was a joke everyone needs to walk away and put down the torches and pitch forks.
It is getting insane up in where with all of the guilty until proven innocent people running around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 14th, 2015 @ 9:48am
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off the cliff
Hooking up is sex.
I don't know what weird lingo you use, but what is what pretty much everybody in the world uses here.
The kid may have "Started the car" the but it is the Administration that drove the car off the cliff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off the cliff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyer up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyer up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lawyer up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Did @R_Sagehorn3 actually make out with [name of female teacher at Rogers High School]?” Sagehorn posted "actually, yes" in response to the comment.
It doesn't matter how you look at the comment, Sagehorn lied and cast dispersions on the character of the teacher that the post and comment were referring to.
Instead of Sagehorn's parents punishing their son for what he had done, and instead of making reparations with the teacher, the parents became upset over their son's suspension and decided that they wanted a hearing.
When I did something wrong, my parents would go to my school and find out what happened. Some of the time, I got punished for it, because I was in the wrong. Reid thought he was going to get away from it and probably told his parents a different story.
Chances are, like I said before, the teacher complained about the one week suspension and wanted something stronger, so they increased his suspension to two weeks, instead of one week. That was the end of it, until the parents started to whine about the suspension.
But, no matter how you look at it, and no matter how many of us take our stand on this issue, the Sagehorn's are going to get reamed over this. Their son's actions is going to have some serious negative repercussions for the family and their name is going to be spread all over this like Tanya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan.
Plus, the Sagehorn's lawsuit isn't going to do any good if they actually get to court. Any sworn testimony can be used in a criminal trial or civil trial against the Sagehorn's or their son. It's not going to be good for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know he wasn't punished by his parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they get to court? The whole point of this order was to say what could and couldn't go to court. Short of the defendants offering a settlement the plaintiff finds acceptable, it's not a matter of if, but of when.
As for the parents complaining about the suspension, the parents apparently offered no complaint about the initial five days of suspension. They objected when Pierskalla called to tell them that he was arbitrarily doubling the suspension to the maximum about of ten days, and recommending that Mr. Sagehorn be expelled for two months. I'd certainly call that a reasonable response on the parents part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreeing sarcastically to a sophomoric question is in no way an attack on someone's character. Just FYI: The word you are looking for is "aspersions." Troll better next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No..."dispersions" are what kids are calling semen now-a-days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone asking for a hearing to which they are legally entitled is not grounds to increase the punishment or refer the matter for criminal charges. What's so hard about just giving them the hearing?
But this happened before the lawsuit. I do believe that's one of the reasons for the lawsuit. Since when do police give press statements about minors facing school disciplinary actions but who haven't been charged with a crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You honestly cannot see those in power doing anything wrong so you are frantically searching for anything that could excuse their outrageous actions. Even if your reasoning makes zero sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fire in a crowded theater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why hasn't she filed an action against the original tweet? Is it that discovery process again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next step is that you'll see parents suing school districts if their child is even suspended from school for ANY reason.
It's akin to filing a lawsuit if a student is given 3 days in detention. Sagehorn's family seems to believe that it has a sense of entitlement to say whatever they want without any fear of consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm...yes there is. It's called the statute of limitations. This comment explains it to you very succulently:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/10170331924/school-police-chief-must-face-law suit-brought-student-suspended-10-days-tweeting-actually-yes.shtml#c1449
The next step is that you'll see parents suing school districts if their child is even suspended from school for ANY reason.
Are you saying that we should give schools absolute authority over our children? Either you work for a school district or you are a complete idiot, I can't figured out which, yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a 2 year statute of limitations in defamation cases in Minnesota, of which a little over 1.5 years has passed, and waiting until the last minute is frowned upon. I don't think she will, because she wouldn't be able to recover much and it might be difficult to prove his intent was not joking.
The school district cannot "drop" the lawsuit; they aren't the ones who filed it. I guess they could settle, but that probably won't happen, especially since some important people like the superintendent are named individually and the court did not find that they have qualified immunity.
No, it's akin to filing a lawsuit if a student is expelled. Detention and expulsion are not similar.
Actually, they DO have a right to say whatever they want without consequences from the school district. That's the First Amendment for you. They could face consequences in the form of a lawsuit from the teacher, or public disapproval, but not in the form of expulsion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Furthermore, this is not over a suspension. The student's parents merely asked for a hearing with the principal's boss at their son being threatened with a 10 week expulsion. The lawsuit is over them and their son being delivered an ultimatum of withdraw or be expelled from school completely forcing their son to withdraw from his highschool mere months from graduation, and the police chief calling their son - who was a minor at the time - a criminal in the news without their son being charged with a crime, before it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to press any charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It appears the reason the parents started to raise a stink was because the terms of punishment were being changed at the whim of the principal and when they asked for due process, they were threatened with the kid having his college plans and future put in jeopardy (his acceptance letter probably came with a full or at least partial ride that an expulsion or withdrawal would negate).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seduced by the Dark Side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Target
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does seem to be a consistent running theme lately:
...and in so doing, persons with authority demonstrate that they deserve neither, and cannot be trusted to conduct themselves as one should in their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It does seem to be a consistent running theme lately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vKDM7wfiA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Defendants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb and dumber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb and dumber
They like them dumb when they hire people as police officers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once in power, they give all their asshole friends jobs, until the very atmosphere is super-saturated with assholes. The stench becomes tremendous.
That's why I've always said that public service should be no different than jury duty. "Dear mister Jones, you are a city councilman now, and it pays whatever you are making now at your current job..." And next year he's replaced before it goes to his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the citizens should prove they aren't brain damaged and removed these power drunk morons from their positions.
Sadly it will cost them even more, because one can be sure that there are requirements in the contracts trying to get rid of them early.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A chief principal scorned...
While I hope nobody does such a nasty thing, a picture of "teacher" might go a long way towards understanding the reactions of the chief and the principal, because the reactions truly do sound like those of a secret admirer discovering that his hotty of choice has been "unfaithful".
Here's hoping that a few "officials" receive their due - official forced resignations - and that the Star Student's professional-to-be reputation is not permanently damaged by the childish actions of his so-called elders.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks to the Internet
Welcome to the 21st century.
You can't go around screaming "repect my authorita" when you have none - and when you're exposed as a bully in a senior position that stigma will _never_ be undone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Principal without principles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look up "want of chastity." The kid is the one the teacher should sue if not press charges against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the teacher that was the but of the joke?
Like is she actually participating in this? Did she get into any sort of trouble because of the bad joke that started this all? Or is this just the principal and superintendants going "My school's reputation!"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]