Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case

Posted by Zonk on Tue Nov 08, 2005 04:53 PM
from the worth-the-pain-i-hope dept.
Government The Courts Education News
An anonymous reader writes "A student who brought a suit against his middle school has been awarded a settlement after two years of legal battles. USAToday reports that the suit was brought after the school leveled harsh disciplinary measures against the student, based entirely on comments made to his website guestbook." From the article: "Grayson Barber, who handled the case on behalf of the ACLU, said the school presented no evidence that Dwyer's comments were threatening or disruptive of school activities. 'Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Seems a rather obvious conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dartmouth05 (540493) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @04:56PM (#13982820)
    Students have free speech rights--they are limited for the special circumstances of the school house environment, but it is undeniable that public school students have certain 1st Amendment rights. A website, written from a home computer, would seem a rather obvious example of free speech that cannot be punished by school administrators, especially if the punished speech was in a guest comments section that the student may not have written himself.
    • And yet there have been way too many cases where school officials punish a student for something done off-campus. I can think of several on-line posting examples like this one, and one case where a student was suspended because a principal saw her jaywalking around town, or similar.

      I'm happy to see this ruling.
      • actually, a couple of distictions...

        first is that the school acts in loco parentis [wikipedia.org] while the student is traveling to/from school. so, if a teacher sees a kid jaywalking on her way home, the school may legally respond to that

        the other distinction has to do with published policies. if the school has a policy that says "you get suspended for violating city ordinances", and then the kid gets caught jay walking, that's that.

        this case seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it though? the kid was operating at h

        • In loco parentis? How many parents prosecute their kids for talking back to them, or jaywalking? If schools deign to use that phrase, they better act like it.

          I'll go one further here, on a somewhat relevant subject; zero-tolerance policies. These are what cause things like Columbine to happen (and no, zero tolerance wasn't due to Columbine, although that did accelerate it). Zero tolerance (ZT) is dangerous, because it constricts aggression. A schoolyard scuffle, no matter what else, relieve mental pressure

          • Re:there's a distinction (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Namronorman (901664) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @07:06PM (#13983994)
            Zero tolerance is a real bitch, and I say this from first hand experience. A school I used to go to would suspend you if you were in a fight, even if you didn't defend yourself etc. If someone jumps/mugs/etc you, you'll likely be suspended even though you yourself didn't do anything wrong.

            I got so fed up with the bull shit of being jumped (I was a minority in the school and was often alienated) I just started to fight back. School is kind of like prison now, you beat someone up on the first day and they'll respect you. If you don't beat someone up on the first day, someone will beat you up and you'll be suspended regardless!

            It upsets me with what's happening to what used to be a fine country. What's worse is 90% of the people don't seem to care until it's too late.

            • I just wish that people who promulgate so-called zero-tolerance policies would realize that far from looking strong and principled what they've really done is brand on their forehead "I am too stupid and lazy to make logical distinctions."

    • Quite possibly the speach itself was physically threatening to certain people at the school. Such speach is not protected. What the school did not understand was that simply offering a forum for free speach does not hold the forum creator instantly liable for the speach in said forum. Possibly if takedown request to the individual messages that contained threatening speach were ignored only then would there be a case against the forum owner.

      • Re:Seems a rather obvious conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Total_Wimp (564548) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:19PM (#13983042)
        Possibly if takedown request to the individual messages that contained threatening speach were ignored only then would there be a case against the forum owner.

        Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU. In this case, however, the school decided that it's own more stringent rules trumped law and they metered punishement without so much as a trial.

        If it weren't a state-run institution, if our young citizens weren't compelled to attend school by law and if the offense had actually occured on school grounds then these punishments may have been acceptable. But when a citizen is compelled by law to be a member of an institution and then that instutution can institute rules that extend to all other aspects of the citizen's life and then when those rule can supercede state and federal law, well, then you have a problem.

        TW
        • Threatening speach should be handled by police. If it was truly threatening and the boy were arrested, I'm sure no one would be supporting him right now, much less the ACLU.

          Please turn your brain on before posting.

          The speech in question was message board comments, posted by visitors, not by the boy himself. Even if that speech was threatening, the boy is blameless. I would be supporting him in such a case; the ACLU would join me; and if you wouldn't, well, I won't threaten you for such a viewpoint but I ce
          • um, sure. You're right. Except the article pretty clearly states that the assertion by the school board was that Dwyer was responsible for the speech in question and Dwyer's defense was that the school had no right to govern his speach.

            From the article:

            The settlement of the lawsuit brought nearly two years ago follows a decision by a federal judge ruling that Oceanport school administrators violated Ryan Dwyer's free speech rights.

            and

            "While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly

          • That's really so nice of you to point out my error. Have you considered posting on "Colon: News for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation Nerds"?

            Or maybe instead of your friendly spelling advice, you could give me advice on the best spell check for my web browser? Remember, make fun of a man's spelling and you feel superior for day, but teach man to spell and you can feel superior for a lifetime.

            TW
              • I am NOT defending my spelling or grammar. I AM pointing out that when I bang out a quick reply on a real-time forum without any spelling or grammar checker that I will almost always make mistakes. And I'd like you to cut me some slack, or, alternately, suggest some kind of technology (isn't this "News for Nerds"?) that may assist me.

                And finally: I fucked up my spelling. I'm really, really, sorry. Now could you please attack the substance (or lack thereof) of my post so we can have one of those healthy,

      • Re:Rights (Score:5, Funny)

        by krbvroc1 (725200) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:34PM (#13983171)
        Can you imagine what would happen if Slashdot were held responsible for our comments? *SNICKER*

        You snicker, but I see the Senate confirmation hearing for a future political position.

        Senator: Sir, I have before me posting alledged to be by you on a computer web service referred to as slashdot. Are you familiar with that?
        Nominee: Uh, yes Sir.
        Senator: Are these postings labelled as from one 'FukMonkey345' yours?
        Nominee: Sir I can assure you that was a long time ago.
        Senator: Sir, remember you are under oath, I have evidence here that you claimed that you 'Welcome the nerd overlords?' Who are these folks?
        Senator: You also stated that 'In Soviet Russia they own you'? What is this commie loving talk?
        Senator: Do you have a prejudice against us old people? There are frequent references in the record to 'In Korea only old people use...'.
        Senator: Finally, what did you mean when you claimed 'All you base are belong to us'?

        • Nominee: I agree that these posts look a little troubling, Senator, but please, Sir, let the record show that at least I got the first post.

  • Pure Profit (Score:5, Funny)

    by s-twig (775100) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @04:58PM (#13982852)
    $100,000 isn't bad for your first website.
    • Why do I think that the kid isn't going to see much of that $117,000? If it's been in court for two years, there are some legal bills mounting somewhere, and I wouldn't think it surprising or even wrong if the ACLU took a big ass cut to pay for the services it rendered.

      Anyone know for sure whether the ACLU takes a percentage of judgements or settlements to offset litigation costs when one of its clients wins?

  • Just as well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dakirw (831754) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @04:59PM (#13982866)

    It's a good thing that the school district got its hand slapped for enforcing a stupid rule and then refusing to state the rule that was violated. How can someone be held liable for what another person put in a guestbook? And then to top it off, suspending a kid from school and not allowing him to go on a field trip or play sports for no justification? Jeez, at least tell the guy exactly what rule he violated. That school district just taught its students a lesson in the abuse of authority.

    • "The school district has never -- to this day -- explained to us what rule or policy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father." According to the article, there was no stated rule, stupid or otherwise.

  • Schools react harshly to protesting students (Score:5, Informative)

    by saskboy (600063) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:00PM (#13982882) Homepage Journal
    Any student that takes a chance and says something against authority, or does something that some board members may find offensive, run the risk of suspension. A couple years ago a girl in Florida was suspended for her Halloween outfit because she covered herself in unused condoms, and encouraged other students to take them. The official story from the school was that she was being disruptive, and refused to change shirts, but really it was about a repressive administrator that felt that "handing out condoms admits to being sexually active, and that was against the policy of the school which is abstience".

    Schools are messed up places in some parts. If you didn't always toe the line, and didn't get suspended, consider your school a progressive one.
    • Even that is understandable. The school found it disruptive and frankly it probably was. It was in school and they can enforce a dress code. This case is much different. This was a website that was not hosted by the school and was a comment in a guest book that may or may not have been written by the student.
      As long as you are not breaking the law I do not see how a public school has the right to do anything about what you do at home.
    • early, right out of the gate.

      The school works for us, not the other way around. They may be trained as educators, but they have nothing on honest, caring, critical thinking parents where raising kids is concerned.

      Most of the crap kids must endure these days is directly related to making the job easier for the educators. A noble goal, and one that I support. However, this goal must not get in the way of helping kids to learn citizenship, responsibility and ethics --along with their rights and responsibilities.

      If the school does something lame with your kid, do not let it slide because the damage is minor, or resolving the issue takes time. Address it completely and fully and make sure your kid knows why this is being done and what the value is.

      Often the school will want the parents to meet with the educator without the student in kind of a settlement meeting. The idea being to come to a solution that insures no educator loses face. Don't do that. If the problem involves your kid, then the discussion is fair game as well.

      There are a lot of things about my school district that I don't like, and there are a lot of things I do like too. My point is they are not perfect, even though they try really hard to convey that to both kids and parents. Once they realize you see through that and require they deal fair, many issues get a lot easier as time goes on.

      I'm happy this kid got to actually speak. I am also worried that he does not see the flip side of the issue; namely, that free speech has consequenses. Later in life, he might speak and be right for doing so, but might not consider the consequenses of his speech where his peers are concerned.

      Who knows though. Might be a smart young man who just learned a valuable lesson early enough to really make a difference. Just worry a little that it might go to his head, that's all.

      If the student is reading this: Good luck in life, young man, but be sure to think your future speech all the way through before speaking!

      (Not that you did anything wrong, because you didn't. It's just that speaking out does not always equal a nice bankroll.)

      • I used to have a typing teacher that would smack your fingers with a ruler. I told her not to smack my hands with the ruler. So she went out of her way to try to do it. Most of the time I got my hands out of the way fast enough that she'd smack the keyboard instead and get all pissed. She finally lost it when she went to smack my hands, hit the keyboard, I busted up laughing, and she hit me over the head. So I took the ruler, broke it in half, and threw it in trashcan. I got suspended for 3 days even after
  • There doesn't appear to be any mention of what was claimed to have been said on the site, other than "anti-Semitic" comments. What did the site say that got the kid in trouble?

    What were the criticisms of the school?

  • This kid is a genius (Score:3, Funny)

    by NardofDoom (821951) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:03PM (#13982899)
    He has one helluva a business plan:

    1) Create website with guestbook
    2) Wait for some idiot to post disparaging comments about his school.
    3) Get suspended (woohoo! four day weekend!)
    4) Get the ACLU to sue the school for him
    5) Profit! At taxpayer expense!

    No student loans for this kid, eh?

  • They expelled a student from my high school for making a wesite about how stupid he thought the school was...

  • Fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bgog (564818) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:05PM (#13982924) Journal
    This is wonderful!! There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period. If threatening comments are made they of course have the right to call the police who DO have authority outside of school. However it is NEVER appropriate to levy a school punnishment (like detention or removal of privilages) for an activity outside school. It's just a power grab to make the administrators feel more important than they are. Worry about education and keeping kids safe while at school. Leave the parenting to me and any criminal punnishments to the police.
    • What gets me even more is certain activities, 100% legal off property of the school, become punishable offenses on their property.

      Take smoking, or even posessing, tobacco or tobacco products (or, for that matter, any medication OTC or prescribed, etc.) As was, for that matter, posessing a cellular phone on your person.

      An individual I was friends with a number of years ago, was caught with a pack of cigarettes in her purse by an administrator walking by. She was 18 (legal age for smoking/owning tobacco) and
      • It's still illegal to take a gun into a courthouse if you have a concealed weapons permit, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be against school rules to have tobacco on school grounds. If your friend's not smart enough to not get caught with her cigarettes, she shouldn't be bringing them to school.
    • And yet at the same time, as a teacher in a Title 1 (read: seriously economically disadvantaged school) we spend a lot of time seeing parents that don't do ANY job of parenting at all. We run multiple after-school programs just to keep kids off the streets who don't have a parent at home to watch over them. We expect teachers to teach students morals and values (or do we? I've lost track of public opinion on that subject at the moment), teach responsibility, and inspire public virtue in our students... but
          • Cool, what set of morals should they teach. Yours or Bob's?

            Bob says your girls can't be on the swim team because it's not moral for them to expose their skin.
            Bob says the teachers should hit your kit if he swears.
            Bob says it is not moral to teach science because it is against HIS religion

            Sorry, parents get to teach their kids the morals and values that THEY choose.
      • "We can't have a generation of children grow up with unrealistic expectations about their rights. In the interests of an efficient national economy, we need the school system to teach students to respect authority at all times for their own good."

        For the love of God, I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, we're going to have an entire generation who would vote an idiot into the White House, sell their children to Haliburton, and think that it's their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
      • Surely what we need is a complete generation of young people who care a great deal for their rights, and also know that authority does sometimes need to be ignored/done away with (i.e. when it's corrupt, abused, self-appointed, etc) instead of the present system where about 1% have brains and get shouted down as terrorists/unpatriotic/dissenting when they stand up for their rights.
        If everyone stands up for their rights then it will be impossible (or very hard) to remove them.
        To use your employer example,

  • Society (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trip Ericson (864747) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:12PM (#13982986) Homepage
    I think this is as much a problem with society as anything else.

    The article states that the school district did not show what rule was broken exactly, and had no proof of these anti-Semitic remarks they claimed were on this site (not that such things can be outlawed--first amendment).

    I am of the belief that this was solely to shut him up. He was criticizing his school district, using his first amendment rights, and so long as he wasn't slandering the school district (or libel, as the case may be), that's tough. However in our society, anyone who says anything at all about anyone else is up for punishment, be it this, suspension and such, or a lawsuit.

    The most the school can do is block his site within the school system using filters. IANAL, but from what I gather, their power should end right there. Especially if the site was not being updated from school, as the article indicates.

    Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad to see this. I doubt it will help, but who knows, maybe it will allow for other schools to get their acts together.

  • Oceanport School District Student Speech Policies (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:30PM (#13983140)
    Here is the "Freedom of Speech/Expression" policies for the school district that this guy was suspended in (pdf): http://www.oceanport.k12.nj.us/PDFFiles/5145.2doc. pdf [k12.nj.us]

  • The lessons of youth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by leereyno (32197) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:45PM (#13983275) Homepage Journal
    Being a young person is a long hard lesson in the abuse of authority. This case is a happy exception in that the abusers were punished and punished publicly.

    This case clearly demonstrates what most of us already know, that an awful lot of school administrators pursued a career in education because they wanted a job where they could lord themselves over other people. This kind of abuse is inevitable anytime one group or person has too much power over another group or person.

    This kid didn't do anything wrong. I'm glad he had the courage and intestinal fortitude to stand up for himself and fight his oppressors. He was punished for the "crime" of being young and because the administration thought they could get away with it. They saw him as a non-person without any rights. A punching bag to take out their frustrations upon. Maybe they'll think twice next time, assuming that there is one since the voters now have 100,000 reasons to elect a new school board. No one likes being told that their tax dollars were spent to compensate the victims of abuse at the hands of a public institution.

    Lee
    • Ok, fine, how little will you accept to have your free-speech rights violated?
      ...
      Oh, that little?
      ...

      Maybe you just don't have all that much worth saying, then?


      As Ben Franklin said, "Madam, we've already established what you are; now, we are just haggling over price."

        • Re:How much?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by murphyslawyer (534449) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:22PM (#13983063) Homepage
          This is tax money we are talking about here. Why should the residents of New Jersey, the students of that school district, and to a lesser extent, the entire nation (some federal money trickles down to school districts), pay for the oppressive actions of a few idiot administrators?

          I disagree - I think the taxpayers are the perfect candidates to pay this fine.

          After all, they voted the school board into office.

    • Re:How much?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drxenos (573895) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:05PM (#13982922)
      Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?

    • Re:How much?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by southpolesammy (150094) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:09PM (#13982959) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure it'll be justified in ways such as lost opportunities, black marks on the education record that will cause certain undergraduate schools to shy away from such as candidate, and so forth. However, the real reason is the courts smacking the school district for violating the rules, and if they were to do it again, it would be 10x as much.

      Of course, the irony is that residents in the school district will ultimately foot the bill, so in essence, although the Dwyer's win, they lose as well. If the court had really wanted to serve justice, some school officials should have been given the boot today.
    • I guess this is to strongly discourage similar incidents in the future - if it was a lighter fine, the school (or other schools) would be tempted to do the same thing time and again.

      A large fine would largely be detrimental to such actions.

      More importantly, it becomes imperative that such offenses to the very fundamental fabric of free speech should not be treated lightly, no matter what the situation. Else it would not be undermining the incident, it would be undermining free speech.

      And sometimes, people o

    • Re:How much?!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by applemasker (694059) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @05:17PM (#13983026)
      Did anyone RTFA?

      They SETTLED - the Board came up with the offer and the kid and his parents accepted it.

      The Board was most likely advised that they risked higher exposure if this case went to trial in the form of punitive damages and attorney's fees which are available in cases like this where government entites are found to have violated constititional rights (like, in this case, speech).

      • Oh ... they get the point all right. The problem is that these people are far more concerned about their public image than the quality of education afforded the students at their fine institution. And that problem is very widespread and has to do with our educators being more politician than educator.

        A large corporation can become so topheavy with middle management (synonymous with "administration" in educational parlance) that it fails to maintain sufficient productivity and goes out of business. Or may
    • You need to go back and read the First Amendment, the defense of which is the ACLU's primary purpose. First sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Coerced prayer in schools is an obvious violation of the first clause. Other religion in schools issues are a question of how to balance the second and third clauses.
        • Public school districts are institutions of local governments, and their regulations have the force of law for students (i.e. the rules have the force of the government behind them and students can be punished for breaking them).

          Preventing a student from praying -- silently in class, or on his own time at recess or outside of class -- obviously is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech." So is failing to make reasonable accommodations for private religious pract

    • Re:ACLU (Score:3, Informative)

      by fader (107759)
      The same ACLU that has consistently fought in favor [aclu.org] of allowing children to pray, distribute religious literature, or otherwise express their religious beliefs in schools? You're either arguing against an organization you know little about, or simply being disingenuous. Neither one is a particularly honorable tactic for persuading people to your beliefs.
      • One of the great things about America is that morons like this school's staff often get their asses served to them on a plate. $117,500 is a lot for a school district to shell out

        Unfortunately, that means the taxpayers.

        Now, while it can be argued that the idiots who voted for the school board officials who decided to suspend this student deserve to pay that settlement, I don't think the entire school board electorate should.

        On the assumption that the settlement will come out of future real-estate taxe

    • Schools should have no right, Catholic or public, to compel their students to take down personal blogs...

      Why can't a Catholic school do this? Unlike a public school, a Catholic school is a private organization. It seems to me that enforcing this "right" limits the ability of private organizations to conduct their own affairs.

      A Catholic school, and for that matter, any private organization is perfectly entitled to enforce its own code of conduct on or off its property, and apply any (legal) disciplinar

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.