Judge Munley is So Out of My Top 8 791
Apart from the politics of minors' free speech rights in general, I think there are at least three logical problems with the ruling. The first is the judge's argument that even though on-campus speech and off-campus speech are separate, if the off-campus speech is offensive enough, that elevates it to the point of giving the school jurisdiction over it. The second is the judge's comparison between a student's parody MySpace page, and the mock-threatening rap lyrics that got a student expelled in another court case -- a court ruled that the school overstepped their bounds by expelling the student for the rap song, but Judge Munley said that a MySpace page jokingly calling the principal a "sex addict" was actually more offensive than the violent rap lyrics. The third is the argument that because the student's conduct was so offensive that it could have theoretically been criminally punished if the principal took her to court, that made it acceptable for the school to take the easier route of suspending her.
All right, all together now: I'm not a lawyer, and probably neither are you. But as I've said before, if you put 10 judges in 10 separate rooms and asked them to decide this case (or any other case) independently of each other, you'd be very unlikely to get a consensus anyway. The importance of courts in a civilized society is that they provide a peaceful means of settling disputes, not because we expect that the judges will actually get the "right" answer -- that's why we don't have a crisis of faith in the system every time the Supreme Court splits 5-4. (By contrast, when physicists work on problems involving car safety and satellite trajectories, we do care about them getting the "right" answer, and so physicists are held to a higher standard than judges -- we expect that 9 physicists working on the same problem in separate rooms would all get the same result.) That goes for the rest of us too -- I have no independent confirmation that I'm right, and anyone ranting with supreme confidence that I'm wrong, has no independent confirmation that they're right, either. The best we can do is try to make arguments that are logically consistent, and check that even if they are free of internal contradicions, that they also can't be carried through to an absurd conclusion.
To wit: Judge Munley's decision cites four prior cases that involved students making offensive or disruptive speech (although still not as offensive as the MySpace page in this case calling the principal a pedophile) while on school property or at school events: Bethel School Dist v. Fraser, Hazlewood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, Morse v. Frederick, and Klein v. Smith. In those cases, the courts ruled that the discipline did not violate the students' rights because the students were at school events or on campus when they made the statements at issue. Judge Munley then cites another list of cases in which students published speech that was generally more offensive than the incidents in the first list, but did it on their own time, away from school: Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. Dist., Latour v. Riverside Beaver Sch. Dist., Killion v. Franklin Regaional Sch. Dist., and Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist. In all of these cases, the courts ruled that the school districts violated the students' rights by punishing them for off-campus speech. So far, all eight of these cases cited by Munley, followed the rule: on-campus or school-affiliated speech is punishable, off-campus speech is not. (Munley cites only one case that was an exception to this rule: Fenton v. Stear, in which the court upheld the punishment of a student who was off campus when he loudly referred to a teacher as a "prick.")
But then, Judge Munley argues more or less that the speech in this case is so offensive (calling the principal a sex addict and a pedophile), that you're allowed to lift it out of the category of off-campus speech and treat it by analogy to earlier cases involving on-campus speech. Munley wrote:
In the instant case, there can be no doubt that the speech used is vulgar and lewd. The profile contains words such as "fucking," "bitch," "fagass," "dick," "tight ass," and "dick head." The speech does not make any type of political statement. It is merely an attack on the school's principal. It makes him out to be a pedophile and sex addict. This speech is not the Tinker silent political protest. It is more akin to the lewd and vulgar speech addressed in Fraser. It is also akin to the speech that promoted illegal actions in the Morse case.
The content itself is "akin" to the offensive speech in the earlier cases, but what difference does that make, if the speech didn't take place in school? Getting back to first principles: Why does the First Amendment generally grant the freedom to call people "dick" and "tight ass"? Because it doesn't hurt anyone except to the extent that it hurts their feelings, and you don't have a right to unhurt feelings. Because the remarks can be made in the context of general legitimate criticism of someone, which might motivate them to change the behavior that led someone to call them a "tight ass" in the first place. Once these premises are accepted, it doesn't matter if you ratchet up the offensiveness from calling someone a "dick" to calling them a "fucking dick." It does change the analysis if you move the speech to a different setting, e.g. standing up in class when people are trying to learn, and shouting that the principal is a "fucking dick." But that's not what this student was doing.
After all, if the regulation of off-campus speech were justified in order to prevent harm or embarrassment to the principal, carry that through to its logical conclusion: Suppose a former student, who had since graduated, created the parody MySpace page and e-mailed it to friends at the school. The school's "interest" in preserving order and protecting the principal's reputation, would be exactly the same -- and yet no court has ever suggested that the government can punish a former student for speech outside of school (unless the speech rises to the level of threats or libel, which anyone can be punished for, regardless of the former student-principal relationship). To be punished, the former student would have to bring the speech into the school, where it could cause a disruption (and where, as a non-student, they could be banned from the premises anyway).
As for the second problem, apart from the issue of whether offensiveness alone is enough to give the school the right to punish a student for off-campus speech, there is the question of what criteria Judge Munley used to determine that the MySpace page was more offensive than the student off-campus speech in previous cases. In Latour v. Riverside Beaver Sch. Dist. , the court found that a student's rap lyrics which made mock threats toward another student, identified by name, could not be treated as a true threat because they were the kind of boastful posturing that rappers are known for (apparently including the ones in junior high school these days). Similarly, the MySpace page created in this case, began with the words:
yes. It's your oh so wonderful, hairy,
expressionless, sex addict, fagass, put on this world
with a small dick PRINCIPAL
and hopefully the principal would agree that any reasonable reader would know this was not written by him. So if the content of the speech in both cases was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, a fair apples-to-apples comparison would be to ask which is the more offensive topic: violence, or a joke about a principal listing among his "interests": "detention, being a tight ass, riding the fraintrain, spending time with my child (who looks like a gorilla), baseball, my golden pen, fucking in my office, hitting on students and their parents"?
What Judge Munley seems to be saying is that joking about murder is more acceptable than joking about a principal hitting on students. While I think this is absurd and offensive to victims of violence, I have to admit that this is at least consistent with standards of censorship in the U.S. It's a tired old complaint, but it's never been satisfactorily answered: Why can you show a character being killed on television, but a sex act is taboo? Why are the most offensive swear words derived from sex acts and sex organs, but there are no equivalent words for murder that are banned from the airwaves? What's worse?
Third, the judge seemed to adopt the position that because the student could theoretically have been prosecuted for creating the fake MySpace profile, that made it acceptable for the school to impose a milder punishment that circumvented the court system. Judge Munley wrote:
The speech at issue here could have been the basis for criminal charges against J.S. Additionally, the state police indicated to McGonigle that he could press harassment charges based upon the imposter profile. (Dep. McG, 98- 99). McGonigle indicated that he would not press charges, but asked the police officer to contact the students involved and their parents to inform them of the seriousness of the situation. (Dep. McG at 99, 163-64). The officer summoned the students and their parents to the state police station and discussed the seriousness of the profile and that McGonigle would not press charges.
It's at least debatable whether the MySpace page, which was an obvious parody, could have been the basis for criminal charges. But suppose we grant the judge that point. In that case, even if we know that someone's actions would have gotten them a more severe punishment from the courts, is it acceptable to give them a lighter punishment for something else, just because that's simpler for the school?
No. First, because it fosters disrespect for the rule of law in general: If you committed X, then you should be punished for X, according to the rules set up for punishing X. When Judge Jackie Glass began O.J. Simpson's trial this month for robbing two men at gunpoint, she told jurors: "If you think you are going to punish Mr Simpson for what happened in 1995, this is not the case for you." She, like most sentient beings, probably believed privately that O.J. committed the murders in 1994, but she knew the rule of law was more important than the outcome of any one case, even a murder trial. Second, lighter punishments (such as a suspension from school) often come with a lower standard of judicial review, so you could end up getting an undeserved punishment, in cases where a proper trial for the actual crime at issue might have found that you should not have been punished at all. (Al Capone did get put away for tax evasion, but the court found that he was in fact guilty of tax evasion -- they weren't reaching that as a compromise to avoid trying him for his crimes as a gangster.)
To come clean, however, I have to admit that I have tried to egg judges down that route occasionally. I've taken spammers to court and gotten them to say, under oath, that they never sent any spam and didn't know what I was talking about, before I revealed a tape-recording of a conversation (recorded legally) in which they offered to send 5 million pieces of spam for $500, that the spams were routed out through a server in China to help defeat spam filters, etc. The idea was that the judge would get pissed at the spammer for committing perjury, but realize that it would be too much paperwork to prosecute that, so just bang them over the head with a thousand-dollar judgment for spamming, which would go to me. Unfortunately this can backfire if the judge is so opposed to anti-spam suits that no amount of evidence will convince them anyway. But even if it had worked, it would not be strictly correct to say that justice had been done -- perjury should be punished as perjury, even if only with a slap on the wrist.
So, I'm sure that Judge Munley was trying in his own way to do the right thing by preserving order in the school system, but he probably decided in advance what conclusion to reach, and came up with the arguments after the fact. Still, it may not be a loss for student rights in the long run. The ACLU, which represented the student, has not said whether they will appeal, and anyway, virtually all other caselaw so far has said that student speech off campus is protected, as Judge Munley himself pointed out.
This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S. It's just one of those terms that we throw around to make ourselves feel superior to other countries. But when you take even the most cursory look at it, you realize it's as hollow as a reed. "The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech." The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
That kid just learned one of the most important lessons in life: That what people SAY and CLAIM has little to do with what they DO and how they actually ACT. And that goes for the government, politicians, and just about everyone else. Just because some civics class says you have "the right to free speech" does not mean that you can actually ever speak freely in any real world environment without fear of persecution.
Consider it the first of many disillusioning life lessons, kid.
Here's the thing (Score:0, Insightful)
Minors don't have rights.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I feel dumber for having read your response ...
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences. Realistically, what was the worse outcome, being suspended for a couple of days or having the principle sue her and her parents for slandering him?
Not seeing the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds like blatant libel.
The stupid girl should consider herself lucky for having it settled with a simple suspension rather than being taken to court.
Since when was Slander and Liable free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't satire, this isn't parody, this is just abusive stuff out of the mind of a teenager, they might think its "cool" but in fact accusing a principal in this heavily sensitive times of being a paedophile is just about as low and threatening as a student can get. This isn't free speech in the same way as a John Stewart gag is satire this is just abusive rubbish out of the mind of an immature kid.
Getting kicked out is the least of this kid's problems, they are lucky that they aren't looking down the barrel of a lawsuit with lots of damages attached.
Free Speech is critical to a well functioning democracy and its worth defending, but it isn't a license to just spout off crap. Hell even Spiderman movies know that "with great power comes great responsibility".
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
What catches my attention is that the student didn't merely call the principle names, but also accused the principle of engaging in a felony (chile abuse; aka "hitting on kids"). It is never "free speech" to accuse someone of a crime; especially, as is now the case in our society, a crime where society consistently considers the accused to be guilty until proven innocent.
Freedom of speech.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
No we have the right for controversial speech. We don't have the right to personally attack people without good evidence to back it up. Free Speech has a limit when you use it to Harm someone(s).
c.f. sexual harassment law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of IANAL, since when did Slashdot publish essays on law from someone who explicitly states he's not a lawyer (although he's taken people to court under very different circumstances from the article)? What makes them qualified to get a whole Slashdot article to themselves?
Re:Not seeing the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
But then again, little Johnny(or Suzie) School Kid doesn't realize that it could be worse. If I were the judge, I would have asked which way they wanted to defend it.
Do you want to defend this as a "School Matter" or under "Criminal Justice or Civil Court" rules.
God, enough of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh.
Um, of course they will. You see, those are the consequences of your free speech. There has never been any real disagreement on this issue, you have free speech, and you have the responsibility to use it wisely.
Pretending like "free speech" means "say whatever the fuck I want with impunity, while simultaneously forcing others to accept my speech without exercising their own free speech (which is your primary complaint)" is bullshit.
Free speech never meant "say what you like with impunity" and anyone claiming otherwise is full of it.
Re:Since when was Slander and Liable free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter; if a teenager libels the principal outside the school, the principal's legitimate response would be a libel suit. NOT to take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner himself. That's corruption on the principal's part, using his official power to address a personal wrong.
Re:Not seeing the problem (Score:1, Insightful)
She didn't do these things while at school, didn't use school equipment, etc... why should the school be able to punish her? It should have been takent to court and not dealt with in school.
If two students get into a fight on a weekend while not on school property then they wouldn't be punished by the school, so how is this any different?
Poor packaging (Score:3, Insightful)
Judge was dead on right. The summary tries to steer the reader into thinking this is the Man stepping on Free Speech (it's parody, right! You can do or say anything when it's parody!) when it's really some poor guy, not even a public figure, getting publicly slandered by a kid.
Not to add that the era matters: in the 50's the kid could be calling the principal a Communist. These days, if she's hinting he's a sex offender, people are hyper-sensitive to that.
Kid needs to have life explained, in detail, without dessert.
Re:Freedom of speech.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from consequence -- at least, official governmental consequence. If it didn't, it would be meaningless. The government could pass a law saying "Anyone criticizing a member of Congress, Senator, President, or Vice President shall be executed", and it wouldn't violate "free speech" as you've defined it.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
"Free Speech" doesn't mean that you get to say whatever you want to say all the time without consequences. Realistically, what was the worse outcome, being suspended for a couple of days or having the principle sue her and her parents for slandering him?
Not only that, but the student only got suspended. I didn't find anything to support the claim that the student doesn't still maintain the right to keep the myspace page up. So she still has the right to free speech, and also the right to suffer the consequences for he actions. Do you think it would be a violation of your free speech rights if you got fired for putting a myspace page up with slander or libel about your boss?
Libel/slander (Score:5, Insightful)
To prove libel/slander, you have to prove three basic things:
1. The accusations are false
2. She knew the accusations were false
3. She had malicious intent
All three seem pretty easy to prove in this case. The girl's lucky the principle isn't suing her. Free speech is great, but kids like this ruin it by spouting off malicious garbage.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a "crock of shit". Free speech (in the U.S.) doesn't mean one can say anything they want about someone with impunity. Unless the site was *clearly* a parody, calling someone a "sex addict who 'hits on students'" is slander - or libel when written.
I haven't seen the student site but can't really imagine why it would be considered a parody. Is the principal famous or a otherwise well-known or out-spoken person with a position on the subject? Is the student obviously poking fun at the person and/or his position, or just making stuff up that another, uninformed, person may take to be truth?
Re:God, enough of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
"The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech." The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
I think that we need to look at the right to free speech in the context it was originally added in, and is still relevant in other places in the world. The fact of the matter is, you are free to say whatever you want, but not without consequences. When "the right to free speech" was made a Big Thing, and again, in other places in the world, you could be deprived of life/liberty for saying anything remotely against the $LEADER (Monarch, Church, Dictator, Baron).
While I do think that this, and many other judgements go against the spirit of the "free speech", I think that we need to be careful to avoid hyperbole about just how much it's curtailed. You don't have roving squads of government sponsored thugs taking/torturing/killing people for speaking out. You don't have to watch every word you say to your friends/neighbours, you don't have to be careful about what you write.
So, while we have free speech, that doesn't mean "speech with no consequences". In this case, specifically, the student was probably a little out of line, but is allowed to be. However, there were consequences, and none of them involved an overly harsh punishment (oohh, suspended!).
Don't take this as me saying it's ok for this to happen, but simply as me saying "lets put things in the right light". Lets avoid the OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS ENDING hyperbole that is so popular on these threads, and speak reasonably, because honestly, things could be a lot worse.
Re:Here's the thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called libel/slander. She's lucky the principle isn't suing her. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom to do anything you want.
Re:Schools and Office Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
To further the discussion a little, with the internet being as pervasive as it is in our society it could be possible that someone was accessing this content at the school thereby bringing the comments to the campus of the school.
Even with this potential I do not believe that it should be within the jurisdiction of the school district to punish the offending party within their rules if the content was not created there, but it does provide an argument that it could be stated "on school premises".
I personally believe that the school district, and the offended party in particular should have the capability to pursue statutory damages if this is something that is truly libelous or damaging to the career of the educator. This does not, however, include the act that was taken by the school district in my opinion.
Re:Libel/slander (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to explained out-right that we cannot live by our professed and proclaimed ideals. Our politicians suppress peaceful protests during political rallies often resulting in violent conflicts, abuse by police and false imprisonment.
The lesson should be that position and authority trumps the rule of law. We are seeing that all over in spite of constitutional law to the contrary.
But in looking at the case in hand, I have to wonder what the "best" course of action should be. Accusing someone of professional misconduct and of being a pedophile [starting a witch hunt under the notion that there must be a 'grain of truth'] is a very damaging act.
I think the "right" thing to do would have been to first demand a retraction, removal and apology. Failing that, the principal should have filed his own individual suit against the student. "Free Speech" does have its practical limits after all. Using the force of the principal's authority in this way sends a message that reflects a deviation from our social ideals. And ultimately, the parody was a personal attack and should be responded to personally, not professionally. Words like "Abuse of position, power and authority" come to mind when the individual attack is responded to in this way.
I think the principal should "fight back" but should also "fight fair." ...and this doesn't bring up the shadowy question of whether or not there is a grain of truth in the parody.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an interesting case because the submitter is correct. There's no jurisdiction for a school to be regulating speech outside the school. If the principal has a problem with something said about him outside of his little sphere of influence, then he isn't God, nor a king. He should press charges for civil libel, which would surely be dropped because there's no arguement for damages.
There was a case in Alaska which was tried by the Supreme Court of the United States, and they spent the entire discussion phase trying to determine whether the acts had taken place during school time, turning it into something the school has jurisdiction over.
The ruling which says the principal has jurisdiction over a student's free time is simply extending a despotic bureaucrat's powers far beyond what they ought to be. It's bad enough that we subject our children to the tyrannical reign of the school administration, which exists without any checks or balances, without any due process or practical restraint on abuses of power, for 8 hours a day. Allowing them power over children fully 24 hours a day is placing children fully into the custody of the school. We might as well stop asking parents to watch their children at all, because the "benevolent" god-kings in the school administration can act as judge, jury, and executioner in all cases, on and off of school property.
My son, my responsibility. (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree that a suspension is an easy break for the kid, but...
Look at the precedence. If this ruling goes unchallenged, what's to prevent a school from suspending any student they like for posting something on their my-space page? A student could post a valid, non-libel complaint about one of their instructors, and get suspended for it even though the comment was made off school grounds/times and was not in violation of the law. And what if it gets into even more heated topics. A white girl in a southern Georgia town post pictures of her date with her new black boyfriend to a social networking site and gets a 3 day suspension from School, why? Because the principal is a racist. Take it to court, and he'll site this case as precedence. Given power and time someone will abuse it.
This is a pretty significant power grab being made by the school that dramatically shifts the existing boundaries of power. As a quasi-conservative, I can't fathom why anyone would want to have such a result. I mean, I entrust the school system with my son during the day. I expect that they will keep an eye on him and make sure he performs well and integrates with society. When he leaves school, he is my responsibility, not theirs. And if he posts some crap like this on the internet, it is MY job to discipline him, not the school's. If the Principal wants to be responsible for disciplining my son for things that happen out side of the school environment, he can talk to me, or he can talk to a lawyer.
-Rick
Re:God, enough of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Consequences seem to have become antiquated these days.
And public schools were one of the first victims of this. If their child isn't marked as perfect in every way, many parents will harass the teachers until they give in, and any teacher who dares discipline their golden child faces the wrath of hell itself. I'm surprised that suspensions wasn't replaced with "verbal hugs", wherein the student is made to feel so loved that they fix whatever's wrong! (without physical contact, of course, because that would get them arrested)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
If the child engaged in criminal libel or slander, prosecute him for that. No school official should have any jurisdiction over anything that happens out of the regular boundaries of school activities.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like the writer of the article assumes that "actions done outside should shouldn't have consequences/effects/jurisdiction inside school." This is bullshit. Aside from the fact that this teen should be held up on charges of liable/slander (depending on whether said statements were made solely online), the fact is that actions corresponding to the institution apply outside of the physical premises.
I seem to remember plenty of cases where kids would be beaten by classmates outside of school grounds. The argument by the bullies was that it wasn't on school properly, and thus not in the school's concern (although this is a dumb concept in itself, for as such that would make it more of a police concern and/or an assault charge... a suspension seems a lighter consequence).
This is a school matter, as well as a legal matter, and - unless the principal does turn out to be at fault (which requires actual charges, evidence, and court hearings, not just hearsay) - as such should be fully within the school's jurisdiction to discipline. There's a big difference between writing something silly online like
"Mr X is a poopoo head" (infantile and easily disregarded)
or
"Mr X sucks donkey dong" (infantile, still more likely to be disregarded, but depending on scale may warrant detention)
In this case,
"Mr X molests small children in his office" is - by the nature of the comment - damaging to the reputation of the principal, and warrants both in-school (detention/suspension) and legal (civil and/or libel charges).
The fact is, people are often by nature willing to believe the worst in somebody. Even if it seems spurious, such a claim - because of its gravity, and prior histories of such instances - can be damaging simply because of the little nagging "it seems untrue, but what if..." thoughts it tends to bring up.
To those that disagree: if somebody posts up a MySpace page claiming that you are a flaming bisexual with a penchant for buggery of small children and animals... do you think that "free speech" should allow them a pass? How about when your future or current employer finds this page when checking into you online?
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the accusation of him trying to seduce students is enough to get him fired (and if true, possibly locked up). That's specific enough to be libellous.
elephant buttsniffer is one thing, pedo-perv that hits on students is another.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the site was *clearly* a parody, calling someone a "sex addict who 'hits on students'" is slander - or libel when written.
That's irrelevant. We have a justice system to deal with these cases. If the kid committed slander or libel, prosecute him through the criminal justice system, or settle it in the civil justice system. School officials ought to have no authority over what happens outside of school grounds or school activities.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the thing (Score:2, Insightful)
clearly you haven't, because that is incorrect. the courts have ruled over and over that, while the rights of minors are sometimes abridged, basic constitutional protections generally apply to them.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a bit disappointed at the lengthy "how dare they rule against my own common sense" summary. People need to learn what free speech is really all about and what it means for democracy. Free speech is an ideal because it is about political speech and the right of dissent and freedom from government censorship. Free speech is not a right for minors to be lewd.
The student should be lucky she was only suspended, rather than being sued for defamation.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Insightful)
The school has every right to refuse access to anyone, on any grounds
No they don't. Everyone has a right to a public education in this country.
If they were trying to fine the students, or jail them, or even just imposing community service, then I would also consider their actions insufficient to warrant such punishment -- speech of any sort should never be sufficient justification for legal repercussions.
Libel and slander are illegal, and for good reason. What this kid did was libel, and should be handled through the court system.
Re:God, enough of this (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, those are the consequences of your free speech.
For some reason, I really hate it when people bring this up. "Say anything you like, and if those thugs like it too, you won't get beat up." I'm aware of consequences. It's not like action and reaction were invented yesterday.
That's why, when someone starts spouting off on "consequences" around me, I stomp on their foot. Then I say, "Sorry, that's just a consequence of hearing you say that." But, like I say, I'm aware of consequences, and I try only to do this to smaller men -- or women, and only then when there are no witnesses. Since the corollary of "there are consequences is: "only if you get caught." Of course, all of these rules -- including my policy of only picking on weaker people -- are just special cases of the "Might makes right" law.
Re:Not seeing the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
This was no business of the schools and was purely a private matter between the principal and the student. A suspension may be seen as a lighter sentence compared to a civil suit, but it is still an abuse of power.
To use a different example: would it be right for the government to fine you if you made libelous statements about the president, or would it be more appropriate for him to sue you in a civil court?
Re:Since when was Slander and Liable free speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:1, Insightful)
The school has every right to refuse access to anyone, on any grounds -- although, if they wish to pursue that path, it should be recognized that those funding the school also have every right to simply keep their money.
Bullshit. Where's your evidence substantiating your nonsensical assertion? Private schools can do this, but public schools can't. The only time public schools can bar student's from attending is if there is a safety issue, drugs, or if the student is so disruptive that other students ability to learn is greatly hampered. But in no way can schools just decide to ban a student from attending based on any grounds they choose. That's moronic and against the law.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
But the school (assuming it is public), is an agent of the government. So the school punishing the minor for being lewd is government censorship. So if free speech is about freedom from government censorship, then it is/should be a right for minors to be lewd. As far as the government is concerned, at any rate. Kid's mom ought to smack him around for that filth, but that's entirely different.
can someone please explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone please explain to me why the school ought to have jurisdiction over activities that take place outside of school grounds, off school hours? I just cannot for the life of me understand the basis.
The school is there to provide necessary civil services, just like the fire department or infrastructure maintenance.
If my son were to slander the fire chief or the head of the department of transportation, it would be considered an abuse of power for them refuse to let my house burn down or to stop repairing the road leading to my house. Of course, if I were to threaten them with a knife while they were in the process of doing either of those things, I think they would be allowed to *stop* helping me.
If anything, there's been a strong move in this country *away* from allowing schools to punish students (the loss of their right to issue corporal punishment, for example).
This, to me, seems just like an extension of the specious assertion that schools have the right to drug-test students or prohibit them from participating in sports if they're guilty of alcohol-related offenses.
Furthermore, I very much doubt that the school would have expelled the student if they had committed similar libel against an individual not affiliated with the school.
I don't see any reason for circumventing the channels designed for dealing with libel other than the fact that they can, and it seems like a clear-cut abuse of power to exact personal revenge.
Interesting situation (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, in the abstract it is an interesting situation. You are the principal and the student has done something like this. What do you do? I think that one option would be to treat it like other things that are banned on school grounds like alcohol or pornography. The school can't (or at least shouldn't) be able to control what they are doing at home but if they bring it to school then they are in trouble. So perhaps it would have been more suitable to suspend the students for looking at the website in school -- I'm sure they have some policy about looking at porn websites in school?
Then there's also the question of the parent(s). If your child had made a website like that, even if you thought that suspension was totally unwarrented, would you really defend your child and hire lawyers in this situation? Think about it, now everyone knows your kid has really really poor judgment and you are a bad parent.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Insightful)
The school has no jurisdiction outside of school grounds (except for school activities like field trips), so any code of conduct is null and void off school grounds.
Re:Here's the thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, a huge part of the constitution applies to everyone, not citizens specifically. Of course, that is something that has been ignored for a long time as it would cause problems for the rulers if they interpeted it literally.
Re:Since when was Slander and Liable free speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
if a teenager libels the principal outside the school, the principal's legitimate response would be a libel suit. NOT to take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner himself.
I don't agree. When you are part of a society, you are bound by implicit social contract [wikipedia.org]. Even if something isn't illegal, if it is anti-social behaviour, it should be discouraged. If the parents aren't teaching the kid that, let the school teach it. And the kid just got suspended. It's not the end of the world. I think the punishment fit the crime. Making a big deal out of this, I feel, legitimizes all those "hot coffee" claims. Let's not pretend we're idiots and let's not blow things out of proportion.
Re:God, enough of this (Score:2, Insightful)
Consequences seem to have become antiquated these days.
And public schools were one of the first perpetrators of this.
There, fixed that for you. Half of the Elementary Schools in our Nation don't even have "winners" and "losers" at ball games any more. Now, I'll be the first to agree that it is NOT the schools' responsibility to raise our children, nor should it be. The responsibility to raise the kids and teach them values, morals, etc is firmly in the hands of the parents, and should remain there. I worked for a school system for 5 years, and the political BS that goes on there is astounding. The number of teachers that are more concerned about Little Timmy having a high Emotional Quotient and good self-esteem rather than a solid education in Math, Science, Reading, Literature,etc, is astounding. Do you realize that some schools no longer correct spelling because "the child should be free to express themselves in written word" ?! Sorry, I have no sympathy for schools that kowtow to the wishes of a few irate parents. Grow some balls and actually TEACH our children like you're paid to do, and defend the right to do so. As for the parents, if they hate the public schools, they can stick Little Timmy and Susie in a private school where they are taught EXACTLY according to the parents' wishes, and the parents can deal with an 18 year old with no skills that can't spell, can barely read, and has no marketable value.
Re:Since when was Slander and Liable free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Accusations such as presented on the Myspace page surely and completely impact a principals ability to function in the school and it schould properly be dealt with in school.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's questionable. By my reading, it sounds like the page in question was an obvious joke. Read the quote FTFA:
That doesn't sound like an accusation to me, it sounds like a stupid joke. And based on a quick googling, it seems that libel cases have been dismissed [gannett.com] "because the item could not be reasonably understood as stating actual facts" - I think an adolescent Myspace page would probably qualify as something nobody in their right mind would believe, especially if it was claiming that the principal's hobbies included "being a tight ass."
Then again, IANAL, so I don't know. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that most judges would not want to waste their time on a case like this if it was brought as a libel suit.
This is nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to see some case law support for your ludicrous assertion. Comparatively speaking, the US has the strongest free speech protections on the planet. That doesn't mean no restrictions, as no right is absolute. But your hysterical response just does not jive with the facts.
Everyone seems to missing the point (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes the student is a stupid teenager venting on the internet. Yes, if she had done this in a school hallway she would deserve and receive the suspension.
The problem with this court case is that it happened outside of school, outside of the principle's jurisdiction. I can't imagine what would happen if my high school VP were to have heard the things I said about him outside of school and this sort of mentality were applied.
Now, because the student made this claim in a public forum and this was obviously a baseless personal attack (not parody) it should have been handled as libel and not a school issue. Free speech and criticism off of school grounds needs to be protected, and this case blurs that line. Libel doesn't deserve to be protected and that's why it should've been a civil case.
But K-12 government relationships are different (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, all the cases cited in opposition to Judge Munley's decision make it clear that to maintain order in a school environment, the students just can't say "fuck you" to a teacher or principal. The on-campus/off-campus distinction might have made clear sense in Tinker (1969), but now that every student has Internet access and a Myspace page makes it a lot more possible to create a serious disruption off-campus that spills into the school.
I'm big on free speech, but I also know that kids need boundaries and guidance as to how to behave in civilization. Left to their own devices, it would be Lord of the Flies.
I went to parochial school and knew I'd be thrown out if I did something off campus that disrespected the school or administrators. That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious. The idea that the Constitution even applies to this taxpayer-funded service should be questioned. So my tax dollars should fund a very expensive service for some ungrateful, disobedient little shit who wants to disrespect said service (and taxpayer)?
Public education should be a privilege, not a right. Then maybe more so-called "students" would appreciate it, and student success rates would be better.
Just another reason my kids will go to private school.
Re:My son, my responsibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree that a suspension is an easy break for the kid, but...
Look at the precedence. If this ruling goes unchallenged, what's to prevent a school from suspending any student they like for posting something on their my-space page? A student could post a valid, non-libel complaint about one of their instructors, and get suspended for it even though the comment was made off school grounds/times and was not in violation of the law. And what if it gets into even more heated topics. A white girl in a southern Georgia town post pictures of her date with her new black boyfriend to a social networking site and gets a 3 day suspension from School, why? Because the principal is a racist. Take it to court, and he'll site this case as precedence. Given power and time someone will abuse it.
This is a pretty significant power grab being made by the school that dramatically shifts the existing boundaries of power. As a quasi-conservative, I can't fathom why anyone would want to have such a result. I mean, I entrust the school system with my son during the day. I expect that they will keep an eye on him and make sure he performs well and integrates with society. When he leaves school, he is my responsibility, not theirs. And if he posts some crap like this on the internet, it is MY job to discipline him, not the school's. If the Principal wants to be responsible for disciplining my son for things that happen out side of the school environment, he can talk to me, or he can talk to a lawyer.
-Rick
Schools already can and do suspend any kid for any reason at any time. They have the power to suspend at will. This very very occasionally results in a law suit, but it's exceedingly rare and the school usually wins (in my home town, at least). So why aren't all kids always suspended? Because the people who run the schools are focused on educating children, not arbitrary punishment. This administrative self-control works, and usually (like this time), suspension is a matter that should never have gone to court. A kid did something stupid and vastly unfair to the principal. Legally, maybe the principal could have sued on account of libel. Instead of trying to mire the student and his/her family in our ponderous and soul-sucking legal system, the school decided to hand out a mild punishment that might teach the child a lesson without causing the child any harm. Instead, the kid's parents decided to teach their child a lesson about entitlement by showing that one must never take responsibility for ones actions. I think the villains in this story are the parents.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Insightful)
> Libel and slander are illegal, and for good reason. What this kid did was libel, and should be handled through the court system.
Well hey now, that's a bit more rough than simple suspension, don't you think?
It may be more harsh, but it's the appropriate way to handle the situation. If libel occurred, then the kid should get the appropriate punishment as prescribed by law. If libel did not occur, the principal should have no recourse, just like any other citizen. For him to take matters into his own hands is an abuse of power.
A) Most students are less than 18 and therefore have (basically) no rights/freedoms.
I see nothing in the constitution limiting any rights to those over the age of 18. But I agree that this point isn't entirely relevant here.
B) Schools are given the same rights as parents. (See "In loco parentis")
Schools only act in loco parentis when they are actually taking care of the students. i.e. on school grounds, or during school activities. Since this behavior only happened off school grounds, it's the kids actual parents who should decide appropriate punishment.
Re:God, enough of this (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech never meant "say what you like with impunity" and anyone claiming otherwise is full of it.
Careful there. By that benchmark, North Koreans enjoy freedom of speech because they could goosestep right up to Kim Jong-il and call him a runty little jackass. Sure, they and there families may be tortured to death afterward, but they can say it.
Free speech most certainly does mean that you can express your opinion without fear of punishment. However, it doesn't protect you from making enemies, and that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Re:Since when was Slander and Liable free speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
However you look at it, the kid was a dumbass (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to advocate the student's suspension, because I don't know enough about the details. But I can say that the student asked for what they got. My ensuing rant isn't about the law. It's about right and wrong.
Free speech in the US allows for a lot of abusive speech. It has to in order allow all forms of more constructive speech. But what people have to realize is that freedoms don't just come with responsibilities. They ARE responsibilities. As a citizen, it is your responsibility to both ensure that free speech is allowed AND to use that right responsibly.
Part of what students in school should learn is constructive civil behavior. Calling the principal a paedophile was both uncivil and unconstructive. In saying what the student said, they had a point to make. Unfortunately, by using irresponsible means, the student got into trouble instead. Their point was not made.
The primary purpose of free speech is to allow any idea to be conveyed publicly. It's about CONTENT. While free speech laws do not and should not dictate the FORM of the speech, it is one's personal responsibilty to try to convey the content in a form that is clear and effective.
"Principal X is a dick" is vague and unhelpful. Why is principal X a dick? I just think you're being a jackass by saying it. You probably got into trouble for something you did wrong, and you're sore about it. Maybe that's not true, but your petulant attitude is consistent with my inference.
On the other hand, this would be productive to say (if true): "Principal X should be fired. He has a history of placing authoritarianism above all else, disregarding circumstances. For instance, there's a rule against running in the halls. My friend was running in the hall the other day because he was going to have diarrhea if he didn't make it to the toilet. On his way, he ran past principal X who grapped him by the arm and spent 5 minutes yelling at him about it. Meanwhile, he shit his pants, which was really embarrassing."
Notice that I have no qualms about the use of certain words like "shit" or whatever. It's not the words we should care about. It's the meaning and intent. If the content is a message, or it has artistic value, it should be encouraged. If the content and/or form are designed purely for the purpose of being offensive, the speaker is being irresponsible. I'm not saying offensive speech should be outlawed. I'm saying that purely offensive speech is WRONG.
As for the student's punishment, I think it's appropriate. It's one thing to bad-mouth your teachers at home or at a party. It's entirely another to publish lies about them in a recorded medium. This is libel pure and simple.
As for the rap song with the death threat, that should be taken seriously too. I don't give a damn about rap artist posturing. Murder is wrong, and so is threatening murder. Maybe a professional rap artist can get away with it. I think there's a case for considering it to be artistic and not a specific threat. But it's still iffy. Death threats, even when not specific, could be an indication of something more serious. All you can really do, of course, is be a careful listener.
For a teenager, one has to be even more careful. Brains aren't fully developed, social conventions are not fully learned. While I knew plenty of teenagers who could distinguish reality from fantasy, I knew far more who could not. Hell, I know far too many adults who can't either. Children are often held to higher standards and stricter rules than adults because they lack experience that tells them what the exceptions are. When my kid is 10 and says "fuck", I'm going to smack his mouth. When he's 20 and says it, I'm going to assume he's grown up enough to know when not to say it and that its use was to emphasize a point, not merely to be gratuitously offensive. That being said, I know 30-year-olds who haven't learned how to temper their language, and as a result, they're losers who can't hold a job at McDonalds.
Wh
Re:School is Not a Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, school is not a democracy. What your teachers failed to tell you is that it's not a tyranny either: it's a government institution with a very specific goal. The employees are government employees, paid with your taxes.
This means that teachers and principals can't just do whatever they feel like when they come across something they don't like. This, to me, certainly crossed the line.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to add to your post this
Note to the dumb: this includes "offensive" speech and yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Like so many things, it's an all or nothing proposition.
How very interesting. So if a credit reporting agency arbitrarily labels you as high-risk despite an excellent credit history - it's no problem... that's just free speech. Or someone thinks it would be fun to have you included in a registry of sex offenders or felons despite a lack of appropriate criminal prosecution... why that's just free speech as well! After all, accuracy much less responsibility has no role in this. It's all or nothing.
Actually, a great lesson in free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, 'free speech' is a right guaranteed by the Constitution here in the USA.
The lesser spoken follow-up to that is taking responsibility for what you say.
That's where libel, disorderly conduct and other things come into play. Yes, you can shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. That's your right to do so. However, you're responsible for whatever happens as a result of your saying that if it isn't true.
The fine line with libel is how things are stated. "In my opinion" in front of almost any statement will prevent it from being presented as a fact. Without that you're stating something that you expect others to believe as fact. Again, it's your right to say it but you also have to take on the responsibility of saying it.
Student rights are not even something I want to address except to say that unless they're emancipated adults they have no rights beyond what is expressly given to minors. Constitutional rights apply to emancipated adults. Period.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech is an ideal because it is about political speech and the right of dissent
No.
Correction, hell FUCKING no. I'm going to take the liberty to cut loose with crude offensive language while I proceed with vitally important political speech.
You, and the people who modded you up, are exactly the authoritarian puritanical asshats proudly trying to march this country forward into the 12th century.
Free Speech is about the fact that ideas do not break your leg or pick your pocket. Free Speech is about the fact that governmental censorship of unwanted views and ideas is a self-reinforcing road to totalitarianism.
Free Speech is about the fact that censorship of views and ideas and messages is absolutely incompatible with a free and healthy society.
It is free speech right to yell fire in a movie theater. The 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights in fact PROHIBITS the government from passing a content-based law against that speech. However you do not have the right to deliberately or recklessly endanger the lives of other people. The government can and does pass laws against injuring other people, and laws against willfully or recklessly placing people at risk of such injury. Those laws have absolutely nothing to do with speech, they do not target ideas or content. The fact that you happened to use speech in the movie theater to endanger or injure people is irrelevant, you can and will be prosecuted for endangering or injuring people. You do not have the right to break my leg.
You have every free speech right to say that a tin watch is made of solid gold. However you cannot fraudulently sell someone an empty box, and you cannot fraudulently sell someone a "gold" watch made of tin. You do not have the right to "pick my pocket" by fraud.
Free speech is not a right for minors to be lewd.
Awwwwww..... does it make you feel offended when you hear a minor be lewd? Does it make you feel sad or angry or maybe even disturbingly horny when a minor is lewd? Do those sorts of words upset your poor little sensitive feelings?
Well guess fucking what. The force of government and gun-toting enforcers and prisons are not here to protect your feelings. They are not here to shoot or imprison people who make you feel bad. They are not here to shoot or imprison people who offend you. Grow some fucking self responsibility. If something upsets your feelings or offends you then those are YOUR feelings and it's not up to the government to protect them.
You have no right to point guns at people and imprison them just because their words or their messages or their pictures or their ideas offend you or upset you or make you feel sad or make you feel angry or make you feel horny or make you feel anything else.
If I want to communicate a message by burning the US flag, or the flag of any other nation, Free Speech means that the government cannot imprison me for that message simply because it does not like that message. You have no right to point a gun at me or imprison me simply because my message upsets you or offends you. However the government can and often does have laws about fires. There can be and sometimes are laws against starting large open fires burning anything (even blank cloth) in the middle of the sidewalk. If there's a law criminalizing generic open fires on the public street then I can be arrested whether I burn a blank cloth or a flag. However you cannot write a law criminalizing flag burning simply because you don't like the message and it hurts your poor little feeeeeelings.
The student should be lucky she was only suspended, rather than being sued for defamation.
A school principal cannot abuse the powers of government position to punish anyone he sees fit to personally punish. I don't know if you shortsightedly overlooked that completely, or if you simply think it's swell for anyone with government powers to stomp down on anyone who offends you.
Not to mention the fact that the stu