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.
Schools and Office Politics (Score:5, Interesting)
The school's responsibility is to prepare you for life after you are finished school. Office politics play a huge role in that kind of development, because you cannot escape office politics -- they permiate every infrsstructure, at every level. It's a large part of the game and there is no getting around it, sorry.
Furthermore, I can guarantee that if you made fun of your boss as being a sex addict who hits on employees, you would be fired immediately. You might have a case for wrongful dismissal, but your lawyer would tell you to drop it and get another job (because even if the boss hit on you there are better options than public mockery -- judges tend to dislike that).
The biggest problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously this is an injustice in its own right. Regardless of what "the real world" is like, this is not how it is supposed to be.
But what's especially troubling is that it can be used as precedent to shut down corporate/government whistleblowers. If an institution's rules apply even when you're outside of that institution, your employer owns you.
IANAL and IANAT (Score:5, Interesting)
I love free speech as much as the next Yankee, BUT...
Let's ask this question: what would happen to a school kid if he/she directed the same kind of provocative language at the principal or a school teacher, IN PERSON, either in the hallway or in a classroom?
How long would it take to slap down a suspension? It would probably happen before you or I could finish saying the word "suspension".
For right or for wrong, pure "free speech" in this case is going to take a back seat to order and discipline. It's a necessity IMHO, in order to allow a school to carry out it's primary mission of teaching kids the classic "three R's".
Putting comments out on the web, whether on a blog or social site or a standalone web site, as far as I am concerned, is no different than uttering the words in person. What point does this kind of disrespectful behaior have, other than to disrupt the educational process? And don't give me this "harmless prank" nonsense - accusing a professional of criminal activity online, even if "joking" about it - there's nothing funny about it whatsoever.
I'm neither a lawyer or a teacher, not even a parent, but you can bet I would support a schools suspension of any student who pulls this kind of stunt.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:1, Interesting)
I have a problem here. If the student had called allegations of impropriety at a church in to the police, they would have emptied out that place with bulldozers and helicopters and armed vehicles. But since it was a _school_, the principal didn't even get investigated? I'd have to say that this soulds like the student thought there was more going on than was being investigated, and was acting out this way because the authorities were not doing their proper job of protecting the students.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Interesting)
What is harm"? A weasel word if I ever heard one. Namecalling? Poopiehead buttsniffer!
But seriously, and before anyone makes it, there's a difference between that tired old "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy" and telling someone they smell like an elephant's butt. It's true people are affected by the things other's say, but it's nearly impossible to know how they will really react to it. I know if I cut you you'll bleed; I don't know that if I said you smelled like rancid turnips you'd go kill yourself.
Anyway, where do you draw the line? Why is it so wrong to basically call the school principle a pervert (and maybe some students have caught him staring at their breasts!) and yet be able to call Bush a child killer? Sure, Bush may be president, and famous, but is that really a good reason?
Before we shout out about libel, there is also a difference between truly believing in what you say, and lying to destroy someone's reputation; there also could be a difference in the actual content and nature of the accusation, much in the same way it is to say "Steve likes fat girls" compared to "Steve raped me...!"
Re:Here's the thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone take Civics any more?
Apparently you did, which is why you believe that bullshit. You make the mistake of trusting the courts, first of all, as the courts are basically like shamanistic magic that is based on tradition, based on formula, and made up as you go along.
The Supreme Court has ruled, that students don't "shed their constitutional rights ⦠at the schoolhouse gate", anyway. (Tinker v. Des Moines)
But who really cares? Who cares what the courts think? Do you even believe your own argument? Does the state have a right to systematically execute minors? Why not, I thought they don't have rights?
School is Not a Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not to say that students don't have any rights. Of course they do, but in this case, I think the principal has every right to expell the student and it never should have even gone to court. The principal has to maintain discipline and order on some level. He should have the right to expel any student for disruption. If the parents don't like it, demand another principal. THEY have that right.
I mean, what's the worst thing that happens here? Its not like the student is going to jail, they just get expelled and have to go to another school. And everyone learns a lesson: we're not here to accuse the principal of pediphilia, we're here to get an education, and if you don't want to play nice, go to another school.
And the other issue here is: that principal now has a tarnished reputaion he can never get rid of. Whether he's actually a pediphile or not is another story, but some kid claiming he is is a serious slander that will taint the rest of this principal's career.
The kid deserved to be expelled.
Re:... Slander and [Libel] free speech? (Score:1, Interesting)
I had a teacher in high school who slept with a 16 year old student. It was well known. I was upset because I liked the girl. Apparently, I was the only person who had any problem with it at all, and the guy is still working in the school district, and I'm still kind of damaged when it comes to relationships.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not seeing the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
In order to win a civil libel case, you'd need a theory of damages. Nobody would have seriously considered the myspace page to be anything but the ramblings of an angry young person. The principal wasn't legitimately facing criminal charges the principal wasn't facing the loss of his job, nor loss of standing in the community.
The only legitimate theory of damages would be pain and suffering, in which case he should be fired for being far too fragile to do the job.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:4, Interesting)
The penalty was a suspension. 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.
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. The proposed repercussions aren't legal, however; the school is simply refusing service to a pair of unruly customers. If you're going to prosecute the school for something, I suggest starting with the way they coerce funds out of everyone in the surrounding area. That's the real crime.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
At the risk of nitpicking:
Libel is the written act of defamation. Slander is the oral act of defamation. The MySpace page almost certainly contained only libel. (Unless the student recorded herself and posted that.)
Re:Counter example? (Score:3, Interesting)
A second consideration is that Fawell and Hustler were about the same power level. Hustler attack an equal target, and Fawell was free, and had the funds to fight back. Due process was had through the lawsuit, and the opinion of Fawell was not, for the most part, changed. Those that he was dick now had proof because he couldn't take a little help, and those that thought he was the second c-mmin were mollified through the lawsuit.
None of this applies to case of student alleging actionable misconduct in a public venue. In particular, when a child alleges than an adult has engaged in actionable misconduct, the law mandates that certain professionals report the allegations, and that something be done about it. If a teacher, or nurse, or coach, even outside of school, were told that by this by this child that her father were having sex with her, then that had to be reported, even if the girl thought it was funny and was just a joke, then that girl would likely be removed from the home and put in custody of the state, prior to due process. Likewise, if the the allegation of pedophelia were taken seriously, and allowed to stand, then every principle who was libeled on myspace would have to be removed from their position, prior to due process, until an investigation revealed that child was "just kidding". And the principle would look petty suing a child for libel.
The prime issue here is that the stuff that goes on between the media and the celebrities is just a game that benefits both parties through increased profits. OTOH, the interaction between child and educator is to educate the child, not only in subject, but in social norms. It is one thing to declare that you teacher or boss is uncle fucker in private, or even to secretly paint on his or her car, it is quite another to do so in public or semi-public form. If you dishonestly call your teacher a pedophile, you are depriving the other students of an education and depriving the teacher of an income that is probably needed to feed the family. If you do this to your boss, you will probably get fired. Civilized person might say, therefore, that creating disincentives to such behavior might therefore be the social interest, and suspension might be the softest way to create that disincentive. Of course others might say that kids need freedom, and the children at the next table screaming at their top of thier lungs are merely expressing themselves, the same is true for the teenager that tells every adult to fuck off, and making them conform to social norms are fascist.
I say that is a child or family cares more about spouting profanities that gaining an education, there is always home school. If is hardly a good use of the public funds to spend the hour dealing with a child that feels the need to call the person who is trying to help them a pedophile on the internet. There are plenty of kids who want to lean all they can at school so when they live they can create original works that helps everyone.
Right result but wrong ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
The correct thing to do would have been to hold the student legally liable for the results of their actions (ie LIBEL) since what they did wasn't to just say "this principal is a jerk" but made them out to be a pedophile.
That's actionable.
Then, when the stupid chick was facing criminal penalties, she could BEG the school for a compromise penalty that included suspension instead of $000's in penalties.
Kids today are so stupid, they have this 'no matter what I do, I'm always safe and protected' vibe (especially, for some stupid reason, regarding whatever they do on MySpace) that is such a pleasure to destroy when they hit the real world. The look on their face when they finally figure it out is priceless...assuming they live through it.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:4, Interesting)
Right up until it does harm to another person. And libel/slander do harm.
The mistake this principal made was in using the school's discipline system. That apparently is a violation of her rights. Had he simply sued her and her family and/or pressed charges as he rightfully could have done, no one would be complaining.
In other words: because he tried to go easy on her, hundreds of people are complaining that her rights are being trampled.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, obviously, there's a case for civil libel. It's not rocket science.
I've actually had an insane girlfriend who was allowed by the law to go around saying all sorts of terrible and untrue things, simply because nobody believed her. She even went to the police with some of her accusations, and they found she's crazy and none of her accusations had any bearing on reality. The moment someone believed her and I was harmed thereby, then I could press charges under a theory of damages, but until then, no harm no foul. She's "libel-proof".
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:3, Interesting)
Libel and slander is not protected under free speech.
People still have the right to control speech in non-public areas, such as school grounds, private property, etc. The only really interesting thing in this particular example is that it was off-school speech that was disciplined.
However, the discipline was very small. Is it censorship, since there was no government order to remove the speech? Is this any different than students abiding by a code of conduct, even when off campus? Compare the small punishment to what could have happened if the principle decided to sue for slander instead?
The student was also a minor, and minors do not have full constitutional rights. Schools are similar to prisons in this regard, in that they must handle a population which has limited rights and which tends to need extensive supervision.
Re:This is actually quite educational (Score:2, Interesting)
Free speech is not limited to political speech.
Free speech is an ideal because the alternative is censorship - the use of aggressive force to silence people.
Free speech is inclusive of the right of people, including minors, to be rude, lewd, and crude.
Re:But K-12 government relationships are different (Score:2, Interesting)
So my tax dollars should fund a very expensive service for some ungrateful, disobedient little shit who wants to disrespect said service (and taxpayer)?
Yes, as long as schooling is mandated by the government.
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.
It has been a decade since I was in high school. I've moved on to a successful career and an enjoyable life. After all this time, I still hold a small, bitter place in my heart for that mental prison. I would have gladly divested myself of the "right" to public school in a heart beat, but I was hauled into court and sentenced to jail time for truancy (I was working at the time). I only evaded juvenile hall by petitioning for special dispensation to drop out of school entirely (quite the irony, that).
Why is it any surprise that when you hold children prisoner to institutionalized "learning", they misbehave?
Worry less about respect for institutions and more about what those institutions are doing to those that *DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM* to leave.
I couldn't agree more, BUT (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. This Onion piece resonated with me:
6-Year-Old Stares Down Bottomless Abyss Of Formal Schooling [theonion.com]
As a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, I agree that compulsory education has some serious problems. But an uneducated populace is expensive as well. Promise me I won't have to pay more for those dumbass dropouts (prison, welfare, low wage redistribution, and other pathologies) than for their education, and I'd agree.
I'm not sure if increasing the current dropout rate [foxnews.com] would actually create a better society. Just as the idea of drug legalization has some merit, the actual practice in Nanny America might just lead to government-funded drug treatment, if not drug subsidies. I can see it now, Obamacare paying for medical marijuana with my tax dollars. But I digress. High school dropouts are expensive. If I could bury them with nuclear waste, great. But I doubt that would past constitutional muster either.
Re:...but what rights does a child have? (Score:3, Interesting)
As soon as we started prosecuting minors as adults, this entire concept got chucked out the window (in my mind). If a child isn't old enough to make a decision concerning sex, alcohol, voting, staying in school, etc, then they aren't old enough to know the ramifications of breaking and entering and murdering someone when they get found out.
Either they can consciously make such a decision knowing the far reaching effects of their actions, or they can't. You can't fucking have it both ways.
Re:But K-12 government relationships are different (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
So basically, because of the internet, we should suspend freedom of speech? For that matter, how many schools are there that don't block Myspace on the internal network? Mine certainly did (assuming you didn't just turn the filter off, didn't even ened proxies back then)
Here's a better question, why should the principal get *more* protection simply because of his job? He has the same ability to sue for libel as anyone else, and if the student had been slandering me I wouldn't have had any special ability to suspend them, even if it was just as disruptive to my place of employment. 'Freedom of speech' first and foremost, means that nobody gets special protections from speech.
Oh, and before you go and use the 'keep order' excuse again, keep in mind that our schooling system has succeeding in convincing half the students that its ok for the government to decide what can and can't be said by a newspaper, and consider just how much order school's should have.
Re:...but what rights does a child have? (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that the law shields them from the full consequences in exercising free speech (reasoning: they are only kids and cannot be expected to know fully the consequences of what they are doing) why should they enjoy the full, adult rights of free speech for exactly the same reason: they don't know how to use it responsibly?
It's not a question of whether or not kids should or shouldn't have more restrictive free speech rights than adults; it's a question of who should be allowed to do the restricting. When at school, it should be the school officials. If a student stands up in class and shouts insults at the teacher, the school should be allowed to discipline the student. I don't think anyone would disagree with that, and it is an example of how kids don't have the same free speech rights as adults. When at home (which is presumably where the student posted the MySpace page), it should be the parents, not the school, or the government, which has the authority to restrict their kids' free speech rights. This is as much about a parent's rights as it about a child's. When schools extend their jurisdiction into the home, they are treading on the parent turf, and I think that is really the problem with this case.
wrong question. what right does a child NOT HAVE (Score:3, Interesting)
preface... IANAL and given the nature of intelligence demonstrated I will also say this is only MY OPINION. the fact that this needs to be said is sad.
Probably because thats how they learn to use them. Secondly because all 'citizens' are created equal. We are all citizens, we all pay taxes, we all get rights. Just because someone is not an adult does not give YOU the right to take their rights away.
The fundamental problem with your flawed logic is that you lack the understanding of the ethics involved.
The bill of rights does not assign you any rights; it is not a statement of positive rights. It is a statement of negative rights. Particularly rights which the government can not infringe upon.
There is a reason they are protected by these limited rights. Similarly there is a reason they do not have access to several other important but related things. Namely the right to enter a contract, drive, vote, drink, and choose whether or not to go to school.
If you try to curb their right to expression or speech you are trying to restrict the most fundamental negative right. Why do you think its the FIRST amendment and not the 20th?
Furthermore their actions are not without consequences as you imply. The parents are generally responsible.
It is unreasonable to restrict what they can say because you are thus enslaving them. Its bad enough that they can't vote about how you censor them; now you want to take away their right complain about how you abuse them? BS
The fact that the page wont be taken down or forced to be altered in itself to me serves as proof that it is not LIBEL. If the principal is supposed to be an adult then he/she/it should grow up and stop complaining and ignore it. Just like public figures do when people say bad things about them in the media. This student had an opinion and expressed it. You dont have to like their opinion, you dont have to agree with it. You just have to deal with it.
But frankly no matter how you look at it in terms of the good or bad.. the fact is that this absolutely does not belong in the hands of the school. What a student does outside of school, on the internet is none of the schools business and beyond their jurisdiction. If the principal wants to take file libel charges with the police, have at it, I think its still bs but thats where it belongs.
Frankly I disagree with you, just because you dont like what the person says doesnt mean they are abusing their rights. Stop thinking you have the right to silence everyone you disagree with.