Lawsuit Over Two-Word Tweet Moves Forward 220
An anonymous reader writes: A defamation suit filed by a former Minnesota high school student has gotten approval from a federal judge to proceed. The suit was filed in response to a suspension issued by the school after Reid Sagehorn published a two-word comment on Twitter. In 2014, there existed a Twitter ostensibly about confessions from students at Sagehorn's high school. That account asked if Sagehorn had made out with a particular female teacher, and Sagehorn jokingly replied, "Actually yes." Not long after, he was suspended for five days, and that suspension was later extended to the rest of the month. The school administration convinced his parents to withdraw him from the school and send him to a different one. The town's police chief even spoke about it to the media, saying the comment was likely a felony. Sagehorn filed the lawsuit seeking damages and an expungement of the disciplinary actions.
Headline is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Focusing on the idea that this lawsuit is about a "two word tweet" is ridiculous and dishonest. This lawsuit is about accusations of impropriety by a teacher (and whether it's okay to blithely accuse a teacher of something even if you think you're joking). The "two word tweet" focus is attempting to draw ridicule to the case before making the facts clear, which is somewhere between intensely stupid and intentionally misleading.
Also, the meaning of the word "actually" in this context is the same as "literally", meaning that the tweet was not a joke no matter what the kid tweeting intended. Of course, people almost never spend half a second's thought on the things they tweet, so I guess it's not surprising.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:5, Informative)
No, actually you're dead wrong. The lawsuit is about the suspension that resulted from the two-word tweet. It wasn't filed by the teacher, it wasn't filed by the school. It was filed by the student.
Furthermore, the police chief's statement that this amounted to a felony is pure BS. At worst, it would be defamation, but that's not what this lawsuit is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. It would not be criminal unless the student actually filed a formal police report.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense, it absolutely wasn't a felony. If you don't understand why then please go away.
Cool. I'm going to have to remember that approach. This whole "debating" thing is way easier than I thought. I had assumed you had to support your statements with facts - reasoning - logic. When do we transition to the uh-huh/nun-uh phase?
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not any crime if it is true. Slander only happens when the statement is false. Has an investigation been completed? or is this a pre-emptive strike against the student to suppress a possible truth?
Re: (Score:3)
And even in that case, with slander you have to prove the point of the comment was to defame, not to satirize or make a joke.
Given that the forum was Twitter and the comment was a trite, two word reply to a silly topic, proving the intent was to spread a lie about someone instead of make fun of them (or make fun of the question) would be pretty difficult unless the author of the comment admitted it.
Re: (Score:2)
It was completely obvious to me what the AC meant.
Of course the meaning was obvious. The AC was simply expressing ignorance about speech codes in the United States. That doesn't save the comment from a) being bullshit and b) not constituting an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
It was completely obvious to me what the AC meant.
Which is the same argument that could be used for the teenager's post in the first place that the AC claimed was a felony.
"It was completely obvious to me it was satire and not defamation"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the additional proof that no AC ever has anything useful to add to the conversation.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
You still haven't gotten to the part where it's an actual crime.
Some idealized notion of crime and punishment that only exists in your head does not count.
What is the crime?
Re: (Score:3)
And specifically in Minnesota, the state's criminal libel statute was recently struck down [startribune.com]. Previously, certain kinds of libel in MN were criminal rather than only civil offenses, though still misdemeanors, not felonies.
Re: (Score:2)
You still haven't gotten to the part where it's an actual crime.
You're correct. It doesn't appear to be a crime.
Some idealized notion of crime and punishment that only exists in your head does not count.
What is the crime?
The "idealized notion" isn't in anyone's head -- it's standard part of U.S. culture these days that anyone who is accused of a "sex offense" with an underage person may end up facing severe charges and permanent community ostracization if convicted... lumped together with actual pedophiles, child rapists, child pornographers, etc.
And that's what we're talking about here, because in Minnesota, the age of consent with a person of authority is 18 years old, an
Re: (Score:2)
There are no school rules outside the school outside school hours to be broken, therefore the school has no power to punish for abridgement of school rules.
Completely false.
As an obvious example, you can't buy the answers to tomorrow's tests off of a teacher, even if it's not during school hours, even if it's not on school property, and even if you just memorize the answers (for the sake of argument, let's say it's multiple-choice) rather than bringing a crib sheet. Obviously that would be a violation of the employment agreement on the teacher's part, but that doesn't mean that kid gets off.
I have no idea what the school rules are but there's no way you can m
Re: (Score:3)
It was a false claim that the teacher had committed a sex offense. Such a claim would be enough to prevent the teacher from getting another teaching job.
That's still not a felony.
Re: (Score:2)
If the claim is false, it could be a felony in Minnesota, where the student attended school. This is according to the collection of state regulations at http://www.firstamendmentcente... [firstamendmentcenter.org] . For Minnesota, the relevant statutes are Minn. Stat. 609.765 and Minn. Stat. 609.77. The young man could get up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $3000.
Re: (Score:2)
Not any more [startribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the claim is false, it could be a felony in Minnesota...
Did you even read your link? It was specifically listed as a misdemeanor, before it was struck down as the other reply noted. [It was explicitly stated that it was a misdemeanor, but a sentence of "not more than one year" is indicative of a misdemeanor as well.]
It is disturbing that libel can be a felony in Colorado, Florida, and Michigan (only if the victim is a bank in Michigan, though).
Re: (Score:2)
I was apparently unclear. "Could be a felony" referred to 609.765 . The full statute is at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta... [mn.gov], it's fascinating reading if you're interested in free speech. Whether it's a felony or not is unclear to me at first reading, but whether it was criminal according to that statute would seem pretty clear.
I'm _pleased_ that the statute was struck down later as overbroad and unconstitutional.
The more clear misdemenator reference you mention is for 609.77, which cites a misdemeanor for
Re: (Score:2)
It was a false claim that the teacher had committed a sex offense. Such a claim would be enough to prevent the teacher from getting another teaching job.
If a mere claim that someone has committed an offense is enough to stop them getting another job, that says something pretty bad about the state of American society... as does this overruling the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically not a false claim. If he asked the question and then answered it, than the context is his, just an answer alone is not enough and for the idea of a claim to exist it would require the claim to be made. What was written was "actually yes", nothing more, so it means nothing, not even a sentence. Asking and then answering that question would be making a claim, just answering is on the borderline. You see it all the time, that response is generally followed up be a request to confirm the statement
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a false claim, it's a joke. Laugh. Relax.
So someone takes a swing at me and I say WTF? and they say it was just a joke, then swing again and say it is still a joke. I can still hit him and call it self defense, joke or not, and he would deserve it. People will often call their bad acts a joke after the fact to avoid responsibility. It's like in this video [youtube.com] where a guy tries to steal a purse, then laughs as if a prank, then tries to steal it again (only to get beat by the bus driver).
Did the student mean for his tweet to be a joke when he did it?
Re: (Score:2)
So someone takes a swing at me and I say WTF?
someone compares a harmless two word tweet with actual physical assault (look it up) and I say WTF?
Did the student mean for his tweet to be a joke when he did it? I don't know
This is the old bill o'reilly ploy, it's 100% despicable, is what it is. You pretend you are sitting on the fence and then you trot what "someone else" says and give it credence. Total bullshit sleaze on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
someone compares a harmless two word tweet with actual physical assault (look it up) and I say WTF?
That's the thing though. Falsely accusing someone of a serious crime isn't harmelss even if it's only done in two words.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, the police chief's statement...that's not what this lawsuit is about.
Exactly. The Republican-ruled media simply added that statement to confuse the issue. They're trying to redirect from the kid that attempted to get a teacher fired and put in prison. I don't understand why the kid wasn't charged with attempted kidnapping. That is a felony. The kid is a felon. Why do you call kidnapping BS? Kidnapping is serious. It is serious. Why can't you Republicans understand that?
Oops, you accidentally said Republicans when you meant Democrats. Democrats control the media, not Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, MSNBC is so afraid of Republicans that they never even hired Rachel Maddow.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, the meaning of the word "actually" in this context is the same as "literally", meaning that the tweet was not a joke no matter what the kid tweeting intended.
So it's not a joke if someone implies that what they're saying is true? Do you even know what a joke is?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cause use of the word "literally" has never been commonly used in jokes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Focusing on the idea that this lawsuit is about a "two word tweet" is ridiculous and dishonest. This lawsuit is about the stunning and life-altering overreaction of district officials as well as the legally ignorant and intensely unamerican attitude of the police
FTFY.
Actually Yes Reid Sagehorn is first class tosser (Score:2)
To believe actions should not have consequences.
His sense of entitlement is staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sagehorn filed the lawsuit seeking damages and an expungement of the disciplinary actions."
Expungement? No way! You publicly accused a school employee of a felony! Of course you have to leave school and you should tuck in your tail and be glad if you don't see the inside of a courtroom yourself.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Flip the genders involved and you'll get a hundred reasons why it's not right. Fact is that the student is still under age and the teacher is suppose to be there to teach, not make out with the kids.
If the two have a thing for each other that's strong enough to break this barrier of common sense, then the two should be willing to wait a couple of years for the student to graduate before persuing a serious relationship. (And I say a couple of years because if they're young enough to be 3+ years from graduation there's just no excuse for the teacher to be trying to get involved with the -child-.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
pedantry
ped()ntr/
noun
noun: pedantry; plural noun: pedantries
excessive concern with minor details and rules.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:5, Informative)
See here [etymonline.com] and here [etymonline.com] for their respective etymologies.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, but it was a nice thought for a moment.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on which source you reference. The "Paedo-" is from the late Latin, which got it from the Greeks.
Pedagogy, Pedology (study of children as opposed to the study of soil) and Pediatrics all come from the same source, and Pedagogy and Pedant come from the same source
"Paedo-" is relating to children. "Pedagogy" is the teaching of the young. "Pedant" is "person who trumpets minor points of learning".
Yeah, they're from the same source. Ety
Re: (Score:2)
It does make me wonder why pedantry doesn't have something to do with your feet/walking though.
Re: (Score:2)
The more I look at this, it does appear that "pedant" and "pedophile" have an etymological relationship, once removed.
Etymology online only traces one back to late period Latin, and the other to Greece, but other sources are showing a common Greek root for both words.
Re:Headline is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you would care if you were the person about whom these rumors were being spread as that kind of allegation can be career ending on its own. The administration clearly went overboard, but there's a clear difference between insinuating that someone is having sexual relations with their students and jokes about a person being a closeted Jets fan.
It's hardly surprising when kids in high school act immature. That's to be expected, but the administration taking such a disproportionate reaction to something, which is better sorted out with a simple discussion about the seriousness of making such claims and perhaps an apology, is rather disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory you're right.
In practice it's a lot easier to make one idiot shut the fuck up than to tell 6,999,999,999 idiots not to listen.
If human nature was such that people didn't believe (and act on) unfounded allegations it's unlikely that defamation laws would have been created in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So we should prosecute jokes as lies now? And there's a new rule: if you include "actually" in your joke, then it can't be a joke?
Fuck the politically correct grammar nazi police. Fuck em if they can't take a joke. Joke 'em if they can't take a fuck. Fuck that teacher, he's way too thin-skinned and is probably guilty as fuck that's why he's overreacting so strongly.
Re: (Score:2)
So we should prosecute jokes as lies now? And there's a new rule: if you include "actually" in your joke, then it can't be a joke?
Granted, it's been a very long time since I was in high-school, but as far as I know there's still a big damn difference between being suspended and being charged with a crime, let along being prosecuted for one.
You can be suspended in some high-schools for violating the dress code. It doesn't make it a crime, but it's also permissible (even if you or I don't agree with it). As I child/minor you have considerably less rights than an adult.
I can't say I'm familiar with the story, or that I even RTFA. But i
Re: (Score:3)
there's still a big damn difference between being suspended and being charged with a crime
Of course, but right in TFS the police chief of that town is quoted as making the (legally ignorant and unamerican) claim that the tweet was a felony, and thus implicitly threatening prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
Civilized countries got rid of the felony status thing in the 19th century. Having classes of people who have their rights permanently removed is pretty feudal.
Re: (Score:2)
The teacher is in a position of authority, therefore whether there is actual consent is ambiguous.
Tell that to Bill Clinton (Score:2)
Can't be in a bigger position of authority than POTUS.
Re: (Score:3)
If they had just given him a lecture and explained why his behavior was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to the teacher that would have been sufficient, but the standard school administrator response these days seems to one of not on
Re: (Score:2)
Police chief should be fired (Score:5, Informative)
As should the entire school district.
Defamation is never a felony. In a handful of states, it *might* be a misdemeanor under very specific circumstances.
In the US, in order to win a defamation case, with the exception of defamation per se (allegations of unchastity, allegations of a loathsome disease, allegations of a crime of moral turpitude, allegations injurious to trade, profession, or business), one has to prove actual damages. Even under the most strict of interpretations, the comment that Reid Sagehorn made could not be construed as defamation.
Re:Police chief should be fired (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, in order to win a defamation case, with the exception of defamation per se (allegations of unchastity, allegations of a loathsome disease, allegations of a crime of moral turpitude, allegations injurious to trade, profession, or business), one has to prove actual damages. Even under the most strict of interpretations, the comment that Reid Sagehorn made could not be construed as defamation.
Expand the tweet to say "Well, yes, I did have sex with my high school teacher."
Tell me why this isn't defamation per se. There is nothing in the world he could possibly have said that was more likely to destroy the teacher's career and reputation.
---- and, no, it isn't enough to claim afterwards that it was all in fun.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is nothing in the world he could possibly have said that was more likely to destroy the teacher's career and reputation.
"She gave me AIDS" would be worse. So would "she gave me hepatitis C".
Re: (Score:2)
"She sold me meth" would likely be a career killer too.
Maybe not (Score:2)
Some teachers unions have negotiated that a first offence is not fireable. There are 100s of teachers in the LA school district who are on the payroll but are not allowed to teach. Some for drug crimes, some for sex crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Some teachers unions have negotiated that a first offence is not fireable. There are 100s of teachers in the LA school district who are on the payroll but are not allowed to teach. Some for drug crimes, some for sex crimes.
That sounds like the perfect job for me...how do I get in on this lucrative scheme, err, I mean "fascinating career path"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not expand it to "Well yes, I did have sex with Morgan Fairchild, who I have seen naked on numerous occasions?" Because that would be about equally accurate.
The tweet being responded to:
âoedid @R_Sagehorn3 actually make out with [name of female teacher redacted in court filings]? prolly not.â
The response:
"Actually, yes".
Now, I'm an old fart, but I'm pretty sure "making out" still refers to amorous activities _shor
Re: (Score:2)
No one has claimed that defamation is a felony. The student is the *plaintiff* in the defamation case.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has claimed that defamation is a felony. The student is the *plaintiff* in the defamation case.
From TFS:
The town's police chief even spoke about it to the media, saying the comment was likely a felony.
Re: (Score:3)
The local prosecuting attorney later confirmed that Sagehorn had committed no crime and the police chief apologized. Sagehorn, for his part, also said he had written an apology to the teacher in question: "I never meant to hurt anybody."
Re: (Score:2)
The police chief did not say that the student's comment was defamation, let alone that it was a felony because it was defamation. damicatz's claim was that the police chief should be fired for saying that defamation was a felony, which the police chief did not say.
Re: (Score:2)
One could claim that he was alleging moral turpitude, and that the allegation was injurious to the teacher's trade. ...
I'd need a lot more context before I'd know whether such claims were reasonable, but they aren't blatantly unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
What this kid alleged was molestation. It was not a harmless joke. If the teacher, the school, the district, and even the cops did not respond to it then such an allegation could fester and result in the loss of a teaching liscense and the pot
Re: (Score:2)
Can the hyperbole. You could make an argument that such negligence justifies expulsion, but you're just embarrassing yourself when you claim "thinks denying the right of teacher to feed her family is funny".
We all know the kid didn't write this tweet thinking "haHA, this will bring my teacher up on sexual harassment charges!", nor was it materially likely to happen. Just like your "Eat Locals!" signature isn't going to get you accused of cannibalism.
Disciplinary action is appropriate. I'd have gone with
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, without hyperbole, is when a kid makes an accu
Re:Police chief should be fired (Score:5, Informative)
Are you retarded?
He never said anything about what he thought should be legal or illegal.
He simply stated the law as it currently is.
Re: (Score:2)
until May of this year Minnesota had a criminal defamation law.
True, but it was only a misdemeanor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Liberal here and I dont think a childs life should be ruined because they did something dumb and childish. Yes the kid should be punished and the suspension seems reasonable, but forcing the kid to change school and threatening them with felony charges because of one tweet is massive overkill.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding an extra week does seem uncalled for but how does that tie into using "except"? It sounds like you thought that was a counter point to what i said?
Re: Police chief should be fired (Score:2)
The criminal law you quoted was voided in May as unconditional. It was not even close to comporting with the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
There are well established exceptions to free speech when it deals with inciting violence or slandering others.
And yet, the primary case [wikipedia.org] establishing such a precedent was pure suppression of political speech.
The Number of Words is Irrelevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, okay. Thanks for the followup. I really wasn't sure whether you were going that direction or not - at first read, I thought you had misunderstood.
I definitely don't understand the defamation exactly. It seems as if the penalty was excessive which might give him some recourse for damages of some sort, but that kind of reasoning could be applied to pretty much any discipline meted out at the High School level. Honestly, I personally hadn't heard about it until this article, so for me at least the Streis
The death of common sense (Score:3)
Can't imagine how any with a brain in their head could let this go so far. Simply having the student apologize and take a little detention should have been more than enough.
Re:The death of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Having the student issue a written apology to the teacher and having him post a simple "obviously this was a joke" tweet seems like it should have handled the situation quite well and made it a learning experience for the student. Engaging the parents early would help ensure it's taken seriously and reinforced at home. No damage done, no lawsuits, no absurdly ignorant police chiefs.
Re: The death of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
If the school hadn't taken this action they would have been liable for the unhealthy work environment for not removing someone who has basically admitted to the school that he sexually harassed her.
Re: The death of common sense (Score:3)
Does "make out with" mean sexual intercourse where you come from? I understand it to mean kissing and perhaps groping. Still not something you should falsely accuse a teacher of doing with a minor, but kissing is not as serious a violation as full on intercourse.
Re: The death of common sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you think this case is different from the usual bullshit students spout "because internet?"
Hey, it works in patent applications.
Re: (Score:2)
The student is the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy Theory (Probably the real truth) (Score:2, Offtopic)
The teacher actually did kiss the boy. The school wanted to cover up a teacher misconduct issue and manipulated the student to admitting it was a joke. The school then tries to cover their ass more by suspending him and manipulating the parents to get him to go to a different school. The police chief was just ignorant to everything. The buy who actually kissed the teacher realized what BS this was and got nothing but problems from the situation had enough and is suing. I'm not saying the teacher took ad
Re: (Score:2)
~typo correction~
the buy who = the boy who
Re: (Score:2)
The point of a theory is it is not proven. It sounds like I hit a nerve with you. I was reading the situation and things don't add up. I decided to propose a theory that crosses the T's and sounds like something that could actually have happened in this day and age. I know how schools like to bully things out of students to save face. I also know how people over-react when such a save-face occurs and demand stuff out of the innocent who was made to seem guilty. The next time you post, try not to do it
Re: (Score:2)
If you were truly theorising, you wouldn't have appended "probably the real truth". I agree with the AC. Seriously, take a look at your actions and get over that instinctive human reaction to deny responsibility.
Disgusting. (Score:3)
1 the chief of police needs to be fired for being a dimwit.
2 the school needs to focus on education and not being fuck-knobs.
3 everyone involved needs to get a life.
It is two words from a juvenile that were inappropriate, The kid is far too immature to know anything about legality of statements. Honestly it is the adults and so called "leaders" of the community are so full of themselves and controlling others that they all need to be forced to sit in a corner for a few days to think about how they are acting.
Punishing rape victims (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
If he did make out with the teacher then I'm on his side because he should be free to tell the truth. If he didn't make out with the teacher then I'm on everyone else's side because he lied in a way that could ruin her career.
All this means is... (Score:2)
The suit isn't patiently frivolous on it's face. Which is a REALLY low bar to clear. It just means that somebody isn't just making up some crackpot legal theory for the lawsuit and that there might be some evidence.
Maybe it will be ... (Score:2)
... "forgotten," on Google search and stuff.
Just a boast by a teenage kid. Nothing to see here (Score:2)
Just a boast by a teenage kid... Someone needs to question the basic intelligence of these people over-reacting so hugely in this way... Maybe if they cant react more sensibly school personnel should simply be banned completely from reading their pupils tweets..
Re: (Score:3)
"Is Sagehorn a total ****?"
Actually, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but he's a teenager, so that shouldn't be surprising. The school district, however... that's another matter. And there should be personal legal consequences to the people who pushed it this far.
Not, however, any reward to Sagehorn. But the punishment to the school should require public apology to him by the principle. And possibly paying for him to be easily transported to another school. I'm really not convinced that it would be fair to ANYONE for him to be readmitted to this original school. To
Re: The student is suing the school for defamation (Score:2)
The Slashdot headline implies otherwise by saying the lawsuit is over the (student's) two-word tweet rather than over the school's ridiculous overreaction.
Re: (Score:2)
A school doesn't have the funds to provide a teacher with lawyers. Suspending a student, on the other hand, is free.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they get sued it isn't.
fire in a crowded theater (Score:2)
[The student's two-word tweet] isn't a felony. The tweet isn't equivalent to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and that reasoning doesn't even make sense.
Indeed.
A side-note while we're at it: The whole "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" [wikipedia.org] argument was coined by a supreme justice in WW I, when writing a decision upholding a law criminalizing handing out anti-draft leaflets.
My favorite story on the subject is about a time Abbie Hoffman was being interviewed about a free speech issue (in a c
Caveat (Score:2)
If there is a fire in a crowded theatre, you should yell "Fire!". That is why all of these people speaking out against the 'Draw Mohammed' contests as shouting fire in a crowded theatre are wrong. Radical Islamists, including those that would kill to prevent or avenge cartoons of their prophet, is a real issue, as proven in Garland, Texas.