Slashdot Mirror

1. The same rules apply to everyone. Media companies don't get a free passdon't get a free pass just because they own a lot of copyrighted content.

2. The company(ies) requesting the block have to financially compensate the blocked website if it's later discovered that their claim of copyright violation was in error. Unlike is currently done under the DMCA where media companies regularly claim copyright violation on YouTube videos and get them defended. And when the person who posts the video is finally able to prove that there was no copyright violation, the media companies only have to say "oopsies, sorry."

If you follow these common-sense guidelines, you'll quickly find that the problem with blocking websites for repeated copyright violations is that the websites which feature large amounts of media (e.g. news sites, art/photo sharing sites, etc) are the ones which get accused of copyright violation the most. And you'll conclude that an outright ban based on a handful of accusations ends up hurting some of the most useful sites disproportionately.

Some shield laws do recognize an exemption in the case where the reporter's testimony is likely to exonerate an innocent person:
http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=56 (scroll down to the cite for "Hammarley v. Superior Court")

Why? Presumably the thought of an innocent person in jail feels intuitively like such an injustice, that the importance of fixing this wrong, overrides the importance of protecting source confidentiality.

The flaw in this logic, I think, is that an innocent person being set free from jail is just one particular case of "justice being done". When a guilty person is convicted, or when the right side wins in a lawsuit, those are all examples of justice being done as well. While I think it's generally true that it's more important to keep the innocent free than to convict the guilty, not every goal of exonerating an innocent person is more important than every goal of convicting a guilty one. Overturning the conviction of someone who was mistakenly sentenced to a week in jail, is not as important as getting a serial killer off the streets. If it had been up to me, I would have said that a court should decide on a case-by-case basis whether the importance of source confidentiality overrides the importance of the case being tried, regardless of what kind of case it was.

What jurisdictions have these laws? Please name one.

I don't see how he put anyone in danger. These were copies of posts people made online. These folks were already telling the world this about themselves. He did not secretly record their bed time conversations.

http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=107

As I said, it is a legal gray area.

Maybe in North Korea or China. In America something like this is at most a civil tort of libel

It is never safe to generalize about U.S. state law.

Colorado is one of 17 states with a criminal libel statute, which is different from the civil libel laws in all 50 states that allow victims of allegedly defamatory statements to seek compensation from speakers. Criminal libel laws allow the state to fine or imprison speakers of defamatory statements.

Former high school student pleads guilty to criminal libel [2006]

You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).

Citation needed. Really. I can pretty much guarantee that a group of 100 would be charged without necessarily being asked to leave. Tresspass, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... the particular charge would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; but don't mistake private damage control with a legal requirement.

The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet.

No, since you're implying that the implicit authorization is unlimited rather than limited to expected or customary activities. Want a REAL real world example? Student newspaper theft. You are implicitly allowed to take one free paper (or, practically, a few) due to the papers being set out in a kiosk or bin. You are not allowed to take every paper with the intent of preventing others from obtaining them or the paper delivering them. Really. You don't have to be told not to do it.

You can be charged with a crime for taking something that is being given away for free when you exceed the scope of an implicit authorization, and you can be charged with a crime for entering into locations that exceed the scope of an implicit authorization. Really. You don't have to be told not to do something unusual.

There is nothing magical about a DDOS when it comes to the explicit or implicit authorization that you may have to interact with someone else's computers and services. It's criminal. You damn well know it. Protest is not a legal justification; so welcome to the real world, where you may end up with a criminal record no matter how worthy you, rather than society at large, believe your cause to be.

You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).

Citation needed. Really. I can pretty much guarantee that a group of 100 would be charged without necessarily being asked to leave. Tresspass, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... the particular charge would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; but don't mistake private damage control with a legal requirement.

The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet.

No, since you're implying that the implicit authorization is unlimited rather than limited to expected or customary activities. Want a REAL real world example? Student newspaper theft. You are implicitly allowed to take one free paper (or, practically, a few) due to the papers being set out in a kiosk or bin. You are not allowed to take every paper with the intent of preventing others from obtaining them or the paper delivering them. Really. You don't have to be told not to do it.

You can be charged with a crime for taking something that is being given away for free when you exceed the scope of an implicit authorization, and you can be charged with a crime for entering into locations that exceed the scope of an implicit authorization. Really. You don't have to be told not to do something unusual.

There is nothing magical about a DDOS when it comes to the explicit or implicit authorization that you may have to interact with someone else's computers and services. It's criminal. You damn well know it. Protest is not a legal justification; so welcome to the real world, where you may end up with a criminal record no matter how worthy you, rather than society at large, believe your cause to be.

There actually is such a thing as criminal libel, even in the US.

According to Libel and the First Amendment (by Richard Labunski) "...judges in Pennsylvania were left substantial discretion to punish criminal libel because the (state) constitution left unresolved a standard for determining what publications were proper for public information (pg. 55)" (parenthetical notation on /., fuck yea).

Sounds like that judge could do pretty much whatever he wanted. Newspapers are the ones who put backbone into first amendment law; they have money, and they have self-interest at stake. Without them threatening (or MySpace doing it) there would be no reason why the judge couldn't sentence her.

Relevant Case Law

42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
http://www.peoples-law.org/individual-rts/civil-rights/1983_exactwords.htm

Dwyer v. Oceanport School District
School officials will pay a former student $117,500 to settle a lawsuit he filed claiming his First Amendment rights were violated after administrators punished him for material posted on his Web site.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1126

Beidler v. North Thurston Sch. Dist
A superior court judge ruled in July that the North Thurston County School District violated the constitutional rights of a student who was suspended for ridiculing a school administrator on his personal Web site. In late January 1999, the school principal placed Beidler on "emergency expulsion." According to Beidler, the principal told him some teachers said they felt uncomfortable about having Beidler in their classes due to the content of his website. The principal also testified that he found the website "personally appalling" and "real inappropriate. On July 18, 2000, a Washington trial court judge granted summary judgment to Beidler on his First Amendment claims. The judge first noted that the First Amendment rights of public school students remain constant even in the age of the Internet. "Today the first amendment protects student speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tinker."
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=448&edition=4

Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. District
A local school district has agreed to pay $60,000 in partial settlement of lawsuit brought by a former student who was kicked off the volleyball team because he posted an Internet message criticizing an art teacher, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15185prs20021118.html

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education
Sean O'Brien, while a sixteen-year-old junior at Westlake High School, created a website in March 1998 that lampooned his band teacher Raymond Walczuk. His web page "raymondsucks.org" contained several unflattering comments about Walczuk. School officials settled with O'Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging the suspension from his record and writing a letter of apology
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
Brandon Beussink, then a junior at Woodland High School, created his own homepage on his own computer at his own home. The homepage was "highly critical" of the school administration and included vulgar language in his opinions of teachers and the principal. The principal initially suspended Beussink for five days because he was offended by the content on the site, and he later extended the suspension to ten days. "Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker," the judge wrote.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Mahaffey v. Aldrich
An unpublished decis

Relevant Case Law

42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
http://www.peoples-law.org/individual-rts/civil-rights/1983_exactwords.htm

Dwyer v. Oceanport School District
School officials will pay a former student $117,500 to settle a lawsuit he filed claiming his First Amendment rights were violated after administrators punished him for material posted on his Web site.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1126

Beidler v. North Thurston Sch. Dist
A superior court judge ruled in July that the North Thurston County School District violated the constitutional rights of a student who was suspended for ridiculing a school administrator on his personal Web site. In late January 1999, the school principal placed Beidler on "emergency expulsion." According to Beidler, the principal told him some teachers said they felt uncomfortable about having Beidler in their classes due to the content of his website. The principal also testified that he found the website "personally appalling" and "real inappropriate. On July 18, 2000, a Washington trial court judge granted summary judgment to Beidler on his First Amendment claims. The judge first noted that the First Amendment rights of public school students remain constant even in the age of the Internet. "Today the first amendment protects student speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tinker."
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=448&edition=4

Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. District
A local school district has agreed to pay $60,000 in partial settlement of lawsuit brought by a former student who was kicked off the volleyball team because he posted an Internet message criticizing an art teacher, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15185prs20021118.html

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education
Sean O'Brien, while a sixteen-year-old junior at Westlake High School, created a website in March 1998 that lampooned his band teacher Raymond Walczuk. His web page "raymondsucks.org" contained several unflattering comments about Walczuk. School officials settled with O'Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging the suspension from his record and writing a letter of apology
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
Brandon Beussink, then a junior at Woodland High School, created his own homepage on his own computer at his own home. The homepage was "highly critical" of the school administration and included vulgar language in his opinions of teachers and the principal. The principal initially suspended Beussink for five days because he was offended by the content on the site, and he later extended the suspension to ten days. "Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker," the judge wrote.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Mahaffey v. Aldrich
An unpublished decis

Relevant Case Law

42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
http://www.peoples-law.org/individual-rts/civil-rights/1983_exactwords.htm

Dwyer v. Oceanport School District
School officials will pay a former student $117,500 to settle a lawsuit he filed claiming his First Amendment rights were violated after administrators punished him for material posted on his Web site.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1126

Beidler v. North Thurston Sch. Dist
A superior court judge ruled in July that the North Thurston County School District violated the constitutional rights of a student who was suspended for ridiculing a school administrator on his personal Web site. In late January 1999, the school principal placed Beidler on "emergency expulsion." According to Beidler, the principal told him some teachers said they felt uncomfortable about having Beidler in their classes due to the content of his website. The principal also testified that he found the website "personally appalling" and "real inappropriate. On July 18, 2000, a Washington trial court judge granted summary judgment to Beidler on his First Amendment claims. The judge first noted that the First Amendment rights of public school students remain constant even in the age of the Internet. "Today the first amendment protects student speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tinker."
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=448&edition=4

Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. District
A local school district has agreed to pay $60,000 in partial settlement of lawsuit brought by a former student who was kicked off the volleyball team because he posted an Internet message criticizing an art teacher, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15185prs20021118.html

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education
Sean O'Brien, while a sixteen-year-old junior at Westlake High School, created a website in March 1998 that lampooned his band teacher Raymond Walczuk. His web page "raymondsucks.org" contained several unflattering comments about Walczuk. School officials settled with O'Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging the suspension from his record and writing a letter of apology
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
Brandon Beussink, then a junior at Woodland High School, created his own homepage on his own computer at his own home. The homepage was "highly critical" of the school administration and included vulgar language in his opinions of teachers and the principal. The principal initially suspended Beussink for five days because he was offended by the content on the site, and he later extended the suspension to ten days. "Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker," the judge wrote.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Mahaffey v. Aldrich
An unpublished decis

Relevant Case Law

42 U.S.C. Section 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
http://www.peoples-law.org/individual-rts/civil-rights/1983_exactwords.htm

Dwyer v. Oceanport School District
School officials will pay a former student $117,500 to settle a lawsuit he filed claiming his First Amendment rights were violated after administrators punished him for material posted on his Web site.
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1126

Beidler v. North Thurston Sch. Dist
A superior court judge ruled in July that the North Thurston County School District violated the constitutional rights of a student who was suspended for ridiculing a school administrator on his personal Web site. In late January 1999, the school principal placed Beidler on "emergency expulsion." According to Beidler, the principal told him some teachers said they felt uncomfortable about having Beidler in their classes due to the content of his website. The principal also testified that he found the website "personally appalling" and "real inappropriate. On July 18, 2000, a Washington trial court judge granted summary judgment to Beidler on his First Amendment claims. The judge first noted that the First Amendment rights of public school students remain constant even in the age of the Internet. "Today the first amendment protects student speech to the same extent as in 1979 or 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tinker."
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=448&edition=4

Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks Sch. District
A local school district has agreed to pay $60,000 in partial settlement of lawsuit brought by a former student who was kicked off the volleyball team because he posted an Internet message criticizing an art teacher, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania announced today.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15185prs20021118.html

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education
Sean O'Brien, while a sixteen-year-old junior at Westlake High School, created a website in March 1998 that lampooned his band teacher Raymond Walczuk. His web page "raymondsucks.org" contained several unflattering comments about Walczuk. School officials settled with O'Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging the suspension from his record and writing a letter of apology
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District
Brandon Beussink, then a junior at Woodland High School, created his own homepage on his own computer at his own home. The homepage was "highly critical" of the school administration and included vulgar language in his opinions of teachers and the principal. The principal initially suspended Beussink for five days because he was offended by the content on the site, and he later extended the suspension to ten days. "Disliking or being upset by the content of a student's speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker," the judge wrote.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part3.htm

Mahaffey v. Aldrich
An unpublished decis

The University System of Georgia Board of Regents is meeting on Wednesday and Thursday. After backing out of a hearing procedure which they established to give an opportunity for due process, we filled a civil rights and discrimination lawsuit in Federal court.

It may be more effective to contact the Board of Regents at this point.

Office of the Chancellor
Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Suite 7025
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
office: (404) 656-2202
fax: (404) 657-6979
email: chancellor@usg.edu

http://www.usg.edu/contact/
http://www.usg.edu/regents/members/

Join my Facebook group @ http://kennesaw.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6371166090

The story about the lawsuit has been heard across Georgia. Newspapers from Valdosta, Augusta, and Athens are reporting on the case. It's been discussed on television, radio, and Internet blogs. Prominent education journal "Inside Higher Ed" featured it on their front page.

http://mashable.com/2008/01/13/facebook-users-photo-led-to-expulsion-from-university/
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1664
http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/01/10/Valdosta_State_Student_Says_Facebook_Opinion_Resulted_in_Expulsion_From_School.htm
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011208/news_20080112030.shtml
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/local_story_011142725.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8794.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8796.html
http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=7612384

The University System of Georgia Board of Regents is meeting on Wednesday and Thursday. After backing out of a hearing procedure which they established to give an opportunity for due process, we filled a civil rights and discrimination lawsuit in Federal court. It may be more effective to contact the Board of Regents at this point. Office of the Chancellor Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Suite 7025 270 Washington Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 office: (404) 656-2202 fax: (404) 657-6979 email: chancellor@usg.edu http://www.usg.edu/contact/ http://www.usg.edu/regents/members/ Join my Facebook group @ http://kennesaw.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6371166090 The story about the lawsuit has been heard across Georgia. Newspapers from Valdosta, Augusta, and Athens are reporting on the case. It's been discussed on television, radio, and Internet blogs. Prominent education journal "Inside Higher Ed" featured it on their front page. http://mashable.com/2008/01/13/facebook-users-photo-led-to-expulsion-from-university/ http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1664 http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/01/10/Valdosta_State_Student_Says_Facebook_Opinion_Resulted_in_Expulsion_From_School.htm http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/011208/news_20080112030.shtml http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/local_story_011142725.html http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8794.html http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8796.html http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=7612384

Blatantly refuse to surrender your property. If the police officer would arrest you in any way, he has no standing because no criminal or civil offense has been committed

But he can, and will, arrest you anyway. That's reality. And you won't necessarily get your recording back if it depicts police wrongdoing, or anything else they think you shouldn't have.

Surrender your property, while calmly stating that you do not wish to surrender the property, but will do so involuntarily at the behest of the police officer. Immediately contact a police official to file appropriate actions, which may include the return of your property including images, disciplinary action, and court action against the officer, department, and/or other suitable entity.

Right. Same thing. Chances are you won't get your recording back. It'll be "lost" or "accidentally" erased.

People are arrested all the time for the most ridiculous things; and their property is taken and "lost" (see "Va. Tech photographer detained, equipment confiscated" on linked page) on an ongoing and continuous basis.

You can characterize the practice any way you want, but the bottom line is the police have the power, and they're not reluctant to use it, especially when they might be in the wrong. They're following the lead of the rest of the government, which has also accrued huge amounts of power without underlying authority, and isn't the least recalcitrant about using it. As a law student, you should become quite familiar with this; it all revolves around the constitution. Of course, as a law student, the odds favor you becoming a tool of these people, sad to say.

Blatantly refuse to surrender your property. If the police officer would arrest you in any way, he has no standing because no criminal or civil offense has been committed

But he can, and will, arrest you anyway. That's reality. And you won't necessarily get your recording back if it depicts police wrongdoing, or anything else they think you shouldn't have.

Surrender your property, while calmly stating that you do not wish to surrender the property, but will do so involuntarily at the behest of the police officer. Immediately contact a police official to file appropriate actions, which may include the return of your property including images, disciplinary action, and court action against the officer, department, and/or other suitable entity.

Right. Same thing. Chances are you won't get your recording back. It'll be "lost" or "accidentally" erased.

People are arrested all the time for the most ridiculous things; and their property is taken and "lost" (see "Va. Tech photographer detained, equipment confiscated" on linked page) on an ongoing and continuous basis.

You can characterize the practice any way you want, but the bottom line is the police have the power, and they're not reluctant to use it, especially when they might be in the wrong. They're following the lead of the rest of the government, which has also accrued huge amounts of power without underlying authority, and isn't the least recalcitrant about using it. As a law student, you should become quite familiar with this; it all revolves around the constitution. Of course, as a law student, the odds favor you becoming a tool of these people, sad to say.

They shouldn't have any authority as to what goes on inside a student's home. In fact, they shouldn't have any authority what goes on outside of their campus.
...
Unless they are asked for their assistance, school's should have ZERO input on what goes on OUTSIDE of their campus.

There is no "school" right to free speech. There is no right to free speech on the job

Actually, there is.... But with "public" schools and federal jobs. The school in TFA is a private school, and can tell all of the children to do whatever the they want. If the kids (their parents actually) disagree, they can take patronage elsewhere. That's the beauty of the private school system vs federalized schooling.

BBH

Oh, and I would recommend this site to the students
How about the Student Press Law Center (http://www.splc.org?

In case there are any high schoolers (or parents of high schoolers) reading Slashdot, here's the FAQ from SPLC (Student Press Law Center). I worked on a newspaper in high school and despite the extreme (grade-affecting) hard work found it really rewarding.
http://splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=3

Q: Do high school students have First Amendment rights?
A: Yes. As the United States Supreme Court said in 1969, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." But the First Amendment only prohibits government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools. A state constitution, statute or school policy could provide private school students with free speech protections.

Q: What about the Hazelwood decision?
A: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, gave public high school officials greater authority to censor some school-sponsored student publications if they chose to do so. But the ruling doesn't apply to publications that have been opened as "public forums for student expression." It also requires school officials to demonstrate some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything. In addition, some states (currently Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas and Massachusetts) have passed laws that give students much stronger free expression protection than Hazelwood. Other states are considering such laws.

Q: What is a "public forum for student expression?"
A: A student publication is a public forum for student expression when school officials have given student editors the authority to make their own content decisions. A school can do that either through an official policy or by allowing a publication to operate with editorial independence.

Q: So if policy or practice indicates the content of my publication is determined by students, the Hazelwood decision doesn't apply to me?
A: That's right. If a student publication is a public forum for student expression, then students are entitled to stronger First Amendment protection. School officials are only allowed to censor forum publications when they can show the publication will cause a "material and substantial disruption" of school activities.

Q: What about underground or independent student publications? Are they protected from censorship?
A: Absolutely. Although public schools can establish reasonable restrictions as to the time, place and manner of distribution of underground publications, they cannot absolutely forbid their distribution on school grounds. Like school-sponsored publications that are forums, a school must show substantial disruption before they can censor an independent publication.

Q: Can a student publication be sued for libel, invasion of privacy or copyright infringement?
A: Yes, and occasionally they are. In such cases the individual reporter and the editor could be held legally responsible. Court decisions indicate that a school which does not control the content of a student publication may be protected from liability. Students need to be aware that with press freedom does come legal responsibility.

Q: Can student reporters protect confidential news sources or information?
A: Some states have "shield laws" and others have court-created privileges that protect journalists from having to reveal this kind of information. However, most states have never explicitly applied these laws to student journalists. You should check your state law before making a promise of confidentiality because once you make such a promise, the law requires you to keep it.

Q: Can I use freedom of information laws?
A: Yes. Freedom of information, or "sunshine" laws, require government agencies such as public schools to open many of their official records and

Short answer: By using it in a way that was not only unintended by the original creator but also counter to his purpose.

Did you know that it's possible to "steal" free newspaper (we have quite a few of those in Berkeley)? There's a local law passed against it not too long ago.

The newspaper was free (both as in beer and speech) for anyone to take, so long as they intended to read it (even if they don't end up reading it---too many articles are not worth the time glancing over, even). However, if someone was taking them for the explicit purpose of throwing them out---thus contrary to newspaper publisher's intentions---it becomes a crime.

PS. Well, in the context of GP's post this might not apply, though, since BSD-license seems to ('haven't RTFL) legally allow what M$ did---whether it was morally right or not (in the case of Berkeley newspaper incident, there was no law against stealing free newspaper, so what the mayor candidate (eventually elected) did was legal---but it didn't make it right and the mayor himself pushed for a legislation that made what he did illegal (probably not retroactive, though)).

there are no cameras at any intersection where I live.

How do you know? Were you expecting a big public announcement when any cameras were put up? Where I live, "homeland security" is now legally an acceptable excuse for not telling the public exactly where they're being watched. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also become an acceptable excuse for not even mentioning the existance of smaller cameras at all.

Actually, you should blame them. This runs counter to a whole history of case law that protects journalists' research material--and they damn well know it. Unless the government has a pressing reason to get at this information (i.e. it's not just going on a "fishing expedition"), they won't be able to get the notes of any reporter who cries foul. At the risk of getting modded redundant, here's a recent case that goes over this part of the law.

Actually, the courts have ruled repeatedly that journalists have an exception that allows them to keep confidential all their notes and research for their stories. Most recently, the ACLU helped student Jason Kitchen keep his notes that he made for a documentary about a death row inmate. The idea is that, unless the government has a very compelling reason to acquire those notes, they aren't allowed to get them. It prevents the government from conducting a "fishing expedition" based on reporters' confidential research.

I'm capped, so I can't whore.

A quick google search turns up this:
Decisions of a federal court of appeals must be followed by all of the district courts located within that circuit. District courts outside that circuit, however, are not bound by such decisions. Further, one district court does not have to follow the rulings of any other district court. A court is bound only by the decisions of higher courts that have direct jurisdiction over it. This is the concept of precedent. Because it is the highest court in the country, all courts must follow precedent established by the United States Supreme Court.

Yes, the site that is from is directed at HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. In the future, you might do a little research to see if the thing you dispute is common knowledge, before asking for a source.

I am the managing editor for my student newspaper at Lawrence University , the Lawrentian, and think I might be able to provide some insight from the other side of the table. Last year some enterprising students created a website called "DownerSucks.com", a reference to our unfortunately named cafeteria, Downer Commons. After an intense publicity campaign, that included sidewalk chalking and posters around campus, many students and faculty were attracted to the site that featured unmoderated discussion boards. The school newspaper ran a front page article about the site, even though many people in the school power structure were not all that keen about an off-campus discussion board. Although at first people used this tool properly, eventually the discussion fell to the lowest common denominator. Because the site was completely independent of the university, hosted off campus, and without any formal school support, no administrators were able to censor the site. Eventually a strange thing happened. As the quality of discussion declined, the site became irrelevant. Today, DownerSucks.com is just a placeholder. The lesson learned at Lawrence is that perhaps benign neglect might be the best way for administrators to deal with renegade forums.
Fortunately several prominent contributors from the message boards have migrated to our opinion page. When the newspaper recently upgraded our website, we have included non-moderated forums. Because our traffic count is just starting to grow (we're growing at 50% a week, albeit from a very low base) we have not run into any problems. If and when people do go over the line, the forums will become moderated. In terms of your experience, I will echo the other posters who have suggested that you contact a lawyer. Although the ACLU might be better known, perhaps the Student Press Law Center might be a better option. As well, in Wisconsin we have an excellent newspaper association. Their counterpart in Utah might be able to provide you with legal, if not moral support. I wish you best of luck.
"The only thing that counts is the right to know, to speak, to think -- that, and the sanctity of the courts. Otherwise it's not America." -Edward R. Murrow

>Well, I guess that the constitution really isn't
>worth much these days anyways. Remind me again
>why public-school students have no First
>Amendment rights?

Oh, because in 1988 the Supreme Court didn't think it was okay for a high school student newspaper to discuss birth control and divorce.
Remind me again why so many people in power are hypocrites?
Sigh.

I graduated high school last year, and spent the last few years involved with our publication. The school's in Iowa, one of the few states where student's right to free speech is protected on-campus. (For the full explanation, go to the National Scholastic Press Association or the Student Press Law Center.)

Our journalism teacher is technically the advisor to our publication. He advises us what we legally can and can't do. He shows us where our reporting could be improved, where our writing could be improved, what other angles might catch our readers' interest, make them think, etc. But he doens't have the final say. We can take his advice or ignore it. He treats us more as adults than any other class I've ever taken. And for the most part, we respect his advice...he was a professional reporter for 12 years (and a good one at that), so he knows what he's doing. (When we don't take his advice, we usually regret it. We may be legally protected, but we have readers and they get angry at times...)

This is a much better situation than the states in which students don't have freedom of speech. Those states haven't managed to stamp out student speech, as this article shows, but they have managed to alienate the students from the formal class system and taken away almost any chance of adults reviewing the paper and giving it advice, etc. These websites will very rarely be of the same quality as the paper we produced under our system. We have the freedom of speech and we use it. Our principal definitely respects the paper. She's learned it's better to give us the information we want than leaving us to find it on our own, probably presenting it in a way much less favorable to her. Generally, we work with her to find something agreeable to both students and faculty.

These Blake and Yorktown schools have the right idea, even if their state legislatures do not...you can't really stop the students from posting their opinions, but you can advise them. Believe it or not, students as a whole are pretty reasonable people...if you give them good advice, they'll listen.

dbthomas

Public schools cannot mess with student papers, courts have held that up many times.

This is not true. Some cases have supported student papers, some have not.

I suggest you look up Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier and also explore the rest of the Student Press Law Center.

Public schools cannot mess with student papers, courts have held that up many times.

This is not true. Some cases have supported student papers, some have not.

I suggest you look up Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier and also explore the rest of the Student Press Law Center.