Slashdot Mirror
Court Finds For Student In Web FOS Case
An anonymous reader writes "A student who brought a suit against his middle school has been awarded a settlement after two years of legal battles. USAToday reports that the suit was brought after the school leveled harsh disciplinary measures against the student, based entirely on comments made to his website guestbook." From the article: "Grayson Barber, who handled the case on behalf of the ACLU, said the school presented no evidence that Dwyer's comments were threatening or disruptive of school activities. 'Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression.'"
Students have free speech rights--they are limited for the special circumstances of the school house environment, but it is undeniable that public school students have certain 1st Amendment rights. A website, written from a home computer, would seem a rather obvious example of free speech that cannot be punished by school administrators, especially if the punished speech was in a guest comments section that the student may not have written himself.
It's a good thing that the school district got its hand slapped for enforcing a stupid rule and then refusing to state the rule that was violated. How can someone be held liable for what another person put in a guestbook? And then to top it off, suspending a kid from school and not allowing him to go on a field trip or play sports for no justification? Jeez, at least tell the guy exactly what rule he violated. That school district just taught its students a lesson in the abuse of authority.
While I completely agree that the school was in the wrong... $117,500???
How do the courts justify a payment of that much money over some relatively minor punishment (It's not like the punishment was cruel or unusual).
There doesn't appear to be any mention of what was claimed to have been said on the site, other than "anti-Semitic" comments. What did the site say that got the kid in trouble?
What were the criticisms of the school?
This is wonderful!! There is a current trend where schools think they have authority outside of school hours/property. As a parent I feel that it is NONE of the schools buisness what my child does outside of school period. If threatening comments are made they of course have the right to call the police who DO have authority outside of school. However it is NEVER appropriate to levy a school punnishment (like detention or removal of privilages) for an activity outside school. It's just a power grab to make the administrators feel more important than they are. Worry about education and keeping kids safe while at school. Leave the parenting to me and any criminal punnishments to the police.
Even that is understandable. The school found it disruptive and frankly it probably was. It was in school and they can enforce a dress code. This case is much different. This was a website that was not hosted by the school and was a comment in a guest book that may or may not have been written by the student.
As long as you are not breaking the law I do not see how a public school has the right to do anything about what you do at home.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I think this is as much a problem with society as anything else.
The article states that the school district did not show what rule was broken exactly, and had no proof of these anti-Semitic remarks they claimed were on this site (not that such things can be outlawed--first amendment).
I am of the belief that this was solely to shut him up. He was criticizing his school district, using his first amendment rights, and so long as he wasn't slandering the school district (or libel, as the case may be), that's tough. However in our society, anyone who says anything at all about anyone else is up for punishment, be it this, suspension and such, or a lawsuit.
The most the school can do is block his site within the school system using filters. IANAL, but from what I gather, their power should end right there. Especially if the site was not being updated from school, as the article indicates.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm glad to see this. I doubt it will help, but who knows, maybe it will allow for other schools to get their acts together.
Why do I think that the kid isn't going to see much of that $117,000? If it's been in court for two years, there are some legal bills mounting somewhere, and I wouldn't think it surprising or even wrong if the ACLU took a big ass cut to pay for the services it rendered.
Anyone know for sure whether the ACLU takes a percentage of judgements or settlements to offset litigation costs when one of its clients wins?
early, right out of the gate.
The school works for us, not the other way around. They may be trained as educators, but they have nothing on honest, caring, critical thinking parents where raising kids is concerned.
Most of the crap kids must endure these days is directly related to making the job easier for the educators. A noble goal, and one that I support. However, this goal must not get in the way of helping kids to learn citizenship, responsibility and ethics --along with their rights and responsibilities.
If the school does something lame with your kid, do not let it slide because the damage is minor, or resolving the issue takes time. Address it completely and fully and make sure your kid knows why this is being done and what the value is.
Often the school will want the parents to meet with the educator without the student in kind of a settlement meeting. The idea being to come to a solution that insures no educator loses face. Don't do that. If the problem involves your kid, then the discussion is fair game as well.
There are a lot of things about my school district that I don't like, and there are a lot of things I do like too. My point is they are not perfect, even though they try really hard to convey that to both kids and parents. Once they realize you see through that and require they deal fair, many issues get a lot easier as time goes on.
I'm happy this kid got to actually speak. I am also worried that he does not see the flip side of the issue; namely, that free speech has consequenses. Later in life, he might speak and be right for doing so, but might not consider the consequenses of his speech where his peers are concerned.
Who knows though. Might be a smart young man who just learned a valuable lesson early enough to really make a difference. Just worry a little that it might go to his head, that's all.
If the student is reading this: Good luck in life, young man, but be sure to think your future speech all the way through before speaking!
(Not that you did anything wrong, because you didn't. It's just that speaking out does not always equal a nice bankroll.)
Blogging because I can...
You need to go back and read the First Amendment, the defense of which is the ACLU's primary purpose. First sentence: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Coerced prayer in schools is an obvious violation of the first clause. Other religion in schools issues are a question of how to balance the second and third clauses.
Being a young person is a long hard lesson in the abuse of authority. This case is a happy exception in that the abusers were punished and punished publicly.
This case clearly demonstrates what most of us already know, that an awful lot of school administrators pursued a career in education because they wanted a job where they could lord themselves over other people. This kind of abuse is inevitable anytime one group or person has too much power over another group or person.
This kid didn't do anything wrong. I'm glad he had the courage and intestinal fortitude to stand up for himself and fight his oppressors. He was punished for the "crime" of being young and because the administration thought they could get away with it. They saw him as a non-person without any rights. A punching bag to take out their frustrations upon. Maybe they'll think twice next time, assuming that there is one since the voters now have 100,000 reasons to elect a new school board. No one likes being told that their tax dollars were spent to compensate the victims of abuse at the hands of a public institution.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
"Coerced pray in schools" is not a "law respecting an establishment of religion". It is not even a law. Preventing students from praying is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech."
But that's the crux of the buscuit though.
The same constitution that says that public schools cannot censor out-of-school activities by students also grants private institutions of all sorts "freedom of association" rights (these are not explicit, but are implied by the first and fourth ammendment rights of peaceful assembly and protection from unreasonable search and arrest. They're a bit like the "right to privacy" that is similarly implied). Those rights allow them to say who may and may not be afforded access based on any criteria they like. The entire difference lies in the fact that the public schools are part of the government and private institutions and parties are not (so long as they do not accept any government funding for their activities).
Public school districts are institutions of local governments, and their regulations have the force of law for students (i.e. the rules have the force of the government behind them and students can be punished for breaking them).
Preventing a student from praying -- silently in class, or on his own time at recess or outside of class -- obviously is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as well as "abridging the freedom of speech." So is failing to make reasonable accommodations for private religious practice.
School officials (who are government appointees) giving a student a microphone and having them pray in front of a school assembly is a whole different kettle of fish. You're essentially saying "This student's beliefs are the beliefs of the school district," which means that the local government is declaring one religion or set of beliefs to be true. That is also obviously in contradiction with the 1st Amendment.
Why do so many Christians seem to feel that they are being "repressed" if Christianity isn't given offical state-funded recongition?
jf
Why can't a Catholic school do this? Unlike a public school, a Catholic school is a private organization. It seems to me that enforcing this "right" limits the ability of private organizations to conduct their own affairs.
A Catholic school, and for that matter, any private organization is perfectly entitled to enforce its own code of conduct on or off its property, and apply any (legal) disciplinary measures they see fit. Far from being an abomination, this is exactly as it should be.
pornking
In loco parentis? How many parents prosecute their kids for talking back to them, or jaywalking? If schools deign to use that phrase, they better act like it.
:wry-smiley:). Without any mental or verbal acting out, the aggression gets bottled up, to erupt in only the worst way possible, for when simple child agressive behaviour is outright banned, the only way it can be expressed is when it has reached boiling point and the child doesn't care about the consequences anymore .
:P
I'll go one further here, on a somewhat relevant subject; zero-tolerance policies. These are what cause things like Columbine to happen (and no, zero tolerance wasn't due to Columbine, although that did accelerate it). Zero tolerance (ZT) is dangerous, because it constricts aggression. A schoolyard scuffle, no matter what else, relieve mental pressure on all involved (if the nerd gets at least one punch in
Damn, I realise this has no real place in this thread, but now I've typed it out, and I'm not gonna delete it
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Again, this is modded up funny, but let's seriously consider this for a second:
/., with people identifying troll accounts and cross referencing them to actual accounts.
/. users are older, we'll have to deal with one of two crises in politics. Either:
If we're dredging up Samuel Alito's yearbook photo, why is it so far fetched to believe that in the future, the Internet will be scoured for facts about people?
What happens when a future Presidential candidate had a shitty myspace when he was 14?
Any idiot can use Google can become a "websleuth". We have it all the time here on
Look, no one is free of skeletons in their closet. But our generation (speaking as a college student) has left a "paper trail" like no other. Imagine if suddenly the New York Times had this sort of access to Bush! AIM transcripts, emails, messageboard postings, facebook groups, et cetera. How much will the Internet Archive be hit up for this sort of thing?
Let's face it: by the time many of us younger
A) We'll see new laws enacted somehow barring journalists and bloggers from publicizing past information on candidates (fat chance), or
B) We'll have to, as a nation, come to grips that all of the leading Presidential candidates listened to My Chemical Romance and were, at best, SA Forum Goons and, at worst, XXX password crackers.
You laugh. I think our generation is already bracing for this. I was interviewing kids at my college (William and Mary) about the use of "Tribe" as our nickname. NCAA has asked us to change it, etc, etc. I went to ask some kid upstairs about his opinion as to whether or not it was a valid change, and this sophomore looked at me and said, "seeing as I someday want to run for public office, I'm going to have to decline to answer your question."
Will software corporations hire background investigators to check whether or not you ever frequented a bit-torrent site?
Will the frivolous, unthinking, knee jerk petitions/forums/porn sites/facebook groups we are associated with in our youth some day come back to haunt us in this new, incomparatively open world?
Stay tuned...
--Petey
Surely what we need is a complete generation of young people who care a great deal for their rights, and also know that authority does sometimes need to be ignored/done away with (i.e. when it's corrupt, abused, self-appointed, etc) instead of the present system where about 1% have brains and get shouted down as terrorists/unpatriotic/dissenting when they stand up for their rights.
If everyone stands up for their rights then it will be impossible (or very hard) to remove them.
To use your employer example, if an employer finds that all/almost all of their new workforce refuses to accept rules governing their own time then the employer will have to change the rules - you can't fire/hire most of your workforce every week. The national economy will iron the wrinkles out eventually and everyone will be happier, except the fascists.
FGD 135
Here's what you should know: Maple Place School is not unusual in any way, shape, or form. Students don't have rights anywhere. It's about time that changed.
Oh, and since defending the ACLU is almost a hobby of mine, on a related note, my sister's friend's mother works for the middle school, and is complaining that now the school can't enforce any sort of dress code, "thanks to the ACLU." Apparently a lot of girls are dressing very slutty now. I've heard this same criticism about similar cases, that dress codes are being overturned thanks to the ACLU, turning schools into orgies, strip clubs, etc.
Well, guess what? The ACLU isn't handing out thongs, tank tops, and 6-inch heels to girls in front of schools across the country. These kids have parents. Parents who give them money to buy all of this slutty clothing. Parents who let their kids walk out the door looking like the prostitutes who hang out in front of the subway stop near my apartment. Parents who let their kids watch MTV and don't make any effort to give girls positive role models.
So if you want to blame someone, blame the parents of these kids. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, just a parent with his or her head on straight and priorities right. The ACLU is fighting the good fight.
As an instructor of criminal justice I like to draw comparisons for my students between criminal justice institutions and non-criminal justice institutions and I have to say that modern city schools and modern prisons have so much in common that it's scary. For example the principles of the convict code (don't snitch, don't take shit, and don't respect authority) are ingrained in school students. Not to mention the cameras, bars, metal detectors, and all of the other physical elements of control...
Your experience just speaks to the way we criminalize our children.