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.
$100,000 isn't bad for your first website.
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.
Any student that takes a chance and says something against authority, or does something that some board members may find offensive, run the risk of suspension. A couple years ago a girl in Florida was suspended for her Halloween outfit because she covered herself in unused condoms, and encouraged other students to take them. The official story from the school was that she was being disruptive, and refused to change shirts, but really it was about a repressive administrator that felt that "handing out condoms admits to being sexually active, and that was against the policy of the school which is abstience".
Schools are messed up places in some parts. If you didn't always toe the line, and didn't get suspended, consider your school a progressive one.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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?
1) Create website with guestbook
2) Wait for some idiot to post disparaging comments about his school.
3) Get suspended (woohoo! four day weekend!)
4) Get the ACLU to sue the school for him
5) Profit! At taxpayer expense!
No student loans for this kid, eh?
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
first is that the school acts in loco parentis while the student is traveling to/from school. so, if a teacher sees a kid jaywalking on her way home, the school may legally respond to that
the other distinction has to do with published policies. if the school has a policy that says "you get suspended for violating city ordinances", and then the kid gets caught jay walking, that's that.
this case seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it though? the kid was operating at home, so the school's traditional in loco parentis is inapplicable, and they wouldn't state a policy. it doesn't get clearer than that... of course, IANAL...
Ok, fine, how little will you accept to have your free-speech rights violated?
...
...
Oh, that little?
Maybe you just don't have all that much worth saying, then?
As Ben Franklin said, "Madam, we've already established what you are; now, we are just haggling over price."
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?
Anonymous Cowards suck.
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.
I'm sure it'll be justified in ways such as lost opportunities, black marks on the education record that will cause certain undergraduate schools to shy away from such as candidate, and so forth. However, the real reason is the courts smacking the school district for violating the rules, and if they were to do it again, it would be 10x as much.
Of course, the irony is that residents in the school district will ultimately foot the bill, so in essence, although the Dwyer's win, they lose as well. If the court had really wanted to serve justice, some school officials should have been given the boot today.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I guess this is to strongly discourage similar incidents in the future - if it was a lighter fine, the school (or other schools) would be tempted to do the same thing time and again.
;)
A large fine would largely be detrimental to such actions.
More importantly, it becomes imperative that such offenses to the very fundamental fabric of free speech should not be treated lightly, no matter what the situation. Else it would not be undermining the incident, it would be undermining free speech.
And sometimes, people only understand force and authority and a large fine reinforces the importance and gravity of the situation, and at the same time showing that such incidents will not be dealt with lightly.
Precedence in law is a wonderful thing.
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.
They SETTLED - the Board came up with the offer and the kid and his parents accepted it.
The Board was most likely advised that they risked higher exposure if this case went to trial in the form of punitive damages and attorney's fees which are available in cases like this where government entites are found to have violated constititional rights (like, in this case, speech).
Bush Lies On the Record.
Insightful? How much is *your* freedom of speech worth?
:)
I'll shut up for $50,000
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I disagree - I think the taxpayers are the perfect candidates to pay this fine.
After all, they voted the school board into office.
I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
Gimmie 50 cents and I won't tell you
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
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...
Here is the "Freedom of Speech/Expression" policies for the school district that this guy was suspended in (pdf): http://www.oceanport.k12.nj.us/PDFFiles/5145.2doc. pdf
You snicker, but I see the Senate confirmation hearing for a future political position.
Senator: Sir, I have before me posting alledged to be by you on a computer web service referred to as slashdot. Are you familiar with that?
Nominee: Uh, yes Sir.
Senator: Are these postings labelled as from one 'FukMonkey345' yours?
Nominee: Sir I can assure you that was a long time ago.
Senator: Sir, remember you are under oath, I have evidence here that you claimed that you 'Welcome the nerd overlords?' Who are these folks?
Senator: You also stated that 'In Soviet Russia they own you'? What is this commie loving talk?
Senator: Do you have a prejudice against us old people? There are frequent references in the record to 'In Korea only old people use...'.
Senator: Finally, what did you mean when you claimed 'All you base are belong to us'?
That sounds like a fair chunk of change, but it's really not. In real terms of what the city could do with that money: pave 30 feet of two lane road (using immigrant labor), pay a few maintaince guys for a year (and their pensions), pay a newish DA for a year, provide a decent computer lab... It's a slap on the hand, and in the broad scope of things, almost insignifigant. At least they'll be a little more hesitant to grab out of the Civil Liberties cookie jar... Maybe.
On the bright side, because of the UCLA, they've just paid for his higher education and maybe a decent car--depending on what he wants to study. He'll make more buckaroos and get taxed for it, and they'll have it back in 30 years or so, assuming he dosen't move. And that's priceless, I think.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
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.
Does anyone remember that big deal that happened in New York where students were told not to start personal websites (MySpace and the like). Here, I found the Slashdot article:4 3&tid=95
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/23552
Now, I know one can make the argument that these are different situations, but they both deal with a school's right to compel their students to change what they do outside of school, specifically on the Internet. The other large difference is that this is a public school and the other school was Catholic, but this really shouldn't matter outside of school. Schools should have no right, Catholic or public, to compel their students to take down personal blogs, much less self-maintained websites. To add another two cents to my already tall stack, a middle school should be encouraging the growth of a mind who has already written and maintained his own website before he turned 15, just eight years ago this student probably would have been considered nothing less than a genius and encouraged, no matter the contense of the site... just my two cents...
I like suggestions, but I don't like contributing towards them.
I seriously doubt that the settlement money here will come directly out of the school district's budget. More than likely they have some kind of liability insurance policy that would pay out in a case like this. Maybe it's too small of an amount for an insurance payout, but any entity that doesn't have some kind of general liability policy is asking for problems when a case like this arises.
My wife, who is a music teacher in a public elementary school, has a general liability policy for $1 million that covers her for anything that the district won't. Especially handy is today's lawsuit-happy society.
That's actually a modest sum for a case like this. Enough to be punitive to the school and award enough to cover 2 years of legal fees.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
That's really so nice of you to point out my error. Have you considered posting on "Colon: News for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation Nerds"?
Or maybe instead of your friendly spelling advice, you could give me advice on the best spell check for my web browser? Remember, make fun of a man's spelling and you feel superior for day, but teach man to spell and you can feel superior for a lifetime.
TW
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
Nominee: I agree that these posts look a little troubling, Senator, but please, Sir, let the record show that at least I got the first post.
The same ACLU that has consistently fought in favor of allowing children to pray, distribute religious literature, or otherwise express their religious beliefs in schools? You're either arguing against an organization you know little about, or simply being disingenuous. Neither one is a particularly honorable tactic for persuading people to your beliefs.
- fader
Unfortunately, that means the taxpayers.
Now, while it can be argued that the idiots who voted for the school board officials who decided to suspend this student deserve to pay that settlement, I don't think the entire school board electorate should.
On the assumption that the settlement will come out of future real-estate taxes that fund the school system, those who can prove they did not vote for the idiots should be exempt from contributing to the settlement. No one is giving up a secret ballot here -- one can chose between anonymity and a refund and decide what matters more (though I think one would be proud to prove they didn't vote for an idiot).
Yes, yes, this requires secret receipts for votes, and tax levies become a bit complex, but hey, that's what computers are for.
You could've hired me.
"We can't have a generation of children grow up with unrealistic expectations about their rights. In the interests of an efficient national economy, we need the school system to teach students to respect authority at all times for their own good."
For the love of God, I hope you're being sarcastic. If not, we're going to have an entire generation who would vote an idiot into the White House, sell their children to Haliburton, and think that it's their God-given right to drive huge SUVs.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I am NOT defending my spelling or grammar. I AM pointing out that when I bang out a quick reply on a real-time forum without any spelling or grammar checker that I will almost always make mistakes. And I'd like you to cut me some slack, or, alternately, suggest some kind of technology (isn't this "News for Nerds"?) that may assist me.
And finally: I fucked up my spelling. I'm really, really, sorry. Now could you please attack the substance (or lack thereof) of my post so we can have one of those healthy, on-topic debates I keep hearing about.
TW
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
So what you're saying then is that American English is 18th Century leet-speak? Fascinating.
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.
Oh ... they get the point all right. The problem is that these people are far more concerned about their public image than the quality of education afforded the students at their fine institution. And that problem is very widespread and has to do with our educators being more politician than educator.
A large corporation can become so topheavy with middle management (synonymous with "administration" in educational parlance) that it fails to maintain sufficient productivity and goes out of business. Or maybe it will go through bankruptcy, reorganize, and come out of it a leaner, meaner organization. Schools, on the other hand, have no intrinsic negative feedback mechanism to provide a penalty for poor judgment. Rather, if their little empire isn't big enough to suit them, they complain bitterly about being "underfunded", demand additional tax money to "improve the educational experience of our children" and then go hire some more administrators.
Really, it's not hard to figure out why the American public education system is in such a shambles.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Yes that is true. But putting a black mark on a student's record wrongfully will get the school sued and the school will lose, especially if the student didn't fight back. Its all about protecting one's self from bodily harm. When schools harbor a culture of violence, they bear some responsibility when a student gets hurt.