Dental School Blogger Punishment Reduced

John McAdams writes "When a Marquette University Dental School student blogger made some nasty comments about an (unnamed) professor and (unnamed) classmates on his personal blog, the Dental School administration imposed a draconian punishment on him. He was to be suspended from school for a year, lose a prestigious scholarship, and seek counseling for supposed "behavioral problems." The case received wide attention, starting with local talk radio, the local daily paper and reverberated through the blogsphere. Dental School Dean William Lobb, considering the case on appeal, has now reduced the student's punishment. The student now faces probation rather than suspension, will be allowed to keep his scholarship, and will not have to seek counseling. He will have to do 100 hours of community service, and apologize for the blog posts. While this is certainly good news for the student, it leaves open the question of how much freedom Marquette Dental School students have in posting on their personal, non-university connected blogs."

Comments

What did the student say?

[IntelliAdmin]

If anyone is wondering what the student wrote that got the school so pissed off. Here it is: "[He is a] cockmaster of a teacher. I don't even gratify him by calling him a professor. He is one who teaches, as in should teach infants and children." The rest of his blog was about video games, drinking and other typical stuff. His blog is now currently offline. Ironically, Marquette University encourages students to post public comments about their professors, and these comments can be very negative.

Re:What did the student say?

[jank1887]

Sue based on what? It's a private institution and can legally do whatever it wants, within the bounds of any contractual obligations. I'm sure somewhere in the student code of conduct is a statement to the effect of: "If we don't like you, or you piss us off, we can f you in whatever way we please"

Re:unnamed?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were unnamed in the blog as well.

Re:Just more proof that our civil liberties...

[metaomni]

How exactly is this the loss of a civil liberty? This is a private university, to which the student has entered into a financial arrangement with. While the University's actions are certainly deplorable, your outrage is almost as bad. Not everything is a right, and when we start forgetting this, we dilute the rights which we do have.

I don't think this should have happened, but they're not destroying civil liberties... just maybe making a poor business decision.

Re:Of course the school wins...

[sweetnjguy29]

A statement can only be libelous if it's proven to be untrue...You can't prove statements of pure opinion to be untrue...

In the US, a true opinion isn't libelous. But...an opinion can be defamatory if it conveys to the recipient a provably false assertion of fact. Whether such an interpretation was conveyed is a factual question to be determined at a trial.

Typically, slander has 3 elements:

1)Is this statement defamatory (puts the person in a false light)?

2)Was this statement made publically?

3)Was there damage to the plaintiff's reputation?

If the statement is subjective, ask the following:

1) Is the statement addressing a matter of public concern?

2) Is the statement expressed in a manner that is not provably true or false?

3) Can the statement be reasonably interpreted as intended to convey actual facts about a person?

4) How precise and specific is the statement?

5) Is the statement verifiable?

6) What is the literary and social context of the statement?

7) What is the public context of the statement?

So, whether something is an opinion is very complicated, legally speaking. Most of your examples could, in fact, be libelous. And if not libelous, could be characterized as an invasion of privacy (placing someone in a false light, which is a tort).

Furthermore, stating that someone is a pedophile is almost lible per-se since the lable of pedophile, by itself, has stigma.