School Official Sues Over MySpace Page

SoCal writes, "How much legal liability do parents have for what their kids do online? A lawsuit filed in Texas by a high-school assistant principal may give some answers. Some students she had disciplined set up a fake MySpace page in her name depicting her as a lesbian (which she happens not to be). In its coverage, Ars Technica notes that 'What sets this case apart from many other lawsuits filed over the content of blogs is that it doesn't target only the teenagers who created the site. It also argues that the parents were guilty of negligence by failing to supervise their children, and that they bear some of the responsibility for the defaming site.'" The article links the Media Law Resource Center's resource tracking more than 50 cases now in the courts nationwide, in which bloggers have been sued for libel and related claims.

Comments

... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Vinnie_333]

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Lazbien]

Especially if they are depicting her as a .jpg

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is nothing wrong with lesbians, they're great! I'm a big fan, I have all their video's!

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[LordNimon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outing_(Seinfeld_ episode)

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[fyngyrz]

While I hate to bring up the old cliché of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one

Good; because that cliche isn't valid, and never was. There is no harm in yelling fire. There is no harm in filing out of a building that isn't burning, There is no harm in filing back in. These are the acts of reasonable people. In fact, the practice would do people some good. We used to do it all the time in school. The fire alarm would go off, and out we'd go, not knowing if there was a fire, or not. No one ever got trampled. The theatre owner has, as an owner of a private business, the option to no longer serve that customer. Of course, should one patron fail to file out reasonably, and in the process trample another, then a crime has been committed, that of assault by that patron upon another. The idea that it is acceptable for people to trample one another — or that it somehow "isn't their fault" — is just one of the things that is wrong with the cliche, aside from the initial, completely incorrect, idea that one could not yell fire — or anything else — in a crowded theater. It's socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, it'd be the last time you ever got in the door, but other than that, there you go. Free speech trumps all. Every time. That's the basis of liberty.

Can speech lead to secondary consequences? Sure. Those consequences may be actionable, and reasonably so, but the speech itself is not, and cannot be.

An example of secondary consequences: A fire truck is called. The person who called the truck is liable for the expense. If there is no fire, then there you have it. Worse, if the fire truck is not available for a real fire, then the person who called them is liable for issues there if it appears that the presence of the truck in the wrong place is complicit in the damage. You can't request a service and not be liable for the consequences. You're making a contract, albeit a verbal one.

The problem with the US is that the idea of responsibility has gotten very, very twisted.

While it's been a while since I last read the Constitution, their meaning of free speech was with regards to criticism of the government; that's to say, you're Constitutionally guaranteed to be able to speak of your hatred of the country's leaders without fear of legal action being taken against you.

Well, it's been about five minutes since I last read it, and you are wrong.There are no caveats, limitations, etc. It says congress shall make no law. That's it. Nothing else. No "except whens", no "other thans", no "only in the case ofs", etc. No law. Until or unless this is changed, using the only procedures allowed to change it, that's the only legitimate position for the government. No law.

Tort laws (specifically those in regards to slander and libel) are designed to prevent this.

No. They're a complete waste of paper giving lawyers something to do. Pay attention now: If people decide to run me out of town on a rail, there are laws against that already. That's illegal, and rightfully so, because I am entitled to a fair trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Anyone can say anything they like, it does me no harm at all. Running me out of town does me harm, but as I say, there are remedies for morons who would undertake such an action. There is no need to limit speech because morons might do something bad. What you need to do is control the morons.

If you care to find me a case where a libel or slander accusation was thrown out on the basis of the law being unconstitutional, please let me know, because I can promise you that this isn't the first libel case ever made, and won't be the last.

I'm not claiming the courts do the right thing here, I'm just telling you what the right thing is. The courts are long out of control and need

Re:One step closer

[aeonex]

Myspace shouldn't receive any punishment because of things like this. Only the people who abuse the service should be sued/fined/restricted.

Punishing ignorance

[mangu]

Such lawsuits will eventually have a Darwinist effect on the web. Those who know how to cover their tracks will never be sued.

People should get used to the fact that lots of info one gets from the web is fake. So what?

And who cares about MySpace anyhow? A high-school assistant principal doesn't seem to be in the right circle of social relations to be harmed by that page.

If I were in the jury, I would propose a verdict "guilty but harmless, throw away".

Re:Punishing ignorance

[IflyRC]

And who cares about MySpace anyhow?

Actually, employers have started checking out prospective job candidates via MySpace, Google and other online resources to see if there is anything that may stand out as a conflict with the company. Read about it here.Now, sexual orientation used a reason not to hire someone would be considered as discriminatory however if other information was posted such as someone bragging about the $3000 they stole from X company while they weren't looking could cost someone a potential job.

So, obviously someone does care about MySpace.

Parental responsibility required

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Folks, if you keep pitbulls, you have a responsibility to train them, fence them in and keep them muzzled in pullic places. If you're going to breed, then you have a responsibility to make sure your offspring are behaving properly until they are adults. If you give them the car keys, make sure they behave properly with the car or take it away. If you give them an internet connection then make sure they behave well online. Sure, kids will try to test their limits - that's how they learn - but ultimately if a kid screws up you should be there to take the heat.

Raising kids is hard work (got 2 me'self), and it is **your** work, not the state's or school's work or myspace's work!

Re:Parental responsibility required

[Chosen Reject]

If I say to my friend that the principal is a lesbian it's between the two of us and we know what the context is (that is, we know I'm upset at her and am calling her names for no other good reason). That's not the same as me pretending to be my principal on myspace and acting like a lesbian. Two major things are very different: scope and representation. In the first scenario the scope is a friend, and I am representing myself. In the second the scope is potentially the whole world (including employers, family, friends, etc.) and the I am pretending to represent someone who I am not.

Hope that helps you understand.

Re:Parental responsibility required

[Vellmont]

Thanks for the typical comment that gets cheered on Oprah. It doesn't really tell anyone anything we didn't already know though.

This case isn't about parental responsibility however, it's about parental liability. How are parents supposed to be held liable for not stopping their kids from posting a fake Myspace page? Are parents supposed to act like little police states, spying on their kids at every moment? I could see the parents being held liable if they knew about this whole fiasco before it got shut down by MySpace. But what about the far more likely case that they had no idea?

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[MankyD]

But you cannot monitor EVERYTHING your child does.

Whole heartedly agree. I don't think anyone doubts this.

I'm sure these kids are probably over the age of 12, which by then they should probably know right from wrong.

If you're children are 12+, supposedly know right from wrong, but still think posting defamatory material about someone is "right", then you should seriously question your parenting skills and, if you ask me, should thusly be held liable for your childrens' actions.

Until they reach the age of 18, (or whatever age the courts decide is adult,) their actions should be as good as your actions.

Not really

[mrcparker]

These kids, for whatever reason, posted information that they knew to be wrong to hurt the teacher. This sounds like libel to me. Does it really matter why they put up the information?

Re:Not really

[Eli Gottlieb]

Have you ever thought about turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids and hitting them?

A wake up call for parents

[gbulmash]

I've seen a number of news stories over the years where parents had a rude awakening when their out of control teens did something really bad and they ended up on the other side of a lawsuit.

The end result seems that common law holds, by precedent, that parents have a legal duty to teach their children right from wrong. Unless it can be proved, by reason of obvious mental defect, that the child is incapable of learning this, then why not hold the parent liable when the kid does something bad enough to warrant criminal or civil proceedings?

Kids will be kids, to be sure, and there's only so much you can do. But the bar of "only so much" is one it seems many parents fail to clear. Wrapped up in their own issues, they don't stop and say: "I'm responsible for this kid and I need to put a few of my needs on hold so I can make sure this kid turns out okay."

The negligence that caused these kids to end up doing what they did was not recent, but systematic. I hope the principal wins a significant judgement, it holds up on appeal, and that the kids spend the rest of their lives being reminded how their own selfishness (likely learned from their parents) ruined the lives of their families.

- G

Re:Bout time

[Anonymous Cowpat]

what? becoming a parent means you have to look over your children's shoulders 24/7 until they're 18 (and heaven help you if you have more than 1 child, they'll just have to share a bedroom so you can deny them both privacy at once) because you have absolute responsibility until they turn 18?

It seems to me that that is what you're proposing, and it's the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time.

You send a pretty poor message about personal responsibility to kids by punishing their parents until they turn 18.

Re:Bout time

[everphilski]

The principal's blaming the students for supposed 'improper' behavior, and the students' retribution for it are really part of the same problem.

Yeah. The problem is, the kids got disciplined and instead of taking it like young adults they went and screwed around on the Internet, calling their teacher a lesbian (among other things). Sounds like some snotty brats that either haven't been properly parented or need some community service or something to redirect their energies.

Re:Woohoo! Hold those parents accountable!

[rolfwind]

And it is not the role of the public at large.

It takes a tribe......

I think all sides bear a responsibility.

Holding the parents responsible in all cases is not good either. I have to admit, I was involved in shit my parents never got wind of between my 13th and 18th birthdays. And they were good parents.

And here we are, at a geek forum, with many posters regularly poo-pooing the idea that their mother ever could use any flavor of linux because it's too hard, yet they should be savvy enough to know every website their kid inhabits and every thing they post.

And that's figuring the kids aren't smart enough to swipe the cache.

I have a feeling that routers/modems with harddrives that log everything that goes through them and presents the data in a easy to adminster HTML format may be in demand soon...... and I have no doubt the 13 year olds will pwn those things in short order.

We need to make up our minds ...

[LaughingCoder]

On the one hand the government is continually taking more and more control away from parents (for example, if a young girl wants an abortion she can get one without having to obtain parental permission; children are routinely taken away from "unfit" parents; parents are not allowed to prevent their children from being exposed to school material they find objectionable). Then on the other hand we want to blame parents for their kids' actions. There is no denying that there has been a steady erosion of parental rights in the past few decades. You can't have it both ways. If it takes a village to raise a child, then it is the village that is responsible when that child commits a crime, not the parents who's authority has been, in many cases, usurped.

Proposed kindergarten curriculum

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Sharing is bad: Intro to Copyright Law
2. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but libel makes me call my lawyer
3. Sit down and shut up: Intro to Democracy
4. Why did those mean men take mommy away? Homeland Security for kids

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[hugzz]

My parents raised me right, but as a kid I still did some bad things

I dont see why they should be held liable for my actions when they took every reasonable step to make sure I had a good set of morals in place and that I was responsivle. I acted out sometime, Kids will be kids, boys will be boys. It's not their fault.

Similar incident in my school...

[Kemanorel]

Having been on the receiving end of similar incidents involving students at my school (I teach Algebra in a Jr. High), I have found MySpace to be very quick to delete profiles that are fraudulent or defamatory when they are notified. They are even quicker when you say that the students involved are likely to be under that magic COPA age of 13. Being a US company, they take the federal online statutes quite seriously. Had the pages in question been truly harmful, I would have taken further action of finding out which students were involved, contacting their parents, and pursuing further avenues as needed. There have been other students in my district that have been suspended, transferred, or outright expelled for things they have posted on MySpace. Hazing, bullying, and libel can very much extend into the digital realm and have repercussions in the offline world. Young and old need to be aware of that and treat it the same as they would someone making harassing phone calls, passing out flyers in a neighborhood, or taking out an ad in a newspaper.

I'm glad MySpace is not getting sued in this one. I didn't RTFA, but I have to wonder if the Vice Principal tried to resolve this with the parents before escalating it to a civil case. It is quite possible that she did and got a response along the lines of, "kids will be kids," or worse yet, "it couldn't be my child, you have no proof, I'm not going to do anything, I'm not listening, la-la-la-la-la-la-la."

Ok, enough rambling. Time to sleep.

Kids will be kids

[freeweed]

No kidding. Kids do stupid things all the time, some of which we should be concerned about, some of which are just "kids being kids".

These teens didn't exactly post shocking confessions about how they were abused by this person, and make claims of pedophilia. They claimed she was GAY. Maybe it's just me, but BIG FREAKING DEAL. I think the reactions here reflect more on the posters than on the teens - apparently being gay is such a horrible thing to most Slashdotters that accusations of it amount to libel. Sad, really.

Next, we'll see some 5 year old sued because they called their ex-best friend a "doodie head".

Lighten up, folks. It's a harmless teenage prank. Don't any of you remember being kids? Give the kids some community service. The parents are probably pretty damned embarassed. But a lawsuit against them? You'd think these kids had gone on a shooting rampage.

Yeesh.

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[Phisbut]

Heck, I'm 35- and I think that people posting defamatory information are saying more about themselves than the person they are defaming. To that end, why would I ever sue over my enemy making himself look like a big fat idiot?

True. However, can you spot the difference between :

• Hey people, did you know that MarxistHacker42 is gay and likes to have sex with animals?
• Hey people, I'm MarxistHacker42, I'm gay and I like to have sex with animals.

A reader who sees the first ones can easily understand that somebody thinks you are gay and tries to defame you. The second one howerver, is different in that you seem to be coming out of the closet yourself, and you might be sending an invitation for people to bring their dogs at your place. Saying something about someone, and posing as that someone saying that same thing can have tremendously different effects on that person's reputation.