Slashdot Mirror
School District Threatens Suit Over Parent's Blog
penguin_dance writes "A Texas School District is threatening to sue a parent over what it terms 'libelous material' or other 'legally offensive' postings on her web site and are demanding their removal. Web site owner Sandra Tetley says they're just opinions. The legal firm sending the demand cited 16 items, half posted by Tetley, the rest by anonymous commentators to her blog. The alleged libelous postings 'accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for "personal gain," violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.' The problem for the district is that previous courts have ruled that governments can't sue for libel. So now, in a follow-up story, the lawyers say the firm 'would file a suit on behalf of administrators in their official capacities and individual board members. The suit, however, would be funded from the district's budget.' So far, Tetley hasn't backed down, although she said she'll 'consult with her attorneys before deciding what, if anything, to delete.'"
First, why not link to the blog, you dumbass editors?
Second, from just what's written in the summary, it's a pretty clear case of someone using their blog to accuse school officials of wrongdoing. It doesn't sound at all like "opinions". It sounds like accusations and innuendo. I'm not sure how responsible this person is for the comments, but the articles themselves are pretty libelous if untrue.
The suit, however, would be funded from the district's budget.'
Isn't truth an absolute defense to an accusation of libel ?
Just because its a blog doesnt it make any less real than posting it as leaflets on lampposts.
If the accusations are true, than they will lose.
If they arent, they have every right to defend themselves against this libel.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
They know that previous rulings prevent the district from suing so they are doing a run around. It is my belief that if this actually makes it to court and the district loses then the money MUST be repaid by everyone on the board that brought the suit.
Frankly, posting anything about government officials, other than death threats or personal information, should not be discouraged. If the public cannot voice their disagreements with local officials then we are no longer free. The fact is, the public officials don't have to like what is posted about them, thats their choice. It is not their choice to silence people who post such.
while that sites forum is a pain to read it does appear that most of the people complaining are doing so with good maturity. The problem for the district is that people are connecting the dots, adding up the numbers, and then questioning it.
That the district would use a back door method to skirt a previous court ruling about suing only lends more credit to those posting on the blog.
Whats next? Suing people who start recall drives? Perhaps the members of the blog should try that next.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I don't know the details of this story, whether there's any merit in the school's arguments or not, because I haven't read the original blog (and even if I did, I'd be reading a one-sided biased view), but they are being seen to have gone in heavy-handed with the lawyers, and the result is that a small local dispute has been syndicated in Slashdot, and probably plenty of places elsewhere. Effectively by calling in the lawyers, they've turned a small amount of bad publicity into a very large amount of much worse publicity. This is something I've noticed happening a lot lately (most obviously with the RIAA etc). So regardless of the merits of the case, the lesson seems to be if you're considering calling the lawyers, you'd be wise to try less drastic steps first to get your point across. And if you're on the receiving end of a nasty letter from the lawyers, blog about it in a way that focuses on how it affects your rights, and make sure Slashdot gets to hear it.
These are elected officials we are talking about. School board members are chosen by election. The rules for libel are far different for public figures than for private individuals. This might get interesting. The defendent's speech is political in nature so we're talking First Amendment issues here.
If they use the district's money to file the lawsuit with the individuals as plaintiff will make the statements that they use district funds for personal gain a true statement.
Shame on everyone else here. You all forgot the part about CDA immunity.
Fight Spammers!
"falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for "personal gain," violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees,"
These are all very serious accusations of criminal behaviour from members of the school board. Unless Tetley has any proof of these accusations I can see why they could be considered libelous.
Whether or not it is good publicity to sue is another matter.
You have to understand that the actions of your school against your are the result of their fear of negative publicity. Use this to your advantage. It looks like some of your criticism was legitimate. Contact your local newspaper and tell them about the issues you have. You have a right to proper education and if you are being denied that right, you have the right to tell people about the main reasons you are not getting the education you deserve.
Those aren't serious allegations. These are run of the mill things. Who doesn't fudge budgets? Who doesn't use their position to advance themselves or their relatives (ie., nepotism)? Who doesn't spy on their employees (ie., read employee email or go hunting for personal webpages)? I'm not sure what the Open Meeting Act is, but if it's anything like the Freedom of Information Act, who follows that to the letter?
The thing is, unless these administrators are angels (and they're probably human, not angel), the allegations are probably true. These are things people of average moral character do on a normal basis. People of good moral character usually don't do this, but then again, I doubt they'd make it into a management position. Management usually goes to 'yes' people, not people with strong morals.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
This is why you need an independent judiciary. A judge should look at the kind of legal flim-flammery the district is attempting and smack them down hard for abuse of process. Of course this is Texas, so who knows what will happen.
Sometimes, you can get away with breaking the spirit of the law on a technicality. Sometimes. But when you can, it is because in our system, the entity whose illegal actions are the highest priority to restrain is presumptively the government. It is better for a citizen to get off on a technicality than for the government to claim an iota more power over his life than it is strictly allowed to. But this doesn't go the other way. The government can't use a technicality to claim more power of the citizens' lives than it actually has.
This is why "running government like a business" doesn't work. The government has duties that a business does not, and things that individuals can sometimes get away with the government can't, or at least shouldn't. One of the duties the government has is to respect the right of individuals to criticize it.
Even individuals aren't allowed to evade their legal duties by legal fictions. You have a legal duty to pay taxes. You can shelter income by taking advantage of quirks in the tax code, but you cannot shelter it by creating ficticious transaction that create the appearance of losses. That's fraud.
What the school committee is doing here is fraud. It is managing this lawsuit and even paying for it, under the fraudulent pretenses that it is not a government action. It makes accusation of fraud against the officials involved all the more credible. It would be one thing (still dubious) if they took legal action as individuals; perhaps it would be simply misguided. But they're playing a shell game here, using their official powers but hiding them under an unconvincing cloak.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm not normally one to defend unions (I have a strong dislike for them in general). However, in the United States culture today the teacher gets little to no respect and has virtually no power in the classroom anymore. The inmates run the asylum.
On examination it appears pay is very much a regional issue in the United States. The average pay varies widely from state to state.
I'm sorry, but sometimes teenagers need to be told who's boss, and you just can't do that in today's classroom without a thousand lawsuits. Education in large groups like in public schools requires a disciplined atmosphere most of the time (though breaks for fun stuff are required for class morale, and this time can be quite educational as well).
The fact is that to get any bright young person with the slightest motivation to teach public school to prostrate themselves to the parents and kids like they have to today you have to pay big . The result of this on the education system is obvious. Public school teaching today is daycare, policing, special needs care (beyond the tools and funding available) and accepting responsibility for the inadequacy of the parents of every child. Who wants that? You could not pay me enough.
There is very little opportunity for learning in the modern classroom, that just kills any teacher with spirit. The stress and risk in public teaching today requires considerable remuneration (which is adequate in some states and horrifically low in others).
I do not envy the public school teacher today one little bit. It is a wonder they can get anybody to do it. I like teaching people things and have a love of science, but I would never have even remotely considered a career in public school teaching, given the atmosphere and lack of respect.
I think we need to seriously re-evaluate the approaches to public school teaching given the legal environment and physical risks of modern urban public schools. The century old model has failed and we should not be surprised.