Slashdot Mirror
PA Appeals Court Weighs Punishment For Students' Online Parodies
crimeandpunishment writes "Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline? A US Appeals Court in Pennsylvania heard arguments Thursday on a case that could have far-reaching implications. The issue involves the suspension of two students, from two different Pennsylvania school districts, for web postings they made on their home computers. The students posted parody profiles on MySpace that mocked their principals. The American Civil Liberties Union argued on behalf of the students."
The school district should just give these kids laptops with cameras that the school admin can activate anytime! Viola! Problem solved.
People still use myspace?
She used her principal's photograph and described him as a pedophile and mentioned a sex act. The girl later apologized, took down the page and was suspended for 10 days.
OK, it's one thing to parody, it's another to accuse someone of a crime that will ruin them for the rest of their life. I think those kids shouldn't be suspended for parodies but when they are using actual images and making false accusations along with them, that's another matter. That fake profile could have gotten that principle murdered. There are many vigilantes out there who would love to knock off a child molester. Then there's the whole social stigma and ruining his life.
Those kids went way too far - they went beyond parody.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
...between humor and malicious behavior. We don't excuse a schoolyard bully if he claims, "I was just having fun." Neither should we ignore malicious false statements merely because someone claims, "I was just doing a parody."
Accusations against teachers and principles of sexual misconduct against their students are typically taken very seriously (with good reason). So how is a student who makes such statements, apparently in retaliation for being disciplined at school, that different from a student who retaliates by pulling a fire alarm?
If something happens on school grounds or using school equipment, the school can discipline.
If something happens off school grounds and not using school equipment that is damaging or may be illegal, involve the criminal justice system or sue.
Why is this so hard?
side note: Homeschooling parents are looking pretty smart, aren't they?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
and:
It’s a tough one. The courts have found repeatedly that children don’t enjoy complete constitutional rights, especially within the context of schooling. However they do have some degree of first amendment right – as long as that doesn’t prove to be a disruption. The court is supposed to apply the Tinker Test (derived from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District which can be found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District) – which comes down to an assessment of whether behaviour “"materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” There are subsequent cases that further refined the Tinker standard, which can be read about at the wiki page, but they all repeated the general rule that students do not enjoy unabridged free speech.
So the question for us really is whether the creation of those fake profiles could be counted as disruptive to discipline in the operation of the school. There are, of course, compelling points on both sides. The question of defamation and the extreme damage accusations of paedophilia causes are also relevant.
A 14-year-old Blue Mountain student who had been cited for a dress-code violation created a fake profile of a principal purportedly from Alabama. She used her principal's photograph and described him as a pedophile and mentioned a sex act. The girl later apologized, took down the page and was suspended for 10 days.
That is pretty disgusting for anyone to do to any other human being, especially to anyone that makes a living from working with kids - but I don't think the school should be doling out any punishment. This should be a matter purely for the courts.
which is totally what she said
Hit that submit button too quick.
I don't agree with making the guy look like a pedo, that's going too far...but that is a libel case, not an instance where disciplinary action should have been taken by the school. Leave it to the cops.
Living With a Nerd
There is a general rule of law in the United States based on the concept of a "reasonable adult". Each of the first ten amendments of the American Constitution (and their analogues elsewhere) comes with the unwritten assumption that a reasonable adult will use these freedoms for the betterment of the community. The right to bear arms does not grant me the right to murder my neighbor because I don't like the car he drives. The right to peacefully assemble and protest the actions of government does not grant me the right to riot and destroy the property of others. In this case, the right to free speech does not grant the right to make false accusations. Despite a more liberal interpretation of law in recent years, slander and libel are still criminal acts, not protected by the first amendment. Would a reasonable adult consider J.L.'s parody to hold any truth? Probably not. Would a reasonable adult consider J.S.'s fake profile to hold any truth? Considering the forum on which it was placed, I would have to say yes, as there have been numerous instances of principals and teachers creating just such a profile. Therefore, the issue isn't whether schools have a right to police students' activities outside of school; but rather if actions taken in the world of cyberspace can or should be held to the same standards as those taken in print or public discourse.
The clear intent of both students was to harass the teachers and cause disruption by undermining their authority. The publication was targeted at an audience (their peers), and the effect was felt inside the school.
At this point, I could be describing: posting on the intartubes; putting up posters near the school with the same content; waving a placard outside the school gates; standing outside the window and yelling.
In each case, the action was done outside the school, but the effects were felt inside it, and that is the salient point.
Schools must be able to respond to actions that effect them by disciplining or excluding the student. That's independent of any civil or criminal actions brought against the students by the libelled individuals, and the police and prosecution services.
Can we seriously countenance that a school can discipline or exclude a student for standing up in a classroom and yelling that Principal Peterson is a kiddie fiddler, but that it can't take action if the student moves three feet and yells the accusation in through the open window?
If so, then schools might as well hand out copies of Lord of the Flies as their conduct rules.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Calling someone a criminal (pedophile who actively preys on children in this case) without any proof and with what appears to be great malice of forethought is not a parody. None of the definitions of parody fit the bill for what she did. It is libel. Pure, unadulterated, libel. The girl and her family should have been sued into the ground by the principle instead of her getting suspended.
The girl who called her principal a pedo was 14 years old. That puts her in high school.
A pedo principal will not seek employment at a high school. He'll go to an elementary school or younger.
Unless, of course, the girl doesn't understand (just like the mainstream media frequently misunderstands) the definition of the word "pedophile".
What we have here is a teachable moment. The kid deserves an "F" on this vocabulary test. Somebody make her write on the chalkboard 1000 times: "Dictionaries are good. Using words without understanding them is bad."
I completely agree with that is clearly beyond parody, but the real question is "Can schools punish students for web posts?" not "Can people be punished for [inflammatory] libel?".
In a sense, these kids got off easy. They could have had real legal consequences as opposed to a school suspension.
Relying on internal discipline in lieu of referring violations of the law to the legal systems is not the right choice when http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-99/campus.html colleges try to hand out internal discipline to rapists in lieu of turning them over to the cops.
Nor is it the right choice when police departments try to limit punishment for illegal beatings, shootings, etc to internal-only discipline measures instead of letting the guilty cops be taken into the court system.
what makes you think someone under the age of 18 has any rights what so ever? The second amendment is just as high on the food chain as the first amendment yet that right is not bestowed upon you till your 18th birthday. As far as I can tell, the constitution is written so that all men and women are granted certain inalienable rights. Nothing is said about those who are not emancipated by 'age of majority' statute. Technically minors are 2nd class citizens who are not even protected by due process. I gave one example in another post... which I will re-cap.
as an adult you can imprison me against my will, without cause, for up to 72 hours in a mental health facility by declaring me a danger to myself and/or others. Any length longer than this must be reviewed and approved by a judge. Otherwise you could violate a man's due process via end-run simply declaring them insane and locking them away forever. This would have been abused politically a long time ago without such protections.
as a minor your parents and medical professions can have you imprisoned in a mental health facility without your consent until you reach the 'agent of majority'. They only need your parents permission. You have no due process to violate.
We keep hearing in the news of people being fired or disciplined at work, both private sector and public sector employees in that category, based on some dumb thing they posted on Facebook.
What do you think would happen if one of the president's staffers got caught posting a fake Facebook page mocking the president and using obscenities?
In the best case scenario, they would be politely asked to step down.
So if adults are subject to this, what is the justification for students to have stronger free speech protections than the rest of the public?
"as such I support this principal in putting a stop to it as quickly as possible."
Agreed, and I'm shocked at the parent's reaction: "The student's mother has said punishing the girl should have been left up to her.
Wow: your daughter is very publicly (shouting it in a classroom is publicly, posting it on myspace is very publicly) accusing school officials of being pedophiles, and you want to send her to her room without dinner? So, I guess next time she falsely accuses a boy of rape she gets no TV for a week?
The student should have definitely been sued, and I'm disappointed the ACLU is defending them, because if their defense is successful my kids will be going to school with teachers and principals that are pedophiles, rapist, murders and drug dealers... or at least that's what it says when I do a google search if the ACLU gets their way.
Oh and the "did this at home doesn't count" excuse doesn't fly: when you tell the whole world your actions you're doing it at school too. 20 yrs ago this would have been the equivalent of coming to school and passing out flyers to every student and staff member.
These kids definitely should have been suspended for their off-campus online actions, because when they get to the real world and create fake myspace profiles of their bosses they'll get a lot more than 10 day suspensions.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I'm not saying that libel or slander shouldn't be punishable when done by students, to the same extent that it's punishable when done by adults and with all of the same defenses available.
However, that should be done through the court system, where there's an opportunity for an equitable defense, rather than through the "private court" of the school's disciplinary system.