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."

Comments

Simple solution

[2.7182]

The school district should just give these kids laptops with cameras that the school admin can activate anytime! Viola! Problem solved.

myspace?

[Anonymous Coward]

People still use myspace?

Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[AnonymousClown]

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.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[morari]

Maybe. But even then, the principal should have screamed "libel!" and let the police/courts handle that. Instead the student was suspended, despite nothing ever being done at the school itself. This is really just another case of school system trying to overstep their boundaries. It would happen every single day if people don't keep them in check.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[dkleinsc]

Did they engage in defamation? Yes. Is defamation legitimate grounds for suspension? No. If the principal believes he is slandered, he can as a private individual sue the students for slandering (although in this context, a reasonable argument could be made that he's a public figure, which makes this much harder). What he can't do is take official action against the students.

For comparison's sake, let's say that a newspaper ran a front-page article (completely falsely) saying that a prominent politician's wife was a drunk and stating that the politician in question is bigoted against a minority group. While said politician could give a speech denouncing the paper, and could sue them for defamation, what he can't do is have the publisher of said paper arrested. (And for those old enough to remember the 1972 presidential campaign, you'll notice this isn't a hypothetical.)

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[kevinNCSU]

Presented with the option of leaping to the courts and costing the family money to defend themselves and the option of having the kid stay home from school a couple days to learn their lesson on what's acceptable and what's not I'd say they made the right choice.

She's not just attacking the principal as a person, she's attacking him and his ability to do his job, and disrupting the ability of other kid's in that school to learn. Telling everyone a school is run by a pedophile has far reaching implications and is generally disruptive to the learning environment. Just like a kid cussing at a teacher during class, the school seems to me well within their rights to tell her to stay home for a couple days till she's ready to act responsibly. In fact, that seems like a much lighter sentence then the legal avenue.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[Lythrdskynrd]

Did they engage in defamation? Yes. Is defamation legitimate grounds for suspension? No.

That is untrue. It is absolutely grounds for suspension. I was a high school teacher for five years and dealing with discipline amongst the students is paramount. As a teacher you've got to stand in front of 30 (ish) teenagers and teach. Many of them don't want to be there, some of them have decided that they hate you personally over some personal slight from six months ago (ie: telling them they must complete their assignment rather than playing flash games, or it seems an issue with uniform as in the article). If one student sits back and tells you to go fuck yourself and is seen to suffers no consequence then that behavior spreads. Inside or outside of school is irrelevant (though is it the case that the speech that is accessible in school is speech in school?) How often do you read stories with headlines like "Student behavior out of control", "Teachers ineffective"... the fact is that there are good parents and bad parents. Leaving discipline choices up to the good parents is fine, leaving discipline choices up to bad parents is disaster. Better just to treat all students equally. One set of rules, consequences for actions. Let them adjust themselves to society and not the inverse. At the end of the day, the punishment of suspension is about teaching them right from wrong, and a page calling your teacher a pedophile is wrong.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[Troy Roberts]

Sorry, you are wrong. Libel and Slander are not criminal offenses. They are civil offenses and this gives the principle a cause of action. So, he can sue.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[morgan_greywolf]

IANAL, but if I remember correctly intentionally misrepresenting someone as something that is patently false is libel or slander depending on how it is done. This is a criminal offense

No. Defamation, which slander are libel are forms of, is generally not a criminal offense in the United States; it's a tort. There is no criminal defamation at the federal level, although 17 states do have criminal defamation statutes, though they seem to be rarely enforced and are generally considered a misdemeanor.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Inside or outside of school is irrelevant
Wrong. Your power as a teacher ends at the school, unless you want to be held liable for all the actions of the children you've ever taught?Because that sword cuts both ways.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[dkleinsc]

So are you saying that students have no free speech rights (when applied to teachers and principals, who are public officials) whatsoever?

It's not quite as clear-cut as you think, that's for sure. I'll put forward a few scenarios, tell me where the line is drawn:
  (a) Student goes up to Mr Smith in school and says "Go fuck yourself."
  (b) Student goes up to Mr Smith in school and says "You suck"
  (c) Student goes up to Mr Smith in school and says "You're incapable of doing your job."
  (d) Student raises his hand in class, is acknowledged, and explains to the class that Mr Smith just did some math on the blackboard that assumed that 2=1.
  (e) A student has just finished shoveling their family's driveway, and Mr Smith (who happens to live next door) blows snow onto the driveway. The student responds on the scene by saying "Screw you" to Mr Smith.
  (f) A student complains to his friends that Mr Smith is incompetent.
  (g) A student complains to his friends that Mr Smith blew snow into his driveway.
  (h) A student thinks Mr Smith has applied school rules improperly and arbitrarily, and writes an editorial in the school newspaper laying out his case.

I can think of a few more cases, but this seems like a good starting point. Where's the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech in your view?

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[silentcoder]

Actually - it wasn't libel.
The Jerry Fallwell case against Hustler failed on EXACTLY these grounds. Fundamental to the law is that "if there is no reasonable chance that anybody would take the claims seriously - the jury is REQUIRED to find the publisher INNOCENT."

It is ONLY possible to be guilty of libel if the people familiar with the target would reasonably BELIEVE the claims. Since the school board themselves have testified that "nobody took the claims seriously" - it is therefore absolutely NOT libel.

I don't LIKE the nature of this parody, but it IS in fact protected parody under U.S. law and the student acted entirely within her first amendment rights.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[nbauman]

intentionally misrepresenting someone as something that is patently false is libel or slander depending on how it is done. This is a criminal offense.

What country are you from? First of all, libel is not a criminal offense in the U.S. (or most other democratic countries). Libel hasn't been a criminal matter since the American Revolution.

Libel is a civil offense, and the subject of the libel is limited to suing for damages in civil court.

Second of all, intentionally misrepresenting someone for purposes of satire and parody is specifically protected by the First Amendment and the Supreme Court. If the claims are so outrageous that no reasonable person would believe them, there's no libel. The more outrageous the claims, the weaker the case for libel.

The leading case is Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell. Falwell sued Hustler for an advertisement parody that portrayed him as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire

As the judge said in TFA, you can make it a teachable moment. People in the U.S. have a right to satirize figures of authority. Satire can be painful, but that's the price we pay for a free society.

Re:Accusations of pedophilia?!?!

[Flea of Pain]

Except when it comes to people in positions of authority over children there is a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. It isn't written into law, but put yourself in the shoes of the person doing the hiring... "Do I hire someone accused of pedophilia, or not? If he isn't a pedo, great, if he is, I'll have the biggest political shit storm since the gulf oil spill."

Accusations of abuse or sexual misconduct in the field of education can and does have a huge effect on the teachers/principals involved (they become basically blackballed and can't practice their profession if they ever get laid off because no one will ever hire them), and as such I support this principal in putting a stop to it as quickly as possible.

There is a difference...

[joel.neely]

...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?

Simple

[characterZer0]

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?

Let's boil it down the the essentials.

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Not the school's problem

[schon]

Ask yourself something - assuming the student is guilty of the act - what's better for the student and their family:

1. Being suspended for a few days and learning that actions have consequences.

2. Being taken to court, possibly having criminal charges pressed against you, bankrupting your family due to legal expenses and the judgement against you, and learning that actions have consequences.

Sounds like the school did what was best for the student, and is now being punished for it.

But did the school have a right to suspend them???

[Bourdain]

Those kids went way too far - they went beyond parody.

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.

"the right choice"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.