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."
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?
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.
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.
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.