Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Over Two-Word Tweet Moves Forward
An anonymous reader writes: A defamation suit filed by a former Minnesota high school student has gotten approval from a federal judge to proceed. The suit was filed in response to a suspension issued by the school after Reid Sagehorn published a two-word comment on Twitter. In 2014, there existed a Twitter ostensibly about confessions from students at Sagehorn's high school. That account asked if Sagehorn had made out with a particular female teacher, and Sagehorn jokingly replied, "Actually yes." Not long after, he was suspended for five days, and that suspension was later extended to the rest of the month. The school administration convinced his parents to withdraw him from the school and send him to a different one. The town's police chief even spoke about it to the media, saying the comment was likely a felony. Sagehorn filed the lawsuit seeking damages and an expungement of the disciplinary actions.
Focusing on the idea that this lawsuit is about a "two word tweet" is ridiculous and dishonest. This lawsuit is about accusations of impropriety by a teacher (and whether it's okay to blithely accuse a teacher of something even if you think you're joking). The "two word tweet" focus is attempting to draw ridicule to the case before making the facts clear, which is somewhere between intensely stupid and intentionally misleading.
Also, the meaning of the word "actually" in this context is the same as "literally", meaning that the tweet was not a joke no matter what the kid tweeting intended. Of course, people almost never spend half a second's thought on the things they tweet, so I guess it's not surprising.
As should the entire school district.
Defamation is never a felony. In a handful of states, it *might* be a misdemeanor under very specific circumstances.
In the US, in order to win a defamation case, with the exception of defamation per se (allegations of unchastity, allegations of a loathsome disease, allegations of a crime of moral turpitude, allegations injurious to trade, profession, or business), one has to prove actual damages. Even under the most strict of interpretations, the comment that Reid Sagehorn made could not be construed as defamation.
Based on the facts presented thus far, I don't really see that the school district has a leg to stand on and that police chief needs to head back to night school to brush up on some law basics. Now that teacher; she may have had cause for some sort of civil action against the student, especially if the school did any sort of investigation of her based on the content of the exchange.
If the school wanted to take action here, they should have provided the teacher with lawyers and legal options upon request. If the tweets caused some sort of disruption on their own (frankly, the school district's actions caused more disruption than anything else), only then should they have acted based on the results of an investigation. Here they just seemed to have been lurching about without any sort of plan or clue for how to proceed properly and objectively.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
If a false defamation of character is involved, and Sagehorn seems to be admitting it was false, there would a case for civil legal action against him. Some, possibly including Sagehorn, might not see it as a defamation of character, but others (most importantly the teacher) would; but that would be for a court to decide. For example if a woman already had a reputation for sleeping around it would not be a defamation of character, but that does not sound like the case here. Getting expelled from the school instead of a legal case therefore might be seen as Sagehorn getting off lightly.
Laws should be no different "because it was on a computer", a point often made here in other contexts.
This isn't a felony. The tweet isn't equivalent to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and that reasoning doesn't even make sense.
That said, there's nothing about the tweet to make it clear that it was written in jest. I think it's fair to suspend the student because they made what could very easily be interpreted as a false allegation of misconduct against a teacher. People might not interpret it as a joke if they're not familiar with the context. I could definitely also see the student facing a defamation lawsuit from the teacher because it could and quite possibly did damage the teacher's reputation. That all seems reasonable to me. It could have been avoided with a #sarcasm or something like that, but as the tweet was written, I think it's fair for there to be consequences.
However, it's not a felony. It's just not.
Can't imagine how any with a brain in their head could let this go so far. Simply having the student apologize and take a little detention should have been more than enough.
Are the school administrators a bunch of dickheads?
Actually yes.
Trolling is a art,
not the other way around. Stop berating the school for suing for defamation it's not happening. It's even in the first sentence of the summary:
A defamation suit filed by a former Minnesota high school student has gotten approval from a federal judge to proceed.
The teacher actually did kiss the boy. The school wanted to cover up a teacher misconduct issue and manipulated the student to admitting it was a joke. The school then tries to cover their ass more by suspending him and manipulating the parents to get him to go to a different school. The police chief was just ignorant to everything. The buy who actually kissed the teacher realized what BS this was and got nothing but problems from the situation had enough and is suing. I'm not saying the teacher took advantage of the student when they kissed. It could have been mutual. He could have had a hand in making it happen. It could have just been a kiss on the cheek or hand. I just don't believe for one minute either side of the story is completely true.
Actually yes©
BAAAAH!! actually I shop at apple so Im a sheeeppp!
Rip the school to shreds, and take whatever is left of their dignity. Schools are just kiddy prisons anyway.
If you think two words couldn't be considered defamatory,
then you
are such
an idiot.
1 the chief of police needs to be fired for being a dimwit.
2 the school needs to focus on education and not being fuck-knobs.
3 everyone involved needs to get a life.
It is two words from a juvenile that were inappropriate, The kid is far too immature to know anything about legality of statements. Honestly it is the adults and so called "leaders" of the community are so full of themselves and controlling others that they all need to be forced to sit in a corner for a few days to think about how they are acting.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's not just for women any more.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If he did make out with the teacher then I'm on his side because he should be free to tell the truth. If he didn't make out with the teacher then I'm on everyone else's side because he lied in a way that could ruin her career.
Really who the fuck would take a trivially sarcastic response as a full fledged accusation? "Did you die?" Actually yes. Zero tolerance appears to cause lobotomies followed up by irradiation to ensure tumors to fill the void.
The suit isn't patiently frivolous on it's face. Which is a REALLY low bar to clear. It just means that somebody isn't just making up some crackpot legal theory for the lawsuit and that there might be some evidence.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There are no school rules outside the school outside school hours to be broken, therefore the school has no power to punish for abridgement of school rules. Because the rules were not in force to BE enforced.
Not to mention the school's rules don't cover what you have claimed was the crime done.
Hi, I'm a different AC to the one you're replying to.
The mere fact that ACs are a bunch of different people should tell you how stupid and presumptuous your comment is.
If that doesn't do it, I'll spell it out for you: When someone makes a point, under any account or none, it is either well-reasoned or not. If it is, it adds something useful to the conversation. If it is not, it doesn't.
The same standard applies to people like you who are logged in but can still make stupid, useless generalisations based on an irrelevant detail.
[The student's two-word tweet] isn't a felony. The tweet isn't equivalent to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and that reasoning doesn't even make sense.
Indeed.
A side-note while we're at it: The whole "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument was coined by a supreme justice in WW I, when writing a decision upholding a law criminalizing handing out anti-draft leaflets.
My favorite story on the subject is about a time Abbie Hoffman was being interviewed about a free speech issue (in a crowderd theater, of course). Went something like this:
Talking Head: But surely you don't advocate crying fire in a crowded theater?
Abbie: FIRE!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hell, MSNBC is so afraid of the republican hate that they won't dare say boo.
Partly because the nutbars in the republican party LOVE their guns. And not platonically. THEY WILL SHOOT YOU DEAD. Whereas the nutbars on the democrat side will carry placards and try to tell you you're a mean person. For which the media will call them in a heap for "obstructing the legal progress of people just trying to get to work".
Girl says she kissed a teacher - investigation and said teacher is put on leave, his name dragged through the mud and his life destroyed.
Guy says he kissed a teacher - suspended and in the process of having his balls chopped off.
Can't be in a bigger position of authority than POTUS.
Some teachers unions have negotiated that a first offence is not fireable. There are 100s of teachers in the LA school district who are on the payroll but are not allowed to teach. Some for drug crimes, some for sex crimes.
If there is a fire in a crowded theatre, you should yell "Fire!". That is why all of these people speaking out against the 'Draw Mohammed' contests as shouting fire in a crowded theatre are wrong. Radical Islamists, including those that would kill to prevent or avenge cartoons of their prophet, is a real issue, as proven in Garland, Texas.
Yes. The reporting on this is very one sided. "Sagehorn jokingly replied". That's only obvious to the readers if there is a smiley. I wonder how many people bagging the school would be happy if they were publicly accused of being a pedo? And Sagehorn is the one suing for defamation!!!!??? He's lucky he didn't get hit with a defamation suit himself!!! Will serve him right if the teacher files a countersuit.
It doesn't matter.
... "forgotten," on Google search and stuff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
To believe actions should not have consequences.
His sense of entitlement is staggering.
The tweet isn't the focus here, the focus is the crime. Was a crime committed and if it was, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU, thus a tweeted comment is evidence of a possible confession.
Case Closed.
Just a boast by a teenage kid... Someone needs to question the basic intelligence of these people over-reacting so hugely in this way... Maybe if they cant react more sensibly school personnel should simply be banned completely from reading their pupils tweets..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..