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.
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.
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.
"Is Sagehorn a total ****?"
Actually, yes.
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.
The Slashdot headline implies otherwise by saying the lawsuit is over the (student's) two-word tweet rather than over the school's ridiculous overreaction.
Rip the school to shreds, and take whatever is left of their dignity. Schools are just kiddy prisons anyway.
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.
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
A school doesn't have the funds to provide a teacher with lawyers. Suspending a student, on the other hand, is free.
This space intentionally left blank
[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
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.
Not if they get sued it isn't.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yes, but he's a teenager, so that shouldn't be surprising. The school district, however... that's another matter. And there should be personal legal consequences to the people who pushed it this far.
Not, however, any reward to Sagehorn. But the punishment to the school should require public apology to him by the principle. And possibly paying for him to be easily transported to another school. I'm really not convinced that it would be fair to ANYONE for him to be readmitted to this original school. Too many people in position to make decisions should have their toes stomped on HARD.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
... "forgotten," on Google search and stuff.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Yeah, MSNBC is so afraid of Republicans that they never even hired Rachel Maddow.
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.
Completely false.
As an obvious example, you can't buy the answers to tomorrow's tests off of a teacher, even if it's not during school hours, even if it's not on school property, and even if you just memorize the answers (for the sake of argument, let's say it's multiple-choice) rather than bringing a crib sheet. Obviously that would be a violation of the employment agreement on the teacher's part, but that doesn't mean that kid gets off.
I have no idea what the school rules are but there's no way you can make a blanket statement that the school has to pretend that anything you do outside of school hours didn't happen, when it pertains directly to the school.
An initial suspension of a day or two is probably an appropriate reaction. The lengthier suspension, followed by suggesting he transfer schools, makes me wonder WTF is going on.
The idea that the tweet was a "felony" is presupposing that he could be convicted of felony libel for falsely answering yes to a question that was obviously not intended seriously. It can't be perjury because it wasn't directed to police or court. I'm not qualified to say whether that jurisdiction has felony libel but this could not possibly be more than a minor misdemeanour.
Forget the word crime. The kid probably shouldn't have said that (even if it didn't land him in shit).
To believe actions should not have consequences.
His sense of entitlement is staggering.
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..
I guess you haven't been following the news lately. A 30 year old teacher who had sex with her 17 year old male student was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Just for example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/predator-teacher-gets-22-years-for-sex-with-students/