Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Over Two-Word Tweet Moves Forward

Posted by Soulskill on from the culmination-of-our-civilization dept.

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.

8 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Headline is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Headline is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flip the genders involved and you'll get a hundred reasons why it's not right. Fact is that the student is still under age and the teacher is suppose to be there to teach, not make out with the kids.

      If the two have a thing for each other that's strong enough to break this barrier of common sense, then the two should be willing to wait a couple of years for the student to graduate before persuing a serious relationship. (And I say a couple of years because if they're young enough to be 3+ years from graduation there's just no excuse for the teacher to be trying to get involved with the -child-.

    2. Re:Headline is stupid by zieroh · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, actually you're dead wrong. The lawsuit is about the suspension that resulted from the two-word tweet. It wasn't filed by the teacher, it wasn't filed by the school. It was filed by the student.

      Furthermore, the police chief's statement that this amounted to a felony is pure BS. At worst, it would be defamation, but that's not what this lawsuit is about.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    3. Re:Headline is stupid by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, there's an issue of the age of the people involved, which can lead to statutory rape charges even if both parties clearly consented. The article doesn't list the age of the person at the time he made the comment, but this article indicates that he was 17 at the time. Even failing that, relationships between two people where one is in a position of authority relative to the other are still messy as far as sexual harassment suits go and would be enough to get a teacher fired.

      Also, you would care if you were the person about whom these rumors were being spread as that kind of allegation can be career ending on its own. The administration clearly went overboard, but there's a clear difference between insinuating that someone is having sexual relations with their students and jokes about a person being a closeted Jets fan.

      It's hardly surprising when kids in high school act immature. That's to be expected, but the administration taking such a disproportionate reaction to something, which is better sorted out with a simple discussion about the seriousness of making such claims and perhaps an apology, is rather disappointing.

    4. Re:Headline is stupid by konohitowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense, it absolutely was a felony. If you don't understand why then please go away.

      Nonsense, it absolutely wasn't a felony. If you don't understand why then please go away.

      Cool. I'm going to have to remember that approach. This whole "debating" thing is way easier than I thought. I had assumed you had to support your statements with facts - reasoning - logic. When do we transition to the uh-huh/nun-uh phase?

    5. Re:Headline is stupid by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Informative

      No they don't. They don't even come from the same language.

      See here and here for their respective etymologies.

  2. Police chief should be fired by damicatz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Police chief should be fired by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you retarded?

      He never said anything about what he thought should be legal or illegal.

      He simply stated the law as it currently is.