Judge backs student’s First Amendment rights

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: LA Times

LOS ANGELES - One morning in May 2008, an eighth-grader walked into Janice Hart’s office at a Beverly Hills middle school crying.

She was upset and humiliated, and couldn’t possibly go to class, the girl told the counselor. The night before, a classmate had posted a video on YouTube with a group of other eighth graders bad-mouthing her, calling her “spoiled,’’ a “brat,’’ and a “slut.’’ Text and instant messages had been flying since. Half the class must have seen it by now, the girl told Hart.

Hart took the problem to the school’s vice principal and principal, who took it to a district administrator, who asked the district’s lawyers what they could do about it. In the end, citing “cyber-bullying’’ concerns, school officials suspended the girl who posted the video for two days. That student took the case to federal court, saying her free speech rights were violated.

Last month, a US District judge in LA sided with the student, saying the school went too far. Amid rising concerns over cyber-bullying, and even calls for criminalization, some courts, parents, and free speech advocates are pushing back - students, they say, have a First Amendment right to be nasty in cyberspace.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/12/14/judge_rules_students_cruel_remarks_online_are_not_unconstitutional/

[msongs]

1. civil lawsuit for defamation of character with $millions in damages requested....

against the nasty little creeps who post this stuff. the act of posting meets the requirement for deliberate/malicious. nt

[liberal N proud]

9. +1

[northernlights]

20. +1!

that was my first, gut response too. Hit her parents where it hurts. :grr:

[ejbr]

29. +1 n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Nothing in this ruling would prohibit a civil lawsuit

[No Elephants]

114. I'm not as sure about that as you seem to be.

[Luciferous]

91. +1

[struggle4progress]

113. Absolutely

[northzax]

139. Won't work

Defamation of character requires affirmative proof. How can you prove you aren't 'spoiled' or a 'brat'? Or even perhaps, a 'slut'? All of these are in the eye of the beholder, if I think you're a brat, how can you prove you aren't? They didn't accuse her of doing something she didn't, only of being something.

[mwb970]

2. The ability to have your life ruined by your peers online is new.

The law obviously hasn't yet caught up.

[Viking12]

3. Current law is adequate.

Although, the judicial system may not be able to handle the load.

Nevertheless, it's not the place of a school to adjudicate such cases.

[knightmaar]

48. The school didn't adjudicate the case

The school did nothing at all to interfere with the bully's freedom of speech.

The school only said that cruelty would not be tolerated between its students as this poisons the educational environment.

[Viking12]

56. Really, so punishing someone for what they said is not interference with free speech?

The school acted as judge and handed down punishment.

[knightmaar]

62. You still have the right to free speech

It's like going in to your boss's office and telling him to f*&@ off.

You're totally within your rights to do so, but you're going to get fired.

Would anyone in that situation that the salient point was that your "free speech" was being interfered with?

[Viking12]

68. My boss is not a representative of the govt.

So, no it's not analogous.

[knightmaar]

82. So you can walk in to a classroom

And tell the teacher to f&*$ off. But because the teacher works for the government, she can't kick you out of her class?

I swear there's an analogy in there somewhere.

[Viking12]

85. Keep reaching.

Eventually you might grow up and understand the Constitution.

[knightmaar]

92. So explain why I'm wrong

Answer the question: is it an unconstitutional restriction of free speech to punish a student for telling a teacher to fuck off?

Let's supposed he did it while the teacher was checking homework, so it's not interfering with education in the narrow way that this judge defined it.

Could you punish that kid?

[Viking12]

95. That is not the question at hand.

The question is whether or not someone posting a video outside of school is under the jurisdiction of school officials. It is not.

[knightmaar]

97. I agree ...

... the posting of videos on youtube is not under the jurisdiction of school officials. No one forced this bully to take down the video.

The problem is, the school did not make a ruling on the posting of youtube videos. The school made a ruling on a violation of behavioural norms that poisoned the educational environment of the classroom.

No one - no one I've seen or read - has suggested that the bully be forced to remove the video. What is required is civil behaviour between students.

Imagine we have a person convicted of rape in another country. It's not under our jurisdiction. We can't punish him for it. But we *can* prevent him from coming to our country.

[Viking12]

98. Dude, you should get some therapy.

I'm just glad that you're not in a position to judge free speech cases or make decisions concerning my children.

[knightmaar]

100. Therapy

I guess we're done arguing then, since we've descended to irrelevant insults?

Fine.

[Viking12]

102. Sorry, it's impossible to have a reasoned conversation w/ an irrational person

The fact that you fail to understand the Constitution and the law makes it impossible to have a conversation with you about those subjects. The fact that you find crazy analogies relevant to the case at hand makes it impossible to have a conversation with you.

Therapy was referring to you post #94. It's pretty obvious you've got some issues to deal with. Therapy is a good way to do that.

[knightmaar]

107. What irrationality?

I feel strongly about this issue. I am highly motivated. That does not mean that I'm wrong.

You say "Constitution"
I point out that some exceptions are considered warranted ("fire!", slander, false advertising)

You say "out of jurisdiction"
I point out exceptions, like an immigrating convict
I point out the school's responsibility for a safe learning environment

You say "the school is an agency of gov't"
I point out that this would preclude the punishment of a student who curses his teacher out in class.

How am I supposed to tell if you are ignoring my responses or agreeing with me when you change the topic and intersperse insults?

[ZombieHorde]

141. You are attacking the person, not the argument. This is a logical fallacy. nt

[No Elephants]

117. It's also not analogous bc you are an adult and your boss is not responsible

for your education and maturation.

Public schools are arms of government, yes, but they are also acting in loco parentis. The SCOTUS has long held that, while public school students do have some First Amendment rights, public schools have more latitude to regulate speech for the safety and well being of the minors in their charge and to avoid disruption than do other arms of government.

[No Elephants]

116. Schools do that all the time. So do parents. Schools are in loco parentis.

[No Elephants]

115. Speech is speech, whether it is online or in the school paper or in the corridors.

[treestar]

144. Just teach kids not to believe everything that is online

One's life is not "ruined" by bullies and liars. People need to quit reacting immediately to everything they hear as if it's true. Especially online.

[rox63]

4. It never used to require the internet to be humiliated at school

When I was young, all it took was a few hours on the rumor mill. And there were no laws against it either.

That said, I sympathize deeply with the girl being bullied. I've been there, long before the concept of cyber-bullying existed.

[pipoman]

5. I agree that the school shouldn't punish this,

if there are state statues against 'cyber bullying' or some other form of harassment, fine. Otherwise civil action is probably a great option. By now the girls who posted this have made so many statements of admission during the coarse of a federal civil rights case that a civil action should be easy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Clearly outside of the schools purview

Off campus is off campus.

[knightmaar]

49. Were you ever in a school?

Do you have any idea how this sort of humiliation can affect life inside the school?

If you have a kid so humiliated by intentional cruelty that she can't participate in her education, what exactly do you propose? Do nothing? Allow cruel people to drive her out of the school?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. I went to school.

That's where I learned about the Constitution and free speech.

"If you have a kid so humiliated by intentional cruelty that she can't participate in her education, what exactly do you propose?"

If a kid can't learn because somebody called her a name outside of school on the internet, then I suggest she grow a back bone.

[knightmaar]

54. That's a very narrow view of bullying

You're a teacher, standing in a classroom at 8:59am. There are three large girls standing around a small girl, tormenting her about her hair, her looks, her clothes etc. They reduce her to tears and she runs away. She's unwilling to return to class because she's been so embarrassed.

And you're saying, "Well, class doesn't start until 9:00am, so there's no problem."?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Oh, it's all bullying.

Suspending the girl and denying her first amendment right was bullying. And worse bullying than calling people names.

With your 8:59 analogy, the kids are under the supervision of the school, so it's not a very good analogy, now is it?

[knightmaar]

60. It's not about supervision.

If the girl in the my analogy claimed that she couldn't go in to the classroom because of the humiliation, would you consider that legitimate?

Why wouldn't you just say to her, "That's just name calling. Get a back bone."?

[No Elephants]

119. The SCOTUS has, thank goodness, been more nuanced re: schools

Please see Reply # 117.

Knowing what the Constitution says is fine, but you also have to know which exceptions the SCOTUS has made to seemingly absolute principles, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and why it has made them.

No Constitutional right is as absolute as it sounds when you simply read the Constitution without also reading the cases, or at least reading about the cases. The SCOTUS engages in balancing the government interest in regulation against the individual's interest in the speech.

I suggest googling "student's right to free speech not absolute public school" and researching from there.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. I have attend, had daughters who attend, and my wife and I taught in secondary schools

So yes I understand how bad bullying can be. Mixed race students, like myself and my daughters tend to get it from all sides. As horrible and nasty as it is, it does not give the schools' permission to reach past the school gates when it comes to free speech.

The other part of this is that schools use the improper long arm reach to suppress legitimate dissent. The same logic and rules are used. However, even if it was limited to just bullying, its still improper.

[knightmaar]

69. So what do you do?

If you think that the school isn't allowed to punish students who bully simply because of the location of the bullying.

If you think that the classroom should become a place of fear and humiliation for a student simply because the letter of the law says the humiliation is outside the jurisdiction.

What do you do?

Remember, you can't discuss this issue with the bully. Any attempt, any action that can be construed as relating to the internet bullying is automatically an infringement of the bully's speech.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. Schools can not effective police off campus behavior

Schools should not try to punish things out of their purview. The courts have made that clear for years. This is not a novel or new position. A lot of it goes back to underground newspapers etc in the late 60s...I happened to be part of that as well.

You are trying to use a particularly grievous set of circumstances to change precedent. In the process you will give legitimacy to the schools attempting long arm reach over students, something they already abuse. I've been bullied, I feel strongly for the situation, I just will not abide it being used top promulgate bad law.

Discussing things with the bully, the victim and all parents is legitimate because it is not punitive in nature and is allowed today.


So again I ask, what do you do if the source of the video is unreachable, and the rest of the current scenario holds (all over school and the student is in a panic)

[knightmaar]

87. Is it bad law?

To stop the next Columbine? We accept restrictions on freedom of speech.

We accept that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is wrong.
We accept that calling a woman a "slut" is prosecutable under civil law.
We accept (or used to) that corporations couldn't lie to us about their products.

If we acknowledge that daily humiliation of a child leads to crazy children who, at the far end of the bell curve, will get pushed in to suicide or murder, what rights does society have to stop this? Why on earth would you protect the right to be cruel over the right to live?

As for your question. I admit that it's a good question. What do you do? You can talk about the problem in class and, if you're clever, make the people posting those videos feel immature and juvenile. They might be sheepishly removed. The might not.

But I'm afraid that our solution "discussing things with the bully" is also unconstitutional under your own rules. Any discussion with the bully that discourages his or her cruelty can be seen as having an infringing effect on the bully's rights. If a teacher (as a gov't agent) punishing you is wrong, then so is that teacher taking you and your parents aside for a talking to. This gives the impression that the state will use its power to subtly push you around. It's like a religious teacher taking a student aside and telling him to knock off that atheist stuff.

Besides which, when in your experience has talking to a bully and the parents ever worked? Never in mine.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. As long as its not punative, it fair game for discussion

but care needs to be taken. Things should be handled privately.

My success with talking to bullies and their parents is mixed. Many times the parents are unaware of what is happening. Some take actions, others do not. There is little down side. Talking to the parents of the victim is more risky. They may try to intervene themselves or belittle their child for not standing up. Much more downside risk for the victim.

When it was happening to our daughter (who was targeted, but never bowed to it), there was the complication of many years of martial arts training. When the conflict went physical, she dropped all of her opponents with minor injuries to them and none to herself. Even though it occurred off campus and we declined to press charges, it made the situation worse in many respects at school.

[knightmaar]

99. Your experience differs from mine

I have rarely known any type of discussion with a bully to change the bully's intent (it sometimes changes behaviour, but only in the trivial sense that the bully becomes more clever to avoid being caught).

I'm wondering if we grew up in very different places.

Where I'm from (and I have a large sample to speak from as my parents were both teachers) the parents of the bully general shrug it off with the same comments that I see here (e.g. the victim should "get a back bone", "boys will be boys") while the victim's parents are actually quite irate (at the bully, not their own child) but never moved to violence themselves. I've never heard - and I know teachers with centuries of combined teaching experience - of parents belittling their own children when their children are the victims.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. Indeed ours does. It may depend on time frame of the experience

My experience is over the last 10 years or so teaching in public schools by both my wife and myself. When I got on with UC, my wife remained teaching in high schools.

In your anecdotes the bully doesn't make any significant changes. I agree that is the predominate course of action reinforced by the common parental attitude that their child is perfect. However, in a small minority, the parents may be smarter than that and willing to listen. I've seen it happen, but it was indeed quite rare.

I have seen parents sit there in shock when the situation is described to them with the child in tears turn to their male child and tell them to man up. Blew me away, but when WWF and UFC are as popular as their are in society, perhaps I should not have been surprised. Also that school was not exactly in a upper class area or district.

On You Tube there are examples of parents getting involved in physical altercations with students and at times other parents. Unheard of until recently. Threats like that happen more than many realize and it was threatened in the scuffle my daughter was involved in.

Civility in the schools is in the toilet. Any number of reasons are given and excuses made, but its clearly there. Having been there, I can not blames the schools or the lack of funding. Its outside barbarism getting in past the school yard gate.

[knightmaar]

109. I've seen those videos

The events I saw occurred at American junior football games. Is this the most common venue? And, yeah, I remember some pretty awful parents at sporting events in my youth, but never was one of them getting violent with children.

The difficulty I'm having is figuring out why we were disagreeing. If the problem is barbarism coming in from the outside, and if that's having a terrible effect on education, isn't it reasonable for the school to take actions to keep barbarism out of the classroom?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. Our disagreement is whether or not the schools can punish behavior off campus

the long arm concept.

[knightmaar]

111. So where I'm from

They came up with a protocol for dealing with bullying:

http://www.dsbn.edu.on.ca/uploadedFiles/DSBN_Policy/Draft-G-29.pdf

"Policy
Bullying will not be accepted on school property, at school-related activities, on school buses, or in any other circumstances (e.g. online) where engaging in bullying has a negative impact on the school climate."

This seems to be acceptable around here. But then, I don't live in the U.S.

"In recognition of the importance of addressing bullying, which can have a significant impact on student safety,
learning and the school climate, bullying is included in the list of infractions for which suspension must be
considered."

[mbperrin]

79. So the best advice to the girl who got bullied is to post YouTube videos

with guys describing the various physical, mental, and emotional defects of the girl who posted the bullying video. In fact, a series of videos belittling the bully on emotional, physical, and intelligence issues would be the best, I'm guessing.

This what you have in mind for free speech? Video slugfest on YouTube?

[knightmaar]

84. Nobody quite gets sarcasm anymore

I blame the advent of the emoticon.

[mbperrin]

86. I actually was replying to post 64, the ProgressiveProfessor.

Sorry for any confusion. I don't believe he is using sarcasm.

[No Elephants]

118. Not only drive her out of school. Potentially drive her to suicide.

[NYC Liberal]

6. Not unique to kids. I've personally known supposedly grown adults who did/do this

sort of thing. It's sick. Something really needs to be done about "cyber-bullying" - because people think there are no consequences to harassing someone online. They can't see them, and it's anonymous, so it's alright by them. And many times people who say all sorts of sick things online and attack people there never say anything to anyone's face (because they know there might actually be consequences).

Online stalking is just as real as in-person stalking.
Online harassment is just as real as in-person harassment.
Online bullying is just as real as in-person bullying.

[Lorien]

7. Agreed. Libel and slander isn't protected under the first amendment

and that sort of cyber bullying IS libel and slander. I was bullied incessantly from first grade through the end of Junior high by the same group of thugs (all boys, most larger than me, so no, I wasn't going to physically attack them for it). Childhood was hell. No kid deserves a lifetime of emotional issues that come with constant bullying. The school was right to punish the bully. Hopefully laws will be passed to protect minors against this kind of destructive behavior.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. But it is not the job of the scool to enforce those laws

The courts where there is due process is the right place

[knightmaar]

50. The school's right is to keep the classroom peaceful.

It's supposed to be a place where students feel free to ask questions and have discussions.

You can't learn if you can't speak. You especially can't learn if you're too scared to enter the classroom.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. Their rights stop at the gate

They should pull kids in for counseling etc, which is within their purview. They should talk to the parents too. Suspension was beyond what they should be able to do for OUT OF SCHOOL events. If it happens in school, then its fair game.

[knightmaar]

93. So then it would be okay ...

... if the teacher simply waited until the bully began making references to the video in an attempt to humiliate the student. The moment that happens, it would be acceptable to punish the bully?

[No Elephants]

122. Schools enforce all kinds of rules.

[AlbertCat]

16. The school was right to punish the bully.

I think so too.
I was a pariah in prep school....and no teacher ever came to my defense. The lesson I learned: Adults don't like "fagots" either. Is that what schools want to teach? (of course maybe they should, since it's true) Suspending a student doesn't harm them any more and probably less (a noble sign of rebellion!) than the bullying. If it affects the community of the school, then they should have a say. It isn't like they had the bully arrested or anything.

Besides...who fired the 1st volley? So now the bully is the victim? (How GOP! Just what we learned from the Bushies!)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Subjective slurs are protected by the 1st amendment.

Calling people "spoiled," "brat," and "slut," are neither libel nor slander, and are protected by the 1st amendment.

[zalinda]

26. Spoiled and brat may be subjective

but slut is not. The use of the word slut can have boys hitting on her constantly and even raping her because, well, what the hell, she is a slut, and wants it.

zalinda

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Nope, sorry, still subjective.

And protected.

Rape? Wow.

[Tumbulu]

43. Are you a judge? Calling a girl a slut can incite rape

were you ever a girl? Otherwise stay out of the conversation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. In the same way calling her a spoiled brat incites execution by guillotine.

Don't need to be a judge to laugh at bullshit like this.

[No Elephants]

135. Not really. Thinking it is okay to help yourself to sex with a "slut" is a much more

logical connection than there is between being spoiled and a guillotine. The latter two have no traditional or logical connection.

[No Elephants]

121. "Protected" is very debatable. You are entitled to your opinion about whether

something SHOULD be protected by the First Amendment. But, claiming something IS protected by the First Amendment is not just a statement of your opinion. You have no SCOTUS case to cite for the latter. Please see Replies 117 and 119.

[No Elephants]

123. No, calling a female a slut is libelous (though truth is an absolute defense to a libel suit).

" Defamation per se
The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

(I believe the wiki article is incorrect in labeling this "defamation per se," rather than "libel per se," but that is just a technicality. Point is, these four categories of libel have, for centuries, been considered as worse than other kinds of slanders.)


Tha said, the standards for a plaintiff to win a libel suit are not the same as what a public school may do to protect the well being of students for whom the public school has a legal responsiblity to function "in the place of a parent."

[mrbarber]

45. I don't know, I think I would have preferred to be "cyber-bullied"..

over getting my ass kicked on a routine basis.

[NYC Liberal]

73. Well, emotional harassment is just as harmful as physical

if not more so. Cuts and bruises heal. It's not so easy to undo constant emotional abuse.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. If its on campus, it can be dealt with, off campus is off limits to the school

[No Elephants]

124. In your opinion. Even this judge did not say that. He said only that the

school had not made the proper showings. Put another way, he implied that his decision may have gone in favor of the school if the school had made a showing of substantial disruption.

See also, the off campus portion of the discussion at http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/censorshipinternetspeech/part1.htm

[No Elephants]

120. A student harassing another student is very different from an adult harassing another adult.

.

[NYC Liberal]

132. I'm talking about an adult (in their early 20s) harassing

a teenager.

[No Elephants]

137. Age is not the only issue. It's the school context as well. First Amendment law

is different in the school context than it is in other contexts. Hence, I specified one student harassing another.

[NYC Liberal]

138. I was making a general statement about online harassment

I realize that this particular case involves the question of whether or not the school, specifically, can punish a student for what they do online - but online harassment is a problem.

[Hepburn]

8. Bad decision....

...one has a right to free speech...until someone is wrongfully harmed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Right decision. Schools are not courts. No requirement for due process

[AlbertCat]

17. Schools are not courts

This is not a crime.

Schools are communities, and one must follow the rules there. (Like where you can park your car in a gated community)

The 1st amendment merely states the the GOVERNMENT shall make no LAWS abridging freedom of speech. Schools can have rules....and students can get suspended for breaking them or disrupting the community. Bullies have the "right" to call anyone names all day long....and suffer the consequences.

Again...the bully took it to court. The bully is now playing victim.

It's a stupid ruling.

[EFerrari]

18. Precisely. n/t

[mbperrin]

21. Well said. I simply don't allow bullying in my classroom or anywhere

in my sight. I hate a bully, and the least I can do is mirror their behaviors back to them.

It's like free therapy, really.

[proteus_lives]

143. "It's like free therapy, really."

Good to know that you can fair and objective.

Ugh, scary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. That's the same argument the fundies use to support prayer in school.

It's bullshit when they do it too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Excellent point... n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. They are still government organizations, and need to abide by government standards

which includes leaving legal judgments to the court. The biggest problem is the long arm mentality current infecting public schools. They should have no say about what goes on off campus.

I have helped students run websites anonymously just so the school could not wreak vengeance on those who criticize them

[jtylerpittman]

61. i agree

[No Elephants]

125. Both schools and other organizations make legal judgments daily Yes, folks who feel

the legal judgment was erroneous can take their grievance, real or imagined, to court. However, schools and other organizations still make judgments daily. Police and meter maids judge you guilty of traffic violations as defined by applicable law, even if you later appeal to traffic court; schools put you in detention or suspend you for creating a disturbance, even if you have a First Amendment claim that you later take to court; folks at the welfare office decide you don't meet the legal standards of eligibility for welfare, even if you have a right to appeal the denial of benefits; folks at the office of minority and women's business assistance decide that the woman who owns 100% of the stock of her company is not eligible as a woman owned business because a man in her life or in the company is "really" running it, even if she has a right to appeal; and so on.

[Stumbler]

10. Hard to say where I stand on this.

But I think we can all agree that the three years before high school are pure hell. It's not bad enough that you're going through puberty, but a number your peers are also ruthless in their attempts to be 'popular.'

[onehandle]

14. And this is where free speech advocates fail.

This was bullying. Plain and simple.

And no matter where it happened, the results were aimed at the victim's school life.

This is a prime example of when Liberals look like fools.

And on edit: The results of this is that the school system is going to carefully (and legally) implement extra rules to curb free speech in their schools. Kids who have non-bullying things to say will be impacted by this. Mark my words.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. You have missed the key point...schools are already using the same rules to suppress legitimate

dissent and criticism. Seen it it years ago with my daughters' high school. It has only gotten worse from there.

[GodlessBiker]

15. Good decision. People, including kids, do have the right to be nasty in cyberspace...

without the government getting its nose into things.

Anger should be directed to the parents of the girl who posted the video.

[AlbertCat]

19. Anger should be directed to the parents of the girl who posted the video.

Now it's the PARENT'S fault!


Boy....how convoluted can you get!


The bully can say whatever she wants. But if it disrupts the school community or breaks school rules....she can be suspended. Period. Say what you want.... and suffer the consequences.


Again.... now the bully is the victim?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. In this case the bully is a victim of fascist long arm tactics.

Its not always bullying. Schools use the same long arm logic to attack legitimate dissent.

[knightmaar]

47. Que?

The bully is not being suspended because he or she was making some political or social point that the administration dislikes. There's nothing fascist about it.

The bully is being suspended for cruelty. It's that simple.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. No, the student was suspended for actions done out of school and beyond their purview

using the same rules that allow schools to suppress online and offline dissent.

[knightmaar]

72. What else the rules are used for ...

... isn't relevant. This is what they should be used for. It's a code of conduct issue. If you do this sort of thing to your coworkers, the management of your company could fire you on the completely legitimate grounds that you poisoning the work environment and harassing your coworkers.

Why wouldn't the same rules apply to a classroom?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. They are too relevant...and the courts think so too

This kind of long arm tactics have been tried before, and the courts denied their use. Its a long term precedent that thankfully seems fairly immune from being overturned.

Public schools are government provided services and have to be open to all and not subject to conditions unless strictly needed. This does not qualify. Historically that means a hands off policy on out of school conduct. The language used to justify the long arm matters since it flows into many more areas that bullying.

I have fought the long arm concept since I was in high school. More recently I have helped high school students set up email addresses and websites that could not be traced. The concept of free speech is one of our highest values and to let school districts abrogate that over off campus behavior is unacceptable. Yes their are casualties from that. Its part of the price for a free society.

[No Elephants]

126. No. Courts have made those kinds of distinctions. Purely political statements

have been treated differently than, for example, statements with sexual content and/or statements with religious content. That is true of the public school context as well as other contexts. A court can recognize the difference between calling a girl a slut (or using vulgar language in a school speech), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, protesting school lunch policy or the war in Iraq,just as you and I can make those distinctions; and courts have indeed made those kinds of distinctions in school/student cases as well as in cases that do not involve schools or students.

[EFerrari]

23. And they have the right to suffer the consequences

whent their community rejects their anti-social behavior.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Its not always anti social behavior

In the past I have helped students run websites anonymously that were critical of their school and school district. The inane long arm mentality used by schools today suppresses legitimate dissent and is a fascist approach to student governance that has no place in our public schools. I am surprised anyone at DU would support it.

Free speech off campus is not just about bullies, it about legitimate dissent too.

[EFerrari]

38. You are confusing dissent, which I support, with this instance of bullying

which is anti-social behavior.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. The rules that allow them to go after online bullies allow them to supress dissent

In my experience they are going after dissent much more than bullies. The schools have no place regulating speech off campus. There is redress for slander and libel off campus, its the courts, not the principal's office.

[EFerrari]

41. I agree that they will go after dissent far more than bullies.

Because dissent threatens their administration.

Still, bullying behavior has to be confronted in some fashion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. I agree in confronting it, but the principal's office is not the place to impose

sanctions. That should come from the courts.

Please use the past tense, schools have been going after dissent for years.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Excellent.

[Blackhatjack]

25. The fact the girls attended school together does not make this 'school conduct' subject to sanction

What if the same conduct was directed toward a victim who was a teacher? principal? school staffer?

There is no doubt that the victim student here suffered horribly, but the reach of school's power to punish is not unlimited.

Now as soon as the student engaging in this conduct outside of school follows up with 'bullying' on school property or during school activities, then the school may wield its power to punish in that event.

I agree with an earlier poster that the ability to humiliate students was common before the internet was created.

As for the student that started this whole brouhaha, she should be reminded that the attack she waged on the victim here could very easily be turned on her tomorrow. And as she is a minor, her parents could be easily informed of such misconduct which might lead to worse consequences at home than school.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. +1

[No Elephants]

127. Schools ability to beat students was once unlimited, too. We hope to learn by

our errors, rather than staying the same, century after century.

Bullying of students and teachers is becoming more and more serious. It has resulted in Columbine and also in a number of students committing suicide. Schools are (correctly, IMO) taking more and more responsiblity as to bullying and trying to intervene more effectively than they had in the past.

[AlphaCentauri]

37. So this other guy didn't have a first amendment right to be nasty with politicians

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4182096

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. He's got the first amendment right to be nasty.

But not the first amendment right to make threats.

[knightmaar]

46. Horrible Decision, Incorrect Headline

The Judge did not "back student's First Amendment rights"

The Judge overruled the school's right to maintain a healthy learning environment. As such, he overstepped his bounds.

If you're one of the people backing this bully's right to torment another student, you're right. The bully has the right to be a complete jerk. (although you'll find that using the term "slut" can have some pretty fierce and automatic consequences in a slander suit.)

The question is not freedom of speech. No one disputes that you can be immature and insult people on the intertubes.

The question is school discipline. The school has a right to maintain an environment where all students feel welcome and comfortable. This bully has clearly poisoned that environment. This girl will not participate in classroom discussions, will not ask questions and will not get the full potential of her educational opportunity. If you don't think so, you're not thinking very hard. Imagine if you did something similar to your coworkers. You would find yourself fired.

This judge has basically told the school, "No, you can't maintain discipline. You can't suspend a student. You can't act against a bully. First you have to show that education, at the lowest, technical, literal level, has been affected."

The correct decision was: go ahead post your diatribes on youtube; but the school can suspend you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. "the school can suspend you."

Not according to the Constitution, as decided by the court, they can't.

And thank god for that.

[knightmaar]

55. I'm arguing that the court is wrong

If the speech was abusive, regardless of its legality, the school has a responsibility evaluate the speech for malice in order to protect and foster a learning environment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Yes, but you're doing a horrible jobh.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. What would you say if the Youtube posting could not be traced?

Or if the student was in a different school or district?

The school can not nor should not try to protect its students from any and all potential negative influences it students my be subject to. Its authority is limited to the campus.

[knightmaar]

71. I supposed I'd advise the girl to ...

... make a video of all the people she thought had been involved and mock them mercilessly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. So bullying by one party justifies bullying by another? Surely we as adults can do better than that

If a student is getting bullied, that is why there are counselors on campus. Peer mediation is also present. Bringing in the parents usually helps, though not always. Some times the politically incorrect solution of intermural ass kicking some times helps, though no one will ever come out and endorse it.

We can support the victims without sundering our 1st amendment freedoms.

[knightmaar]

83. "Facetious"

Obviously, random cruelty is not the answer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. Got it. When we had a daughter embroiled in such activity, some of the comments

we got were more than a little out there, but those making them were quite serious.

One person told us that it was my daughter's responsibility to accept a beat down since failure to do so would cause the aggressors to lose face which would in turn hurt their self esteem. That she had dropped all of them and one lost her weave in the process was considered emotional crushing and she should have know she was required to submit.

[knightmaar]

94. That's the problem with the system

It appears to have been designed by bullies for their own protection.

Often the only solution to bullying is to teach the bully empathy. When all peaceful methods have failed - and they often do - a punch in the nose may be required. When sufficient force is applied at the right angle, the rehabilitative effect can be quite impressive.

If it matters, I suffered through the same thing as a child (in case you couldn't guess). I was punished as much for fighting back as the bullies were punished for ganging up on me. That part of the system is broken.

[christx30]

103. The fifth grade

was HELL for me. I was the whipping boy for the entirety of the males in my class. The principle and the teacher were fully aware of the situation (from myself, my parents, and sometimes, through listening to the bullies bragging), but they did nothing. I had even told the councilor that I was not going to tolerate this any more. She gave me some BS speech how I was supposed to turn the other cheek and not do anything. She said that she would be very angry if I used violence to stop what they were doing. I told her that she wasn't the one being messed with, and I didn't need her permission to defend myself.
The bullying lasted about 6 of the 9 months of school. One day after losing a basketball match in gym class, I was being mocked by one of the boys while walking back to class. I tripped him and kicked him twice in the face. He was hurt and there was a little blood (superficial cuts). Everything I did to him I know must have hurt like hell.
I'm not proud of what I did, but it helped a lot. The bullying didn't stop, but it did ease up a lot.
That week in in school suspension was well worth the freedom from those people. I was a pariah, but at least I was (for the most part) left alone.

[knightmaar]

106. Ah, yes, Was "Don't sink to their level" in there?

That was my favourite.

At least you didn't buy in to the idea that this was something you should accept.

The charming thing about bullies is that they generally cave in quickly. The moment it looks like they might get injured, they leave you alone. As long as you don't get to enjoy hurting people, you have to do what you have to do.

I wonder, do you remember any of the bullies getting a week of suspension for what they were doing?

[No Elephants]

129. IMO< the notion that bullies cave quickly is an urban legend. Ditto that bullies

stop bullying if the victim does not give them the satisfaction of appearing to be upset or hurt.

[christx30]

142. A week of suspension? HA!

Good one. No.. mostly it was the teacher or the administrator calling my parents to tell them that I was putting out "victim vibes" (whatever the hell that was) and they needed to come get me.
Oh well. Glad I'm out of there. I heard 3 of the guys spent some time in prison when they got older. I have a kick ass wife and some freakishly intelligent and good looking kids. So the best revenge is living well.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. The is the standard approach in public schools

If there is a fight, everyone gets time off, unless there is a clear aggressor and it goes down in front of the staff. I saw that once during lunch duty. A girl walked up and mega slapped another girl and started to really beat on her. Another staff member and myself saw it happen and broke it up immediately. The perp got sent home for an extended period, the victim got taken via EMS to the hospital. When the perp returned to school she had near celebrity status, which disgusted me to no end.

In our case the school tried to assert long are jurisdiction since all the participants were students there. They wanted to suspend my daughter for fighting and injuring other students. We rejected it since it was off campus and with a police report that said it was 3 on 1 assault, they backed off.

[No Elephants]

128. The Constitution never says schools have no right to suspend students.

And God was wisely left out of the Constitution.

[Xicano]

51. The court's decision is correct IMO. However,

I think the girl who was victimized should win a case in civil court suing the other girl for slandering her.

[No Elephants]

133. Protected speech is protected speech. IF (and I emphasize IF) this

judge said that the students had a First Amendment right to this speech and this judge were correct, then I am not so sure that the young woman has a civil remedy.

[jtylerpittman]

59. the school can not regulate what students do on their own time and off school grounds

[No Elephants]

134. I don't think that is a correct statement of the law or of the case described in the OP article.

The school can act, if what the student does on his or her own time adversely affects the school or the school environment.

[tonysam]

63. A recent suit about students, schools, and cyberspace

is here:

A former Douglas High School student expelled and arrested after he allegedly issued threats over MySpace is suing the school district in federal court.

According to a lawsuit filed Oct. 23 in U.S. District Court by Jeffrey Blanck on behalf of Landon Wynar, the Douglas County School District violated Wynar's First Amendment rights.

“When you're at home at night, you have a first amendment right to communicate with your friends,” Blanck said Monday. “This was a case of young teenagers talking to each other, and whether the conversation was appropriate or inappropriate, it wasn't a crime.”

According to the lawsuit, Wynar was 16 when arrested on Feb. 7, 2008. The lawsuit claims Wynar was incarcerated for 32 days, and interrogated without the consent of his attorney or with a parent present.

More

[JonQ]

70. The first amendment was never intended for this sort of modern

rapid, assault style speech.

Ban it.

[No Elephants]

136. The First Amendment was never intended for radio, TV, vinyl recordings, CD's,

DVDs, skywriting, etc., either. Speech is speech. The medium is irrelevant, be it a broadside or an internet post. Either it is a kind of content that is protected or it isn't, regardless of where or how the speech may appear. IMO, bullying of one student by another is not protected speech, not when it comes to a two suspension from school anyway.

[pipoman]

74. I think that the parents of the

suspended girl are nuts for not simply allowing the suspension and adding about 3 months of grounding, the hateful little shit.

[JonQ]

75. Seriously

Why wouldn't her parents be penalizing her far worse than the school district? I know mine would have if I'd done something similiar.

[JonQ]

76. Dupe

[NashVegas]

96. The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree

Learn from this: if someone fucks with your kid, and their parents won't do the responsible thing, take it upon yourself to get revenge. Ruining their business via innuendo and gossip if you can, is a good start. And remember: it's all free speech.

[No Elephants]

130. Actually, it's all actionable libel per se, whether you lie about a business or lie about a girl's

being a slut or whore.

[X_Digger]

90. Excellent! n/t

[superconnected]

101. Cyber bulling needs to be a crime in itself that comes with an immediate fine or jail time if it's

severe enough. Verbal assault and defamation are real things. They should not be protected by "free speech".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. Its a civil matter and would take years to get in front of a judge nt

[pipoman]

112. I think it would move quicker,

especially if the parents have some sort of umbrella policy. I don't know for a fact, but in my experience, any case that goes to the appellant level would contain enough testimony that depositions and interrogatories would be very productive. Any insurance company who is involved would want to settle. Of coarse not before the offended child has to endure deposition, which I don't know if I would put my daughter through. I think a fair settlement could be reached within a year to 18 months. People who appeal this high with no motivation ($$) aside from principal probably aren't destitute, therefore likely have some sort of umbrella..all speculation.,

[No Elephants]

131. The judge's opinion is much narrower than the posts on this thread suggest.

He said that the school had not made any showing of disruption (of the learning environment). From the article in the OP:

“'To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school’s activities, runs afoul ,’’ judge Stephen V. Wilson wrote in a 60-page opinion."

To me, this says that the lawyer who represented the school in this case may not have done a great job with presenting the kind of evidence needed to meet the standards articulated by the SCOTUS in public school cases. It most certainly does NOT say that a school may never suspend or even expel a student for online speech or online bullying attempts.

(Having not read the 60 page opinion, I am going only by the article in the OP, but I imagine that is all most posters on this thread have been going by.)

Also, lower courts seem to be divided on this issue, which makes it likely that the SCOTUS will hear this case or one like it. What the Roberts Court will do with a case like this is anyone's guess.

[tonysam]

140. See my post above about a somewhat similar case

in Nevada about online posts, school discipline, and due process rights.

[krabigirl]

145. Good! So stupid bullies have no right to shame people.

Kids have killed themselves over this. I am playing the world's tiniest violin for the poooor bullies! LMAO