More

Avery Doninger Free Speech Update: Online, Off-Campus Comments Punishable, Court Says

Free Speech

LARRY NEUMEISTER   04/25/11 04:14 PM ET   AP

NEW YORK — Connecticut school officials cannot be held liable for their decision to discipline a student for an Internet posting she wrote off school grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Monday as it defended the leeway given school administrators who act reasonably when confronted with dilemmas that test the boundaries of what is Constitutionally protected.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan sided with Burlington, Conn., school officials after they punished Avery Doninger by preventing her from serving as class secretary as a senior.

Doninger sued the administrators at Lewis B. Mills High School, saying her free speech and equal protection rights were violated after she distributed the 2007 posting criticizing administrators for canceling a popular school activity. A lower judge had twice ruled school officials were entitled to immunity.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit agreed.

"To be clear, we do not conclude in any way that school administrators are immune from First Amendment scrutiny when they react to student speech by limiting students' participation in extracurricular activities," the court wrote.

But the panel said it was "objectively reasonable" for school officials to conclude that Doninger's behavior was potentially disruptive of student government functions and that she was not free to engage in such behavior without repercussions while serving as a class representative. She was junior class secretary at the time

Her lawyer, Jon Schoenhorn, called the ruling "very disappointing" and said he expected to appeal after speaking with his client, now a student at Eastern Connecticut State University.

He said the decision represented a "landslide erosion" of First Amendment rights for students and seemed to go farther than other student-related rulings.

In a 2009 decision, U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz in Burlington, Conn., had noted that the speed with which students can communicate to hundreds of classmates at a time through the Internet had changed the dynamics of school communications since 1979, when a landmark student speech case set boundaries for schools regulating off-campus speech.

"Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse," Kravitz wrote at the time. Qualified immunity, which Kravitz and the 2nd Circuit relied upon, shields public officials from lawsuits for damages unless they violate clearly established rights that a reasonable official would have known.

The appeals court did overturn Kravitz's decision to let to proceed to trial Doninger's claim that her right to free speech was "chilled" when an administrator prohibited students from wearing T-shirts that read "Team Avery" to a student council assembly.

The 2nd Circuit said it agreed that a jury could find that the school administrators were mistaken in assessing the likely impact of the T-shirts and the permissibility of prohibiting them, but added that such a mistake was reasonable.

It added that school officials deserve a degree of latitude.

"The law governing restrictions on student speech can be difficult and confusing, even for lawyers, law professors and judges. The relevant Supreme Court cases can be hard to reconcile, and courts often struggle to determine which standard applies in any particular case.

Thomas Gerarde, attorney for Regional School District 10, said he was pleased that the administrators were vindicated.

"The message from the court is clear and consistent," he said. "The message is that it will support the actions of school leaders when dealing with conduct that disrupts the educational process whether that conduct occurs on-campus or off-campus."

The case was brought after Doninger in 2007 wrote in her blog after the school canceled a popular event she helped plan. The event was later rescheduled.

Administrators prohibited Doninger from seeking re-election as class secretary, but she refused to withdraw her candidacy and won as a write-in candidate. The school then barred her from serving.

Doninger, who graduated in 2008, did not immediately respond to a message sent to her for comment.

___

Associated Press Writer Pat Eaton-Robb in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST EDUCATION

NEW YORK — Connecticut school officials cannot be held liable for their decision to discipline a student for an Internet posting she wrote off school grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Monda...
NEW YORK — Connecticut school officials cannot be held liable for their decision to discipline a student for an Internet posting she wrote off school grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Monda...
Filed by Victoria Fine  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 75
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
scottmcleod
www.scottmcleod.net/bio
07:27 AM on 04/27/2011
The federal courts have long said that students are allowed to have opinions, particularly when they express them off-campus on their own time. Doninger's speech was off-campus and wasn't even that off-color (let's be honest, here: calling someone a "douchebag" isn't exactly a hanging offense). But an administrator's nose got bent out of shape that a student actually dared criticize how things were done so the student got punished.

In the landmark student speech case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court said "state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views."

It's awfully hard to reconcile those words with either this lower court's ruling or this school district's behavior. And it's also difficult to stomach the result given much more vulgar off-campus student speech that's been upheld as Constitutionally-protected (e.g., Killion v. Franklin).
09:56 AM on 04/27/2011
Fanned and Faved. Great points.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
08:06 AM on 04/29/2011
So how do we balance this with the fact that courts have said that schools are liable if they do not take action against bullying that happens as part of off-campus speech? So schools are required to monitor one issue that happens on Facebook but not another (in this case, open and blatent insubordination).

My point is that we can't have it both ways. If you grant the schools the power to take action with students for violating one part of the code of conduct, you have to grant them the power to take action with them for any violation of the code of conduct.

And anyway, the school could just say this girl was bullying the people who made the decision.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
scottmcleod
www.scottmcleod.net/bio
12:23 PM on 04/29/2011
The courts have been pretty clear that schools can intervene in students' off-campus speech and behavior ONLY if it has a 'material and substantial disruption' on the operations of the school. And that 'material and substantial disruption' line - at least before this Doninger case - has been a pretty high hurdle for schools to clear. Otherwise schools would have unlimited power to reach far beyond the school environment into the home (most of us would push back on schools' overreaching, as is appropriate). For off-campus behavior that doesn't sufficiently reach into the school environment, there are private legal remedies or other ways to handle the situation beyond formal school discipline.

So read your state's law. It should say something to this effect, either explicitly or as applied by your state's courts. In other words, the requirement of 'material and substantial disruption' on the school environment likely is built into your state's law. If not, it's got a fair chance of being declared illegal. Kids have still rights as private citizens to have opinions...
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
scottmcleod
www.scottmcleod.net/bio
12:29 PM on 04/29/2011
One more thought... Bullying is usually considered as an act that's done by one with more power toward one with less power. The power disparity is as important as the hurtfulness of the behavior.

I think it's difficult to make the case to make that a child somehow has enough power to bully a school official. If calling an adult educator a name like 'douche bag' constitutes 'bullying,' then nearly every teacher and principal in the country gets 'bullied' far worse than this every day.
04:24 PM on 04/26/2011
Yes-yes, by all means. Please let us trample on the 1st Amendment just a bit more. That old rag the Constitution is not quite threadbare enough.

Because now expressing your opinion that a school official is a bag of vinegar/water solution on Facebook will get you tossed from student government. This is worse than courts holding public schools responsible for bullying that takes place outside of school, and school-related forums.
04:03 PM on 04/26/2011
Ok, let's all agree that she should have couched her criticism in more appropriate terms. What is really at stake here is the impact of the court's decision. If school officials are allowed to punish students for what they consider inappropriate/undesirable speech and we make that retaliation legally acceptable, a precedence is set for self-censorship when interacting with an arm of the government. Our people are already apathetic enough, why take away a venue for expression and organizing from a group we should be encouraged to see use it?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pembrokelib
10:55 AM on 04/26/2011
It is impossible to judge this without seeing the actual posting. It could have been malicious, vulgar or whatever. Why was it not given?
01:10 PM on 04/26/2011
Because it won't jive with the outrage HP is trying to create. The kid was vulgar by the way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pembrokelib
01:44 PM on 04/26/2011
Where did you find it? Curious as I'd like to take a look.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
09:33 AM on 04/26/2011
School administrators worrying about off campus communication is one reason the school systems suck.
If these guys have enough time to monitor students off campus communication, than they have too much extra time, and should be put into a lower paying part time role.
Or just fired.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nighthawk1982
11:05 AM on 04/26/2011
I think it is too broad to say that our school system suck. Also how do know that one of the students or a parent didn't advise the school of what she wrote?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:31 AM on 04/26/2011
Maybe you missed that schools can be legally sued for what students write off-campus, even if the school staff have no knowledge of those written comments. If you could be sued for what you didn't know, and held responsible for what others have written, how diligent would you be to monitor communication to avoid potential lawsuits? Learn the facts before you criticize.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:47 PM on 04/25/2011
Here is some more about it:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff

Considering the language she used, I think the school was justified. With comments like that, she should not be a representative of the school. Maybe she'll learn not to do things like this in the future when it could really be a problem--such as when she has a job and can get fired for saying similar things about her boss.
06:37 AM on 04/26/2011
That's my view. She was disrespectful and didn't like her punishment.
10:29 AM on 04/26/2011
You are absolutely right. Why stop there? I think that anyone who speaks out against the government should be fined and jailed.
01:11 PM on 04/26/2011
Wow. Anarchist we have here, it seems.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:39 PM on 04/25/2011
Since schools can be sued for off-campus remarks made by a student--even if they have no knowledge of it--they should have wide latitude in consequences for students who post comments on any site.

http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/insights_on_education/151554.html

If you take away the ability of schools to impose consequences, then there will be only accountability with no recourse. That would be ridiculously unfair.
05:10 PM on 04/25/2011
" THIS USED TO BE A HELL OF A GOOD COUNTRY, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GONE WRONG WITH IT. AMERICANS TALK A LOT ABOUT THE VALUE OF FREEDOM BUT ARE ACTUALLY AFRAID OF ANYONE WHO TRULY EXHIBITS IT" ABRAHAM LINCOLN
04:05 PM on 04/25/2011
Sorry, HP but your article is totally unclear. The lower court said the administrators had immunity. Doesn't mean they were right, just that they couldn't be sued. It sounds like you're saying the appellate court was saying, on the merits, that she could be published for off-campus negative comments. Did the appeallate court actually say that, or simply affirm the lower court's ruling that the school officials were immune from suit?
photo
blitznstitch
BAZINGA!!!
03:11 PM on 04/25/2011
Ah the limits of free speech. I do not know what the post was, but it was probably disrespectful. Even though, I think removing her from a post is silly. It is high school, who cares.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CarryOn
no matter where you go, there you are
04:41 PM on 04/25/2011
hmmm..does this mean we could have removed Dick Cheney from office when he told Patrick Leahy to go f... himself from his seat as VP ?
06:39 AM on 04/26/2011
High school is full of kids who aren't legally adults, so the free speech thing doesn't always fly with me. The kid learned that there are consequence for what you say and write. It's too bad her mother didn't feel it was fair for her to learn that lesson.
10:35 AM on 04/26/2011
You're right kids never grow to be adults. Why prepare them to exercise and defend their rights? What's the worst that could happen? It's not like the government could be stolen from us right under our noses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Venicelady
Ignorance is NOT bliss.
03:07 PM on 04/25/2011
The student posted a criticism of the school administrators on her own FB page for canceling a school activity, according to the article.

Did she make any off color remarks, denigrate any of the school officials?

Does this mean that students of a school CANNOT ever criticize the policies of the schools they attend, on their OWN FB pages, becasue they will be censured in some way?

Think of what this implies for the future of so called free speech. Big Brother, apparently, is HERE and alive and thriving......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
06:44 PM on 04/25/2011
Define "their own FB page"-according to Facebook, it belongs to them, not the person.

Communication has changed. Laws need to evolve. The judges upheld the spirit of the law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Venicelady
Ignorance is NOT bliss.
07:42 PM on 04/25/2011
Seems the "spirit of the law" gave up the ghost here.

Yes, you're right- the law does need to evolve regarding social media. Until then, all I can say- people should NOT post any personal opinions or detail their lives on FB.

Why risk going through what this girl and countless others have, since we really DON'T have freedom of speech in this country?
06:40 AM on 04/26/2011
Yes, she said derogatory things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
09:37 AM on 04/26/2011
So what?
photo
FoxReincarnated
Red Ninja Warrior
02:30 PM on 04/25/2011
What the heck is the fed court of NY doing with a CT case? THis isnt their jurisdiction
photo
blitznstitch
BAZINGA!!!
03:12 PM on 04/25/2011
appeals level...this case is in federal court
photo
fredvh
Just a small town Iowa guy
02:06 PM on 04/25/2011
after the Morse v Frederick case, there is no such thing as free speech for students, on or off campus.

it's sad. what is the next step? schools stopping kids from joining groups outside of school?
if a dance class is offered by a private instructor and the school doesn't like it, can they now penalize the student for participating even though it's off campus?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
06:45 PM on 04/25/2011
Students are not full-fledged citizens. They do not have the right to vote, peaceably assemble (if it is during school hours) or have freedom of association (again, if it is during school hours.) If something happens outside of school that has an impact inside of school, the school gets jurisdiction. That's just how it is with minors.
photo
fredvh
Just a small town Iowa guy
11:42 PM on 04/25/2011
so it only matters during school hours?
was this case during school hours?

in Morse v Frederick it wasn't during school hours. the kids were released from class, they weren't required to attend. it was off school grounds after the kids were released.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
09:38 AM on 04/26/2011
Sorry, but by your logic the government could also violate a minor's protections against cruel and unusual punishment or right to privacy.
01:48 PM on 04/25/2011
If I remember this case correctly, she wasn't politely criticizing. She was saying some pretty nasty ****. I don't like this either, but since schools are now responsible for FB bullying that doesn't take place on campus,why shouldn't they be able to punish this girl?
photo
lcr999
scientist
04:36 PM on 04/25/2011
Bullying is a crime. Talking about policies is not a crime. Courts are there to punish; schools are to educate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
06:46 PM on 04/25/2011
So, the school is responsible for a response when it comes to bulling but not when the student is openly insubordinate?
01:36 PM on 04/25/2011
Completely and utterly outrageous. If she didn't say anything threatening, and she did so off campus on her free time, this is a clear violation of her Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

This a constant tension we have in our country. Freedoms are free when they're easy and convenient. There is pressure to throw them out the window when they become difficult.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric Mann
Do you want to be on the opposite side of Progress
06:47 PM on 04/25/2011
She was openly insubordinate. If this had happened in school it would not have even been an issue. However, if schools are responsible for responses to bullying in this same venue, how are they not responsible for responses for other disciplinary infractions?
06:56 PM on 04/25/2011
By the logic of this ruling, she could have been disciplined for calling a fellow student at the school and lodging a complaint against school administrators. She has a right to her opinions and she has a right to express them. If the school administrators at a high school are too thin skinned to endure the predictable criticisms that come from teenagers, they should seek employment elsewhere. Barring students from expressing opinions in the privacy of their own homes is chilling.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pembrokelib
11:02 AM on 04/26/2011
There is no way to tell whether or not this is outrageous since we have no idea what the girl said. Incomplete and stupid article.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cryingliberty
You think Michigan's blue? You don't live here.
04:45 AM on 04/27/2011
This link shows some of the language.

http://www­.citmedial­aw.org/thr­eats/donin­ger-v-nieh­off

Even so, her namecalling is pretty weak. It's fairly clear she was venting, and that unless it actually led to honest harassment of school officials, no real harm was done to the school.