iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Online Student Speech Appeals Rejected By Supreme Court

Cyber Bullying

By MARYCLAIRE DALE   01/17/12 04:00 PM ET  AP

PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Supreme Court has passed up a set of cases for the online age – whether schools may censor students who are off-campus when they create online attacks against school officials and other students.

The court let stand the suspension of a West Virginia high school's "Queen of Charm," who created a Web page that suggested another student had a sexually transmitted disease, and invited classmates to comment.

The court also left alone rulings that said schools could not discipline two Pennsylvania students for MySpace parodies of their principals that the students created at home. An appeals court, following 40-year-old case law on student speech, said the posts did not create substantial disruptions at school.

Lawyers on both sides were disappointed that it will be at least another year before the high court wades into the issue. Federal judges have issued a broad range of opinions on the subject.

"We've missed an opportunity to really clarify for school districts what their responsibility and authority is," said Francisco Negron, general counsel of the National School Boards Association. "This is one of those cases where the law is simply lagging behind the times."

The American Civil Liberties Union expects the Supreme Court to examine the question "sooner rather than later," according to Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. Still, he is relieved the Pennsylvania students represented by the ACLU have been exonerated after their long legal fights.

"When kids go to school, the parents give up control. But once the kids leave the school, the parents again are the primary custodians, and have decision-making authority over those kids," Walczak said.

With the cases settled, Justin Layshock of western Pennsylvania will receive $10,000 in damages plus legal fees, while an eastern Pennsylvania girl, identified only as "J.S.," can pursue damages and legal costs.

Layshock in 2005 created a parody that said his principal smoked marijuana and kept beer behind his desk. The Hermitage School District said it substantially disrupted school operations. Layshock was suspended, but the suspension was overturned by a district judge and upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

In the other Pennsylvania case, an eighth-grader in the Blue Mountain School District used her principal's photograph in a fake profile, described him as a pedophile and mentioned a sex act. The girl was suspended for 10 days.

"Though disturbing, the record indicates that the profile was so outrageous that no one took its content seriously," a 3rd Circuit majority wrote last year. But the court was divided 8-6.

Such disparities are common around the country as school districts wrestle with how to address online pranks, threats or cyberbullying.

In the West Virginia case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond unanimously refused to reinstate Kara Kowalski's lawsuit against school officials in Berkeley County. She claimed her five-day suspension from Musselman High School in 2005 violated her free speech and due process rights.

A new statewide anti-bullying policy that goes into effect July 1 extends rules about student conduct beyond the school yard, holding students accountable for "vulgar or offensive speech" online if it disrupts school.

Although sexual orientation was not an issue in the legal case, the West Virginia Board of Education policy specifically noted that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students are often bullied. That sparked opposition to the policy from certain groups.

Kevin McCoy, president of the West Virginia Family Foundation, said Tuesday the high court's ruling is a setback but not a blockade to those who oppose the policy. The group says the policy intrudes on the private lives of children.

"Does this make it a little more difficult for us? A little," McCoy said. "But it definitely does not close the door to any future challenge."

___

Mark Sherman in Washington and Vicki Smith in Morgantown, W.Va., contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST EDUCATION

PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Supreme Court has passed up a set of cases for the online age – whether schools may censor students who are off-campus when they create online attacks against school off...
PHILADELPHIA -- The U.S. Supreme Court has passed up a set of cases for the online age – whether schools may censor students who are off-campus when they create online attacks against school off...
Filed by Emmeline Zhao  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 185
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
01:39 AM on 01/23/2012
Not to be overly pragmatic about it, but if the nasties that juveniles do are transplanted to the web rather than showing up as graffiti that defaces public spaces and actually reaches a broader local audience than web pages frequented only by peer groups do, I'm not going to be overly disappointed.

Can't have a perfect world...you can only try to confine the damage to ever smaller areas.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TiredOfNo
So far left of the Republicans I'm almost moderate
01:16 AM on 01/23/2012
He!! No!!! It's not the schools place to police students outside the school jurisdiction. What about the day after the student graduates.........who's going to police them then? This is taking intrusion in to our private lives too far.
11:27 PM on 01/18/2012
sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me! this still applies
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
galvestonguy68
03:32 PM on 01/18/2012
If the principal is still concerned about the student's actions for parodying them then sue for defamation or slander. It should be an open and shut case. Perhaps it is time to create criminal defamation/slander laws.

At the time our country was founded it was common place to challenge someone to a dual if they said something disparaging about you. Needless to say discourse was much more civil. The model was basically you can say anything you want but I can shoot you for saying something about me.

Free speech is great but false speech should not be free. They must be repercussions or free speech becomes overrun with slander.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TiredOfNo
So far left of the Republicans I'm almost moderate
01:24 AM on 01/23/2012
No we don't need "criminal" defamation/slander laws. It is not the state/public that is being harmed, it is the individual. This belongs in civil court.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
12:02 PM on 01/18/2012
Look at the public comments and behavior of the conservatives, the GOP and Tea, and you'll see who is causing the degradation of our society.

The kids are just fitting in to the perceived group standards.

We should have legal recourse when someone, anyone smears us, politician, student, anyone. With kids we have different punishments, but we don't need different laws.
photo
Ossit
Ossit
11:18 AM on 01/18/2012
Wow this is amazing. It's a shame that here, when people bully others with swearing, name calling, it's allowed. I guess they weren't taught as kids not to do that using the same internet that makes you invisible. Let's face facts. Online it's easy for adults and kids to bully. Say it in real life you'll get sucker punched, see a kid bullied in real life, what do you hear? "Well those kids need to toughen up" as if it's acceptable.

We're mad about online bullying? Well I'm mad when parents want corporal punishment brought back into schools. I'm mad where parents think spanking and verbal abuse of their kids is just fine and dandy. I'm mad when parents don't teach their kids to defend others being bullied, cyber or otherwise. We still blame kids for their behavior, not where they learn it from which is adults be it profanity, bullying online/off.
08:14 AM on 01/18/2012
A student can create a Facebook page and "pretent" a principal is a pervert, but when a teacher blogs about how really stupid the students are (without naming names), the teacher can be fired. Why is lying not a punishable offense, but telling the truth is?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
XV8 Crisis Suit
06:35 AM on 01/18/2012
So, I am guessing the courts and everyone defending the students would be a-okay with the Principal, in turn, making a fake profile for the student that parodied him, parodying that student?
11:22 PM on 01/18/2012
sounds fine and entertaining
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TiredOfNo
So far left of the Republicans I'm almost moderate
01:29 AM on 01/23/2012
Okay, if he does it on his own time and not at school. He is liable, nevertheless; and if it were my child, I'd sue.
Don't these people know what anonymous means...................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
XV8 Crisis Suit
10:25 AM on 01/23/2012
So it's okay if the kid parodies him but not if he parodies them kid? Sounds like a double-standard to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ariel Bonzai
Naked is the best disguise.
06:19 AM on 01/18/2012
The mockery of principals is kind of common, and it has been for as long as kids have been attending schools. What I find interesting is there are several recent cases where teachers were mocked in similar ways and it was simply dismissed, as lawyers sited the first amendment. This is fine by me as long as principals and other adults abide the same ruling. There's an escalating contempt for teachers in this country tat has people behaving as if we are some sort of lower caste servent class prone to outrageous, amoral misdeeds like copulating with 12 year olds. Yes, it happens, but not nearly as often as the media reports it. Principals need to suck it up and take their licks too. I'd hardly call any of it bullying. Now when kids are tormenting kids, that's another matter. If its not the school's job to intercede ( and it really isn't when the kids are not in school) then law enforcement has to define the transgression, make sure the laws are clear and enforce them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Debbie Nap
02:10 AM on 01/18/2012
No wonder so many kids are being home schooled anymore..
04:01 PM on 01/23/2012
It's a pretty small minority of students. It's not like there's been a huge explosion of it and 20% of kids are home schooled now, or something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
globaltrekkie
We are all bacon grease....
01:53 AM on 01/18/2012
So in other words the supremem court is telling the ACLU and states and school districts to handle each case individually without federal involvement.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Warhammer Jones
12:46 AM on 01/18/2012
I say fine, if students don't want to be suspended for on-line attacks, then just let the school officials sue their parents for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The legal bills for parents alone should be an effective way for parents to start parenting and prevent this sort of thing.
04:03 PM on 01/23/2012
Agreed. I posted the same thing earlier on in the thread and had some fools reply who clearly don't understand that laws protecting parody don't apply to private citizens. That's called defamation, and you don't get a free pass just because you say "just kidding" at the end.
10:09 PM on 01/17/2012
""We've missed an opportunity to really clarify for school districts what their responsibility and authority is," said Francisco Negron, general counsel of the National School Boards Association. "This is one of those cases where the law is simply lagging behind the times."

This is one of those cases that screamed for the Court to rein in people like Negron and the group he represents. Overstepping the boundaries into an arena that should be the sole purview of parents seems to be all too common today by people who are certain that they know better than we about how to raise our children. Remember when Michelle Obama declared "we can't just leave it up the parents" when it comes to monitoring what children eat when Dear Leader signed the child nutrition bill into law? Now these people want to be able to dictate what our children can say or do when they aren't even at school. At some point, we must act to stop others for encroaching on parental obligations. Perhaps this does clarify *exactly* what a school district's responsibilities and authority is...and what they are not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DocRockk
10:49 PM on 01/17/2012
What parts of the Child Nutrition bill were you opposed to specifically and why?
Which parts "didctate" anything to anyone? i'd like to know specifics, like actual parts of the bill which say what you claim they say.

I am not familiar with any provisions in the bill which "dictate"

Maybe Mrs Obama doesnt want to "leave it up to the parents" because she understands that "the parents" aren't the only ones feeding these kids.

And frankly there are some bad parents who dont care what their kids are eating. I am glad someone is looking out for those kids. Clearly you aren't.
11:54 PM on 01/17/2012
Perhaps I wasn't clear; I apologize if I phrased my comment in a confusing way. My objection in that post was not about the bill but at the idea that Michelle Obama unilaterally seemed to determine that leaving decision-making in the hands of parents is an unacceptable situation. And I will respectfully call shenanigans on your excuse that she knows it's not just parents feeding the kids. If she meant to include others, I suspect she would've named them; she's not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to overstepping boundaries. It really doesn't matter a whit whether MO doesn't want to leave it up to parents -- she's not required to like it. She *is* obligated to stay out of it, as difficult as that is for her. A parent who doesn't care what their kids are eating is still a parent, and unless their kids' diet includes dirt sandwiches or poison, Michelle will just have to suck it up and try to understand that she's not responsible for parenting other people's children. You're right -- I'm not "looking out for" other people's children, at least as it pertains to monitoring what they eat. That simply is not my right, something MO seems not to understand.
09:05 PM on 01/17/2012
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion about a school official. However, it crosses a line to create a fake identity to defame him/her. I believe we have libel laws for this kind of thing.
photo
tazmodious
Left Hand of Darkness
09:31 PM on 01/17/2012
That is why I think it is strange and very disconcerting as a teacher that the judge, in the PA case, ruled in favor of the student. The student definately crossed the line and the case should be appealed.
10:10 PM on 01/17/2012
What were the actual damages that would justify filing charges of libel against these students?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
XV8 Crisis Suit
06:25 AM on 01/18/2012
Depends on the state. There's a term called "defamation per se," where the claims themselves are considered to be damaging in an of themselves.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:58 PM on 01/17/2012
We need an across the country ruling on this, not okay for this and not for that. Students who do something outside of school, when it affects the school, should be subject to discipline by the school. It can't be both ways. It can't be the school is liable for any kind of harrassment done outside of school but can't impose any consequences for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/school-bullying-liability_n_836897.html

Too many parents are MIA in teaching their child right from wrong--and many make excuses for what their child does wrong--and if it is bullying against anyone the school should be able to act on it. Bullying/harrassing an adult is just as wrong as doing it to a child.

Parents should not give up control when their children go to school. Those people are still their children. If children do something wrong outside of school, their parents are responsible. If they do something wrong inside of school, a call to the parents should suffice in stopping the behavior but often doesnt. That is why schools need more authority--such as suspending the child until the parent can ensure the school the behavior won't repeat. And, if it does, the parent can go to school with the child to control the child's behavior--and that goes for any student in school, no matter what age.
10:13 PM on 01/17/2012
"Students who do something outside of school, when it affects the school, should be subject to discipline by the school."

My children had parents while they were growing up. If we had died, the school district would have been welcome to apply for the job. Since we did not, however, my kids' actions outside of the school day were my responsibility to deal with. Schools don't need *more* authority. Some of them don't do very well with what they have now.
02:02 AM on 01/18/2012
Your argument would be a good one, except for one thing. Some parents "don't do very well with what they have now". Especially, when children are able to libel an adult with the parent's tacit approval.