A friend sent this to me, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out how it can be legal. Or constitutional.
Internet Free Speech Ruling Favors Burlington School Administrators
In a key ruling on Internet free speech, a federal judge has found that school officials were within their rights when they disciplined a Burlington high school student over an insulting blog post she wrote off school grounds.
Avery Doninger’s case has drawn national attention and raised questions about how far schools’ power to regulate student speech extends in the Internet age.
But in a ruling on several motions for summary judgment Thursday, U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz rejected Doninger’s claims that administrators at Lewis S. Mills High School violated her rights to free speech and equal protection and intentionally inflicted emotional distress when they barred her from serving as class secretary because of an Internet post she wrote at home.
Does he think they didn’t harm her? Or that the school didn’t violate her rights? Read on.
Kravitz’s ruling relied in part on the ambiguity over whether schools can regulate students’ expression on the Internet. He noted that times have changed significantly since 1979, when a landmark student speech case set boundaries for schools regulating off-campus speech.
Now, he wrote, students can send e-mails to hundreds of classmates at a time or post livejournal.com entries that can be read instantly by students, teachers and administrators.
“Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse,” Kravitz wrote.
Kravitz cited previous rulings and held that school administrators were entitled to qualified immunity, which shields public officials from lawsuits for damages unless they violate clearly established rights a reasonable official would have known.
Kravitz reasoned that because the nature of student speech rights on the Internet is still evolving, the officials could not reasonably be expected “to predict where the line between on- and off-campus speech will be drawn in this new digital era.”
Can someone please read this to the judge? (It’s from the Supreme Court!) I don’t know if he’s literate!
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.
February 6, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Wow, odd …
Maybe there is some kind of student ‘honor code’ in the school charter or something that requires all students at all times to act in proper and upright (whatever) ways in school and out.
I’m not defending this, just picking my brain on how in the world such a ruling could come about.
But how did they find out? Is the school scanning all there student names with an internet search engine everyday looking for any dirt? They might. In the news I hear stories every once in awhile that students are busted for threats over the internet — maybe other students are reporting them, or maybe a computer search engine is finding them … the second possibility is pretty scary
February 6, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Yeah David. I hope my school doesn’t read MY blog!
February 7, 2009 at 5:42 am
David, three weeks after the event was resolved the superintendent had her 36 year old son trolling the Internet about another student issue and he stumbled on this blog. Everything had blown over when they punished Avery. There is only definitive evidence that 3 people read the blog before the superintendent’s son. Ridiculous.
February 7, 2009 at 6:06 am
Student Was Punished
For Seeking Redresss Of Grievances
After Postponements, Cancellation
Of Popular Music Festival
DON’T FORGET ABOUT THE TRIAL
In U.S. District Court, New Haven,
For Suppression & Seizure Of Free Speech T-Shirts
GO GET ‘EM, GARY!
http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/go-get-em-gary.html
February 8, 2009 at 8:29 pm
That’s totally ridiculous. It’s not as if the student was threatening anyone; she was just saying how stupid she thought the whole thing was!
February 8, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruling you quote is old (from 1969, I think–ancient in legal terms) and the forcefulness of that wording has been eroded somewhat by its later decisions.
The bottom line: students may not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, but their rights are subject to some constraints. (Can’t remember the exact standard. Probably one based on “reasonableness” or something like that.)
Having said that, a school’s ability to regulate off-campus behavior is still a subject of great controversy. The Internet’s reach has made the question even thornier.
February 9, 2009 at 6:05 am
that is unbelievable…
February 12, 2009 at 1:11 am
Not quite. The only excuse I can think of for this – and I haven’t even looked up the article – is that she ‘publicly’ made statements which they thought the result of suspect logic. What I’m getting at is that they may have thought her unreliable as a result of their opinion of her opinions.
Teachers have to put up with that sort of censorship and second-guessing all the time. Looks like things have come full circle.
Which is not to say I approve..
January 8, 2010 at 12:06 pm
its total bull crap, if every school did this and looked up every kids blogs, facebook, myspace, or any other thing like that almost 9/10 of every student in the nation would be in detention, suspension, or whatever type of punishment they do. it is a very clear violation of freedom of speech