ACLU Defends Girl's Vulgar MySpace Parody of Her Principal

[nevadamedic]

PHILADELPHIA — The lawyer for a Pennsylvania school district says it should be able to discipline a middle school student for posting a photo of her principal on a Web site portraying him as a pedophile.

The Blue Mountain School District in Schuylkill County argued before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that the principal's career could have been damaged.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that students enjoy free-speech rights off-campus that protect such parodies, however vulgar.

An ACLU lawyer told a three-judge panel that parents, not schools, should be monitoring the behavior of students when they're not at school.

Full Story..........................
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524737,00.html?test=latestnews

I am all in favor of freedom of speech but labeling someone as a pedophile is pushing it to far. In this atmosphere it could get someone jailed, fired, harassed, hurt and or even killed.

Not only should they be able to disclipline her, but there should be legal action taken.

[Michael]

I think the student should, and probably will, lose. I get the terms confused sometimes, but I could definately see some slander/libel issues here. Still, props to the ACLU for taking the case anyway.

[Jojo]

I think the student should, and probably will, lose. I get the terms confused sometimes, but I could definately see some slander/libel issues here. Still, props to the ACLU for taking the case anyway.

It's a cutting edge issue - what rights do minors have? Not many, really - according to courts. But how can someone say O'Reilly can target a doctor and say what he did, but restrict the right to create an immature and probably stupid parody?

[djharkavy]

I think the ACLU is right.

The girl should not be suspended for her off-site activities, unless there is an explicit contract with the school stating that she should be.

HOWEVER, the Principal should sue the pants off of the parents and is most definitely entitled to damages (and I don't think the ACLU would say a word against that...)

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

addendum: The girl should be suspended if she discussed the web site during school with anyone and that this can be documented. That crosses the line, since it is done on school grounds, or during school activities.

[Professor]

I think the ACLU is right.

The girl should not be suspended for her off-site activities, unless there is an explicit contract with the school stating that she should be.

HOWEVER, the Principal should sue the pants off of the parents and is most definitely entitled to damages (and I don't think the ACLU would say a word against that...)

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

addendum: The girl should be suspended if she discussed the web site during school with anyone and that this can be documented. That crosses the line, since it is done on school grounds, or during school activities.

Agreed. It should be protected under freedom of speech, but she did slander him, so he is entitled to damages.

[Truth_and_Power]

Agreed. It should be protected under freedom of speech, but she did slander him, so he is entitled to damages.

Doesn't he have to prove a financial impact for that?

[Michael]

Interesting tidbits:

In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals. [...]

In 1988, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, (485 U.S. 46), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody advertisement claiming Jerry Falwell had engaged in an incestuous act with his mother in an outhouse, while false, could not allow Falwell to win damages for emotional distress because the statement was so obviously ridiculous that it was clearly not true; an allegation believed by nobody, it was ruled, brought no liability upon the author. The court thus overturned a lower court's upholding of an award where the jury had decided against the claim of libel but had awarded damages for emotional distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

[brien]

I receall recently a student losing a case about free speech off campus when he held a banner proposing the consumption of marajuana on the street across from the school. The court ruled against the student and it is now heading to the SC to be ruled upon this month.

The guy in this case may have been slandered, or even libeled, I have no idea, but those are tough cases to prove.

http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22767.shtml

Student Free Speech vs. School Drug Policy
Posted by CN Staff on March 18, 2007 at 15:11:13 PT
By Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The CSM
Source: Christian Science Monitor

Washington, DC -- A dispute over a student prank near a high school in Juneau, Alaska, is raising constitutional questions about student free speech and whether school officials can be sued for damages when they take action to muzzle a teenager's attempt at humor.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case involving a student-displayed banner that proclaimed: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

At issue is whether a high school principal violated the free-speech rights of a student in 2002 when she confiscated the banner and suspended the student for 10 days after he and others unfurled the sign in front of much of the student body and local television cameras.

The principal's action was upheld by the school superintendent, the Juneau School Board, and a federal judge. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal judge, ruling that the principal could be sued personally for money damages for violating the student's clearly established free-speech rights.

To Deborah Morse, principal of Juneau- Douglas High School, the banner glorified illegal marijuana use in violation of the school's antidrug policies. "Promotion of illegal drug use and the drug culture is uniquely undeserving of First Amendment protection in the school setting," writes Kenneth Starr, former US solicitor general and a former appeals-court judge, in his brief on behalf of Ms. Morse.

The student, Joseph Frederick, and his lawyers say the principal is misconstruing the case by portraying the central issue as whether schools have the authority to prohibit pro-drug statements by students while on school grounds.

The banner was never displayed on school property during a school-sponsored activity, they say, and it did not cause any disruption to the educational process.

"This case is not about drugs. This case is about speech," says Juneau lawyer Douglas Mertz in his brief to the court on behalf of Mr. Frederick.

Ramifications for Both Sides

The case is being closely watched by school administrators and antidrug officials who are concerned that a ruling upholding the appeals court could undercut school efforts to foster a drug-free atmosphere. On the other side are free-speech advocates who worry that a Supreme Court endorsement of the principal's approach would open the door to widespread censorship of students.

"[Morse has] asked the court to enunciate a very broad rule that school officials have discretion to censor any kind of student speech that they deem contrary to the educational mission of the school," says Preeta Bansal, a New York lawyer who authored a friend-of-the-court brief for the National Coalition Against Censorship. Such discretion would be standardless and "very dangerous," she says.

In his brief, Mr. Mertz asks the justices to examine whether school administrators have the power to censor speech solely because it disagrees with the school's own preferred message.

"There is no dispute that schools have an important message to deliver regarding the perils of drug abuse," he writes. "But the First Amendment recognizes a critical distinction between delivering that message to students and imposing an enforced orthodoxy that tramples free speech."

The case revolves around an incident that took place in January 2002 when the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau on its way to Salt Lake City for the Winter Olympics. The torch was set to be carried down Glacier Avenue in front of the high school. School officials allowed students to assemble in front of the school to watch the event.

As the torch and television cameras approached, Frederick and nine other individuals standing across the street from the school unfurled the banner, which was 14 feet in length.

The banner was meant as a meaningless and humorous phrase that might attract the attention of the TV cameras covering the relay, Mertz says. It was a joke, not an advertisement urging students to use illicit drugs, the lawyer says in his brief.

But if it were just a joke, the principal wasn't laughing. She crossed the street and confronted those holding the banner. Frederick refused to take it down, saying he had a First Amendment right to display the banner since he was across the street and off school grounds. Frederick says he told the school administrator that Thomas Jefferson once said that free speech can't "be limited without being lost."

The principal confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days.

Limits Already OK'd By The Court

The Supreme Court has ruled in earlier cases that while students possess free-speech rights, those rights can be limited by school officials when students are participating in school- sponsored activities and their speech is disruptive. The question presented in Morse v. Frederick is how and when those limits may be imposed.

Mr. Starr says the case is about whether school officials have the authority to enforce a school policy against displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. He says if the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, school officials will not only be unable to enforce their rules, but they may also be sued by students for damages for trying to enforce an antidrug atmosphere.

"The Ninth Circuit has dramatically altered the legal landscape of public education law in the United States," Starr says. "The court of appeals' uncompromisingly libertarian vision is deeply unsettling to public school educators across the country."

Mertz says the case does not implicate a school board's power to enforce an antidrug message at school. His client was not on school property, and the torch relay was a citywide Olympic event, not a school event, he says.

Starr concedes that the banner was not on school property, but he says the viewing of the torch relay was a school-related activity and that school officials maintain authority over students attending school-related activities. The banner disrupted and undermined the school's antidrug mission, he says.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

[micfranklin]

I'll give the ACLU credit for fighting in this case and hopefully they will win but as for acting out as your "pedo" principal, that's getting in way over your head.

[G.B.]

She should not be kicked from the school, but she is liable for slander.

[Buck Laser]

Seems as if nevada is for free speech on his terms.

[Jojo]

She should not be kicked from the school, but she is liable for slander.

Do you have to be of legal age to commit slander? Serious - at would age would you start to press charges?

[G.B.]

Personally? I would consider anyone 14 and over to be cognizant enough to know the difference between right and wrong. You may not agree, but that is my opinion.

[Jojo]

Personally? I would consider anyone 14 and over to be cognizant enough to know the difference between right and wrong. You may not agree, but that is my opinion.

Right and wrong are different from slander and non-slander - that's a legal definition. I doubt most 14 year olds even know that much. I think slander needs intent to break the law.

Not to say I take the kids side - I taught middle school - just trying to figure out the legality.

[Lanie]

PHILADELPHIA — The lawyer for a Pennsylvania school district says it should be able to discipline a middle school student for posting a photo of her principal on a Web site portraying him as a pedophile.

The Blue Mountain School District in Schuylkill County argued before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that the principal's career could have been damaged.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that students enjoy free-speech rights off-campus that protect such parodies, however vulgar.

An ACLU lawyer told a three-judge panel that parents, not schools, should be monitoring the behavior of students when they're not at school.

Full Story..........................
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524737,00.html?test=latestnews

I am all in favor of freedom of speech but labeling someone as a pedophile is pushing it to far. In this atmosphere it could get someone jailed, fired, harassed, hurt and or even killed.

Not only should they be able to disclipline her, but there should be legal action taken.


I have to agree. ACLU needs to STFU. I do not normally care for corporal punishment, but if I was that girl's mother, she'd get it.

[Lanie]

Do you have to be of legal age to commit slander? Serious - at would age would you start to press charges?

I would think they could hold the parents responsible.

[AMcCain/Future Economist]

Is it that blackmailing as well?

If it isn't, still that girl should be suspended and put into jail.............

[Lanie]

I think the ACLU is right.

The girl should not be suspended for her off-site activities, unless there is an explicit contract with the school stating that she should be.

HOWEVER, the Principal should sue the pants off of the parents and is most definitely entitled to damages (and I don't think the ACLU would say a word against that...)

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

addendum: The girl should be suspended if she discussed the web site during school with anyone and that this can be documented. That crosses the line, since it is done on school grounds, or during school activities.

Chances are, she went on MySpace, got passed restrictions, and worked on it at school, but it won't be proven without a witness.

[Lanie]

Is it that blackmailing as well?

If it isn't, still that girl should be suspended and put into jail.............

I don't think she should be put into jail. It's not a criminal offense. I would like it if the Principal didn't have to sue. People forget that what kids sometimes need is some discipline. Sometimes serious discipline. They shouldn't be treated like an adult at the end of the day though.

[djharkavy]

I don't think she should be put into jail. It's not a criminal offense. I would like it if the Principal didn't have to sue. People forget that what kids sometimes need is some discipline. Sometimes serious discipline. They shouldn't be treated like an adult at the end of the day though.

The girl's parents are legally and financially responsible for her actions.

They are the ones who will be sued. They can then decide to discipline their child as they should have in the first place...

[nevadamedic]

I think the ACLU is right.

The girl should not be suspended for her off-site activities, unless there is an explicit contract with the school stating that she should be.

HOWEVER, the Principal should sue the pants off of the parents and is most definitely entitled to damages (and I don't think the ACLU would say a word against that...)

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

addendum: The girl should be suspended if she discussed the web site during school with anyone and that this can be documented. That crosses the line, since it is done on school grounds, or during school activities.

That doesn't make sense. You can't say it's ok with freedom of speech and then say the guy can sue her, thats a big contradiction.

[nevadamedic]

I receall recently a student losing a case about free speech off campus when he held a banner proposing the consumption of marajuana on the street across from the school. The court ruled against the student and it is now heading to the SC to be ruled upon this month.

The guy in this case may have been slandered, or even libeled, I have no idea, but those are tough cases to prove.

http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22767.shtml

Student Free Speech vs. School Drug Policy
Posted by CN Staff on March 18, 2007 at 15:11:13 PT
By Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The CSM
Source: Christian Science Monitor

Washington, DC -- A dispute over a student prank near a high school in Juneau, Alaska, is raising constitutional questions about student free speech and whether school officials can be sued for damages when they take action to muzzle a teenager's attempt at humor.
On Monday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case involving a student-displayed banner that proclaimed: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

At issue is whether a high school principal violated the free-speech rights of a student in 2002 when she confiscated the banner and suspended the student for 10 days after he and others unfurled the sign in front of much of the student body and local television cameras.

The principal's action was upheld by the school superintendent, the Juneau School Board, and a federal judge. But a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal judge, ruling that the principal could be sued personally for money damages for violating the student's clearly established free-speech rights.

To Deborah Morse, principal of Juneau- Douglas High School, the banner glorified illegal marijuana use in violation of the school's antidrug policies. "Promotion of illegal drug use and the drug culture is uniquely undeserving of First Amendment protection in the school setting," writes Kenneth Starr, former US solicitor general and a former appeals-court judge, in his brief on behalf of Ms. Morse.

The student, Joseph Frederick, and his lawyers say the principal is misconstruing the case by portraying the central issue as whether schools have the authority to prohibit pro-drug statements by students while on school grounds.

The banner was never displayed on school property during a school-sponsored activity, they say, and it did not cause any disruption to the educational process.

"This case is not about drugs. This case is about speech," says Juneau lawyer Douglas Mertz in his brief to the court on behalf of Mr. Frederick.

Ramifications for Both Sides

The case is being closely watched by school administrators and antidrug officials who are concerned that a ruling upholding the appeals court could undercut school efforts to foster a drug-free atmosphere. On the other side are free-speech advocates who worry that a Supreme Court endorsement of the principal's approach would open the door to widespread censorship of students.

"[Morse has] asked the court to enunciate a very broad rule that school officials have discretion to censor any kind of student speech that they deem contrary to the educational mission of the school," says Preeta Bansal, a New York lawyer who authored a friend-of-the-court brief for the National Coalition Against Censorship. Such discretion would be standardless and "very dangerous," she says.

In his brief, Mr. Mertz asks the justices to examine whether school administrators have the power to censor speech solely because it disagrees with the school's own preferred message.

"There is no dispute that schools have an important message to deliver regarding the perils of drug abuse," he writes. "But the First Amendment recognizes a critical distinction between delivering that message to students and imposing an enforced orthodoxy that tramples free speech."

The case revolves around an incident that took place in January 2002 when the Olympic torch relay passed through Juneau on its way to Salt Lake City for the Winter Olympics. The torch was set to be carried down Glacier Avenue in front of the high school. School officials allowed students to assemble in front of the school to watch the event.

As the torch and television cameras approached, Frederick and nine other individuals standing across the street from the school unfurled the banner, which was 14 feet in length.

The banner was meant as a meaningless and humorous phrase that might attract the attention of the TV cameras covering the relay, Mertz says. It was a joke, not an advertisement urging students to use illicit drugs, the lawyer says in his brief.

But if it were just a joke, the principal wasn't laughing. She crossed the street and confronted those holding the banner. Frederick refused to take it down, saying he had a First Amendment right to display the banner since he was across the street and off school grounds. Frederick says he told the school administrator that Thomas Jefferson once said that free speech can't "be limited without being lost."

The principal confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick from school for 10 days.

Limits Already OK'd By The Court

The Supreme Court has ruled in earlier cases that while students possess free-speech rights, those rights can be limited by school officials when students are participating in school- sponsored activities and their speech is disruptive. The question presented in Morse v. Frederick is how and when those limits may be imposed.

Mr. Starr says the case is about whether school officials have the authority to enforce a school policy against displaying messages that promote illegal drug use. He says if the Ninth Circuit ruling stands, school officials will not only be unable to enforce their rules, but they may also be sued by students for damages for trying to enforce an antidrug atmosphere.

"The Ninth Circuit has dramatically altered the legal landscape of public education law in the United States," Starr says. "The court of appeals' uncompromisingly libertarian vision is deeply unsettling to public school educators across the country."

Mertz says the case does not implicate a school board's power to enforce an antidrug message at school. His client was not on school property, and the torch relay was a citywide Olympic event, not a school event, he says.

Starr concedes that the banner was not on school property, but he says the viewing of the torch relay was a school-related activity and that school officials maintain authority over students attending school-related activities. The banner disrupted and undermined the school's antidrug mission, he says.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

How is it hard to prove. She created a Myspace page making the guy look like a pedophile, it's a slam dunk case.

[nevadamedic]

Seems as if nevada is for free speech on his terms.

No, falsely labeling someone as a pedophile can destroy someone's life, but nice way to make a personal attack and try to take a cheap shot.

[nevadamedic]

Personally? I would consider anyone 14 and over to be cognizant enough to know the difference between right and wrong. You may not agree, but that is my opinion.

I say between ages from 10-12.

[nevadamedic]

Is it that blackmailing as well?

If it isn't, still that girl should be suspended and put into jail.............

How is it blackmail?

[djharkavy]

That doesn't make sense. You can't say it's ok with freedom of speech and then say the guy can sue her, thats a big contradiction.

Incorrect.

Speech is free. The government cannot tell you what to say or what not to say, barring the inevitable conflict with safety/security.

BUT you are responsible for what you say. If you say something that is defamatory and you know it to be untrue then you are responsible for the consquences of your speech, and that includes damages for libel.

[DUreject]

Incorrect.

Speech is free. The government cannot tell you what to say or what not to say, barring the inevitable conflict with safety/security.

BUT you are responsible for what you say. If you say something that is defamatory and you know it to be untrue then you are responsible for the consquences of your speech, and that includes damages for libel.

Dan, you anorexic hobo....

[djharkavy]

Dan, you anorexic hobo....

Lawsuit!!!

[brien]

How is it hard to prove. She created a Myspace page making the guy look like a pedophile, it's a slam dunk case.

Then it is up for a jury to decide guilt or innocence. You may think it is "slam dunk" but as Yogi said: "It ain't over till it's over".

[Jojo]

I would think they could hold the parents responsible.

That makes sense - though given the way kids can run rings around adults with computers.....not sure I wouldn't find myself charged someday.:dork:

[Jojo]

I say between ages from 10-12.

Right and wrong - agreed.

Slander and not slander - I doubt it.