Another school that thinks it owns its students
I agree with the ACLU on this one. What a kid does in her own time in her own home is no business of her school. If they think she has defamed them, they can take her to court, just as they could if anybody whatsoever had defamed them.
"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.
Source
12 comments:
Color me left wing loonie, but I'm with the ACLU on this one. If a kid commits libel or slander off school grounds, Civil Court is the way to deal with it, not the school system.
It's pretty clear the principle has a very good case here, assuming the allegation is untrue. It's also clear that far too many schools are starting to think they are law-making entities with the power to ignor the Constitution. They are not!
Accusing someone of being a pedophile is nowadays almost a death sentence.
The target finds himself the target of "pedohunters" who seek to drive them out of their homes, jobs, lives, and on more than one occasion have assorted to murder.
IMO anyone falsely accusing a person of something this serious should be and punished herself as if she were the accused and had been found guilty.
In this case that would probably mean several years in the slammer, forced psychiatric treatment, and lifelong placement on a sex offenders' registry.
Let them experience what they wanted others to go through.
That however is a duty of criminal law, not a school principle.
The school should have reported the girl to the police so that criminal charges could be filed rather than take matters into their own hands.
I agree with the last Anonymous commenter. A person can be criminally prosecuted for portraying someone as anything that is not factual. I'm sure the student didn't have anything around the portrayal stating it was her opinion, & not based on any facts. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that free speech has its limits, & doesn't entitle people to say or print just anything.
The other point Anonymous made about being accused of being a pedophile: that's exactly right. That is the one thing where a person is presumed guilty, & they are in a position of having to prove their innocence, which doesn't happen in the public's eyes. People view such allegations as true, because after all, if it wasn't true, why would a child say it?
This isn't an issue of a school thinking it owns its students. This has & will continue to have an impact on the principal's personal life more than anything. Since it's made the news, people will always have a question in their mind.
Dirk
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT II
http://tsalagiman2.blogspot.com/
I don't disagree.
However, if the Principle reported it to the cops he would have been the subject of the investigation first. The pedophile statement would have been considered a true statement by the cops. After maybe four to six months, then the police would have turned their focus off of the principle and onto the student for a false allegation. The whole time the cops and the school would not be allowed to publicly mention the name of the student (even the principle, state and federal laws regarding educators)because of the child's age, thus further protecting the accuser.
The kid is really trying to manipulate the system, and the kid will get away with it too. While the principle gets the kiss of death to his career over the accusation.
I find it interesting that all the
comments seem to be defending a
principle, not the principal. There is a difference, you know.
The principal is the victim, to make an accusation like that with no proof is horrendous.
Boot camp is what that little bastard needs.
There are several precedents here that deal with the student's speech.
The first and one the court relied upon, is Tinker v. Des Moines which says that the school can limit the speech and discipline a student whose words are likely to cause an unwarranted disruption in the learning environment.
Clearly accusing one's proncipal of being a pedophile would cause such a disruption.
The second case is Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser in which the SCOTUS said that a school may limit the speech of a student and discipline the student if the speech was "lewd and vulgar" as such speech would be inconsistant with "fundamental values of public school education."
The student in this case accused the principal on their Facebook page of being a"sex addict whose interests included "being a tight ass," "fucking in my office" and "hitting on students and their parents."
It can be argued that the comments of the student fit the definition of "lewd and vulgar."
This seems to be a case where the lesson is that one can say what they want, but there are consequences to doing so.
You're right Bobby, unless the allegation turns out to be true.
"You're right Bobby, unless the allegation turns out to be true."
---Victims are usually too traumatized to vent online, they're more likely to call the police, or confide in a friend they trust who then tells the police.
Anon 11:19, both cases you quote refer to in-school speech and actions, not out of school as this case is. Your interpretation implies that any student criticizing the school or school personnel in any manner and at any time can be punished by the school for "an unwarranted disruption in the learning environment". And BTW, no it is not clear that calling the principal a pedophile would do that. In fact it probably wouldn't do that at all. Sure kids may talk about it but I doubt they will start ditching class or rioting in the halls over it.
What if someone else wrote it whom the principal has no power over? A school is responsible for the kids during school hours, after that the parents are responsible. This happened outside of school and therefore the school should have taken it up with the parents or, if they felt something criminal had occurred, the police
Anon 2:25
Sorry, but the cases I cited are both cases where the tests are made as to the ability of the school to discipline students for certain types of speech. You may rememember the famous "Bong Hits for Jesus" case were a kid held up a sign off campus and was disciplined for it. The standards of Tinker were used to decide that case.
And BTW, no it is not clear that calling the principal a pedophile would do that. In fact it probably wouldn't do that at all. Sure kids may talk about it but I doubt they will start ditching class or rioting in the halls over it.
It doesn't have to be "clear." The standard is that it may reasonably be foreseen that a disruption may occur. Certainly writing what this kid did limits the ability of the principal to do his job effectively and with the respect he deserves. That would more than qualify for the "disruption" in the learning environment.
Post a Comment