Supreme Court examines schools' responses to students online mischief

[chloe]

A middle school principal in northeastern Pennsylvania was shocked to see his photo online along with a description of him as a "hairy sex addict" and a "pervert" who liked "hitting on students" in his office.

A high school principal north of Pittsburgh saw a MySpace profile of himself that called him a "big fag," a "whore" and a drug user. And in West Virginia, a school principal found out that a girl had created an online site to maliciously mock another girl as a 'slut" with herpes.

All three students were suspended from school and filed suits against the principal and the school districts. They argued the First Amendment protected them from being punished for postings from their home computers. And in the two Pennsylvania cases, they won.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide for the first time on the dividing line between the rights of students to freely use their own computers and the authority of school officials to prevent online harassment of other students and the staff. It may act as early as Tuesday.

The Internet and social media have wiped out the line between what is public and private as well as the distinction between on-campus and off-campus conduct at schools. A posting on Facebook makes its way around the student body far more quickly than old-fashioned gossip.
School principals say they are caught between the new technology and outdated, confusing legal rules.




http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/supreme-court-examines-schools-responses-to-students-online-mischief/article_2de8143c-32f9-5dc7-8192-06368651fb65.html


I am glad I am not a Principal:laugh2:

[ConHog]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/supreme-court-examines-schools-responses-to-students-online-mischief/article_2de8143c-32f9-5dc7-8192-06368651fb65.html


I am glad I am not a Principal:laugh2:

The student's will probably prevail here, and they probably should. Schools shouldn't be going outside of school to dictate behavior.

There should be laws about this kind of thing though.

[Abbey Marie]

Last I heard, the first amendment does not trump slander or libel. I would hope these parties can still sue on those bases, regardless of the media used to transmit the words.

[fj1200]

Last I heard, the first amendment does not trump slander or libel. I would hope these parties can still sue on those bases, regardless of the media used to transmit the words.

How do those NOT rise to the level of slander or libel?

[ConHog]

How do those NOT rise to the level of slander or libel?

The standard for libel or slander (defamation) in the US has 3 elements. Without those three elements, no trial, either civil or criminal, will prevail.

Those are

1. The plaintiff must prove the statements made aren't true.
2. The plaintiff must prove they suffered some sort of harm from the statements.
3. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not do adequate research to prove the truthfulness of the statements.


That's a hard nut to crack.

Suppose a student created a website calling a teacher a whore.

1. How would a teacher even go about proving they aren't a whore?
2. Is a fake website really harming a teacher?
3. How do you prove some little bastard hasn't interviewed several guys who fucked said teacher?

[fj1200]

^Not quite:


To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

1. Defamatory message: Seems pretty clear
2. Was published: Obviously
3. Plaintiff identified: Plainly
4. Suffered injury: To reputation

I think they're justified in suspending the students.

[ConHog]

^Not quite:


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

1. Defamatory message: Seems pretty clear
2. Was published: Obviously
3. Plaintiff identified: Plainly
4. Suffered injury: To reputation

I think they're justified in suspending the students.

I gave you the LEGAL standards necessary to secure a win in a defamation suit in this country.

I don't think the school is justified. Schools don't have jurisdiction over students when they are off campus.

That doesn't mean I don't think there should be laws against these types of things. In fact, I would think that cyber bullying fits nicely. Defamation does not. Or rather, defamation isn't a crime they are likely to be charged with because DAs don't file charges that they can't win.

[fj1200]

^Have a link Sparky?

[ConHog]

^Have a link Sparky?

Do you mean besides the ADA sitting beside me?

Do you mind using Wiki?

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

Oh, another defense is if what is written is opinion, IE " I think Mrs___________ is a whore" that's not defamation.

As I said, defamation cases are nearly impossible to win, so they are rarely if ever pursued.

[Abbey Marie]

How do those NOT rise to the level of slander or libel?

I think they do. Why?

[Abbey Marie]

Do you mean besides the ADA sitting beside me?

Do you mind using Wiki?

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

Oh, another defense is if what is written is opinion, IE " I think Mrs___________ is a whore" that's not defamation.

As I said, defamation cases are nearly impossible to win, so they are rarely if ever pursued.

I was thinking civil action.

[ConHog]

I was thinking civil action.

The standards roughly the same.


I'm not saying what these kids do is right, fact is I think cyber bullying laws could be applied. Just saying defamation isn't the best option to pursue.

[chloe]

I don't think they can be suspended for something they did on there home computer.

[gabosaurus]

Last I heard, the first amendment does not trump slander or libel. I would hope these parties can still sue on those bases, regardless of the media used to transmit the words.

Appeals courts have already sided with defendants in cases where they sued those who made false facebook accounts in their names.
Courts also ruled for a military defendant who sued when subordinates put together a youtube that depicted the defendant breaking the law.

[logroller]

Do you mean besides the ADA sitting beside me?

Do you mind using Wiki?

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

Oh, another defense is if what is written is opinion, IE " I think Mrs___________ is a whore" that's not defamation.

As I said, defamation cases are nearly impossible to win, so they are rarely if ever pursued.

From your wiki link.

Defamation per seThe four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_per_se) are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

iirc, the OP lists three outta four. Pretty strong case IMO. Also, guidelines for criminal prosecution and the administrative law of schools may differ. Big stretch saying your principal is gay and touching student inappropriately is free speech if untrue. Pretty serious allegations, which the school is dutifully bound to investigate.

[fj1200]

I think they do. Why?

I was agreeing with you. :)

[fj1200]

I gave you the LEGAL standards necessary to secure a win in a defamation suit in this country.

I don't think the school is justified. Schools don't have jurisdiction over students when they are off campus.

That doesn't mean I don't think there should be laws against these types of things. In fact, I would think that cyber bullying fits nicely. Defamation does not. Or rather, defamation isn't a crime they are likely to be charged with because DAs don't file charges that they can't win.

Surely you understand the defamation is (usually) civil and not criminal don't you?


Do you mean besides the ADA sitting beside me?

Do you mind using Wiki?

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

Oh, another defense is if what is written is opinion, IE " I think Mrs___________ is a whore" that's not defamation.

As I said, defamation cases are nearly impossible to win, so they are rarely if ever pursued.

Yes, especially when she's incorrect incomplete. ;)

I gave you the LEGAL elements required to prove defamation. Do you want another link?
http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/libel-and-slander/elements-required-defamation.htm

Also your link meeting defamation per se.

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_per_se) are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

Now if you want to talk if they met the requirements for defense of defamation...

Now of course a school doesn't have jurisdiction over off campus behaviors but they also shouldn't be required to just accept any and all behavior that is clearly directed at school employees.