ACLU defends girl's lewd MySpace principal parody

[manifold]

..it's somewhat difficult to see how there would be substantially greater disruption caused than would have been caused by straightforward criticism of the principal...

A. I think you're if you really believe that.

B. Regardless, it doesn't need to be substantially greater to be a suspendable offense. As long as it's at least similar, it's suspendable just like straightforward mouthing off.

"Straightforward mouthing off" itself seems excessively ambiguous. It's not acceptable to permit individual administrators or districts to engage in subjective interpretations of "disruption" and thereby possibly undermine Tinker v. Des Moines and public school students' First Amendment rights. Legitimate "disruption" is a standard that necessitates evidence of a far more tangible effect.

How can a disruption NOT be a subjective determination?

 

[Agnapostate]

How can a disruption NOT be a subjective determination?

My reference was to individual administrator discretion. Shouting and interrupting instruction in classes can reasonably be described as disruption as a general rule, but criticism or mockery of administrators may be inaccurately defined as disruption by them merely because of personal motives. This isn't an acceptable standard, given the possibility of student free speech rights being undermined.

 

[manifold]

How can a disruption NOT be a subjective determination?

My reference was to individual administrator discretion. Shouting and interrupting instruction in classes can reasonably be described as disruption as a general rule, but criticism or mockery of administrators may be inaccurately defined as disruption by them merely because of personal motives. This isn't an acceptable standard, given the possibility of student free speech rights being undermined.

My understanding is that students forfeit free speech rights.

Remember Bong hits for Jesus?

 

[Agnapostate]

My understanding is that students forfeit free speech rights.

Remember Bong hits for Jesus?

That's not the case. Tinker v. Des Moines guaranteed that some degree of student free speech rights (and other constitutional rights), would be maintained in public schools. Morse v. Frederick (the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case), was indeed an example of a recent court case that limited that right in confirming that students could not promote drug use at school (though the 5 to 4 ruling would have quickly shifted to a 6 to 3 ruling in favor of Frederick had it been clearly established that he was advocating policy reform), but did not eliminate it, as was the case with Bethel v. Fraser (schools can reasonably place limits on indecent speech), and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (schools can reasonably shield younger students from material deemed inappropriate for their age group, particularly in the realm of sexually-themed content). However, some degree of constitutional rights in schools are upheld.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Haha, that's funny. I remember some friends made a myspace of my dad and it was a similar story. It kinda pissed me off back then, but thinking back on it, it was pretty funny.

 

[professorjwn]

It is clear that not only a deformation of character lawsuit, but slander, and infringement of an individuals pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The ACLU has and will continue to be a gaping hole in the side of this country until it is stopped.

It is a bunch of frightened, spoiled, inexperienced, pretentious, and frankly communists that reside in our country and accept public funds.

The ACLU in condoning this behavior continues to expand its dgradation of American Culture.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm still having difficulty accepting the argument that this shouldn't be a suspendable offense. Why is it better to apply a where the act took place standard instead of a does the act directly disrupt the learning enviroment standard? I understand that the where is wholly objective, which is nice when possible to avoid differences of opinion, but as this example clearly demonstrates, it's a very fallible standard. The act was viscious and disruptive and deserves to be punished.

Some legal thing about jurisdiction. If you kill someone in Canada, Mexico doesn't get to punish you for it, even if the person you killed was the mayor of Mexico City. The way schools overreact these days, providing grief counselors for students when graduates get killed in another state, anything could be argued to disrupt the learning environment. If it did not happen at the school, or as the result of a function the school sponsored, they shouldn't have the ability to suspend anyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find it interesting that some people think the principal should sue. THAT, makes no sense to me at all. As Agna pointed out, parody is protected speech so I don't think he has a case. A much more just remedy IMO, is to simply let schools suspend students that they feel deserve it. And the ONLY case a student or parent should be allowed to use to challenge it would be inconsistent application of standards.

Parody is protected speech, but it is also has a clearly defined exemption. If the principal can prove malice, which probably not be that high a hurdle in this case, the student loses the parody defense. The only way to test that is by suing, so it sounds like good advice to me.