ACLU defends girl's lewd MySpace principal parody

[Agnapostate]

ACLU defends girl's lewd MySpace principal parody - Yahoo! News

PHILADELPHIA – A federal appeals court must decide whether a Pennsylvania middle school can suspend a student who, at home on her own time, created a lewd MySpace page aimed at her principal.

The Web page, which used a fake name but an actual photo of the principal, was purported to have been posted by a 40-year-old Alabama school principal who described himself, through a string of sexual vulgarities, as a pedophile and sex addict. The Internet address included the phrase "kids rock my bed."

The case, argued in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, raises broad issues about the limits of school discipline for off-campus behavior that affects the atmosphere at school. A rash of similar cases have surfaced across the country, with mixed rulings, but none has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

"Parents give up some control at the schoolhouse gate," Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU lawyer in Pennsylvania, told the appeals court judges. "When the students walk back out, they again are under control of their parents."

However, a lawyer for the Blue Mountain School District in Schuylkill County said the eighth grader's actions in March 2007 caused a disturbance that reverberated inside school and harmed the principal. Students were buzzing about the site for several days, and school administrators quickly became aware of it.

"Quite frankly, this could have affected his career," school board lawyer Jon Riba argued. "At the very least, it creates an impression that this man is unstable."

Roper called the site clearly satiric — and juvenile. But Judge D. Michael Fisher was not so sure, noting the number of sexual deviants who apparently seek out liked-minded people online. He nonetheless cautioned Blue Mountain about the price it might pay for winning the case. "Do we want our school districts to become Internet police?" Fisher asked.

(...)

As a civil libertarian and supporter of student rights, I of course hope that her free speech rights are upheld. However, I genuinely don't know the way this will go. Tinker v. Des Moines certainly upheld student free speech rights and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell clearly establishes protection for parody, but there have always been greater limitations on student constitutional rights, particularly in the way of speech (Bethel v. Fraser, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, Morse v. Frederick, etc.) Tinker v. Des Moines may not even be relevant if they determine that she acted in an entirely non-student capacity, though I do remember a case in which the punishment of a student who shouted a profanity at a teacher outside of school was upheld (though not the name), and they could theoretically claim that this caused a substantial disturbance within the school, thereby interrupting activities there.

The fact that her mother opposes the suspension is also important; much of the authority delegated to school officials over students stems from the doctrine that they act in loco parentis (in the place of the parent), and a clear-cut divergence between school administrators and a parent could prove instrumental.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No doubt MySpace deleted the page, as was proper. It's against their terms of service.

 

[Agnapostate]

No doubt MySpace deleted the page, as was proper. It's against their terms of service.

Probably. Come to think of it, I hadn't considered the fact that the Lori Drew case technically made it a criminal act to register with a false name on MySpace (or with any other online registration system, possibly), considering what she was charged with. But even a libel suit will probably not play a role in this case, let alone criminal charges. For that matter, Lori Drew was simply punished by vindictive individuals rather than sentenced for a legitimate crime.

 

[wvulax]

If the argument to enforce the punishment is that the disturbance caused by this video disrupted class, then by that logic any disturbance can be punishable. I went to public schools in MD and I remember the MSPAP's (standardized testing) taking up an entire week. We did absolutely nothing in class besides the test which was only 2 or 3 hours in the morning. We would even have picnics and parties during school time. My point being that just because learning was interupted doesn't mean that the child's or parent's rights are null and void because it happens all the time for an infinite number of reasons.

 

[manifold]

How is being suspended a violation of one's rights? That's the part I don't understand. So you can't go to school for a few days. BFD.

 

[Agnapostate]

How is being suspended a violation of one's rights? That's the part I don't understand. So you can't go to school for a few days. BFD.

Yeah, I always enjoyed the vacation.

 

[brewerboy]

If you list a school on myspace, you can usually go into a myspace "app" (lack of better term) that has everyone from that school in one easy to find place.

I went through my high schools page, and found a page that was supposedly made by the Vice Principal (a real cool guy actually). Of course it was a parody, with a pic of him and multiple pics of guys in bathtubs together and such with funny tag lines like "what I do in my spare time" and "I was behind the camera"....all in all it was pretty funny, but of course, it was deleted in a few days.

Free speech. If you cant take that kind of heat, you shouldnt be a principal these days.

But of course, myspace is fucked up anyways. Send a drunken REPLY to a bitchy ex-gf and you have your page deleted. RECEIVE a total death threat from another girl, and they do nothing about it but make excuses.

 

[xotoxi]

Knowing very little of the nuances of the case, I would say that she should not be suspended from the school as her inappropriate actions was not done during school.

However, I think they principal should sue MySpace and the girl's parents for slander.

Either way, the girl will likely be suspended for something else unless she is a saint the rest of her tenure at the school.

 

[brewerboy]

Knowing very little of the nuances of the case, I would say that she should not be suspended from the school as her inappropriate actions was not done during school.

However, I think they principal should sue MySpace and the girl's parents for slander.

Either way, the girl will likely be suspended for something else unless she is a saint the rest of her tenure at the school.

Absolutely.

She's better mind her P's and Q's, thats for damn sure.

If I were her, I'd wave and say hello to the principal everytime I saw em too

 

[Tinktink]

I hope the ACLU wins. Then the principal can file a lawsuit against the girl for Defamation of Charater. You know teach her the real consequences of her actions.

 

[Agnapostate]

I hope the ACLU wins. Then the principal can file a lawsuit against the girl for Defamation of Charater. You know teach her the real consequences of her actions.

Even if he could, school suspension remained an inappropriate action.

 

[Tinktink]

I hope the ACLU wins. Then the principal can file a lawsuit against the girl for Defamation of Charater. You know teach her the real consequences of her actions.

Even if he could, school suspension remained an inappropriate action.

Actually I agree, and that is one of the major reasons I want them to win. Because if it is found to be a suspensional act, then I doubt he would have a legal leg to stand on to file a suit against her. This girl on her own time created a very ugly thing agasints a principal. With the intent to discredit his character by trying to profile him as a pedophile, deserves to be treated the same way you and I would if we did the same. Any amount of judgement against her or her parents (as in some states parents are responsible for their childrens actions financially/legally) will be a lesson in it self as to if you are going to attempt to destroy someone character, you pay the consequences of doing so.

 

[Agnapostate]

Actually I agree, and that is one of the major reasons I want them to win. Because if it is found to be a suspensional act, then I doubt he would have a legal leg to stand on to file a suit against her. This girl on her own time created a very ugly thing agasints a principal. With the intent to discredit his character by trying to profile him as a pedophile, deserves to be treated the same way you and I would if we did the same. Any amount of judgement against her or her parents (as in some states parents are responsible for their childrens actions financially/legally) will be a lesson in it self as to if you are going to attempt to destroy someone character, you pay the consequences of doing so.

I don't regard this as an intent to discredit his character so much as a crude parody, as was the case with Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The people who call me a pedophile on here do so maliciously than this student intended to do in the case of the principal, and they're obviously not subject to any lawsuit on my part as a virtue of their relative anonymity. However, this falls into the category of parody and is thus protected speech.

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

It isn't, actually. That very standard would be applied. However, 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, especially since such a blatant parody probably wouldn't have been in the limelight, so to speak, at least not to the extent that direct criticism of an administrator by a student would be.

 

[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.

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

..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.

 

[xotoxi]

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.

I don't know the specifics of what exactly she did, but I don't think that publically implying that someone is a pedophile, especially someone that works with kids, would be considered a parody.

But again, I don't know enough about the specifics.

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't know the specifics of what exactly she did, but I don't think that publically implying that someone is a pedophile, especially someone that works with kids, would be considered a parody.

But again, I don't know enough about the specifics.

I'd say it was, considering the reported vulgarities contained therein and such obvious remarks as "kids rock my bed."