Facebook, Free Speech, and the School System

[mudwhistle]

I figure if you want to complain about something start a blog.

Facebook is just a place for us to keep track of friends and relatives.

 

[AllieBaba]

Some of us had to learn that the hard way.

 

[bodecea]

Compare these two stories.

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a student's ranting about her high school teacher on a Facebook page is protected by the First Amendment, The Miami Herald reports.

Katherine "Katie" Evans, a 17-year old student at Pembroke Pines Charter Schools, was suspended in 2007 for three days and bumped from Advanced Placement classes after setting up a Facebook page for three days to complain about "the worst teacher I've ever met," the newspaper says.


Garber ruled that Evans' rant "falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech."

"It was an opinion of a student about a teacher that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on campus and was not lewd,vulgar, threatening or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior," he ruled.

Judge: Dissing a teacher on Facebook is protected speech -

Apex, N.C. — An eighth-grade teacher at West Lake Middle School in Apex has been suspended for five days with pay pending an investigation, Wake County school officials said Monday.

School district spokesman Greg Thomas would not go into details over Melissa Hussain’s suspension due to employee confidentiality obligations, but a parent said the concern started as the class was learning about evolution and some students challenged the teacher on Christian beliefs.

Following the evolution discussion, Hussain wrote on her Facebook page that a student left a Bible on her desk with a card that read Merry Christmas with “Christ” underlined, the parent told WRAL News Monday afternoon.

The parent said Hussain then wrote, “I have a meeting with the (possible) Bible boy on Monday … Heaven help him, I am still so mad at that child!”

Parents complained to school officials about the comments last week.

Apex teacher suspended after parents question Facebook comments :: WRAL.com

I realize that adults should be held to higher standards and this teacher sounds like a jerk, but shouldn't her facebook comments (without names) be protected speech as well?

Comments?

Simple...Kids get protected...teachers do not. No matter which side of the argument.

 

[FA_Q2]

+1 cureve

I don’t see anything in the teachers post that requires reprisal.

 

[RadiomanATL]

This is why I can not be a teacher (this and the lack of an education degree), I could not resist telling the little bastards and batardettes just what I think of them in the classroom.

Don't forget the whole drinking in class thing...

 

[lawbuff]

Two differing opinions. Interesting. I'm on the fence. I think both situations were handled badly. In each case, it would have made more sense to ask them to take the comments down and "right the wrong" before the more serious consequences. I'm a firm believer in handling situations rationally before lawyers need be involved. Silly I know. Lol

But this opens a whole set of legal questions regarding slander, cyber bullying, employment laws, and the first amendment. I'd be curious to see what Jillian or one of our other lawyers have to say.

The teacher is no doubt a "public official" for defamation purposes, notwithstanding free speech/suspension issues for the student, so to defame a public official requires actual malice.

If there is a free speech guarantee, there is no defamation, if there is no free speech right, defamation may or may not be present?

The teacher's comment of "Heaven help her" was a poor choice of words for a person in a supervisory position, so any so called "academic freedom" that may be scrutinized in a classroom, should also be scrutinzied off campus.

 

[mudwhistle]

Question: Is the teacher Muslim?

 

[chanel]

Fundamentalist Atheist I'm sure.

The teacher is no doubt a "public official" for defamation purposes, notwithstanding free speech/suspension issues for the student, so to defame a public official requires actual malice.

If there is a free speech guarantee, there is no defamation, if there is no free speech right, defamation may or may not be present?

Didn't this young lady show malice? Of course we don't know exactly what was posted, but I'm certain there were malicious remarks on there. Just a hunch.

I'm not sure I understand your second question.

 

[lawbuff]

Fundamentalist Atheist I'm sure.

The teacher is no doubt a "public official" for defamation purposes, notwithstanding free speech/suspension issues for the student, so to defame a public official requires actual malice.

If there is a free speech guarantee, there is no defamation, if there is no free speech right, defamation may or may not be present?

Didn't this young lady show malice? Of course we don't know exactly what was posted, but I'm certain there were malicious remarks on there. Just a hunch.

I'm not sure I understand your second question.

In part the student said "she was the worst teacher she ever met", that is not defamatory.

MALICE is quite different from simple opinion.

By the 2nd statement is meant if I have a Constitutional right to opinionize, it can not be defamation, as it is the opinionated truth.

I can post on my facebook page I don't like so and so restauarant, as long as I am not malicious, they have no legal recourse.

 

[chanel]

Just for the sake of argument - could you give an example of malice that a student might write on a site like that? Would a false accusation or a racist comment fall under that?

 

[lawbuff]

"

Just for the sake of argument - could you give an example of malice that a student might write on a site like that? Would a false accusation or a racist comment fall under that?

You can find a general definition of malice online, but it is generally a statement, which is false, that tends to damage a person's reputation/profession, etc. As I said though simply being false is not the only element to consider as a possible Cause of Action.

Defamation "per se" requires no damages, as it is defamatory on it's face, such as a person is known to have a venerial disease when they do not.

Per quod defamation, as we are discussing, requires damages be proven.


A racist comment could be defamatory, yes, it would greatly depend on what was additionally said, but just calling a person a racist name is not defamation. A false accusation is one element of MALICE, yes.

Look up Jerry Falwell and his suit against Hustler magazine. It went to the US SC. Larry Flynnt said he had an incestual rendevous with his mom in an outhouse. The SC ruled Falwell as a "public figure" and Malice was neccessary to prevail, as it was intended as a parody, evn though it was a lie.

 

[Ravi]

"

Just for the sake of argument - could you give an example of malice that a student might write on a site like that? Would a false accusation or a racist comment fall under that?

You can find a general definition of malice online, but it is generally a statement, which is false, that tends to damage a person's reputation/profession, etc. As I said though simply being false is not the only element to consider as a possible Cause of Action.

Defamation "per se" requires no damages, as it is defamatory on it's face, such as a person is known to have a venerial disease when they do not.

Per quod defamation, as we are discussing, requires damages be proven.


A racist comment could be defamatory, yes, it would greatly depend on what was additionally said, but just calling a person a racist name is not defamation. A false accusation is one element of MALICE, yes.

Look up Jerry Falwell and his suit against Hustler magazine. It went to the US SC. Larry Flynnt said he had an incestual rendevous with his mom in an outhouse. The SC ruled Falwell as a "public figure" and Malice was neccessary to prevail, as it was intended as a parody, evn though it was a lie.

As far as we know.