Student Faces Expulsion for Blog Post 1045
ThPhox writes "A student in the Plainfield School District in New Jersey is facing expulsion from the school district for a post made on his personal blog during non school hours. From the article: "A 17-year-old student who posted on his blog site that he was being bullied and threatened by the Plainfield School District will face an expulsion hearing this week, a local attorney said.""
Compared to overseas (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? (Score:5, Informative)
An example:
From: http://www.webstreetcafe.com/news/4_1_JO23_FREESPE ECH_S1.htm [webstreetcafe.com]
Everything he did he did outside of school. He used a computer from home. He used an account he created from home what was clear it was a personal activity," Yohnka said.Re:Hilarious (Score:2, Informative)
A similar situation happened in my school.
A fight broke out between two students and the teacher held one back.
The student turned around. He looked at the teacher, paused to recognized him, and then elbowed him in the face.
He knocked out a couple of the teacher's teeth. This caused the first (and only) day this teacher ever missed a class in his 35+ year career.
The student was not expelled. In fact, IIRC the student was only punished for the fight with the student. Elbowing the teacher was not brought up.
The teachers responded with a strike, and some students staged a walkout to support them.
(Of course the rest of the students then walked out to have a day off.)
If the student was violent, or at least made actual (or veiled) threats to the school or otherwise I could understand the punishment.
As it is, I disagree with their punishment of the student for his posts online.
The information garnered from TFA didn't sound like there was any threat at all.
Unfortunately it seems that we have too many school officials (and this carries on into politics) who are too scared of anyone who doesn't conform.
'What if the threat was real and I did nothing about it?'
They start to see threats that aren't even there.
Anyone who is a little different starts to set of these alerts in their heads; he simply brought himself to the attention of some of these people.
I imagine the school in question doesn't really foster free thinking and speech.
Perhaps if it did, he wouldn't have felt it necessary to post what he did online.
(That was the point if I understood the article.)
Re:How exactly is this a 1st amendment case? (Score:2, Informative)
If the district accepts ANY money from the federal government, yes.
LK
Re:Compared to overseas (Score:1, Informative)
Let me clear something up for you... (Score:5, Informative)
"Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court's opinion.
The court also cleared the way for Frederick to seek damages, saying Morse was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated his rights. Courtesy of MSNBC.com. (OK, I did Google for that).
The principal, Morse, was upset that the banner undermined the schools anti-drug message, among other things. The point being that a school, as a government entity, doesn't get to pick and choose what speech is permissible and what is not off of school property and not on school time.
Re:Wildly Wrong, Probably Unconstitutional (Score:3, Informative)
Those without the means to supply an alternative educational program (all require a significant investment of time and/or money) must attend public school. A majority of the population does not have the means and thus is required to go to public school.
Re:1st amendment... (Score:1, Informative)
If I made a voice controlled bomb then saying the command to have it go off would also get me arrested, not for the words themselves but for what they caused (or may have caused if my bomb was a dud).
Re:Hilarious (Score:2, Informative)
Physical Violence against a teacher can be grounds for expulsion, and students have been expelled for threats of physical violence.
Bringing a knife to school can get you suspended and/or expelled.
Here's his website (Score:5, Informative)
Talk about over reaction though. Why not just bug the police to bust his ass for underage drinking? If that's what the district really wants. Or, why not just take this to its logical conclusion and expell almost every teenager for, well, being a teenager.
Re:1st amendment... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Organizations behave like this... (Score:2, Informative)
I've had more than my fair share of legal bullshit happen and I'm a above average University of Michigan student who got accepted to even better schools but couldn't afford to go.
Don't paint everyone with your stereotypical brush.
Similar event here in Georgia recently (Score:5, Informative)
One other area brought up is that not only would the student have problems but as they are minors it is possible that the parents would have to bear financial responsibility.
I wonder how long before public school students are no longer allowed to post on subjects that are not life threatening but school threatening like vouchers and such?
Apparently not long...
In Chicago, Community High School District 128 voted unanimously on Monday to require that all students participating in extracurricular activities sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action.
Re:Organizations behave like this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wasting money and time (Score:3, Informative)
Last thing they want to do is lose all that money they are going to in a clear-cut 1st amendment case....
IMHO the school overreacted by trying to expel the kid. But I don't think the line is as clear as it might seem. The kids says, "I've been bullied by you." Then goes on to say the kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied by the school.
So the school is reading that as a veiled threat. I think that is an overreaction, but schools are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If this kid had gone on to actually take action, an extremely unlikely prospect, and the school had known about that post, the parents would have been screaming for the administration's heads.
I am a teacher at a school that recently had a student post a "hit list" to his MySpace page and he was expelled. The difference was the threat was explicit. In this case I would have liked to have seen the administration talk to the kid and explain how his post could have been seen as a threat and worked with him on avoiding that potentially sticky situation in the future.
Most schools do believe in free speech, and trust me, teachers take a whole lot of "free speech" from their students, but this case, at least in intent, isn't simply about free speech. It's about the administration overreacting to a possible veiled threat.
Re:Nothing New (Score:3, Informative)
No it hasn't. For various reasons, the courts approach this on a right-by-right basis. They have not incorporated all of them (especially since we're really only talking about the first eight), and sometimes only have incorporated parts of them. It'd be accurate to say that most or nearly all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated, but it's not accurate to say that the whole thing has been.
Re:Ivies love this crap (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dumbasses (Score:2, Informative)
If a student came to the office with a vague complaint of being threatened by a Teacher, with such a lame example, they'd be told to get over it. Why can the entire school system get by with being more "sensitive?"
I FEEL that they are just a bunch of whining crybabies, and should be immediately fired and replaced by more responsible adults.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)
FWI, you can't be found guilty of any of these things unless the other party proves they were somehow harmed by the slander or liable speech. If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.
conspiracy
I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.
Same goes for the infamous desire to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire!
Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts. FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal. I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:4, Informative)
He correctly pointed out that, if you push (bully) people too far, they will snap and fight back, but there's nothing I've read that indicates he was feeling anywhere that frustrated.
Maybe a poor analogy on his part (was the school really on his case everyday, making his life hell everyday?), but doesn't seem to be a threat to me.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:3, Informative)
Police enforce criminal law.
Libel and slander are torts and are thus the domain of ambulance chasers.
Re:Nothing New (Score:3, Informative)
Reaching for federalism in instances like this is a double-edged sword at best. State constitutions are generally much more liberal in protecting personal rights than the federal constitution. For example, being a New Jersey school, it's subject to:
Re:Nothing New (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dumbasses (Score:1, Informative)
you are bully's. I feel threatened by you. if you don't like what you see here then do not come here its that simple. I'm pretty sure when you suspended Sam you brought her to tears, you are a bully and you make me sick. there's nothing you can do about us posting about parties we've been to and how much liquor we had or how much pot was smoked, the police need to do a better job, you are not the police. and how is it that you feel threatened what was said that was so threatening. I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? none of this is posted at school, its all posted from our home computers, and once we step foot into our homes we are not on school property any more. you are just power hungry, don't you ever think? did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what they did because they were bullied. In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. we voiced our opinions. you are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Monday, May 01, 2006
dear plainfield school district 202:
i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my fuckin web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you fucks. freedom of speech. and who the fuck are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.
edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me)
Re:Dumbasses (Score:2, Informative)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law
Supreme Court Says... (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, on such case was decided right here in Des Moines, Iowa, my home town.
The Case was "TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=393&invol=503 [findlaw.com]
Let me quote a little of the decision:
Looks to me as if the school board in this case should apologize immediately. Maybe they can avoid the law suit I see on the horizon.
For those of you too young to remember, or too lazy to read the case notes: A couple of High School students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school suspended them. They sued. They took it to the Supreme Court which said it WAS a Free Speech Issue. The school lost, the kids won.
Maybe the school board needs a refresher course in American History?
Re:Dumbasses (Score:3, Informative)
Uh. This just isn't true. Libel [cornell.edu] does not require actual damages at all. (Slander [cornell.edu] does.) If I get up on a newspaper opinion poll and write about how much I think (insert politician here) is a (insult horrible lie here,) and it turns out I'm writing for a newspaper with 0 readers, I have still incorrectly defamed his character and I'm still liable for libel. (By the way, liable means "I am responsible for the outcome of these actions." There is no such thing as "liable speech." It's called libel. Please don't comment on the nature of a five letter law you can't even spell.) Libel requires only that the medium of conversation is lasting, which implies writing and covers well the internet.
In fact, if what the kid says is false, then this is the textbook definition of libel.
If they can't prove it, you can still say it, even though its not true.
Did you know that giving false legal advice is a felony?
I believe most conspircy laws state that you must go beyond talking; you actually have to take some step to executing your conspircy.
Again, nonsense.
If the feds get a wiretap warrant, and they hear you, Vinny and Guido (I'm sick of the terrorist metaphors; let's go back to the old trusty Italian Mob) plotting to knock over a bank, that's a conspiracy. The federal government is under no obligation to wait until you go bust out the guns; once there's intent, and once it can be established that what was being discussed wasn't humor or speculation, then it's real enough to be actionable (in practical terms, this involves agreeing to act at a specific time, date and on a specific location or target.)
Search Wikipedia for this; there are some interesting facts.
Here's a better thought: stop searching a community-written site for detail-oriented things like legal advice. There is no shortage of legitimate, correct and well-thought-out material on sites like law.cornell.edu, and there is no shortage of examples - particularly in law, but also elsewhere - of Wikipedia being essentially full of crap. By and on the whole, it's a fine, high accuracy reference, but it simply does not have the level of quality control to be used as a legal reference.
FWIW, it shouldn't be the act of yelling fire that should be illegal; causing panic, wasting emergency responders' time, etc. is what should be illegal.
Uh. The actual yelling of fire isn't what's illegal, it's the attempt to cause panic. Exactly what are you arguing with here?
I know, I'm splitting hairs, but I think its important to make the distinction so we don't undermine the right to free speech.
Yeah, welcome to 1904. The issue of intent as regards the nature of protection of free speech has been well settled in this country for more than a hundred years. Read a law book; I am not a lawyer, but I believe the appropriate precedent is the supreme court case Aikens v. State of Wisconsin [findlaw.com] (c194-195 1904.) Just because you can come up with a possible mistake doesn't mean the court hasn't long since handled it. Moreover, the hair you're attempting to split isn't at all germane in context.
Clarance Darrow you are not.
Moderators, remember the golden rule of moderation: do not mark something as insightful if you yourself cannot verify something as correct. Meta-moderators, unleash the hounds.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:3, Informative)
That doesn't make this case ironic, it is merely a self-fulfilled statement, but you can have irony without words.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:4, Informative)
It taught me an important lesson which is: don't write under your own goddamn name!
Seriously. I don't condone what's happening here, but people put stuff out there under their own names that blows my mind. This is the freaking information age, okay? People are going to google you first thing, and they're going to read what you write, they're going to make opinions about it, and if you've not been careful, it's going to be your ass! The stuff is going to be viewed by people you're dating, people you're trying to work for, people who are trying to steal your identity...Don't put your name on it!
It's not like you can't point people to your blog/writing if you want them to read it, and it's not like you can't put things out there to be read under a different name. But putting it out there under your own name, especially if you're a minor, is a bad idea.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.xanga.com/Heckler3672bro [xanga.com]
Re:bullies (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't read the article, huh?
The school is reacting to what it mistakenly believes is a threat. The kid talks about how he feels bullied, then talks about how Columbine happened because those kids felt bullied too. It's an easy mistake to make. This has nothing to do with free speech or governmental obligation. This is a bunch of scared parents who think Little Timmy's about to shoot up the place, and who are trying to get him away from their children.
Put down the drama stick and try reading what's actually going on.