School Official Sues Over MySpace Page

SoCal writes, "How much legal liability do parents have for what their kids do online? A lawsuit filed in Texas by a high-school assistant principal may give some answers. Some students she had disciplined set up a fake MySpace page in her name depicting her as a lesbian (which she happens not to be). In its coverage, Ars Technica notes that 'What sets this case apart from many other lawsuits filed over the content of blogs is that it doesn't target only the teenagers who created the site. It also argues that the parents were guilty of negligence by failing to supervise their children, and that they bear some of the responsibility for the defaming site.'" The article links the Media Law Resource Center's resource tracking more than 50 cases now in the courts nationwide, in which bloggers have been sued for libel and related claims.

Re:Bout time

[epyT-R]

Maybe as a society we should stop focusing on blame quite so much and focus MORE on the 'why' surrounding the behavior. The principal's blaming the students for supposed 'improper' behavior, and the students' retribution for it are really part of the same problem.

Punishing ignorance

[mangu]

Such lawsuits will eventually have a Darwinist effect on the web. Those who know how to cover their tracks will never be sued.

People should get used to the fact that lots of info one gets from the web is fake [snopes.com]. So what?

And who cares about MySpace anyhow? A high-school assistant principal doesn't seem to be in the right circle of social relations to be harmed by that page.

If I were in the jury, I would propose a verdict "guilty but harmless, throw away".

I'm somewhat divided

[TubeSteak]

Draker's lawsuit says that the parents have a duty to know what their children are up to--especially in light of both students' past run-ins with Draker at school.

"Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes such as the ones alleged above," says the suit in accusing the parents of "negligent supervision."

On the one hand, I don't have a problem holding the kids accountable for what they did.

I'm up in the air about making it the parents' fault.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the idea that "Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes"

Claiming negligent supervision over the kids' use of the internet.... that creates an incredibly high burden for any parent. Unless the kids have done this before, I can't imagine that the "obvious and unreasonable danger" charge is going to hold up.

Re:Bout time

[everphilski]

The principal's blaming the students for supposed 'improper' behavior, and the students' retribution for it are really part of the same problem.

Yeah. The problem is, the kids got disciplined and instead of taking it like young adults they went and screwed around on the Internet, calling their teacher a lesbian (among other things). Sounds like some snotty brats that either haven't been properly parented or need some community service or something to redirect their energies.

Re:Apparently you don't have children

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Heck, I'm 35- and I think that people posting defamatory information are saying more about themselves than the person they are defaming. To that end, why would I ever sue over my enemy making himself look like a big fat idiot?

Re:I'm somewhat divided

[irregular_hero]

Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes.

I once saw a court case centered around this particular notion flame out after one exceptionally bright young attorney asked the jury, "Could YOUR mother do it?"

Deliberation didn't even take that long.

Re:Punishing ignorance

[cabinetsoft]

Try this:

Now, sexual orientation used a reason not to hire someone would be considered as discriminatory however if other information was posted

like someone's been smoking [guardian.co.uk]

could cost someone a potential job.

Re:I'm somewhat divided

[sigzero]

Claiming negligent supervision over the kids' use of the internet.... that creates an incredibly high burden for any parent.

No it doesn't. That is your job as a parent. I monitor my kids usage. I have blockers up for sites that "I" deem inappropriate. I look at logs etc. When they get older, "they" can make those determinations. Parents have responsibilities and they need to own up to them.

Sounds fair.

[xant]

Is this libel? Sounds like it. I haven't seen it, didn't find a link, but from the description we've got untruth in writing or broadcast, tending to bring the target into ridicule/hatred, etc., all that.

Is it still libel on the Internet? The Internet makes it much easier to publish stuff for a wide audience, but you're still doing that, however easy it may be.

Are parents responsible for the acts of their children? Yes. In civil cases, and in many criminal cases, the parents can be held responsible.

Is this going to bring a "chilling effect"? I think the only thing it's going to chill is people publishing hurtful lies about other people online. I have no problem with that. The only thing new here is that minors have greater access to the eyeballs of the public at large than they did before.

Bwahaha

[pavon]

Then at the next school assembly ask the perpetrator to come forward.

That is a horrible idea. No one will step forward, and you will just publicise the fact that this occured to anyone who didn't already know about it, many of whom will think it is hilarious. This will only encourage the person who did it. The only possible good that could come from it is if the announcement causes the perpetrator to brag about it and the word gets around to the administration. Even then, it isn't a good idea to punish a student based soley on a rumor.

Sure, get the site taken down, and punish the perpetrator. But if you don't know who did it, the last thing that you want to do is stand in front of a group of rebelious teens and make idle threats.

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[rkcallaghan]

LWATCDR wrote:

How about depicting a lesbian as straight or by so she gets hit on by a bunch of men she isn't interested in?

As a woman who has a personal ad on a homosexual site; I can tell you I get more replies from men to my lesbian ad than I do to the one on a larger, hetero site -- and the content of both profiles is the same. Same pictures, same text block.

~Rebecca

Whatever happend to

[Touqen]

detentions/suspensions? I've done a few defamatory things in my youth against other classmates and teachers. In the instances that I was caught, I just got a couple days of in-school suspension. That sucked enough that I didn't do it again until I transferred to a new school. This nation's policy of litigate first, ask questions later is really getting out of hand.

The correct response

[fwarren]

This is the correct response.

Parents are generally held responsible for their children's actions. Be it destruction of property, driving without a license and having an accident, someone getting hurt with a firearm, theft, and so on.

We don't need better firewalls. We don't need some intelligent filter at myspace to catch this stuff.

Hold the parents responsible for what their kids post. Even if I think my 13 year old should drink, and drive, and sell their body on the street, well, shucks, society and the law holds me responsible for their actions till they are 18. So I make sure that they are not drinking, or driving without a license, or prostituting themselves out. After a few parents pay some big fines, well heck, they will want to know what web pages their kids are working on.

This nonesense will all go a way in another generation. When the kids who don't remember what life is like before the internet existed grow up, they will watch their kids. They will not cop out and say they don't understand computers, or that their kids could do that. Life should be interesting once that generation of pirates and scallywags have kids of their own.

Reasonable Measures

[phorm]

I think a bigger question would be, what have (or had) the parents already done? If their kids are, in fact, running amock without guidance or any supervision/disclipine, then I'd say a nice fine would be a good way to disclipline bad parents. If the parents were in fact taking steps and they weren't working at the time (but they were trying to find a solution), then it's bad enough that they have uncontrollable assholes for kids, but slapping a fine or lawsuit on them is adding insult to injury.

I've seen many sides to this:
- Good parents, with good kids
- Not particularly good parents, but the kids turn out pretty good
- Parents that try hard but have kids who are sneaky, clever, and manage to get into trouble anyhow
- Parents with kids who are borderline psychotic... I've seen parents afraid of their offspring, and they weren't bad parents (sometimes I suppose you just get bad gene mixing)
- Parents that are bad, that have kids that are bad
- Parents that believe their kids are good, could do no wrong, and are pretty much self-delusional
- Parents that are stuggling to support themselves and their kids, and just lack the time/energy for proper supervision (single parents, etc)
- Parents that have a good kid who went bad due to a bad decision, peer pressure, or whatever. Drugs can drag somebody down pretty quick
- Hormones, some people/kids change rather quickly
- Parents that have one good child and one bad (or several of either/both), without apparent reason


As per my usual comment, I work in schools, so I tend to see a lot of kids, teachers, and parents. Some kids are just uneducated in certain ways, but otherwise good (I heard one using a nasty racial slur, but he was very embarrased when he found out what it meant). There are also parents who are jerks... they're the ones that park in the loading zones, bus loops, or whatever, cussing and behaving like morons in front of all the students, and generally think that the earth revolves around them and their offspring (until they get home, and then it's just them).

I can't say what the solution is in this case, and neither can anyone here who doesn't know the parents, kid, and others involved. Life's unpredictable, and who's to say what the full situation is. But I think that the "could YOUR mother do it" is a very fair comment, and a rather insightful one on the part of the attorney. The other comment would be "did the parents even try," which can be pretty hard to determine, but hopefully will come out in the end.

Re:... depicting her as a lesbian.

[Firehed]

While I hate to bring up the old cliché of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one, free speech isn't limitless. While it's been a while since I last read the Constitution, their meaning of free speech was with regards to criticism of the government; that's to say, you're Constitutionally guaranteed to be able to speak of your hatred of the country's leaders without fear of legal action being taken against you.

It's kind of wierd that way. See, since you're a child molesting terrorist who also enjoys some "private time" with goats on the weekend, people aren't going to take you too seriously. In fact, they'll probably run you out of town when they find out, probably violently. "But I'm not a child moesting terrorist who enjoys private time with goats on the weekend!" you say. Word's out, people already hate you. "That's bullshit! Innocent until proven guilty, so prove it." Well, that's what all the CMTWEPTWGOTWs say.

Nobody will believe you, and even if a few took you seriously, they'd never look at you the same way again.

Now go ahead and replace CMTWEPTWGOTW with lesbian (or gay, since slashdotters are legally required to be male). Depending on where you live, you might still have people trying to run you out of town; regardless, people still won't look at you the same way again. Tort laws (specifically those in regards to slander and libel) are designed to prevent this. Free speech doesn't allow me to say/print/post/[generic spread] lies about you, it allows me to state without fear of prosecution that I think GWB is an asshat. You think political ads are negative now? Imagine how much bullshit would be flying around if there weren't libel laws. And you better make sure you don't scratch my car, or else you might find posters tacked up everywhere showing a poorly photoshopped picture of you killing a kitten.

Libel and slander laws are not in conflict with the Constitution. People are just under false impressions as to what our right to free speech guards us against. It's like how the right to bear arms isn't in place so we can go huntin' on the weekends, it's so we'll have the ability to defend against (or siege) a corrupted government. If you care to find me a case where a libel or slander accusation was thrown out on the basis of the law being unconstitutional, please let me know, because I can promise you that this isn't the first libel case ever made, and won't be the last.