150 likes | 487 Views
Purpose
E N D
1. Public school punishment of a students off-campus internet speech Sarah Mills
3. Supreme Court Decisions Never directly addressed the issue of whether public school can properly punish the off-campus Internet-expression of their students.
However, the following cases are consistently used by courts when faced with an off-campus Internet speech issue.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
4. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Facts: Students wore black armbands to protest Vietnam War; suspended by school
Decision: Supreme Court found in favor of students
Rule: students at school may not be punished for on-campus speech unless speech materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others
Courts language suggests this balancing test does not extend past the schoolhouse gate
5. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Facts: Student was disciplined after he gave a lewd speech during school assembly
Decision: Supreme Court in favor of school
Rule: vulgar, indecent, or disruptive speech can be punished and prohibited in classrooms, assemblies, and other school-sponsored educational activities (e.g. speech that runs counter to the school educational objectives).
Court focused on in-school expression
6. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Facts: student newspaper attempted to publish articles on sexual activities and birth control; principal removed the articles before print because he felt the sexual references were inappropriate for younger students.
Decision: Supreme Court in favor of school
Rule: schools are not forced to actively promote student speech with which it disagrees
7. Applying Tinker to off-campus Student internet Speech Boucher v. School Board of Education, 134 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. Wis. 1998).
Student expelled for publishing a newspaper article, How to be a Hacker that was distributed at school but created off campus.
Court: applied Tinker test
Bc/ article distributed on-campus and urged on-campus activity, the potential for on-campus disturbance great enough to overcome the speechs origin off-campus
School officials justified in believing the article would lead to substantial disruption
8. Thomas v. Board of Education, 607 F. 2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1979). Facts: Students suspended for newspaper created and distributed off-campus; newspaper contained several articles concerning sexual subjects
Court: Contact with the school was minimal
School administrators not permitted to seek approval of community by punishing students for speech that occurred off school property bc/ risk is too great that officials will punish protected speech and inhibit future expression.
School officials had ventured out of the school yard and into the general community where the freedom afforded is at its highest
Court reaffirmed full First Amendment protection to student off-campus speech.
9. Tinker Applies to Off-Campus Student Speech J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 757 A.2d 412 (Pa. 2002).
Facts: student was suspended after he created an off-campus website named Teacher Sux which contained threatening and derogatory comments about his math teacher
Court: Used Tinker standard to evaluate
Rule: if conduct materially and substantially interferes with education process, student punishment justified
Effect of the website on teacher justified punishment of student
10. Schools Punishment not Justified Under Tinker Mahaffey ex rel. v. Aldrich, 236 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
Facts: student created off-campus website, Satans Web Page (encouraged visitors to stab people and contained list of people he wished would die); student suspended
Court: Applied Tinker test but punishment not justified
Statements not a true threat; suspension without any proof of disruption to school was violation of students First Amendment right
11. Off-Campus Speech is Outside Jurisdiction of School Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
Facts: student created website off-campus containing obituaries of classmates
Court: although audience was connected to school, the website and speech completely outside of the schools supervision and control
Bc/ the speech did not occur on-campus, was not in a school-sponsored newspaper, was not connected to a class or school project, and was interpreted as a threat, the speech was outside of schools jurisdiction to punish
12. Relevant State Statutes Arkansas: Ark. Stat. Ann. Secs. 6-18-1201 1204 (April 10, 1995)
California: Cal. Educ. Code Sec. 48907 (February 22, 1977)
Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 22-1-120 (June 7, 1990)
Iowa: Iowa Code Sec. 280.22 (May 11, 1989)
Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. Sections 72.1504 - 72.1506 (February 21, 1992)
Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, Section 82 (July 14, 1988)
13. Relevant Secondary Sources Clay Calvert, Off-Campus Speech, On-Campus Punishment: Censorship of the Emerging Internet Underground, B.U.J. SCI. & TECH. L. 243 (2001).
David L. Hudson, Jr., Censorship of Student Internet Speech: The Effect of Diminishing Rights, Fear of the Internet, and Columbine, 2000 L. REV. M.S.U.-D.C.L. 199 (2000).
Electronic Frontier Foundation- http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-students.php
ABC News- Detention for a High School Blog Entry? http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=1995856&page=1