Your opinion on a school issue.....

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

My question: Should a school punish a teacher if he or she post negative comments about a student on social media?

That's a different situation because of the authority teachers have over students' grades, which presumably can impact their future.

At the very least, it'd open up grounds for a kid to appeal any grade they get, alleging instructor bias, I'd think.

[Solecismic]

It depends on the intent of the kid. Did he use hashtags, was he trying to publish the statement to others in the school? If not, it's nowhere near as confrontational as if he approached the coach in a mall and said it.

Without the intent to publish, it seems more like ringing his doorbell, tape recorder in hand, and asking him, "so what do you think of the coach, now that he's cut you from the team?"

I don't think it's worth a suspension either way, but if he didn't even use tags, then I question why the coach should care. Or why this is even a discussion.

School is not a kid's job. It's compulsory. If a kid is determined to fuck up his future, that's his right and it's between him and his parents. If he's violent or constantly disruptive, that's what suspensions and expulsions are for.

[DanGarion]

He shouldn't have been suspended. End of story.

This has nothing to do with privilege or back in the day. The coach decided not to be the kids authority figure when the coach decided he wasn't good enough for the team. He has no reason to get his panties in a bunch just because the kid cussed him out on Twitter.

I wish I had the opportunity to have done something like this when I was in high school and I found out that the varsity baseball coach wasn't going to let me play ball my Junior year because his nephew (who played at my school) didn't like me and was bullying me.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by rowech

On another somewhat related topic -- most schools have policies that kids can be disciplined for drinking or doing drugs during season. Some even go so far as to say they can be punished for these events 365 days a year if they get caught -- even if it's not at a school event. Is that acceptable since it's not on school grounds?

Again, that's different. One (the bitching out the coach) is not a criminal activity. The other (drinking and drugs) *is* a criminal activity, and thus, supersedes any on/off school property distinction.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

School is not a kid's job. It's compulsory. If a kid is determined to fuck up his future, that's his right and it's between him and his parents. If he's violent or constantly disruptive, that's what suspensions and expulsions are for.

Disagree.

The whole point of school is to prepare kids for there future. Kids that age have no concept of the big picture of their life. It is still up to parents AND school to steer them in the right direction. Otherwise, what is the point of school at all other than a taxpayer funded daycare?

[Sun Tzu]

School is a kid's job, and prepares kids for their future? That's a joke, especially if you're talking about the public school system in this country. School isn't a choice if you're a kid. School is mandatory, and choosing otherwise leads to being picked up by truant officers/labelled a loser.

I know high school dropouts that are more intelligent and successful than 90% of the people on this board.

I know people who have gotten their masters, that are dumber than a doorknob and couldn't hold down a decent job to save their lives.

School gives kids the opportunity to develop social skills, and figure out one or two things that they may have an interest in. If you're going to make the argument that knowing who won the Battle of 1812 is preparing a kid for their future, then I can't help but laugh.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Nope.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say no.

/thread

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

School is a kid's job, and prepares kids for their future? That's a joke, especially if you're talking about the public school system in this country. School isn't a choice if you're a kid. School is mandatory, and choosing otherwise leads to being picked up by truant officers/labelled a loser.

I know high school dropouts that are more intelligent and successful than 90% of the people on this board.

I know people who have gotten their masters, that are dumber than a doorknob and couldn't hold down a decent job to save their lives.

School gives kids the opportunity to develop social skills, and figure out one or two things that they may have an interest in. If you're going to make the argument that knowing who won the Battle of 1812 is preparing a kid for their future, then I can't help but laugh.

You may not like the way out society operates but the examples you listed are the exception, not the rule.

The reality is if you go to to school, get good grades, get into a good college and do well then you are likely to get a good job, live in a nice home, more opportunity for your children etc...

You drop out of high school or do poorly, don't go to college or do well in college, drop out, etc...then you get a crappy job, struggle your whole life, and put your family at a disadvantage.


the numbers are out there and they don't lie.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by rowech

Courts typically rule that anything that can disrupt the educational atmosphere of a school can be punished -- even if it's outside of school. So the question is, do these comments disrupt the educational atmosphere by attacking the authority figures and diminishing the atmosphere needed by the school to educate? I would say yes. They go beyond simple grumbling about a teacher. I know had this happened at our school, the student would have been suspended. Had he said something to the effect of "got cut again...thanks a lot coach" I would say he would not have been.

On another somewhat related topic -- most schools have policies that kids can be disciplined for drinking or doing drugs during season. Some even go so far as to say they can be punished for these events 365 days a year if they get caught -- even if it's not at a school event. Is that acceptable since it's not on school grounds?

See to me, posting it on twitter does not do the above. I think it was silly for the coach to report it. I'm of the opinion, "who the fuck cares". On your other point, when I was a coach, I would discipline a kid if he was caught drinking, or using drugs, during season. And I made that clear in the player's handbook. To me, baseball was an extracurricular activity, and if you wanted to participate, you would do so and follow the team rules.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

See to me, posting it on twitter does not do the above. I think it was silly for the coach to report it. I'm of the opinion, "who the fuck cares". On your other point, when I was a coach, I would discipline a kid if he was caught drinking, or using drugs, during season. And I made that clear in the player's handbook. To me, baseball was an extracurricular activity, and if you wanted to participate, you would do so and follow the team rules.

What if the coach is a teacher? How does that not undermine authority?

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by rowech

What if the coach is a teacher? How does that not undermine authority?

I am a teacher. I could give a shit less what student's post about twitter about me. As a teacher, or as a coach. As a coach I'm going to make daily decisions that piss people off. That's part of coaching. I'm not going to go trolling on twitter to see who likes it, and who doesn't. I'm secure in my abilities to perform my duties.

[DougW]

This is a fascinating read. I am getting the impression that more folks than I suspected hold school in a different light than I. I believe a schools' goal is to (should) be - a lesser partner to parents in molding our children to become well behaved, productive, and of course educated adults. I believe it's their responsibility. And I believe it extends past A's, B's & C's. I believe behavior & respect is a major part of a childs education. Using the Walmart example, if my kid was acting inappropriately somewhere, and one of his teachers saw him - I'd hope the teacher would call him out.

I wouldn't think it OK, if every kid that didn't score as well on every math test as they wanted to was allowed to pick up the phone, and mother fucker the math teacher. Or yell it over a bull horn for all the other faculty and students to hear. Or in this case, the internet.

I also am thinking a large part of this is peoples fear of not having complete internet freedom. Like, the interwebz are like talking to a priest or lawyer - and untouchable. Which is bull. Internet or not, people are still accountable for their actions, or in fantasy internet world .. their words.

And, in my book - saying "Fuck You Lombardi" loud enough for him to hear, as well as every student & all other faculty members is completely disrespectful, and "bad". And should be punished.

[Mota]

If the kid should be allowed to openly disrespect school faculty on social media, then shouldn't faculty have the ability to do the same?

What would happen if the teacher responded back to this tweet and said "No, F you kid!" he'd get fired or suspended instantly. You can guarantee the kid's parents would be all over the school board. They'd be going to the media and it would be a huge vendetta to get people canned for that type of remark.

Freedom of speech does not equal anarchy. You have sets of standards and both faculty and students have to adhere to it, otherwise you lose control and the system fails.

[DaddyTorgo]

Freedom of speech also doesn't protect you from having to face repercussions for that speech. Common misconception.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Disagree.

The whole point of school is to prepare kids for there future. Kids that age have no concept of the big picture of their life. It is still up to parents AND school to steer them in the right direction. Otherwise, what is the point of school at all other than a taxpayer funded daycare?

School is there for education, mot moral control. The school's authority ends when the child leaves school property, whether by walking off the grounds or stepping off the bus.

The school has no authority in this case. Period.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mota

If the kid should be allowed to openly disrespect school faculty on social media, then shouldn't faculty have the ability to do the same?

What would happen if the teacher responded back to this tweet and said "No, F you kid!" he'd get fired or suspended instantly. You can guarantee the kid's parents would be all over the school board. They'd be going to the media and it would be a huge vendetta to get people canned for that type of remark.

Freedom of speech does not equal anarchy. You have sets of standards and both faculty and students have to adhere to it, otherwise you lose control and the system fails.

Absolutely, teachers and coaches have a level to live up to as examples for the students. If the coach responded in kind he should be fired. He would have shown himself to be a horrible role model.

The only people responsible or with the authority to punish this kid for his tweet are his parents. No one else has a right to do jack shit beyond letting those parents know what he's done.

[kcchief19]

If this story gets very far out in the public, this sounds like an attractive legal case for someone looking to make a name for themselves and establish law in social media.

I don't see how you can suspend the kid. If schools are going to crack down on kids who run down their coaches and teachers for talking about them on social media, we're not going to have any kids in the classroom. If you're threatened by a kid saying that on Twitter, you need to toughen up or find a new line of work. Comes with the territory.

There's a huge difference between criticizing your boss on Twitter vs. criticizing a teacher on Twitter. First, it's the government vs. a private entity and First Amendment issues. Second, I work at the pleasure of my boss, but school is an obligation both ways. You can't fire someone from school.

Yes, I do think there are different rules between if the kid said this to the teacher at school vs. on Twitter. If the kid said this at the mall on Saturday with his friends and the coach overheard it, should the kid be suspended?

[kcchief19]

One last thing ... the only slight defense I could see the school having is if they have it in the student handbook/guidelines that this is not permitted and the kid and/or his parents signed to play under that rule. I still think a civil rights lawyer would love to take this case.

[stevew]

If the kid was making mention of his twitter feed in school and how people should check it, does that crossover enough to warrant a suspension?

How did the coach find out about all of this?

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Freedom of speech also doesn't protect you from having to face repercussions for that speech. Common misconception.

No but by definition it does protect you from government repercussions to that speech. As a public school is very clearly a way that the government imposes its will upon children, students should have 1st Amendment rights. That said, I think the Supreme Court recognition of those rights must be balanced against a school's need for order is a good test.

In my mind I think the suspension is grossly disproportionate response. A conversation should be had with the student, perhaps even some consequences if there's a history of this thing, but a student should be able to blow off steam, even in a way that lets the Coach know his feelings, without being suspended.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by stevew

If the kid was making mention of his twitter feed in school and how people should check it, does that crossover enough to warrant a suspension?

How did the coach find out about all of this?

An asst. coach, who has a son on the team, brought it to the head coach's attention. The head coach told the administration.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by stevew

If the kid was making mention of his twitter feed in school and how people should check it, does that crossover enough to warrant a suspension?

Good question.

[Subby]

Fuck that coach,. What an asshole.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by RendeR

School is there for education, mot moral control. The school's authority ends when the child leaves school property, whether by walking off the grounds or stepping off the bus.

The school has no authority in this case. Period.

Not true.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RendeR

School is there for education, mot moral control. The school's authority ends when the child leaves school property, whether by walking off the grounds or stepping off the bus.

The school has no authority in this case. Period.

So by your logic teachers shouldn't care about bullying, fights on the playground, smoking in the bathrooms, or any of the other myriad of things that happen in every school as long as they are teaching the curriculum in the classroom?

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So by your logic teachers shouldn't care about bullying, fights on the playground, smoking in the bathrooms, or any of the other myriad of things that happen in every school as long as they are teaching the curriculum in the classroom?

No, I think clearly that's what he's not saying. He's saying that the school shouldn't get into these kinds of things, because it didn't happen at school. All of the above did happen at school. What if I'm a teacher, and I walk into the grocery story and some kid walks by me and says "Fuck you so and so"? Is that a school issue?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

No, I think clearly that's what he's not saying. He's saying that the school shouldn't get into these kinds of things, because it didn't happen at school. All of the above did happen at school. What if I'm a teacher, and I walk into the grocery story and some kid walks by me and says "Fuck you so and so"? Is that a school issue?

To me that is exactly what he is saying. How can you misinterpret his statement that school is not there for moral control, it is there for education.

[JediKooter]

Saying schools prepare kids for 'real life' is like saying prisons actually rehabilitate inmates so they are productive members of society.

At best, schools give students the bare minimum on how to get ready for 'real life'. Some schools even go as far as to try and prepare students for college, but, real life? I don't think so.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Lathum

To me that is exactly what he is saying.

It's just you then, because no one else is grossly misinterpreting it in that way. Everything he said pertained to stuff off-hours and off school grounds, every example you gave was during school hours and on school property.

[Blackadar]

For those who are saying "yes, ban the kid", how far do you take it? If the coach isn't his teacher, what does it matter? What if he tweeted about his French teacher from last year? Or a teacher at another school? What if this was during summer break? Where do you draw the line?

True story - I was in HS at the time and playing golf during a teacher workday. The course was pretty damn empty. On the 13th, I hit a massive drive with a massive slice towards the 12th fairway. I noticed another solo golfer walking down the 12th, so I yelled "FORE"! The ball landed about 10 feet from the other golfer - pretty damn close. Whoops. So I sheepishly trudge down to the 12th to play my ball (wasn't OOB). As I get close, I noticed that the other golfer was my former 5th grade teacher, Mrs. Harper, who I detested. Just as the look of recognition spread across her face and she went to open her mouth, I looked at her and simply said, "damn, I missed." I walked over to my ball, hit an awesome 3 iron into the green and walked off. Not another word was said and I never saw Mrs. Harper again.

Should I have been suspended?

[JediKooter]

You didn't tweet it. Or maybe teachers these days are just a little on the hyper sensitive side?

[Mota]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

No, I think clearly that's what he's not saying. He's saying that the school shouldn't get into these kinds of things, because it didn't happen at school. All of the above did happen at school. What if I'm a teacher, and I walk into the grocery story and some kid walks by me and says "Fuck you so and so"? Is that a school issue?

I think I want my son to go to a school where they protect their teachers, and maintain some semblance of order. I wouldn't want him going to a school where you can stand one foot out of school property, one minute after school is over and abuse and bully the faculty. That's not a good environment for learning.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mota

I think I want my son to go to a school where they protect their teachers, and maintain some semblance of order. I wouldn't want him going to a school where you can stand one foot out of school property, one minute after school is over and abuse and bully the faculty. That's not a good environment for learning.

And this student did not abuse or bully anyone, he said fuck you or fuck off or something similar, neither is abusive nor is it bullying.

The issue ehre seems to be that people think teachers or coaches are some sort of protected species. If they do something that pisses someone off they are just as liable to deal with the fallout as anyone else.

If a student is on school property DURING SCHOOL HOURS *this is important* then there is a decorum that must be kept because the faculty has to maintain order.

After school hours and/or outside school property the faculty has no responsibility and ZERO authority to maintain that decorum.



Case in point: during 8th grade I was in an intramural soccer league. The schools AD was running it and officiating it. He made some really horrible calls and when the games were done and everyone was leaving the school grounds we were walking near one another to go to our respective rides. I told him straight out "You made some seriously pathetic fucking calls"

His response to me: "You can talk to me like that right now because we're done and its not a school issue right now, but if you ever talk to me like that during school hours I will bust your ass. Go home."

I later came to respect the man and we were even friendly before I left that school.

Teachers and coaches have every right to maintain a respect level during school activities and hours, but outside of those things they are just normal people like everyone else and have to deal with people normally. They are not a protected class.



Lathum: That was not at all what I was saying, my comments were ENTIRELY related to after school times/off school property. bad correlation.

[DougW]

This is as close to a case I could find on a google search.

Lander v Seaver tells us the school was in bounds.

Following info from Here

• Landers (STUDENT) offense was the use of "saucy and disrespectful language" towards Seaver (TEACHER) after the close of school, but in the presence of other students.
  
• Seaver said such languange degraded him in the presence of other students.
  
• Landers offense occurred after the close of school. After returned home, he was driving his father's cow past Seavers' house.
  
• In the presence of other students, he called his teacher "Old Jack Seaver."
  
• The next morning, after school convened, Seaver reprimanded Lander for his language and whipped him with a small rawhide.
  
• The court ruled that when an offense has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school and bring the masters authority into contempt when done in the presence of other students, and with a design to insult him, the the teacher has a right to punish the student for some acts if he comes again to school.

The first question presented is, Has a school-master the right to punish his pupil for acts of misbehavior committed after the school has been dismissed, and the pupil has returned home and is engaged in his father's service?

Again the court said : (a little more detail of the courts finding than the above summary) : This misbehavior, it is especially to be observed, has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school, to subvert the master's authority, and to beget disorder and insubordination. It is not misbehavior generally, or towards other persons, or even towards the master in matters in no way connected with or affecting the school; for as to such misconduct, committed by the child after his return home from school, we think the parents, and they alone, have the power of punishment.

But where the offense has a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school and bring the master's authority into contempt, as in this case, when done in the presence of other scholars and of the master, and with a design to insult him, we think he has the right to punish the scholar for such acts if he comes again to school.


The second is the corporal punishment aspect. Which, isn't what this topic is about.

I'm sure there are some pretty funny "driving his dads cow" jokes, or some "the school shoulda whipped him with rawhide instead of suspending him" jokes ... But, aside from all of that. I'm pretty sure the corporal punishment aspect of this case has changed, but I haven't found anything that says the arms length of the school has changed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DougW

This is as close to a case I could find on a google search. Lander v Seaver tells us the school was in bounds.

But Tinker vs Des Moines suggests the opposite, and came over a century later than the 1859 case you cited.

While Tinker refers to conduct on school property, the standard for restricting student speech has to meet a certain level, which seems to be causing disruption to the learning environment (and even then, the ruling mentioned that speech was still protected so long as normal school functions are not ‘unreasonably disrupted’.).

Surely the standard that schools have to meet in restricting speech isn't lower when the speech occurs off-property rather than on-property.

Even the more recent Morse v Frederick ruling, which did allow schools to censor speech off-property but at a school sponsored function was very narrowly crafted to limit the school's ability to a specific instance (the promotion of illegal drug use).

While private schools have been given considerably more leeway in regulating many aspects of student behavior, I honestly can't imagine how a public school could win a suit brought on this case unless they were able to prove substantial disruption to the learning environment. In this instance, the school seems likely to be its own worst enemy in that regard by making a mountain out of an ant hill.

[DougW]

i actually saw those 2 cases as I was "webbing" around, and truthfully almost had my mind changed until I saw LvS. Then, I felt the case I cited more closely reflected the topic.

From what I read the "Tinker test" is the big deal for school authority, but given it was in school ... and didn't contain any direct disrespect for a faculty members person, I didn't think it was as relevant.

Same with MvF, although I'll admit - once I read it was about promoting drug use, I saw it as a far away relative and didn't read much about it.

Edit : Add :

It seems most the debate here is whether the school has the authority to reach out past its bell to bell operation. From what I have read, at a minimum, if a students action (outside of school) is reasonably disruptive - then they are within their rights to punish out of school activity. This appears fact.

The second part is whether or not a particular action is "disruptive enough" to warrant school interference. An argument could be made that allowing every student to "to subvert the master's authority, and to beget disorder and insubordination" could qualify. That, if you let one student - you have to let them all .. and that level of disrespect to faculty members would be disruptive, and set a tone that wouldn't be productive if it were to be allowed. However, I'm not completely sold that this particular case would fall into this #2 area. It'd be a very interesting case to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DougW

and that level of disrespect to faculty members would be disruptive, and set a tone that wouldn't be productive if it were to be allowed.

Except that it hasn't occurred (as far we know anyway). The standard the Court seemed to set, at least as I read it, was "disruptive", not "potentially disruptive".

Seems like "no harm, no foul" would have been the wiser choice, at least in terms of the likelihood of getting their butts sued off.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except that it hasn't occurred (as far we know anyway). The standard the Court seemed to set, at least as I read it, was "disruptive", not "potentially disruptive".

Seems like "no harm, no foul" would have been the wiser choice, at least in terms of the likelihood of getting their butts sued off.

But, you're assuming the "Tinker test" would be applied to this case. I'm not positive it does. "Old Jack Seaver" addresses direct disrespect to a faculty member, while Tinker addresses 1st Amendment in general.

Tinker also doesn't fully address what is/isn't acceptable language. BethelvFraser 1986 showed that Tinker wasn't the be-all end-all, when a student was suspended for making a speech full of sexual double entendres - while not outright swearing or being vulgar. The supreme court found the school was within it's rights. The Court affirmed that the school board of a public school has the authority to decide when and to what extent profanity and other obscene language may be punished without violating a student’s First Amendment rights.

Other cases (such as the MvF you (JiMG) mentioned) show Tinker to not be complete.

cougarfreak .. Any way you can talk this kids parents into suing the school haha ? I'd really like to see how it plays out !

[Drake]

When I was in my precocious youth and a senior in high school, I ran an underground newspaper at my school. Because our principal was a wily veteran, he deduced what we were up to before the first issue went to press.

So he called me down to his office.

He presented the scenario of a pirate newspaper -- which might have to potential, however inadvertantly, step over the line of respect and decorum due to inexperienced editorial control -- to me as a thought experiment. He said he was grappling with the issue because he would hate to have to suspend kids for something getting out of control, when what he would rather do was applaud them showing some initiative.

What he suggested to me was that if such a thought experiment happened in reality, he'd be bound by the obligations of his office to shut the operation down if the papers were distributed on school grounds during school hours.

However, the strip of grass that ran right along the driveway to the school was a public bit of ground (I forget the legal term), and he wouldn't be able to stop anyone from standing on that bit of ground and passing out copies of theoretical newspapers to cars as they passed by.

I doubt the way he chose to handle things has any legal bearing on this discussion, and probably had quite a bit to do with the fact that he was retiring in a year. What I do know is that in four years, I'd never spoken to the man, but in the half-hour I met with him, I came to respect him and the way he handled his job more than I can adequately express.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DougW

The Court affirmed that the school board of a public school has the authority to decide when and to what extent profanity and other obscene language may be punished without violating a student’s First Amendment rights.

But did that ruling extend beyond the campus? After all, Morse v Frederick was exceptionally narrow, identifying one specific topic that could be addressed by the school in an off-site venue IF the speech took place at a school-sponsored event.

[DougW]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But did that ruling extend beyond the campus? After all, Morse v Frederick was exceptionally narrow, identifying one specific topic that could be addressed by the school in an off-site venue IF the speech took place at a school-sponsored event.

No, but I think it helps to add information. It piles on that the Tinker test isn't the only test for restricting a students speech.

Really, still the only case we've (I've) come across with the same main variables (significant time away from school & faculty disrespect) is Landers v Seaver.

The others have shown us :

• The school has to meet certain criteria to disregard basic 1st amendment rights. But, upon meeting that criteria - those rights can be taken away. (Tinker)
• The Tinker criteria being : causing disruption to the learning environment
• That the Tinker test isn't absolute. In both cases (Morse v Frederick, BethelvFraser) there was no student riot or major disruption, yet both cases sided with the school, allowing them to restrict & even punish speech.

In whole, what I've learned regarding this is :

• I've found the school is NOT allowed to restrict political speech (or otherwise harmless, yet controversial material) as long as it isn't disruptive.
• I've found NO case that says (as many here have said) the school has NO authority after the afternoon bell rings.
• I've found NO case that says a student is allowed to tell a teacher "Fuck You" (or any other disrespectful & publicly witnessed speech) - whether in or out of school.
• I've found a case where the school is allowed to punish a student for disrespect outside of the school grounds & time.
• I've found the school absolutely has the authority to restrict certain speech. (Disruptive, promoting drug use, sexually explicit material, faculty disrespect - & there may be more).

I really think the suspension would stand up. Basically, I've found evidence that those same specifics held up in court in the past - and NO evidence that those same specifics sided with the student.

And, my gut tells me the school system couldn't maintain a proper educating environment if every 5th grader in the country was allowed to go home and M'Fer their teacher via Twitter every day. And I think the court would have to consider that. What's good for Johnny is good for Sarah. What's good for them is good for Lee Roy, etc, etc.

[Blackadar]

I guess we'll find out. The ACLU is suing a school system for punishing a 12 year old for saying a hall monitor was "mean" and that she "hated" her.

As for cases that support the student's position? Here's probably the most applicable:

Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools: A kid created a parody facebook page of his principal and was suspended 10 days. The full 3rd Court of Appeals heard the case and ruled in favor of the student. The Supreme Court refused to take the case. The same appeals court ruled in favor of J.S. vs. Blue Mountain Schools in a very similar case.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldoc...forinterne.htm

Given that ruling, it's quite unlikely the punishment handed down by the school system is permissible.

[JediKooter]

Referencing a case from the 1850s isn't quite the persuasive argument I'd be using. It's weak at best.

I guess teachers are special little snowflakes that need to be protected from big bad words like 'fuck' and 'you'. If you are threatened or feel threatened by someone saying 'fuck you' on twitter, you've (the ubiquitous you) got far bigger and deeper problems in my opinion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

[quote=DougW;2732635] [*]That the Tinker test isn't absolute. In both cases (Morse v Frederick, BethelvFraser) there was no student riot or major disruption, yet both cases sided with the school, allowing them to restrict & even punish speech.[/list]
But in considering Morse you're omitting a very critical detail: the "speech" (actually a sign, for those who didn't read the case summary) was at a school-sponsored activity. Likewise for Fraser, the speech took place at a school assembly.

The distinction here, which might require the Court to rule specifically once again (presuming a hypothetical case were even brought), is whether the school has the right to punish obscene/vulgar speech that does not take place on school grounds.

And, my gut tells me the school system couldn't maintain a proper educating environment if every 5th grader in the country was allowed to go home and M'Fer their teacher via Twitter every day.

And yet somehow they've managed, because surely you don't believe that no student has ever FU'ed a teacher on Twitter, Facebook or MySpace.

This also seems to beg the question of just how far the schools could go with it. If the potential audience of the internet/social media is a factor, then where is that line drawn? 12 people in the food court at the mall?
5 people at a table at Burger King? Is an audience of one sufficient? Does the makeup of that audience matter? Do family members at a restaurant represent a different audience than classmates at the same restaurant?

What about the speech itself? Is it the MF that makes it actionable? What about a non-expletive version of the same sentiment? Or what if it's simply an uncomplimentary opinion. I mean, our HS FB coach was the subject of considerable discussion once upon a time, as being the one of the worst offensive minds ever witnessed ... is that off-limits for student discussion outside the classroom as well?

All of this is, of course, slippery slope stuff. But that's exactly what you have when you exempt a governmental entity (or its representative) from Constitutional requirements.

Let me also note here however that this seems to be a clear Constitutional question. If other laws apply I have no problem with those being brought to bear. For example, under Georgia law this could be construed as ground for a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, as it seems well within the bounds of "fighting words" (words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment). If the teacher wanted to pursue that route, I've got no gripe with that decision (subject to the limitations of the law, which also requires the speech to be unprovoked)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Referencing a case from the 1850s isn't quite the persuasive argument I'd be using. It's weak at best.

Perhaps true, but it was still my favorite post in this entire thread. What an interesting look at how the education system has changed in the last 150 years!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Drake

Perhaps true, but it was still my favorite post in this entire thread. What an interesting look at how the education system has changed in the last 150 years!

Don't get me wrong, I love history. Yes it has changed a ridiculous amount in the last 150 years. Shoot, in the last 20 years it has changed in my opinion.

This actually my favorite line from it: "Landers (STUDENT) offense was the use of "saucy and disrespectful language"

[RendeR]

Also citing a 150+ year old ruling from before the era of public schools and government funded education systems in general is faulty at best due to the simple fact that 150 years ago it wasn't an institutionalized system, it was usually one person trying to maintaining order for themselves and as education was paramount back then the courts gave far more leeway to the teachers as authority figures.

Today, not so much.

[DougW]

This discussion has led me to believe that we are going to see it happen in the near future. It being the courts being asked to step in and draw some lines in the sand in regards to students, teachers, and cyber-space. I'd venture to guess it'll come about with some pretty serious student on teacher cyber-bullying. And, would definitely take more than some jokes or parody as the Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools case that Blackadar found.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I guess we'll find out. The ACLU is suing a school system for punishing a 12 year old for saying a hall monitor was "mean" and that she "hated" her.

As for cases that support the student's position? Here's probably the most applicable:

Layshock vs. Hermitage Schools: A kid created a parody facebook page of his principal and was suspended 10 days. The full 3rd Court of Appeals heard the case and ruled in favor of the student. The Supreme Court refused to take the case. The same appeals court ruled in favor of J.S. vs. Blue Mountain Schools in a very similar case.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldoc...forinterne.htm



Given that ruling, it's quite unlikely the punishment handed down by the school system is permissible.

This is the district that my kids go to.

[stevew]

dola-
I don't get the local newspaper, so I didn't hear about this at all.