Federal Court Rules Pa. Teens Can't Be Suspended for MySpace Parodies

Published June 14, 2011 Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA -- Two Pennsylvania teens cannot be disciplined at school for MySpace parodies of their principals created on home computers, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a high-profile case involving students and free speech.
The postings, however lewd or offensive, were not likely to cause significant disruptions at school and are therefore protected under prior Supreme Court case law, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found.
"Today's court decision states that you cannot punish students for off-campus speech simply because it offends or criticizes (school officials)," Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told The Associated Press. The ACLU represented both students.
However, six judges who dissented in one of the twin cases said they feared salacious online attacks against school officials would go unpunished.
"It allows a student to target a school official and his family with malicious and unfounded accusations about their character in vulgar, obscene, and personal language," Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote in the dissent involving the Blue Mountain School District in eastern Pennsylvania.


Read the Entire Article

This is the first I've heard about this case, and I'm not sure how I would have decided it if I were one of the judges.

Either way, I do think that stuff like this will make it even more difficult than it already is, to attract high-quality, highly-skilled people to work in the public schools.

(06-14-2011 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is the first I've heard about this case, and I'm not sure how I would have decided it if I were one of the judges.

Either way, I do think that stuff like this will make it even more difficult than it already is, to attract high-quality, highly-skilled people to work in the public schools.

Quid pro quo. The teachers and principals are sure to start their own facebook pages. Excuse, myspace.

(06-14-2011 12:47 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Quid pro quo. The teachers and principals are sure to start their own facebook pages. Excuse, myspace.

Possible. But I think that most people in that position will just go somewhere else, like a private school where these kind of internet-attacks are (or at least, can be) grounds for suspension/expulsion/etc.

(06-14-2011 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is the first I've heard about this case, and I'm not sure how I would have decided it if I were one of the judges.

Either way, I do think that stuff like this will make it even more difficult than it already is, to attract high-quality, highly-skilled people to work in the public schools.

Sound ruling... Now this kid can expect less help from his teachers to be sure.

(06-14-2011 02:05 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Sound ruling... Now this kid can expect less help from his teachers to be sure.

(06-14-2011 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is the first I've heard about this case, and I'm not sure how I would have decided it if I were one of the judges.

The ruling had already been made. You would have had to choose between precedent, or breaking it. Not sure this is a case worth breaking precedent over.

Shocking to see a circuit court agree with a prior Supreme Court decision, I know.

(06-14-2011 10:42 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This is the first I've heard about this case, and I'm not sure how I would have decided it if I were one of the judges.

The ruling had already been made. You would have had to choose between precedent, or breaking it. Not sure this is a case worth breaking precedent over.

Shocking to see a circuit court agree with a prior Supreme Court decision, I know.

What prior SC decision are you referring to?

(06-14-2011 11:53 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What prior SC decision are you referring to?

Just going off this:

Quote:The postings, however lewd or offensive, were not likely to cause significant disruptions at school and are therefore protected under prior Supreme Court case law, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found.

But after looking at the opinions:
- http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084138p1.pdf
- & http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/074465p1.pdf
which are listed as "precedential opinions" on the 3rd circuit website, I found they cited 1969's Tinker v. Des Moines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._D...l_District

As if teaching in public schools weren't already a thankless enough job.

Tinker v Des Moines was decided by a very different group of justices than the ones who are on the bench now. I would not assume for one minute that the Roberts Court would produce the same opinion as the court of 1969. But even if they did, I think the facts of Tinker are readily distinguishable from the facts in this Internet-based situation of today.