The Principal and Interest : Freedom of Speech and the Internet

Freedom of Speech and the Internet

I am a little uncomfortable with the news today. I read that the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a middle school student has the right to free speech after she posted very inappropriate comments about her school's principal on MySpace.

"While we have little regard for A.B.'s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech," Judge Patricia Riley wrote in the 10-page opinion."

A little more than a week after celebrating "Stop Cyberbullying Day" I am having a hard time understanding how a student is allowed to blatantly libel the principal or any other school employee in a public forum. If a student did the same thing toward another student, there would be outrage in the community.

Of course there are two sides to this issue.

ON ONE HAND -

How are we all protected from this kind of immature, senseless, and insensitive public attack? Please don't misunderstand me. I firmly believe in the First Ammendment and the right to free speech. But where do we draw the line. I doubt the Founding Fathers of our Country were thinking that students (or anyone else for that matter) should be allowed to spew poison on the internet for the entire world to read.

Principals and teachers often make decisions that anger students and parents. That is part of the job. Now, what's to stop a disgruntled student or parent from writing whatever they want about us on a website? Are there any protections for educators regarding the Internet?

ON THE OTHER HAND -

I firmly believe in the First Ammendment and the right to free speech. I do not believe in banning books, silencing “Shock-Jocks” like Howard Stern, or disallowing people to gather and speak their opinions freely in public. This is one of the principles upon which our country is founded. Students have the right to speak their mind just like adults. We live in a free society, and that is something I am very proud to be a part of.

I am wondering if the reason this story bothered me at first is because it hit very close to home. This could happen to me. Yet, do the students and parents in the community in which I work have the right to voice their opinions on the Internet? Maybe they do.

So there you have it. Two sides to this story. Which side are you on?

I could use some help with this. Scott McLeod, are you out there? I would like your take on this. Does anyone else have an opinion?

- Dave

Technorati Tags: First Ammendment, Free speech, StopCyberbullying, Scott McLeod, Indiana Court of Appeals

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:12 PM dsherman

Comments

Scott McLeod said:

(The following comment was sent to me by Scott McLeod. Because this is an elementary school blog, I needed to delete the exact quote from the case he cited because the language was inappropriate for our students. My deletion was in the first paragraph only. The rest of the comment is posted exactly as Scott wrote it. Scott, I really appreciate your response, and it makes good sense to me. There is some subtle irony in me "censoring" the comments for a post about freedom of speech, but in this case, I feel it is necessary so I can post the rest of your terrific thoughts. Dave)

Dave, I'm here! Please see

http://tinyurl.com/2abg58

and my online presentation at

http://tinyurl.com/2ynpvz

In the case you cite, A.B. v. State (Ind.App.2007), the Greencastle Middle School student posted the following message on MySpace "...."

Here's what the court said: "A.B. openly criticizes Gobert's imposed school policy on decorative body piercings and forcefully indicates her displeasure with it. While we have little regard for A.B.'s use of vulgar epithets, we conclude that her overall message constitutes political speech. Addressing a state actor, the thrust of A.B.'s expression focuses on explicitly opposing Gobert's action in enforcing a certain school policy."

The court also found insufficient harm to result from A.B.'s speech: "the State failed to produce any evidence that A.B.'s expression inflicted particularized harm analogous to tortuous injury on readily identifiable private interests as required to rebut A.B.'s claim of political speech."

One of the key aspects of libel is that you have to prove harm to your reputation. It appears that the court in this case viewed this as a student spouting off on a school policy issue, which was well within her rights, and found insufficient harm to the principal's reputation to warrant a finding of libel.

Dave, you say that you're worried about this happening to you. Is this any different than a post that said, "I disagree with Mr. Sherman's policy on piercings? Who does he think he is? He can't control me. I'm going to do whatever I want and there's nothing he can do about it. I hate you, Mr. Sherman."?

As you know, you need to have a thick skin when you're a principal!

April 11, 2007 11:59 AM

Scott McLeod said:

Dave, no problem with the censorship, ironic though it may be. I forgot you had an elementary school audience in addition to your adult audience. Sorry about that!

April 12, 2007 1:02 AM

What do you think?

Name (required)

Comments (required)
Remember Me?
Enter the code you see below
Return to The Principal and Interest Home

The Principal and Interest

Search

Post Categories

Pictures!

Other Stuff

Archives

Post Calendar

Blog 109 Main Navigation

Freedom of Speech and the Internet

Comments

Scott McLeod said:

Scott McLeod said:

What do you think?