School Power Over Student Web Speech?

Petey_Alchemist asks: "In the wake of the Pope John XIII student weblogging ban, the online lives of students are once again being examined by their academic institutions. News outlets are covering a series of recent events--most notably the expulsion of a Fisher College sophomore (who also happened to be President of the Student Government) after he posted in a 'controversial' Facebook group. Facebook, for those of you who don't know, is an incredibly popular social networking site for American college students. The fact that you must have a college email account to join provides some modicum (re: illusion) of privacy, but doesn't keep faculty or administrative members from joining and patrolling the website. Bottom line: Facebook, Pope John XIII, and other online student speech cases are popping up all over the place yet no case defining the amount of control a school has over a student based on that student's web speech has come before the Supreme Court. When will this happen? Moreover, what will be the result when it finally does?"

Facebook

[NitsujTPU]

Uhmm. Here, professors join the facebook and add their students as friends. They'll announce this behavior in class, and brag of their numbers. It's hardly a covert op.

Also, the facebook isn't a blog, it's a social networking service.

While we're at it, there isn't much that you could do in facebook that would be all that damaging. Naked pictures are banned... other than that, you could join a group with a controversial name, but there isn't much in that. I'm a member of "My name's Justin biotch." Lots of people are members of "I went to a public school, bitch." Not here, since most of the kids here are wealthy Ivy Leaguers, born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but, you know, whatever.

I worry more about what I say on Slashdot.

Re:Personal Experience

[cytoman]

She should fight this in court...AFAIK (and IANAL) the courts no longer allow digital photos as evidence because of the ease with which they can be manipulated.

Freedom of speech usually wins

[velocityboy123]

There have been a lot of cases like this in the public school system in the last few years; when they go to trial the student usually wins. This was just today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-11-07-schoo l-website-suit_x.htm [usatoday.com]

What's the big deal?

[__aaclcg7560]

When these Future Bloggers of America get into the work environment, they will get smack down for hanging out their company's dirty laundry for public display as well. Free speech belongs to the person who owns the press and can afford a good attorney.

Re:Personal Experience

[Trigun]

Congress did not make the law.

Re:Personal Experience

[koreaman]

I'm well aware. That's my point. This school can do whatever they like with your free speech and they won't be violating the first amendment, which they of course are not allowed to do (not that they even have the ability, they're not congress.)

Duquesne University sanction will backfire.

[Anonymous Coward]

From one of the articles quoted: [worldnetdaily.com]

After an investigation, the Judicial Affairs office decided to take action against Miner and, in an Oct. 13 hearing, found him guilty of violating university policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." As "punishment" - a term university officials say they don't like to use - Miner must write a 10-page essay in which he is required to research and explain the Roman Catholic church's position on gays and lesbians.

Now that's going to backfire, big-time. Because official Vatican doctrinal documents [vatican.va] are much closer to the student's position than what Duquesne University is putting out.

The Catholic Church is having a doctrinal crackdown [shu.edu] on this. No more "diversity". The Apostolic Visitation (what used to called the Grand Inquisition) of US seminaries by Vatican personnel is underway right now. Some faculty members have already been canned for deviations from church doctrine.

Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The kid suggested "eliminating"(executing) a campus police officer AND solicited others to attempt what can only be termed entrapment.

Or getting him fired. I read some of the passages, and the methods seemed to be a petition, digging up dirt, or entrapment. That isn't murder.

Re:The end result: loss of freedom

[dvdeug]

All institutions must act in accord with government regulation. Period. It has long been held that private sector entities do not have an arbitrary right to bar you; Souter, in the majority decision for the Supreme Court on "Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston":

The Massachusetts public accommodations law under which respondents brought suit has a venerable history. At common law, innkeepers, smiths, and others who "made profession of a public employment," were prohibited from refusing, without good reason, to serve a customer. Lane v. Cotton, 12 Mod. 472, 484-485, 88 Eng. Rep. 1458, 1464-1465 (K.B. 1701) (Holt, C. J.); see Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 298, n. 17 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring); Lombard v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 267, 277 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring). As one of the 19th century English judges put it, the rule was that "[t]he innkeeper is not to select his guests[;] [h]e has no right to say to one, you shall come into my inn, and to another you shall not, as every one coming and conducting himself in a proper manner has a right to be received; and for this purpose innkeepers are a sort of public servants." Rex v. Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213, 219, 173 Eng. Rep. 94, 96 (N.P. 1835); M. Konvitz & T. Leskes, A Century of Civil Rights 160 (1961).

The ERA is not a constitutional amendment; it was a proposed constitutional amendment. The civil rights legistlations are based on the principle that the private sector is a large part of American life, and that we don't want to let people of a certain race, religion, or gender be arbitrarily excluded from a large part of American life.

Here the ideal to be upheld is that an American is permitted to express his or her opinion and to talk freely; if the associations the schools had with their students were voluntary, like those a college has with its students, it would be different. The value of private schooling should not be that it produces a student terrified of exercising his or her rights, or worse, unfamiliar with them.

Re:Free Speech

[damiam]

The Constitution doesn't guarentee unconditional free speech to all citizens. It just forbids the government from restricting speech. Private institutions are free to ask whatever terms they want, as long as they're not illegal.

Re:Free Speech

[DarkSarin]

In the US many universities have similar stances--BYU, for example, is a private institution funded by a not-for-profit church (and one that works hard to make sure that they stay that way), and can therefore get away with a lot of practices in their code of conduct that other universities simply cannot (they can and do expel students for drinking alcohol--not all students, but if someone gets reported they can get expelled).

Clemson University, where I am attending, is a different matter. As a state institution they must adhere to all federal and state guidelines regarding freedom of speech, etc. I think that the SCOTUS would probably allow restrictions of speech at BYU and disallow them at any state or state-funded school. This means that BYU can kick you out for bad-mouthing the president of the university, but Clemson probably couldn't.

At many universities the ombudsman is available for students to consult when greivances arise. Whether or not this person is someone who actually has power is a tricky thing. They have power if they are allowed to. I think that here at Clemson they do a decent job, but I've never run into any problems. I know some students who have (mostly undergraduate students), but many of them were reluctant to go to the omsbudsman (I'm uncertain of the correct spelling), and in the end I don't know what the outcomes were.

Are some professors prickly? Do some universities essentially ignore the rights of students when planning and executing disciplinary procedures? Certainly, but I think that in the US, at least, state run schools are likely to have a clean record. Private schools, such as BYU {disclaimer: I am am "Mormon", but did not, by choice, attend BYU--the cost is too high for anyone in my position (less than perfect high-school GPA, but reasonably high ACT scores [and now GRE])}, should also be fine, with the caveat that you NEED to know what the code of conduct is BEFORE you go to the school. The small, private, liberal arts school where I did my undergrad had some odd, archaic, and unusual items in the code of conduct, but nothing that I had a problem with or couldn't deal with for four years.

FWIW, the standard disclaimer applies: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't even look like a lawyer, and anyone asking me for legal advice needs a little more help than I am qualified to give in the mental health area. I DO have some basic knowledge of legal practices regarding employment issues, but that hardly qualifies me to dispense legal advice. If anything above is contradictory, stupid or rambling, I apologize for being human, tired, and worn out--I am in graduate school after all.

Re:state school

[AlgoRhythm]

Right. Brainwashing. Which is why I went through 8 years of Catholic school, started as a Catholic and ended up an atheist.

Hella good brainwashing.

It's also the reason that approximately 80% of my peers (without taking a formal poll) don't practice their faith regularly, if they haven't denounced it out right. Brainwashing.

I think you may be confusing Catholics with Evangelicals. Catholics (based upon my personal experience in youth groups, Churches and School) don't go actively trying to convert you. They do force you to adhere to their codes of conduct while at school and school functions, and they expect their good example to attract you to the fold. But this is a far cry from the evangelical's idea that the more souls that they save the more secure their spot in heaven.