School Power Over Student Web Speech? 369
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?"
Further points on the subject... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really quite interesting to see how much disciplinary latitude schools have. The trend that I discovered--after we actually tried a case in Mock Trial regarding an infraction of the student handbook--is that, generally speaking, a student handbook is the rule of law for a school (barring any outright infringements on students rights.)
Therefore, schools have quite a bit of latitude in terms of punishment if they have a "detrimental conduct" clause. I myself was disciplined essentially for posting critical comments of a fellow student on my own webpage, as I posted earlier. [slashdot.org]
What I find really interesting, though, is the role the Internet is going to play in our public lives from now on. I wrote an extensive post in the other thread, [slashdot.org] but to sum it up...well, if today's journalists are willing to scour through a high school yearbook of Samuel Alito in order to find hints about his political beliefs, is it so hard to believe that my generation (speaking as a college student) will find themselves hamstrung by acts of folly conducted on the Internet? It's quite easy to connect to my pyromaniac website [toydestruction.com] to porn and warez websites. Never mind my blog [peteyworld.com], livejournal, slashdot and assorted forum accounts.
It's an electronic goldmine for the next generation of muck raking journalists to sort through--with ever more powerful search technology.
We'll become a generation where we have to admit--because we've seen the electronic evidence--that, for example, our next President was, as a teenager, a Green Day listening, Microsoft hating, MySpace blogging, whiny, self absorbed git.
Wait 'til that shock hits...maybe then people will really self-censor. Today, you've got expelled college students. Tomorrow...e-scandals?
--Petey
Freedom of speech should previal (Score:5, Insightful)
If the erosion of freedoms starts now, I fear that by the time I die, the world will be much, much different from the heydays of the internet when everything was open and without restrictions...I fear that we will have a very strict and monitored society where your every move will be logged and your every thought will be scrutinized for compliance with the dominant peoples' satisfaction.
The 11'th commandment (Score:5, Insightful)
11. "Cover thine own ass"
He didn't. He did it all out in the open. If he had kept his little conspiracy among "friends" and at least used an anonymous website instead of broadcasting his plan and name to all-and-sundry, then maybe his scheme might have succeeded. But in this case, he's learned a lesson. Don't Get Caught. If anonymity worked for the Federalist Papers, then it should have been good enough for him. Why he didn't use even an alias (because the website _required_ him to be a verified student), is beyond me.
About his scheme: If the university cop was truly harrassing students, there were _far better_ ways to nail the guy than enticing other students to "get arrested" for fun and profit.
--
BMO
Re:Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
If a college has a defined code of conduct--or, in my school's case, an honor code--and there is photo evidence of the infraction online, than why can't that evidence be admissable? I mean, if you were a school admin and someone showed you a picture they snapped themselves of someone shooting up, you'd consider that to be good evidence, right? Why should that change just because it was posted on Facebook?
Certainly, some of the issue pertain to speech--but what if a student does something against the honor code, and defames the image of the school? Are the school's hands tied?
Unfortunately, it's not so simple as just free speech.
--Petey
Re:state school (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason some of them don't is that they don't want to get caught doing it and then suffer the consequences.
Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
2 cents,
Queen B
the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:5, Insightful)
The kid suggested "eliminating"(executing) a campus police officer AND solicited others to attempt what can only be termed entrapment.
Furthermore, you don't have protections of freedom of speech with ANY organization except the government. I'm really tired of people claiming that they have "Freedom of Speech" every time they get in trouble for spouting whatever they feel like at work, or school, or on private property. EVEN FURTHER, those rights do not include liable, slander, or assault (ie, "I'm going to rape you with this baseball bat!" is not constitutionally protected speech) to name a few. There are CENTURIES of precedence on this issue.
If you RTFA: "Fisher College spokesman John McLaughlin said, ''Cameron Walker was found to be in violation of the Student Guide and Code of Conduct.""
THAT, boys and girls, is why he was expelled. It's not the fact that he had a web log (I refuse to call them blogs); it's that he threatened the life of a school employee. It's pretty fucking clear-cut to me, and I'm really tired of hearing a lot of whining about "oh, poor him". The guy did something completely unjustified and COMPLETELY stupid. He knew the consequences (especially since he was class/school president) of violating the school's code of conduct; it was a private school. His speech was not protected, and furthermore, is most likely criminal in nature.
Re:Supreme Court... Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure that the "right of free speech" should be something that non-government agencies should be able to ignore. Our lives are dominated by interaction with "private" agencies- be it a private school you attend, or the company you work for, a store you shop at, or a website you post to. If free speech isn't protected at any of these places, then where IS it protected? Is the middle-lane of the state-owned freeway the only place I can express my opinion without fear of consequences?
Private agencies shouldn't be allowed to punish an individual for LEGAL acts that they simply don't like.
Of course, no one wants the government telling them what they have to put up with. And I agree with that completely, but maybe there's some room for compromise. Maybe.
Re:state school (Score:4, Insightful)
The most widespread example is student-run newspapers in high schools and colleges. Students are punished for taking positions in their writing that are critical of the institution, especially at the high school level. Students (and I know this from observing the situation myself at my high school) have been suspended for attempting to run editorials or stories that don't toe the party line. You could argue that they're using school funds, so why should the school print something critical of itself? Because being a state institution, the faculty (in theory) should be required to allow any speech, no matter how damaging or critical.
In practice, not so much. Courts have routinely decided in the schools' favor when these cases have gone to trial. The message this sends to the students is very disturbing (to me at least): Your rights end when you walk through the door. The (required by law) act of attending a public school (barring the home-schooled and those who attend charter schools) requires that the students surrender what IMHO is the most important civil right that American citizens enjoy.
Is it any wonder that these students have no respect for authority? Everyone acts so shocked when the students have total contempt for the school and everything it represents; they don't stop to think that they're teaching them one thing (Americans have lots of rights) but practicing another (You have no rights, shut up or you're getting suspended.)
Here's a free clue folks: Treat people with respect, and you'll get respect back. Don't treat them like second-class citizens and then wonder why nobody shows up for the pep rally.
clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally it would be a violation of the right to assemble for the government to put restrictions on how people can associate privately, and a violation of the right to free speech if government tried to interfere with people calling each other "spics" or any other term of opprobium they please, in a private setting.
Where you might have become confused is, first, by the fact that public organizations, e.g. public schools, transit agencies, et cetera, are bound by the same Constitutional rules as the government itself. And, furthermore, government is certainly within its rights to, as a matter of policy, deny public assistance to private organizations Congress finds objectionable, and Congress frequently does just that.
Finally, things like the Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination in any activity that can plausibly (or even with a stretch) be defined as commercial. So it's not illegal, if you privately sell your home, to refuse to sell it to black people, but it is illegal if you are "in the business" of selling or renting -- and that is defined very broadly -- or if you use a broker, et cetera. This is all justified under the Constitution as relating to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
So Congress has no power to ban the Ku Klux Klan, nor can it ban its meeting in private homes in which signs with racial epithets are posted, and the KKK can completely exclude blacks from membership, and if it runs a boarding house for its members it can exclude blacks from there, too. But the KKK is not likely to be granted tax-exempt status, and is not likely to receive permission to meet on public land, e.g. in a public school, and if it applies for a public grant to promote its activies I expect the application will be turned down.
Private universities are frequently "blackmailed" by the federal government into various policies considered in the public good, from allowing both sexes and all races to enroll (although this tends not to be applied against female-only or black-only colleges) to allowing military recruiters on campus. This works mostly because even private universities receive enormous chunks of their budget (like, 40% or so) from the federal government via grants of one kind or another.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is not. Being an employee vs being a student are very different situations.
Re:Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personal Experience (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of speech should previal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly in the legal world, you don't get such a distinction. Prosecution would argue that he had plenty of other wordings to choose from, but that "eliminate" has a strong connotation, particularly if one is speaking about a police officer.
The officer would then be asked about how he interpreted the statement- which is mostly what matters. It's how the victim interpreted the assault, not how you intended it.
Re:To answer your basic question (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not true. You cannot give away your constitutional rights, no matter what you sign.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:3, Insightful)
I do know that assault is the THREAT of violence.
And the legal definition that I found seems to require that the victim know about it, presumably at the time it's committed. At best he coould be charged with conspiracy, if intent to commit murder could be proven.I still maintain that it looks like an attempt to oust an officer that's been harrassing students, which isn't actually a crime.
Re:the kid suggested executing a police officer (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd be surprised how many students who might not be as familiar with law or technology as you believe that blogs and such, while publicly accessible, enjoy some modicum of privacy. The thought is that, in the vastness of the Internet, nobody is going to actually read your post and care about it.
I used to think that way, until I was disciplined for a violation by my school. A girl I knew was expelled from NHS for making fun of teachers on her livejournal.
It's legally intuitive, but still not something most people would think of in terms of common sense. Strange, I know, but true.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
No, she should fight this in court on the grounds that the school has no right to limit what she does off-campus, in her own free time, even if it's illegal
That's absolutely true. It's equally true that she has no right to force a private institution to allow her to attend./p
The arrogance of universities... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
That may or may not be, but if it didn't state specifically in the school's code of conduct that I was going to have my off-campus speech regulated, and they expelled me for that, I sure damn well expect my tuition to date refunded and a clear note made in my transcript that I was not at fault for the expulsion. Now, if it does state that in their code of conduct, I suppose they can do that, but you'd have to be an idiot to go there. I guess it's good practice, in a sense, since the SC, in its infinite wisdom, has agreed that employers can restrict speech pretty much all they want.
Re:Personal Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are commiting crimes on campus that is a good reason for their being concerned you might commit crimes on campus.
Re:Downhill (Score:4, Insightful)
The EUCD, the software patent legislation (which might just be happening anyway), the joint effort of ministers Bodstrom of Sweden and Clarke of the UK when it comes destroying civil liberties in Europe, the less-than-perfect freedom of press in Sweden (not to mention the debate about journalists blogging on their own time) - it's a road paved with mostly good intentions to guess where.
While I'm all for critizing the US for the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT Act, let's not pretend we (swedes/europeans) live in a perfect society.
In fact, I'd like to argue that it would be easier to turn this development around in the US than in Europe. Due to differing civic cultures, and a much more clear tradition of focusing politics on civil rights and liberties in the US compared to Europe in general, and the social democratic countries in particular.
(Even though you didn't really claim that Sweden was 'better' in your post, I felt obligated to point out that it isn't.
Re:Downhill (Score:1, Insightful)
I am brazilian, and in my childhood times I thought that America (the country) was the most freaking cool place in the planet.
I may self-justify by saying that I was manipulated by the media, and that the brazilian government is under strict alignment with the american government, but the thing is not really like that.
I studied English for 14 (yes, fourteen) years, always got the higher grades and lots of internships and summer jobs in America and Europe for the sake of the dream of someday moving to America definitely and even naturalizing myself american.
Well.. things didn't go that beautiful.
I had to go to Sao Paulo and wait 2 days in a line to get a visa to do another summer job in america.
Getting there, they made a record of me still in the airport.
And now, DMCA, RIAA, IP laws, and so on...
Why do you think America is losing its way ahead in science?
I don't see any americans allowed to create anymore!
I don't even see any americans allowed to think properly.
If you think, lawsuit.
I've read the american history extensevely, and I think that the building brick of America is freedom.
And all your politicians are taking that brick away, along with educators, teachers, parents and lawyers.
Maybe it is the Bush administration. Maybe not.
The war on terrorism is forced to get your freedoms away?
I think you all have seen the strange facts about September 11th. Where is the plane on the pentagon and so on.
My wish here is, please stand up!
Don't let anybody destroy your country.
It is the greatest, but we don't know for how long...