« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
So, what happens when a group of students wear t-shirts that say that homosexuality is a sin and that sodomy is a sin? Well, you get THIS (make sure you watch the video!) perfect storm of events in Sacramento, CA.
This hasn't become a formal legal issue yet, but there is an interesting situation developing in a school district on Long Island (NY). The school board originally voted to cancel the show. Then, a decision was made to reschedule the show which has been "cleaned up" for a later date (and the show will now be free; prior ticketholders were refunded). Also, the teacher most directly responsible for overseeing the production was pulled from the classroom and placed on administrative leave, raising the ire of many students and parents. If nothing else, this provides an interesting case study that raises, at the very least, important free speech and ethical issues.
The former principal of St. Anthony of Padua School in Lorain, Ohio, pleaded no contest to sexual imposition and unauthorized use of public property for kissing the feet of three male students to settle a bet on a volleyball game. School computers seized from his office contained 400 photos depicting adult foot fetish behavior.
A journalism teacher in the East Allen (IN) County Schools may lose her job after a student published an editorial in the school newspaper advocating tolerance for homosexuals.
The St. Paul (MN) Public Schools is being sued by the St. Paul Area Evangelicals organization for refusing to let students hand out fliers advertising religious instruction held during school hours. The school district bans the fliers despite allowing other non-school-affiliated groups to pass out fliers and despite a state law that allows for three hours a week of release time for religious instruction.
[cross-posted at Dangerously Irrelevant]
There has been both good commentary and handwringing in the education blogosphere over the recent decision in A.B. v. State (Ind.App.2007). For example, see the following:
For those of you who are interested, here’s my response to Dave Sherman:
Dave, 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:Hey you piece of greencastle sh-t. What the f-ck do you think of me [now] that you can['t] control me? Huh? Ha ha ha guess what I'll wear my f-cking piercings all day long and to school and you can['t] do sh-t about it! Ha ha f-cking ha! Stupid bastard! Oh and kudos to whomever made this ( [I'm] pretty sure I know who). Get a background.
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 speechthe 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!
Finally, I’ll close with some quotes. My favorite school law quote of all time is the one from the Barnette case:
Defamation can be either written (libel) or spoken (slander) and is generally defined as false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that public officials must prove “actual malice” in order to win a defamation lawsuit(New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254). Actual malice is defined as publication despite knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false. Truth always is a defense against a defamation lawsuit unless there is malicious intent. Also, written or spoken communication that is readily understood to be a satire, parody, or humorously intended situation generally is not found to be defamatory because the audience understands that the writing/speech is not intended to be a statement of fact.
The New York Times principle was later extended to “public figures” (see Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). A public figure is someone who commands “a substantial amount of public interest by his position alone or has thrust himself by purposeful activity into the vortex of an important public controversy” (19 A.L.R.5th 1).
So are school administrators considered to be public figures for purposes of a defamation lawsuit? Well, as is usually the case with the law, it depends.
Courts have ruled that principals ARE public figures in
Courts have ruled that principals ARE NOT public figures in
Superintendents and assistant superintendents generally have been found by courts to be public figures (see, e.g., Di Bernardo v. Tonawanda Pub. Corp., 499 N.Y.S.2d 553 (1986)); Kefgen v. Davidson, 617 N.W.2d 351 (2000); and Beck v. Lone Star Broadcasting, Co., 970 S.W.2d 610 (1998)).
So will the former principal of Hickory High School in Hermitage, Pennsylvania win his lawsuit against the four students who created parody MySpace profiles of him? Only if the court determines that
Given past case law, #1 could go either way but I’m guessing that #2 will be pretty hard to prove. It will be interesting to see what happens.
[Thanks, Wesley Fryer, for bringing this case to my attention!]
References
19 American Law Reports (5th) 1. Who is “public figure” for purposes of defamation action.
A substitute teacher at Amanda-Clearcreek (OH) Primary School has been reported to the state education department for quieting chatty kindergarteners by putting clothespins on their lips.
A judge in New York has upheld an elementary student’s right to pass out religious fliers at Nate Perry Elementary School. The fliers said
Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one.
That [schools] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Recent Comments