Does free speech give students the right to taunt other students and call them rude names online? The Los Angeles Times tells the story of a Beverly Hills eighth-grader, who complained that a classmate had posted a video about her on YouTube. It showed other eighth-graders belittling her, calling her “spoiled,” a “brat” and a “slut.” The student who posted the video was suspended, but she sued in federal court claiming her free speech rights had been violated. The judge agreed.
To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school’s activities, runs afoul” of the law, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson wrote in a 60-page opinion. “The court cannot uphold school discipline of student speech simply because young persons are unpredictable or immature, or because, in general, teenagers are emotionally fragile and may often fight over hurtful comments,” he wrote.
The Times takes note of similar legal challenges across the country, but points out the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to take up a case involving student speech online. “Attorneys and experts said court decisions have been ‘all over the map,’” the paper notes, “offering little clarity to confused school administrators.”
I can understand that this type of thing is not the school’s business. So whose business is it? I would say that it is the business of something like child protective services. A great deal of harm can be done by intemperate, personally directed, comments on line. If the harm is substantial, or even potentially substantial, the parents of the perpetrators ought to be held responsible in some way. If those parents cannot control their child, every state has some mechanism for helping them, or attempting to help them at least. The parent of a child who lets that child post harmful things on line, it seems to me, would be in the same position as the parent of a child who vandalizes property. The owner of the vandalized property may or may not want to take action, but the child who vandalizes needs to be controlled. The child who hurts others in any way needs to be controlled. But whether the harm is vandalism, malicious libel, malicious slander, wanton and negligent disregard of the rights of others, or whatever, the school is not the proper avenue of correction unless the school is involved in some way.
Comment by Brian Rude — December 15, 2009 @ 10:29 am