The social networking site MySpace gave birth to much more than a social phenomenon; it gave birth to many court cases as well. One of the most recent cases involves a Pennsylvania student who created a MySpace profile mocking his principle. In an era of fake MySpaces and constant satirical comedies, this MySpace was taken much more seriously than it should have been.
The student's principal suspended the student, claiming that the school still has power during out of school activities. The student's MySpace was compared to a student selling drugs off-campus or egging another student's house. As Judge Theordore McKee said "Here we've got the First Amendment involved. The egg-throwing, drug-selling cases seem very far afield of what we have here." Essentially, comparing drug selling to the MySpace is like comparing apples to oranges. While the MySpace may have been hurtful, simply asking the student to remove it would have gotten the point across.
-Tamar Shachaf
about you editor
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Preservation of the First Amendment
Emily Baugh
Calendar Editor
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at President Bush at a press conference.
With reason, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, was extremely embarrassed and asked all of the news networks that were at the conference to hand over their tapes of the event. Talabani didn’t want anyone to think badly of the Iraqi people.
However, the U.S. government decided that they would let their news networks keep the tapes they had. A smart move really, if the government had confiscated the tapes, it would have been a violation of the First Amendment.
If the news networks had had their tapes confiscated, hopefully people would have protested. Hopefully people would have been angry. Hopefully people would be afraid for their Constitutional rights.
But in the United States today, only a handful of people still hold their Constitutional rights near and dear to them. Many people would be only too willing to give up their rights for a little “security”.
That would give our government and our leaders too much power, making them pretty much a dictator or tyrant. Our founding fathers didn’t want that to happen, that’s why they created the Constitution and broke away from England.
So the next time you feel like your Constitutional rights are being violated, take a stand and protect your rights.
Calendar Editor
On December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at President Bush at a press conference.
With reason, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, was extremely embarrassed and asked all of the news networks that were at the conference to hand over their tapes of the event. Talabani didn’t want anyone to think badly of the Iraqi people.
However, the U.S. government decided that they would let their news networks keep the tapes they had. A smart move really, if the government had confiscated the tapes, it would have been a violation of the First Amendment.
If the news networks had had their tapes confiscated, hopefully people would have protested. Hopefully people would have been angry. Hopefully people would be afraid for their Constitutional rights.
But in the United States today, only a handful of people still hold their Constitutional rights near and dear to them. Many people would be only too willing to give up their rights for a little “security”.
That would give our government and our leaders too much power, making them pretty much a dictator or tyrant. Our founding fathers didn’t want that to happen, that’s why they created the Constitution and broke away from England.
So the next time you feel like your Constitutional rights are being violated, take a stand and protect your rights.
unfair suspension denies first amendment rights
Talia Shifron
To You Editor, Fused
In November 2007, a student at Pembroke Pines Charter High School in Pembroke Pines, Florida named Katherine Evans was suspended for three days for posting negative comments about her teacher on Facebook. She wrote these comments and then tried to get other students to agree with her. Not only was Evans suspended, but she was also removed from her AP classes.
The school said that Evans was suspended “on the grounds of violating Broward County school board policies against bullying / cyber bullying / harassment towards a staff member and Disruptive behavior, according to a copy of her Notice of Suspension attached to the complaint.” However it doesn’t make much sense that posting negative thoughts about a teacher can now be considered bullying or harassment. In no way do these comments physically hurt the teacher, nor intimidate the teacher who clearly has more power than the student.
This suspension is a clear violation of the rights to freedom of speech. Considering the fact that negative comments can be said about the president of the United States, it seems a little ridiculous that comments that could be found offensive to a teacher couldn’t be made in the exact same way; especially considering that this was on the student’s personal blogging site and not posted during the school day.
If students can now be suspended from school for stating their personal beliefs, then this world has clearly stopped giving people the rights that they are guaranteed by the first amendment. And what is just as bad, is the fact that a student can be removed from AP classes for stating these beliefs. Evans has every right to sue the school system, and should not be denied her crucial rights.
To You Editor, Fused
In November 2007, a student at Pembroke Pines Charter High School in Pembroke Pines, Florida named Katherine Evans was suspended for three days for posting negative comments about her teacher on Facebook. She wrote these comments and then tried to get other students to agree with her. Not only was Evans suspended, but she was also removed from her AP classes.
The school said that Evans was suspended “on the grounds of violating Broward County school board policies against bullying / cyber bullying / harassment towards a staff member and Disruptive behavior, according to a copy of her Notice of Suspension attached to the complaint.” However it doesn’t make much sense that posting negative thoughts about a teacher can now be considered bullying or harassment. In no way do these comments physically hurt the teacher, nor intimidate the teacher who clearly has more power than the student.
This suspension is a clear violation of the rights to freedom of speech. Considering the fact that negative comments can be said about the president of the United States, it seems a little ridiculous that comments that could be found offensive to a teacher couldn’t be made in the exact same way; especially considering that this was on the student’s personal blogging site and not posted during the school day.
If students can now be suspended from school for stating their personal beliefs, then this world has clearly stopped giving people the rights that they are guaranteed by the first amendment. And what is just as bad, is the fact that a student can be removed from AP classes for stating these beliefs. Evans has every right to sue the school system, and should not be denied her crucial rights.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tinker v. Des Moines déjà vu?
Lauren Thiery
To You Editor, Fused
The Watson Chapel School District, based in Arkansas, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court asking it to decide the constitutionality of punishing students for wearing protest armbands.
In September, students Chris Lowry, Colton Dougan and Michael Joseph wore black armbands in protest of the Watson Chapel School District’s dress code policy. However, their school district suspended them for doing so. The students, as well as their parents, filed a suit, saying that the school district violated the students’ First Amendment rights. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of these students.
However, in the petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, the Watson Chapel School District claims that the 8th Circuit improperly applied Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District while making their decision. In the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Tinker, the Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court also said that these students were allowed to freely express themselves unless their actions caused a “material and substantial disruption” of “normal school operations or an invasion of rights of other students.”
The writ states that “the prioritization of emphasis by the school district on one activity versus another is just the type of discretionary function of local schools that courts should not interfere with. As this Court has noted, the determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in the school assembly is appropriate and properly rests with the school rather than the federal courts.”
Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District is an unacceptable echo of the past. It is a shame that a landmark case, such as Tinker, is essentially being repeated nearly 40 years later. The issues of Tinker should not have to be challenged and dealt with yet again, and the students of the Watson Chapel School District should not be forced to go to the Supreme Court in order to have their rights to free speech be honored.
To You Editor, Fused
The Watson Chapel School District, based in Arkansas, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court asking it to decide the constitutionality of punishing students for wearing protest armbands.
In September, students Chris Lowry, Colton Dougan and Michael Joseph wore black armbands in protest of the Watson Chapel School District’s dress code policy. However, their school district suspended them for doing so. The students, as well as their parents, filed a suit, saying that the school district violated the students’ First Amendment rights. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of these students.
However, in the petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, the Watson Chapel School District claims that the 8th Circuit improperly applied Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District while making their decision. In the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Tinker, the Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court also said that these students were allowed to freely express themselves unless their actions caused a “material and substantial disruption” of “normal school operations or an invasion of rights of other students.”
The writ states that “the prioritization of emphasis by the school district on one activity versus another is just the type of discretionary function of local schools that courts should not interfere with. As this Court has noted, the determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in the school assembly is appropriate and properly rests with the school rather than the federal courts.”
Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District is an unacceptable echo of the past. It is a shame that a landmark case, such as Tinker, is essentially being repeated nearly 40 years later. The issues of Tinker should not have to be challenged and dealt with yet again, and the students of the Watson Chapel School District should not be forced to go to the Supreme Court in order to have their rights to free speech be honored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
