1 / 11

Schools, Social Media, & the first Amendment

Schools, Social Media, & the first Amendment. Cyberbullying. Use of communication technologies with the intention of harming another person. Davis vs. Monroe County Board of Education (1999).

viveka
Download Presentation

Schools, Social Media, & the first Amendment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Schools, Social Media, & the first Amendment

  2. Cyberbullying • Use of communication technologies with the intention of harming another person.

  3. Davis vs. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) • Woman filed suit on behalf of her fifth grade daughter, alleging that school failed to prevent daughter’s suffering sexual harassment at the hands of another student. • CONCLUSION: • If a school knows about harassment or other hurtful actions against students and doesn’t respond effectively to prevent it from continuing, they may be held responsible.

  4. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District(1969) • Two students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were sent home and suspended from school. • CONCLUSION: • Students have free-speech rights so long as they do not substantially interfere with school discipline, learning, or the rights of others.

  5. BarR vs. Lafon (2007) • Tennessee high school students desired to express “southern heritage” by wearing clothing depicting the Confederate flag at school. • CONCLUSION: • Schools do not need to wait for a substantial disruption to occur at school before taking action.

  6. Kowalski vs. Berkeley County Schools (2011) • Student used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate, and did so in a manner that was sufficiently connected to the school environment and substantially affected the learning environment. • CONCLUSION: • Schools can discipline students for their online speech, consistent with Tinker.

  7. Bethel School District vs. Fraser (1986) • At a school assembly, student made a speech that included graphic sexual innuendos. Student was suspended from school. • CONCLUSION: • Student’s free-speech rights are limited while at school. There is a difference between non-disruptive expression (Tinker) and “speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.”

  8. J.S. vs. Bethlehem Area School District (2000) • Student was expelled from school due to creation of a website that (1) displayed graphic picture of teacher with head cut of, (2) solicited contributions to hire a hit man to kill the teacher, (3) listed reasons why she should be killed, and (4) used vulgar language in reference to interactions between the school’s principal and another school’s principal. • CONCLUSION: • Schools can discipline students for their off-campus electronic speech (student created a threatening web page about his algebra teacher). • “…school officials are justified in taking very seriously threats against faculty and other students.”

  9. School may suspend… a student for no more than 10 schools days OR expel a student for no more than 2 school years IF that student has been determined to have made an explicit threat on an Internet website against a school employee, a student, or any school-related personnel.

More Related