Students returning to school this fall in Arlington, Texas were given an extensive contract to sign. With their John Hancock, Arlington High students agreed they would not instant-message, send offensive digital pictures, download video footage, or hack into another student’s email account whether at school or in the privacy of their home. Students from coast to coast are forced into signing comparable agreements. Similar enforcement from the state looks likely in the near future. All across the nation, legislation has been proposed that would allow administrators to suspend or expel a student if they were found to have been bullying another online. Earlier this year, South Carolina passed a law allowing schools to punish “cyber bullies”. Arkansas, Oregon, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have similar laws in the works (1).
According to Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, cyberbullying is “the use of any electronic communication device to harass, intimidate, or bully.” In other words, cyberbullying includes any and all offensive speech made through traceable, electronic devices (2).
Two high school boys in New York claimed the name “cyber bullies” when they created a website dedicated to the publication of girls’ “sexual secrets”. Prosecutors never charged the boys because of free speech concerns (3).
In Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, a student mass-emailed an unflattering “top ten” about the school’s athletic director. When news of the email hit school officials, the author was suspended. While applying Tinker, a federal district court determined that the offensive speech did not create a substantial disruption (4).
In 2000, a high school student in Washington state created a website containing mock obituaries of two of his friends. School administration suspended the website creator, Nick Emmett, for harassment, intimidation, disruption of the educational environment, along with other violations. Emmett sued in defense of his First Amendment rights. The judge suggested that the school authorities did not have the power to regulate at all: “Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Kentlake High School, the speech was entirely outside of the school’s supervision or control” (5).
As seen in these cases, cyberbullying is completely legal without additional legislation. But is the proposed legislation that limits students’ electronic speech constitutional? In my opinion, said legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Limiting any form of offensive speech on the Internet was deemed unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of protection. The First Amendment clearly protects offensive speech, seeing as inoffensive speech goes unquestioned. Furthermore, students are protected from Internet bullies without infringing on First Amendment rights. The First Amendment does not protect actual threats.
The Supreme Court has yet to determine a student Internet case leaving the future unclear. If the proposed legislation is passed, students will be stripped of their constitutional rights.
Sources:
(1) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070913cyberbullying,1,7964745.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
(2) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18692
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253259,00.html
(4) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/student.internet.speech.pdf
(5) http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-emmett.htm
Limiting cyberbullying is not constitutional, but it shouldn't have to be limited.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I do not agree with the decision the school official made. Even though they were trying to stop cyber bullying, they had no right to force the students to sign away their rights at home. The students should be able to text and write online about whatever they want once they are off school grounds. It is definitely true that online speech must be the most protected.
If students are being bullied online they should bring it up with an adult, as they would with a regular bully. And it should be up to the parents to monitor what their children are doing online and if they are writing crude inappropriate things. The school went too far with this one.
I feel the same way and believe that limiting their speech via internet is unconstitutional. But I do have one concern and that is for the child who is being bullied or the teacher that is being attacked. The same situation prevailed in Morse v Frederick: If the school can't punish threatening children, how do they keep control over their students? Somebody is being victimized through this bullying, and if we soely protect the right of the speaker that victim gets left behind.
So that leaves us with the question: Is the internet a great new tool in catching young bullies, or a tool to aid the school in over-exercising their power?
Post a Comment