Week+4+Student+Expression

>
 * 1) ​Discuss the legal issues involved in the case assigned to your team.Together, reach consensus and develop a response to your case study to share with the rest of the class. Your team response should include:
 * Your team’s response to the questions that accompany the case study, with supporting evidence from the readings.
 * Questions you still have about the case study.
 * Additional comments, as appropriate, including challenges your team faced responding to the case study.
 * 1) By midnight, Saturday, the Reporter should post the team’s responses as a new, clearly labeled thread in the **Week 4: Team Judicial Review Presentations** discussion forum.

What Happens in Facebook... - Team B Case Study As a high school principal, you hear from teachers that a significant number of students in your school have Web sites at [|Facebook.com], and many students interact with their Facebook pages multiple times per day. You also hear that some students post opinions and rumors about you, teachers, and other students on these pages. After further investigation, you discover that students use the computers in the school's Media Center to visit the sites during the school day. (The sites are developed and maintained on computers outside of school during students' personal time.)
 * What free speech issues are involved?
 * What kinds of postings on the sites merit punishment by the school?
 * As principal, what steps should you take to minimize legal problems?

I n this case, reference is made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Layshock vs. Hermitage School District, where a student Justin Layshock and his parents filed suit for violation of Justin’s First Amendment Rights based on his suspension from school for creating an online parody of the principal. Here the court ruled that school did violate Justin’s First Amendment Rights because his posting was neither vulgar or lewd to the extent to cause a serious disruption at the school nor was there evidence of any substantial disruption or interference with the school environment. Further, the material was created outside the school and was not affiliated with the school in anyway other than the expression of an opinion regarding a school official. Similarly, the Facebook pages created by some students in this case were opinions which were not favorable of teachers or principals but were not severe enough in language to create a disruption and they were not part of a school publication. The postings on these sites would need to use lewd, vulgar and offensive language towards the school or members and create a disruption or a foreseeable disruption in order to be punishable as precedented by Tinker, Hazelwood and Fraser.

To minimize the problem, the principal needs to develop a detailed Internet Usage Policy and ensure that all parents and students understand the policy. The principal needs to meet with school technology personnel and ensure that safeguards and filters are installed or set on the server that will prevent students from accessing certain places such as Facebook or MySpace. As a school, legal issues should be discussed openly at school assemblies and faculty meetings to discuss what is permitted and not based on state and federal laws as well as district policy. (Patricia )

The fact that the pages were created and maintained on computers outside of school bares no relevance on the fact that they are being visited and updated during the school day on computers wthin the school building. Any updates or postings that include lewd, vulgar, or offensive language toeards the school or its members create a disruption and therefore are punishable. Therefore, legal action would depend on the content of the postings.

An AUP clearly defining expectations for technology use is essential. The AUP should be signed by students and parents and a copy kept on file in student records. One suggestion is to announce this in a parent meeting in "clear language" to ensure the content is understood. This policy should also be included in student and parent handbooks for future reference. The prinicpal should work closely with the technology team to ensure that filters are in place to block questionable content and that which is deemed "non-educational." Most school districts already have these in place so customizing or adding sites to the blocked list should be fairly simple. The prinicpal should also be working with the disciplinary team to establish clear and consistent consequences for violating terms of the AUP. These consequences should be leveled with regard to severity as well as progressive. (Carissa)