News

The Right To Dissent

School officials clamp down on student blogger

Comments (38)
Thursday, September 20, 2007

Food for thought and mental indigestion: even though you've committed no crime, government agents whose six-figure salaries come out of your tax dollars can make you spend most of your waking hours in a lockdown facility. When you're not there, they can still regulate what you write, say and do. And when election time rolls around, if these government agents don't like who you voted for they can decide your ballots just don't count. Best of all, they'll tell you with straight faces that they're teaching you how to be a free citizen of a democracy.

So far the above paragraph only applies to students enrolled in Connecticut's Region 10 school district. But if Region 10's administration gets its way, it will eventually apply to every public-school student in America.

Get this: a few months ago Avery Doninger, a Burlington resident who is now a senior at Lewis Mills High School in that town, sat at home and wrote a Livejournal blog entry that referred to unnamed school administrators by the misspelled insult "douchbags."

So Lewis Mills principal Karissa Niehoff, with the approval of Region 10 superintendent Paula Schwartz, removed Doninger from her elected position as secretary of the class of 2008. And a month later, when new class elections were held, they wouldn't allow her name on the ballot. Though Doninger was still elected in a write-in campaign, Niehoff and Schwartz chose not to count those votes, rationalizing that referring to administrators as feminine hygiene supplies was inappropriate for a Class Leader.

Had Doninger said this at school, or directly to an administrator, they'd probably be right. But can public schools dictate students' off-campus, non-illegal behavior all throughout the school year? If the Doninger case becomes a binding precedent, the answer will be "yes."

 

It all started last April, after Doninger and some classmates had spent several months trying to organize an at-school student music festival called "Jamfest."

"I'm a student council representative and I was helping to organize it," Doninger said. But the kids couldn't use the school auditorium to host the event. The giant building that houses the high school, Har-Bur Middle School (a punny abbreviation for Harwinton and Burlington, the two towns of Region 10) and the district administration offices has been undergoing construction for well over a year.

"They demolished the [old] auditorium," Doninger said. And the new auditorium always had problems, said the administration: audio, lighting, something. So "they kept pushing back the date ... to April 28."

Then that date was put on hold, apparently because no adult could be found to work the sound system. The administration didn't want to entrust the task to a teenager even though, according to Doninger, "there were kids who knew how — one whose job is to do it in Torrington." Also, "we were told it was 'the taxpayers' auditorium' ... the school owned the old auditorium, but the new one is owned by Region 10, the whole community uses it."

So Doninger and her friends decided to go straight to the taxpayers and ask permission to use their collective auditorium.

Doninger's mother Lauren described what happened next. "[Doninger and some classmates] went to the school computer lab and sent a mass e-mail to taxpayers, asking them to tell the central office to let them" use the auditorium. And "it had an effect. People started calling [superintendent] Schwartz's office."

 

If you check the Lewis Mills Web site you'll find the school's list of "Student Expectations," which include personal and academic goals like developing an "awareness of rules and responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society."

So Avery Doninger and her friends did the sort of thing civics textbooks gush about: wanting permission to use property collectively owned by the taxpayers, the kids asked them directly, and received overwhelming support. The people have spoken! Thus did Superintendent Schwartz, acting in her capacity as a well-paid public servant, cleave to public opinion and allow Jamfest to proceed, and everyone involved lived happily ever after.

Just kidding. If it happened that way you wouldn't be reading about it here. What really happened, according to Doninger, was this: "The next day Ms. Niehoff said 'I need to talk to you ... as of now Jamfest is cancelled' ... she said, 'Mrs. Schwartz is really upset, getting all these calls and e-mails.'"

The Advocate couldn't talk to anyone in the administration (that's usually the case when there's pending litigation) to ask their side of the story. So let's continue with Doninger's: the cancellation of Jamfest left her in a vile mood, so she went home and made the infamous "douchbag" blog post. As a result, she was removed from the class secretary position she already held for her junior year, and forbidden from running again as a senior.

The Doningers decided to go to court, and hired attorney Jon Schoenhorn to represent them. "We just wanted the school to count the votes for Avery and reinstate her as class secretary," said Lauren Doninger.

But on Aug. 31, Judge Mark Kravitz ruled with the administration, reasoning that since Doninger wrote something on a Web site that could be read by people at school, that's essentially the same as if she'd stood up in class and shouted it.

"There's three lines of cases that allow restrictions on student's first amendment rights," says Schoenhorn. "One ... developed in the '80s, and had to do with indecent, vulgar or obscene language in school. You can't yell 'fuck you' in the hallways. That is the standard the judge has applied to the Internet."

 

Free speech isn't the only right granted by the first amendment, which contains other rights that schools can arguably curtail. For example, Doninger's right to freedom of religion probably wouldn't allow her to give in-school speeches exhorting classmates to convert. But suppose she wrote such an essay on her blog. If Kravitz's ruling stands, wouldn't it be possible for school administrators to punish students for religious commentary posted online, too?

"It could," says Ethel Sorokin, a retired attorney who's now president of the Center for First Amendment Rights in Hartford. "Carrying the authority of the school so far out of the school is inappropriate ... schools are supposed to teach citizenship, but students aren't allowed to behave like citizens ... schools should allow students to dissent."

Beth Duffy, chair of the Region 10 Board of Education, takes a different view. Though she wouldn't speak to the press, at a school board meeting on Sept. 10 she handed out a release telling the school's side of the story. "Despite what has been reported in the press ... Ms. Niehoff and Mrs. Schwartz did not infringe on Avery Doninger's First Amendment rights ... citing Constitutional rights as protection for bad behavior does that incredible document a grave disservice."

Schoenhorn countered. "Obviously, whatever document they're talking about isn't the U.S. Constitution," said Schoenhorn. "Are they talking about Azerbaijan?"

"Free speech is [to protect] what we dislike, not what we like," Sorokin added.

So which should prevail: Doninger's Constitutional right to be critical of authority, or the administration's presumptive right not to have its authority criticized? Schoenhorn has filed an appeal, but doesn't yet know when it will be heard.

Send comments to

editor@hartfordadvocate.com or

jabel@hartfordadvocate.com

Comments (38)
Post a Comment
citing Constitutional rights as protection for bad behavior does that incredible document a grave disservice

Uh...actually, that's exactly what it is there for. Now, if she's supposed to be a secretary and cannot spell, that is a different matter entirely.
Posted by A Moose on 9.18.07 at 16.54
plz see
Poets & Writers For Avery
http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2007/09/poets-writers-for-avery-flyer-updated.html
Posted by andy thibault on 9.18.07 at 23.26
that's bullshit the first ammendmant says she can say whatever the fuck she wants as long as it doesn't endanger anyone removing her from office for such an insignifficant act of free speech is ridiculous and unheard of
Posted by m T-bow on 9.19.07 at 2.39
She was not allowed to run as class secretary but was allowed to remain on student council and we're supposed to have a federal case about this? Its like a captain of a football team calling his coach an "idiot" and then acts surprised with the coach removes the "captain" title away. Its an extra-curricular activity, not her education and there's a big difference. Let me please save my tax dollars on something more important than this teenager's whine.
Posted by Tax dollars on 9.19.07 at 7.16
Tax dollars,

It's sentiments like yours that enable the attitude that Superintendent Schwartz has displayed. First, she punished the students by terminating the JamFest because she didn't like getting emails, then she further punishes Avery for not liking it.

Do you really think that it's healthy for the town to take her name off the ballot and strip her of her "office" because she had the audacity to make a negative internet post about the superintendent, essentially saying that she's ineligible because a town official doesn't like her?

Granted, there are a few lessons here about local-level politics that many people could find useful. First, no what they say when trying use tax money to build it, "public" property is always only for the use of "important" citizens. Second, public officials are as petty as anyone else, and will disgracefully use any authority that they're given for spite, self- aggrandizement, or personal gain.

By the way, your football team example is weak, as captaincy is a privilege extended by the coach. If it was something voted on by the players, then it might hold, but the coach would be just as wrong to take it away as the superintendent in this case.
Posted by David on 9.19.07 at 8.29
David, your facts are messed up. jamfest was never cancelled and she knew it before she did her blog. The judge says she knew it....

and wghat if the football player bought a billboard saying "the coach sucks". The coach couldn't do a thing about it? Please.

I bet this case is about money. How much do you think the mom has demanded?
Posted by To David on 9.19.07 at 10.00
It would be nice, simply in the interests of fairness, to see the now somewhat infamous (since Jennifer has mentioned it) press release on behalf of Region 10.
(hope I got that right)

Editors-Fix this "Terms and Conditions" stuff where you both have to agree and have to open the window. It's rather annoying.
Posted by A Moose on 9.19.07 at 10.03
Here, Mr. Moose, is the address of a blog post that includes the full text of the press release, plus the blogger's commentary. I do not know the blogger in question, and he is (to my knowledge) not connected in any way with the Advocate, which bears no responsibility for the content posted therein, yadda yadda yadda.

http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2007/09/liars-damn-liars-school-officials-part.html
Posted by Jennifer Abel on 9.19.07 at 10.20
Reading this article only makes me realize how biased and unfactual the press has become. No wonder nobody gives a damn what is printed in the newspapers anymore. I bet the reporter never even read the judge's opinion. Judge Kravits is one fo the most highly respected judges in Connecticut. He wrote a 34 page decision (not some simple-minded peice like this article). It recognized the complexity of the new internet age and the issues about free speech on the internet. And, still, he came down on the side of the school. Avery wasn't denied her constitutional right to an education. There is a much lower bar when it comes to extracurricular activities. The comparison the a sports team is right on. The courts have already ruled that coaches have the right to kick kids off a team if they speak ill of the coach -- on or off campus. The same is true for class officers -- who are supposed to display better behaviors than the average slob. Avery's behavior was of a spoiled brat who called people names when she didn[t get her way. Even her mother stated that Avery was wrong. The only thing her mother didn't like was the pusnishment. Well, too bad. You don't get to decide what your punishment is when you do something wrong. Wait till Avery gets into the real world ---call her boss a douchebag on a blog --- and gets fired. Let's see how her first amendment rights protect her then!! I for one hope this young girl learns her lesson now or she'll be sorely disappointed with the rest of her life..
Posted by JackS on 9.19.07 at 10.36
JackS,

What lesson would that be? To make sure that you never run afoul of those who use authority to punish you? Keep your mouth shut and take what your given?

She really did nothing more than annoy and insult an authority figure. That this bothers you more than the principal and superintendents response is troubling.
Posted by David on 9.19.07 at 11.02
JackS: Ah yes, her mother said so and the judge thinks that speech in the internet age is "complicated" so we should all just bow to the infinite wisdom of our berobed masters?

Your working-world analogy fails: private companies are not agents of the state. Furthermore, a precedent like this one that allows on-campus consequences for off-campus activities essentially gives high school administrators, petty tyrants all, carte blanche to punish students whose opinions aren't well received. Extending this case nationwide would essentially make high school administrators the arbiter of what kids may and may not say: in or out of school. Coupled with the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case that would basically end the free speech rights of teenagers. If that's what you want to do, well, you're a douchbag.
Posted by Timothy on 9.19.07 at 11.05
JackS, it appears that you're yet another of the people who don't understand what the Constitution is actually for. The First Amendment doesn't say anything at all about why someone can or can not be fired from a job. It is a set of rules about how the government (and, thus, the schools) are allowed to behave.

By denying privileges to those who speak outside of the purview of the school, the school has effectively -- and illegally -- acted to quell the free speech of not only Avery, but of every student in the district.

It doesn't matter how respected the judge in question is -- he's only human, and this ruling is plainly wrong.
Posted by Jake Boone on 9.19.07 at 11.07
This is good preparation for the future high schoolers face. Unitary executives all around!
Posted by Brinck on 9.19.07 at 11.27
it is most certainly good preparation for the future.

but yeah i don't see how livejournal - of all places! - is the purvey of the local school district.
Posted by dhex on 9.19.07 at 11.43
JackS, OF Fine commentating above, makes a point. I would encourage all of you to go to http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/07-03604.PDF and read the actual decision. Thanks to Jennifer posting the link to the press release above you would then have all sides including the judge's. I'm about halfway through it, my thoughts/reactions are 1) It would seem that the exhortation to "piss them off more" by writing is perhaps not the best way to present her case on the blog, 2) The school district's press release, excluding commentary, seems to be from parts unknown. Perhaps out of a MIB movie? 3) There's wording how a personal email violated school internet policy...but this was a school function..someone didn't think this through all the way. 4) The case of the school was not the douche bag comment so much as the statement to "piss them off more" as I noted above (I'm live commenting here...sorry, not trying to pat myself on the back or be redundant). 5) "This Court emphasizes that it need not ? and does not ? decide in this case whether andwhen a school can suspend, discipline, or remove a student because of the content of a blog or email
the student prepared off-campus"-Interesting, as he then proceeds to do exactly that.

After that, it goes downhill as he blurs "school speach" vs what goes on in a normal (I know, it's a relative measure) adolescent girl's life. It would be possible, under that logic, to have someone blog, essentially a public diary, "school sux", and then have all manner of problems come down upon their head as a result.
Posted by A Moose on 9.19.07 at 11.58
JackS:

Is it more important to protect a public official from being called a (semi-) bad name or to protect this girl's freedom of expression? Which of these things is more valuable?

Throughout the history of this country it has been reaffirmed time and time again that a public official is uniquely NOT protected from being called even the worst names, or from being on the receiving end of even the most terrible criticism, including pernicious and outright lies, slander, and libel. Unlike in totalitarian nations (which you seem to be a big fan of), in this country at least, it goes with the territory of being a public official.

Timothy and Jake Boone are exactly right: the Constitution restricts the power of the government, not private citizens or businesses. The fact that you are apparently not aware of this distinction effectively discredits any views you might have on this topic.

But to respond to one of your ill-informed points, the opinion of this girl's mother is completely irrelevant here. I'm sure the mother (and many other mothers like her everywhere) find fault in all kinds of things that are said and done by people in this country. Fortunately, these nice folks are prevented by the Constitution from imposing their sense of right and wrong on the rest of us.
Posted by HipHopLawyer on 9.19.07 at 12.52
for A Moose, Tax Dollars, et al

i saw what happened in court and i read the Kravitz decision, which was written well before testimony concluded.

the decision is a travesty:

http://cooljustice.blogspot.com/2007/09/travesty.html
Posted by andy thibault on 9.19.07 at 14.27
A Moose: Thx for posting. doesn't the e-mail mean the student was sending out personal e-mails from school computers -- a big no-no for schools. You don't want your tax dollars being used for students internet dates....

the judge seemed to say that because she was talking about school stuff, its doesn't matter where she said it. I don't understand why that's a problem. if she was talking about non-school stuff, fine, whatever. and so, basically, she could hand out pamphlets calling the super a d-bag outside school and could get away with that? please. you couldn't do that at central.

it also seems like your right moose about the judge focusing on things other than the d-bag comment. it seems like there was a lot more going on.

ok, so if everyone is so concerned about free speech, why isn't anyone concerned about the CCSU student newspaper being attacked? I'm a student there and its ridiculous what their doing. that's real free speech; this is just the rantings of a teenager without any manners. who really cares anyways.
Posted by The Moose on 9.19.07 at 14.29
The school administrators don't even have a leg to stand on in the libel department, if her comment was just merely that they are "douchbags." Her post would have to contain derogatory comments that are false, but one could reasonably consider as true. Furthermore, making fun of the administrators, who could conceivably be considered public figures (like the president for example), is protected speech.
Posted by Dan on 9.19.07 at 17.45
The Moose-Problem with the emails being viewed as "personal" is that it involved a school function. That, to me, seems to be selective interpretation. However, they viewed her personal computer as a "official" act. This is a problem, to me.

Dan-They're basically saying she was prevented due to what the military uses as "Conduct unbecoming", which essentially equates to "we don't like it."

Andy Thi-I read the blog, I don't know if it's yours or not. It kind of missed the point on some things. I don't know what proof there is that the decision was written prior, nor if it really matters. I guess I don't see the significance of it, if the judge made the majority of it first and massaged it at the end. I don't know, perhaps it's common, I'm not a judge. I wouldn't even be a "he" except Jennifer slipped....
Posted by A Moose on 9.19.07 at 17.56
This morning there is an article in Inside Higher Ed. A college president (talking about the Fl. taser incident) said, ?You can?t base your policies on one incident. Otherwise you?ll be in reaction mode all the time.?

This seems an apt comment. So much of the problem around the incident with Avery was the reactionary nature of the administrators. The judge commented on the failure of Region 10 to have well articulated policies and procedures. He also commented on the failure to have policies readily available. For example, there is a policy, tucked away in a manual that is virtually inaccessible, that says something to the effect - 'in order to represent the school students must have no marks on their citizenship record.' During the course of my attempts to figure out how the punishment was determined I asked for policies. They did not provide this one, in fact the only thing they provided to substantiate the punishment was a paragraph describing the activity of Student Council (SC). Ms. Niehoff cited the goal of SC to develop good citizenship. She claimed that Avery's punishment was because she failed the GOAL. The 'citizenship record policy' wasn't cited. I suspect the lawyers found it.

Regarding the email debate...On 4/24/07 4 kids wrote an email from school soliciting taxpayer support for Jamfest in the auditorium on 4/28. One student accessed his father's private email to send it. It could probably reasonably be argued that the kids should be punished for the email. However, the administrators were very clear - no one was punished for the email. In fact, the kid who accessed his father's email was named Superintendent Student of the Month of the next month!

Reactionary - a poor way for highly paid officials to conduct business.
Posted by Lauren Doninger on 9.20.07 at 3.29
I think we've gotten bogged down in the details and are missing the larger picture.

The school administrators have declared "If you disparage us, we'll use our authority to strike back". Arguing that it's within their authority to do so is besides the point. Arguing that they are right to do so is disgusting. This was clearly a douche bag move on their part.
Posted by Warren on 9.20.07 at 5.37
However, the administrators were very clear - no one was punished for the email

Agreed, that's what the case decision says. My only point in mentioning it was that this was the single place where I saw a possible transgression of rules. As this wasn't what the kids were punished for, I found it rather odd.
Posted by A Moose on 9.20.07 at 12.20
There is a much lower bar when it comes to extracurricular activities. The comparison the a sports team is right on. The courts have already ruled that coaches have the right to kick kids off a team if they speak ill of the coach -- on or off campus. The same is true for class officers -- who are supposed to display better behaviors than the average slob.

So, JackS, I take it that it is your considered opinion that "display better behaviors" specifically does not include expressing disgust at public officials who are doing a disservice to the community?

Ah...maybe you are referring to the student's choice of words in expressing disgust: "douchebag"? In case you are rather backwards, and not familiar with contemporary American idiom (in use since the 1960's), the term is graphically and explicity defined here:

http://tastybooze.com/2007/05/douche-bag-definition/

The text on the image is difficult to read, so I'll supply it for you:

DoucheBag (n) An individual who has an over-inflated sense of self-worth behaving ridiculously in front of colleagues, with no sense of how moronic (s)he appears.

(The actual text in the picture is a little more pejorative than this. I edited down to essentials.)
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.21.07 at 10.03
Anne, you know I love you to death, but I think you have an http://tastybooze.com/2007/05/douche-bag-definition/" title="Corrected Link">HTML tag problem and need immediate intervention.
Posted by A Moose on 9.21.07 at 10.46
TO: United States District Judge Mark R. Kravitz
RICHARD C. LEE UNITED STATES COURT HOUSE
141 Church Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06510


Your honor,

As a concerned citizen who has fully read the text of your
ruling in DONINGER -vs- NIEHOFF and SCHWARTZ, I (currently)
support your actual ruling against a mandatory injunction that
alters (rather than merely maintaining) the existing status quo,
One of the considerations that must be weighed in such a case
is the impact upon others not represented in the case, such as
the student currently acting as student secretary (effectively
by appointment from the school administration).

However, I have some serious concerns about your reasoning, as
detailed in your Ruling. I urge you to consider the points I
raise below, and consider ammending at least the "reasoning"
portion of your ruling in light of them.

The Constitutional heart of the issue, I feel, is implicitly
expressed in your statement at the end of the final paragraph
in III.A:

... Avery is free to express her opinions about the school
administration and their decisions in any manner she wishes,
and Ms. Niehoff and Ms. Schwartz expressly deny that any
discipline or loss of school time might result from the
expression of those opinions. However, Avery does not have a
First Amendment right to run for a voluntary extracurricular
position as a student leader while engaging in uncivil and
offensive communications regarding school administrators.

Unfortunately, your honor, this does not make sense. What you are
basically saying is:

Denial of privileges already enjoyed does not constitute
action sufficient to have a chilling effect on free speech.

when, in fact, that was clearly and explicitly the intent of the
action. In your ruling, you state:

Ms. Niehoff testified that she defined good citizenship as
respect for others, behaving appropriately and as a good
role model, working to initiate community connections, and
promoting positive interactions and conflict resolution.

Thus, school administration clearly expected Avery to serve as a
"role model", and saw her as acting as one. They took exception
to the model she was presenting (perhaps rightly, perhaps not),
buth they specifically saw her as setting an example for other
students. She was demonstrably well-known, popular, and
supported by the student body (she won an entirely write-in
election for which she was not allowed to campaign). She was,
and is, a "role model" - an "example" - for the rest of the
student body. The school administration clearly and agressively
"made an example" of her, to forestall others from making
similar Web postings. Quite clearly, both the effect and intent
of the school administration's actions against Avery is to have
a chilling effect on (non-violent) student expression of
disapproval with school administrators in a public forum.

Furthermore, it explicitly *was* a public forum. It was, as you
noted, both accessible to and frequented by the student body. It
was also accessible to the taxpayers in general, to whom she had
already appealled, and who had already demonstrated both
interest and active participation in the issue she was 'Blogging
about. There is every reason to expect that many of these
concerned citizens, who pay the administration's salaries, would
read this entry.

They would read the entry, and see clear signs of an intelligent
young lady, involved with community activities, who had become
frustrated, disgusted, and even angry about the actions of
certain school administrators. Regardless of the content of the
posting itself, this might be considered a crucial peice of
information for citizens interested in the operations of their
educational system. Encouraging children to become involved and
passionate about "extracurricular activities", then acting to
frustrate them to the point that they cry out in a public forum,
is definitely one "measure" of their style of "education". It
may arguably be a measure of their very competence at the job
for which the taxpayers are spending their hard-earned money.

Of course it is a single data-point, among thousands of students
who clearly have not felt driven to these "extremes". But, i
argue, it is a crucial data-point, that an informed citizenry
must take into consideration, when holding public officials
accountable for their actions. "Does this approach do more harm
than good?" is a quection The People must repeateldy ask, and
answer for themselves. This can only be done if they have
access to all pertinent information - especially evidence of the
results of the current institutional approach. The
adminstration's actions will result in fewer (or, if they have
their way, no) negative expressions by students, regardless of
how they actually feel. This is exactly what the First Amendment
seeks to proscribe!
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.21.07 at 11.55
(Of course, I'll run it through a spell-checker before sending it. Sorry, y'all.)
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.21.07 at 12.02
I'm going to assume Avery is under 18. Its usually not a good idea to post the name of a minor publicly, especially when her location is so easy to determine.

That being said. If the school was a private institution, I would definitely be on the side of the administration. Its their school, their rules. If you don't like it, go find another school. But seeing how this is a public school makes things a bit more complicated. Without spending a lot of time thinking about the issue, my off the cuff comment is that the administration is walking a very fine line but were correct in this case. However, the best solution, in my book, is to do away with the root problem, the fact that it is a PUBLIC institution.
Posted by John on 9.21.07 at 12.50
John,

The young lady's name is a matter of public record, explicitly made so by the judge
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.22.07 at 3.01
@A Moose: "I think you have an HTML tag problem and need immediate intervention."

Thanks, Moose. We'll try it a different way, then:
http://tastybooze.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/douche8.jpg">" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://tastybooze.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/douche8.jpg">
http://tastybooze.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/douche8.jpg
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.22.07 at 7.32
Teenagers do not have the same rights as adults. Because of this they also have greater protections such as not being held liable for a contract. They can not be sued for slander etc. A teenagers parents take on that liability for their actions.
If we afford teenagers the same rights as adults we must afford them the same consequences. If we did that there would be all kinds of hissy fits due to their age. In affect we would be lowering the age of adulthood.

My second point is that we have a right to petition the government for grievances but it should be done through the proper channels. Sending out emails to the taxpayers is not appropriate. It is spam, a nuisance.
Posted by Matthew Rensen on 9.23.07 at 17.45
My second point is that we have a right to petition the government for grievances but it should be done through the proper channels. Sending out emails to the taxpayers is not appropriate. It is spam, a nuisance.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I don't in any way, shape, or form want to condone only "proper channels" for airing grievances against the govt. Any attempt to do so would be a severe attack on the basic foundation of our government (not that the "patriot" act and it's ilk aren't already there).

The only inappropriate aspect of the emails was that they were using school computers to send them. This was apparantly not something deserving of reprimand by the school officials as they, per the case decision, repeatedly confirmed that this was not why they were being punished. The reason why the girl was being punished was due to her being outspoken against a decision made by the administration.
Posted by A Moose on 9.24.07 at 7.12
@Matthew Rensen: My second point is that we have a right to petition the government for grievances but it should be done through the proper channels. Sending out emails to the taxpayers is not appropriate. It is spam, a nuisance

Not only is this wrong, it is unconscionably wrong!
This is a "Government of the People...", which is to say that in the final analysis, The People are the government!

This was a classic situation for grass-roots activism. An entrenched bureaucracy stonewalling a private individual. Appeals "through channels" hade in fact been made, as the court transcript makes abundantly clear. The entire system, up to the elected officials (the school board) were against her. The ONLY higher appeal, at that point, is the voters themselves.
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.24.07 at 14.34
@Matthew Rensen: Teenagers do not have the same rights as adults. Because of this they also have greater protections such as not being held liable for a contract. They can not be sued for slander etc. A teenagers parents take on that liability for their actions.

You are absolutely correct. However, the Supreme Court of these United States has ruled that school children DO possess the right of freedom of speech, with various limitations.

In this case, none of those limitations was triggered, in my humble opinion. The reviewing judge, however, thought otherwise. Basically, his take on the matter is that since the blog posting mentioned school administrator, and catered primarily (which I disagree with) to students at that high-school, and could be viewed from the computers at that high-school, she was effectively barred from her rights in the same way as if she had actually been on campus.

I think this is stretching things way beyond the breaking point. A very similar situation would most obviously be protected free speech: If she had written her statement as a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. True, the editor might have refused or edited the comment to avoid potential slander - but assume the letter actually got printed "as is". The content is the same. The paper can (and probably will) be read "on campus". But it is well-established that, assuming she used no school facilities to write or publish the letter, that the school pretty much has to grin and bear it.

Sure, the offended individuals might have available the redress of suing for slander or defamation of character. But, other than that, they cannot prohibit her from publishing her opinions - especially opinions of public officials.

That's the way it works.
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.24.07 at 14.47
A simplier explanation why this is a Bad decision:

The heart of the judge's ruling hinges on the fact that the
'blog posting, while made on private property and published in
a public forum, could and would be viewed by people on-campus at
the school. Thus, he reasoned, she was enjoined with the same
restriction that apply to minor-student speech while at school.

Let's look at it a very similar situation that would most-
certainly be protected free speech:

What if she had, instead, published her post in the local
newspaper, as a letter to the editor? A private citizen
expressing strong dislike for, and disagreement with, a
public official, in a public forum.

The letter would probably be seen by even more people, although
it would technically be actually available to fewer. It would
be available on campus, and would most probably be read by
pepole on campus.

We have here a Distinction without a Difference.
Posted by Anne O'Neimaus on 9.25.07 at 8.39
American citizens are free to say what ever they want. Those who accept that there will be no consequences for saying whatever they want are mistaken. There are consequences, good and bad, and in this case, she didn't like her consequences. A D is under the impression there should be no consequences and she should do/say what she pleases. What we see in the press is only one side, if you go to school with her you'd likley have a differing opinion, and see a different side than the one she shows to the media. She is not some poor little picked on person being harrassed by the big shots as the media would have you believe. As for the students supporting her, yes, some do. But most of us support Ms. Niehoff. She does not go around harrassing the kids who disagree with her, but is a person who is always there when you need help, and always goes out of her way to help others succeed. Unless she is your principal, you can't really have an opinion about her (or Ms. Schwartz). Knowing her for the past few years (and in middle school,too) I can say her judgement is smart, and she is not one to easily get offended. Knowing both people in this case, I will continue to side with Ms. N.
Posted by catzNdogz on 10.12.07 at 5.26
Well, maybe kids should start to learn you shouldn't go home and post nasty things on the internet about people, especially in the places they can find them.

I agree with that the school shouldn't necessarily punish her by disallowing her to run for class officer again, BUT then again, she should have held her tongue. The administrator might have been unfair in her ruling about the "Jamfest", but life isn't fair. Don't run around bad mouthing others or you'll most likely pay for it somehow. That's life everyone.
Posted by Anonymous on 6.4.08 at 10.02
Hi
it s a test
Posted by Anannybling on 9.21.09 at 3.57
Leave this field empty Name*:

Email*:

URL:

Comment:

All comments must adhere to our Terms & Conditions of Use.

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Immobilized
A pre-schooler in the West Hartford public school system is made to wear a weight vest for being too wiggly
No Sex Offenders
Greenwich ponders restricting where registered sex offenders can go
Nightmare Memory
A witness to Eugenio DeLeon Vega’s slaying says she didn’t say what she said
Cuffed in Pittsburgh
A former Army medic says police stripped him of his insignia and patches during the G-20 summit
Freegan Out
From second-hand clothes to foraging in fields to grabbing dinner out of trash bins, freegans try to take as little as possible from the consumer world
Water World
Will the new expanded bottle deposits mean more money flooding into the state? Critics doubt it.
Crime and Punishment
Round-up of local crimes
Choo Choo
Everybody loves trains … right?