This past weekend, I found an interesting article linked from a website I frequent. The article concerned Avery Doninger, a student at a public high school, and the fight for protection of her freedom of speech against her school administrators. Avery, a junior and Secretary on the student senate, was frustrated with her school's principal and superintendent for continuously postponing a "Battle of the Bands" the school was to host. In her anger, she wrote a blog on "Livejournal" one night from her home computer calling the administrators "douchebags" and encouraging other students to write, email, or call in with their complaints to the school. As punishment, the school would not allows Avery to run for student senate her senior year, citing the blog entry as proof she does not have the respect and responsibility they felt was required to represent her class on student senate. You can read the article here.
The question this case boils down to is when does a student actually leave the school's jurisdiction? While this question was addressed in Morse v Frederick, the question takes on a while new meaning in regards to the Internet. The Internet is public is it not? How then can a school cite a sphere as public as the Internet in punishing students? Well, as Judge Newman warns us in the case Thomas v Board of Education, "territoriality is not necessarily a useful weapon in determining the limit of school administrator's authority." Basically, as long as the school finds "substantial disruption," as determined by the Tinker v Des Moines case, it does not matter what medium or territory the disruption was fostered in. This includes a medium as public as the Internet.
So, could administrators truly "reasonably forecast" "substantial disruption" from her comments? While there is no test for what can be "reasonably forecast" as set down by Tinker, I feel, as did the US Supreme Court, that there could be "substantial disruption." While the blog was written from a home computer, the blogs are still accessible via the school's computers. Also, as cited in the original Doninger v Niehoff and Schwartz (the principal and superintendent respectively) her blog "was purposely designed by Avery to come onto school property." She had hoped students would read and respond to it, even encouraging students to plan a sit-in, which would greatly disrupt student learning.
However, I am not ready to side with the courts just yet. I find it difficult to readily accept any regulation when it comes in the Internet, even by schools. Unlike broadcast, the Internet is a 24/7 medium. Broadcast, such as television and radio, has the ability to be regulated without a complete ban due to the "safe harbor" from 10pm until 6am as cited in the Action for Children's Television v FCC case. However, you cannot regulate only SOME of the internet. There would be no end to the regulation once we begin, resulting in bans. Not to mention, you make all speech on the Internet merely "fit for children," and speech appropriate for adults is lost from the marketplace of ideas. If Avery can't write her feelings in a personal blog, from a home computer, then where and when can she? Also, as stated in Reno v ACLU, there is no "captive audience" on the Internet; people can choose to browse where they please. Avery did not email a link to her blog to all students nor force anyone to read it. Students who wished to read it had to actively seek it out and read it. Even the courts realize the danger of regulating the internet. As the opinion in Reno states, there is "no basis for qualifying the level of the first amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium."
Even as a future educator, I feel it unnecessary to regulate students on the Internet. Name calling, while immature, is not means for disciplining inside the school when written on a medium as free as the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, Stacey. I actually wrote my blog on a similar topic, against university regulation of hate speech. Well, somewhat similar anyway. I can understand the argument that high schools should regulate students' speech while they are in school, but when the students leave the property, I feel they should regain the right to say what they please. The problem with allowing this is that yes, sometimes the speech will not be what the public wants to hear, but nonetheless the only people who should regulate the students' speech at home are their parents. We all have at one point complained about homework or teachers, or gossiped about other students on our own time. When we were young, (I can't believe I just used that phrase) we did not necessarily have the internet to share these complaints, at least while we were in elementary school. The school can't regulate speech it never hears about, so again this touches on the whole fairness issue-- it is not fair to prosecute some speech, because you cannot prosecute it all. The school does not hear everything the kids say, and if Doinger had merely called on her home phone to talk to other kids and try to get them to 'sit in' or rally against the school, I don't think they could regulate that. I agree with you when you say that kids would have to seek out her message, and make a conscious decision to read it- there is no captive audience argument. Also, just because she is trying to plan a sit in, does not mean it is actually going to happen. This was merely her way of letting off steam, and it is much better she did it this way than by trashing the school, or doing something rambunctious. She could have easily done what she did through chatting with other students in person, off of school property, in which case, we might have no case. A lot of speech, both through actually speaking, as well as in other mediums, such as the internet, goes on daily, and it is impossible that the high school would know about it. It is important to welcome all opinions.
ReplyDeleteTo close, I have an interesting question that I do not believe we have discussed in class: if an adult was posting a blog similar to Doinger's about their workplace, could the workplace take any action against it? Or even in a university setting (or any other for that matter)?
I also agree with your argument, Stacey. I believe that students should have the freedom to express their views regarding school matters on personal blogs that are accessed outside of school. However, there is a fine line between what should and should not be protected. For example, let’s assume a student devises a plan to physically hurt students and staff at his or her school. This is grounds for regulation. On the other hand referring to school administrators as “douche bags” for not sponsoring a “Battle of the Bands” should not be regulated. The internet is a medium of personal expression. At one point or another, we ourselves may become frustrated with the actions of school administrators and faculty and think to ourselves that they are fact acting like “douche bags.” However, adding to the complexity of the case you cited in your blog is the fact that not only did the student document her feelings via her blog but she called upon other students at the same school to do the same including scheming a sit-in. This does have the potential of disrupting daily school activities. Therefore, I understand why school administrators and the like may feel threatened by this type of speech. I of course do not agree with them. A sit-in is a form of political protest and schools are not outside the parameters of protest. If they were, then students would not have been able to protest against segregation in the South during Jim Crow. Moreover, I am annoyed by the mere silencing of students’ views in the school setting. If the school is a “marketplace of ideas” then this includes accepting diversity in viewpoints and enabling a discussion about those views. There is no such thing as a right or wrong answers. This of course is not in accordance with those who maintain authority. Young individuals including children and teenagers are oftentimes assumed to be ignorant of issues and those are expected to conform to dominant patterns of thought and speech. However, oftentimes it is youth who are more knowledgeable about certain issues than those older people who sit behind air-conditioned desks atop the Ivory Towers. Though this specific case may be regarded as insignificant in the eyes of many because it involves “unruly” youth, I disagree. Systems of oppression are interlocking. Or put in another way as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. beautifully articulated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
ReplyDelete