User:Drewab

Vignette Analysis 1

1. Legal Issues - First Amendment Rights; Fourteenth Amendment – due process and equal protection clause; Material disruption standard - disruption of a school

2. Analysis - The First Amendment of the United States Constitution includes the protection of individuals right to free speech, even if the speech may include topics that others may find distasteful, or against public policy. The right to free speech includes the right to publish viewpoints in a paper, and has been extended to the Internet and the creation of web pages. The right for free speech is not absolute and must meet the requirements of the Miller’s Test developed in the 1973 and cannot be deemed obscene. Additionally, the speech cannot include fighting words, prescribe imminent lawless action, or be slanderous. Students have broad First Amendment protection unless there is a substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees students due process and equal protection under the law. In this vingette, the student distributed flyers advertising the rating webpage while eating lunch in the cafeteria. The students have the right to publish the website rating teachers in their teaching ability and whether they are “hot or not” as long as it does not materially disrupt school. No disruption of school was noted in the case, but the school could reasonably predict that disruption could occur later in classrooms due to the further conversation about the website. The degree of disruption predicted is important since cases have been overturned if the disruption was not substantial enough to disrupt the orderly operation and discipline of the school.

3. Case Review – Beussink v Woodland R-IV School District (1) Summary –A student created his own webpage from home and when the page was shown to another student in the presence of a teacher, Beussink was suspended for ten days. He then sued, alleging that the school district violated his First Amendment rights. (2) Pertinent Issues – The student-created website was critical of teachers and the administration. The principal suspended the student because he felt offended by the site’s content. (3) Holding - The courts overturned the principal’s decision, stating that the decision to suspend must be based on something more substantial than a than administrators and teachers discomfort. (4) Relevance – Since the student created the website from his own computer and there was not a substantial disruption to school, the principal does not have the right to censor the student’s first amendment right.

O'Brien v. Westlake City Schools Board of Education (1) Summary –Sean O’Brien created his own webpage from home which was very critical and unflattering of his band teacher. The school officials accessed the website from school and determined that it violated the school’s Student Code of Conduct. Sean was suspended for ten days and received an “F” in band. Obrien sued the board of education and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. (2) Pertinent Issues –The student created a website that was critical of his band teacher. The principal suspended the student because he and the teacher felt offended by the site’s content. (3) Holding - The courts overturned the principal’s decision and stated that school officials did not have the authority to regulate student speech when it is non-threatening and when it is created off campus. The court required the school officials to restore O’Brien to a student in good standing. The school district then settled with O’Brien by agreeing to pay him $30,000, expunging his suspension record and writing a letter of apology. (4) Relevance – The student created the website from his own computer and although the teacher found out about the website the school does not have the right to discipline or censor his freedom of speech.

J.S. v Bethlehem (1) Summary - A student posted a web site from his home which had derogatory remarks about his school's principal and teacher. This caused a disruption since his math teacher had to take a medical leave of absence. The student was initially suspended for three days then was permanently expelled by the board of education. J.S. and his parents appealed the board's determination arguing that his constitutional rights were violated, the school district committed errors of law and, the school district's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. (2) Pertinent Issues - The website was created at the student’s home on his own time; the student then revealed the website to other students who then accessed the site from school. A substantial disturbance to the school occurred with the math teacher taking a medical leave of absence. (3) Holding - The courts affirmed that the decision of the school board: that the expulsion did not violate the student’s First Amendment free speech guarantee and that the expulsion did not violate equal protection, since the student had no expectation of privacy in his website. (4) Relevance – The student created the website from his own computer and although he was allowed to discriminate against his teachers and administration he did not have the right to create a web page that would threaten a teacher or cause a disruption to the school.

4. Recommendation: We believe that since there is no know precedent at the school for a disruption, the principal should not discipline the student and should not bar the web site. The principal could ask the student to rethink the website and consider taking it down but make sure that the student understands that no discipline consequence would ensure if he chooses not to do so.