Pennsylvania districts lose cases over MySpace parodies
By Brian Bowling
Published: Tuesday, June 14, 2011
A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that two Pennsylvania school districts violated the First Amendment by punishing students who created offensive "parody" profiles on MySpace.
The ruling did not address the question of when districts can punish students for off-campus speech.
"It would be an unseemly and dangerous precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a child's home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school-sponsored activities," the 14 judges of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision upholding a lower court ruling in the lawsuit brought by a Mercer County student against Hermitage School District.
Justin Layshock, then 17 and a senior at Hickory High School, created a "profile" of his principal in December 2005 that essentially made fun of his weight. The district moved Layshock from the gifted student program to one for students with behavioral problems, banned him from extracurricular activities and also banned him from his graduation.
The school district subsequently reversed those actions and paid Layshock $10,000 to settle the lawsuit, but still appealed U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry's 2007 ruling that it violated Layshock's First Amendment rights.
Hermitage schools Superintendent Dan Bell was not available for comment. A spokesman for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association couldn't be reached for comment.
The second case involved an Eastern Pennsylvania student who sued the Blue Mountain School District in Schuylkill County. Her parody used her middle school principal's photo but a fake name and said he was a school principal in Alabama. The profile described him as a pedophile and sex addict.
The more offensive nature of the profile, even though it was less accessible than Layshock's parody, apparently caused an 8-6 split in the judges that still ruled Blue Mountain violated the student's free speech rights.
Vic Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued both cases before the 3rd Circuit, said the cases make it clear that when a student publishes something offensive on the Internet, the right response is to call in the student and his or her parents.
"In 99 percent of the cases, that's going to do the trick," he said.
Arthur Hellman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said the rulings don't end the idea that districts can sometimes punish students for comments made off campus, but also don't set a standard for when that might be the case.
"It's obvious the court struggled (with the decisions)," he said. "It took them almost a year after oral arguments."
However, the two rulings "are a pretty strong affirmation of students' rights to free speech off campus," Hellman said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.