ShareThis Page

High court fails to act in off-campus speech cases

| Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to rule on whether school districts may discipline students who use the Internet to attack school officials or classmates even when the students are off-campus.

The decision upholds rulings in two Pennsylvania cases -- including one involving a then-high school senior from Mercer County -- that the reach of school districts does not extend to students' homes in such cases. But it also lets stand a West Virginia ruling that a district could discipline a student for setting up a "hate site" claiming a classmate had herpes.

Francisco M. Negrón Jr., general counsel for the National School Boards Association, said it's time for the court to clarify both a school district's responsibilities and its authority when it comes to students posting messages on the Internet.

"I think that's what the court is going to have to grapple with eventually," he said.

Vic Walczak, state legal director for the ACLU, said the rulings in the Pennsylvania cases are "big wins for student free-speech rights" because they make clear that school officials don't have the same authority outside school that they do inside school.

"When students leave the school, they are no longer students," Walczak said. "They are minors -- subject to the care and control of their parents."

The American Civil Liberties Union represented both Pennsylvania students.

Justin Layshock was a 17-year-old senior at Hickory High School in Mercer County in 2005 when he created a MySpace profile ridiculing his principal's weight. The district moved Layshock from the gifted student program to one for students with behavioral problems, banned him from extracurricular activities and prohibited him from attending graduation.

Layshock filed a federal lawsuit, and although the district paid $10,000 to settle, it appealed U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry's 2007 ruling that it violated Layshock's First Amendment rights.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June upheld McVerry's ruling. The Supreme Court's decision allows the ACLU to seek attorney's fees.

Layshock, 23, couldn't be reached, and Walczak said he wasn't granting interviews. Layshock graduated from St. John's University in New York City last year with a bachelor's degree in economics. Walczak said he's working in Western Pennsylvania in the insurance industry.

The other Pennsylvania case involved a Schuylkill County student who used her middle school principal's photo in a MySpace profile for a fictitious Alabama school principal who was described as a pedophile and sex addict. A Philadelphia federal judge upheld the Blue Mountain School District's disciplining of the student, but the 3rd Circuit overturned that ruling on the same free-speech grounds it used in the Layshock ruling.

"Though disturbing, the record indicates that the profile was so outrageous that no one took its content seriously," a 3rd Circuit majority wrote last year.

In the West Virginia case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond unanimously refused to reinstate Kara Kowalski's lawsuit against school officials in Berkeley County. She claimed her five-day suspension from Musselman High School in 2005 violated her free-speech and due-process rights.

A new statewide anti-bullying policy that goes into effect on July 1 extends rules about student conduct beyond the school yard, holding students accountable for "vulgar or offensive speech" online if it disrupts school.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.