The generally referenced controlling precedent apears to be (IANAL) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). The standard that applies for the abridgment of free speech, which has been extended to speech outside of school grounds and specifically to Intneret postings several cases is: a material and substantial disruption at school actually occurred or reasonably could have been forecasted.” Sveal cases in the past decade have been decided at teh circuit court level using the same stanard. Some overturned the punishments, others upheld, but in all cases the decision was based upon evaluation of the postings and level of disrution. In no cases (that I could find) did a court rule that a school cannot impose punishment on a student for statements made on public Internet sites simply because they were not made on or with school property.
Now - you could argue (if you wish) that hate speech directed toward LGBT students is not disruptive in a high school setting. But that appears to be the controlling case law. (At least until the Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal on one of these cases, which so far they have declined to do.)
I don’t think freedom of speech protects vandalizing something on school property. So while the school shouldn’t interfere with students expressing their views, it does have a legitimate right to oppose vandalism as a means of expressing those views. And that includes disciplining students who encourage vandalism by publicly “liking” it.
Principal overstepped his bounds and should be fired.
What opinions students express on their own time on their own property cannot and should not be held against them by a prying principal with nothing better to do. And as someone mentioned, a mere “like” does not necessarily endorse the event.
In general, I think this move by schools into students’ off-campus lives is unacceptable. About the only time I can see it as acceptable is if they are assaulting or threatening other students, and thus the behavior impacts the campus.
Up here, there’s a move where schools take disciplinary action against students at parties where alcohol is present. Really? Mind your own business.
And I don’t think liking a video of defacing a poster rises to the level of bullying. It’s in poor taste, but really, so what. What if they liked a video of the school on fire? Does that make them accessories to the arson?
There is a fair amount of material easily found online for the case law in this area. If you need a single link I did find this summaryto be pretty good.
If you don’t see that as bullying behavior I suspect we have very different understandings of what it means to be bullied. I’ll trust mine.
Posting public approval for the actions of a bully, especially b people within the same community (school, in this case) as the people being bullied is also bullying behavior. Fear, ostracization, exclusion - these have long been part of the bullying cycle.
I simply don’t think that rises to the level. For the kids who posted it, sure. But the kids who liked it? No. Now any offensive behavior is bullying? Kids being dicks goes back forever. And for what it’s worth, I went through a spell where I was on the receiving end.
When the overreach of a principal has lasting effects on the students who were wrongly suspended (i.e. their school records will all show suspension for cyberbullying), then the principal is unfit for his or her position.
Privacy must mean something in the context of social media and the classroom, otherwise the school bell has no beginning and no end.
Not to mention the simple reality that a “Like” on Facebook can easily be misconstrued. Principal overreached and must suffer the consequences of termination.
I’m not seeing a significant distinction, there. If five kids corner another student, and one of them is calling him names while the other four laugh and egg him on, all five are open to discipline. If five kids go on the internet, and one of them calls another student names, and the other four post “+1,” how is that materially different from the first scenario?
(Before anyone else posts it: yes, I know one is online, and one is offline. I’m asking OldOlds, who’s just indicated that he’s okay with punishing online behavior in one case, and not the other, and it’s in that specific context that I’m asking my question.)
No. Bullying is bullying. Publicly supporting a bully, admiring their work in a public forum, contributes to bullying.
Many offensive behaviors are not bullying. Expressign clear support for the specific actions of a bully is bullying. Expressing private support for the actions of a bully is just jackassery. “Great job putting those faggots in their place, Bob.”
The whole point of expressign public support is to align yourself to the action.
Firing the principal seems very reactionary and uncalled for. I could see a suspension, possibly. But I think you’re being a little extreme.
I’m torn on this issue. There have been people fired for posts made or liked on social media, and I sometimes have problems with that. To me, a lot of times, it depends on what the actual statement was that got someone in trouble. And here, the students - by liking the video - gave tacit approval (and appear to condone) the video and its contents.
I’m not sure I would have suspended them, though. Maybe a few days of detention.
Absolute certainty is a meaningless standard for human beings. Is that the same standar you are applying when calling for the principal to be fired?
I am quite comfortable reaching teh conlusion that “liking” the defacement of a poster asking for LGBTQ tolerance and the accompanying tag containing the epithet “faggot” indicates support for and endorsement of the actions that led to the photo & the tag.
You appear quite comfortable reaching for any doubt to grant the students while simultaneously calling for extreme punishment against the man who acted to protect a safe environment for children to receive an education. It is an interesting dichotomy.
That’s an outrage. For that sort of thought crime they should be expelled. I guess the principal is one of those soft libs who want to send the kids a wake up call. Oh, wait. Public school. That’d be government censorship. Wait, how does that follow? Isn’t it the same logic in the workplace? You can still be a bigot. If they’re expelled no one is sending them to jail or fining them. See, you still have free speech. You’re just not free from the consequences. That old song and dance.
Sometimes I think PC crap like this makes things worse because people can crawl up on the cross and do the martyr thing.
What if these students attended a NeoNazi rally? Clearly that’s offensive and threatening? Bullying? Supporting the NeoNazis (is that one word or two? hyphenated?) would be terrible- and I would agree, by the way. Would it be OK to suspend a student who supported such a group?
And we now get into the official “where does it end” debate.
You should know that I am a near-absolutist in the freedom of speech debate. Direct calls for action or lies which endager others (fraud, fire in a crowded theater, issuing an order to cause physical harm) is where I draw the line. And I don’t believe that schools have any jurisdiction outside the school walls. They are not a police or judicial organization.
I pretty much agree with the logic here. I think suspension was a bit heavy handed for the students that hit ‘like’ as a first offense. I think a disciplinary letter sent to the parents explaining the schools anti bullying policy would have been sufficient.
That’s the most comical line in this thread. It’s social media, by definition there should be no expectation of privacy.
Did the nazis take a specific action on school grounds and targetted at school students? Was teh rally specifically in support of that action? If not, then no. General ass-hattery, good reason for some school assemblies on hate groups and tolerance, but not cause for suspension.