Agree on all points. We really need civil rights legislation that specifically adresses modern communications. If a school (or an employer) wants to take action due to something that did not occurr on their property, the onus should always be on them to prove that they have a legitimate reason to get involved. If a student “likes” a comment advocating violence against gays, then punishment may be warranted. If they “like” a comment opposing gay marriage, then the principal should kindly mind her own fucking business.
This is a hot area is student speech rights. So far, the courts of appeals have mostly found ways around setting down rules about punishment of off-campus speech. But the ACLU did get a big win in the Third Circuit confirming that the school’s power to punish for off-campus speech was much more circumscribed than for on-campus speech. Notably, in that case the Facebook account was accessed while on-campus.
I didn’t read the whole thread (forgive me), but I think the student has a strong civil rights claim.
I’m not on Facebook or Instagram or whatever this was, so I genuinely don’t know the answer to this question:
What is the act of “liking” a photo intended to convey?
There’s a Fourth Circuit, multi-page discussion on that very subject, Bricker. 
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usca4-facebook.pdf
In short, it can mean different things depending on the context.
Certainly students who came in to school wearing T-shirts that had such slogans would be disciplined, but if it was found out in the privacy of his own room he’d made some racist or anti-Semitic jokes on his FB page, I personally would object to them being disciplined, unless of course they were directed at black or Jewish students or teachers at school.
To make a comparison, if a bunch of students at the high school “liked” a video of a student vandalizing school property with the phrase “White Power” I would certainly have no problem with them being disciplined.
A weird question just occurred to me. Do US public schools have extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond the borders of the US? E.g. if a kid goes on a summer trip to Mexico, can the school punish the kid when he comes back in the fall for what he did in Mexico?
Some states have laws forbidding schools from punishing out-of-school conduct. See, e.g., 24 Pa. Cons. 5 Stat. § 5-510.
But the constitutional question of the scope of the school’s powers is an open one. In the Third Circuit, the school cannot punish off-campus speech for being vulgar or lewd like it can for on-campus speech. But it can punish off-campus speech that can be reasonably forecasted to cause substantial and material disruption to the school, or does in fact cause such disruption. That standard is higher than it seems, though. Remember that in Tinker, the anti-war armbands were expected to and did in fact cause quite a stir, but that did not amount to substantial disruption.
I don’t see that it would matter whether they’re in Mexico or just across the street at McDonald’s, except to the extent that the remoteness makes disruption of the school environment less likely.
Under TInker schools may not sanction speech which is otherwise legal unless it interferes with the educational mission of the school. I don’t see how Liking an offensive video in your private time disrupts the school.
Shouldn’t the schools be checking for any expression of support for Michael Brown or the rioters in Baltimore? If a student laughs at a rape joke, should he be suspended? If he Likes some rap music with homophobic or misogynistic lyrics, should he be sanctioned?
People have the right to hold and express offensive opinions. This is a lesson that never seems to sink in, on the left or the right.
Regards,
Shodan
QFT. And the Left has been the worse (though not only) offender on “offensiveness” speech restrictions in the last decade.
Free speech doesn’t protect hate speech. Liking the hate speech is hate speech. Suspension from school isn’t a terrible punishment. I support the principal’s action.
If the students had liked a post arguing that homosexuality should be illegal or gay marriage should not be permitted, that would be free speech. No doubt there are cases where the line is difficult to draw, but this was not one of those cases.
Yes, it does. Yours is a common misunderstanding. There is no “hate speech” exception to American free speech.
There are no lines to draw. Hate speech is 100% protected speech.
And while we’re at it, let’s clear up a few more free speech myths.
[ul]
[li]“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is not some metaphorical exception to free speech. First of all, Justice Holmes was referring to a false cry of fire. And second, that whole line of cases was used to justify national security prosecutions, and it is no longer good law.[/li]
[li]The “fighting words” exception probably doesn’t exist anymore, and if it does, its too narrow to apply to whatever offensive speech you’re trying to fit into it. In the 70 years since that exception was announced, the Supreme Court has not once found that it applies.[/li]
[li]There is no freewheeling balancing of free speech with other social interests. Free speech protections are exactly as inviolate as prohibitions on racial discrimination. If the government has a very compelling reason for a very narrowly tailored speech restriction, it can do it. But that’s the same test for when the government can treat different races differently–i.e., pretty fucking rarely.[/li][/ul]
Man. I think the kids who clicked like were being ginormous assholes, but I don’t think a school punishment is right. This is indeed a free speech issue, and the school’s involvement is inappropriate. I hate being in the position of defending assholes.