1 / 27

Cyberbullying : Are principals’ hands tied?

Cyberbullying : Are principals’ hands tied?. Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D. Get this presentation!. www.scottmcleod.net/vermont. Disclaimer.

sanaa
Download Presentation

Cyberbullying : Are principals’ hands tied?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cyberbullying: Are principals’ hands tied? Scott McLeod, J.D., Ph.D.

  2. Get this presentation! www.scottmcleod.net/vermont

  3. Disclaimer We are not in an attorney-client relationship. Do not construe anything I say as accurate legal advice. For any and all legal questions, I strongly recommend that you speak with a reputable attorney who specializes in school law issues.

  4. Warning! This presentation is rated PG-13 vulgar language violent imagery content of lewd and sexual nature bad spelling and grammar

  5. Beussink (1998, MO) • Vulgar web page that was highly critical of school administration • Invited readers to contact the school principal to express their opinions

  6. J.S. v. Bethlehem (2000, PA) Fuck you Mrs. Fulmer. You are a Bitch. You are a Stupid Bitch. Fuck you Mrs. Fulmer. You are a Bitch. You are a Stupid Bitch. Fuck you Mrs. Fulmer. You are a Bitch. You are a Stupid Bitch. Fuck you Mrs. Fulmer. You are a Bitch. You are a Stupid Bitch. Fuck you Mrs. Fulmer. You are a Bitch. You …

  7. Emmet (2000, WA) ‘Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page’ mock obituaries or hit list?

  8. Killion (2001, PA) • He is no longer allowed in any “All You Can Eat” restaurants. • Because of his extensive gut factor, the “man” hasn't seen his own penis in over a decade. • Even it is wasn't for his gut, it would still take a magnifying glass and extensive searching to find it.

  9. Coy (2002, OH) … a sentence describing one boy as being sexually aroused by his mother. In addition to the ‘‘losers’’ section, the website contained two pictures of boys giving the ‘‘finger,’’ some profanity, and a depressingly high number of spelling and grammatical errors…

  10. Mahaffey (2002, MI) SATAN’S MISSION FOR YOU THIS WEEKStab someone for no reason then set them on fire throw them off of a cliff, watch them suffer and with their last breath, just before everything goes black, spit on their face. Killing people is wrong don’t do It. unless Imthere to watch. Or just go to Detroit. Hell is right in the middle. Drop by and say hi.

  11. Doninger (CT, 2007)

  12. Requa (WA, 2007)

  13. Layshock(PA, 2007) big blunt big keg behind my desk big fag big hard-on

  14. In your group… • Tally results • Compare results • Discuss WHY you decided the way you did

  15. Principle 1 Schools have an affirmative obligation to protect students and/or employees from harassing, threatening, or bullying conduct that occurs in school

  16. Principle 2 The default rule is that student speech in schools is protected.

  17. Supreme Court exceptions • true threat • material and substantial disruption (or reasonable forecast thereof) (Tinker v. Des Moines) • vulgarity (Bethel v. Fraser) • legitimate pedagogical concern (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier)

  18. Morse v. Frederick (2007)

  19. What about student conduct outside of school? • Fights off school grounds • Illegal drug / alcohol use • Underground newspapers • Peaceful protests

  20. Principle 3 Schools may discipline students for out-of-school conduct that substantially interferes with the normal operations of the school (a la Tinker)

  21. How’d you do? • Use of Tinker test (material and substantial disruption) • The only case that schools won was J.S. v. Bethlehem (teacher medical leave) • School won in Doninger too but watch the appeal • Requa was discipline for on-campus behavior • Strong protections for students’ constitutionally-protected speech rights

  22. Principle 4 If they have a strong acceptable use policy, schools can regulate student cyberspeech if done during school time and/or using school computers

  23. Principle 5 Schools have more leeway with employees

  24. Employee cyberspeech • School employees are “agents” / representatives of the school • Employee speech protected only if • on a matter of legitimate public concern, and • not outweighed by school’s responsibility to manage its internal affairs and to provide effective and efficient service to the public

  25. Review • Substantial interference is a high hurdle for schools • Schools can always educate • Schools have more leeway with employees than with students • Schools should regulate off-campus student cyberspeech with caution • Private lawsuits are always a possibility

  26. Q & A • Questions? • Concerns? • Thoughts? • Comments?

More Related