exploring the intersection of new media and everything else

Our changing technological landscape means that, as educators, we will always be presented with new difficulties and problems as students find ways to use (and abuse) these emerging technologies. These problems are unique because previous generations did not have to deal with these innovations. The importance of handling these problems appropriately is paramount, in that if we screw up, we risk further alienating our students.

Furthermore, as we try to integrate these technologies into the classroom environment, it would be good for us to understand both the abuse that is possible with it, and also the point (legally) at which a students actions go from harmless fun / teasing to something deliberately hurtful.

J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District

Earlier this month a court ruled that a school was within its rights to suspend an eighth-grade student (J.S.) for 10 days after she created a fake page on MySpace.com that depicted her principal as a pedophile and a sex addict. (
J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District)

This is an interesting case because it speaks to the rights of students to express themselves. Had I been J.S.’s age I would more than likely have used MySpace or YouTube to make fun of my teachers, but I think that making fun of someone and slander are two different things.

Although I am a proponent of freedom of speech, I think that in this case I would support the judges decision mainly because the MySpace profile was a public one and also because from what I have read of the case, it was not so much a parody as it was meant to slander the principal by painting him as a pedophile and degrading him.

Additionally, J.S. made it a public page so it was intended for anyone and everyone to see. Had it been private, I don’t think the school would have had a case.

The one problematic point of this case is that J.S. did not mention the principle by name on the MySpace page.

What legal precedents are really being debated here?

First is whether or not the principle constitutes a public figure. If the principle is considered a public figure then the burden of proof is higher for him.

A public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander). A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with malice (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth).

So does the principle of a school fall under this definition of a public figure? I would say that he does. Although the case did not seem to think so (or at least the judge made no mention of it), he is the face of his school and so should be considered a public figure, and thus a valid target for students or parents who want to ridicule him and his policies, as long as such ridicule is truthful.

However, ridicule does not entitle one to libel or slander. So the next question is was this a case of libel? In order for that to be established actual malice must first be proven.

The legal definition of actual malice was established in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a Freedom of the Press / Civil Rights Case.

The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity…. Proof of “actual malice” was required in order for punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties. Since proof of the writer’s malicious intentions is hard to provide, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood.

So in this case I think that actual malice can be legitimately established. The information about the principle was obviously false, and very few would consider the label pedophile to be a harmless one. Furthermore because no punitive damages were being asked for, rather only that the school be allowed to suspend a student for disrupting the learning environment, I believe that the burden of proof is even lower in this case.

Some may cite the Draker v. Schreiber as evidence that the court made an incorrect decision in this case. But the biggest difference between these two cases is the scope of the penalty being enacted. In the Draker case, the principle was asking for punitive damages, while in this case the school was only asking to do what it already had the authority to do.

Therefore I believe that the court made the correct decision in this case.

Legal Cases

:

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Tinker Case

J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District

Related posts:

1. Blogging as a Tool to Improve Writing Two weeks ago I made the decision to require my...
2. Educational Technology Review: New Ways To Bring New Media into Education | 17 October 2008 The world market for e-learning and Educational Technology is estimated...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.