No Off-Campus Free Speech for YOU, You Naughty High School Student! Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas


No Off-Campus Free Speech for YOU, You Naughty High School Student!

19 January 2009 at 4:03:54 PM

Isaw this ruling from Judge Mark Kravitz of the US District Court that basically says that a high school student who posts something that the school might not like, ie, criticizing an action the school takes, and does it NOT ON SCHOOL TIME, NOT ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, doesn't have free speech rights... Why? Because, um, somebody ON school property might READ THE BLOG!

School officials acted within their rights to discipline a student for an Internet posting she wrote off school grounds, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz rejected Avery Doninger’s claim that administrators at Lewis B. Mills High School violated her rights of free speech and equal protection.

She also alleged they inflicted emotional distress when they barred her from serving as class secretary because of the 2007 posting, which criticized administrators for canceling a popular school activity.

Kravitz’s ruling relied partly on the ambiguity over whether schools can regulate students’ expression on the Internet. He noted in his ruling that times have changed since 1979, when a landmark student speech case set boundaries for schools regulating off-campus speech.

This is the same guy who didn't want to see the Patriot Act challenged. He doesn't seem too concerned with citizen's consitutional protections.

Now, he wrote, students can send e-mails to hundreds of classmates at a time or post entries that can be read instantly by students, teachers, and administrators.

“Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse,” Kravitz wrote.
It isn't as if students are sending hundreds of emails within the school are they? If so, you mean to tell me that the IT person in charge of the school can't block emails? Heck, in GRISD, the IT person is setting up blogs for the teachers-I assume it isn't the students who have blogs, but if they create a blog or Facebook or Myspace account from their homes, it isn't on campus. IF the school then wanted to block Facebook, etc from being seen, any competent IT person can do that.

Kravitz cited previous rulings in his decision that school administrators were entitled to qualified immunity. That shields public officials from lawsuits for damages unless they violate clearly established rights that a reasonable official would have known.

The officials couldn’t reasonably be expected “to predict where the line between on- and off-campus speech will be drawn in this new digital era,” he wrote.

Well, then perhaps there shouldn't BE a distinction between one's free speech rights on or off campus if a person who ought to reasonably know whether the school district provides that electronic platform can't tell the difference.  Seems to me that whole decision was more about whether a school could be sued if the people running it are not competent enough to know the difference between on or off campus speech.

Totally ridiculous. I'm glad to read that the attorneys are going to take this to the Supreme Court.

Adding link to CT blog Cool Justice for more links and comments on this.

Update: Feb 9 2009- looks like the student is going to appeal GOOD FOR HER. Retaliating against her for writing something on her own computer from home on her own blog is WRONG. especially for a dang school -New Haven Register

Doninger, then a Student Council member and junior class secretary, was organizing an annual student rock concert, Jamfest. But when Principal Karissa Niehoff said logistical problems prevented the concert from happening on the date favored by students, Doninger and three other students went to the school computer lab and sent an e-mail message to many local residents, urging them to protest Niehoff’s decision.

That night, Doninger posted a blog entry that said: “Jamfest is cancelled, due to douche bags in central office.”

Doninger also encouraged her readers to write to Region 10 School District Superintendent Paula Schwartz “to piss her off more.”

In his ruling, Kravitz rejected Doninger’s claims that administrators violated her rights to free speech and equal protection and intentionally inflicted emotional distress when they punished her by refusing to let her run for class secretary. Two other courts previously issued similar rulings.

Permalink Tags:          
     Views: 5004 
Latest Blog Post by salon -The Corrupt Swamp of Trump - 12/6/2019
1 - Sara   10 Sep 2010 @ 4:39:30 PM 

I'm affraid that this writer isn't exactly correct. The court reached its ruling due to the fact that the speech materially, and substantially disrupted the work and discipline of the school, not just because the school found out about it.

2 - salon   10 Sep 2010 @ 5:53:51 PM 

That's exactly the reason I presume she is appealing that decision. The school DID find out about her blog entry and also was receiving phone calls, emails etc because of her call to action that she made from her own computer. What right does the school have to claim that someone's free speech OFF CAMPUS can be chilled  because it might disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Imagine this in another scenario- that there's a parent who, sans the obscenity, believes some action needs to be taken to express an opinion to the school and sends out a mass mailing telling everyone to notify the school, call them up, email, etc. Should the school say "We find that that citizen's right to express him or herself disrupts our work, so we are going to retaliate". More detail on this case.

Instead, the defendants obtained summary judgment on the blog claim because they were entitled to qualified immunity. Applying the two-part qualified immunity test established in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), while acknowledging that Saucier was under review by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pearson v. Callahan, the court examined the facts to determine: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and, if so, (2) whether the violated right was clearly established at the time. Regarding the first prong, the court revisited its analysis in its earlier ruling denying the preliminary injunction, in which it had concluded that the principle established in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986)—that schools can restrict lewd, vulgar and plainly offense student speech—also applied to off-campus speech. While acknowledging that the Second Circuit had declined to decide this point and that this “might have been intended to gently telegraph to the [district court] that it erred in its analysis of Fraser,” the district court stated that unless and until the Second Circuit ruled otherwise, it would not change its position.

Even if Fraser does not apply to off-campus speech, the court continued, the defendants still would be entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. The court defined the right at issue as “the right not to be prohibited from participating in a voluntary, extracurricular activity because of offensive off-campus speech when it was reasonably foreseeable that the speech would come on to campus and thus come to the attention of school authorities.” This right, so defined, was not clearly established at the time of their actions, because (1) it is “not clear that participation in extracurricular activities should be considered a right at all,” especially in the context of the First Amendmend; (2) given the Second Circuit’s explicit refusal to decide the issue in the present case, there could hardly be any debate that Fraser’s applicability to off-campus was not clearly established; and (3) the case law Avery cited in support of the proposition that it was clearly established that school officials do not have the authority to regulate off-campus speech was decided before the advent of Internet speech. Noting that the jurisprudence in this area is in a state of flux and “will need to evolve in order to address this new environment, and the Second Circuit has begun to address it in cases such as Wisniewski,” the court concluded: “If courts and legal scholars cannot discern the contours of First Amendment protections for student internet speech, then it is certainly unreasonable to expect school administrators, such as Defendants, to predict where the line between on- and off-campus speech will be drawn in this new digital era.”

and this

Can't wait to see what happens on appeal, because I don't think school officials have any business trying to decide where the line is drawn when a child does something on his or her own time on private equipment.

Latest Blog Post by salon -The Corrupt Swamp of Trump - 12/6/2019
3 - christen   22 Aug 2011 @ 7:47:06 AM 

you guys dont know if they are right everyone can be right just put it all together gosh no i fighting world peace  :)

 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting

Click Here for Main Page

Today Is  
Friday, December 06, 2019

Latest Posts

The Corrupt Swamp of Trump - 12/6/2019
salon 12/6/2019

Trump Impeachment O Day - 12/6/2019
salon 12/6/2019

Why Didn't Somervell County Hospital District member Ron Hankins RECUSE himself from vote or actions re: State of Texas ex rel Best v Harper?
salon 12/5/2019

On the Temporary Restraining Order Somervell County Attorney Andy Lucas & Ron Hankins Tried to Prevent Harper from attending meetings
salon 12/5/2019

Catching up with what happened re: Possible Sale of Oakdale Park in Glen Rose
salon 12/4/2019

Hypocrite Hankins! Somervell County Hospital District Board Member Says He'd Like to Take Tax Rate Down to Zero
salon 12/3/2019

More Blog Headlines


salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS