Revealed: MySpace is in Crosby Middle Schools jurisdiction
As reported in the Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky, a boy has been suspended from school for expressing his desire to kill other students on his MySpace page.
I’m not a big fan of people threatening others with death, but from time to time, I’ve had such a desire, too. Fortunately, ZeroIntelligence.net isn’t MySpace, which Crosby Middle School, or at least Jefferson County Public Schools, seem to think is within their jurisdiction. To help clear up my confusion on this, I’ve sent Lauren Roberts (lauren.roberts@jefferson.kyschools.us), spokeswoman for the school system, the email that follows. I will update this posting once I hear back from her, if I do.
Ms. Roberts,
…snipped introductory text…
I do want to give you an opportunity to express the point of view of Jefferson County Public Schools, so I ask you a few questions:
1. When did the regulation of speech on MySpace first fall within the jurisdiction of Crosby Middle School?
2. If it does not, why was this not referred to proper authorities?
3. What is the language of the school policy violated and does it allow the reach of the school to extend beyond school property and even into cyberspace?
4. Have you ever desired to kill anyone?
5. If so, have you ever told anyone?
6. If so, were you suspended from your school or job?
7. Last year, Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams told a group of schoolchildren, “Right now, I would like to kill George Bush.†Would you allow Ms. Williams to speak at Crosby Middle School?
8. Have you checked the 265 people on 43 Things that want to kill someone to make sure they don’t attend Crosby Middle School? (http://www.43things.com/things/view/13726)I look forward to your responses.
Blue skies,
-Aaron
There is a misconception on your part. He is not being suspended as punishment for posting the statement. He is being suspended because, in their estimation, he represents a security risk. The posting is not the offense, but rather the evidence. it isn’t a free speec issue. He is free to express his desire, and those who read it are free to be frightened by this expression. If he had posted his belief that he had active smallpox, he would have been suspended for public health reasons, subject to confirmation of his assertion, and if he tested negative, the suspension would be over. There is no assertion of jurisdiction over the web, merely of the right to collect evidence off the web - it’s a fourth amendment question, not a first amendment question, and in that light, it’s comparable to collecting someone’s DNA from them spitting on the sidewalk,
Perhaps you are correct, but I suspect not. We honestly have little information to go on, but this case sounds like many others like it where more information has been available and it comes down to free speech expression.
In fact, the Supreme Court just heard arguments in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, which is very similar, relating as it does to school jurisdiction over speech seen as inappropriate by the school.
That a public school should have the ability to evaluate and punish behavior of students that takes place outside of the school environment grants far more power than was ever intended in the public school charter.
Such rights are actually quite commonly assumed in the case of PRIVATE institutions. I am not an expert on public school jurisdictions, but I can attest that the code of conduct at my Alma Mater clearly states that students, staff, and faculty are expected to adhere to the aforementioned code both on and off school grounds.
However, I would have hoped that public institutions would not have such powers.
And on a tangential note, WELCOME BACK! I’m so very thrilled to see that this site has not lapsed into oblivion. We need information that highlights these absurdities now more than ever.
The issue of Myspace does, indeed, bring many more questions. I do support some form of punishment if a student overtly makes intentions of bodily harm on his/her Myspace page. Simply stated, that action is illegal. Now, consider, for example, when a group of students post something as harmless as, say, the assistant principal being a “douche bag”. Although this is a rather tasteless comment to some, it is protected speech. Beware! If schools see this, they will hound and pester you to remove such pages, as did a certain middle school in the “Carroll” district of Fort Wayne.
In fact, the Supreme Court just heard arguments in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus†case, which is very similar, relating as it does to school jurisdiction over speech seen as inappropriate by the school.
Not the same thing. The “bong hits” banner wasn’t evidence of a threat to the safety of anyone.
From what I read of the principal’s point of view, she did see it as a threat in that she saw it as a pro-drug message that could bring harm to other students. When you open the door to school’s regulating speech outside of school, it makes it possible for any speech an administrator deems undesirable to be declared a threat to the safety of others. As long as schools set themselves up to be miniaturized versions of our three branches of government (legislative making the rules, executive enforcing the rules, and judicial interpreting the rules) there is vast potential for abuse.
From that perspective, this particular student’s situation starts to become less relevant. I’ve had some conversations with Lauren Roberts, who has largely refused to answer my questions. She has said there is more to the story than just his MySpace postings, but won’t answer the questions about jurisdictional authority over MySpace, which dodges the further reaching question.
So, “dweeb”, you appear to be correct that this particular student is being punished for threatening behavior, not speech, but I still disagree respectfully about whether the school should have any jurisdiction over policing, trying, and punishing students for what they say on MySpace.
While it’s true this is not a 1st amendment case since violent/hate speech is not protected, there is more than just a 4th amendment violation going on here, this is also skipping the 5th and 6th amendments as well.
Not only was his myspace page out of the jurisdiction of the school but action was taken against him without due process, it’s very likely he had to sign the referral form, and since the school is justifying all this by saying it’s a serious threat that means it’s automatically a criminal charge and he has most definitely not been given a trial, allowed to confront the witnesses against him, or to bring witness in his favour.
but I still disagree respectfully about whether the school should have any jurisdiction over policing, trying, and punishing students for what they say on MySpace
I never said anything about such jurisdiction for you to disagree with, respectfully or otherwise. This case simply isn’t about that. MySpace was merely where they gathered evidence.
There have been OTHER cases, mentioned here and elsewhere, where OTHER schools, tried to assert such jurisdiction with OTHER students. Notably, the central element of those cases, an ultimatum to remove the posted material to reduce or altogether avoid punishment, is missing here. Obviously, removing the threat wouldn’t mitigate any risk to other students.
This just isn’t one of those cases, and bringing up an issue which does not arise in connection with it only serves to broadbrush this blog, its readers, and the entire cause it represents as shrill, paranoid conspiracy theorists, which does no one any good. If you want to have a positive effect in the world, develop a more sophisticated ability to interpret what the issue is in a controversy.
I get your point. In my defense, I’ve been editor of this site for about two weeks and I’m still seeking the right style. I was testing a more inflammatory style with this one and if that means I missed the main point, then my name attached to the post indicates my willingness to assume full responsibility. I’m sure I’ll get better at it.
I have to ask, though: Does posting comments as “dweeb” demonstrate sophistication?
“What’s in a name? A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.”
Sophistication is something used, not demonstrated. One of the self defeating mistakes many conservative/libertarian blogs make is overstating their case. There are times when something looks like a duck on first glance, but doesn’t quack like a duck, and citing it as an example of the grand duck conspiracy only gives the actual duck ammunition. I fully appreciate that you’re new to this, almost as much as I appreciate your effort in reviving the blog. One of the reasons I was so forceful is that the previous author made an almost identical error in his last few posts - failing to discern where a school had a legitimate mandate to act, and asserting a false example of school authority reaching beyond proper limits.
Make certain that you tell children to never journal/vent their feelings on paper either. Should it be torn from whatever notebook or journal it will take on a life of its own. Ask me, we have been going thru this with our son. It is amazing how many people operate out of fear. We have the profiles of the people who are truly dangerous and actaully need help. Did this young person really fall into that category? Or is the school administration and board, “well meaning people” who think that they just can’t take a chance on anyone ever. In Michigan, as long as they are “well meaning” they have carte blanche to treat a youngster any way they see fit. In most states, school boards are only answerable to the electorate and how many youngsters lives can they destroy between elections???