Student in Court Over Suspension For YouTube Video

kozmonaut writes "A model student is in court this week over 40-day suspension for posting a mocking in-class video to YouTube of 'Mongzilla', a high school english teacher. The student is arguing he had First Amendment rights to publish the video, though it was filmed without permission in the classroom. 'Kent School District lawyer Charles Lind says the suspension had nothing to do with online criticism of the teacher. Rather, it was punishment for the disruption created by the students secreting a video camera into Joyce Mong's class and dancing in a mocking, disrespectful manner while her back was turned. "It's quite clear that the district is talking about conduct in the classroom and not the videotape," Lind said.'"

Your Rights Online?

[aicrules (819392)]

What online rights is this about? Your right to post videos on the internet without being held accountable for what they contain?

Re:

[FlyingSquidStudios (1031284)]

Libel law takes away our freedom of besmirching!

Re:

[Opportunist (166417)]

Your right to express your dissent with a certain person in an artistic way?

Artistic?

[benhocking (724439)]

You obviously haven't watched the video. It shows him insulting the teacher in class by waving his hand at her as if she smells, holding up fingers behind her head, doing a lewd dance behind her - all in a row. It's a self-incriminating video, giving the school the evidence it needs to suspend him. That said, a 40-day suspension is obviously over the top.

Re:Artistic?

[CFTM (513264)]

Exactly, there is no free speech issue here; he had every right to make and publish the film and no one has stopped that but there are consequences for our actions. All in all this should be a very good lesson for him.

Re:

[ph4s3 (634087)]

Are you sure he had the right to make/publish anything? Aren't film makers required to get a release of some sort from their subjects?

There are laws about recording conversations so that all involved parties are aware that they are being recorded. Do such laws pertain to video?

Re:Artistic?

[drDugan (219551)]

We can not legislate all aspects of human behavior. It simply does not work.

American society has devolved to "if I can get away with it, I can do it" - many thanks to the prevailing governing administration for promoting this point during the final years of our society. "Required" is now only meaningful in the face of lawsuits to prevent or punish. Healthy societies have both laws AND mores that shape people's behaviors. In this case simple mores for treating people with respect and decency would have stopped this kid, had their parents had the time or understanding to raise their child correctly.

Recording other people is a very dicey issue. Typically recording people in public areas is OK without permission, although recording ocnversations when privacy is reasonably expected is not. Laws vary in different states. I have an interst in this, though I'm not an expert or a lawyer.

In this case, they are in a public institution, and although it was not a public space, there is really no expectation of privacy. Standing up in front of a class of people is exactly the kind of step that can remove the "expectation of privacy".

Re:

[flosofl (626809)]

Unless there's a definition of "mores" I'm unfamiliar with.

This definition [merriam-webster.com] is the only one I'm aware of for "mores". Is there another?

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

That's true. Forty days is very excessive, though. I seriously doubt this school district has EVER suspended anyone this long for merely dancing behind a teacher's back or using a videocamera in class. The fact that it was posted on Youtube is clearly the impetus behind such a long suspension. Such a suspension basically puts the student a full semester behind his classmates and will likely lead to either summerschool (which could cost $) or a delayed graduation (which could make college admissions a proble

Re:Your Rights Online?

[Tekzel (593039)]

Sometimes you just have to make an example of someone, and when you do you go for the harshest penalty you can for effect. Sucks to be them, but they shouldn't have done it. Maybe this will save some other little jackasses some problems. I hope they lose the case and the suspension stays in place. There is little enough order in school these days since educators have no way to enforce rules other than kicking the little shits out. Their parents certainly can't be bothered to teach them the small detail that school is a place to learn and not a social gathering hall.

Re:

[miskatonic alumnus (668722)]

Their parents certainly can't be bothered to teach them the small detail that school is a place to learn and not a social gathering hall.

In a way, you're right. But, they aren't there to learn the three R's. They are there to be acclimatized to the working world where they obey orders, schedule their time around the bell, and become dependent on their "superiors".

Re:

[Belial6 (794905)]

That's what people don't get. When people think of 'home-schooled' children, they don't think of kids who can't read or write. They MAY think of some religious nut, but the expectation is that they are very well educated. When my son started reading at 2, I realized that he would need to be home schooled. Every single person that has tried to convince me that I should send him to public school has argued that he should go to learn to socialize. Not one has argued that a public school is a great way to

Re:Your Rights Online?

[Anonymous Cowpat (788193)]

Incorrect. Play again. The same circumstances warrant the same punishment. 'making an example' out of the first person to do it and then lightening off all the subsequent offenders (or hitting the 10th person particularly hard to show that 'enough is enough', or whatever) is the definition of arbitrary punishment and it's bad bad bad. Punishing one person harshly and everyone else lightly is no better than selective enforcement and I'd be interested to see someone argue in favour of deliberate selective enforcement.

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

Sometimes you just have to make an example of someone

If the next cop who pulled you over for speeding dragged you off to jail for several days, I'm sure you would happily take "Sorry, buddy, had to make an example for other speeders" as an excuse.

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

Are you seriously saying that someone who beats the Hell out of a fellow human being deserves less punishment than someone who mocks another human being? You MUST be an American.

Re:Your Rights Online?

[toleraen (831634)]

As odd as it is to say this...a 'fist fight' usually implies both sides consented to it. Otherwise he would have said 'some kid gets beaten while screaming for help', which I would wager happens much more often in any school than once a semester. So yes, if two kids want to beat on each other, go for it. At my high school, at least as of 6 years ago, getting in a fist fight would result in a ~3 day suspension. Beating on a helpless kid would have been expulsion.

Re:

[GryMor (88799)]

A fight is NOT a fight, a fight is a savage beating by an aggressor on a victim, that the punishment, suspension usually matters more to the victim than the aggressor just serves to reinforce the idea in the aggressors mind that their behavior is appropriate, accepted and expected. This makes those assigning the punishment complicit in further attacks and any steps the victim is forced to take to defend themselves in the future.

Re:

[LordSnooty (853791)]

I hope he sues, gets a huge pay-day, and the school board and the town feel the budget pinch for years to come.

Only in America would someone hope that all the town's children have to suffer with no education budget just because one kid was suspended for taking the piss out of his teachers. Maybe 40 days is excessive, but he doesn't deserve a "huge pay-day".

Re:Your Rights Online?

[CFTM (513264)]

This isn't an issue of censorship, this isn't an issue of a corporation prohibiting an employee from putting up a blog and who cares about who looks bad. This kid disrupted the school environment for the amusement of himself and his friends and then was stupid enough to post it on YouTube advertising what he did. There's an adage that my father imparted to me while playing sports, "No blood, no foul". Well, this kid was stupid enough to smear the blood all over himself and then walk in front of the ref screaming "look at me, look at me".

Here are the facts as I understand them, and if I've gotten something wrong please tell me:
This teacher is a private individual, not a public individual.
The content for this video was captured during school hours, in a class.
This caused embarrassment to a private individual (teacher) not a public individual (aka a politician/athlete/entertained)
The school has not attempted to pull the video down or to censor this "creative kid" beyond his punishment

An argument can be made for excessive punishment but this discussion has not be framed in that light so that seems completely irrelevant to me. The only conclusion I'm left with is some jackass kid got punished for being disruptive; sounds like your average day to me.

sounds like

[Anonymous Cowpat (788193)]

the school district is desperately backpeddling to find a good reason why they should be able to sue over a youtube clip. Even IF their given reason for the suspension is legitimate (which it isn't) 40 days is utterly disproportionate. 40 days is 8 school weeks which is over half a term. Even a ONE DAY suspension for getting up and dancing behind the teacher's back is disproportionate.

Re:

[aussie_a (778472)]

Exactly. Lunchtime detention or after school detention would be appropriate. Not expelling. Unfortunately it criticized a teacher so the punishment will be disproportionate.

Re:

[evil_aar0n (1001515)]

Recently, we had a student who was busted for being drunk at the prom. His punishment, as determined by established policy, was three days suspension. There's no way, even if this Seattle kid was involved in the filming or production, or was dancing stark naked with the teacher in front of the class, that this is worth 40 days.

Another question the kid should ask is: what is the policy? If they have a policy for suspension, what does it say in this case? Is disruption of class typically a 40 day penalty?

Re:

[Bogtha (906264)]

the school district is desperately backpeddling to find a good reason why they should be able to sue over a youtube clip.

If you aren't going to read the article, at least read the summary. He's suing the school for suspending him. They aren't suing him.

Even a ONE DAY suspension for getting up and dancing behind the teacher's back is disproportionate.

This appears to be intentional humiliation of a teacher. That's got serious repercussions; who'd want to go to work where they are routinely hu

only a lawyer

[skeletor935 (790212)]

would consider a less than B average in high school as "model student" material. from tfa [quote] Cohen said her client has "no disciplinary record at school, and he is the model student" with a 2.97 grade-point average. [/quote]

Re:only a lawyer

[numbski (515011)]

Funny. I thought being a model student was about going to school to learn. I don't care about the GPA. They haven't been into any kind of (serious) trouble prior, they go to school, behave (more or less) and then go home. IMHO, a model student does NOT mean straight A's, although the two tend to go hand-in-hand, that is no guarantee.

As the posters say: "Not everyone gets to be an astronaut.", and it's true. Regardless of effort, some people simply aren't as smart as others. No reason to rake them over the coals over it though. If poor grades aren't due to a lack of effort, I have no issue with them.

Lord of the Flies

[MikeRT (947531)]

This is what happens when you socialize young people in a setting where adult presence and guidance is nearly non-existent. You can't blame the students because their elders created an environment that is a more civilized version of Lord of the Flies.

The teacher may have something to say.

[iknownuttin (1099999)]

The teacher was in frame and the video was published on the internet. Where's the model's release? This isn't a news item so it's arguably warranted.

Try getting a man on the street photo published sometime, you'll see.

Re:

[pla (258480)]

The teacher was in frame and the video was published on the internet. Where's the model's release?

Considering the noncommercial nature of this, what would the "model" sue for? Even if you spun this into some sort of defamation issue, the student, not the teacher, makes a fool of himself.

Re:

[UnknowingFool (672806)]

Where's the model's release?

The last time I checked, aren't releases required for commercial purposes? For personal, non-commercial uses, there is no release required. Newspapers get releases because they are a business; however, many times in an event, a release can't be obtained and may not be neccessary. Did the person who taped the Rodney King beating get Mr. King's and the officers' releases? Did the news outlets who obtained the video do the same? No.

The Video in question

[baboonlogic (989195)]

Mongzilla [youtube.com] is still up on Youtube.

Right...

[Adam Zweimiller (710977)]

This is totally different than the students who videotaped their teacher being a complete asshole in class and posted it. They were punished for embarrassing the teacher and no other reason. If they were acting like the asshats (in class) that the article describes, then they deserved to be smacked. That said, 40 days is DAMN ridiculous. Students do not need to be bringing cameras to school in order to record themselves acting the fool, but suspending them for 8 weeks is nonsense. Stop with the knee-jerk reactions because kids are being kids. Suspend them for a day or two and hope they learn. Sheesh.

It's okay...

[Thrace (1096621)]

All kids involved in the video taping the teacher are morons. I remember when it was common sense not to do something so blatantly stupid and self-incriminating while in school. What ever happened to being able to sit for 45 minutes without acting like a jackass?

Do "model" students have more rights?

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Why is the summary making it a point to say that that student was a model student? Do these model students have more rights than nerdy students, ugly students, non-bulumic students and fluncking students?

No, but...

[raehl (609729)]

We're talking about a 40-day suspension. If the student had previous 10, 20 and 30 day suspensions for selling drugs to kindergarten students or something, then maybe a 40 day suspension would be more reasonable.

But if a student has never been disciplined before, jumping straight to a 40-day suspension for a first offense that is neither illegal nor dangerous seems a tad unreasonable.

So no, model students don't have more rights than non-model students, but model students probably deserve lighter punishment

Bring back corporal punishment.

[PHAEDRU5 (213667)]

Kid insults teacher, teacher whacks kid. End of discussion. You know. Like in the non-medication solution to ADD [tv.com] on South Park.

Dr. Shay: (on video) Hello, I'm Dr. Richard Shay, here to tell you about my exciting new drug-free treatment for children with Attention Deficit Disorder. (Several hyper and rambling children) This treatment is fast and effective and it doesn't use harmful drugs. Watch closely as I apply treatment to the first child. (SMACK) SIT DOWN AND STUDY! If you would like more information on my bold new treatments, please send away for this free brochure entitled: 'You can either calm down, or I can pop you in the mouth again.'

But then, what would all the lawyers do?

RTFA, damn it!

[Lurker2288 (995635)]

If you read the article, it isn't even clear at this point that the kid who's being suspended was involved in producing the video, either by acting up in the classroom or by assisting in filming it. It sounds like all he did was post a link to it on his Myspace page, and the school is busting him because they want him to rat out the people who DID make it.

School is angered by this?

[Ace905 (163071)]

The school should be embarrased to have her working there. The video points out she's unhygienic, the classroom looks disgusting, nobody respects her. That's just what I got in the first 60 seconds.

The school is alleging the video disrupted class - so that's why the student was suspended. So how disrupted was the class that they had to find the video on YouTube to know about it? Did the teacher not mention how 'disrupted' her class was? Ok then fire her.

Allowing this to go on is a disgusting example of a school board as a whole.

---
Bride of Mongzilla? [douginadress.com]

What's in a name?

[metamatic (202216)]

You know, if I was a teacher and my name was "Mong", I would change my damn name.

Similarly, do not go into teaching under your original name if your name is "Tard", "Spaz" or "Ho".

Perfectly UNreasonable

[mrchaotica (681592)]

If you hold them to their stated reason (or rather, excuse) for the punishment, it's for "disrupting the class." 40 days is several orders of magnitude too extreme. It's like executing somebody for spitting out their gum on the sidewalk.

No, they're punishing him for embarrassing the teacher (and exercising his rights), and now they're just trying to cover their asses.

Re:

[Cathoderoytube (1088737)]

You're not even allowed to take pictures in schools without express permission.

The thing that really gets me about this sort of case is this idiot goes and films a bunch of other people without their permission and posts it online then says it's his right to freedom of expression. Somehow that right is violated if the people in the video or in this case the school have an objetion to the video being posted for public display. When you deal with the media or photographers, you have to sign a model release fo

Re:

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

If you are in a public space, and presumably public schools are considered public space, you have no right or expectation of control over media that includes you.

I found a picture of myself in a book last summer, completely uncredited, and certainly unasked. The same truth holds for video or audio as well.

As for the whole "not allowed to take pictures in schools without express permission", that depends upon the school district, and the specific school in question. Most students are not discouraged from t

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

"What happens if all the students produce a video of this nature? Expell all of them?"

Yes. Disruption of the classroom is a common reason for detention, and in extreme cases, expulsion. As a first offense, it might be a bit much, but if the offenders are continuously causing problems, they deserve the punishments they receive, even harsh ones. Pandering to the crowd of "save the children" and "no child left behind" is a mistake we're beginning to see the results of now. It will only get worse if we keep it up.

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[cyphercell (843398)]

Funny, I was never expelled for 40 days and I remember tossing my text book out the window in complete defiance. This kid posts a video of other kids dancing behind the teachers back, note he didn't record the video, and he gets expelled for 40 days. That's 10% of the school year, for postiing a video on the Internet outside of class.

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[Raistlin77 (754120)]

...expelled for 40 days. That's 10% of the school year...

Really? A school year is longer than a calendar year?

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[by Anonymous Coward]

Based on the math, I'd say the parent poster went to a school that had an extremely short school year.

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[Aladrin (926209)]

Did you seriously just say that if the teacher wasn't bothered, there wasn't a disruption in the class?

Schools don't prevent disruptions to help the teachers have a nice day. They do it to foster a learning environment for the students. If 3 or 4 of the students are doing something majorly disruptive like dancing behind the teacher's back, -nobody- is learning at the point, and probably not for a while afterwards.

The punishment may not fit the crime, but I don't remember a time in school when it -did-, so that's nothing new. I was once written up for not doing my work in class (I had finished already) and when the teacher tried to rescind, wasn't allowed. Why? The vice-principal didn't like me. He actually had the nerve to say 'I just wanted to see if you'd show up' when I got there. I still had to do clean-up duty for something I didn't even do. Oh yeah, fair.

I've always seen expulsion as a way to let the kids that didn't WANT to be in school, not be. If they want to pass after that, they're going to have to work their little butts off just to pass. They won't have time to disrupt the class any more when they get back. (Nevermind what they'll have to deal with from their parents.) Nobody I knew ever had it happen to them, though. They cared about their grades too much.

Re:Everyone knows that the camera dosn't lie

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

I think you need to read again. What I said was "so there couldn't have been too much disruption of the class, as far as she was concerned."

I'm not arguing your point about a "learning environment" because I agree. My point was: sure the kids knew about the disruption, but I doubt in a class where the teacher was that clueless, disruption was anything out of the ordinary. Your argument was my point exactly, that the teacher was incompetent and thus the disruption, probably wasn't much of one anyway. We've all sat through classes that were a mandatory waste of our time. From what the article implied, this was one of those classes.

As for the rest of your comment, I was suspended for 3 days because someone else hit me. I didn't retaliate (it wasn't worth the effort) and went directly to the office and waited for the teacher (who had seen it) to arrive and report it. I still got suspended for fighting. At another school I had to make an official apology for cursing in front of (not at) a teacher whom I thought was a student because he was so young. I was speaking to a friend, after school, in the parking lot, but I still got in trouble.

Punishment is part of growing up, and it's as much a learning tool as anything else in school. It teaches us tact, and common sense about when to keep our mouths shut. It teaches us about consequences for our actions, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable thing we shouldn't argue or disagree with when it's appropriate to do so. Do I think the kids involved should be punished? Yes. Should it be this severe? No.

Re:40 days?

[DrivingBear (931124)]

In my day kids got one week suspensions for smoking pot and getting in to fights.

But pot and fights never hurt anybody. He gave her bunny ears. There's no recovering from that kind of humiliation.

Re:Link to the video

[heatdeath (217147)]

After watching the video, I have to say, that's pretty worth a lengthy suspension. It wasn't just a stupid prank, it was premeditated and fairly vulgar. If I were a teacher, and the whole school had watched the video, I'd be pretty embarassed. From a legal sense, sure, he has a 1st amendment right to 'say' what he did...but they also have the right suspend him for however long they want. It's too bad they don't have the legal right to backhand him for it too.

Re:

[rthille (8526)]

You are an idiot. First, the public school district doesn't have a right to suspend a student for as long as they want.

Second, according to the article, the suspended student may not have been involved in the filming at all. He's not the student seen making 'rabbit ears' behind the teacher, and you can't know if he was the student running the camera.

He was targeted by the school board because of a link to the video on his myspace page.
From the article:

U.S. District Judge Marsh Pechman's analysis of the ca