MySpace is Free Speech, Case Overturned

eldavojohn writes "The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a judge violated the constitution after placing a juvenile on probation for an expletive laden MySpace entry on the principal. The court decided that the juvenile's free speech rights had been unconstitutionally revoked, and the original judge had suppressed politically motivated free speech since the comments were directly attacking school policy. I think we are starting to see a fine line develop online as it did with print — bullying & slander are punishable while we have to allow criticism of ideas no matter how harsh it is."

Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[gbulmash]

I think this deals more with the broader issue of whether schools can regulate or impose disciplinary actions related to a studen's off-campus activities. While it's long been shown that when students are on campus, they surrender a number of their constitutional rights (free speech, search and seizure, right to bear arms, etc.), the courts seem to be recognizing that just being a student doesn't make you a second class-citizen 24/7. And that has broader implications than just online activities.

- Greg

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[DragonWriter]

I think this deals more with the broader issue of whether schools can regulate or impose disciplinary actions related to a studen's off-campus activities.

I think you are wrong, because this case doesn't concern school disciplinary action at all. The only school involvement is that the questionable postings were seen and reported by a principal: the delinquency petition was not filed by the school, but by the state, and the authority for it was the state's general juvenile justice authority, not its authority over the school system. So its pretty hard to read this as dealing with the issue you want it to be about.

Decided on the Indiana Constitution

[radarjd]

It's important to note that the Court of Appeals based the polical speech portion of its opinion [in.gov] on the Indiana Constitution and not the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions can allow greater freedom to the people that the Federal Constitution, but not less. In other words, it's possible this would have come out differently in another state. Of course, I'm from Indiana, so it applies around here.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[ThisNukes4u]

I worked 25-35 hours a week when I was 16 and 17, and out of a $400 bi-weekly check I paid at least $50-$100 in Social Security tax. Come tax day, I got $100 back both years. Bullshit you get it back, the government stole my money.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[packeteer]

You are spot on. I am 16 years old working my first job and people would say i don't pay taxes. I pay all the taxes that apply to me. I do not pay income tax in my state but some states might be different. Also I pay into social security, medicare, and labor and industries taxes. Also, I my money to buy things that I pay sales tax on. I have perchased items that had been imported and might have had a tariff imposed. We all know that costs are passed onto the consumers so i was paying that tariff, therefore i was paying the government. By participating in the economy in any way you are paying taxes.

It's rediculous how as a 16 year old you can drive a car and pay taxes but can't vote. It is taxation without representation in my opinion and that is why the founders of this country took up arms and fought back. Ill stick with posting to internet forums myself but the whole thing is kind of rediculous.

Students are absolutly second class citizens. Remember also that many high school students are 18 years old and they still have the same lack of rights.

Re:Students Not Second-Class Citizens

[drinkypoo]

Put another way, the right to "bear arms" does not mean the right to use weapons, but to own them. Most states don't allow minors to own guns as far as I know.

Minors don't really own any property unless they gain their legal majority through a legal procedure in the courts!

If you are a minor, your parents can take away any of your property, legally, at any time! Period, end of story.

This is one reason why we have things like trust funds. Let's say you have a billion dollars and want to give a million of it to your favorite nephew because he's just so darned cool, thus guaranteeing that if he is not amazingly mature he will grow up to be a trustafarian with no respect for anyone's property or person, or for the act of doing work, so that later when he grows up he squanders the family fortune instead of handing it down to his descendants. (I have actually witnessed this very thing, but names have been omitted and even genders have been changed to protect the stupid.)

Maybe their parents are great people, so you feel secure in giving the money to the child. That's nice, it can go in their (fictional and thus able to contain stupid-large sums) bank account which is in their name and that of their parents. But then their parents are hit by a bus and aunt shrew gets custody because she's a closer relative than you are. That money is now hers. She gains custody of the child's bank account at the same time she gains custody of the child, and can now spend the money as she sees fit. In theory it should be spent on the child's behalf, but I think we all know how that will go.

Minors cannot be held to a contract. Minors can not own property. Minors are fucking non-people under the laws of the United States, and AFAIK pretty much all of the states themselves as well.