2+Court+Cases

In this section, you will be learning about precedent-setting court cases about student speech and disruption that inform current litigation related to school cyberbullying. After reading the two court cases summaries, respond to the discussion question by clicking the discussion link above.

Cases that set the stage for dealing with cyberbullying:
Understanding cyberbullying cases in schools starts with understanding the balance between First Amendment Rights and Substantial Disruption – does a student’s online expression substantially disrupt the learning environment? Is the expression in line with the way the school and community expect students to learn to behave in civil society?

Description of Tinker Case: [] (3 min) Students do not lose their right to free speech when they step onto school grounds. media type="custom" key="23402864"

Description of Fraiser Case []. Link to summary of case: @http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667



=Case summaries linked to cyberbullying:= Read the following case summaries. In C ase #1, online speech did not cause substantial disruption to the school and in Case #2 - Online speech caused substantial disruption to the school.


 * Case #1: JC ex rel. RC v. BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL, 711 F. Supp. 2d 1094 - Dist. Court, CD California**

The Plaintiff (J.C.) recorded a four-minute and thirty-six second video of her friends talking in graphic, negative terms and using profanity about another student, C.C. and then posted it on YouTube, inviting other students and C.C. to watch the video. Upon watching the video outside of school, the subject of the video became upset and talked to the school counselor about it. After consulting with the school attorney, the school administrators suspended the Plaintiff for two days. Plaintiff had a prior history of videotaping teachers at the School and was suspended for it.

The courts found that J.C.'s First Amendment Rights were violated by punishing her for creating the YouTube video about C.C. and posting it on the Internet. The Court also found that the individual defendants (the principal and counselors) were entitled to qualified immunity - "officials should be shielded from damages "as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated." They acted reasonably given what they knew about the circumstances.

In the end, the court decided that there was no substantial disruption of the learning environment caused by J.C.'s actions. "The court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude that J.C.'s YouTube video caused a substantial disruption to school activities, or that there was a reasonably foreseeable risk of substantial disruption as a result of the You-Tube video." The evidence shows that C.C.'s hurt feelings did not cause any type of school disruption. Defendants presented no evidence that they are late or missed school activities. Defendants did not show that they attempted to resolve the situation created by the video were outside the realm of ordinary school activities, or that they were pulled away from their ordinary activities as a result of the YouTube video.

@http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16933435367926715095&q=Case+%231:+JC+ex+rel.+RC+v.+BEVERLY+HILLS+UNIFIED+SCHOOL,+711+F.+Supp.+2d+1094+-+Dist.+Court,+CD+California&hl=en&as_sdt=2,50

Twin brothers Steven and Sean Wilson created a Web site that contained a blog that was meant to discuss, satirize, and "vent" about events at Lee's Summit North High School. The site was not password protected. The Wilsons' blog posts contained offensive and racist comments, sexually explicit and degrading comments about specific female classmates who were identified by name, and the racist posts discussed fights at Lee's Summit North and mocked black students. A different, third student added another racist post. One of the Wilson twins used school computers to upload the files to create the site. School computers were used to access the sites on subsequent days, it was unable to prove if users only viewed the site or if they uploaded content. The Wilson twins said they only told five or six students about the site, but word spread quickly and most of the student body learned of the site by the third day of its existence. Teachers testified that it caused particular disruption in that students were distracted and upset by the contents of the site. On the fourth day, local media arrived at the school about the incident and parents called the office with their concerns about safety, bullying, and discrimination. The Wilson twins were suspended from school for 180 days but allowed to enroll in another school in the district for the duration of their suspensions.
 * Case #2: SJW v. LEE'S SUMMIT R-7 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2012**

The Wilson twins described the day as normal without disruptions and the post from the third student caused the disruption, and enrolling at the other school would cause irreparable harm because it has a substandard curriculum. They also stated that they would not be able to participate in band at the new school, which would affect their music careers at college or in the future. The Wilsons were also not allowed to try out for the Lee's Summit North band or attend the honors classes offered at the school, and the District Court determined that this constituted irreparable harm to the Wilson twins, and allowed the Wilsons to return to Lee's Summit North. The school district appealed this decision stating that the Court’s decision essentially forgave the students without finishing their suspensions and shifted the burden from the Wilson twins to the school district instead of just resolving it by a summary judgment motion.

The court found that the Web page blog posts created by these students cause substantial disruption in the school. The school’s disciplinary measures did not cause irreparable harm to the Wilson brothers. The court applied Tinker in this case because even though Wilson twins’ speec h was initiated off-campus, it targeted Lee's Summit North School and caused substantial disruption to the school. The posts were “expected to reach the school or impact the environment." Second, the court found that evidence supporting the argument that being transferred to another school caused irreparable harm was lacking and insufficient. TThe Court also concluded that any harm to the students’ music career was speculative and concluded, “the harms the District Court identified do not constitute irreparable harm sufficient to sustain a preliminary injunction.”

@http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16834709482153116434&q=SJW+v.+LEE%27S+SUMMIT+R-7+SCHOOL+DISTRICT,+Court+of+Appeals,+8th+Circuit+2012&hl=en&as_sdt=2,50


 * [[image:Screen Shot 2013-06-30 at 1.06.06 AM.png width="57" height="33"]]Click on the discussion link above and respond to the prompt.**


 * Next, click to go on to Policy and Lessons.**

Other resources for further clarification or discussion (optional)
 * Tinker Case [] -
 * Heckler’s Veto []
 * Recent case (June, 2013) ruled against a teacher for disciplining a student for anti-gay remarks in class: []