Third Circuit to consider case involving fake MySpace profile of principal
The Sharon, Pennsylvania, Herald reports on an appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a Pennsylvania federal district court decision in a lawsuit that calls into question the limits of school officials’ authority to discipline students for off-campus speech. Hermitage School District, former Hickory High School student Justin Layshock, and his parents each appealed the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Terrence F. McVerry, who ruled, for the most part, in the Layshocks’ favor. The Layshocks sued the district, Superintendent Karen A. Ionta, Hickory High School co-principal Chris Gill, and former co-principal Eric W. Trosch over the discipline Layshock received for creating an unflattering profile of Mr. Trosch on the MySpace networking website. The profile, created at Justin’s grandmother’s house, poked fun at Mr. Trosch’s size, and made references to sexuality, steroids, intimidation, and drinking. Justin identified himself to a school administrator as the author of the profile and was suspended for 10 days, assigned to an alternative education program at the school, and barred from school activities. He eventually returned to regular classes and was allowed to participate in activities, including graduation. Justin says he created the profile in an attempt to be funny. Judge McVerry ruled that his free-speech rights had been violated by the disciplinary measures, but that his parents’ rights to raise him as they see fit had not been violated. School officials have agreed to pay Layshock $7,500 in compensatory damages, and his parents $2,500, if they lose the appeal.
Attorney Anthony G. Sanchez, representing the district and administrators, has submitted a brief to the Third Circuit that argues the district did not violate the First Amendment because the profile was “vulgar, defamatory and plainly offensive school-related speech.” School officials charge that Layshock’s “speech” began on-campus because he accessed the school’s website to download a picture of Mr. Trosch that he used in the profile. “The ‘speech’ was aimed at the School District community and the Principal and was accessed on campus by Justin,” Sanchez said. “It was reasonably foreseeable that the profile would come to the attention of the School District and Principal.” The Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA), which filed a friend of the court brief in support of the district, asserts schools need to be able to respond to student off-campus speech. “The inability of public schools to discipline a student for improper conduct involving speech or expression simply because the expression was created off campus would seriously hamper a school’s efforts to advance the educational mission of teaching children about exercising personal responsibility in preparation for participation in our democratic civil society,” said PSBA associate counsel Sean A. Fields.
Attorney Kim M. Watterson, who is working with the American Civil Liberties Union to represent the Layshocks, contends the district and PSBA “advance an unprecedented and radical assertion that schools’ substantial authority over students’ in-school expression extends into the larger community and even students’ homes. They justify the need for this far-reaching authority by pointing to school districts’ responsibility for ‘imparting upon students lessons of civilized behavior’ and ‘prepar[ing] students for life after graduation. … But, the future that the School District and PSBA seek to prepare students for is one in which they unquestionably accept government censorship and restrictions on their constitutional rights.” Ms. Watterson insists the Supreme Court has never sanctioned control of school-related speech, “whatever that may mean.” She also charges that by disciplining Justin, the school officials took away from his parents their right to impart in their children “the most personal and important moral, political, and religious values.” She insists it was up to them, not the district, to punish him for what he did away from school.
Source: Sharon Herald, 6/20/08, By Joe Pinchot
[Editor’s Note: Background on the case is available starting at the first link below, which is to the Legal Clips summary of the district court opinion. The parties’ briefs to the Third Circuit (DE, NJ, PA, V.I.) are at the second link, followed by the PSBA brief. The last link is to the Legal Clips summary of a recent decision by the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT) upholding the disciplinary actions taken against a student for her online disparagement of school officials.]
NSBA School Law pages on Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist.
Citizen Media Law Project page on Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist.
PSBA amicus brief
NSBA School Law pages on Doninger v. Niehoff