'Cyberbullied' School Administration May Have Violated Student's First Amendment Rights By Suspending Him

from the the-most-power;-the-thinnest-skin dept

All the cyberbullying policies and laws being put into place to protect kids seem to be invoked most frequently to protect adults -- specifically, the adults who are responsible for the crafting of these new rules. Another case of school administrators being "cyberbullied" has hit the courts. This one stems from a disgruntled student who was unhappy with his treatment during the basketball season.

Following the season's final game, Rosario was out to dinner with his family and sent a series of crass and offensive tweets about school administrators and his coach:

1. Mr. Isaacs is a b*tch too
2. I hope Coach brown gets f*cked in the *ss by 10 black d*cks
3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me
4. Fuck coach browns bitch *ss
5. Finally this b*tch *ss season is over
6. Aiight I'm done y'all can go snitch now like before
7. Oh yea and Mr. DInkel's square *ss
8. AND Ms. Evans b*tch *ss boyfriend too He a p*ssy ass n*gg* tryna talk shit while walking away


Etiquette breach (while at family dinner) aside, school administrators were not happy. They punished Rosario for his tweets under a cyberbullying statute. The text of the statute read as follows:

"A member of the board of trustees of a school district, any employee of the board of trustees, including, without limitation, an administrator, principal, teacher or other staff member, or any pupil shall not engage in bullying cyber-bullying, harassment or intimidation on the premises of any public school, at any activity sponsored by a public school, or on any school bus."[emphasis added]
As you can see from the emphasis Venkat Balasubramani added, this collection of tweets should have remained outside the purview of the policy used to suspend Rosario. But that didn't stop the offended parties from kicking the student out of school. Unfortunately for the administration, Rosario's family took them to court, searching for injunctive relief from the suspension. (Rosario was ultimately allowed to transfer to a different school.) That was denied due to lack of irreparable harm and the school district filed a motion to dismiss. That didn't go quite as smoothly.

Rosario's family brought a "slew of other claims," but most notable is the First Amendment claim, which the court will allow to move forward.
As to Rosario's First Amendment claim, the defendants argued that the speech in question was not protected speech at all because it was "racist, violent, offensive, and hateful." The court (correctly) rejects this argument saying that the only legal basis for the speech in question to possibly be unprotected is obscenity, and this only applies to one tweet.
The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech, but they need to show "substantial disruption" has occurred on campus in order to justify suspensions or expulsions. This district's policy covers a very limited area -- Balasubramani points out that its specific wording makes it unlikely to be enforceable against "activities in cyberspace," no matter if these activities happened during school events or on school grounds.

Cyberbullying policies have the built-in potential to cripple free speech, thanks to the general shift towards subjectivity, rather than objectivity. Beyond that, these policies seem to encourage a culture of heightened sensitivity and overreaction in far too many administrators.
There must be something in school administrators' DNA that causes a heightened reaction when they see their name mentioned in social media. The tweets were ill-advised at best and crass, depressing even. But I wonder whether the school would have been better off using this as a teaching moment rather than taking a harsher disciplinary approach that was not necessarily on solid First Amendment grounds.

The fact that the school relied on the cyberbullying statute is telling, and a good illustration that these types of statutes are often used in an unintended manner, to improperly suppress speech. It's a stretch at best to argue that tweets from a private account—that would not have reached the coach or administrators absent their inquiry—somehow amounted to "cyber-bullying".
This last point is also rather crucial. The district punished a student for tweets administrators never would have seen without jumping through some extra hoops. Rosario's Twitter account was private, meaning these were only shared with followers. While the court doesn't agree this gives Rosario an "expectation of privacy" in regards to his claims of Fourth Amendment violations, it does bring into question how much work administrators had to do simply to recover the tweets that offended them so much. It should have been a teachable moment, or at worst, something that could have been ignored.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 3:37am

    Pornography filters were for the children and now they are used to censor speech. Site blockades were meant to protect the children and now they are used to block virtually anything that displeases the ones with the economic power. Bullying/Cyberbullying laws and policies were created to protect the children.....


    Maybe it's just me but if all the attempts to protect the children seem to backfire into destroying their futures we should stop trying to protect them and maybe let parents do the parenting...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 5:12am

    "4. Fuck coach browns bitch *ss"

    I find it funny that "Ass" is censored, and "Fuck" isn't...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 5:19am

    Rosario should be thankful he doesn't live in Gambia

    For that "false news" of a tweet against school administrators in Gambia would have got him a hefty fine and some jail time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 5:27am

    Re:

    In the PDF both are censored. Maybe a Freudian slip by Tim?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 5:48am

    Assault and Battery? Really?

    Don't get me wrong. I think the school administrators are a bunch of asshats, but this claim takes things a bit far.

    From the PDF:
    Frank Rosario alleges an assault and battery claim against Gygatz because "Gygatz approached Frank from behind and rubbed him 'shoulder to shoulder' and told him what a class act that was."

    Rubbing 'shoulder to shoulder' is construed as assault?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    Re: Re:

    If so, it's the greatest thing ever...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    theDude, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:09am

    Dont forget

    "best interest of the child" doctrine, for which all constitutional protections are suspended

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:19am

    Awwww, the "adults" had their feelings hurt - by a child.

    It would seem appropriate for school teachers and admins to have certain training and experience in the field of not being pretentious little shits, you know - like a lot of teens are. But I suppose that is asking too much.


    "The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech"

    This ruling needs to be overturned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:37am

    [Citation Required] I know, but the Supreme Court has encouraged this kind of behavior from school administrators the past 20 years every time the question of children's rights come up.

    Unfortunately those rulings reinforce that if your child is in public school, the government, acting through school administrators, act as your child's Third Parent, and have the same rights you do to arbitrary and indiscriminate punishment for anything they don't like, 24x7, even if you approved the conduct. But the punishment only can be enforced at school -- so banishment is the punishment preferred by school administrators.

    I'd like to believe this lower court ruling would stand on appeal, and we can only see if the school doesn't feel like fighting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Rob, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:43am

    Career Choice

    Perhaps teaching, school administration, and education in general is a poor career choice for the overly thin-skinned.

    Or maybe their shrinks should ask more social history -- like employment situation -- before prescribing psychological coumadin or whatever anguish-intensifying meds they're giving them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:52am

    This is a very good introduction for the students to Cognitive Dissonance. They are taught about the Bill of Rights and must regurgitate details of same upon testing whilst at the same time are subjected to treatment which is the complete opposite of what they are being taught.

    Brilliant!

    This will soon create a whole new generation of conflicted and deranged people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:54am

    Re: Career Choice

    I've often felt that way about Police Officers, and come to think of it, nearly anybody in public service.

    It's the reverse of service workers (ie checkout clerks), who have to deal with "the public" but are powerless to do anything about being abused. Public Servants almost always have some unaccountable power, and are not afraid to use it maliciously...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Rob, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:57am

    Re:

    RIP Tinker v. Des Moines

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:16am

    Re: Career Choice

    They ran to the authorities when they were getting wedgies from 15 year old kids in high school. They are still in high school and still getting wedgies from 15 year old kids.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:27am

    Respect and school

    First and foremost policy of any school is that you can in fact be critical of the current administration. But when you tweet about and to school administrators, faculty, and staff in the way this asshole kid did, and note they were targeted specifically from all the other school staff, you deserve to be suspended. Please note Rosario got suspended for his disrespectful actions and he was not at all exercising his first amendment rights by harassing his targets. He wasn't censored, he was suspended. Note the hours of the tweets...are they not during school hours?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:29am

    On a side note...

    Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!


    Don't hit the report button, I'm exercising my first amendment rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:33am

    Re:

    In the US it is a sex offense of the first tier to provide pornography to those under the age of 18 years old.

    Now imagine having a child and imagine that child of yours looking at porn while on a school computer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    aerilus, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:39am

    What do teachers and principles expect when they go to work at public school. A field of Daisies where everyone loves and respects them. I would find it very hard to care that a 15 year old was sending profane tweets about me. Don't these people have anything better to do with their taxpayer paid for time?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:44am

    Rosario was cut from the basketball team. Then he appealed to the coach who barely played him or put him in second string....and because Rosario thought he was better than everyone else...he decided to publicly tweet about his coach saying he is a bitch [likely for making him work hard for what he wanted...because you know...that's what coaches are paid to do].

    Tim Cushing, I'm sorry, but he got suspended on his own merits for his disrespect and not handling the rejection like a man. Rosario is a pussy for not being man enough to accept that he got cut from the team for a reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Ezekial, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:46am

    Let the kid suffer for his actions. If his shitty parents wont teach him how to handle rejection instead of letting him expect to be a snowflake and play despite the fact that he sucked at basketball, then the school should teach it to him. Its obvious this kid has shitty parents if they not only allow their kid to talk like that but in addition condone it by suing the school saying he should have the right to talk with a mouth like that. In my day he wouldve gotten a wooden spoon to the ass and soap in his mouth if he talked like that

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:52am

    Re:

    Public schools are public. You learn daily not just about math, history, science, or geography....you go there to learn in subtext about how to respect those who are paid very little to teach your sorry 15 year old ass a thing of two so you don't starve to death.

    It should be noted my father was a teacher. Students complained about him but he was respected nonetheless. Rosario would have been suspended from my alma matar public school district for these tweets.

    Now here's the thing. The kid was angry. He decided to target staff that he felt was failing him. He was failing and he blamed the staff for not working hard enough when he should have been doing his work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re:

    That's what filters are for. I've got them on my work computer, which means I can't watch the videos linked or displayed here, or access my social media accounts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    Re:

    I would not entirely blame parents for that. He's the one who decided [poorly] to tweet about the staff that way. I do agree that he seriously deserves to be suspended.

    Now given my father was a teacher, and if some student tweeted like that about him back when I was a student...I'd would have beaten that kid to a pulp along with a few others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:10am

    Re: Career Choice

    If nobody is at home to teach a kid how to respect others through discipline, how can the school staff not be expected to teach that you don't tweet "My coach likes to take it in the ass" by suspension via said discipline. Rosario tweeted to and tagged the targeted staff members. They could have made it a civil case of slander and liable but decided to not be total douche bags and merely suspended him.

    If he did that in college...professors would be well within their rights to fail him and worst case scenario he would be banned for life from campus because of slander. So by learning not to do stupid shit like Rosario did, they are being prepped for college.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Rob, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re:

    Hmmm.

    Now given my father was a teacher, and if some student tweeted like that about him back when I was a student...I'd would have beaten that kid to a pulp along with a few others.


    At first I thought you were just being authoritarian about the "respect mah authoritay" thingy. But now I see that it's just that there's only room for one bully in your world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ninja was arguing against filtering. He simply argued that using filters was censorship. I rebutted why it is good to use filters at US public schools.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:16am

    Re: Respect and school

    Note the hours of the tweets...are they not during school hours?


    No. Did you read the whole article?
    Following the season's final game, Rosario was out to dinner with his family and sent a series of crass and offensive tweets about school administrators and his coach:
    After school hours and off school grounds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    Well to be fair, from what I've read on the internet, Mr. Isaacs is a bitch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:23am

    Re: On a side note...

    And you'll have exercised them to no less degree if I hit the report button to let others know that this comment isn't worth reading.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:26am

    Re: Respect and school

    Being 'disrespectful' and exercising first amendment rights are not mutually exclusive conditions.

    During school hours isn't relevant in the slightest. The school doesn't have the right to regulate speech outside of school activities and even at school activities there are limits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re:

    You've invented quite the narrative for this kid. Too bad it's completely made up and entirely self-serving and even within your made up narrative the suspension isn't justified.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:28am

    Re:

    Even if everything about your made up narrative where it's just a lazy kid complaining was true the suspension would still not be justified.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:29am

    Re: Respect and school

    ...and he was not at all exercising his first amendment rights by harassing his targets.


    First off, how did you jump to "harassment"? All I see is Rosario expressing his opinion in those tweets.

    And yes, he most definitely was exercising his First Amendment rights. Just like you were when you typed: "Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!" below.

    The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No...You sort of misunderstand my take on it. My dad's first few years as a teacher, students had always complained about him. But they still held respect for him.

    Here's the thing, when a someone takes the time to teach you something you have no knowledge of and has to grade your aptitude and you slack off and do poorly..how much respect does that show the teacher?

    My father was notoriously awesome as a teacher and won Teacher of the Year in my school district (which is a student and staff and board held vote) 20 times in his 33 year teaching career.

    Now if a kid slacked off in his class and my dad did everything within his power to help the student falling behind, but the student still failed and then called him a douchebag (note my brother has severe Asperger's Syndrome so my dad is very patient) that kid would get a smile from my dad and get a detention.

    Now imagine this kid going further with the same crap on multiple staff...you earn enough detentions there will be consequences...namely suspension.

    Now what makes Rosario's case a bit interesting is he did his tweeting in the evening when a basketball game was going on....a school function....he implied that the coach and assistant coach were gay lovers and that the coach that cut him likes to take it in the ass. He likely got cut due to grade eligibility which is why he called one of his teachers a douchebag. He deserves suspension.

    I would not be bullying by beating up a bully by standing up for my father's well deserved honor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:33am

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    Rosario tweeted to and tagged the targeted staff members.

    RTFA before you comment, Wally.

    The whole last paragraph comments on the fact that these were private tweets that the administration had to go through extra steps to even see them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Respect and school

    Still deserves suspension. I don't care. His sorry ass didn't get played as much. The staff did not deserve it and he's lucky there isn't a civil suit for slander out on him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Respect and school

    "First off, how did you jump to "harassment"? All I see is Rosario expressing his opinion in those tweets.

    And yes, he most definitely was exercising his First Amendment rights. Just like you were when you typed: "Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!" below.

    The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with."

    My point is with Tim Cushing's ass is to illustrate that just because someone has an opinion, it doesn't make it right to express said opinion on public channels where everyone can see and where people can be embarrassed.

    Second, slander and liable are NOT protected by the first amendment under freedom of expression.


    3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

    Welcome to the "other step" gwiz...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Respect and school

    One more thing...look at number 3 on that list...he was likely a douchebag to his fellow students and he blocked the administration from seeing his tweets....not the rest of the public,

    If I said something about you on FaceBook to your peers while blocking you...and if it were slanderous in nature, how is that private?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Now what makes Rosario's case a bit interesting is he did his tweeting in the evening when a basketball game was going on....a school function...


    No he didn't. Damn Wally, you're just making shit up to justify this situation.

    He tweeted when he was at dinner, with his family, after the last game of the season.

    From the article (which you apparently didn't read):
    Following the season's final game, Rosario was out to dinner with his family and sent a series of crass and offensive tweets about school administrators and his coach:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:51am

    Re: Re: Respect and school

    His blocking the administration, faculty, and staff from seeing his tweets and saying those things about them is slander...since it was a "private" tweet to everyone but the school district staff...I don't see how it's not public. It's slander because the staff had to take extra steps to see what was going on to defend themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're trying to justify the rights of someone who regardless of timing, committed slander.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Ockham's Stubble (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    Ah, no, I don't think so - I'd expect failing a student would land a professor in an internal grade grievance arbitration at least. I think you might have an inflated sense of faculty powers, Wally. Academic freedom is not absolute (especially when exercised for nonacademic purposes, as your hypothetical appears to qualify.)

    Professors have to have as thick a skin as anyone. Though they probably wouldn't be fired (as a teacher might) for saying Rosario did stupid shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re:

    There is a thing about those who demand respect - they generally don't deserve one iota of it. Many bad experiences of the mind-fuck of teachers saying "Respect is earned" followed by demanding respect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    Second, slander and liable are NOT protected by the first amendment under freedom of expression.


    What did he tweet that was libelous? It all looks like opinion or wishful musing to me except for maybe the last tweet and even that comes off more as an opinion of someone else's actions than anything else to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    Yes and how did free speech work out then when they were allowed to do things to kids that they couldn't do to prisoners, hmm?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're trying to justify the rights of someone who regardless of timing, committed slander.


    Well, legally it would be libel since it's written, not spoken. But, regardless, what did he tweet that would be construed as libel?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:04am

    Question

    Tim, regardless of school policy, he can be suspended for slander. The fact that Rosario said what he said here

    3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

    Indicates rather clearly knew exactly what he was doing was slanderous and is provoking them after a court ruling. That's harassment in the same way as filing a restraining order against someone and then purposefully putting yourself within the distance you requested the person stay away from you in the restraining order only to get them in more trouble.

    Rosario with that tweet provoked the staff and got suspended for violating their rights as the accused. It saved the kid from being thrown in juvenile hall.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    His blocking the administration, faculty, and staff from seeing his tweets and saying those things about them is slander...since it was a "private" tweet to everyone but the school district staff...I don't see how it's not public.

    He didn't go through any extra steps to "block" the adminstration, it was tweeted privately to only his followers. Although I agree, legally, it is still considered "public".



    It's slander because the staff had to take extra steps to see what was going on to defend themselves.

    That sentence makes zero sense. Whether something is construed as slanderous (or libelous like this case) has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone defending themselves. It's either libelous or not based on the actual wording and that is a determination made in a court of law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re:

    And not putting filters on an internet connection is in no way the same thing as providing pornography.

    I have a child. I am aware my child is going to see sexually explicit material before they are 18. Every parent should already be aware of this as any other outlook is hubris or naivety.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...slander"

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Ok, I only said that because it was a movie reference. I KNOW it doesn't mean what you think it means. Those tweets were vulgar, immature, and uninspired, but they were not slanderous.

    For two reasons: One, they are obviously opinion (opinion of an idiot, but opinion none the less). Two, They weren't spoken.

    Calling those tweets slanderous would be the exact same thing as me calling your comments libelous because you're lying about what the kid said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    They could have been laughed out of civil court for trying to make 'a civil case of slander and liable' out of "My coach likes to take it in the ass."

    I don't know what college you went to but public remarks to that effect were not grounds for unilateral failure or banning from campus for life. That said, colleges are generally private institutions. Government run schools have to play by different rules.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    There are zero grounds for a slander case here. Please stop repeating this tired escalation tactic where you avoid actually addressing any real arguments by insisting he's lucky it wasn't worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes. Exactly...Libel and slander are similar and are not protected under the first amendment. As you said, the administration and school staff were blocked from seeing it. His tweets, if truly legally private, would only be seen by him on twitter. Since Rosario's tweets were not the legal definition of private, it stands that he was libel in his expression. The suspension was punishment for his libel.


    3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

    That is the indicator that it not only was public to everyone, but meant as harassment as well.

    In this case everyone but the school staff and admin saw it. The digital evolution we live in as Generation Y, and X has a much bigger potential for the public to see things and therefore perceptions change due to another person's raging and ragging.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:21am

    Re: Question

    "Indicates rather clearly knew exactly what he was doing was slanderous and is provoking them..."

    No, it indicates that he was being a dick and he knew it. It also suggests that he knew that he shouldn't get into trouble and he was daring someone to say something. I do that all the time when I know I'm in the right.

    "... after a court ruling"

    Court ruling? Where did the kid get yelled at by a court before he tweeted?

    "... for violating their rights as the accused."

    Who's rights were violated? It was just an idiot kid talking smack. That's not a violation of rights. I could call you a punk ass bitch all I wanted, and you could do fuck all about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    Things don't magically become slanderous when they're said to someone other than the person being spoken about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:25am

    Re: Question

    Indicates rather clearly knew exactly what he was doing was slanderous...

    No, it indicates that someone had "snitched" about a something he did previously. That is all.


    ...and is provoking them after a court ruling.

    What are you talking about here? After what court ruling? AFAIK the court case is about the tweets in question which would obviously be BEFORE a court ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:29am

    Re:

    "In my day kids were physically abused in school so this is ok!" - some asshat on the internet once.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    "he blocked the administration"

    Where do you get that from? His Twitter account was set up so that only those who were his followers could read his tweets. His teachers weren't followers, which is no fault of his own. He didn't actively block them, they were simply never the recipients of his tweets.
    To give a non cyber space example, it would be like he wrote down these statements on paper and mailed them to his followers. He didn't mail them to his teachers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Since Rosario's tweets were not the legal definition of private, it stands that he was libel in his expression."

    That's not what libel is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:31am

    Re: On a side note...

    You do realize there is no First Amendment right to speech on a privately owned website, do you? While I hope and fully expect Mike to never actively block speech here on Techdirt, he would be entirely within his rights to do so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're trying to justify the rights of someone who regardless of timing, committed slander.


    No Wally, I am simply trying to correct your incorrect and illogical arguments. Like when you keep saying he committed slander. I don't believe he did. But even so, only a court can determine if something is truly libelous or slanderous, not me, not you and surely not the school administration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:32am

    Re: Question

    No, it really indicates no such thing. You have no clue what you're talking about vis-a-vis libel and slander.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, Gwiz corrected my word use. Libel is slander in written form. Libel occurs when the libelous party complains about a person or group to change public opinion about said person or group or just to harass them. The third tweet in the article is a clear indicator Rosario's intention of harassment due to teenage angst and him being a bit of a pussy

    (sorry, but if you complain after being cut and put back in on an appeal you gave to the coach who may have played you second or third string and barely put you into play...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)...

    anyway..tangent aside, his intent was harassment and the difference with Libel is that no damages have to happen to make it a civil case against someone as long as the opinions can drastically change public perception. The press is protected as long as they do not give opinions without reason...giving opinions with reason is editorial press and blogging. The school could have sued him but didn't. The suspension was justifiable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    As with pretty much everything else this is yet another case of Wally not understanding at all the way a thing works and then using loaded language to badly describe it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re:

    He decided to target staff that he felt was failing him

    Please cite appropriate '@'. Without the '@', its just venting.

    He didn't go '@' anyone he was venting about, and only his followers/friends could see the tweets. That is until the thin-skinned admins 'caught wind' of dissonance, and spent time and taxpayer money looking for the tweets.

    The school needs to hang their heads, apologize for being intrusive and childish, and let this be forgotten. The longer this goes on, the worse they look.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:44am

    Wally...you've done it again. I've gone through the comments on this article and all yours show is you have NOT read the article at all. You make reference to the kid making the tweets during the sports match, an official school function, when a simple glance at the article would have revealed it was during his dinner, at home. Others point it out to you and you completely ignore it.
    What you have completely forgotten is that, in the US, they have a little thing called the First Amendment, meaning that you can say pretty much whatever you want without fear of reprisal. The school teachers and administrators, being officials of a publicly funded school, would be bound to protect the First Amendment, especially since the speech was made well outside of school grounds and school hours.
    If the speech was libel/slander, they could have sued him for that in court (and that is in of and itself an extreme action), instead of unilaterally suspending him. By suspending him, they have revealed that they are not protecting freedom of speech, and that they will punish speech that they have no legal authority to punish (remember, this was OUTSIDE school grounds and school hours).

    If the kid had made these remarks during school hours, fine, throw the book at him. But he didn't. He was on his own time, and he never sent the messages to the teachers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Read...

    Since Rosario's tweets were not the legal definition of private....Explanation footnote that I really shouldn't have to write: he blocked ONLY the administrative and school staff from seeing his tweets......back to the second part of my statement it stands that he was libel in his expression

    I don't know how that could be missed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wally, look at your hypocrisy here. Read your comment there, you're calling the kid a pussy. Now, Rosario isn't the target of that comment, you're not e-mailing it to him, but the standards you've set up in your earlier comments, you now are as guilty as he is for libel (he called his teachers gay, you're calling him a pussy). What if Rosario reads this, would he be fully justified in getting you sacked from your job?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "he blocked ONLY the administrative and school staff from seeing his tweets....."

    For that to be true, he had to ACTIVELY block them, as in the teachers would have had to click "Follow" on his Twitter account and he blocked them. There is no mention of that. He did not block them, he simply never sent the messages to them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Libel occurs when the libelous party complains about a person or group to change public opinion about said person or group or just to harass them."

    Again, that's not what libel is. Hilariously though your continued use of the sexist label 'pussy' would make you libelous under your own definitions of libel. So it seems that even you understand on some level that that's not what libel is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:52am

    Re:

    What you are forgetting is that, in the U.S., they have a little thing called hypocrisy, and having documents that say "freedom of speech" on them shouldn't be the goal :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:52am

    Re: Question

    Oh yes, "slander". Disregarding the all-too-obvious difference between slander and personal opinion evident here, calling "slander" on a teenager like this is the adult-child equivalent of standing on the school playground yelling "No, I'm not!" to a bully who clearly is pulling their strings.

    All this harm from the angsty impulse-pit of a typical adolescent acne-farm whose like the school is supposed to be capable of not only educating, but understanding.

    Someone needs to tell those people to grow up, shut up and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And that's not what libel is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:57am

    Re:

    He sent the messages to everyone else but the teachers...people argued that since the teachers didn't see it, it was private...yet his post was to the public on Twitter. Regardless of time and place, the article had no sense of the first amendment concerning libel. You failed to notice his third tweet mentioned in the article saying that he could say what ever he wanted and basically threatened anyone who would tell on him. His statements are not protected because Rosario made a threat and then proceeded with his libelous statements.

    3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

    Using intimidation like that will not ever be protected by first amendment rights and the judge only went by what was specifically written in school policy. The suspension was not for the tweets but for the intimidation of other students not to rat him out. Someone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous. It is unfortunate to see that the little shit got away with it because his defense decided to focus the case away from the main reason of suspension.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Let me be more explicit. Nothing was missed. What you wrote was just flat wrong because you don't know what libel actually is. The fact that these tweets were not private doesn't make it libel. If he blocked the administrators from seeing them that doesn't make it libel either. What you've got here is a non sequitor. It makes about as much since as saying 'Because its purple it stands that he was libel in his expression.' No, it doesn't because that's not what libel is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Question

    Libel comes in due to the intimidation he used on his fellow sets and students.

    3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

    The little shit got out of a suspension that was supposed to be based on this statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So telling your unreasonable opinion in the form of lies and deceit of someone or some place in written form with the intent to damage their reputation isn't libel?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re:

    Actually you have no idea what libel is apparently believing it to have something to do with if the person being spoken to can see the comments. It doesn't. That's not what libel is. Now you're accusing him of making 'threats' and 'intimidation' which is equally ludicrous.

    "Someone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous."

    No. This is not what libel is. There isn't even an actual threat in any of the tweets.

    You're just making shit up, ignoring the facts of the case, and redefining terms over and over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re:

    Dude, ur not reading. The article mentions that the court rejected the privacy concerns, and also.. If you have used twitter you will know that "everyone except the teachers" is not one of the privacy settings on it.

    You are right, people who use colourful language are not protected by the first ammendment (and neither is anyone else is we are being honest)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re:

    He sent the messages to everyone else but the teachers...

    You might need to upgrade that Mac 512 to use (and subsequently understand) Twitter...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Question

    No wally, intimidation (of which there was none anyway) isn't libel either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When you rage on like that about your teachers and about your coach who you had to appeal to to get on the basketball team in a place you didn't deserve...potentially because you're bad at basketball and you've gotten bad grades....and you start whining about how they are stupid...I'm sure that its a given fact that you're a pussy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re:

    "3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me"

    I'm sorry...but where's the threat? I don't see any intimidation there. Besides, I could've sworn that for something to be considered legally a threat, it has to be specific . Number 3 up there is general, it doesn't mention any one specific, so even if one were to somehow construe a threat from that (notice how he doesn't say he'll do anything at all, he just hopes someone will snitch...) it still wouldn't count as a threat to do violence legally since he hasn't actually threatened anyone specific.

    Anyway...what about libel or slander? None of his comments have been declared by a court to be so. So I don't know why you're suddenly declaring they are, and thus, not protected by the First Amendment. Were you the judge in this case?


    Lastly...again, you have yet to admit to the many mistakes you made here in the comments. Why?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Question

    Using it the way Rosario is certainly libelous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Mere vulgar abuse is not libel and neither are statements of opinion. It is my opinion that you are an obtuse idiot is not libel, for example.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wally? You're doing it again. This:

    potentially because you're bad at basketball and you've gotten bad grades


    Is libelous under your definition of libel. It's so comical at this point I have a hard time believing you're actually arguing in good faith here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe so...but again, you are being HYPOCRITICAL. Rosario didn't send his comments to his teachers, but published it online for his followers to read, with nasty comments (no-one here is disputing the comments were nasty). Here you are, doing the EXACT SAME THING, not sending your comment (pussy) to Rosario directly, but publishing it online for your fellow Techdirt commentators to see (for all we know Rosario could be one of them).
    So why, in your view, is it wrong for the kid to do so, but apparently all right for you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "So telling your unreasonable opinion in the form of lies and deceit of someone or some place in written form with the intent to damage their reputation isn't libel?"

    Rosario said this
    "8. AND Ms. Evans bitch ass boyfriend too He a pussy ass nigga tryna talk shit while walking away

    Wally, you said this
    "sorry, but if you complain after being cut and put back in on an appeal you gave to the coach who may have played you second or third string and barely put you into play...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)..."

    Rosario called his teacher the EXACT SAME NAME you are calling Rosario but for some reason, it's alright for you to do so in more or less the exact same way?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states

    1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
    2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    It doesn't have to be sent to them...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Libel occurs when the libelous party complains about a person or group to change public opinion about said person or group or just to harass them."

    That is not the definition of libel. Libel requires that the statements be not opinion, lies, and intended to do harm. These tweets were none of those. He obviously intended insult, but he didn't intend harm. They were obviously opinion, so they can't be lies. That kinda kills the rest of your post.

    "The school could have sued him but didn't. The suspension was justifiable."

    So because the school could have sued the kid and lost, suspension is OK? I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question

    No. Nothing Rosario did was libelous. You have no idea what you're talking about at all vis-a-vis libel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Question

    I'm sorry, but what is so intimidating about tweet #3?

    Is that he knows he's venting without censoring and there is nothing anyone can or really should do about it until after the fact, if at all?

    Should he be too scared to vent? Should he be scared of repercussions for talking dirtier than Richard Pryor? Is that the offense? He didn't take his school prescribed fear pills?

    The more I hear from the school-admin mentality in the modern age, the more I fear they are just tools churning out Fed raised clones for use in Darth-whoever's personal army.

    I can't quite put my finger on it, but I know the way some "adults" act is a shame, and a sham. The people running this school are setting very poor examples for their students... the last thing this country needs is yet another generation of litigious fucks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You'll have to show me a case of someone being indicted under this 'law.'

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why are you focusing on Wally being hypocritical when he's already stated the evidence that Rosario is a raging pussy.

    Rosario made the scond string basketball team on appeal and tweeted that he hopes his coach gets 10 black cocks in the ass...

    Now given there is sufficient reason he didn't play very much during that final game, and given his tweet that was SHARED WITH HIS TWITTER FOLLWERS....WHICH IS LEGALLY PUBLIC..I would say that Wally's opinion stands to be reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
    2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

    So then, the US government can completely ignore Article 17 (1) when it comes to the NSA spying programs (they violate Section 215 of the Patriot Act, so are unlawful) but could invoke it (via the school) when someone calls a teacher a few nasty names?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hello allegedly not a sockpuppet Wally AC. The comments above are not what libel is and the opinion that they constitutes libel is anything but reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't care about the "evidence", what I'm saying is that both people, Rosario and Wally, are calling other people "a pussy" which is a pejorative, an insult. According to Wally (and you apparently), publishing said insult publicly for people to read, even if not sent directly to those named in the insults, is slander/libel, and thus merits punishment. Both Wally and Rosario have done the exact same thing here, and yet, according to Wally, only Rosario deserves punishment, and not himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I assumed that AC was agreeing with you. It doesn't matter if the words were sent directly to the target, it just matters that they were said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well yes and no in my opinion. His intent was also harrassment and intimidation of his Twitter followers. Someone snitched on him.

    Take a good look and think about what the third tweet entails.

    3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

    The school lost the case but likely suspended him for this. It's not the same level as a bb threat but the intimidation in this regaurd of fellow students off hours can lawfully be treated as harassment..in which the school can motion to have the order recinded and haven't....or as a lessor form of a bomb threat...under a bomb threat the student would be sent to juvenile hall and since this was not one, a suspension is within reason.....of course it should be noted that his Tweet there indicated he knew the school would eventually find out his comments through the grapevine which makes his statement a perceivable harmful threat...once again that is lawfully dispensable if it occurs during off school hours.

    But since people are too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word...I see the judge's ruling sort of correct even though the grounds of suspension were within reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:38am

    Re: Assault and Battery? Really?

    Rubbing 'shoulder to shoulder' is construed as assault?


    I think they used the wrong term. That isn't assault. However, it might be considered battery:

    The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.


    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "But since people are too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word.."

    You wrote that? You actually wrote that, wally? LOL! I actually had to stop there for a moment, cause I simply could not stop laughing.
    If the school had taken their policy word for word (as written in this article, which you have failed to read)
    ""A member of the board of trustees of a school district, any employee of the board of trustees, including, without limitation, an administrator, principal, teacher or other staff member, or any pupil shall not engage in bullying cyber-bullying, harassment or intimidation on the premises of any public school, at any activity sponsored by a public school, or on any school bus." [emphasis added]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re:

    Freedom of speech is only usable when damage isn't done to others. Now you can swear amd curse all you want and say really stupid random shit all you want too...The question is when does the intimidation, the harrassament based upon another's beliefs, and violating others rights in the process of your view of "free speech" stand?

    Freedom of speech means you have a right to your own opinions but only can voices them if you don't violate other's rights as you voice it.

    The citizens of the US take free speech a lot further than their government does so please don't blame them for what their government is doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    how can the school staff not be expected to teach that you don't tweet "My coach likes to take it in the ass"


    Unless the tweets were causing a problem in the school (which they apparently weren't), then its' not the school staff's place to teach that at all. And if it was, then a stern scolding would have been more appropriate.

    They could have made it a civil case of slander and liable but decided to not be total douche bags and merely suspended him.


    There's no way a slander/libel case would have been successful. Those tweets were clearly emotional expressions that nobody would have taken as assertions of fact.

    If he did that in college...professors would be well within their rights to fail him and worst case scenario he would be banned for life from campus because of slander.


    Maybe. It depends on the code of conduct for the particular college. Nonetheless, there are some big differences between the two. High school is mandatory and the students are minors (so they can't enter into contracts), for example. College is optional, and college students are adults capable of agreeing to contractual terms such as a code of conduct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's a Mac SE/30 , a Mac Plus, or a Mac Classic in Wally's avatar. The 512K didn't come in platinum color.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re:

    Do you even know how twitter works?

    He didn't send it to "everyone else but the teachers". He sent it to only his followers on twitter which likely contained primarily his friends and a few other schoolmates. "everyone else" including the general public, you, and the teachers could not see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Still intimidating though. I mean the third tweet would almost certainly entail intimidation and harrassment which is outside of what Wally's argument on Libel...but libel is slander in printed or image form and it does dishonor his teachers and staff in imaging printed form. Which, according to UN Article 17, all people have a right to be protected against dishonours claims and opinions. Privacy or not that still stands in US law bevause that was the nation that proposed the article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Alt0, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:00am

    Libel= A libel is a malicious, false statement in written media, a broadcast, or otherwise published words.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_%28disambiguation%29

    Slander=Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone's reputation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_%28disambiguation%29

    The 1st Amendment= Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Yo ur pops "sparkling" Teaching Career
    http://www.spencersonline.com/images/spencers/products/interactivezoom/processed/02426369.in teractive.a.jpg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    icon
    art guerrilla (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    i'll say this for the millionth time, and i'll probably say it a million more, 'cause there are an infinite supply of moral scolds like wall-eye who simply don't 'get it':

    you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...

    being for free speech ABSOLUTELY means you give your worst enemy the freedom to say the most horrific things, OTHERWISE IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH...

    ANY fucking 'tard can 'defend' anyone to say shit which nobody disagrees with or is inoffensive, or is immaterial; OBSCENE, DISGUSTING free speech is EXACTLY the type of speech which EVERYONE should support the RIGHT TO EXPRESS...
    (NOT that you agree with it, but that you defend their right to say it...)

    go climb on an iceberg already, wall-eye, your contribution to society is done and you are simply holding us back...

    oh, AND you didn't read the details, AND you are simply saying "well, i don't like what he said, it was disrespectful, he deserves to be suspended/hung from his thumbs/boiled in oil/whatever..."

    so thin-skinned you get insulted by others getting insulted ? grow a pair, wall-eye...

    bad enough kids hardly have any rights as individuals, doubly bad they take out of school commentary and punish him for it, and triply bad that rebar-up-the-butt douches can't take criticism (whether deserved or not)...

    cheese and crackers, SWMBO and her cohorts hear as bad or worse on a daily basis at the school where she teaches; they suspended all the kids for 'mouthing off' (IN SCHOOL TO TEACHERS IN PERSON), they'd have close to zero students left at the end of the year...

    (now, don't get me wrong: it is not 'right' that kids do this, but that is REALITY, not wishes and hopes... now, the fact is these are ADULTS (read: a dolts) and PART OF THEIR JOB is to deal with the 'unfair' (and 'fair') abuse CHILDREN -repeat CHILDREN- dole out to them... if they can't deal with that, THEY ARE IN THE WRONG PROFESSION...)

    art guerrilla
    aka ann archy
    eof

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Interesting but apparently nonsequitur blurb on the limitations to free-speech.

    You didn't tie these statements to anything from the article or the boy's tweets. That makes sense to me since we're looking at an obvious ranting, venting of personal opinion with no general or specific threats to anyone. But why go to the trouble to write about the limitations without citable text in the article at hand?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ???? Just because you're an insider on techdirt doesn't give you the right to act like a douche....and unfortunately for you abd your [undeseved] dignity I'm an anonymous coward. Just because I jump to Wally's defense doesn't mean I'm him. Where's your brain at?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The 512K didn't come in platinum color.


    You are correct, it was beige. I'm going to blame my monochrome monitor.

    ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So telling your unreasonable opinion in the form of lies and deceit of someone or some place in written form with the intent to damage their reputation isn't libel?


    No more so than your words:
    Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!
    ...due to teenage angst and him being a bit of a pussy
    ...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)
    ...because you're bad at basketball and you've gotten bad grades....and you start whining about how they are stupid...I'm sure that its a given fact that you're a pussy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:09am

    So which one of the tweets is the obscene one?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I assume you are talking about "damage" as in someone who doesn't like what you say rather than damage as in a broken arm..

    If "not offending anyone" is a requirement, then there really isn't much point.. Speech that doesn't offend anyone doesn't say anything important.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I would not be bullying by beating up a bully by standing up for my father's well deserved honor


    Actually, yes you would.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So if Rosario tweets a bomb threat or intimdates his peers via twitter not to speak out about the disrespect he's shown is totally legal and the school can't suspend him for it? I mean after all both are off school premises, both are announced to classmates. So was there standing reason to suspend him due to eminent threat?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    whether or not something is intimidating is entirely subjective. It just depends what intimidates you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But even if we take the third tweet as directed at the students, unlike Wally taking it as directed to the teachers, it's still not harassment. It's vulgar, yes, but it's not harassment or intimidation, it's a challenge. He's saying "I dare you to tell the teachers on me because it's a fight I know I'll win." He just didn't take into account how thin skinned his teachers were, but that's not his fault nor is it illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Very well then, if you are in fact not Wally, then I apologize for calling you by his name. (However, I highly doubt that you aren't)
    However, my point still stands. You argued in defense of the school punishing this student, by saying that those criticizing them are "too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word.."
    when the school, by their own written policy, couldn't and shouldn't have taken action against the student.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If he actually had tweeted a bomb threat, then yes, he should be punished. However, HE DIDN'T. He did not threaten anyone! At worst, there's a very vague implication of a threat, which is not enough to say he is guilty of making a threat

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re:

    For something to be libelous or slanderous, you have to make a factual assertion about someone that is both damaging and untrue. I don't see anything the kid tweeted that rises to that that -- he was making an emotional expression that nobody would believe was intended as a factual assertion.

    Whether or not you try to hide the speech, the speech is offensive or obscene, etc., doesn't enter into whether or not it's slanderous.

    Using intimidation like that will not ever be protected by first amendment rights


    I don't see that tweet as being intimidating at all. There's no threat. It's just cocky douchebaggery.

    omeone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous.


    If someone felt threatened, that alone wouldn't be enough to make the statement unprotected speech. Also, even if it is unprotected speech, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any of the tweets were libelous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly. And as the AC commented...some of Rosario's followers may only ever see Rosario in school...so even if I'm wrong or right, no matter the ruling, the AC's comment on the threats that Rosario's third statement can be perceived by one of his followers as an intimidating threat only to be carried out on school grounds if confronted by Rosario, is entirely and undeniably grounds for suspension. It's a threat that could only possibly carried out on school grounds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're jumping the gun. Nowhere did we agree with you that any of these tweets were threats, harassment, or libelous. We were only pointing out how wrong you were. If your definition was used, then you would be guilty of the same crime and should be punished accordingly.

    You're not guilty, but that's only because your definition is absolutely and completely wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I don't care about the "evidence""

    Which is why you failed to perceive the views of the staff and administrators.

    Let's break this down for you.

    1. Kid gets cut from team during tryouts.
    2. Kid gets in on an appeal and gets third string even though he wouldn't have made the cut.
    3. After final game of season kid whines on Twitter using not only homophobic but also racist stereotype metaphors that he hopes his coach gets fucked in the ass by 10 black dicks"....

    That's a rather wet pussy if you ask me. Wet behind the labia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    the AC's comment on the threats that Rosario's third statement can be perceived by one of his followers as an intimidating threat only to be carried out on school grounds if confronted by Rosario

    Still swatting at imaginary elves? There's no threat in those tweets Wally. Get over it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And there you go again doing the same thing as the kid did. If you truly think what the kid did was so damn bad, why the hell do you keep doing it even after it's been pointed out again and again?

    Not only are you insulting the kid (which you claim is libelous), you're also being sexist. Homophobic and sexist are on the same level of stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In legal terms, the fact that he was cut from the team has nothing to do with anything. Let's ignore it, because it's meaningless.
    So what if he actually is a "wet pussy"? Why is it you fail to understand that you are being hypocritical? Rosario called someone a pussy and published the name calling for his followers to read. He gets expelled.
    You call Rosario a pussy and published the name calling for your fellow commentators to read. Why don't you get punished? Why is it okay for you to go around calling a kid names (really, you a full grown adult are killing a kid names? Real mature you are...)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:43am

    Re:

    I'm guessing the 'obscene' tweet is where he illustrated the old finger pointing at fingers making a circle representing someone's something. He should have done a snapchat, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Just because I jump to Wally's defense doesn't mean I'm him.


    FWIW I also believe you might be a Wally sockpuppet based on the writing style and the substance of the arguments.

    And the fact that Wally has a past history of sockpuppeting:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/19474519753/apple-plays-cat-mouse-with- in-app-purchase-hacker.shtml#c559

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah yes, but you argued that the threats and
    Harassment had to be on school grounds.

    A bomb threat is calling into a place and literally saying there is a bomb and stating you're the one setting it off.

    Tweeting a bomb threat to a school would definitely be punishable because it happens on school grounds.

    You failed to notice something and missed your own claims in that and the AC's rebuttal. You mentioned that the tweet only went to his followers which include friends from school and a few classmates. The AC mentioned that it is likely that one if his mere classmates could have shared that tweet with the staff. The third tweet is definitely a threat (PhD in Psychology remember??) to anyone who would tell on him.

    Now given that information the AC expanded on the idea that since the third tweet, which can be perceived as a threat...as it is in the eye of the beholder and that's all US law cares about...,as long as it is a reasonable threat, it is grounds for suspension.

    Now what does this mean...
    It means that one of his followers may have perceived a threat from Rosario's third tweet and reported it to the staff. Since that potential threat could only be carried out by Rosario on school grounds to one of his classmates...it's fairly reasonable to see why he was suspended.


    The privacy concerns were ruled against because the court perceived no threat regarding the first and second tweets. The school however got a hold of the third one and it's likely that's why he got suspended. It has nothing to do with SLAPP.

    Spelling it out:
    Given that the court didn't find a threat in the first two tweets, he decides to make the third tweet and rub it in their noses. That's actually illegal to do here in the US. It's called harassment and it's not covered by the foray amendment one iota...his first two tweets are not the issue, it's the third one that's showing evidence of his harassment. It's like getting a distance based restraining order and purposefully being within the radial distance of that person just to get that person in trouble or intimidate them to move.

    He was rightfully suspended because he made what could easily be perceived as a threat, not because of him winning his case. Like the AC ( (I may have) said, a classmate who isn't friends with Rosario, who could likely not be seen as his friend inside or outside of school, who also follows him on twitter, could easily have perceived it as a threat and reported it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why are you constantly bringing up a bomb threat? HE DIDN'T MAKE A BOMB THREAT!

    At worst, there is a very vague implication of a threat in #3. VAGUE. Not enough to say there was a threat. Did he say anything at all about harming or causing harm to anyone, in any way, any method at all of causing harm? No, he dared people to snitch on him. That is all.
    So basically in your eyes, the ones doing the complaining are the ones who get to say whether something actually legally is or is not a threat? WTF?

    I find your comments threatening. They threaten to lower the collective IQ of mankind. Therefore, even though I'm the one making the complaint, I'm also the one who gets to say whether you are guilty of the charge. You are guilty and I'm going to your boss, and getting you fired.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In the US, it is legally considered harassment to egg someone on into a loaded lawsuit that you know you'll win when in previous incidents indicate that no rights were violated. His rights were not violated before he made the tweets ergo his egging them on in the third tweet is legally harassment.

    The third tweet I don't think it was directed at the students, but one of them could have seen it as such. It's likely this person may only have been a classmate of Rosario's and not someone in his circle. Either way it was said, somebody got rubbed the wrong way, and part of the issue is that the student that perceived it as a threat likely only saw Rosario at school. I think that the AC has something there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What if he murdered one of the faculty members then tweeted about it?

    No one cars about made up bullshit allegedly not a sockpuppet Wally AC. What matters was what was actually said which was a) no libelous (or any other kind of defamation) and b) not a threat to anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What a shock, harassment is yet another term Wally doesn't understand the meaning of.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wally: a suggestion: stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. This is not the first time I've seen you do this. You make wild, completely incorrect statements showing a near complete lack of knowledge (combined with your own insistence that you know what you're talking about based on some ridiculous call to authority that makes no sense), and then go off on some crazy attempt to defend your false statements.

    Just stop it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No 'others rights' were violated in the making of those tweets, allegedly not a sockpuppet Wally AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thanks for the useful intimate details of Wally's avatar, allegedly not a sockpuppet Wally AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are harassing me. And all it takes is my perception to key off of what you say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In the US, it is legally considered harassment to egg someone on into a loaded lawsuit that you know you'll win when in previous incidents indicate that no rights were violated.


    That sure is some very interesting legal theory there that I've never heard of.

    You got any caselaw or statutes that validate this theory of yours?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are harassing me. And all it takes is my perception to key off of what you say.


    Legally it would also require a jury of your peers to agree with your perception instead of them thinking you are just being a thin-skinned ninny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So telling your unreasonable opinion in the form of lies and deceit of someone or some place in written form with the intent to damage their reputation isn't libel?


    Correct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well ok then. I done goofed. I still think he deserves a suspension. John, how would this be handled when you were that age...only with the technology now. I'm actually intrigued.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Admittedly I can be wrong. I understand that. I come from growing up in the house of a teacher. The problem is that I'm having a hard time seeing why Rosario shouldn't be suspended for this. I have given many a reason at why I'm inclined to believe he should actually be suspended and it is beyond SLAPP.

    Let's look at this a moment please.

    1. We know Rosario did not share the series of tweets with the staff and that they found out on their own through other channels

    2. I'm saying basically right now that it's LIKELY that one of his followers may have reported the tweets which is why the staff found out and suspended him.

    3. From the article I have been accused of not reading carefully (not by you):

    "Rosario's Twitter account was private, meaning these were only shared with followers."
    So what if someone retweeted that didn't have their privacy settings set up correctly? Is this possible?

    4. Tweet #8"AND Ms. Evans bitch ass boyfriend too He a pussy ass nigger tryna talk shit while walking away"

    And tweet number 2
    " I hope Coach brown gets fucked in the ass by 10 black dick"

    Both pretty offensive and derogatory to the staff there."

    "As to Rosario's First Amendment claim, the defendants argued that the speech in question was not protected speech at all because it was "racist, violent, offensive, and hateful." The court (correctly) rejects this argument saying that the only legal basis for the speech in question to possibly be unprotected is obscenity, and this only applies to one tweet."

    Two tweets containing Homophobic and racist comments about the staff to his peers or followers on Twitter....who can retweet as much as they wish to whomever they wish. I don't think the staff went through a couple of hacking loops to get there.


    5. "The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech, but they need to show "substantial disruption""

    According to the UN, everybody has the right to defend themselves from Deframation. The school staff did this admirably.

    Like I said, I cannot see why Rosario cannot be suspended.

    The question I have is what lesson does this ruling teach Rosario? I agree with the judge's ruling, but I can't help but imagine to think what Rosario would learn from this. I mean he's allowed to continue saying what he saying when he wants to. The punishment may have been from a minor disruption, but even if it is a private account on Twitter, can his tweets not be retweeted? What does this teach him in terms of respect and finding a better way to vent than public humiliation?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 1:41pm

    Re:

    Pretty much every one of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Lol...those listed are the only old Macintoshes that look like my avatar to the color! Come brother, you make me laugh..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If my definitions are wrong then all I need told (and no you're not guilty of this) the definitions are wrong so I can correct my word use. Chrono, you are notl guilty of telling me my opinion is wrong when my word use is wrong (it happens often) but some do try to tell me my opinion is wrong while correcting my word use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There must be at least ten separate comments, probably more, that your definition of what is libel and slander is wrong. How come they didn't work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What does Article 17 have to do with anything? The tweets were not "unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Worker, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

    RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines

    Sad that the administrators who should be examples of what it means to be a public servant, fail to show grace to a teenager's angst. Yes, the behavior of the teenager was atrocious, but the response of the administrators was worse. It is their responsibility as public servants to uphold the decisions of the Supreme Court, and as school administrators to mold the minds of future citizens by modeling appropriate behavior.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Step 1: Open your ears because I hate breaking down the same things twice.

    Step 2: Just simply tell me the WORD I got wrong and explain it to me in a way outside of "Wally stupid". We are adults and modern humans...not cavemen.


    You proceeded to correct my definitions...and then attacked my opinion of the matter. You never gave a short example, you never did it without insult.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is true. Doesn't mean I can't feel harrassed in general though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  152.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    According to the UN, everybody has the right to defend themselves from Deframation.


    No, it says that everyone has the right to defend themselves against unlawful defamation. The tweets weren't unlawful.

    Like I said, I cannot see why Rosario cannot be suspended.


    That's fair. I cannot understand why he should be suspended for speech that was not made using school property and that did not disrupt the school. It looks for all the world like petty retaliation on the part of the school simply because they were offended, not corrective action intended to resolve some kind of serious problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  153.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In my opinion, it should have been completely ignored by the school unless the speech was actually causing a problem. But if the officials really felt like something had to be done, a stern talking-to would have been sufficient.

    This is precisely how it would have been handled in both my grade and high schools -- I know because I went to rough schools, and this kind of smack talk was not terribly uncommon amongst a certain subset of the students. The technology involved is irrelevant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  154.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Just simply tell me the WORD I got wrong and explain it to me in a way outside of "Wally stupid"


    It wasn't simply the terminology you were getting wrong. You were also not grasping some of the basic concepts involved either.

    In my opinion, all of the tweets are protected speech except for #2 as stated by the court. All of this happened outside the purview of the school district and therefore their discipline was inappropriate.

    Do I think Rosario's an ass who should be disciplined? Absolutely. But, not by the school because it's none of their business. His parents are the ones who should have disciplined him and if it was me the first thing I would have done is take his phone away. But being a shitty parent usually isn't against the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  155.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:35pm

    Re: RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines

    True...but a suspension would definitely mold his mind. The problem is that it seems the case is rather unique and extremely debatable both ways.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  156.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How about the case against Prenda?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  157.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    What you just said was just as offensive, crass, and juvenile as what Rosario tweeted. It's also just as much of a constitutionally protected opinion as his was. That aside, your hypocrisy is unmeasurable.

    PS... Your comment is also equally as likely to get prosecuted for slander.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  158.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 2:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    You'll have to speak much slower and use words with significantly less syllables if you plan on actually getting through an understandable point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  159.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    His parents have not punished him.


    The only rebuttal I have is this.

    A lot of the "perceived threat" really comes into play with the fact that the only way for one of his followers to see that tweet is if they are close friends or merely classmates.

    Legality aside, on a psychological level, the threat is perceived by the eye of the beholder reporting it. The problem we have here is that the person who may have reported it merely did what all humans do with perceived threats...hit the panic button. So it's likely the person reporting it may have felt threatened by number 3. Sounds crazy but it's very likely that due in part the only place this person would see Rosario is on school grounds. Almost like a bomb threat, but not as serious...almost like an unwarranted fire drill. The perceived threat of Rosario coming after that individual on school grounds is a situation that could only happen on school grounds, and my only guess outside of pettiness on behalf of the school itself, that is likely the cause of the suspension in general.

    Another fair question I often asked is what if by being petty the staff were protecting the identity of the person who showed them the tweet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  160.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    :-) I'm glad to get the insight :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  161.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Why are you constantly bringing up a bomb threat? HE DIDN'T MAKE A BOMB THREAT!"

    It is because of a perceived threat of a situation that can only happen on school grounds.

    The follower that reported it was likely a classmate who MAY HAVE felt a bit threatened by tweet number three. Said classmate would likely only ever encounter Rosario at school...hence the back reasoning for suspension in the eyes of the rather humiliated faculty. The tweet occurred after a school event yes but one thing we aren't told is if the staff in question was watching the film reel from the game. There's a lot of think and guess work that this causes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  162.  
    identicon
    Ezekial, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    Kids dont have many rights because they dont deserve them. The y are property of their parents until they become a legal majority (Age 18 in the US). They EARN their rights by being a respectful and productive member of society

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  163.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 4:14pm

    Re:

    Awwww, the "adults" had their feelings hurt - by a child.

    Maybe they should have ceased the waterworks and called the whaaaambulance to take them to someone who gives a damn.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  164.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 4:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

    Kids dont have many rights because they dont deserve them.


    Wow.

    The y are property of their parents until they become a legal majority (Age 18 in the US).


    There is no sense in which this is true. Parents are the children's guardians until the age of majority, but that in no way equates to an ownership situation.

    They EARN their rights by being a respectful and productive member of society


    No. Rights are not "earned" -- those are privileges. People who are not respectful or productive members of society have exactly as many rights people who are.

    Further, you have just as many rights as a child as you do as an adult. The only difference is that your parents exercise those rights on your behalf until you reach a certain age (not necessarily 18, it depends on the particular right). It's a bit like power of attorney.

    And parents cannot exercise those rights in any way they see fit. If they are exceptionally negligent about that, then the child can successfully sue them once they reach 18 (as several child stars who had their income misused by their parents have done).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  165.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 4:36pm

    Libel, slander, and defamation

    A lot of wrong on this thread (mainly by Wally). I'll attempt to set folks straight, with my admittedly non-lawyer understanding of the law.

    First, there's confusion among the terms. Defamation is the general term that covers libel and slander. Libel is defamation that is published in written form. Slander is verbal defamation made to the public.

    Now, to be defamation, a number of conditions must be met:

    1. It must consist of false statements;
    2. It must be stated as fact, not opinion;
    3. It must actually cause measurable harm to the subject.

    Furthermore, there is a far higher bar if the person is a public official or public figure.

    It is absolutely clear that none of the kid's statements could be considered defamatory. They are obviously statements of opinion, not statements of fact. (In fact, how would you prove the truth or falsehood that someone is a "bitch?") And there is no way that they actually caused measurable harm to the subjects.

    Also, most states have recognized teachers as public officials. It would thus be the burden of the teacher to show that the kid knew his statements were factually false, and directly intended to cause measurable harm to the teacher (e.g. that the kid deliberately published false statements specifically to get the teacher fired).

    The fact that the kid's tweets could only be read by people following him, actually acts against the notion that it is defamation, because it is not deliberately spread to the general public, and especially because none of his followers are likely to be in a position to get the teachers fired (thus no showing of actual harm).

    In any case, if it were truly libel, the appropriate action would be a lawsuit - not suspension. It is unlawful to suspend a student for speech activities carried on outside of school grounds.

    There is no question that the school is in the wrong here.

    Hope that clears things up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  166.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Jul 11th, 2013 @ 4:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Copy-pasted from Goldman's blog. This would be Venkat's Freudian slip. I didn't even catch that during my readthrough of his post.

    Personally, I find it nearly as awesome as DH does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  167.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:09pm

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    "each a kid how to respect others through discipline"

    This one of many root causes for teenage rebellion.

    Respect is earned not granted or given. When it is demanded, the response is predictably either in your face or insincere.

    Perhaps you are, as many do, conflating respect with reverence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  168.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 6:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Career Choice

    Wally is just a little Bitch Ass who was picked on at school, and is still picked on as an adult.

    He thinks that every instance of someone not being nice should be a criminal case

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  169.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and not only that, but Wally was making up facts to try to make the case suit his opinion.

    Even after this was pointed out to him repeatedly, he still lied and made up facts.

    Then doubled down on his lies. Sounds like he has been taking too many lessons from Prenda and Carreon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  170.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    once again, you have fit your own description of what Libel is. You hypocritical douchbag.

    You are using lies and deceit trying to attack this kid. You have used a written form with the intent to damage his reputation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  171.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I will third that I believe you are a Wally sockpuppet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  172.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and here you go again, making up facts to try to fit your opinion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  173.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 8:37pm

    Re: Re: RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines

    and a stint in Jail would certainly mold your mind.

    You deserve to be punished for your libelous comments on this thread. (Using yours adn your sockpuppets standards)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  174.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2013 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He was rightfully suspended because he made what could easily be perceived as a threat, not because of him winning his case. Like the AC ( (I may have) said, a classmate who isn't friends with Rosario, who could likely not be seen as his friend inside or outside of school, who also follows him on twitter, could easily have perceived it as a threat and reported it.

    I'm at a bit of a loss as to how that could be a perceived threat. There was no threat implicitly stated or even inferred in that tweet. Even if there were, said tweet occurred off school grounds and was not directed towards the school, thus it is outside of their jurisdiction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  175.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jul 12th, 2013 @ 12:55am

    Re: Re: Assault and Battery? Really?

    Ah battery the "shocking" part of personal trespass

    *waits*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  176.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jul 12th, 2013 @ 4:29am

    Re: Re: Career Choice

    You teach children by example, not by punishment.

    Monkey see, monkey do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  177.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jul 12th, 2013 @ 4:40am

    Re: On a side note...

    We don't care if you prefer a mans ass over a woman. That is your prerogative, but this isn't the place to discuss it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  178.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 12th, 2013 @ 7:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, saying someone is a B*tch or a Douch or whatever is not libel or slander as it does not make any claims, it's just an opinion. It's a colourful way of saying "I don't like my teacher". Everyone except apparently you is well aware that the student is stating an opinion and not actually trying to make the false claim that the teacher is a female canine or feminine hygene product.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  179.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jul 12th, 2013 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re:

    The whole concept of "obscenity" needs to be thrown out of the legal system.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  180.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 12th, 2013 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Agreed, the very existence of obscenity laws with the first amendment and that this glaring inconsistency has been allowed for so long and used to censor is the real obscenity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  181.  
    icon
    corwin155 (profile), Oct 10th, 2013 @ 4:40am

    The socialist Educated Elites want nothing more then complete rewriting of our Constitution as to set up a Government that run everyone's lives dictating every single aspect of their lives, with them making the suggestions that what is acceptable and which is not.
    wait isn't that what democrats are doing now?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  182.  
    identicon
    faith, Oct 16th, 2013 @ 6:08pm

    Re: help

    can a principle do anything if i say fat fuck lay off the cookies to someone on fb OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS?!?!?!?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This