Punishing Student Internet Posts Good School Policy or Violation of Rights?

Punishing Student Internet Posts Good School Policy or Violation of Rights? Activity 1: Voting with Your Feet Materials Needed: Post the following on the board, or make signs to post along one wall (a set of signs is provided in the curriculum notebook): Should definitely be subject to school punishments Should probably be subject to school punishments Don t know/no opinion Should probably not be subject to school punishments Should definitely not be subject to school punishments The signs should be positioned on the board or wall so there is room for students to stand between and in front of them. Procedure: 1. Tell students that they are going to begin studying the Colorado Youth Summit focus question: Should students be subject to school punishments for material posted off-campus on their personal websites or social networking sites when that material does not violate the First Amendment? 2. Explain that students are going to have an opportunity to vote with their feet on this issue, but rather than dealing with the general issue, they are going to look at some specific cases. Point out the five signs and explain that students will stand in front of the sign that best describes their response to each case. You may pick a few students to stand on the line and let the remainder of the students comment on/interpret the graph created by the voters. Alternatively, you may have all students stand on the line and allow them to discuss why they have chosen to stand where they are. Point out that, if they hear a good argument, students can switch their positions at any time. 3. Read the following real-life cases, all involving off-campus posting, one at a time, allowing them to vote on and discuss each case: Angry that his biology teacher assigned three times the regular amount of homework, a tenth-grader in Sacramento, California, went home and posted a status update on Facebook, calling his teacher two obscene names and saying the fat teacher should could stop eating fast food. (2010) A junior at Littleton High School in Colorado posted satirical comments about the school on MySpace. He commented on his perception of the physical condition of the students, the behavior of students, racist attitudes on the part of teachers and administrators, and the lack of resources available to students. (2006) Center for Education in Law and Democracy 3

Six middle school students in Carson City, Nevada, created a Facebook event called Attack a Teacher Day, inviting other students to take part on Friday, January 7. (2011) During summer vacation, several girls who were going to be sophomores at Indiana s Churubusco High School in the fall had a slumber party. At the party, they took some suggestive photographs of themselves. Two girls posted the pictures on their MySpace pages. Several parents called the school to complain. (2009) A seventh-grade student at Roxboro Road Middle School in North Syracuse, New York, created a Facebook group for the purpose of posting insulting remarks about a teacher at the school; 25 students became fans of the group. (2010) Note: In this case, you may want to ask students opinion regarding the student who started the page and those who became fans. A student at Beverly Vista High School in California posted a crude and insulting video on YouTube. It showed the student and some of her friends cruelly mocking another girl at the school. When the girl who was targeted found out about the video, she broke down and had to leave class. (2008) 4. After students have discussed all the cases, debrief the activity by asking such questions as: Did you differentiate among the cases? If so, how did you draw the line between cases where punishment was appropriate and those where it was not? Would you feel differently about general punishments, such as suspension or expulsion, versus more targeted punishments, such as being banned from extra-curricular activities? For example, the Indiana high school mentioned has a policy that students can be banned from extra-curricular activities if their conduct in or out of school reflects discredit upon Churubusco High School or the IHSAA or creates a disruptive influence on the discipline, good order, moral or educational environment at Churubusco High School. Would you feel differently knowing that? What was the best reason you heard for allowing punishment? For not allowing punishment? Were there any cases in which you felt that the police, rather than the school, should be involved? Explain your answer. 5. You may want to share with students that all of the students in these cases were punished in one form or other (the students in the Nevada case were actually arrested). Some had the punishments rescinded. Others are suing for damages. 6. Tell students that the next step in examining the issue will be looking at the constitutional questions that it raises. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 4

Activity 2: Jigsaw on the First Amendment in the Schools Materials: Copies of the Limits on Freedom of Speech handout for all students (if you have not previously covered this material on the First Amendment). Enough copies of the Case Cards for one-fifth of the class to have each. Optional: Copies for all students of your school or school district s policy regarding offcampus Internet postings and/or cyberbullying. Procedure: 1. Ask students: When people make the case that punishing students Internet postings violates their rights, what rights are they talking about? (First Amendment free speech rights) Review the wording of the First Amendment with students: 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. 2. Remind students that rights do have limits. If students have not previously studied the limits on freedom of expression, distribute the Limits on Freedom of Speech handout and go over the limits with students. Ask: Do any of these limits apply to the cases we discussed in the Voting with Your Feet activity? If the examples describe speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, does that change your thinking about whether schools should be able to punish it if it occurs off-campus? (Accept all student answers.) 3. Tell students that they are now going to look more closely at limits on free speech by examining some of the cases involving students free speech rights that the Supreme Court has ruled on plus two it may rule on in the future. 4. Organize the students into five groups and give each group one of the Case Cards (numbered 1-5). Go over the task with students: Each group is to read and discuss their card with the aim of deciding what they should teach their classmates about the case. 5. After students have had time to read and discuss their cases, create five-person jigsaw groups comprised of one student from each of the case groups. Allow time for students to share the information about their cases. 6. When groups have completed their discussions, ask students why the Supreme Court might take one or both of the Third Circuit cases. Is this issue important in terms of First Amendment law? Is a definitive answer important to school districts? (Yes, because they want to be able to maintain the learning environment and the safety of students without violating students rights and opening themselves to lawsuits.) Center for Education in Law and Democracy 5

7. Tell students that the next phase of the unit will be thinking more deeply about what schools and school districts should do about this issue. Optional: Share with students your district/school s policy regarding off-campus Internet postings by students. Ask: What goals is the policy designed to achieve? Are these worthwhile goals? Is this a good way to meet those goals? Why or why not? This exercise could be completed as homework. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 6

Handout Limits on Freedom of Speech The First Amendment has strong language protecting freedom of speech. But the Supreme Court has allowed some limits to be placed on that freedom. Here are some general guidelines for when limits are allowed: Clear and Present Danger Will this speech create danger? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are intended to provoke violence or panic. Fighting Words Was something said to deliberately injure someone or start a fight? Language that provokes a fight can be punished. Libel and Slander Did the speech defame someone falsely? The First Amendment does not protect you if you are telling lies about someone. Obscenity Would the average person in the community find a work to be obscene? Does the work depict or describe sexual content in an offensive way? Does the work lack any serious value? Such material is not protected. The Supreme Court has also said that higher standards can be established to protect children from obscenity. Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, protecting young people from pro-drug messages might be seen as a compelling interest. Time, Place, and Manner Did the speech occur at a time or place that is inappropriate or illegal? Did the speaker use an inappropriate method of communicating the idea? For example, driving through the neighborhood of a public official at midnight, broadcasting information about an issue before that official, would likely not be protected. Source: Adapted from Education for Freedom (Denver, CO: First Amendment Congress, 1997). Center for Education in Law and Democracy 7

Case Cards Case 1: Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) John Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker were students in Des Moines during the early years of the Vietnam War. The students and their parents decided to protest the war. The students planned to wear black armbands between December 16 and December 31, 1965. The principals at the schools the students attended found out about the planned protest. They immediately adopted a new policy: the school would ask any student wearing an armband to remove it. If the student refused, the school would suspend him/her until the student would return without the armband. The students wore their armbands to school. While many of their classmates noticed the armbands, no fights or disruptions occurred. Nonetheless, John, Christopher, and Mary Beth were sent home and suspended. The students sued in federal court, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. Voting 8-1 in favor of the students, the Supreme Court said that wearing an armband was symbolic speech and was not actually or potentially disruptive conduct. The Court further held that First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. The Court did not, however, say students rights were unlimited. If a student s conduct, in or out of class, materially disrupts class work, involves substantial disorder or invades the rights of others, there is no Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 8

Case 2: Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) Mathew Fraser was a top student in his class at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington. A senior, Mathew gave a speech at an assembly, nominating a friend for an office in student government. About 600 students attended the assembly; many in attendance were ninthgraders. Before giving the speech, Mathew discussed it with two teachers. Both said that the speech was inappropriate because he used a graphic sexual metaphor to refer to his friend throughout the speech. They advised him not to give the speech and warned him that there could be serious consequences if he did. Mathew gave the speech anyway. Students reacted in a variety of ways. Some shouted and laughed. Others mimed the sexual activities Mathew referred to. Others were clearly embarrassed. Mathew was suspended. The administration also informed him he would not be able to speak at graduation, even though he ranked second in his class. He brought suit in federal court, claiming his First Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district. The Court made a distinction between political speech, such as wearing armbands to protest a war, and lewd speech. The Court said, Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.... Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the work of the schools. The school board has the authority to designate what type of speech is inappropriate in classrooms or assemblies. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 9

Case 3: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) In May 1983, the journalism class at Hazelwood East High School near St. Louis was preparing an issue of the school paper for publication. The issue had two very serious articles. One dealt with how pregnant students coped during their pregnancies. Another looked at how divorce affected students. As usual, the journalism teacher ran the final proofs of the paper by the principal. That s when business as usual ended. The principal objected to the pregnancy and divorce stories. The principal believed that the pregnant students, although their names were not given, could be identified from information in the story. He also thought that references to sex and birth control in the article were inappropriate for younger students. The divorce story actually named a student, who made negative comments about her father. The principal felt the parents should have been asked to comment or at least to give their consent to the article. The principal ordered that the pages on which these two articles appeared be pulled from the newspaper even though there were other articles on the pages. Four journalism students sued in federal court, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled against the students. In its ruling, the Court said Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The Court said only if the school s decision to censor a school-sponsored publication had no valid educational purpose would a student s constitutional rights be violated. In response to this case, several states, including Colorado, passed laws protecting the rights of student journalists. (See http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/law_library.asp?id=7 for the text of the law.) Center for Education in Law and Democracy 10

Case 4: Morse v. Frederick (2007) In 2002, the Olympic torch relay was traveling toward the Winter Olympic site in Utah. When it went through Juneau, Alaska, the route went right by the high school. Students at the high school were released from class so they could go outside and watch the torch pass. Student John Frederick and nine classmates had a plan to try to get on television. They made a huge banner and rolled it out across the street from the school. The banner said Bong Hits 4 Jesus. The banner could be seen by almost all the school s student. When the principal saw the banner, she immediately decided it violated the school s policy banning pro-drug messages. She walked across the street and asked the students to take the banner down. John Frederick refused, saying the First Amendment protected his right to show the banner. The principal seized the banner and suspended John. He sued, saying his First Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. The Court held that the school could ban drug-related messages at school events, even if the events took place off school grounds. The Court said that keeping students from using drugs was an important enough goal to justify the limits on students rights. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito clarified that the decision did not restrict speech that had a political or social purpose. In other words, this was a narrow ruling. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 11

Case 5: J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District (2010) and Layshock ex rel. Layshock v. Hermitage School District (2010) These two Pennsylvania cases involve very similar fact patterns. J.S. was a middle school girl, while Justin Layshock was a high school senior. But both students created fake profiles of their school principals on a social-networking site. In both cases, the students were using computers off campus. Both profiles were derogatory and created a reaction at the schools, although the reaction at the middle school was more serious, since two teachers reported having trouble getting their classes to stop talking about the site and get down to business. In both cases, the principals suspended the students involved. And, in both cases, the students sued, saying their First Amendment Rights were violated. When the cases were heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the similarities ended. Each case was heard by a panel of three judges. The two cases were heard by different panels. And the panels reached different decisions, both announced on February 4, 2010. In the case of J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, the Court of Appeals held that the student s suspension was proper. In the Layshock case, the court said the school did not prove that the phony profile created a significant disruption to the school environment. Thus, the suspension violated Justin s First Amendment rights. After the two conflicting rulings were issued, both were vacated, and the cases were heard again by the full Court of Appeals. The ruling is expected any day. Many observers believe that, no matter what the decision, this issue will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 12

Activity 3: Structured Academic Controversy on What Policy Schools Should Adopt Regarding Punishing Student Internet Posts Materials: Copies of the Structured Academic Controversy: Student Directions handout for all students. List of steps on in the SAC on the board or projected for student reference throughout the lesson. Deliberation question on the board: Should students be subject to school punishments for material posted off-campus on their personal websites or social networking sites when that material does not violate the First Amendment? What should be school policy about this issue? Enough copies of SAC Reading A and SAC Reading B for half the students to have each. Procedure: 1. Tell students that they are going to be taking part in a Structured Academic Controversy on the issue of school punishments for off-campus student Internet postings, thinking in particular about what school policy should be. Point out the discussion question that you have posted on the board: Should students be subject to school punishments for material posted off-campus on their personal websites or social networking sites when that material does not violate the First Amendment? What should be school policy about this issue? 2. Explain that a Structured Academic Controversy is a discussion that occurs in groups of four. Point out the list of steps in the SAC that you have posted and distribute the Structured Academic Controversy: Student Directions handout. Go over the steps with students. 3. Organize the class into groups of four (some groups could have five or six members if your class total doesn t divide evenly by four). Within each group, create pairs A and B, with pair A assigned to support a school policy that allows for punishments if students make inappropriate postings on the Internet and pair B assigned to oppose such a policy. Give the appropriate pairs the SAC Reading A and SAC Reading B handouts. Ask pairs to read their handout and identify the strongest points supporting their position. 4. When students have completed the reading, they should work in their pairs to complete step 2 of the SAC; that is, preparing to advocate their position. Tell students how long they will have to present their arguments (two or three minutes is generally adequate). 5. Before beginning step 3 of the SAC, remind students that (a) those who are listening need to take notes and ask clarifying questions that will help them better understand the opposition s views; this is not the time for them to argue, (b) pairs will be reversing positions in a few minutes and will need to understand the arguments of the opposition so listening is important, (c) they will have two (or three, depending on how much time you wish to allot) minutes to present their case. Tell students arguing in support of the school policy allowing for Center for Education in Law and Democracy 13

punishments for student Internet postings to begin; after the allotted time has passed, announce a one-minute period for clarifying questions. Following the questions, students arguing against the policy should present their arguments; another one-minute period should be allowed for clarifying questions. 6. Move to step 4 of the SAC, in which pairs identify the most powerful argument for the opposing position. Allow a minute or two for pairs to put their heads together and decide which argument was most persuasive. Then have the pairs present to each other, beginning with the pair that formerly opposed the policy (B). Allow no more than two minutes for each pair to present its argument in this phase; one minute is probably adequate. 7. Move to step 5 of the SAC. Remind students that in this phase they leave their assigned roles and discuss the question from their own perspectives. The goal of the discussion is to identify areas of agreement and disagreement and to see whether the group can agree on something. If they can agree on a policy, that would be great. If they cannot agree on a policy, they can try to agree on a more limited aspect of the problem/solution. Allow 10 to 15 minutes for this step. 8. Debrief the discussion using such questions as the following: How many groups reached agreement on an answer to the overall question: Should students be subject to school punishments for material posted off-campus on their personal websites or social networking sites when that material does not violate the First Amendment? What should be school policy about this issue? Why were you able to reach agreement? Was it something about the nature of your group or the process you used? What other agreements did groups reach? What does this illustrate about the issue of what policy should be regarding punishment of student Internet postings? What were the most compelling arguments for each side? What questions do you still have? How might you find answers to these questions? What do you like/dislike about this process? How might a process like this help us discuss divisive issues in our school and community? Why is it important to discuss controversial issues in a democracy? 9. Following the debrief, ask each student to write a one-page position statement on the issue. The statement should clearly identify the student s position on the focus issue and provide arguments and evidence to support that position. Have the delegates to the Colorado Youth Summit prepare a summary of the class members positions on the issue to post on the project wiki. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 14

Structured Academic Controversy: Student Directions Handout 1. Organizing Groups. You will be working in a group of four. Two students will be Side A, two Side B. Side A will begin by arguing for a policy that provides punishments for students who post disruptive or obnoxious comments on social networking sites during out-of-school time. Side B will argue against such a policy. 2. Preparing Arguments. With your partner, reread the background materials or review your notes and identify facts and arguments that support your assigned position. Prepare to advocate the position. 3. Presenting Arguments. Take turns advocating your positions, starting with Side A. When the other side is presenting, make notes and ask clarifying questions questions about information you don t understand. This is not the time for argument! 4. Reversing Positions. Put your head together with your partner. Decide what you think is the best argument you heard for the opposing point of view. Make a short presentation demonstrating your understanding of that argument. 5. Discussing the Issue. Leave your assigned positions and discuss the issue in your group, trying to find points of agreement and disagreement among group members. Try to reach consensus on something. If you cannot reach consensus on any substantive aspect of the issue, try to reach consensus on a process you could use to resolve disagreements. 6. Debriefing the Activity. Participate in a class discussion of the activity. The discussion will focus on how the groups worked and how use of the process contributed to your understanding of the issue. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 15

Handout SAC Reading A Should students be subject to school punishments for material posted off-site on their personal websites or social networking sites when that material does not violate the First Amendment? What should be school policy about this issue? From school shootings to suicides prompted by cyberbullying, the safety of today s students seems harder than ever to ensure. If any proof is needed, just consider a recent Florida case in which four middle-schoolers were plotting to kill a classmate on Facebook! School administrators cannot sit idly by while their students are taking part in this kind of activity. Research shows that more than 90 percent of students ages 12-17 use the Internet (Parent and Teen Internet Use, 2007). Some of this use occurs at school, but much of it occurs at home. A third of online teens create their own content via personal web pages, blogs, or social networking sites. Many teens have harmless fun on the Internet, create wonderful expressive products, and even use the Web to advance worthy causes. But teens also sometimes post hurtful, embarrassing, or even threatening comments. These kinds of comments when directed to other members of the school community have an effect on the learning environment. Some student posts create such buzz around the school that class is disrupted. Others may affect one or two targeted individuals so much that they cannot focus on learning. And verbal attacks on teachers can make it more difficult for them to do their jobs. Certainly, the Constitution protects free speech. However, free speech rights do have limits. In the case of Frederick v. Morse, the Supreme Court upheld a school punishment for speech that took place off school grounds, saying such limitations were allowable if the school s interest in suppressing the speech was important enough. The chief attorney for the National School Boards Association, Francisco Negron, has said that the case allows schools to regulate student speech when the student welfare is at stake. That same thinking could well apply to Internet postings that occur off campus. Furthermore, schools have long had policies that punished students for such off-campus activities as drinking or using drugs. Students have been subject to school discipline especially being barred from extracurricular activities, such as sports for these actions, even when criminal charges were not pressed. The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has recently sent a letter to school districts reminding them that bullying including cyberbullying can actually become discriminatory harassment. The Department has stressed the school s responsibility to deal with this kind of behavior. If schools do not respond adequately, they could be subject to civil rights lawsuits. In the letter, Department officials specifically mentioned cases when name-calling occurred on social networking sites, suggesting that schools are responsible for knowing about and taking action in such cases. This puts a heavy burden on schools and school administrators. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 16

Handout SAC Reading B Should students be subject to school punishments for material posted off-campus on their personal websites or social networking sites when that material does not violate the First Amendment? What should be school policy about this issue? The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has held that, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this protection applies to the public schools as governmentfunded organizations. The Supreme Court has also said that students do have freedom of speech in school. In the Tinker case, the Court famously said that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment applies to speech on the Internet. In the case of Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Court said that we presume that government regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship. Lower courts have ruled in Internet cases involving students that disliking or being upset by the content of a student s speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech (Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, 2001) and that ordinary personality conflicts among middle school students that may leave one student feeling insecure do not qualify as substantially disrupting the school s educational environment (J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, 2010). Of course, other Supreme Court cases have put some limits on students right to free expression, but these cases have involved speech at school or at school-sponsored functions. Speech that occurs outside of school using students own computers should not be punished by school officials. If the speech strays into criminal behavior, such as making actual threats against someone, then it is a matter for the police, not the school. If the speech defames a person, that person can sue for defamation in the courts. Drawing attention to websites where students have criticized school officials may actually cause more disruption than the websites themselves. Punishing students for calling a teacher a nasty name will make students feel that the administration is out to get them in other words, rather than everyone working together to promote learning, everyone will be angry and fighting. Certainly, given the problems with school budgets, schools should not be wasting money to pay lawyers to defend them in free speech lawsuits. Spending the money to educate young people about cybercitizenship and bullying would be a better use of the funds. There s no question that cyberbullying and harassing people online or in person, for that matter are bad things. But off-campus behavior is simply outside the school s jurisdiction. In addition, it s obvious from many of the cases that have made the news lately that school administrators have difficulty distinguishing between bullying, satire, and blowing off steam. They also seem to have a very low threshold for deciding when something affects the learning environment. Those are things that would need to be defined if a policy were ever to gain wider support. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 17

References Sources: Abbott, Karen, Suspension Called Off: Littleton Student Back in Class after ACLU Steps In, Rocky Mountain News (February 22, 2006). Adams, John, A Student s Right to Be Cyber-Mean, NBC Los Angeles (December 14, 2009), http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/a-students-right-to-be-cyber-mean- 79172207.html. Ali, Russlynn, Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, October 26, 2010), http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf. Egelko, Bob, Student Off Hook for Facebook Insult of Teacher, San Francisco Chronicle (January 29, 2011), http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-29/bay-area/27089984_1_biologyteacher-student-expression-material-and-substantial-disruption. Florida Teens Charged with Facebook Death Threat, WPTV.com (February 3, 2011), http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/facebook-death-threat-florida-teens-charged-with-socialmedia-twitter. Griffith, Martin, 6 Girls Arrested in Facebook Teacher Attack Invite, ABC News Technology (January 7, 2011), http://abcnews.go.com/technology/wirestory?id=12566465. Johnson, David D., Layshock and J.S.: The 3 rd Circuit Attempts to Define the Circumstances under Which a School Can Punish a Student for Creating a Defamatory MySpace Profile, Internet and E-commerce Law Blog (San Francisco, CA; EpsteinBeckerGreen, February 9, 2010), http://www.internetecommercelaw.com/2010/02/articles/internet-decency-anddefamatio/layshock-and-js-the-3rd-circuit-attempts-to-define-the-circumstances-under-whicha-school-can-punish-a-student-for-creating-a-defamatory-myspace-profile/. Legal Tips to Know before You Post, Student Press Law Center White Paper (Arlington, VA: Student Press Law Center, 2008). Lenhart, Amanda, and Mary Madden, Teen Content Creators and Consumers, Pew Internet & American Life Project (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2005), http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/2005/teen-content-creators-and-consumers.aspx. Macgill, Alexandra Rankin, Parent and Teenager Internet Use (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2007), http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/2007/parent-and-teen-internet-use.aspx. Negron, Francisco M., Jr., A Foot in the Door? The Unwitting Move Towards a New Student Welfare Standard in Student Speech after Morse v. Frederick, American University Law Review ( 2009), http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/58/negron.pdf?rd=1. Netter, Sarah, Suspension over Sexy Slumber Party Photos Leads to ACLU Lawsuit, ABC News (November 2, 2009), http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8975121. O Toole, Catie, Seventh-Grade North Syracuse Student Suspended, 25 Others Disciplined, Syracuse Post-Standard (January 24, 2010), http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/seventh-grade_north_syracuse_s.html. Court Cases: Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1989). J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, 2010 WL 1914215 (C.D. Cal.). Center for Education in Law and Democracy 18

J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, 3rd Cir.., No. 08-4138, Opinion (2010). Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, 136 F. Supp. 2d 446, 448 (W.D. Pa. 2001). Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 3d Circuit, No. 07-4465, Opinion (2010). Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). For More Information: American Civil Liberties Union, Student Speech/Internet Censorship, http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/index.html. American Library Association, Office of Intellectual Freedom, http://www.ala.org/template.cfm?section=oif. Blumner, Robyn, Schools Reach Must Have Limits, Columbus Dispatch (February 23, 2010), http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/02/23/schools-reach-must-havelimits.html. Davis, Michelle R., Schools Tackle Legal Twists and Turns of Cyberbullying, Digital Directions (Washington, DC: Education Week), February 4, 2011), http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2011/02/09/02cyberbullying.h04.html. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Bloggers FAQ Student Blogging, http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-students.php. First Amendment Center, K-12 Public School Student Expression: Cyberspeech, http://www.fac.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=cyberspeech. Hudson, David L., Student Online Expression: What Do the Internet and MySpace Mean for Students First Amendment Rights? (Washington, DC: First Amendment Center (2007), http://www.fac.org/about.aspx?id=17913. National School Boards Association, http://www.nsba.org/. Pew Internet & American Life Project, www.pewinternet.org/. Center for Education in Law and Democracy 19