Student's Youtube Video

[Pepper63]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oklahoma

A student of mine brought a video to my attention today. A different student has put a video on Youtube that mentions me by name. I am a public school teacher. The video is about 6 minutes long and is mostly pointless teenage drivel, lots of profanity and sexual jokes. However, about midway through, the two girls mention me, state that they hate me, refer to me as a b*tch, and both of them say that they hope I see the video. Well, thanks to another student, I have seen the video. Is it best to ignore it and pretend I've never seen it, or is this something that should be addressed? Do I have any legal rights to combat this type of language used toward me by a student?

[justalayman]

a person utilizing their constitutional rights to express themselves and you believe it should be addressed?

While it would not thrill me either to find a video such as the one you speak of, I would also understand that nothing you have said the video contains breaks any laws.

I will say that way too many schools have taken the position of controlling a students actions away from the school and attempting to discipline them. It has been successful in some schools but in reality, I believe they have every legal right to say what they have.

[The Occultist]

If that is all they said, then there's not really you can legally do. For something to be defamatory (and thus legally actionable), it must be stated as fact (not opinion), it must be untrue, and must be malicious in nature.

You are right that their message is malicious in nature, but just that is not enough. Does the video say anything that is untrue? You say that they said they hated you, which makes that a fact, and is likely true, so nothing wrong their. But then you are concerned about them calling you a bitch. This, however, is an opinion, and therefore is still not something that is actionable.

As far as the law is concerned, you are SOL. You may, however, wish to pursue this through the school and see if they can impose any sort of discipline on them. I wouldn't recommend that, but if that is really what you wish to do, then go for it.

[Ultranothing]

That they claim to hate you and are expressing their negative views about you, insulting as it may be, is still an expression of opinion.

Had they been making threats against you would be another matter entirely.

You may be able to have the video removed on the grounds that it details sensitive information about you (your name) and could therefore potentially cause you indirect harm via the "mob mentality".

The other thing to consider, is that these are just children. It doesn't matter what they think. As a teacher, they view you as an authority figure and they have a soap-box on which to stand (YouTube) and voice their childish, immature, and ultimately meaningless opinions on that teacher who makes them do homework and get an education when they'd rather be home sleeping.

That another student alerted you to the video gives you the consolation that there is another segment of the student-body who admires and respects you enough to thwart these injustices that have been dealt you.

Why not show them that you wield even more power? Submit your own video detailing the extra assignments you'll be giving them over the next two months, and give the credit to these girls during class one day, so every student can thank them personally for the additional workload. Just a thought

[quincy]

A couple of minor corrections to what has been said already:

To be defamatory, a statement must be false, but it does not have to be "malicious." In fact showing malice (or the intent behind the words communicated) is extremely difficult. Defamatory statements made about private persons only need to be shown that they were communicated with "negligence," or without the due care that a reasonably prudent person would have used in a similar situation.

Both of the statements you quoted here (the "I hate her" and the "b!tch" statement) are opinions - they cannot be proved true or false and are, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. It is only when defamatory false facts are made or implied that the statements could be actionable.

I agree (to an extent) with justalayman, that students should be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech without schools stepping in to discipline them for everything they say. I think parents, however, need to be better about monitoring their children's computer use so that objectionable content (such as the YouTube video) never appears online.

But, even though it should be the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's computer use, I am not so sure that YOU should merely ignore the video these students produced, especially since you were informed of it and had the opportunity to view it.

You mentioned you were a public school teacher of teenagers, and the teenage years straddle middle school and high school. If these students are in high school, I think you would be doing them a disservice if you let the video pass without comment. I think you should address with these students the profanity and sexual jokes in the video, and the derogatory comments that were made.

If the students are high schoolers, they will soon be looking for jobs and applying to colleges. Employers and colleges commonly look online to check out their applicants' online images. If this image is a poor one (ie. Facebook and MySpace and YouTube videos, that show beer parties, a liberal use of profanity, derogatory or defamatory remarks, comments of a sexual nature), these colleges and employers will generally pass the applicant over for someone showing more maturity and sense. Once something appears online, it is very hard (often impossible) to erase its presense.

While I agree with The Occulist and justalayman that you do not appear to have any legal recourse (at least from what you have indicated here - a review of the video would be necessary to be sure), and while I do not think the school has any legitimate reason to discipline students for what is communicated by them outside of school (as long as it does not violate any law or school policy), I DO think that, as an educator, you can use the existence of this video as a learning tool, to educate students on internet use and abuse.

Most kids seem to be clueless to the future ramifications of their current online activity.


(I love your suggestion, ultranothing!)

[justalayman]

quincy has presented a very good analysis of the situation and why it would be important to not ignore the situation. I bow in respect to his statements, position, and wisdom presented.


and I love the ultranothing suggestion as well. Great idea!

but understand, especially as an educator, that along with educating our students in the basics, it is important that they also be taught the rights our Constitution affords them but along with that, the responsibility that goes along with exercising those rights.


there is a saying that floats around, especially when our flag is shown disrespect:

I loathe the actions (whomever) is taking with our flag but I will defend, to the death, his right to take those actions.


While we may not like what a person is doing a lot of times, one of the great rights they have, as citizens of the US, is the right to do what they are.

[BOR]

Originally Posted by Pepper63

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oklahoma

Do I have any legal rights to combat this type of language used toward me by a student?

I have to agree with the others. Since your "likeness or image" was not used, just your name, any privacy laws would be null.

The 1st Amendment, although not absolute, is a hurdle here to overcome, as you are an agent of the government. Also, and additionally, you are "probably" a "public official" (???) for defamation purposes, so claiming any, even if stretched, must be proven with malice.

There is case law in my state, if memory serves me correctly, where a high school principal was NOT a public official for defamation purposes, but, that is not OK and you are not a principal.

"Legal" action, most probably not. Administrative, maybe, as some district's can enforce even off campus behavior where it is a possible cursor to more malignant conduct.

Best course of action, forget it. They know what they did was idiotic, but they don't care, sooner or later they will make an undisputable legal mistake, as they are rebellious.

[IsabellaSoriano]

i love ultranothing's idea...however, i want to tweek it a bit.

can you use it in your class teachings? what class do you teach?

it might be interesting to see the reaction of the bratty children to have their peers veiw this publicly with the teacher present. then have the class decipher their consititutional rights of free speech and so forth....

what happens in countries when you are not allowed the freedom of speech...and why our country allows it. even toward our leaders in a public forum.

best of all, if you show this display of disrespect doesn't rattle you....they have lost their cause.

[quincy]

Isabella, a video that is filled with sexual jokes and profanity, and that contains derogatory comments about the teacher, would NOT be a good video to show students in a classroom (nor would it likely be approved by the school board for viewing). Some schools even have trouble getting permission to show films like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Romeo and Juliet." There can be (and usually are) limits placed on free speech in a school that do not exist outside the school.

In other words, I think ultranothing's suggestion is better without your "tweak."

BOR, I have read some of your comments over on the other site. It is nice to see you posting here.

There is no defamation action unless the video is much different than has been indicated. The comments made by the students were clearly opinion, which is protected speech. And I believe the school would be stepping WAY out of bounds by taking any action against the students. Again, of course, this is based strictly on what we know of the video from Pepper's post.

You are right that the school teacher could potentially be considered a public figure for the purposes of a defamation action, although whether she would or not is a matter of law for the court. I corrected The Occulist earlier on his "malice" comment, but it IS possible that malice, and not negligence, would need to be shown, if the teacher is determined to be a public figure.

Although many (most?) courts will require more than just being a teacher to warrant the public figure designation (ie. a high profile in the community, involvement in a matter of public interest), an Oklahoma court determined that the plaintiff in Johnson v Corinthian Television Corp, 1978, was a public figure by virtue of being a public school teacher. And in a subsequent Oklahoma case, Clara Luper v The Black Dispatch Publishing Co, 1983, Luper was a public school teacher and she, too, was determined by the court to be a public figure for the purposes of the case (although Luper was also an author and she hosted a radio show and she was well-known in the area for her civil rights work, which could have played more of a role in the designation).

When a public figure is defamed, the public figure plaintiff must show that the defamatory commments were made with actual malice. This is a very high proof, and this is where most public figure defamation actions will fail.

At any rate, Pepper really does not seem to have any legal action she can pursue against the students that would have much chance of success - although she can always have the video reviewed by an attorney in her area if she is feeling especially litigious.

[BOR]

Originally Posted by quincy

BOR, I have read some of your comments over on the other site. It is nice to see you posting here.

Why thanks, that's appreciated!

You are right that the school teacher could potentially be considered a public figure for the purposes of a defamation action, although whether she would or not is a matter of law for the court. I corrected The Occulist earlier on his "malice" comment, but it IS possible that malice, and not negligence, would need to be shown, if the teacher is determined to be a public figure.

Although many (most?) courts will require more than just being a teacher to warrant the public figure designation (ie. a high profile in the community, involvement in a matter of public interest), an Oklahoma court determined that the plaintiff in Johnson v Corinthian Television Corp, 1978, was a public figure by virtue of being a public school teacher. And in a subsequent Oklahoma case, Clara Luper v The Black Dispatch Publishing Co, 1983, Luper was a public school teacher and she, too, was determined by the court to be a public figure for the purposes of the case (although Luper was also an author and she hosted a radio show and she was well-known in the area for her civil rights work, which could have played more of a role in the designation).

Do you mean "public official"? A "public figure" would be more in line with Madonna, although malice is necessary for both, on authority of Sullivan and Butts, respectively.

[BOR]

good citation quincy, here is the Luper case you cite, and Johnson v Corinthian Television Corp, can be clicked on internally also at par. 17. Johnson was an OK SC case. Luper was reversed, but only due to the fact it was defamation per se, as a criminal act was alledged. The poster claims none.

Here, the court found her to be both.


¶15 First, it is conceded that Plaintiff is a "public official" by virtue of her position as a public school teacher. Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp., Okl., 583 P.2d 1101 (1978). She is also a "public figure" within the meaning of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967) (extending the New York Times Co. rule for "public officials" to include "public figures") by virtue of her civil rights work, radio show, and books.




[url]http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=9633[/url]

[quincy]

I actually meant public "figure" here, BOR. In Hutchinson v Proxmire, the Supreme Court said in a footnote that a public official is not synonymous with a public employee. . . . . and I happen to agree.

What matters in a defamation action is not so much the difference between a public official and a public figure, anyway, but rather the difference between a public person and a private person. That is the difference that determines the standard of proof for fault that must be met in most states (actual malice v negligence).

And, if we really want to complicate matters, for the purposes of a defamation action a public official can also be a private figure and a private figure can be a limited public figure and a public figure can be both a public official and a private figure. Ultimately it is up to a court to make the determination as to who is what.

As a judge in Rosanova v Playboy Enterprises, Inc. said, "Defining public figure is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall."

[BOR]

Originally Posted by quincy

I actually meant public "figure" here, BOR. In Hutchinson v Proxmire, the Supreme Court said in a footnote that a public official is not synonymous with a public employee. . . . . and I happen to agree.

I understand that, the SC has not determined a brightline definition, true, but according to OK law, the state in question, she IS a public official:


15 First, it is conceded that Plaintiff is a "public official" by virtue of her position as a public school teacher. Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp., Okl., 583 P.2d 1101 (1978)

[quincy]

Sorry, BOR. I misunderstood what you were saying before. Yes, the school teacher in Johnston was found by the court in Oklahoma to be a public official for the purposes of that defamation action.

But whether any other school teacher in Oklahoma would be found by an Oklahoma court to be a public official would be up to the trial court to determine, based on the facts of the particular case before them.

The school teacher "public official/public figure/limited public figure/private figure" status is determined through proofs made to the trial judge, and would not be determined by any state law standard but by federal standard.