Schools and facebook stuff

[dc$]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
This is a story that's taken place over a few weeks. One day I got in an argument with one of my teachers, and she annoyed me. That night I said something on facebook about her. Lots of my friends liked it (since she is what I said she was). And what happened next was people started saying things around school, like quoting me. So then one day the AP wants to see me and he asks me for access to my facebook page. And I was like, umm no. He wanted me to log in or give him my log in. So then he said I'd get suspended. What! That doesn't seem fair. And I still said no. So then my parents had to go in and stuff. Mean while, I deleted what was on facebook anyway. And I still refused to give my log in. And my parents thought it was not appropriate for them to ask anyway (I got in trouble anyway with them but they didn't think it was right of the school to ask). So I've ended up getting suspended for a few days.

And I'm still confused about why they can do this? And I would like to understand.

I used facebook in my own time, on my own computer. Nothing to do with school.
I never said/repeated what I said on facebook (as in verbally, out loud) at school, on school property, during school time. I was never disrespectful at school (yes, I was disrespectful in general, but not at school).
I keep my facebook settings on the highest privacy settings- I didn't say what I said publicly. I said it to my friends. That's why they needed me to log in - because they couldn't see it without my help or a friends help.
They haven't even physically seen it.
Basically, they say that it was my fault that some other people at school said things about this teacher at school. Like I provoked it. Isn't it those kids choices to speak disrespectful at school?

So basically I don't understand how I can get in trouble at school for something I did outside of school? And also, I don't understand how they could say - give us your facebook login (and probly then get suspended anyway) - which I don't understand why they have a right to ask? or get suspended (without seeing the evidence).

Thanks. I hope that wasn't too long or confusing.

 

[Eekamouse]

Did you seriously not think that your comments would get back to the teacher?

 

[csi7]

One thing about facebook is that it is NOT private. Once you put something out there on a post, even if you delete it, it can still be found.

I do not see why you were suspended, except to be an example, and how the teacher and AP know it probably came from you.

A) the timing of the post

B) the information provided in the post

C) the people who mentioned it at school gave up who they got it from

D) any or all of the above

 

[stealth2]

You obviously do not read the news. There have been articles about this sort of thing - in schools, universities and work - for weeks now. YES, the school can demand access to your facebook. Providing access can be required for participation in extracurriculars (in particular, sports), and prospective employers can (and do) access your social media. Lesson? If you wouldn't tell your grandmother? Don't put it on FB (or tumblr, or twitter, or formspring, etc...).

Consider it a lesson learned.

 

[tranquility]

Let me get this straight. People are of the opinion the government can demand computer passwords without a court order?

Hmm....let me check.

Nope. I don't see that anywhere.

I was starting to write out all the issues here and it gets complex almost immediately even though kids give up some rights at the schoolhouse doors. Can the school do what they did regarding a suspension? Maybe. (See, Bongs for Jesus and related cases.) But, it would be for the speech and not for the failure to turn over a password. Certainly the school can ask, but they can't demand. While, I agree with stealth2, things can be asked before privileges (like sports participation) are allowed, here we have a denial of civil rights and the example of jobs and of university are not relevant. This is high school.

 

[stealth2]

And, as far as I know the HS can suspend the kid for NOT disclosing his FB page. Schools act in loco parentis in most states.

 

[I'mTheFather]

We'll find out eventually:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-minnesota-student-sues-over-online-privacy-invasion,0,1853693.story

 

[tranquility]

And, as far as I know the HS can suspend the kid for NOT disclosing his FB page. Schools act in loco parentis in most states.

We can start with MORSE v. FREDERICK 439 F. 3d 1114 (emphasis mine):

(c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment , restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 , the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment , id., at 504, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,” id., at 513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675 , however, upheld the suspension of a student who delivered a high school assembly speech employing “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,” id., at 678. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts had found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline. 478 U. S., at 679–680. This Court reversed, holding that the school was “within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions … in response to [the student’s] offensively lewd and indecent speech.” Id., at 685. Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. See, id., at 682–683. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that Tinker’s mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that “while children assuredly do not ‘shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate,’ … the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 , and has recognized that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an “important—indeed, perhaps compelling” interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation’s youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school’s job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The “special characteristics of the school environment,” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8–15.

The OP has a right to criticize his teacher. It is a first amendment right and it took place off campus. (Although there could be an argument it took place on campus as well because facebook can be viewed on campus.) Even in the case allowing for the limitation of speech, a Roberts wrote:

He further explained that Frederick “was not disciplined because the principal of the school ‘disagreed’ with his message, but because his speech appeared to advocate the use of illegal drugs.”

That alone will be a problem here. (Even though we don't know what was said.)

See Justice Thomas' concurrence for a discussion of the in loco parentis issue. (MORSE v. FREDERICK)

As to current litigation, remember it is the student who was coerced to turn over the password who is suing the district. The question will be if qualified immunity will prevent liability. However, there is no claim by the school (as far as I know) that they can demand the password and punish for failure to turn it over.

But, there is currently debate on if THE COURTS can demand someone turn over a password. It gets to if it is testimony protected by the first and fifth amendment and the government is tying to say a password is like a key and not like a testimony. (To invoke obstruction statutes.) The problem is, the nature of passwords have some testimonial nature to them. (Some COURTS have tried to get around this by having the person type in the password which begged the question as to if a person who knows the password or not establishes a link to ownership/use of the account--which would be testimonial in nature.)

I understand the government wants complete control over everything and schools are worse than that. But, I know of no case where anyone but the court can demand the turning over of a password. And, it's not clear the courts can either.

Info edit:
For the on campus claim of facebook speech, see the articles written for Moot court competition regarding:
McCord v. Rocky Fork Unified School District

 

[Humusluvr]

He used his Facebook to defame a teacher. He admitted that he did.

And the school can ASK for login info, but they aren't a court, and they don't operate in the same manner as the government. So, he didn't HAVE to give it to them, but his situation might have gone better had he willingly done so.

The school acted properly by suspending him.

And this is a good lesson. Don't write anything on FB or anywhere else that could come back to haunt you.

 

[Zigner]

He used his Facebook to defame a teacher. He admitted that he did.

No, he told us that he posted his opinion of the teacher online.

 

[Humusluvr]

No, he told us that he posted his opinion of the teacher online.

No he said, "That night I said something on facebook about her."

I can imagine it wasn't just an opinion. He likely stated some things, which were repeated at school. He disrupted the learning environment, and should be suspended for that.

 

[dc$]

Did you seriously not think that your comments would get back to the teacher?

I didn't really think about it at the time.

 

[dc$]

One thing about facebook is that it is NOT private. Once you put something out there on a post, even if you delete it, it can still be found.

I do not see why you were suspended, except to be an example, and how the teacher and AP know it probably came from you.

A) the timing of the post

B) the information provided in the post

C) the people who mentioned it at school gave up who they got it from

D) any or all of the above

Oh yeah, sorry. People were totally like "DC said it". The school knew my facebook post - not word for word, but pretty close. But they hadn't seen it.

 

[dc$]

You obviously do not read the news. There have been articles about this sort of thing - in schools, universities and work - for weeks now. YES, the school can demand access to your facebook. Providing access can be required for participation in extracurriculars (in particular, sports), and prospective employers can (and do) access your social media. Lesson? If you wouldn't tell your grandmother? Don't put it on FB (or tumblr, or twitter, or formspring, etc...).

Consider it a lesson learned.

I have seen some news things. But those were things like people saying something on another public page - like a school's page or something. Or obviously saying it publicly. Or saying it without privacy settings. I said what I said on my own page, with my own privacy settings. Which obviously do something since the school couldn't access it at all.

And, are you sure the school can demand access??? Since when? My facebook has nothing to do with school. And I never signed anything about agreeing to that.

If I had been sitting eating burgers with my friends after school and I said what I said on facebook to them, at the burger place - and the same thing happened with people talking around school - could I still have gotten in trouble? Or is it because I wrote it that I got in trouble? Even though it was on facebook, I was still just talking to my friends...

 

[dc$]

The OP has a right to criticize his teacher. It is a first amendment right and it took place off campus. (Although there could be an argument it took place on campus as well because facebook can be viewed on campus.)

facebook can't be viewed on campus. I guess, actually it can, but you have to break the computer use rules to do it. So yeah, I don't know why the school thinks they have anything to do with my facebook page at all.

Give me a moment to read everything else you said.