The Supreme Court decided not to hear two cases on Jan. 17, which could have more clearly defined the free-speech rights of public school students.

One of the cases regards a Pennsylvanian eighth-grade student who created a fake Myspace profile of her principal. On the profile, created in 2007, the student made derogatory remarks about the principal. This included that he was a ‘sex addict’ who enjoyed ‘hitting on students.’

When school administrators found the page, the student was suspended for 10 days. Even though the page was created outside of school grounds and hours, the school still punished her.

Though the content may have been objectionable, her right to speak freely outside of school hours was maintained by a Court of Appeals. Had the Supreme Court heard the case, the disagreement between different courts could have been cleared up. It would offer a clearer interpretation for students and educators.

The issue over whether online activity can be punished is widespread. In 2009, a high school student in Connecticut made negative remarks about her principal on her Myspace profile and was forbidden from running for student government. She went to court because she felt her First Amendment rights were violated. The court favored the school.

Cases like those in Connecticut and Pennsylvania are only a few in a growing number as students’ access to the internet expands. Rulings are conflicted in these cases.

Those who favor schools’ ability to discipline students for what they do online and at home believe the schools are within their rights. Calling a principal a sex addict could threaten learning or cause disruption in school. Rather than focusing on learning, students could be distracted by their peers.

James McGonigle, the principal who was portrayed on the eighth-grader’s Myspace profile in Pennsylvania said he believes there needs to be a court ruling to clarify. ‘It made me out as a pedophile. If any of those accusations were taken seriously, I would have been put through a wrenching investigation,’ McGonigle said in a Los Angeles Times article earlier this month.

Not punishing name-calling and destructive comments may suggest such behavior is acceptable. By making school administrations unable to punish their students’ behaviors online, schools could also be helpless at punishing bullying that happens online.

Schools have the right to make sure students follow rules and keep students safe during school hours. When a student is not in school, though, schools should not have the ability to discipline what happens.

In many states, students are legally obligated to go to school until a certain age. Students should not have to give up their rights to free speech at the same time. So long as their speech will not directly damage the learning environment, their speech — just as other Americans’ speech — should remain uncensored.

Witold Walczak, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said he believes there is a separation between schools and students’ individual lives. ‘When kids go to school, the parents give up control. But once the kids leave the school, the parents again are the primary custodians, and have decision-making authority over those kids,’ Walczak said in an ABC News online article.

Limiting free speech from students threatens the ability for students to criticize their schools. Though what the Pennsylvanian eighth-grader said about her principal could have been more nicely expressed, she has done little to damage the learning process.

Though it may seem insignificant to preserve the rights of public school students, their rights to free speech are important. The Supreme Court will eventually need to resolve the conflict between the need to maintain a safe learning environment while not censoring students.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.  

Published on January 29, 2012 at 12:00 pm