Dealing With Students Who Establish Offensive or Threatening Websites

Offensive web sites are not a recent phenomenon. But the problem really hits home when the site relates directly to a school district, its students and staff. A Massachusetts system was recently confronted with a web site set up by former students. The site contained derogatory and degrading comments about the school, targeting one teacher in particular. Worse yet, the site name made it appear that it was the official web site for the district.

And then there was the Pennsylvania student whose web site went far beyond bad taste. The site described a math teacher in profane terms, contained a picture of her severed head dripping in blood, a picture of her face morphing into Hitler, and a request for money to hire someone to kill her. The student sued to have his expulsion reversed.

Foremost among the legal issues raised by such situations is whether a student can be disciplined for this off-campus conduct or can rely on the First Amendment and other legal or constitutional rights to protect himself.

There are two basic criteria to apply in answering this question. One is whether the web site was created on or with the use of school property. The second is whether the content of the site is threatening to students or school personnel, or otherwise capable of disrupting school operations.

Lewd and vulgar speech can always be punished if it takes place in school or is carried out with the use of school property. But, the posting of information on the Internet is not considered in-school speech when the student posts the information from off-campus, such as from his home computer. Therefore, the school must show that the “off-campus” speech caused, or reasonably could cause, a substantial disruption at school or presents a danger at school.

The Massachusetts school district described above dealt with its issue by informing the Internet service provider who proceeded to shut down the site for violating the terms of its agreement with site holders. (Another option is to notify the student’s parents who may be surprised by what’s going on in their own house.)

In the Pennsylvania case, the court upheld the student’s expulsion, rejecting the student’s claim that his First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. The teacher-victim also won a damages award of $500,000 in a civil suit against the student and the student’s family. The principal victim’s claim was settled for less.

Some other decisions provide further guidance in this area:

• In 1998, a federal court reversed a 10-day suspension of a student imposed for posting critical and unflattering opinions about his school and the administration on the student’s website because the principal acknowledged that he punished the student for the content of the web page, not because he thought it would cause any disruption in the school.
• A federal court reversed the five-day suspension of a student posting mock “obituaries” of his friends and asking web site visitors to vote who should be next. The site was apparently an outgrowth of a creative writing class in which students wrote their own obituaries.
• In a disturbing decision that highlights just how far some courts believe the boundaries can be stretched before discipline can be imposed, a Washington superior court actually ruled for an expelled student (backed by the American Civil Liberties Union) in the following case: The student’s web site was entirely directed to mocking his principal. It had pictures of him having sex with Homer Simpson, sodomizing a pig and advertising Viagra. The superior court judge found that the school failed to demonstrate that the student’s “speech” was an on-campus activity or caused material and substantial disruption of the work or discipline of the school.

Note: The law is rapidly evolving in this area. You should consult counsel with a thorough knowledge of the facts before deciding upon a course of action.