Judge rules against student blogger's First Amendment claim: Difference between revisions

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[unchecked revision][unchecked revision]
Content deleted Content added
Brian McNeil (talk | contribs)
back 2 dev
JoshuaZ (talk | contribs)
per talk page comments, and add further detail and background sourcing
Line 1: Line 1:
{{review{{
{{date|September 4, 2007}}


{{date|September 10, 2007}}
U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz ruled that high school student Avery Doninger's request for a preliminary injunction to let her function as class secretary at Lewis S. Mills High School. Doninger won the Class Secretary position at the Lewis S. Mills High School. Earlier Doninger had posted on derogatory comments on her blog about school officials and the school administration did not allow her to take the position as Class Secretary. Doninger alledges that the school's actions violated her [[w:First Amendment|First Amendment]] right to free speech. Also at issue is whether Doninger's use of the school's email system for an earlier mass email played a part in the school's decision.

[[w:United States district court|United States district court judge]] Mark Kravitz ruled that high school student Avery Doninger's request for a preliminary injunction to let her function as class secretary at Lewis S. Mills High School. Doninger won the Class Secretary position at the [[w:Lewis S. Mills High School|Lewis S. Mills High School]]. Earlier Doninger had posted derogatory comments on her [[w:blog|blog]] about school officials and the school administration did not allow her to take the position as Class Secretary. Doninger alledges that the school's actions violated her [[w:First Amendment|First Amendment]] right to free speech.

Also at issue is whether Doninger's use of the school's email system for an earlier mass email played a part in the school's decision. The school claims that the email led to serious disruption while Doninger claims that the email was only cited retroactively.

Kravitz ruled that there was not a substantial likelihood that Doninger would win her case against the school and thus declined to grant the injunction. Kravitz stated that although Doninger did not write the blog entry while on-campus "Avery's blog entry may be considered on-campus speech for the purposes of the First Amendment." Kravits reasoned that that the blogs' arguable on-campus nature together with Supreme Courts precedents that students have more limited free speech rights while on campus combined to give Doninger a weak case.

The ruling has been criticized with some observers arguing that if Kravitz's logic is used then any almost any online speech by students can be severely restricted by school administrators. This ruling is a setback to Doninger, although she and her family stated that they intend to appeal the injunction and also continue with their lawsuit.

Doninger's case gained national attention earlier after Doninger set up a website to appeal for donations to help with legal fees associated with the cause. The exact limits of students free speech rights in public schools has been a matter of controversy since 1969 when in [[w:Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District|Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District]] the [[w:United States]] [[w:United States Supreme Court | United States Supreme Court]] ruled that students have some free speech rights in schools. In later cases, such as [[w:Bethel School District v. Fraser|Bethel School District v. Fraser]] [[w:Morse v. Frederick|Morse v. Frederick]], colloquially known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools while engaging in actions on campus or otherwise affiliated with the school do not enjoy the complete First Amendment protections that would normally apply.


Kravitz ruled that there was not a substantial likelihood that Doninger would win her case against the school and thus declined to grant the injunction. Kravitz stated that although Avery did not write the blog entry while on-campus "Avery's blog entry may be considered on-campus speech for the purposes of the First Amendment" and thus precedents that students have more limited free speech rights while on campus are relevant. The ruling has been criticized with some observers arguing that if Kravitz's logic is used then any almost any online speech by students can be severely restricted by school administrators. This ruling is a setback to Doninger, although she and her family intend to appeal the injunction and also continue with their lawsuit.


Doninger's case gained national attention earlier after Doninger set up a website to appeal for donations to help with legal fees associated with the cause.


==Sources==
==Sources==
Line 21: Line 29:
|date=September 1, 2007}}
|date=September 1, 2007}}
*{{source|url= http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-rgreen0904.artsep04,0,7381507.column
*{{source|url= http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-rgreen0904.artsep04,0,7381507.column

|title=Ruling On Blog Rant Troubling
|title=Ruling On Blog Rant Troubling
|author=Rick Green
|author=Rick Green
Line 44: Line 51:
|pub=The Bristol Press
|pub=The Bristol Press
|date=August 28, 2007}}
|date=August 28, 2007}}
*{{source|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/26speech.html?ex=1340596800&en=02eda5be4c3bd3d1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
|title=Vote Against Banner Shows Divide on Speech in Schools
|author=Linda Greenhouse
|pub=The New York Times
|date=June 26, 2007}}
*{{source|url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500537.html
|title=Court Backs School On Speech Curbs
|author=Charles Lane
|pub=The Washington Post
|date=June 26, 2007}}


{{develop}}
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States]]

Revision as of 15:17, 10 September 2007

{{review{{Monday, September 10, 2007

United States district court judge Mark Kravitz ruled that high school student Avery Doninger's request for a preliminary injunction to let her function as class secretary at Lewis S. Mills High School. Doninger won the Class Secretary position at the Lewis S. Mills High School. Earlier Doninger had posted derogatory comments on her blog about school officials and the school administration did not allow her to take the position as Class Secretary. Doninger alledges that the school's actions violated her First Amendment right to free speech.

Also at issue is whether Doninger's use of the school's email system for an earlier mass email played a part in the school's decision. The school claims that the email led to serious disruption while Doninger claims that the email was only cited retroactively.

Kravitz ruled that there was not a substantial likelihood that Doninger would win her case against the school and thus declined to grant the injunction. Kravitz stated that although Doninger did not write the blog entry while on-campus "Avery's blog entry may be considered on-campus speech for the purposes of the First Amendment." Kravits reasoned that that the blogs' arguable on-campus nature together with Supreme Courts precedents that students have more limited free speech rights while on campus combined to give Doninger a weak case.

The ruling has been criticized with some observers arguing that if Kravitz's logic is used then any almost any online speech by students can be severely restricted by school administrators. This ruling is a setback to Doninger, although she and her family stated that they intend to appeal the injunction and also continue with their lawsuit.

Doninger's case gained national attention earlier after Doninger set up a website to appeal for donations to help with legal fees associated with the cause. The exact limits of students free speech rights in public schools has been a matter of controversy since 1969 when in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the w:United States United States Supreme Court ruled that students have some free speech rights in schools. In later cases, such as Bethel School District v. Fraser Morse v. Frederick, colloquially known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools while engaging in actions on campus or otherwise affiliated with the school do not enjoy the complete First Amendment protections that would normally apply.


Sources