|
A decision by Regional District 10 (Burlington) High School’s principal to deny a student election to class office because of what she wrote on a weblog should have been ruled unconstitutional, two briefs to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals argue. The case involves Avery Doninger, who as junior class secretary organized “Jamfest”, a “battle of the bands,” and was upset when school officials moved it from the school’s auditorium to the cafeteria. She organized e-mails to the wider community urging them to petition the school to allow Jamfest in the auditorium. When she was reprimanded for the e-mails, Doninger posted a weblog entry at livejournal.com, in which she called the principal a “douche bag.” She was subsequently told she could not run for senior class secretary, and when she later won as a write-in candidate, she was barred from taking the office. “This case presents a novel issue of student free speech,” argues the Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Speech in its amicus curiae brief, “although an issue that is governed by firm and familiar First Amendment principles. Most basic is the fundamentally (and thus protected) political nature of [Doninger’s] message; however distasteful or uncongenial her choice of words may have seemed to school officials, the substance of her communications was quintessentially political in nature.” Both the Virginia-based Jefferson Center and the Connecticut CFAR (Center for First Amendment Rights), in its separate amicus brief, argue that the U.S. Supreme Court has since its 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision upheldhigh school students’ constitutional right to free speech.While school officials may punish vulgar or inflammatory speech on campus, both briefs argue, recent Supreme Court decisions draw a distinction regarding off-campus speech. One of decisions cited, Shanley v. Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist.,ruled that punishment of a student for distributing literature without permission was unconstitutional because the activity “took place entirely off-campus and without ‘substantial and material’ disruption of school activities.” District Court Judge Mark K. Kravitz erred in supporting the Burlington school principal’s action, both amicus briefs argue, and that judgment should be reversed. The ACLU of Connecticut filed an amicus brief supporting Doninger before Judge Kravitz, and continues its support for the Burlington students’ free-speech rights. Read both briefs:CFAR on Burlington Case, Jefferson Center on Burlington
|
