US Government HLA Assessment on Student Internet Use

The first Amendment reads “Congress shall make no laws abridging the Freedom of Speech.” Freedom of Speech is a highly valued right by all Americans. A key 1925 US Supreme Court case, Gitlow v. New York made speech protection a state’s responsibility to all citizens of the US. Followed by another key US Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) the Court determined that students have free speech rights at all public schools across the country, although these rights can be limited if that speech disrupts the learning environment or infringes on others rights. In Morse v. Frederick (2005) the Court held further that schools could punish speech that occurs off school grounds, if the school had a strong reason for doing so.

Schools Should Not Limit Students' Online Speech

5

Paragraph 1:

Schools should not be allowed to limit students' online speech, even if it is offensive or criticizes the school. Students maintain their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression when they are off campus and online, according to several key pieces of evidence.

Paragraph 2: 

10

First, court cases have established that schools cannot punish student speech that occurs off campus and does not cause substantial disruption at school. As Document D shows, one court overturned a suspension because the student's online parody of her principal did not create major issues that impaired learning. The court said schools cannot punish speech outside school just because it is insulting.

Paragraph 3:  

15

In addition, critics argue there is insufficient evidence that dangers to students online are significantly worse than offline. As Document F contends, bullying and harassment have existed for centuries, long before the internet. Punishing online speech unfairly singles out the newest medium of expression.

Paragraph 4:

Moreover, limiting students' ability to criticize schools online goes against the principles of free expression. As seen in Document D, allowing schools to act as thought police by monitoring everything students say about them online, even in personal contexts, infringes on students' constitutional rights. 

20

Paragraph 5: 

While cyberbullying is a concern, allowing schools broad authority to restrict off-campus speech sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, schools should address harmful speech through education, not punishment. The evidence shows that keeping student expression free, even online, should take priority over targeting speech schools simply dislike.

According to a survey conducted by the Cyberbullying Research Center in 2016 (“DOC A”), nearly 20% of both and girls across the country report to being the victim of cyberbullying. Girls are 6% more likely to be a victim of cyberbullying than boys. Additionally, males are more likely cyberbully than girls. Strikingly, over 10% of both boys and girls admit to having cyberbullied other students.

First, court cases have established that schools cannot punish student speech that occurs off campus and does not cause substantial disruption at school. As Document D shows, one court overturned a suspension because the student's online parody of her principal did not create major issues that impaired learning. The court said schools cannot punish speech outside school just because it is insulting.

According to the Association of Teacher and Lecturers and Teacher Support Network survey from 2009 (“DOC B”), 15% of British school teachers report being cyberbullied by among others, students, managers and colleagues. A majority of these incidents were in fact students bullying teachers. Of these incidents, thirty-eight percent of those teachers bullied stated that the attacks reduced their confidence and self-esteem. One quarter of those cyberbullied teachers also reported feeling ill or stressed as the result.

In addition, critics argue there is insufficient evidence that dangers to students online are significantly worse than offline. As Document F contends, bullying and harassment have existed for centuries, long before the internet. Punishing online speech unfairly singles out the newest medium of expression.

For example according to a court case involving K.K. v Berkeley Schools, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, July 27, 2011 (“DOC C”) “KK” a 12th-grade student from Musselman High School, used her home computer to create a discussion group on Myspace that accused "SN" a classmate of being sexually promiscuous. One hundred classmates were invited to participate. The victim "SN" filed a harassment lawsuit with the school. KK was suspended from school as the result. Despite KK’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, July 27, 2011(“DOC D”) sided with the school saying that "KK" actions were disruptive to school safety and the learning environment.

In “ACLU Statement Submitted to a [United States’ Congressional] Subcommittee Hearing on Cyberbullying (“DOC F”) the ACLU states that it is opposed to congressional action advocating school policies that would limit online free speech for students. The ACLU goes on to say that there is very little research to suggest the dangers to young people are dramatically worse online than offline. It concludes that congressional action leading to limiting the speech rights of people would “violate our constitutional framework.”

Moreover, limiting students' ability to criticize schools online goes against the principles of free expression. As seen in Document D, allowing schools to act as thought police by monitoring everything students say about them online, even in personal contexts, infringes on students' constitutional rights. 

The US Department of Education Department Division for Civil Rights (“DOC G”) is advising state departments of education and local school districts that certain types of student misconduct may violate federal antidiscrimination laws. Harassing conduct through online sources may violate federal law when the conduct is based on race, color, national origin, gender, disability, or same-sex harassment. It concludes by saying that schools are responsible for addressing harassment incidents that are known or should be reasonably known.

While cyberbullying is a concern, allowing schools broad authority to restrict off-campus speech sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, schools should address harmful speech through education, not punishment. The evidence shows that keeping student expression free, even online, should take priority over targeting speech schools simply dislike.