Cyberbullying and Other Electronic Misdeeds

cyberbullying Actions that involve the use of electronic means to torment, threaten, harass, humiliate, embarrass, or otherwise target another person. sexting The act of using a smartphone or comparable electronic device to transmit sexually explicit images of oneself to individuals known to or in contact with the sender. prohibited. In the absence of such good reasons for restraint, the students’ constitutional guarantees of free speech would apply. But as the preceding statements suggest, free expression in public schools has limits. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, the US Supreme Court confirmed that students may be punished for offensive or disruptive speech. In 2007, the Court added that administrators may prohibit a student from proclaiming statements such as “Bong Hits for Jesus” because they viewed this as promoting illegal drugs.27

Student publications may also raise problems. For example, in one case, school policy required the principal to review each proposed issue of The Spectrum, the school newspaper written by journalism students at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Missouri. The principal objected to two articles scheduled to appear in one issue. The principal claimed the articles were deleted not because of the subject matter but because he considered them poorly written, and there was insufficient time to rewrite them before the publication deadline.

Three student journalists sued, contending their freedom of speech had been violated. This case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, reached the US Supreme Court, which upheld the principal’s action. The justices found that The Spectrum was not a public forum; rather, it was a supervised learning experience for journalism students. As long as educators’ actions were related to “legitimate pedagogical concerns,” they could regulate the newspaper’s contents in any reasonable manner. The ruling further stated that a school could disassociate itself not only from speech that directly interfered with school activities but also from speech that was “ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased, prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences.” This decision was a clear restriction on student rights as previously understood.28

Controversies concerning publications written or distributed by students have prompted many school boards to develop regulations that can withstand judicial scrutiny. Generally, these rules specify a time, place, and manner of distribution; a method of advertising the rules to students; a prompt review process; and speedy appeal procedures. Students may not distribute literature that is by legal definition obscene or libelous, or that is likely to cause the substantial disruption specified in Tinker. School boards also have considerable leeway in determining whether nondisruptive material will be published in school newspapers and yearbooks. This chapter’s case study involves a teacher concerned about her responsibilities as the school newspaper adviser.

9-3b cyberbullying and other electronic Misdeeds

The Internet and the use of electronic devices have generated legal issues that educators will be contending with for a long time to come. Among the actions generating issues for educators are cyberbullying, disparagement of school or staff, gaining access to prohibited materials, and sexting. In the case of all four types of activity, students’ negative actions more often than not take place outside the school, although they

27Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986). See also Josh Dunn and Martha Derthick, “Doubtful Jurisprudence,” Education Next (Winter 2008), available at www .educationnext.org; Richard S. Vacca, “Student Expression and Assaultive Speech,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (March 2011), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu/publications /newsletters; and “Bethel V. Fraser and Morse V. Frederick,” 2015 posting by Shmoop, available at www.shmoop.com. 28Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 86-836 S. Ct. (1998). See also Richard S. Vacca, “Student Speech and Expression 2004,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (February 2004), available at www .cepi.vcu.edu/publications/newsletters; Perry A. Zirkel, “Bong Hits?” Phi Delta Kappan (October 2007), pp. 158–159; and “Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier,” 2014 posting by Shmoop, available at www.shmoop.com.