Student Faces Criminal Charges For Teacher Jokes

[The Green Lantern]

GOOD for him!!!!......MySpace.com is Gheto!!! I would do the same if someone uses my name and pics without my knowledge and approval.

[f5fstop]

School should not get involved with a suspension. However, defamation is defamation, it is time parents understood what their kids are doing, and that includes the Internet. Kid may just learn a valuable lesson.

[Sewie]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

School should not get involved with a suspension. However, defamation is defamation, it is time parents understood what their kids are doing, and that includes the Internet. Kid may just learn a valuable lesson.

Agreed.

Davis said he only wrote that Muzzillo lost an eye wrestling with alligators and midgets.

But that's funny right there.

[PARAGON]

Are you kidding me? He's still a kid. They defame other's character everyday. Sometimes justly and unjustly. School suspension has now become the replacement for discipline.

Yeah, the kid can learn a lesson. But he's being taught the wrong one. It's not defamation if no possible harm to one's character or reputation occurs. If derogatory remarks are so outlandish as to not be believable, then they do not amount to defamation.

Being the brunt of a joke does not amount to being defamed.

[f5fstop]

Agreed, kids to defame people everyday. However, they defamed a teacher on a public website. I'm not saying the kid should be forced to work his life to pay for a court judgment, in fact, since he is a minor, mom and dad will have to pay it (if awarded). I'm not even saying the guy should win any money, but I bet mommy and daddy will be more observant of what little Johnny posts on the web from this day forward.
It's one thing to imply to another kid that teacher ** is gay, but to imply this on a public website is, in my humble opinion, over the line.

[evldave]

I dunno. Where do you draw the line? If you've got a blog (which is essentially what myspace is), you can't voice your opinion? It's essentially restriction of free speech because someone (the teacher) doesn't like what they (the student) has to say.

From what I remember in my pre-law days (a long long time ago in a galaxy far away), you have to prove a tangible 'loss' as a result of this. Given that pretty much everyone who actually uses or knows anything about myspace knows its the world's biggest clusterf*ck of ideas/opinions, I can't see the teacher winning the suit.

Here's a good one for you: If the student had voiced his opinion to some friends at home, filmed it, then posted the video on the internet via google to another friend somewhere far away to view, would it also be justified to sue him? I think courts or the legislature are going to have a hard time distinguishing between the public/private/blog aspect of defamation/libel/slander soon...

[MovinH2]

Originally Posted by f5fstop

School should not get involved with a suspension. However, defamation is defamation, it is time parents understood what their kids are doing, and that includes the Internet. Kid may just learn a valuable lesson.

X2

[bparker]

What happened to free speech? Do we yet again forget the valuable supreme court case People vs Larry Flint?

[f5fstop]

There are limits to free speech. You can't threaten someone's life, you can't yell fire in a theater, and you face civil charges for defamation of character. I don't believe Larry Flint was defaming anyone, he was publishing photos of willing people, and the religious right did not like it.
However, SCOTUS ruled in Roth v. United States (in 1957) that 'obscene' material has no protection under the First Amendment. According to the Court, the guarantees of the freedom of expression were never meant to be absolute protection for every possible utterance of any sort - therefore, some standards are reasonable to set.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the court ruled, "Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved."

We will probably never know what finally happens in this case.

[bparker]

But I thought he was defaming Rev Jerry Fartwell =) Wasnt that the point of the case?

Originally Posted by f5fstop

I don't believe Larry Flint was defaming anyone

[ratesguy]

Yeah, I think he had a cartoon of Fallwell getting teh buttsecks and Fallwell sued for defamation. That case was not an obscenity case, but rather a case of satire vs. defamation. Fallwell lost. Also, all of you out there sure better monitor your kids postings and use of myspace. Bad things go on there, and bad people (pervs) hang out there. Spoken as the father of a 16 y/o girl and 14 y/o boy, not as a perv. I really don't think the teacher has a case, though. It sounds like satire or some such. Not cool tho.