Court confirms rule that public school students have less First Amendment protection

David L. Hudson reports:

A middle school student suspended for 10 days for creating a fake MySpace profile featuring vulgar, lewd comments about her principal has lost her free-speech lawsuit in federal district court in Pennsylvania.

The student, known in court papers as J.S. because she’s a juvenile, created with her friend K.L. a MySpace profile page of James McGonigle, principal of Blue Mountain Middle School in Orwigsburg, Pa. The students created the page on the popular social network at J.S.’s home in March 2007 because they were upset at being cited by McGonigle for dress-code violations. The profile made numerous false statements about the principal, including describing him as a pedophile who enjoyed pornography. . . .

U.S. District Judge James M. Munley ruled Sept. 11 in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District that the principal did not violate the First Amendment because J.S.’s Web page was vulgar and lewd. He reasoned that “the Tinker analysis … is not always applicable to freedom of speech in public school settings.”

“The speech does not make any type of political statement,” Munley wrote. “It is merely an attack on the school’s principal. It makes him out to be a pedophile and sex addict. This speech is not the Tinker silent political protest. It is more akin to the lewd and vulgar speech addressed in Fraser.”

Munley found additional support from the Supreme Court’s most recent decision on student speech, Morse v. Frederick (2007). In Morse, a public school principal suspended a student for unveiling a banner on a public street across from campus with the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The Court ruled that public school officials may punish students for engaging in speech that officials reasonably believe advocates illegal drug use.

The first point -- that it is not a "political" (or other protected) statement subject to First Amendment protection just to trash someone, especially with false accusations of a factual nature -- is applicable to bloggers, of course.

The second point, regarding the special privilege school officials have to supervise students' free speech as it affects school matters, is of course relevant only to the minority of bloggers who are of school age.

This case does not break new ground, but it's a good reminder of those two basic principles about the power of principals.