Teh One Who Knocks
08-25-2011, 10:18 PM
BY Lindsay Goldwert - NY DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
http://i.imgur.com/aqxl9.jpg
An Indiana judge has made a school board look like a bunch of suckers.
Three female teen athletes had their First Amendment rights violated when they were banned from extracurricular volleyball after raunchy slumber party photos, including pictures of the girls sucking on phallic-shaped lollipops and simulating sex with each other, ended up on MySpace, Facebook and other social media outlets.
The school principal told the girls that they had violated a school code by bringing discredit or dishonor to their school and were suspended from volleyball games and practice activities for the remainder of the year after the incident.
A parent of another student brought the photos to the principal's attention and demanded that action be taken against the girls.
Judge Philip Simon concluded that the photographs, although juvenile and silly, were covered under the category of free speech and therefore protected by the Constitution.
The girls claimed the photos were meant to be "funny" and shared with their friends only.
The judge agreed.
"Ridiculousness and inappropriateness are often the very foundation of humor," he wrote. " The provocative context of these young girls horsing around with objects representing sex organs was intended to contribute to the humorous effect in the minds of the intended teenage audience.
But he strongly disagreed with the school's assertion that the photographs qualified as "sexual misconduct" under Indiana law, since there was no actual nudity.
The judge made the point that the girls posted the photos on Facebook for their friends to see – not to display to the entire school.
"It is undisputed that the photographs did in fact make it into the school," Philips wrote. "While this may be true, it's beside the point. [The suspended students didn't bring] the material into the school environment. Others did."
Simon concluded that what happened at a sleepover party was allowed to stay there but that the principal not be subject to damages "because, though mistaken, his judgment could reasonably have been thought to be consistent with the students' rights."
"I wish the case involved more important and worthwhile speech on the part of the students, but then of course a school's well-intentioned but unconstitutional punishment of that speech would be all the more regrettable," the judge concluded.
"Not much good takes place at slumber parties for high school kids, and this case proves the point," he said.
A lawsuit filed by parents of the suspended girls against the school district is still pending.
http://i.imgur.com/aqxl9.jpg
An Indiana judge has made a school board look like a bunch of suckers.
Three female teen athletes had their First Amendment rights violated when they were banned from extracurricular volleyball after raunchy slumber party photos, including pictures of the girls sucking on phallic-shaped lollipops and simulating sex with each other, ended up on MySpace, Facebook and other social media outlets.
The school principal told the girls that they had violated a school code by bringing discredit or dishonor to their school and were suspended from volleyball games and practice activities for the remainder of the year after the incident.
A parent of another student brought the photos to the principal's attention and demanded that action be taken against the girls.
Judge Philip Simon concluded that the photographs, although juvenile and silly, were covered under the category of free speech and therefore protected by the Constitution.
The girls claimed the photos were meant to be "funny" and shared with their friends only.
The judge agreed.
"Ridiculousness and inappropriateness are often the very foundation of humor," he wrote. " The provocative context of these young girls horsing around with objects representing sex organs was intended to contribute to the humorous effect in the minds of the intended teenage audience.
But he strongly disagreed with the school's assertion that the photographs qualified as "sexual misconduct" under Indiana law, since there was no actual nudity.
The judge made the point that the girls posted the photos on Facebook for their friends to see – not to display to the entire school.
"It is undisputed that the photographs did in fact make it into the school," Philips wrote. "While this may be true, it's beside the point. [The suspended students didn't bring] the material into the school environment. Others did."
Simon concluded that what happened at a sleepover party was allowed to stay there but that the principal not be subject to damages "because, though mistaken, his judgment could reasonably have been thought to be consistent with the students' rights."
"I wish the case involved more important and worthwhile speech on the part of the students, but then of course a school's well-intentioned but unconstitutional punishment of that speech would be all the more regrettable," the judge concluded.
"Not much good takes place at slumber parties for high school kids, and this case proves the point," he said.
A lawsuit filed by parents of the suspended girls against the school district is still pending.