In 2007, Katie Evans, then a student of Pembroke Pines Charter High School in Florida, ranted in Facebook about “the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” Evans eventually took the page down, but when the principal of the school, Peter Bayer, learned of the post, the latter removed Evans from her Advanced Placement classes and suspended her for three days. At the time, Evans was an honor student.
Later in 2008, Evans filed a complaint against her school principal, praying that the record of her suspension be expunged from her student file. Bayer sought the dismissal of the case. However, just last week, the lower court denied Bayer’s motion and ruled that Evans’ act constitutes an exercise of free speech and is protected under the First Amendment. And although the court denied Evans’ request for the purging of her school records of the suspension incident, it granted her the opportunity to amend her complaint to include the proper parties.
Reading the news article, I was reminded of the events that transpired in Malcolm during the last couple of months. Fortunately for us, none of the threats of suit that were made then didn’t materialize. But had they pushed through, perhaps we could learn a thing or two from the Evans case.
The line between libelous writing and free speech has always been thin and the demarcation only becomes more blurry with the advent of networking sites, like Facebook, that allow its users to “publish” sentiments that were so-called “private”. Tirades that used to be confined to face-to-face conversations and huddled conferences among friends are now posted in individual pages. And with the ubiquity and expansiveness of these networking sites, the possibility that these posts and outbursts may reach and be read by people outside the writer’s “circle of confidentiality” is exponentially enlarged. The issue between what is public and what is private comes to place, and both sides both have compelling arguments. But my take on this is similar to Sir Rudy’s. As he said, we should never put online anything which we might later on regret, and stuff that we wouldn’t want our mothers to see (Of course, some could argue that it still depends on what kind of mother one has, but I guess we all understood what Sir meant).
But we should take the US decision with a grain of salt. In said case, the suspension was imposed on Evans two months after she took down her post from Facebook. I wonder if the court would arrive at the same decision had the student kept the rants on her page. I am not aware of any jurisprudence of the same issue in the Philippines, but considering our justices’ propensity to quote US cases, I won’t be surprised if one day we also adopt the Evans decision in case it reaches the US Supreme Court.
Later in 2008, Evans filed a complaint against her school principal, praying that the record of her suspension be expunged from her student file. Bayer sought the dismissal of the case. However, just last week, the lower court denied Bayer’s motion and ruled that Evans’ act constitutes an exercise of free speech and is protected under the First Amendment. And although the court denied Evans’ request for the purging of her school records of the suspension incident, it granted her the opportunity to amend her complaint to include the proper parties.
Reading the news article, I was reminded of the events that transpired in Malcolm during the last couple of months. Fortunately for us, none of the threats of suit that were made then didn’t materialize. But had they pushed through, perhaps we could learn a thing or two from the Evans case.
The line between libelous writing and free speech has always been thin and the demarcation only becomes more blurry with the advent of networking sites, like Facebook, that allow its users to “publish” sentiments that were so-called “private”. Tirades that used to be confined to face-to-face conversations and huddled conferences among friends are now posted in individual pages. And with the ubiquity and expansiveness of these networking sites, the possibility that these posts and outbursts may reach and be read by people outside the writer’s “circle of confidentiality” is exponentially enlarged. The issue between what is public and what is private comes to place, and both sides both have compelling arguments. But my take on this is similar to Sir Rudy’s. As he said, we should never put online anything which we might later on regret, and stuff that we wouldn’t want our mothers to see (Of course, some could argue that it still depends on what kind of mother one has, but I guess we all understood what Sir meant).
But we should take the US decision with a grain of salt. In said case, the suspension was imposed on Evans two months after she took down her post from Facebook. I wonder if the court would arrive at the same decision had the student kept the rants on her page. I am not aware of any jurisprudence of the same issue in the Philippines, but considering our justices’ propensity to quote US cases, I won’t be surprised if one day we also adopt the Evans decision in case it reaches the US Supreme Court.
Source or article: www.miamiherald.com
Link: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/1482481.html
Image from http://unadulteratedtruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/no_free_speech.jpgBlog 12
3 comments:
hurray for free speech!!!
considering that many of our professors are now joining the bandwagon against Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits,i hope that particular incident you were referring to, will never happen again.
even if its not a lawsuit, any threat of administrative sanctions is no different. it is a SLAPP hiding under some other skin.
naku, ang lesson talaga is never post anything online na you would regret. some people would go on as far as deleting their facebook account before they apply to any job since there may be scandalous pics or comments that can easily be searched by an employer.
pero i agree. free speech. and before they file a lawsuit against whoever, i think easily we can gather people to standup against that.
Post a Comment