Posts Tagged ‘Tyler Clementi’

Naomi Goodno: How Public Schools Can Constitutionally Halt Cyberbullying

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Naomi Goodno of the Pepperdine University School of Law has posted to SSRN How Public Schools Can Constitutionally Halt Cyberbullying: A Model Cyberbullying Policy that Survives First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Due Process Challenges.

Here’s the abstract:

There have been all too many recent cases where children are taking their lives because of cyberbullying. One hearbreaking case involved Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers University freshman, who leaped to his death after his roommate secretly taped him having a “sexual encounter” with another young man and posted it on the Internet. Schools, courts, and legislatures are struggling with how to deal with such tragedies.

Imagine two public school students, Joe and Jane. Joe punches Jane during class. The school is certainly within its legal rights to discipline Joe. Assume, instead, Joe punches Jane while both are walking home from school. The school cannot discipline Joe because the act took place off-campus. Now, assume instead, that Joe, while at home and using his own laptop, creates a website about Jane stating that he wished she were dead and inviting other students to join in with him to punch Jane. Over one hundred students log on to and blog about Joe’s website. Jane finds out about it and is too scared to attend school. If no assault of Jane takes place at school, can the school do anything? Can the school discipline Joe for his off-campus behavior? If the school does take action, would that violate Joe’s First Amendment right to free speech? Can the school search Joe’s personal laptop when he brings it to school, or would that violate Joe’s Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures? Indeed, should the school do anything at all?

These are the questions facing legislatures, courts and public schools, and there are no laws or cases that give succinct answers. This article analyzes current precedent and provides guidance on how these issues can be approached. It tackles three of the biggest constitutional challenges: how to create a public school cyberbullying policy that ensures schools are safe without trampling on students’ First Amendment, due process, and Fourth Amendment rights.

This article proposes a novel analysis concerning the First Amendment issue. In order to protect students’ right to free speech, courts and school officials should first consider the reach of a public school’s jurisdiction to regulate speech that occurs off-campus. Even if jurisdiction is proper, the school must also analyze whether it can regulate the substance of the speech. Next the article tackles the due process issues and problems with vague and overbroad constitutional challenges. Finally, the article addresses when school officials can search a student’s personal electronic device when there is suspicion of cyberbullying. No other article has fully addressed this set of constitutional issues.

As part of this analysis, I have drafted a proposed cyberbullying policy that would likely survive constitutional scrutiny.

Is the Tyler Clementi Act a Threat to Free Speech?

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

David French in the National Review Online argues that the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act (H.R. 6425) is a threat to free speech.

As I mentioned previously, the bill specifically targets cyberbullying and includes blogging activity within its coverage. My discussion of the bill is here.

French’s argument is that the bill has First Amendment problems because it lacks a requirement that the harassment be “objectively offensive.”

I see his point, but I think he’s off the mark. The text of the bill requires that the harassment be:

sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive so as to limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from a program or activity at an institution of higher education, or to create a hostile or abusive educational environment at an institution of higher education

That seems to me to be limiting enough to protect legitimate expressive interests. At the same time it seems specifically tailored to protecting a person’s ability to benefit from a federally funded educational program.

In fact, the bill’s current limitations seem to be more protective of free speech interests than an “objectively offensive” requirement would be by itself.

An objectively offensive requirement would presumably make a jury issue out of how far the content of the speech deviates from community norms. That sounds to me like a device that could marginalize minority viewpoints and cause more First Amendment problems than it solves.

At any rate, I certainly disagree with French’s assertion that the law’s “primary effect will be a greater chill on free expression.” I think the primary effect would be communicating to gay students society’s revulsion at gay-bashing, as well as our commitment to allowing all students, regardless of sexual orientation, to benefit from America’s educational opportunities.

Federal Law Would Require Colleges to Prohibit Harassment by Blog

Tuesday, November 30th, 2010

U.S. Capitol dome in daytimeIn response to the suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) have introduced in Congress the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act, H.R. 6425.

Clementi killed himself by jumping from the George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River after fellow students secretly videotaped an intimate encounter Clementi had with another man and uploaded it to the internet.

The bill specifically targets cyberbullying and thereby brings within its ambit blogging.

If enacted as law, H.R. 6425 would require higher-ed institutions, as a condition of participating in federal financial aid programs, to prohibit “harassment” of students by faculty, staff, and other students, whether that harassment is done on or off campus, and it would include harassment through the use of university computer networks.

Under the bill, “harassment” is defined as:

conduct, including acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility (including conduct that is undertaken in whole or in part, through the use of electronic messaging services, commercial mobile services, electronic communications, or other technology) that –

(I) is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive so as to limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from a program or activity at an institution of higher education, or to create a hostile or abusive educational environment at an institution of higher education; and

(II) is based on a student’s actual or perceived — race; color; national origin; sex; disability; sexual orientation; gender identity; or religion.

[
some signposting removed]

The bill would also establish a grant program for activities aimed at preventing harassment.

I’m not sure how much good this law would do. Will people sufficiently evil to do what was done to Tyler Clementi be deterred by a campus policy? It seems unlikely. But since you can’t legislate tolerance and compassion, I suppose you do what you can do. If nothing else, a new federal law would be an expression that our society’s self-ascribed moral character is incompatible with bullying young people on the basis of sexual orientation.

More: OpenCongress, NJ.com