default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Lodi Unified School District opens a constitutional can of worms

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2013 12:00 am

Officials of the Lodi Unified School District may have walked into another hornet’s nest of constitutional controversy. Could their latest “social networking” policy now lead to expensive litigation?

One school official said, “I think it (the policy) was made with good intentions.”

Unfortunately, we are all familiar with the axiom that describes where “good intentions” eventually lead.

The most famous Supreme Court holding regarding student free speech is taught in every law school: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969).

The case was about school authorities adopting a policy that banned student armbands. Kids were protesting American military operations in Vietnam. The policy required suspension from school until the youth in question returned without the supposedly offensive symbol.

Justice Fortas delivered the majority opinion. In part, this is what he had to say:

“It can hardly be argued that either teachers or students shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate ... Our problem lies in the area where students in the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of school authorities ... Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to ‘pure speech.’”

Justice Fortas continued: “In order for the state in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression or opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular viewpoint.”

Another Supreme Court case, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), involved a student who made an assembly speech that was perceived as being “lewd” by school officials. This time, the Court seemed to narrow the definition of free speech in a public school setting.

Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court. In part, he states: “But these fundamental values (free speech) ... must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”

Obviously, the Supreme Court cases summarized here — among others — were decided well before social media was on the scene. This is still a contentious area that remains open to review by future judicial holdings.

A real problem for LUSD is that most of their social media activity policy appears to be quite vulnerable and subject to capricious interpretation. Their scope of jurisdiction remains an issue as well.

But what if a student signs a “policy” contract and agrees to forfeit free speech rights? Should any student be required to sign away First Amendment rights in order to participate in a public school-sponsored activity? Also, is a “contract” really a legally binding document for any student before the age of majority?

The points of summation here are simply this: Do the Lodi Unified School District and other local school agencies really want to continue with controversial policies that will almost assuredly raise First Amendment issues in a court of law? Are these officials willing to potentially spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for possible litigation that could result in student civil rights violations?

Of course, the issue of media free speech is far more complicated that what I have described here, and this column is not meant to be construed as legal advice. No one should act or rely on the information or opinion expressed herein without the advice of an attorney.

But perhaps Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, expressed it best as reported in the Lodi News Sentinel. To paraphrase: It makes more sense for school administrators to notify the students’ parents of inappropriate media content and let them take action.

After all — and with little controversy — who really holds the purse strings and legal authority over these technological social media devices used by kids?

Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer.

More about

More about

More about

Reference Links

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

1 comment:

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:00 am on Thu, Aug 8, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I certainly don't claim to know the law, but since this policy (from what I've read) only applies to members of clubs and athletic teams, it seems to be basically discriminatory.

    Unless it is applied across the board, it is not a valid policy.

    Imagine if an employer instituted a policy of this sort that only applied to a certain class of employees, i.e., only for hourly employees and not for salaried employees. I doubt it would stand for long.


Recent Comments

Posted 17 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

Joanne Its so good to see your name on these boards again. I miss your insightful commentary. Don't stay away [thumbup]


Posted 17 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

Great Letter Eric [thumbup]


Posted 19 hours ago by Steve Schmidt.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

Obama is a socialist in the same sense that Mitt Romney is a fascist.


Posted 20 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

"Conservatives as the culprits in ever human evil that has befallen mankind. THAT is the legacy our political leadership (both Parties…


Posted 20 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

So you're part of that 30%? You (and the rest of your percentage) hate him because his father was black and his mother was white. You thi…



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists