ILNews

A 21st century expression of the law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

The expulsion of three eighth-grade girls for Facebook posts deemed threatening and “cyber-bullying” is being challenged in a lawsuit that attracted national attention and generated its own expression: “The emoticon defense.”

In announcing its federal suit, the ACLU of Indiana said the students’ First Amendment right to free speech was violated and that Griffith Public Schools in northwestern Indiana did not meet legal tests for expulsion.

“The emoticon defense” was coined after part of the basis for the suit included claims that emoticons – expressions formed by a combination of keystrokes – gave a joking context to the posts.

“The students’ Facebook comments, which took place after school on their personal electronic devices, were clearly meant to be humorous, as evidenced by their repeated use of emoticons such as ;) and abbreviations such as LOL and LMFAO, and caused no disruption at school,” the ACLU of Indiana said in a statement announcing the suit on April 25.

Rose Rose

Few cases have cited emoticons, and ACLU of Indiana attorney Gavin Rose acknowledged that the suit was bound to generate headlines. But he bristles at the “emoticon defense” label.

“I consider it to be a nice little jingle but a tremendous oversimplification of the legal issues in this case,” Rose said. Those include how far a school district may go in disciplining students for things they say or post online away from school grounds, on their own time and their own devices.

“Schools do not possess infinite reach into the private lives of their students,” the ACLU said in a statement.

The students were suspended and later expelled after parents brought copies of Facebook posts to the attention of Griffith school administrators.

According to the Times of Northwestern Indiana, the Facebook posts were viewable by about 70 people in the girls’ friends circle. The Times reported the following excerpts, sprinkled with emoticons, LOLs and the like:

Girl 2: thee only people that make me mad, are 7th graders who dont move out of thee way. & ugly people liike (name) (name) (name) (name) (name)...etc. (sic)

Girl 1: I would say kill all the ugly people at school than. But I don’t wanna die.

And later:

Girl 3: i wanna kill people.

Girl 2: ii wiish yu wouldnt get caught, cos … half thee school would be gone by now...

Girl 1: I need new best friends. All of mine are homicidal.

Despite the attention the “emoticon defense” received, the case also demonstrates the legal complications that Indiana school administrators face when parents, students or teachers report troubling online comments they consider cyber-bullying.

State law sets two tests for removing students for their conduct. A student may be suspended or expelled if his or her activity is unlawful or interferes with school purposes or functions; or if the student’s removal is necessary to restore order or protect people on school property.

Rose said Griffith officials didn’t meet those tests. The suit asks for a judicial declaration that the girls’ First Amendment rights were violated, an injunction removing the discipline from their records, and monetary damages.

Officials from Griffith Public Schools and the schools’ attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Madeira Madeira

Jody Madeira is an expert on children and the law and an associate professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law. She said interpreting emoticons is a dicey proposition.

Madeira said an attorney could argue “that the use of emoticons even makes it more depraved. … How can they smile and laugh about these things?”

Emoticons and online lingo are subjective, she said. “This is how people talk online,” she said. “It doesn’t mean anything.”

Madeira said a larger issue is that cyber-bullying is changing how courts rule when school discipline is challenged. The standard of upholding discipline for a student whose action disrupts school is evolving toward a standard of upholding discipline if the action disrupts any student’s educational experience, she said.

Disciplining students for Facebook posts, particularly those outside school property, has vexed school administrators, said Dave Emmert, general counsel for the Indiana School Boards Association.

He dismisses the idea that a taunt or threat can be erased when followed with an electronic wink or smiley face.

“School officials after Columbine are just so concerned about their duty of reasonable care to protect other students,” Emmert said. “If they’re going to err, they’re going to err on the side of safety.”

Emmert last year wrote an article for the School Boards Association Journal titled, “Why Can Indiana Students Bully, Cheat, and Do Other Disruptive Things on the Internet (and Get Away With It)?”

Emmert, a former teacher, said that because state code stipulates an off-campus activity must be unlawful for a student to be suspended or expelled, schools have little legal cover for expulsion over online posts, no matter how distasteful or provocative.

Emmert said parents take cyber-bullying seriously and expect school principals and superintendents to do the same. He said some parents even have turned in their own children after discovering troubling online posts.

School administrators, Emmert said, “catch hell for arguably not protecting” when a student’s bullying or threatening posts are brought to the school’s attention.

State law requires all school districts to have bullying policies, including for school-owned computers and electronic devices, but the law is mute on what constitutes “cyber-bullying.”

Emmert’s article got the attention of Indiana Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, who last year authored House Bill 1169 that sought to remove “unlawful” from the Indiana Code as a criterion for disciplining students. Emmert and Koch said the bill would have given schools greater discretion to remove students for cyber-bullying.

Koch’s bill passed the House but not the Senate. It will be discussed as part of a summer study committee on education reform.

Koch said he’s heard from school administrators who feel handcuffed in disciplining students for their social media posts.

“They are seeking flexibility but also legal certainty,” Koch said. “And I think that legal certainty is also deserved by the students who are subject to these rules.”

Justin Patchin, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center and an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, said he believes if someone is targeted by bullying posts, it doesn’t matter if a smiley face follows.

“The argument being made that I didn’t really buy is that because the threat included LOL or emoticons, it makes it OK,” Patchin said.

But could an emoticon turn a case?

In a 2009 Nebraska case, a man found guilty of use of a computer to entice a child or a peace officer believed to be a child for sexual purposes appealed his conviction and cited an emoticon in his defense. The man had been convicted of making online sexual advances to someone he believed to be a 15-year-old girl.

An officer who had posed as the teen used an emoticon expressing anger after the man initially declined to arrange a meeting. The man claimed entrapment. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the man’s conviction.

In the Griffith case, emoticons are just a part of the tone of the online chatter. Another is how teens communicate.

“It was innocent from our point of view – the kind of conversation that 13- to 14-year-olds have been having forever,” Rose said. “The only difference being, this was out there for the world to see.”

Emmert recalled teaching high school before social media, cyber-bullying and emoticons. Teens said and did outrageous things then, too, he said.

“They don’t know what the heck they’re doing,” Emmert said.

The ACLU suit is S.M., et al. v. Griffith Public Schools, No. 2:12-CV-160, in the Hammond Division of the Northern District of Indiana.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT