Students sue over pics

November 2, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Perhaps this suit can be a lesson to the generation growing up with MySpace, Facebook, and cell phones: What you post online can come back to haunt you.

Two high school sophomores in northern Indiana are suing their principal and the school corporation because they were suspended from some extracurricular activities and had to attend mental health counseling because of pictures posted on MySpace.

These two girls, and some other friends, put on lingerie, tucked dollar bills into their clothes, and posed with phallus-shaped lollipops because they thought it would be funny. It would be even funnier to post them online for all their MySpace “friends” to see.

Someone tipped off the school’s principal about the pictures, and he suspended them from some after-school activities, including athletics, and made them participate in three counseling sessions to lessen their punishment.

The principal has the authority to do this based on the school corporation’s code of conduct.

The students say the punishment for activity that happened outside of school and in no way identified the school violated their First Amendment rights. They want this to be a class action suit with the court entering a permanent injunction to prevent the principal from punishing students for out-of-school conduct and to expunge this incident from the plaintiffs’ records.

Do the students have a legitimate case against the school and principal when the school’s code of conduct says the principal has the authority to exclude any student-athlete if conduct out of school reflects poorly on the school? Can schools punish students for online posts when you can’t immediately tell which school the student is affiliated with?

Something else that jumped out in the suit: The students are now “extremely reluctant” to post pictures on their MySpace pages or share pictures, e-mails, or other communications with their friends because of fear that will lead to further punishment, even if they don’t interfere with the school. That’s a good thing. A lot of people, especially kids who don’t know a world without the Internet, don’t realize that posting questionable photos or comments online can come back to haunt you.

It’s one thing for a sophomore girl, who’s probably 15 when these photos were taken, to post a picture of her and her friends at a slumber party. It’s another thing when those pictures involve underage girls in lingerie and holding penis-shaped lollipops. Could that be considered child pornography?
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
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT