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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT