ILNews

Judge: Students’ off-campus Internet photos protected by First Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has ruled that a northern Indiana school district shouldn’t have disciplined two high school girls who posted racy online photos of themselves posing with phallic lollipops and simulating sexual acts because the pictures were outside of school and are protected by the First Amendment.

The case tests whether school administrators can stretch beyond campus limits and regulate out-of-school conduct. U.S. Chief Judge Philip Simon in the Northern District of Indiana ruled Wednesday in T.V. and M.K. v. Smith-Green Community School Corp. and Austin Couch, No. 1:09-cv-00290.

The two girls, ages 15 and 16, were sophomores at Churubusco High School when the incident happened during the summer of 2009. The girls were at two different sleepovers with friends when they took pictures of themselves pretending to kiss or lick a large multi-colored novelty phallus-shaped lollipop, as well as pictures of themselves in lingerie with dollar bills tucked into their clothing. They posted the pictures on their Myspace and Facebook pages, which were visible to their online friends.

Though the girls didn’t bring the pictures to the 400-person school, other parents and staff members brought the online images to the attention of the superintendent and principal on claims they were disrupting and causing concern in the school. Smith-Green has an athletic and extracurricular Code of Conduct in place that bars students that participate in those activities from behaving in ways that may bring discredit to the school or disrupt school discipline, and in response Principal Austin Couch suspended them from extracurricular and co-curricular activities. He agreed to reduce the girls’ punishment by 25 percent if they attended counseling sessions and apologized to the athletic board. They agreed and received reduced punishment – missing six volleyball games.

Challenging that punishment, the girls’ parents filed the federal suit against the district claiming that the school’s policy is unconstitutional and needs to be altered or removed. In response to the lawsuit, Smith-Green has stated that the pictures were obscene and constituted child pornography and as such are not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Chief Judge Simon heard arguments on the case in late May and in his 38-page ruling Wednesday, he disagreed with the school and found the photos should be protected despite the suggestive and racy nature.

“The case poses timely questions about the limits school officials can place on out of school speech by students in the information age where Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, texts, and the like rule the day,” Chief Judge Simon wrote. “Let’s be honest about it: the speech in this case doesn’t exactly call to mind high-minded civic discourse about current events. And one could reasonably question the wisdom of making a federal case out of a 6-game suspension from a high school volleyball schedule. But for better or worse, that’s what this case is about and it is now ripe for disposition.”

Though the record supports the argument that the photos were juvenile and silly, Chief Judge Simon found the conduct was intended to be humorous to those teenagers who might view them online and that the Supreme Court of the United States has held that kind of “expressive” conduct is protected under the First Amendment. The judge ruled that the photos can’t be considered obscene or along the lines of sexual conduct, child exploitation, or child pornography, according to state or federal law.

While the SCOTUS hasn’t yet determined whether off-campus speech posted on the Internet that subsequently makes its way onto campus can be regulated by school officials, Chief Judge Simon looked to other federal courts that have assumed a 1969 precedent protecting that expressive conduct off campus applies in this situation.

The judge determined the school policies are vague and overbroad and are therefore unconstitutional in permitting discipline based on the principal’s conclusion that T.V. and M.K. had brought “discredit or dishonor” to themselves and the school. He issued an injunction against the school from enforcing that standard.

“I wish the case involved more important and worthwhile speech on the parts of the students, but then of course a school’s well-intentioned but unconstitutional punishment of that speech would be all the more regrettable," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Lighten up?
    Hey Jim, twas not my words, twas the words of the prosecutor at Nuremberg, a great former SCOTUS justice. He is turning in his grave at about 500 rpm given our current descent.
  • a follow up
    I used a fake name alright because advocates of traditional morality need to protect themselves from vindictive extreme leftists who want to defame and smear people who don't agree to unlimited sexual licentiousness. From experience I know. I've been called a bigot, racist, "repressed" and a lot of other things because I've made remarks that some people didn't like, and those people thought they could score points by insulting me rather than debating ideas. Its the problem with all this high falutin "tolerance" mumbo jumbo: it's mostly just "tolerance" for unlimited personal licentiousness, and never tolerance for anything some people don't like, such as traditional religious observances or public expressions of it. We all know that today's pro-obscenity First Amendment jurisprudence would have been a laugh in the first 175 years of the republic, and it was only the rising financial and social power of Marxism and its grandchild political correcntess that have caused a change. Truth is still truth, even if people don't like it. Naughty children should be disciplined and public expressions of explicity sexual conduct by minors should be detered and appropriately punished. Quite simply, those who organize to deter that, are in favor of the activity and not really protecting some supposed liberty as they may pretend.
  • Free Speech-4th Amendment
    Thanks for your courage in posting your real name "John". The case centers on whether a high school or high school principal has authority over children OFF CAMPUS. The presiding judge characterizes this situation accurately-the girls' actions were immature but they were not illegal under Indiana law. It's time that parents stop delegating unlimited powers to school employees so they can devote time and resources to curriculum and education (i.e. their jobs).
    • laws necessarily do impose morality
      Dont laws that prohibit sexual conduct-- and
      "simulated" sexual conduct-- "impose moral code" on people who think minors should engage in sex? In other words, morality is indeed the basis of law and it is foolish to set that up as any kind of illegitimate factor for law. Property rights, labor laws, obscenity, sex crimes, crimes of violance, all have moral and ethical dimensions. It is not a bad thing for law to "impose morality" it is indeed precisely why we have laws in the first place.
      • sick
        Minors do not and should not have the same free speech rights as adults. For minors to simulate fellatio on a lollipop is certainly within the reasonably disciplinary purview of a public school. Only now that the First Amendment has been so twisted out of its original intent can such a thing be deemed wrongful on the part of the Principal. The fellow should have been given a clap on the back and perhaps the parenst should have considered spankings instead of a lawsuit.
      • Lighten up, bryanjbrown
        Couldn't disagree more. Judge Simon is correct...the discourse is not high minded, and offensive to some, but it clearly is an overreach by the school, all parties should have met and come to a solution that everyone could live with, but in today's society, that does not happen. If I were the parent, would I have brought the suit...no, I would not have. It is a stupid case for the court to deal with, but First amendment protection is serious, and it is covered...order in Churubusco was not threatened in the slightest here. There are just some people who want to force people to behave according to their moral code, and they invoke words like "order, control, and chaos" to scare other people into agreeing that there should be all sorts of unecessary laws and rules that are not needed or wanted, and that supercede people's first amendment rights. Silly case, with parents and school (and bryan) all overreacting at one point or another.
        • A historic warning
          This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

          TERMINIELLO V. CITY OF CHICAGO , 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949)(Jackson, J., dissenting, joined by Burton, J.)(emphasis added)

        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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

        2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

        3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

        4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

        5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

        ADVERTISEMENT