Student wins appeal in "obscene" MySpace case; Court says it's free speech.

[LiberalHeart]

I'm all for free speech, of course -- but this ruling doesn't make sense to me. The kid posted a MySpace page that was "expletive-laden" and presented it as something authored by her school principal. I don't see how doing that (when using his identity) can fall under free speech protections:

http://newsgrinder.blogspot.com/2007/04/appeals-court-decides-obscene-myspace.html

[Djinn]

1. Simple

Only a total moron would have really believed that the page was authored by the principal - it was, to anyone in possesion of an IQ above room temp, clearly satire making a political point about the school's policy.

The ruling sensibly overturns an earlier courts decision to put someone on probation because they wrote some rude words about their school.

[LiberalHeart]

4. Reverse it.

If the principal had posted a page under her name his butt would be in very hot water. If would not be free speech, even if the purpose of his post was to defend the body piercing policy (the criteria by which her post was moved into the free speech column).

I didn't see the page in question, but I have seen a lot of postings on MySpace that would appear to be so over the top they couldn't be real -- even though they are. I worked on an investigation of sexual predators on MySpace and found some astonishingly stupid statements on their pages. In one case, a guy was talking about sex with his toddler daughter. His offense had been committed against a child. I would not look at a page said to be authored by a principal and automatically assume it was posted by a student and I do not lack a sense of humor.

[Djinn]

7. You didn't see the page in question

Yet think this girl should have been charged for speech?

[Richard Steele]

2. The ORIGINAL ruling made less sense.

They CLAIMED her actions would have been a long list of crimes,
had she been an adult. But then they DROPPED all those potential
criminal charges....and found her "guilty" anyway. Kafkaesque much?

Viewed on it's merits, I think the case against her is covered by the
precedent set in Falwell vs. Flynt: Although she presented her
statement AS IF it came from the Principal, no reasonably competent
person could be expected to believe that it was anything but a
blatant-upon-its-face SATIRE.

Mean, immature, hurtful? Sure.
Libel? Not a chance in hell.

She never intended to DECEIVE anyone into believing her Principal
actually posted an obscenity-laced screed on her MySpace page; she
REASONABLY believed that those reading it would -NOT- assume that
it had actually been written by her Principal.

[sandnsea]

3. satire

political cartoons. If this girl couldn't do whatever she did, then cartoonists wouldn't be able to draw political figures saying various things either.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Yet another travesty in Family Court

perhaps the judge should get the same treatment as the principal.

[DeSwiss]

6. LiberalHeart, the reason its protected speech is....

...because the policy on body-piercing (this focus in this case), was public school policy, therefore making it public policy. The "expletive-laden" speech was a disparagement of that policy and thus comes under the 1st Amendment right to "redress grievances" that we may have against our government.

When the "policy maker" is a president, we eviscerate the president, because that the person with the responsibility for enforcement. When the public policy is enforced by a principal, that's the person against whom the complaint is lodged. The use of parody, satire and other similar forms of ridicule to make a political point is a long-standing and accepted device. Even when using expletives to make one's point.

In this case, the right to free speech is even more important since by definition, juveniles can't directly influence public policy decision under whose authority they fall. We "adults" may vote against a policy-maker we disagree with or despise, they can't. Making for them having at least the right to complain about even more precious.....

IMHO

~DeSwiss

[Neshanic]

8. Obviously an activist judge that thinks that PC is not important.