Posted by number.61 at 3/5/08 12:57 p.m.

The school has no right to do anything to this student, if the student posted this blog entry off of school grounds and not on school equipment (but even that is a stretch.)

But for the sake let's say this was done at her home. She wrote her blog entry outside of school, and the blog is hosted on servers not funded or owned by the school district. If everything was done from the outside the school should not have the reason to do anything.

Now if this blog was hosted on school equipment and written during school hours then they might have more leg room to dictate. But this is not the case.

More importantly, how is "douchebag" considered a bad word?

Posted by Will in Seattle at 3/5/08 1:08 p.m.

Last time I checked we had constitutional rights. I hope the ACLU sues on behalf of this teen and forces the school to realize it stepped over the boundary in what it did.

If we wanted to live in Soviet Amerika we'd vote for Bush-McCain.

Posted by SuO at 3/5/08 1:15 p.m.

It says in the AP story that she wrote it from her home computer. This seems like a really bad ruling and precedent to me. How can one really judge the 'likeliness' something will be read by a certain audience on something like a blog. But putting that aside, even if a lot of the students read it, doesn't she have the right to express her discontent with the school administration? So if I post Bush is a jerk on my blog am I now going to be picked up by the FBI?

Posted by msnicki at 3/5/08 2:41 p.m.

This sounds like a case where truth should be a complete defense. From all appearances, the administrators for that school really are douche bags! She was simply telling it as it is.

Note to those douche bags: If your skin is so thin you can't stand the heat (criticism from your students) get out of the kitchen (go get a different job.)

Posted by rtj68 at 3/5/08 3:01 p.m.

Why on earth should the school not have the right to do this? They didn't restrict the student from saying what she said, they simply reacted to it. They're free to choose who is and is not eligible to run for student office. Why should we reward a foul-mouthed knucklehead of a student who uses the Bill of Rights as a shield to hide behind when she puts her stupidity, lack of common sense, and crass behavior on display for the world to see?

Posted by unregistered user at 3/5/08 3:20 p.m.

The same bill of rights that right-wing knuckleheads hide behind when new gun-laws are proposed? That's what I thought.

This will probably end up like the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case that was ruled on by the SUPREMEly right-wing COURT last year. They seem to think that students have very few rights when it comes to critisizing the schools, teachers, or administrators.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/5/08 3:42 p.m.

Of course, you all have the facts wrong. Read the decision of the lower court to get the real facts. She was not allowed to run again for student counsel; she wasn't suspended or disciplined. Big difference between getting an education and after-school privileges.

But Think about this: Suppose the student walked 50 feet off-campus and handed out flyers with the same expression and bought billboards in town saying the same thing - would the school really be forced to live with it? What if a football captain said he coached "sucked". Couldn't the coach remove him from the team?

Posted by andythibault at 3/5/08 4:45 p.m.

oops, i think i messed up those links ...
here's another shot

For The Record: "As Of Now, Jamfest Is Cancelled"
www.cooljustice.blogspot.com/2008/03/for

-reocrd-as-of-now-jamfest-is

Sister Courage V. The Douche Bags
www.cooljustice.blogspot.com/2008/03/sis

ter-courage-v-douche-bags

Posted by unregistered user at 3/6/08 5:11 a.m.

Those posts are not correct. Read the decision for yourself. You'll see that the event was never canceled and that the judge didn't believe the student. Get the facts, not the rumors.

http://www.splc.org/pdf/doningerdenial.pdf