Zachariah Paul was a 17-year-old junior at Franklin Regional High School in Pennsylvania. He was on the track team and was upset with the athletic director, Robert Bozzuto, about some of the rules. In 1999, Zach wrote a top ten list at home about Mr. Bozzuto and emailed it to his friends. Another student saw it and made copies that he distributed at school—including in the teacher’s lounge.
Zach was called to the principal’s office where he admitted to creating the list but denied bringing it to school. This was not Zach’s first encounter with the principal. He had written other top ten lists and been warned of discipline if it occurred again. In one list, he described the school librarian as a “book Nazi” and suggested a prank of asking her for books about assembling bombs. The school suspended Zach for 10 days for verbal/written abuse of a staff member, and gave him five Saturday morning detentions. During his suspension he could not participate in any school related activities, including track and field events.
Zach and his mother filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking his immediate reinstatement in school. They claimed that his First Amendment right of free expression had been violated by suspending him for speech that was made off school grounds, in the privacy of his home. Zach was quoted saying, “What I say in my own home is my business.” The school argued that Zach was properly suspended for violating school policy by making offensive remarks about a school official. They claimed his top ten list was disruptive, lewd, and obscene.
How Would You Decide This Case?
Did Zach go too far in his comments about Mr. Bozzuto? Does it make any difference whether he created the list at home or at school? Should he be punished if another student brought it to school and passed it out? Once you write an email or a blog, are you responsible for its content forever? If not, where does your responsibility end? Should there be consequences for the student who copied the list and distributed it? School policy at Franklin High School allowed suspension for 1 to 10 days for violations of the conduct code. Did Zach’s email merit the maximum suspension?
What the Court Decided
Before Zach’s case was heard in federal court, a partial settlement was reached with the school district. Zach wanted to return to school to prepare for his AP exams and finals and to compete with his track team. Zach served 8 of the 10-day suspension, and he was then allowed to return to school. He agreed not to distribute any publications on campus in the future that were critical of the faculty or staff.
Prior to a court hearing regarding a school suspension or expulsion, a student has a due process right to be advised of the offense committed, and a right at the hearing to explain his or her side. In Zach’s case, he was not provided written notice of the suspension until requested by his mother at the hearing. He had no opportunity to prepare for the hearing. Thus, the court found that his due process rights were violated.
The court also determined that Tinker’s “substantial disruption” test (see pages 11–12) applied to Zach’s situation. Although Zach’s list was written at home and only sent to 20 friends, it was later brought on campus by an unknown person. However, no evidence showed actual disruption at school—teachers were not rendered incapable of teaching or controlling their classes because of the list. In fact, the list was on campus several days before the administration discovered it.
Moreover, according to the court, Zach’s speech may have upset Mr. Bozzuto, but it was not threatening. Some may have found it to be rude, abusive, or demeaning. However, disliking or being upset by the content of a student’s speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student expression.
The school argued that they expected some disruption because Mr. Bozzuto had a difficult time doing his job and the school librarian was almost in tears from the “book Nazi” list. The court, however, maintained that these events did not rise to the level of substantial disruption. Regarding the school’s claim that Zach’s speech was lewd and obscene, the court ruled that since the speech occurred off school grounds, the school was unable to discipline him. Apart from exceptional circumstances, the authority of school officials is limited to the “metes and bounds of the school itself.”
The court’s decision meant that suspending Zach for the creation of the Bozzuto top ten list violated the First Amendment. The lawsuit was settled with the school district paying Zach and his family $65,000.
How Does This Decision Affect You?
Don’t expect any privacy when you send an email—there isn’t any. Similar to what happened to Zach, your email may be printed and distributed or forwarded to others. In fact, a glitch in your computer may cause what you write to go out before you even hit “send.” As Ian Lake says (in chapter 6), “you can never take it back.” Following a two-year court case, Zach won his case against the school, but not until after serving most of the suspension.
“We cannot accept, without more evidence, that the childish and boorish antics of a minor could impair the administrators’ abilities to discipline students and maintain control.”
“If a school can point to a well-founded expectation of disruption—especially one based on past incidents arising out of similar speech—the restriction may pass constitutional muster.”
—both quotes from Zachariah Paul’s case
Consider the consequences faced by other electronic messengers, both teens and adults:
- In 2007, a 19-year-old in West Virginia intended to send a text to a friend asking him if he wanted to buy some marijuana. However, his friend’s number had changed, and the message went to a police officer instead, who arranged to meet with the seller. The teen was arrested and taken to jail.
- In 2008, Connecticut high school principal John Metallo was caught exchanging inappropriate emails with a principal from another school. The two criticized school officials and carried on personal conversations. Metallo quit his job and the second principal was reprimanded.
- Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick resigned from office after pleading guilty to lying under oath about an affair with his chief of staff. Over 14,000 text messages sent between the two on city-issued cell phones were part of the scandal. In October 2008, Kilpatrick was sentenced to four months in jail and five years probation.
- After a year of steamy emails to “Maria” in Argentina, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admitted to the affair. In 2009, he resigned as head of the Republican Governor’s Association and put his possible nomination as a 2012 Presidential candidate in jeopardy.
The bottom line: If you wouldn’t say it in person, why say it online? Nothing online is private, not even if you’re sharing it with your best friend. Careless or spiteful emails and text messages have been the downfall of many. Don’t let it happen to you.
What Is Zach Doing Now?
Zach graduated from high school and went on to college. He joined the Army and served in Afghanistan as a reconnaissance platoon leader.
Related Cases
Ryan Kuhl v. Greenwood School District (Arkansas, 2005)
Ryan Kuhl, age 18, and Justin Neal, age 17, were friends at Greenwood High School in Arkansas. They were both seniors and honor students with no history of problems at school. They each created a Web site with links to the other’s site. Ryan’s site opened with “Fuck Greenwood,” criticized the school’s orientation as “dreadfully boring,” and insulted band members and student athletes. He also included numerous profanities and descriptions of school personnel engaging in sexual acts. Justin’s site had an illustration depicting a school assembly where a school official, identified as the assistant principal, is holding a smoking gun next to two students who are apparently shot in the head.
Once the principal became aware of the sites, Ryan and Justin were suspended for three days and ordered to take down their sites. They were told their Web sites were disruptive by creating a “buzz” at school. Both claimed their sites were satire and not intended as threats or to incite anyone to violence. Justin testified that his cartoon represented the “drudgery” of school. The teens sued the school for violating their free speech.
Following a trial in federal court, the court ruled that Ryan’s and Justin’s postings were protected by the First Amendment and the school had no authority to regulate the content of their Web sites. In the absence of any evidence of actual disruption at school, the court held that “responsible school administrators and teachers must be able to distinguish between true threats and nonthreatening statements couched in less-than-temperate language.”
“Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may indeed serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
—from Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949
Brandon Beussink v. Woodland School District (Missouri, 1998)
Brandon was a 16-year-old junior at Woodland High School in Missouri. Using a program he found on the Internet, Brandon and his sister worked at home to design and post a Web page that opened with this text:
Brittney & Brandon’s Kick Ass Home Page!
Please visit our FUCKED UP High School. “Home of the fucked up faculty members from HELL!”
Brandon’s site made fun of his high school and the administration, teachers, and principal. He created a link to the school’s home page and invited readers to email the principal with their opinions. Brandon said he intended only to voice his opinions about school. The principal saw the site and immediately suspended Brandon for 10 days because of the site’s content and because it was accessed in a classroom. However, it was another student who showed the page to other students, not Brandon. The principal was also aware that four months earlier Brandon entered an obscenity into the school’s screensaver. Brandon returned to school after serving the 10-day suspension. His grades were already low and after missing these additional days, he was failing all of his classes.
Brandon and his mother filed a lawsuit on the basis of free speech. They asked the court to withdraw the suspension and reinstate Brandon’s grades before the incident. The court said that discipline for offensive speech must be supported by “more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” The court said further that a core function of free speech is to invite dispute. “It is unpopular speech which needs the protection of the First Amendment which was designed for this very purpose.” This incident gave the students at Woodland High the opportunity “to see the protections of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights at work.”
Brandon won his case, and the school was ordered not to lower his grades based on the suspension or to impose any punishment based on his home page. He was even given permission to repost the page, if he chose to.
Sean O’Brien v. Westlake Board of Education (Ohio, 1998)
Sean O’Brien attended Westlake High School in Ohio. In 1998, he was a 16-year-old junior when he created a Web site that insulted his band teacher with statements such as, “He is an overweight middle-aged man who doesn’t like to get haircuts . . . and favors people who kiss his ass.” Sean also included a picture of the teacher and listed his home address and telephone number. Sean was suspended for 10 days and, as a result, received an F in band and lower grades in his other classes.
Sean challenged the discipline in court, which ruled in his favor. The suspension was removed from his record and he returned to school in good standing. The case settled for $30,000, and Sean dropped his lawsuit. In a letter of apology to Sean, the school stated, “the Board recognized that this right to freedom of speech extends to students who, on their own time and with their own resources, engage in speech on the Internet.”
Sean’s advice for anyone critiquing a teacher or school online is to “Keep it cool. Don’t lie.”
Things to Think About
As you can see from these cases, content is crucial. Regardless of your method of communication (text message, email, Web site, or other means), what you say dictates the outcome in any situation. There are consequences when statements constitute an actual threat. Did you think email and text blunders and embarrassments were limited to kids? Are you surprised by the incidents presented here of adult carelessness and poor judgment? Do you think all the cases were decided fairly? Why or why not? And finally, even though Zach and several others in this chapter “won” their cases in the end, does that mean they “won” from an ethical standpoint? Causing emotional distress to a person or harming a reputation are acts that carry real consequences—no matter what the court rules.
Chapter 2: Further Reading and Resources
Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use • www.csriu.org
Filled with strategies to help young people navigate the Internet safely. Click on “Cyberbully” to learn more about cyberbullying and cyberthreats.
Wired Safety • www.wiredsafety.org
Internet education for kids, tweens, and teens and help for victims of cyberbullying. Learn about Teenangels and how you can spread the word about safe and responsible surfing.
Adamovich, Tracy L. “Return to Sender: Off-Campus Student Speech Brought On-Campus by Another Student.” St. John’s Law Review 82, no. 3 (Summer 2008): 1087–1113.
Calvert, Clay, and Robert D. Richards. “Free Speech and the Right to Offend: Old Wars, New Battles, Different Media.” Georgia State University Law Review 18, no. 3 (Spring 2002): 671–695.
Freeman, Simone Marie. “Upholding Students’ Due Process Rights: Why Students Are in Need of Better Representation at, and Alternatives to, School Suspension Hearings.” Family Court Review 45, no. 4 (October 2007): 638–656.
Tuneski, Alexander G. “Online, Not on Grounds: Protecting Student Internet Speech.” Virginia Law Review 89, no. 1 (2003): 139.