Litigating Lewdness
Case: Gregory Requa v. Kent School District (2007)
Act: placing a link on his MySpace profile page to a video of his teacher, along with critical comments
Charge: creating a lewd and offensive video of a teacher in the classroom
The previous text was the caption on a cell phone video filmed at Kentridge High School in Washington in June 2006. A student (identified only as S.W.) admitted to doing the filming in English class. Greg Requa was a junior in the class and admitted to linking the video that had been posted on YouTube to his MySpace page. Although other students stated otherwise, Greg denied any involvement with filming, editing, or posting the video on YouTube. Greg had never been in trouble before, and carried a 2.97 GPA. He had also won a DECA (Delta Epsilon Chi Association) competition and was set to compete at the state level.
The video was taken without the teacher’s knowledge or permission. It included shots of her rear as she walked and as she was bending over. Greg allegedly added the graphics and a musical soundtrack, along with comments about her hygiene and teaching methods. One shot featured a third student standing behind her making faces and pelvic thrusts in her direction. S.W. told the principal, “All I did was some filming. Greg did editing and posted it online.”
A local Seattle news channel discovered the video while investigating a story about student postings on YouTube. The reporter contacted Kentridge High for comment and aired a story including Greg’s video in 2007. Greg removed the link from his MySpace page when he learned of the news coverage. This was the first time the teacher learned of the video. The school imposed a 40-day suspension on the students, which would be cut in half if each student completed a research paper while suspended.
Greg and his parents appealed the discipline to the School Board. A hearing was conducted and the Board determined “that Greg’s denial of his involvement is not credible.” Greg claimed that his alleged involvement was a rumor based on his reputation as a skilled video editor. The Board found that Greg’s acts constituted sexual harassment in violation of school policy and upheld the suspension.
Greg took the matter to the Washington Western District Court, arguing that even if it could be proved that he was involved in the production and posting of the video, it was protected speech. He further asserted that the suspension jeopardized his graduation since the suspension ran right up to the end of the school year. The school maintained that Greg was disciplined for his conduct (creating an unauthorized video of a teacher in class) and not for his speech (the off-campus editing and posting of the video).
How Would You Decide This Case?
Throughout these proceedings, Greg maintained his position that he did nothing but link the YouTube video to his MySpace page. What do you think? How much weight should be given to the statements of other students? What about S.W.’s claim that he filmed the video, but that Greg did the rest and was essentially the video’s “director”? Does the content of the video offend you? Should teachers and administrators expect some privacy, or is everything fair game to be broadcast worldwide? Should Greg’s academic record be considered in determining an appropriate consequence?
What the Court Decided
The district court agreed with the school that the primary issue was not the editing and posting of the video off campus, but the initial creation of the video. It was the unauthorized shooting and subject matter that violated school policy. The suspension was not for the purpose of regulating off-campus speech.
Although Greg argued that the entire video was merely criticism of a teacher, the court disagreed. “Footage of her buttocks, a pelvic thrust . . . graphics and a ‘booty’ rap song cannot be denominated as anything other than lewd and offensive,” said the court.
The court then weighed the harm to Greg if the suspension was not lifted. It considered the loss of a full-time, in-class education, and the experiences enjoyed in the final months of high school. It also weighed the harm to the school if the court set the suspension aside. “The deterrent impact of the consequences meted out for the violations of the student code will be lost—sanctions are meant to communicate.” The court found that the school’s interests outweighed Greg’s. He could minimize the punishment by writing the paper and completing the 20-day suspension before graduation, as the cameraman, S.W., chose to do.
How Does This Decision Affect You?
“The public has an interest in classrooms in which teachers can work free of harassment, lewdness, and inappropriate behavior.”
“A student’s right to criticize his or her teachers is a right secured by the Constitution. A school district’s interest in maintaining an environment that is helpful and not harmful to learning is also important.”
—both quotes are from Gregory Requa’s court decision
Some of the cases presented here are a mix of student activity at school with additional work at home. It may be impossible to determine exact percentages of each, so courts use a “totality of circumstances” test. In Greg’s case, breaking a school rule paired with the nature of the violation supported his suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address school discipline for off-campus Internet activity. Because courts across the nation differ in these cases, it won’t be long before the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review.
The bottom line: Consider the bigger picture of how your behavior might be interpreted. Even if your actions are not considered lewd or did not all take place on school grounds, when taken as a whole, they still may be grounds for discipline. Keep in mind there are still “gray areas” in the law.
What Is Greg Doing Now?
Greg graduated with his class and started college at Full Sail University in Florida, studying digital arts and design. When interviewed in 2008, he offered the following advice to teens: “Don’t fall victim to peer pressure, it will usually make you end up hating what you did. And if that someone is pressuring you too hard, then you should re-think your friendship with them.”
Related Cases: Teachers on Film
Logan Glover v. Lafayette High School (Missouri, 2008)
Fifteen-year-old Logan Glover used a digital camera to take pictures of his language arts teacher in class. The teacher, Jessica Hauser, did not know she was being photographed. While Logan was photographing, two other students stood near Ms. Hauser, posing and acting out. Logan posted the photos on his Facebook profile, and some of the students printed them and brought them to school. The photos were not demeaning or embarrassing and were posted without comment or names. However, Ms. Hauser was upset that her trust had been violated and she felt disrespected.
Two weeks later, the assistant principal called Logan to her office and searched his cell phone for the photos. When she didn’t find them, she asked Logan for copies. He gave her all copies and then deleted them from Facebook. Logan admitted that he took and posted the pictures online. He was removed from the class and given a three-day out-of-school suspension for disrupting the class by having the other kids posing for the camera and being off-task. Those kids were given three days of in-school suspension.
In December 2007, Logan and his father sued the school district for punishing him for his off-campus protected expression. They claimed that he was suspended simply for posting the pictures and that there was no disturbance at school or in Ms. Hauser’s class. The school argued that the case was about controlling classroom behavior and not about Logan’s right to communicate online. In August 2008, Logan and the school district reached an undisclosed settlement and the case was dismissed.
Vesikko (Finland, 2007)
High school student Toni Vesikko was at a school party in 2007, where he used his cell phone to film his teacher singing karaoke. He posted the video on YouTube and wrote under the picture that she was a lunatic singing at a mental hospital. In the first case of its kind in Finland, Toni was found guilty of “intentional defamation.” His teacher suffered anxiety and depression from the incident. Toni was ordered to pay $4,000 in fines, court costs, and damages for causing his teacher to suffer.
Related Cases: Lewdness and Obscenity
State v. Dougherty (Iowa, 2008)
Andy Dougherty of Iowa was 17 when he made a 10-second cell phone video of himself with his pants down fooling around with his teenage girlfriend. After they broke up, he sought revenge because she was spreading rumors about him. Andy sent the video to a 17-year-old friend and the police discovered it. Andy was charged with a sex crime: telephone dissemination of obscene material to a minor. The possible penalties included two years in jail and 10 years as a registered sex offender.
In August 2008, Andy pleaded guilty to three counts of harassment, which were lesser crimes. He was sentenced to 20 days in jail, 100 hours of community service, and a $300 fine. If he had been convicted of the sex crime, he would not have been allowed to live on campus at any college, and he may have been prevented from becoming a teacher, doctor, and other professional positions.
State v. Alpert (Florida, 2008)
After breaking up with his 16-year-old girlfriend, 18-year-old Phillip Alpert sent a nude picture of her to over 70 people, including her parents, grandparents, and teachers. Phillip was charged with sending child pornography and was convicted. He was sentenced to five years probation, and required to register as a sex offender until his 43rd birthday.
Interviewed in 2009, Phillip stated, “A lot of my friends have not stood by me . . . people don’t want to talk to me anymore.” He is required to attend sex offender meetings and is having trouble finding a job.
Miller v. Skumanick (Pennsylvania, 2009)
Marissa Miller, age 13, attended a slumber party with her girlfriends. They took cell phone pictures of each other including one of Marissa and another girl from the waist up wearing their bras. A separate photo showed a girl with a bath towel wrapped around her body beneath her breasts. Two years later, a school administrator saw the pictures on a confiscated cell phone and notified the police.
The Pennsylvania district attorney made the same offer to Marissa and her friends that had been extended to other students caught “sexting.” To avoid being charged with child pornography, they had to complete an education program about sexual violence and pornography, and submit to random drug testing.
The girls and their parents thought the offer was unfair and illegal. In March 2009, they filed a lawsuit in federal court against the prosecutor asking the court for an order preventing him from filing criminal charges against the girls. The court ruled that the girls’ lawsuit had merit and therefore ordered the district attorney not to file any charges against them based on the photos.
Stories of Sexting
In March 2009, a 14-year-old girl in New Jersey was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. She uploaded 30 photos of herself to her MySpace profile for her boyfriend to see. She was arrested and released to her mother. She faced 17 years in prison and sex offender registration if convicted. She reached an agreement with the state and was placed on six months probation and counseling in exchange for dismissal of the charges upon completion. Other states taking action against teens posting sexually explicit material include Connecticut, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In January 2009, three girls at Salem High School in Pennsylvania were charged with disseminating child pornography. The girls, ages 14 and 15, sent text messages including nude pictures of themselves to three boys, ages 16 and 17. The boys were charged with possession of child pornography. The pictures were discovered by a school administrator who took a cell phone from one of the girls who had it on in class. All of the teens accepted a lesser misdemeanor charge and were sentenced to community service hours and education classes.
In 2009, a 15-year-old Nebraska freshman was placed on one-year probation for sending a nude picture of himself to a 13-year-old girl. He was charged with distributing obscene material and pled guilty. He was also ordered into counseling, given 20 community service hours, restricted from contacting the victim, and prohibited from using a cell phone while on probation.
A 15-year-old girl in Ohio was arrested in 2008 and charged with child pornography. She sent nude cell phone pictures of herself to classmates. A 17-year-old Wisconsin boy posted nude photos of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend that she sent him when they were together. He was charged with child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child.
“We tend to feel that because it’s electronic and slips into the ether that it’s somehow impermanent or unreal. But the opposite is true. Not only is it permanent, but it’s easily replicable. This isn’t camp with a copy of Playboy and showing two or three friends. It’s potentially global.”
—Professor Steve Jones, University of Illinois at Chicago
Jessica Logan was an 18-year-old senior at Sycamore High School in Ohio. She sent her boyfriend nude cell phone pictures of herself. After they broke up, he sent them to hundreds of students in several schools. Jessica was harassed and taunted at school, called a whore and a slut. This led to depression and missed school days. Two months later, in July 2008, Jessica hanged herself in her bedroom. Her mother, Cynthia, is now speaking out about the dangers of sexting and supporting legislation addressing electronic communication by tweens and teens.
In a case similar to Jessica’s, Florida middle school student Hope Witsell sent a topless photo of herself to a boy she liked. The text was intercepted by another student using the boy’s cell phone, and the photo spread to other schools. Hope was grounded by her parents over the summer and suspended for the first week of school. She endured months of taunting, including comments like, “Here comes the slut.” On September 12, 2009, she hung herself from the canopy of her bed with a pink scarf. She was 13 years old.
Things to Think About
As you know from chapter 5 (Avery Doninger’s case), the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act provides you with privacy rights as a student. The law is very specific about what information about you may be released. Why do you think this is important? Should your teachers and school officials have similar protections? Why or why not? Since no specific law shields teachers from being secretly photographed or filmed, what role does common decency and respect play?
That’s Not Cool • www.thatsnotcool.com
Get advice from other teens on how to deal with textual harassment, pic pressure, constant messaging, and more. Is someone pressuring or harassing you? Tell them to back off by sending a callout card.
Chaffin, Stacy M. “The New Playground Bullies of Cyberspace: Online Peer Sexual Harassment.” Howard Law Journal 51, no. 3 (Spring 2008): 773–818.
Conn, Kathleen, and Kevin P. Brady. “MySpace and Its Relatives: The Cyberbullying Dilemma.” West’s Education Law Reporter 226 (January 2008): 1.
Sanchez Abril, Patricia. “A (My)Space of One’s Own: On Privacy and Online Social Networks.” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Internet Property 6, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 73–88.
