Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Nov
19
The distinctively named blog, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, has this post about how a Texas school district threatened to sue a district parent for libel. Apparently, the parent held her ground and the district is backing off. I recommend reading the post and the links. Here’s the blog in question, Galveston Alliance for Neighborhood Schools.
The Galveston case reminds of this one I wrote about several months ago. It was based in Long Island.
Then, I read something last night on the Society of Professional Journalists’ website that said that journalists should watch out because if bloggers are getting sued for expressing themselves, when might the same folks come after journalists:
Legal action against bloggers has skyrocketed during the past three years. While some cases have merit, most are lawsuits designed to suppress free speech. Meanwhile, journalists have sought to differentiate themselves from bloggers through self-regulation and legislation. But should they? As new organizations have begun to embrace blogs and user-generated content, the “blogging v. journalism” debate has begun to dissolve, replaced instead by a greater awareness that what threatens bloggers today may well threaten professional journalists tomorrow.
Save the Hilliard Schools and Word of Mouth both frequently write about school districts, with great specificity. To what standard should they and their commenters be held in terms of defamation law? If blogs are only opinion…? Or are they? Or are they only opinion, when they say they are only opinion?
Hint: I do not have an answer for any of these questions – which, of course, is part of the problem for pretty much everyone.
What I do know is that the use of blogs to both spread news of what goes on at a school board meeting (which so few parents attend on any regular basis in most districts across the country) and raise questions about one’s school district is something that seems easy to support and desire.
What protection does such speech deserve? To what extent? The parents aren’t public figures typically, but are the board members? Is the district?
I don’t know – this is deeper into ed law and First Amendment than I currently know.
I’m a champion of the theory that the growth of blogs represents people finding a way to express frustration, frustration that’s always been around but didn’t have as public an outlet as a blog – public in the sense that anyone can find it and read it.
So – once you put those frustrations into writing, in a public place, does the standard change for what you can say, even if the medium is a blog?
I just don’t know.
As the Millard Fillmore blog post ends:
On the one hand, no one likes to be sued for libel. On the other hand, Ms. Tetley [the blogger in question] knows the school district’s leaders are paying attention to what she says.
What’s the moral of this story?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:45 am November 19th, 2007 in Blogging, Courts, Education, Parenting
Comments
17 Responses to “When school districts sue parents over blog posts: threat to First Amendment?”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Shalom Jill,
Here’s my suggestion for the standard:
If I can stand up at a school board (or any) meeting and speak my piece to those assembled there, then the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that I can exercise my freedom of the press and publish it my blog.
B’shalom,
Jeff
[...] When school districts sue parents over blog posts 0659 Journalists and Bloggers digg_url=”http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=5557″; digg_skin = [...]
Personally, I’d like to see more bloggers adopt the more careful style of other journalists, being careful of the facts before making accusations. I walk an odd line — I first was inducted into the Society of Professional Journalists in 1974. I’ve been named in libel suits by some of the best, but never had to go to trial because I’ve been careful to be accurate and document.
That’s not to say bloggers should back off, in any way. I think bloggers should spend the time to get the facts, and make a public record. Odds are that no newspaper, not even the local weekly, is following your school district’s finances and achievements as closely as they deserve to be followed. Bloggers can fill that role.
More details, greater accuracy. Bloggers do play important roles, and those roles can be expanded.
Thanks for dropping by the Bathtub.
Thank YOU, Ed. Great comment, too. The best bloggers in Ohio absolutely shoot for that, and their posts show it.
I’ve been a member of SPJ since 2003 but I’ve not been happy with their treatment of freelancers. Long story – don’t know if you followed it at all.
Have a good holiday this week.
Jeff – I agree. I could live with that standard. The forum shouldn’t matter. But I’m open to hearing the argument against it (just to know what the points would be – if any).
Jill:
In the dialog about our school system, I’ve inserted myself in the middle of complex web of big money interests that most definitely would prefer that I shut up. Taking it to the next level by running for the school board did nothing but make my reporting, analysis and opinion more visible and increase the scrutiny on these folks.
The thought has crossed my mind that I might have become a serious enough threat to the status quo that some of those big money interests (major construction companies, land developers and homebuilders) might seek ways to make my life (or perhaps my kids’, if I had any in school) uncomfortable.
I believe the MSM in our town doesn’t dig into the stuff I do because their allegiance to (or fear of) these big money interests is stronger than their willingness to serve as the Fourth Estate.
I am quite careful in what I say. A libel suit is not the worst that can happen. But if someone isn’t willing to take the risk, the bad guys win. Burke was right.
You make excellent points, Paul – esp. in your last graph. I would say that’s similar to the adage I follow a lot – the worst they can do is say no – in other words, we have to keep asking and shouldn’t be so quick to self-censor.
Ok I read the post and all the comments. As usual, nothing heats up an argument like a discussion about one’s children. I personally take the approach that I try not to engage in argument but discussion, just like most of you. However, once that post heated up they were off and running. I see nothing to indicate a lawsuit should occur. And I also say unless you are working for a company and blogging for them, your speech is protected, no matter how moronic you want that speech to be. What is the point of the blogosphere if everyone has to be muzzled? Just mho. I can choose to read idiots or not…in fact I already make that choice
Personally I pick transparency over censorship any day.
Hi Carole – thanks – I agree with what you wrote. The only thing that would change my mind is if the perpetrator of the alleged libel has some intent to harm – that could change my mind. Now, how would we define and divine an intent to harm? I don’t know – but it’s just something to think about.
Hi Jill I have written a piece just yesterday on responsibilty of a blogger. In the case of WoM we have a shared responsibilty- all 12 of us writing for one blog. Ultimately I would assume Scott would be the “go to guy” as far a legal action so that is even a greater burden when we hit the keyboard.
When I wrote for ” recognised” publications out of Europe and Australia we had “press councils” to answer to – that isn’t the case (except I believe in Minnesota)in the US. I was informed by my publishers that libel was very iffy…first the party complaining had the repsonsibilty to prove that what you said was untrue, that the writer/publisher benefitted from the article and the content was manufactured and that when something had been written incorrectly a retraction/apology had been denied…. does that hold true here do we know?
Wow – that is really interesting, Loraine. I don’t know the answer to that last question, but I know it’s really helpful to get input from people with different experiences. Interesting!!
[...] When school districts sue parents over blog posts: threat to First Amendment? [...]
The New School is a wonderful school, but not for everyone. There is far more to this situation than reported (suprise, suprise). The people that have found an anonymous soapbox in Sonjia Mcsween are, for the most part, parents of children who were counselled out or left on their own. The children involved had other issues going on in their lives at the time (paternity, name-changes, learning disabilities, even mental illness)and it is patently unfair to blame their issues on the school. Most of the contentions in the comments to the articles are at best, exageration; at worst, viscious lies. The intent of this woman and her friends has always been to “shut NSO down” (their words, not mine) and routinely griped and badmouthed the teachers, parents, other students and administration IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN! They used “playdates” as an excuse to get together with new parents to plant their venom in an effort, in my opinion, to place some sort of external blame for their own children’s difficulties. No parent wants to believe that their child is learning challenged. That class of 19 was a very challenged class and I am talking seriously obvious difficulties. The parents claim on their “anonymous” comments that their child tested “profoudly gifted” and the school orchestrated a “kick-back” scheme with the psychologist that they were required to see. My child was in that class. I was happy that someone was on top of the situation and wish that I had been required to see the Dr. in question. I did not want to pick an Ed. psy. out of the yellow pages. So many do more harm than good. The one that I chose cost me just as much, but I never got a report. I had to go to someone else. The school recommends this Dr. in an effort to guide parents to someone proven to be reliable in working with the school and the child as well as someone who knows what they are doing. My child is thriving now thanks to his assessment. I for one am glad that these parents are gone as their constant negativity and interrogation of the other students was beginning to scare me and upset my child. Karen Sorin asked the parents to stop and for this they call her “Nazi” and other derrogatory names. I call her caring and willing to stand up to bullies. They (WFTV) have now tried to dig up dirt on Morris Sorin to discredit him. All they could find was a 37 year old lawsuit where he sued an Ohio School board and won. Sonjia Mcsween and her cadre claim that New School “shuns mixed race student” and is “discriminitory”; what until they find out what the old law suit was really about. This suit is about proper channels and letting a court decide on whether something is defamation or not. Mcsween is the one who took it to the media in an effort to further her cause. Many posts claim the the school and its administrators are “morons” and “dumb as dirt” for suing. I say that no matter the outcome, I am glad that my child will see first hand the value of standing up for what you think is right and using the proper channels to fight your battles. Seems to me that all of the name-calling and viscious attacks on New School, it’s supporting parents, and even students who dare to speak in defense of their school, are only adding to the damages sustained and may hurt Mcsween in the end. The other parents want to remain anonymous and jab from behind Mcsween because they realize that it will be HER background and credibility (arrest, paternity, alleged porn)as well as her daughter’s records that are open to scrutiny, not theirs. Thank you for allowing me to vent. I refuse to comment on the other sites and if I get attacked here, oh well. I had to get this out before it eats me alive.
I apologize for my spelling. I can’t see straight when I am angry. But I think that my meaning came through?
Orlando – Thanks for leaving the comments.
Obviously, I don’t know anything more than what I’ve read, but incidents that involve a desire to shutdown a blog always grab my attention.
We should all be concerned about truth, and we also should be concerned about having a place to express ourselves without a fear that just because we have something caustic to say, we can’t say it anywhere.
But I do not and would not condone lying or otherwise defaming anyone or any entity in such an effort.
I don’t imagine too many folks who read this blog will be interested in attacking your for your anger etc. The only concern most of the readers might have is whether the woman is, upon looking at facts involved, telling the truth.
I was an ombudsperson for a while at a mental health agency. I’ve listened to people involved in the exact same situation have completely different opinions about what went on. I don’t know if this situation is one of those, or not.
I hope it gets worked out to everyone’s satisfaction.
But shutting down a blog, or suing a blogger and possibly impacting everyone’s freedom of speech because of the problems between users and administrators of the New School of Orlando won’t benefit anyone in the long-run. It would only be collateral damage to freedom of speech. All the parties involved need to find a place to figure it out but, again, shutting down the place where people are trying to hast it out doesn’t seem like the most effective way to putting an end to the problems.
Feel free to point out why this might be too naive a view, or exactly on point, or something inbetween.
It is not a naive point at all. I am among the outraged when any restriction of free speech is attempted. If only “free speech” meant “free speech”. My free speech should not infringe on your free speech, but somewhere lines must be drawn. I don’t know the answer and as much as I distrust our “justice” system, that is where it should be decided. New School never tried to stop her from voicing her opinion, only the refrain from voicing untruths that damaged the reputation of the school and upset the students. Contrary to what was reported, she did not take down the website after the C&D, she intensified it. After the 2nd C&D, she added more, not just to her site, but to many other forums. Some of those were taken down by the host due to violations of content (personal attacks on one teacher). One comment states that “I have it on very good authority that Morris and Karen Sorin fornicate regularly with their students”. While some may claim “free speech”, an educator’s reputation is their livelyhood, be it good or bad, and something this defamatory with everything else causes real damages. Let the court decide. Should New School have launched a quid pro quo attack? That would exercise “free speech” but I bet the masses would have a very different opinion of that. I don’t know what the answer is. I only know that the woman will not be able to back up her accusations, but the damage is done so why bother backing down now? Thank you for not attacking me
Well – as many people say, the best thing to do with expressions – on blogs or anywhere else – is to respond and work to set the record straight or at least add your own perspective rather than diminish or shutdown free speech. Good luck to all the parties, esp. the kids.