About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


5 Ne. U. L.J. 47 (2013)
Cyberbullying: When Is It "School Speech" and When Is It beyond the School's Reach?

handle is hein.journals/norester5 and id is 59 raw text is: NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY LAWJOURNAL Cyberbullying: When is it School Speech And When is it Beyond the School's Reach? Susan S. Bendlin' It would be an unseemly and dangerous precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a child's home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school sponsored activities.1 I. Overview What responsibility do public school officials have to control off-campus internet speech that bullies other students? The answer- viewed through a constitutional lens-is none. Cyberbullying is a complex and tragic problem, but it is not necessarily the school's problem to solve. The special considerations that exist in the school setting (such as the need to educate and protect students) justify a school's regulation of speech only when it occurs on campus and dur- ing school-supervised activities. Outside of the school environment, those special considerations do not exist. Therefore, if bullying occurs outside the ambit of the school, there is no constitutional authority that supports a school's exercise of its disciplinary arm. The Supreme Court's decisions in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and three subsequent school speech cases describe the circumstances under which a school has the authority to regulate a student's speech. In Tinker, the Supreme Court declared it permissible for schools to regulate students' on-campus speech if the speech materially and substantially interfere [s] with the require- ments of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school, if the Assistant Professor, Barry University School of Law, and former Dean of Students at three law schools, Emory, Duke, and Barry. The author would like to thank her research assistants, Eric S. Heidel J.D., 2012) and Amy German J.D., 2013). 1 Layshock ex rel. Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., 650 F3d 205, 216 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1097 (2012). VOL. 5 No. I