A.B. v. State of Indiana, No. 67S01-07-9-JV-373 (Ind. May 13, 2008)
The Indiana Supreme Court has overturned a juvenile court’s decision that a middle school student was delinquent where her postings on MySpace, if made by an adult, would have constituted the criminal offense of harassment. The high court agreed with the Indiana Court of Appeals that the state had failed to prove the crime of harassment had been committed, but it disagreed with the intermediate court’s rationale that the allegedly harassing postings were protected political speech. Instead, the supreme court concluded that the state had failed to prove that the student intended to harass, as is required to find criminal liability. At the beginning of the 2005-06 school year, A.B. was a student a Greencastle Middle School (GMS), where Shawn Gobert was principal. In February 2006, A.B. transferred. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Gobert was informed by some GMS students that someone had posted a vulgar tirade on MySpace “target[ing] his actions in enforcing a school policy.” An investigation revealed that R.B., a friend of A.B.’s at GMS, had created a false private MySpace profile for the principal. A.B. was among the 26 designated “friends” who could post comments on the profile. She also created her own MySpace group, accessible to the general public, that was titled with obscene language directed against the principal and Greencastle schools. The state initiated delinquency proceedings against A.B. While most of the counts were dismissed, the court found that she used a computer network to harass Mr. Gobert in violation of the state’s criminal harassment statute. The intermediate court overturned the juvenile delinquency adjudication. The supreme court took issue with the appellate court’s rationale and granted transfer. Unlike the intermediate court, the supreme court rested its decision to overturn the juvenile court on the ground that the state had failed to prove that A.B. had the requisite intent common to all the surviving counts: that she transmitted the messages with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm Shawn Gobert but without any intent of legitimate communication.
A.B. v. State of Indiana, No. 67S01-07-9-JV-373 (Ind. May 13, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: Litigation like that described at the link below often accuses schools that attempt to address inappropriate online activity of “overreacting.” The ironic result is that some victims are left the recourse of arguing for civil or even criminal liability, sometimes with more success than in this latest case.]
NSBA School Law pages on Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist.