Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 412 F.Supp.2d 502, 2006 WL 240655 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006)
A Pennsylvania federal district court has denied a high school student's motion for a preliminary injunction that would have barred school officials from disciplining him for creating an online parody profile of the school's principal on an off-campus computer. The court ruled that the facts did not support a finding that the student's conduct was protected by the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The profile, which was posted on the popular MySpace.com website, also contained a photograph of the principal imported from the school's official website. As word of the profile spread through the student body, students began accessing it on school computers. When school officials discovered that Justin Layshock was responsible for creating the profile, they placed him in an alternative education program. He sued, arguing that the disciplinary action violated his right to free speech and sought a preliminary injunction. For purposes of the motion for a preliminary injunction, the court did not address the merits of the claim in detail but only analyzed the claim to the extent necessary to determine whether Justin had presented sufficient facts to demonstrate (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) irreparable harm if he were kept in the alternative program until a decision on the merits. Addressing the likelihood of success on the merits, the district court rejected Justin's attempt to frame the issue in the case as "whether a school district can punish a student for posting on the Internet, from his grandmother's home computer, a non-threatening, non-obscene parody profile making fun of the school principal." The court determined that Justin had ignored a crucial element of student protected speech analysis, namely, whether his actions "substantially disrupt[ed] school operations or interfere[d] with the right of others." The school district presented ample evidence that his off-campus conduct resulted in actual disruption of the high school's day-to-day operations. The number of students accessing the profile forced school officials to shut down the school's computer system for five days, and school personnel had to devote an inordinate amount of time to monitoring students accessing the profile. Justin did not carry his of burden of proving the likelihood of success on the merits because the evidence demonstrated that the disciplinary action was justified. As for the irreparable harm element, the court found that while the alternative education program was not the ideal academic setting for someone with Justin's level of scholastic achievement, the court was unable to find the placement "so onerous that the harm to Justin will truly be irreparable."
Layshock v. Hermitage School District, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2006 WL 240655 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: For links to recent news reports of discipline and school concerns related to websites, see below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on student websites]