OBA - Social Media, Friend or Foe
•
1 like•476 views
The document summarizes key cases related to the use of social media in schools and universities. It discusses how courts have ruled that universities are not completely exempt from the Charter but should be given deference in academic matters. It also outlines cases where off-campus social media postings were considered, and how expert witnesses have said people may construct alternate online personas. Finally, it summarizes cases related to physician rating websites like RateMDs.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
Legal Process using Social Media: Evidence, Jury Tampering, and the Service o...
Clio cloud conference 2014
Not only is social media a valuable marketing tool, but it also has key implications within the legal process. Find out more about the ethics of using social media and technology in your modern practice.
A Day in the Life of an iPad Lawyer
Slides focusing on hardware, from OBA TechXpo 2.0 session on a Day in the Life of an iPad Lawyer.
Decision Trees - a tool for better decision-making
Uploaded on behalf of Rebecca A. Bowman. Presented at the ABA Annual Meeting, Toronto, on August 4, 2011
Private lending and Real Estate Law
Qadira Jackson of Fleet Street Law speaks to First Fridays on private lending and real estate law.
The Perils of Social Media Under the Laws of the United States and Canada: A ...
Uploaded on behalf of Dominique Shelton, based on a presentation at the ABA Annual Meeting, August 4, 2011
The way forward: Taking your practice to the next level
Presentation at the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers (CABL) at the Law Society of Upper Canada on October 25, 2012.
Recommended
Legal Process using Social Media: Evidence, Jury Tampering, and the Service o...
Clio cloud conference 2014
Not only is social media a valuable marketing tool, but it also has key implications within the legal process. Find out more about the ethics of using social media and technology in your modern practice.
A Day in the Life of an iPad Lawyer
Slides focusing on hardware, from OBA TechXpo 2.0 session on a Day in the Life of an iPad Lawyer.
Decision Trees - a tool for better decision-making
Uploaded on behalf of Rebecca A. Bowman. Presented at the ABA Annual Meeting, Toronto, on August 4, 2011
Private lending and Real Estate Law
Qadira Jackson of Fleet Street Law speaks to First Fridays on private lending and real estate law.
The Perils of Social Media Under the Laws of the United States and Canada: A ...
Uploaded on behalf of Dominique Shelton, based on a presentation at the ABA Annual Meeting, August 4, 2011
The way forward: Taking your practice to the next level
Presentation at the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers (CABL) at the Law Society of Upper Canada on October 25, 2012.
Social Media and Privacy Law
Presentation at the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers (FACL) 5th Annual Conference.
Religious accommodation in canada
Presentation on March 19, 2008 at Huron College, University of Western Ontario
What Has HMIRA Done
Omar Ha-Redeye covered the new amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act (HMIRA) for the 2009 Explosion Protection & Hazardous Locations Conference in Calgary.
The event was for the oil & gas, mining, processing and utilities industries.
Materials are available from IDC Technologies, or online via SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1527588
The Tsunami : Lessons Learned for North American Responders
Abbreviated copy of presentation at the APCO Canada / NENA Ontario 2006 Conference & Trade Show, “9-1-1 in Any Language”
Toronto Sheraton Hotel and Conference Centre
October 1 – 4, 2006
http://www.cafc.ca/news-programs/2006/29-08-2006_e.php
Uploaded now for interest given current G20 protests in Toronto.
Global Climate Change, Energy & Health: Foreboding Clouds & Silver Linings
Global Climate Change, Energy & Health: Foreboding Clouds & Silver Linings
Talk by Jonathan Patz, MD, MPH
of the Nelson Institute & Dept. Population Health Sciences at the University of Wisconsin - Madison at the 16th World Congress on Disaster and Emergency Medicine on May 12, 2009.
Reproduced here with the author's permission.
Cite as 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1STEVENS, J., dissentingSUPREME.docx
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1
STEVENS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 06ñ278
_________________
DEBORAH MORSE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JOSEPH
FREDERICK
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 25, 2007]
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and
JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
A significant fact barely mentioned by the Court sheds a
revelatory light on the motives of both the students and
the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS). On
January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay gave those
Alaska residents a rare chance to appear on national
television. As Joseph Frederick repeatedly explained, he
did not address the curious messageóìBONG HiTS 4
JESUSîóto his fellow students. He just wanted to get the
camera crewsí attention. Moreover, concern about a nationwide
evaluation of the conduct of the JDHS student
body would have justified the principalís decision to remove
an attention-grabbing 14-foot banner, even if it had
merely proclaimed ìGlaciers Melt!î
I agree with the Court that the principal should not be
held liable for pulling down Frederickís banner. See Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). I would hold,
however, that the schoolís interest in protecting its students
from exposure to speech ìreasonably regarded as
promoting illegal drug use,î ante, at 1, cannot justify
disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous
statement to a television audience simply because it
contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First
Amendment demands more, indeed, much more. 2 MORSE v. FREDERICK
STEVENS, J., dissenting
The Court holds otherwise only after laboring to establish
two uncontroversial propositions: first, that the constitutional
rights of students in school settings are not
coextensive with the rights of adults, see ante, at 8ñ12;
and second, that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is a
valid and terribly important interest, see ante, at 12ñ14.
As to the first, I take the Courtís point that the message
on Frederickís banner is not necessarily protected speech,
even though it unquestionably would have been had the
banner been unfurled elsewhere. As to the second, I am
willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing
need to deter drug use supports JDHSís rule prohibiting
willful conduct that expressly ìadvocates the use of
substances that are illegal to minors.î App. to Pet. for
Cert. 53a. But it is a gross non sequitur to draw from
these two unremarkable propositions the remarkable
conclusion that the school may suppress student speech
that was never meant to persuade anyone to do anything.
In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student
speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible
rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and
harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither,
and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment
in upholdingóindeed, lauding.
Missouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
Is your workplace prepared for today's electronic workplace? Are you prepared for social media? This presentation gives you guidance.
Read the following edited U. S. Supreme Court case regarding student.docx
Read the following edited U. S. Supreme Court case regarding student speech at a school assembly. Write a one-page legal brief based on your reading of the case. Use an abbreviated format of:
Case, Citation, Facts of the Case, Question, Rulings, Rationale, and Implications.
A sample of a case brief is located on page 28 of the Stader book.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.
I
On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce
County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Students were required to attend the assembly or to report to the study hall.
The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government.
Students who elected not to attend the assembly were required to report to study hall. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.
Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it,"
App. 30, and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences." During Fraser's delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed the reaction of students to the speech. Some students hooted and yelled; some by gestures graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondent's speech. Other students appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that, on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class.
A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language in the school provides: Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.
The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called Fraser into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. Fraser was presented with copies of five letters submitted by teachers, describing his conduct at the assembly; he was given a chance to explain his conduct and he admitted to having given the speech described and that he deliberately used sexual innuendo in the speech. Fraser was then informed that he would be suspended for three days, and that his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement e.
Sourcehttpwww.oyez.orgcases1970-197919711971_71_452_____.docx
Source:http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_452
___________________________________________
Healy v. James - 408 U.S. 169 (1972)
· Syllabus
· Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)
Healy v. James
No. 71-452
Argued March 28, 1972
Decided June 26, 1972
408 U.S. 169
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioners, seeking to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at a state-supported college, were denied recognition as a campus organization. Recognition would have entitled petitioners to use campus facilities for meetings and to use of the campus bulletin board and school newspaper. The college president denied recognition because he was not satisfied that petitioners' group was independent of the National SDS, which he concluded has a philosophy of disruption and violence in conflict with the college's declaration of student rights. Petitioners thereupon brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court first ordered a further administrative hearing, after which the president reaffirmed his prior decision. Approving the president's judgment, the District Court held that petitioners had failed to show that they could function free from the National SDS and that the college's refusal to approve the group, which the court found "likely to cause violent acts of disruption," did not violate petitioners' associational rights. The Court of Appeals, purporting not to reach the First Amendment issues, affirmed on the ground that petitioners had failed to avail themselves of the due process accorded to them and to meet their burden of complying with the prevailing standards for recognition.
Held:
1. The courts erred in (1) discounting the cognizable First Amendment associational interest that petitioners had in furthering their personal beliefs and (2) assuming that the burden was on petitioners to show entitlement to recognition by the college, rather than on the college to justify its nonrecognition of the group, once petitioners had made application conformably to college requirements. Pp. 408 U. S. 180-185.
2. Insofar as the denial of recognition to petitioners' group was based on an assumed relationship with the National SDS, or was a result of disagreement with the group's philosophy, or was a consequence of a fear of disruption, for which there was no support in the record, the college's decision violated the petitioners' First Amendment rights. A proper basis for nonrecognition might have
Page 408 U. S. 170
been afforded, however, by a showing that the group refused to comply with a rule requiring them to abide by reasonable campus regulations. Since the record is not clear whether the college ha such a rule, and, if so, whether petitioners intend to observe it, these issues remain to be resolved. Pp. 408 U. S. 185-194.
45 F.2d 1122, reversed and remanded.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which.
Employment lawupdate
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surprise that it’s been at the center of many landmark controversies over the years. Here are 10 Supreme Court cases related to education that impacted both constitutional law and the public school experience.
10. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Arguably the most well-known ruling of the 20th century, Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergusonand established that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Warren Court’s unanimous decision explained that the separate-but-equal doctrine violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ordered an end to legally mandated race-segregated schools. While the Brown decision marked only the beginning of a prolonged struggle to achieve actual integration, its impact cannot be understated.
9. Engel v. Vitale(1962) and 8. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
This pair of cases shaped the modern understanding of how the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment constrains prayer in public schools. In Engel, the Court struck down a New York State rule that allowed public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day. The Court decided that these prayers amounted to an “official stamp of approval” upon one particular kind of prayer and religious service, and said that, since teachers are agents of the federal government, the scheme violated the Establishment Clause.
The reasoning in Engel was also applied in Schempp, in which the Court struck down a Pennsylvania policy that required all students to read 10 Bible verses and say the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each day. While a student could get an exemption with a parent’s note, the Warren Court decided that this still amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religious tradition.
7. Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
This case adjudicated a different sort of Establishment Clause challenge, where the controversy dealt with a statute providing financial support for teacher salaries and textbooks in parochial schools. The Burger Court unanimously decided that this financial aid scheme violated the Establishment Clause and delineated the governing precedent for Establishment Clause cases known as the Lemon test. Under Lemon, statutes (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither inhibit nor advance religion; and (3) cannot foster an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court held that this scheme violated the third prong of the Lemon test.
6. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Among the litany of public school cases from the Warren and Burger eras is the landmark Free Exercise Clause decision in Yoder. Wisconsin mandated that all children attend public school until age 16, but Jonas Yoder, a devoutly religious Amish man, refused to send his children to school past eighth grade. He argued that his children didn’t need to be in school that long t ...
Case Brief GuidanceSingle space and clearly label each section. A .docx
Case Brief Guidance
Single space and clearly label each section. A case brief should never exceed a page and a half (usually one page). I may not ask for you to provide all six sections for a given case, so read the assignment instructions. I have included an actual example below and note my comments about the facts, decision, and implications. You are to use only the information in the actual case (no outside help), thus no citations are necessary. You should be sure to include quotation marks if you utilize a direct sentence or phrase. A rubric for scoring is provided in the link below where you accessed this document.
Sections Usually Needed and Clearly Label Each Section:
1. Facts – In a paragraph not to exceed a half of a page, summarize the key events that led us to the presents courts review. This must include include the results of the lower courts as well.
2. Issue – What key question (maybe two) is the Supreme Court addressing? This is usually not whether the court of appeals got it right or wrong, but a legal issue that needs further examination or clarification. It is to be phrased as a question(s) and usually can be directly quoted.
3. Decision – What did the court decide with regards to the question AND what is the next course of action for the case or parties as described in the opinion? This should only two sentences max!
4. Reasoning – Why did the court decide the way they did? This should include the legal reasons for their decision and is likely as long as the facts section depending on the case.
5. Other opinions – Quickly identify what other opinions were written by Supreme Court Justices (concurring/dissenting) and by whom. You do not have to discuss what they said unless I specifically ask for that in the instructions for that case.
6. HRM/Business Implications – What will be the lasting impact of the courts decision on business and HRM practices? This section should probably be around 3 good solid sentences depending on the case.
Example:
1. Facts of the Case
The petitioner Barbara Grutter applied to the University of Michigan Law School in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a 161 LSAT score. Grutter was initially placed on a waitlist but was ultimately rejected by the Law School. Grutter filed suit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan against the Regents of the university, the Dean of the Law School, the President of the university, and the Director of Admissions at the Law School. Grutter, a white female, claimed that they had discriminated against her on the basis of race which, violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; and Rev. Stat. §1977, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Grutter alleged that the University of Michigan used race as a predominant factor to grant admission to certain minority groups and that the respondents had “no compelling interest to justify their use of race in the admissions process. Grutter sued for compensato ...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Expression and Associational Rights PPT.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Expression and Associational Rights PPT
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROY
QUESTION PRESENTED
Should this reverse the lower court’s denial of summary judgment to a public high school student who suffered monetary loss as a result of being suspended from a public high school for exercising her First Amendment rights in wearing a anti-war t-shirt and smearing artificial blood on a white shirt during a school sponsored assembly on current events, where students had no reaction to the blood smearing whatsoever, and less than 10% of the present students booed or cheered when she displayed her anti-war shirt?
FACTS
Appellant, Sarah LeRoy, a former Syracuse public high school student, was suspended during spring 2015 and had to attend and pay for private schooling as a result of her suspension for exercising her First Amendment rights by her wearing an anti-war t-shirt in current events assembly at school to which less than 10% of students even reacted, and to which none reacted to her smearing of artificial blood on a white shirt. Twenty students of 250 stood up and cheered and booed; some told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.
Less than 10% of the students present at this school-sponsored current events assembly stood up and booed or cheered, although some told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.
While Ms. LeRoy smeared artificial blood on her shirt during the current events assembly, there was no reaction from the crowd, who sat silent. Even when she displayed her anti-war t-shirt, less than 10% of the students present booed, and many of these cheered her on, yet there was no violence or greater disturbance than this. R.6.
Ms. LeRoy was just expressing her constitutional right where she smeared her shirt with red paint, after which she removed the shirt and painted another with anti-war words while shouting anti-war slogans. All the students did not react to her case but only a few of the available students raised concerns. Only about 20 reacted showing no much commotion was caused due to her public expression of her thoughts on the war. R.19
On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. LeRoy asks that this court reverse this denial of summary judgment, and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment, with injunctive relief and damages for the school’s actions against her.
On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. LeRoy asks that this court reverse this denial of summary judgment, and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment, with injunctive relief and damages for the school’s actions against her.
ARGUMENT
MS. LEROY PROPERLY EXERCISED HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
IN HER ACTIONS BEFORE THE STUDENT ASSMEBLY ON CURRENT EVENTS AND THE DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY SUSPENDED HER
TS Sarah LeRoy is entitled to a reversal of the lower court’s denial of summary judgment summary judgment against the defendant in her First Amendment claim.
GEN The U. S. courts grant summary judgment where.
Content Area __________ ActivityStrategy to make _________ cul.docx
Content Area: __________
Activity/Strategy to make _________ culturally relevant to students.
Aspect
Activity/Strategy
Vocabulary
Building a Community
of Learners
High Expectations
Rewards
Pride
Method of sharing this
information with families
CHART
Layshock v. Hermitage School District
Identification of the Case
Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist., 593 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.2010).
Date decided: Under the authority of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, the case was decided on June 13, 2011.
Issue: a). Was the student’s actions punishable?
b). Should the student have been suspended and not allowed to participate in the
graduation exercise?
Holding: a). The court held that under the circumstances in the case, there is a
constitutional prohibition in the first amendment that prevents schools from reaching beyond the
boundaries of the schoolyard to impose discipline (Baxter, 2014). This discipline was also
termed as inappropriate.
b). While the initial decision to forbid the boy from attending his graduation was
revoked, the federal judge ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional and required a
compensatory charge on the school in 2007 (Conn, 2015). On appeal in 2010, the appeal court
upheld the former decision. The last appeal was made in the US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
and decided on June 13, 2011.
Background and Facts of the Case
Background: The case concerns Justine Layshocks parents against Hickory High School
who had suspended him for creating an online parody against the principal which in turn made
him miss his graduation.
Facts: The student’s actions took place off campus and during non-school hours. The
picture used was from the school’s website which is a public website in which everyone has
access.
Issues: The serious issue arising from the case is the fact that however distasteful his
actions, the student had not committed any offenses outlined by the school district which would
in turn cause a suspension. Also, due to the suspension, the student was kept from participating
in a momentous milestone in his life.
Decision of the high court/Reason for the decision: While the initial decision to forbid
the boy from attending his graduation was revoked, the federal judge ruled that the suspension
was unconstitutional and required a compensatory charge on the school in 2007 (Conn, 2015).
On appeal in 2010, the appeal court upheld the former decision. The last appeal was made in the
US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit and decided on June 13, 2011.
Opinion: The upholding of the student's freedom of speech by all the courts support the rights of expression. It shows the ability of the constitution to promote the ability of students to freely communicate their views without the fear of intimidation (Mercier, 2015). The majority of the people felt that the case was adequately taken and the judges effectively protected the righ.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Significant Court Cases PPT.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Significant Court Cases PPT.
P I C K E R I N G & O T H E R C A S E S
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Educational Law Series - Pickering Court Case and Others
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Social Media and Privacy Law
Presentation at the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers (FACL) 5th Annual Conference.
Religious accommodation in canada
Presentation on March 19, 2008 at Huron College, University of Western Ontario
What Has HMIRA Done
Omar Ha-Redeye covered the new amendments to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act (HMIRA) for the 2009 Explosion Protection & Hazardous Locations Conference in Calgary.
The event was for the oil & gas, mining, processing and utilities industries.
Materials are available from IDC Technologies, or online via SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1527588
The Tsunami : Lessons Learned for North American Responders
Abbreviated copy of presentation at the APCO Canada / NENA Ontario 2006 Conference & Trade Show, “9-1-1 in Any Language”
Toronto Sheraton Hotel and Conference Centre
October 1 – 4, 2006
http://www.cafc.ca/news-programs/2006/29-08-2006_e.php
Uploaded now for interest given current G20 protests in Toronto.
Global Climate Change, Energy & Health: Foreboding Clouds & Silver Linings
Global Climate Change, Energy & Health: Foreboding Clouds & Silver Linings
Talk by Jonathan Patz, MD, MPH
of the Nelson Institute & Dept. Population Health Sciences at the University of Wisconsin - Madison at the 16th World Congress on Disaster and Emergency Medicine on May 12, 2009.
Reproduced here with the author's permission.
Viewers also liked (7)
The Tsunami : Lessons Learned for North American Responders
The Tsunami : Lessons Learned for North American Responders
Mitigation strategies for the protection of health care workers and first res...
Mitigation strategies for the protection of health care workers and first res...
Global Climate Change, Energy & Health: Foreboding Clouds & Silver Linings
Global Climate Change, Energy & Health: Foreboding Clouds & Silver Linings
Similar to OBA - Social Media, Friend or Foe
Cite as 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1STEVENS, J., dissentingSUPREME.docx
Cite as: 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1
STEVENS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 06ñ278
_________________
DEBORAH MORSE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JOSEPH
FREDERICK
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 25, 2007]
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and
JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
A significant fact barely mentioned by the Court sheds a
revelatory light on the motives of both the students and
the principal of Juneau-Douglas High School (JDHS). On
January 24, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay gave those
Alaska residents a rare chance to appear on national
television. As Joseph Frederick repeatedly explained, he
did not address the curious messageóìBONG HiTS 4
JESUSîóto his fellow students. He just wanted to get the
camera crewsí attention. Moreover, concern about a nationwide
evaluation of the conduct of the JDHS student
body would have justified the principalís decision to remove
an attention-grabbing 14-foot banner, even if it had
merely proclaimed ìGlaciers Melt!î
I agree with the Court that the principal should not be
held liable for pulling down Frederickís banner. See Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). I would hold,
however, that the schoolís interest in protecting its students
from exposure to speech ìreasonably regarded as
promoting illegal drug use,î ante, at 1, cannot justify
disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous
statement to a television audience simply because it
contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First
Amendment demands more, indeed, much more. 2 MORSE v. FREDERICK
STEVENS, J., dissenting
The Court holds otherwise only after laboring to establish
two uncontroversial propositions: first, that the constitutional
rights of students in school settings are not
coextensive with the rights of adults, see ante, at 8ñ12;
and second, that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is a
valid and terribly important interest, see ante, at 12ñ14.
As to the first, I take the Courtís point that the message
on Frederickís banner is not necessarily protected speech,
even though it unquestionably would have been had the
banner been unfurled elsewhere. As to the second, I am
willing to assume that the Court is correct that the pressing
need to deter drug use supports JDHSís rule prohibiting
willful conduct that expressly ìadvocates the use of
substances that are illegal to minors.î App. to Pet. for
Cert. 53a. But it is a gross non sequitur to draw from
these two unremarkable propositions the remarkable
conclusion that the school may suppress student speech
that was never meant to persuade anyone to do anything.
In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student
speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible
rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and
harmful to students. This nonsense banner does neither,
and the Court does serious violence to the First Amendment
in upholdingóindeed, lauding.
Missouri Bankers Employment Law Conference
Is your workplace prepared for today's electronic workplace? Are you prepared for social media? This presentation gives you guidance.
Read the following edited U. S. Supreme Court case regarding student.docx
Read the following edited U. S. Supreme Court case regarding student speech at a school assembly. Write a one-page legal brief based on your reading of the case. Use an abbreviated format of:
Case, Citation, Facts of the Case, Question, Rulings, Rationale, and Implications.
A sample of a case brief is located on page 28 of the Stader book.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
478 U.S. 675 (1986)
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the First Amendment prevents a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly.
I
On April 26, 1983, respondent Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce
County, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 high school students, many of whom were 14-year-olds, attended the assembly. Students were required to attend the assembly or to report to the study hall.
The assembly was part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government.
Students who elected not to attend the assembly were required to report to study hall. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.
Two of Fraser's teachers, with whom he discussed the contents of his speech in advance, informed him that the speech was "inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it,"
App. 30, and that his delivery of the speech might have "severe consequences." During Fraser's delivery of the speech, a school counselor observed the reaction of students to the speech. Some students hooted and yelled; some by gestures graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondent's speech. Other students appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that, on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class.
A Bethel High School disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of obscene language in the school provides: Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.
The morning after the assembly, the Assistant Principal called Fraser into her office and notified him that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of this rule. Fraser was presented with copies of five letters submitted by teachers, describing his conduct at the assembly; he was given a chance to explain his conduct and he admitted to having given the speech described and that he deliberately used sexual innuendo in the speech. Fraser was then informed that he would be suspended for three days, and that his name would be removed from the list of candidates for graduation speaker at the school's commencement e.
Sourcehttpwww.oyez.orgcases1970-197919711971_71_452_____.docx
Source:http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_452
___________________________________________
Healy v. James - 408 U.S. 169 (1972)
· Syllabus
· Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)
Healy v. James
No. 71-452
Argued March 28, 1972
Decided June 26, 1972
408 U.S. 169
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioners, seeking to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at a state-supported college, were denied recognition as a campus organization. Recognition would have entitled petitioners to use campus facilities for meetings and to use of the campus bulletin board and school newspaper. The college president denied recognition because he was not satisfied that petitioners' group was independent of the National SDS, which he concluded has a philosophy of disruption and violence in conflict with the college's declaration of student rights. Petitioners thereupon brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court first ordered a further administrative hearing, after which the president reaffirmed his prior decision. Approving the president's judgment, the District Court held that petitioners had failed to show that they could function free from the National SDS and that the college's refusal to approve the group, which the court found "likely to cause violent acts of disruption," did not violate petitioners' associational rights. The Court of Appeals, purporting not to reach the First Amendment issues, affirmed on the ground that petitioners had failed to avail themselves of the due process accorded to them and to meet their burden of complying with the prevailing standards for recognition.
Held:
1. The courts erred in (1) discounting the cognizable First Amendment associational interest that petitioners had in furthering their personal beliefs and (2) assuming that the burden was on petitioners to show entitlement to recognition by the college, rather than on the college to justify its nonrecognition of the group, once petitioners had made application conformably to college requirements. Pp. 408 U. S. 180-185.
2. Insofar as the denial of recognition to petitioners' group was based on an assumed relationship with the National SDS, or was a result of disagreement with the group's philosophy, or was a consequence of a fear of disruption, for which there was no support in the record, the college's decision violated the petitioners' First Amendment rights. A proper basis for nonrecognition might have
Page 408 U. S. 170
been afforded, however, by a showing that the group refused to comply with a rule requiring them to abide by reasonable campus regulations. Since the record is not clear whether the college ha such a rule, and, if so, whether petitioners intend to observe it, these issues remain to be resolved. Pp. 408 U. S. 185-194.
45 F.2d 1122, reversed and remanded.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which.
Employment lawupdate
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surprise that it’s been at the center of many landmark controversies over the years. Here are 10 Supreme Court cases related to education that impacted both constitutional law and the public school experience.
10. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Arguably the most well-known ruling of the 20th century, Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergusonand established that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Warren Court’s unanimous decision explained that the separate-but-equal doctrine violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ordered an end to legally mandated race-segregated schools. While the Brown decision marked only the beginning of a prolonged struggle to achieve actual integration, its impact cannot be understated.
9. Engel v. Vitale(1962) and 8. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
This pair of cases shaped the modern understanding of how the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment constrains prayer in public schools. In Engel, the Court struck down a New York State rule that allowed public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day. The Court decided that these prayers amounted to an “official stamp of approval” upon one particular kind of prayer and religious service, and said that, since teachers are agents of the federal government, the scheme violated the Establishment Clause.
The reasoning in Engel was also applied in Schempp, in which the Court struck down a Pennsylvania policy that required all students to read 10 Bible verses and say the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each day. While a student could get an exemption with a parent’s note, the Warren Court decided that this still amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religious tradition.
7. Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
This case adjudicated a different sort of Establishment Clause challenge, where the controversy dealt with a statute providing financial support for teacher salaries and textbooks in parochial schools. The Burger Court unanimously decided that this financial aid scheme violated the Establishment Clause and delineated the governing precedent for Establishment Clause cases known as the Lemon test. Under Lemon, statutes (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither inhibit nor advance religion; and (3) cannot foster an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court held that this scheme violated the third prong of the Lemon test.
6. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Among the litany of public school cases from the Warren and Burger eras is the landmark Free Exercise Clause decision in Yoder. Wisconsin mandated that all children attend public school until age 16, but Jonas Yoder, a devoutly religious Amish man, refused to send his children to school past eighth grade. He argued that his children didn’t need to be in school that long t ...
Case Brief GuidanceSingle space and clearly label each section. A .docx
Case Brief Guidance
Single space and clearly label each section. A case brief should never exceed a page and a half (usually one page). I may not ask for you to provide all six sections for a given case, so read the assignment instructions. I have included an actual example below and note my comments about the facts, decision, and implications. You are to use only the information in the actual case (no outside help), thus no citations are necessary. You should be sure to include quotation marks if you utilize a direct sentence or phrase. A rubric for scoring is provided in the link below where you accessed this document.
Sections Usually Needed and Clearly Label Each Section:
1. Facts – In a paragraph not to exceed a half of a page, summarize the key events that led us to the presents courts review. This must include include the results of the lower courts as well.
2. Issue – What key question (maybe two) is the Supreme Court addressing? This is usually not whether the court of appeals got it right or wrong, but a legal issue that needs further examination or clarification. It is to be phrased as a question(s) and usually can be directly quoted.
3. Decision – What did the court decide with regards to the question AND what is the next course of action for the case or parties as described in the opinion? This should only two sentences max!
4. Reasoning – Why did the court decide the way they did? This should include the legal reasons for their decision and is likely as long as the facts section depending on the case.
5. Other opinions – Quickly identify what other opinions were written by Supreme Court Justices (concurring/dissenting) and by whom. You do not have to discuss what they said unless I specifically ask for that in the instructions for that case.
6. HRM/Business Implications – What will be the lasting impact of the courts decision on business and HRM practices? This section should probably be around 3 good solid sentences depending on the case.
Example:
1. Facts of the Case
The petitioner Barbara Grutter applied to the University of Michigan Law School in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a 161 LSAT score. Grutter was initially placed on a waitlist but was ultimately rejected by the Law School. Grutter filed suit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan against the Regents of the university, the Dean of the Law School, the President of the university, and the Director of Admissions at the Law School. Grutter, a white female, claimed that they had discriminated against her on the basis of race which, violated the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; and Rev. Stat. §1977, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Grutter alleged that the University of Michigan used race as a predominant factor to grant admission to certain minority groups and that the respondents had “no compelling interest to justify their use of race in the admissions process. Grutter sued for compensato ...
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Expression and Associational Rights PPT.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Expression and Associational Rights PPT
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROY
QUESTION PRESENTED
Should this reverse the lower court’s denial of summary judgment to a public high school student who suffered monetary loss as a result of being suspended from a public high school for exercising her First Amendment rights in wearing a anti-war t-shirt and smearing artificial blood on a white shirt during a school sponsored assembly on current events, where students had no reaction to the blood smearing whatsoever, and less than 10% of the present students booed or cheered when she displayed her anti-war shirt?
FACTS
Appellant, Sarah LeRoy, a former Syracuse public high school student, was suspended during spring 2015 and had to attend and pay for private schooling as a result of her suspension for exercising her First Amendment rights by her wearing an anti-war t-shirt in current events assembly at school to which less than 10% of students even reacted, and to which none reacted to her smearing of artificial blood on a white shirt. Twenty students of 250 stood up and cheered and booed; some told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.
Less than 10% of the students present at this school-sponsored current events assembly stood up and booed or cheered, although some told her to sit down and shut up. R.19.
While Ms. LeRoy smeared artificial blood on her shirt during the current events assembly, there was no reaction from the crowd, who sat silent. Even when she displayed her anti-war t-shirt, less than 10% of the students present booed, and many of these cheered her on, yet there was no violence or greater disturbance than this. R.6.
Ms. LeRoy was just expressing her constitutional right where she smeared her shirt with red paint, after which she removed the shirt and painted another with anti-war words while shouting anti-war slogans. All the students did not react to her case but only a few of the available students raised concerns. Only about 20 reacted showing no much commotion was caused due to her public expression of her thoughts on the war. R.19
On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. LeRoy asks that this court reverse this denial of summary judgment, and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment, with injunctive relief and damages for the school’s actions against her.
On these facts, the lower court denied Ms. LeRoy’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. LeRoy asks that this court reverse this denial of summary judgment, and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment, with injunctive relief and damages for the school’s actions against her.
ARGUMENT
MS. LEROY PROPERLY EXERCISED HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
IN HER ACTIONS BEFORE THE STUDENT ASSMEBLY ON CURRENT EVENTS AND THE DEFENDANTS IMPROPERLY SUSPENDED HER
TS Sarah LeRoy is entitled to a reversal of the lower court’s denial of summary judgment summary judgment against the defendant in her First Amendment claim.
GEN The U. S. courts grant summary judgment where.
Content Area __________ ActivityStrategy to make _________ cul.docx
Content Area: __________
Activity/Strategy to make _________ culturally relevant to students.
Aspect
Activity/Strategy
Vocabulary
Building a Community
of Learners
High Expectations
Rewards
Pride
Method of sharing this
information with families
CHART
Layshock v. Hermitage School District
Identification of the Case
Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist., 593 F.3d 249 (3d Cir.2010).
Date decided: Under the authority of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, the case was decided on June 13, 2011.
Issue: a). Was the student’s actions punishable?
b). Should the student have been suspended and not allowed to participate in the
graduation exercise?
Holding: a). The court held that under the circumstances in the case, there is a
constitutional prohibition in the first amendment that prevents schools from reaching beyond the
boundaries of the schoolyard to impose discipline (Baxter, 2014). This discipline was also
termed as inappropriate.
b). While the initial decision to forbid the boy from attending his graduation was
revoked, the federal judge ruled that the suspension was unconstitutional and required a
compensatory charge on the school in 2007 (Conn, 2015). On appeal in 2010, the appeal court
upheld the former decision. The last appeal was made in the US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
and decided on June 13, 2011.
Background and Facts of the Case
Background: The case concerns Justine Layshocks parents against Hickory High School
who had suspended him for creating an online parody against the principal which in turn made
him miss his graduation.
Facts: The student’s actions took place off campus and during non-school hours. The
picture used was from the school’s website which is a public website in which everyone has
access.
Issues: The serious issue arising from the case is the fact that however distasteful his
actions, the student had not committed any offenses outlined by the school district which would
in turn cause a suspension. Also, due to the suspension, the student was kept from participating
in a momentous milestone in his life.
Decision of the high court/Reason for the decision: While the initial decision to forbid
the boy from attending his graduation was revoked, the federal judge ruled that the suspension
was unconstitutional and required a compensatory charge on the school in 2007 (Conn, 2015).
On appeal in 2010, the appeal court upheld the former decision. The last appeal was made in the
US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit and decided on June 13, 2011.
Opinion: The upholding of the student's freedom of speech by all the courts support the rights of expression. It shows the ability of the constitution to promote the ability of students to freely communicate their views without the fear of intimidation (Mercier, 2015). The majority of the people felt that the case was adequately taken and the judges effectively protected the righ.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Significant Court Cases PPT.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Significant Court Cases PPT.
P I C K E R I N G & O T H E R C A S E S
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Educational Law Series - Pickering Court Case and Others
Pickering & Other Cases
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Students Rights, Student Freedom of Speech, Student Expression, Pickering and other cases, Censsorship of Student Publications, Due Process, Discrimination, Diversity, Multicultural Issues, Personnel Administration
Freedom Of Expression Employees Ppt]
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Students Rights, Student Freedom of Speech, Student Expression, Pickering and other cases, Censsorship of Student Publications, Due Process, Discrimination, Diversity, Multicultural Issues, Personnel Administration
F R E E D O M O F E X P R E S S I O N E M P L O Y E E S P P T]
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Educational Law Series - Freedom of Expression
F R E E D O M O F E X P R E S S I O N E M P L O Y E E S
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Educational Law Series - Freedom of Expression - Public School Law - Legalities
Similar to OBA - Social Media, Friend or Foe (20)
Cite as 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1STEVENS, J., dissentingSUPREME.docx
Cite as 551 U. S. ____ (2007) 1STEVENS, J., dissentingSUPREME.docx
Read the following edited U. S. Supreme Court case regarding student.docx
Read the following edited U. S. Supreme Court case regarding student.docx
Sourcehttpwww.oyez.orgcases1970-197919711971_71_452_____.docx
Sourcehttpwww.oyez.orgcases1970-197919711971_71_452_____.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docx
Case Brief GuidanceSingle space and clearly label each section. A .docx
Case Brief GuidanceSingle space and clearly label each section. A .docx
Affirmative Action in College and University Admissions - UCEA
Affirmative Action in College and University Admissions - UCEA
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Expression and Associational Rights PPT.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Expression and Associational Rights PPT.
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx
SAMPLE FOR SARAH LEROYQUESTION PRESENTEDShould th.docx
Content Area __________ ActivityStrategy to make _________ cul.docx
Content Area __________ ActivityStrategy to make _________ cul.docx
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Significant Court Cases PPT.
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Significant Court Cases PPT.
F R E E D O M O F E X P R E S S I O N E M P L O Y E E S P P T]
F R E E D O M O F E X P R E S S I O N E M P L O Y E E S P P T]
F R E E D O M O F E X P R E S S I O N E M P L O Y E E S
F R E E D O M O F E X P R E S S I O N E M P L O Y E E S
Recently uploaded
1.4 modern child centered education - mahatma gandhi-2.pptx
Child centred education is an educational approach that priorities the interest, needs and abilities of the child in the learning process.
Thesis Statement for students diagnonsed withADHD.ppt
Presentation required for the master in Education.
Overview on Edible Vaccine: Pros & Cons with Mechanism
This ppt include the description of the edible vaccine i.e. a new concept over the traditional vaccine administered by injection.
Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
This Presentation in details discusses on Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
Home assignment II on Spectroscopy 2024 Answers.pdf
Answers to Home assignment on UV-Visible spectroscopy: Calculation of wavelength of UV-Visible absorption
Biological Screening of Herbal Drugs in detailed.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docx
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Chapter 3 - Islamic Banking Products and Services.pptx
Chapter 3 - Islamic Banking Products and Services.pptxMohd Adib Abd Muin, Senior Lecturer at Universiti Utara Malaysia
This slide is prepared for master's students (MIFB & MIBS) UUM. May it be useful to all.The French Revolution Class 9 Study Material pdf free download
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic Imperative
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Supporting (UKRI) OA monographs at Salford.pptx
How libraries can support authors with open access requirements for UKRI funded books
Wednesday 22 May 2024, 14:00-15:00.
The Challenger.pdf DNHS Official Publication
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of other biological materials, Ownership and period of protection
Recently uploaded (20)
1.4 modern child centered education - mahatma gandhi-2.pptx
1.4 modern child centered education - mahatma gandhi-2.pptx
Thesis Statement for students diagnonsed withADHD.ppt
Thesis Statement for students diagnonsed withADHD.ppt
Overview on Edible Vaccine: Pros & Cons with Mechanism
Overview on Edible Vaccine: Pros & Cons with Mechanism
Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
Digital Tools and AI for Teaching Learning and Research
Home assignment II on Spectroscopy 2024 Answers.pdf
Home assignment II on Spectroscopy 2024 Answers.pdf
Chapter 3 - Islamic Banking Products and Services.pptx
Chapter 3 - Islamic Banking Products and Services.pptx
The French Revolution Class 9 Study Material pdf free download
The French Revolution Class 9 Study Material pdf free download
Group Presentation 2 Economics.Ariana Buscigliopptx
Group Presentation 2 Economics.Ariana Buscigliopptx
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp Network
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
"Protectable subject matters, Protection in biotechnology, Protection of othe...
Multithreading_in_C++ - std::thread, race condition
Multithreading_in_C++ - std::thread, race condition
OBA - Social Media, Friend or Foe
- 1. Education LawSocial Media In Schools: Friend or Foe?Thursday, March 31, 2011 | 5:30 pmOBA Conference Centre20 Toronto Street, Suite 200, | Toronto, Ontario Omar Ha-Redeye
- 2. Overview Brief case law review Reputation management Developing standards
- 3. Paine v. University of Toronto, [1981] O.J. No. 3187 “the courts should use restraint and be slow to intervene in university... the courts should be reluctant to intervene in university affairs.” [para. 11]
- 4. Pridgen v. University of Calgary, 2010 ABQB 644 “I am satisfied that the University is not a Charter free zone… the manner in which those policies are interpreted and applied must not offend the rights provided under the Charter.” [para. 64]
- 5. Gauthier c. Saint-Germain, 2010 ONCA 309;Jaffer v. York University, 2010 ONCA 654 Gauthier: where pith and substance of dispute is academic, action should not be held in courts even where there are larger contractual or tortious claims Discussion in Jaffer: proper jurisdiction can be identified by type of remedy sought: Judicial review to reverse internal academic decision SCJ Jurisdiction if damages claimed in tort or contract
- 6. R. v. Sather, 2008 ONCJ 98 Expert Evidence of Jesse Hirch: People embellish their character and deliberately say provocative things to elicit a response from their Facebook “friends”. construct an alternate persona. postings were expressions of emotions posted these items to blow off steam as he had been taught in a prior anger management course.
- 7. Zhang v. The University of Western Ontario, 2010 ONSC 6489 JR application dismissed for unexplained delay > 6 mos Off-campus conduct of Facebook postings Applicant submitted: postings beyond the reach of the University’s authority protected by s. 2(b) “free speech has its limits, including the making of threats and defamation of character” [para. 35]
- 9. Foda v. RateMDs; Foda v. Capital Health Alberta Court of Queen's Bench January 12, 2007 – Appeal of pleadings amended April 17, 2007 - Application for stay of proceedings June 21, 2007 (Alb. C.A.)- defamation claim struck for lack of evidence United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division July 16, 2008 – Order for subpoena granted May 10, 2010 – Interim order July 26, 2010 – Motion denied
Editor's Notes
- http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2008/2008oncj98/2008oncj98.html
- http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2010/2010onsc6489/2010onsc6489.html
- http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/22/when-cyberbullying-crosses-the-line