Private school students' gay-bashing not free speech, court rules

[kpete]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Private school students' gay-bashing not free speech, court rules
March 17, 2010 | 11:04 am

Students at an elite L.A. private school who posted death threats and antigay messages on the Internet site of a 15-year-old classmate can't claim the constitutional protection of free speech, a California appeals court has ruled.

The parents of the boy targeted by the threatening and derogatory posts on his website withdrew him from Harvard-Westlake School and moved to Northern California to protect him from classmates who had incorrectly labeled him as gay and pronounced him "wanted dead or alive," the boy's father said in a lawsuit brought against six students and their parents.

The defendants had attempted to deflect the charges by seeking a judgment from Los Angeles County Superior Court that the comments were 1st Amendment-protected speech on an issue of public interest, a motion denied by the lower court and upheld by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision Monday.

The Los Angeles Police Department detective who initially investigated the hostile website postings against the student, identified only as D.C., had declined to pursue charges against the other students, saying their "annoying and immature Internet communications did not meet the criteria for criminal prosecution."

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/private-school-students-gaybashing-not-free-speech-court-rules.html

[theoldman]

1. Death threats have never been free speech.

[SoapBox]

3. And why is that?

...why is it that death threats are ok.

Oh that's right...ok for GOPeers/Rushpublican'ts/TeaScumBaggers...but not ok for everyone else.

[AlbertCat]

7. Death threats have never been free speech.

or trivial to gays getting them. I wonder if the police would find it immature to threaten a black with lynching?

[Taverner]

16. Or a Cop with Ice-T's Cop Killer song...

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Exactly. Those bullies should have received a visit

from law enforcement. Their actions should not have been brushed off as "boys will be boys".

[benld74]

2. Activist judges - at it again,,,,

[musicblind]

4. How could these students or their lawyer be dumb enough to ever think Death Threats are free speech?

That information is clearly explained in even introductory law courses.

I didn't study law, but I did have to take a media law course as part of my broadcast and cinema degree at UNC-Greensboro. What is and is not free speech was one of the first topics covered. :eyes:


I think it's a damn shame the LAPD detective declined to press charges.

[Moosepoop]

5. Good job by the lower and Superior courts!

I hope the family wins in the end.

Here's a question for any lawyers here -- if this civil lawsuit is won by the defendants, will the appeals court ruling that defined this behavior as not falling under free speech set a precedent for the criminal system? I mean, can/does a ruling in a civil case have any bearing on future criminal cases (such as making it more likely for prosecutors to decide that this kind of behavior meets the criteria for criminal prosecution after all)? Or is it only rulings in criminal cases that affect other criminal cases?

[ColesCountyDem]

6. Generally speaking, it's the latter case. n/t

[No Elephants]

22. I don't think the definition of "protected speech" would vary from civil case to criminal.

[No Elephants]

21. I think I know the answer.

This was a ruling from a state appeals court. Assume for a second that no other court has ever decided the same issue before. With that assumption, this ruling would be binding on all courts in that area that are beneath that appeals court. In any other jurisdiction, it might be "persuasive," but not binding.

However, it is likely that, in deciding this case, the Californial Appeals Court cited some federal case as precedent. If it is a SCOTUS case, of course, it binds every court, state and federal. If it is a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case, it would bind all courts in the particular circuit.

On the issue of what the First Amendment protects, the decision would apply in both criminal and civil cases.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. Bullying is against the law, and schools that allow it get sued. Them is the facts.

Students have never had free speech in the way that adults have it, particularly when it comes to schools. Keeping kids safe and promoting an environment condusive to learning trumps the first ammendment.

[greiner3]

9. So who's the asshole;

Sitting at the 2nd District Court of Appeal?

Just saying?

[Cha]

10. Yeah, how about Hate Speech and

Death Threats?

Too bad it doesn't meet the criteria for crimial prosecution bc they might think twice about being such stupid assholes in the future.

[Orrex]

11. Wait until Scalia weighs in on how this violates the school's sacred personhood.

[brentspeak]

12. How much you want to bet that if the victim was the detective's son or daughter

he wouldn't make a finding of merely "annoying and immature Internet communications"?

[Jkid]

14. Incorrectly labeled him as gay?

Wait, so they gone after the teen because they perceived him as gay?

If that's what it is, those homophobic pigs need to go to juvenile hall. Or at least send them to the Museum of Tolerance LA. Sexual minorities have been persecuted in the past, especially in Nazi Germany.

[awoke_in_2003]

17. I used to see it in school...

maybe the kid isn't as physically developed as his peers, maybe not an ass like the rest of the guys, and doesn't do well around females because they are shy. That is enough to get you labeled as being gay. Whether he is gay or not does not matter, threats should be handled- and if they cannot, then, like you say, off to juvenille hall with them.

[Jkid]

18. I thought so, he does not subscribe to the degenerate teenage manhood mentality.

So he gets percived as gay. Yeah, they ought to be in juvenile hall.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. High School is, unfortunately

a lot about labels. Think we would grow out of it in adulthood, but a lot don't.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. Note to straight people who whine about gay "special rights": See post #14

You too are protected by hate crime laws.

[ColesCountyDem]

15. Good! n/t

[lunasun]

20. These "annoying immature " troublemakers

just need a time out ...
.... IN JAIL!!!

[No Elephants]

23. At a PRIVATE school in LOS ANGELES? And the parents thought northern California

would be safer than Los Angeles? And the story makes a point of saying the kids "incorrectly" labeled him as gay.

Somehow, I am getting a Rick Warren vibe.

[Hepburn]

25. Atty for the defendants ~~ says they will appeal to the Cal Supremes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/17/state/n062510D57.DTL

Here is the atty who is doing this:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=138566

[Hepburn]

26. Link to the opinion of the 2DCA:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B207869.PDF

BTW: The atty for the defendants is both an attorney and a clinical psychologist.

[Hepburn]

27. OMFG......the case quotes some of the actual language used...

...on the plaintiff's website. It is waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what is quoted in any article. Absolute disgusting. :puke: