Garner Vo-Tech Case Study
Schools may regulate student speech that results in a material and substantial disruption within the school. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509, 513 (1969). Garner Vo-Tech must show either that there was an actual disruption within the school or that officials reasonably anticipated a material and substantial disruption was likely to occur. Alternatively, the Court could expand the exception found in Morse that waives the disruption requirement and include speech that calls for the bullying and harassment of a specific student. Morse v. Fredrick, 551 U.S. 393, 407 (2007). Assertion of a constitutional rights violation does not bind the Court to the conclusion of the courts below. Time, Inc. v. Pape, 401 U.S. 279,
…show more content…
Dever described recruiting “several new MAM members” during orientation day at Garner Vo-Tech. (R. at 9.) After orientation, Dever invited the new members to join the MAM GroupMe, then he posted the message that mentioned Whitten’s presence at Garner Vo-Tech and called for the members to “tell her what you think. And tell her loudly!” (R. at 16.) This is substantially similar to the page in Kowalski that directly targeted a specific student at school. Dever knew that, at the very least, the newest members of MAM were members of the Garner Vo-Tech community. (R. at 9.) It is reasonable to assume that Dever knew that members were likely to see Whitten on the Vo-Tech campus, since he had specifically mentioned her presence on campus. (R. at 16.) Dever’s message directed towards members of the Vo-Tech community is similar to the MySpace page in Kowalski, which was deliberately shared with other students. The student in Kowalski stated that her intent was to make other students aware of STDs–the alleged STDs of the targeted student. Dever’s intent can be reasonably assumed from the content and details of his message; Dever wanted other students at Garner Vo-Tech to be aware of Whitten’s presence at the school and to harass her whenever they could. This Court should follow the reasoning in Kowalski and determine that Dever’s GroupMe message is on-campus speech because of his knowledge that the group contained members of the school community who were likely to see and harass Whitten on the campus of Garner
Dever described recruiting “several new MAM members” during orientation day at Garner Vo-Tech. (R. at 9.) After orientation, Dever invited the new members to join the MAM GroupMe, then he posted the message that mentioned Whitten’s presence at Garner Vo-Tech and called for the members to “tell her what you think. And tell her loudly!” (R. at 16.) This is substantially similar to the page in Kowalski that directly targeted a specific student at school. Dever knew that, at the very least, the newest members of MAM were members of the Garner Vo-Tech community. (R. at 9.) It is reasonable to assume that Dever knew that members were likely to see Whitten on the Vo-Tech campus, since he had specifically mentioned her presence on campus. (R. at 16.) Dever’s message directed towards members of the Vo-Tech community is similar to the MySpace page in Kowalski, which was deliberately shared with other students. The student in Kowalski stated that her intent was to make other students aware of STDs–the alleged STDs of the targeted student. Dever’s intent can be reasonably assumed from the content and details of his message; Dever wanted other students at Garner Vo-Tech to be aware of Whitten’s presence at the school and to harass her whenever they could. This Court should follow the reasoning in Kowalski and determine that Dever’s GroupMe message is on-campus speech because of his knowledge that the group contained members of the school community who were likely to see and harass Whitten on the campus of Garner