Free Speech Suit Filed -- Courant.com

Charles from Burlington wrote:

<quoted text>
If Ms. Niehoff is such an OUTSTANDING principal, why couldn't she get a warm body in there to run the equipment for the students' musical event? That school is swimming in cash! Music is deemphasized enough in government schools, anything the students do extracurricular along those lines should be encouraged. Looks to me like Ms. Niehoff dropped the ball. I don't blame the young lady for getting annoyed.

Becoming annoyed and then trying to solve a problem maturely and cooperatively is totally different than having a hissy fit and making a fool of yourself.

Justice Seeker wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear Burlington Res....don't pay this stupid 8itch any attention...she couldn't more of an idiot if she actually tried!!!!!!!!!

Oh boy - you are ranting again. Please clean up the language. Remember, yoga, exercise, meditate - You are calling her/him an idiot?

CT-Democrat for Life wrote:

She should be expelled for this.

Seig heil!

Burlington Resident wrote:

<quoted text> How many days have you spent in the school? Are you a teacher?

What's your point? I don't understand - "the school" - which school? Teacher, yes -not Region 10.

Ignore the "justice" dude - he has multiple issues which can't really be addressed or resolve here.

The kid apologized..in fact there was a post in here that it was even covered by a local tv station.

How much of a beating does this kid have to take at the hand of the school before you stop and say
"Enough is enough already?"

JPR wrote:

Personally my kids knew better than to do something like that! Mom... No award for doing a great job! Her actions would have earned a case of whoop azz in most functional families!

I am laughing so hard at your naivete and overly judgmental attitude. You really think you knew everything at every moment your 'perfect' kids did? Any parent who allows their child to speak to any friend anywhere at anytime using any venue runs the risk of an inapporpriate remark slipping out sometime. The mother didn't condone the language, so don't bash her. The kid was elected as secretary for 3 years running, so she can't be too bad. This should have ended with a meaningful conversation and her apology.

Nick wrote:

The kid apologized..in fact there was a post in here that it was even covered by a local tv station.
How much of a beating does this kid have to take at the hand of the school before you stop and say
"Enough is enough already?"

Yes, it is over - I agree - channel her energies and strengths in other areas. The consequence is over, so move on. They are perpetuating the controversy with the lawsuit.

It seems like a lot of respondents to this article are missing a fundamental point - the school officials grossly overstepped their authority. It is *not* the job of a government official to discipline students for inappropriate comments that are said outside of their school. The simple fact is that someone, be it the principal or the superintendent, has abused their position to punish a student over speech protected by the first amendment just because their ego was bruised.

Was Avery Doninger's comment uncalled for? Certainly, yes. I absolutely agree that one must be cautious with what they post on the Internet - a public forum that is archived. Once you commit something to a web site, you have to assume that it will be available somewhere on the web for the rest of time. And yes, employers do Google prospective candidates - I have seen this first-hand.

But, you must also consider the context of the message. It was obviously an announcement to her friends. Teenagers are going to use this sort of language when talking to their peers; it is a fact of life. The principal and superintendent deal with these sorts of attitudes daily; they are expected to have a thick enough skin to deal with juveniles. That is, unfortunately, how the world works in 2007.

But again, the matter at hand is that a *government official* is punishing a student for referring to her as a 'douchbag', even if it was unjustified. That sort of coarse comment is protected speech, like it or not. It is an opinion.

What does this show the students? That any comment that the administration does not like will be dealt with in a heavy-handed manner? That there is no value whatsoever placed on the Bill of Rights? Already, we are seeing students' privacy stripped away in the name of security - and in most cases, the security measures the schools take are to mitigate liability after-the-fact and would have no real impact if someone truly wished to bring a knife, handgun, or rifle into the building. What does this teach them?

I find it disturbing how many of you are crying 'Go sit in a corner and cry, liberal scum!'. You are dismissing a dangerous precedent and a horrific, anti-American lesson to her and her schoolmates.

This case is all about "free" speech, you know one of the things that our great armies have fought for all over the world. Free speech means that you are able to say hurtful things especially about authority figures. If you could only say nice things about them or nothing at all, what would be so free about that?

This freedom is important, which is why it is the FIRST Amendment. It applies to stupid speech like in this story and to our right to confront the government equally. To deny it in one instance is to make it possible to deny it in all instances. It is the reason that each of you were able to give your opinions here, some worthy, some not, but none to be denied.

Some basic questions for this mother and daughter:

How would they feel if a website was created about them calling them names?

Does this mother realize she's taking district money (attourney's fees) away from other programs that would benefit the direct education of students that need it? I think that's more important than her daughter serving one more year as secretary of her class.

Are they aware that if they win this law suit, anybody in that district could say whatever they want about these administrators and, essentially, nothing could be done about it because of precedents? Why is that O.K.?

Why is it wrong that this girl learns a valid lesson at 16? Isn't this mother embarrassed that her daughter would publicly use that language regarding a school official? What kind of values is she teaching her daughter by fighting for her?

They seem to be out of tune with decorum, being a human being, and taking responsibility for their actions.

Dave wrote:

The school overstepped its rights to discipline. Those rights end with school activities. A student, or anyone else, has every right to criticize school administration using a public venue. If schools paid more attention to teaching and less time and money to over-administering, we would have better schools.

They're not denying her an education. They're teaching her a valid lesson in life by removing her from a privileged position. She messed up; she needs to take responsibility. This is hardly a harsh punishment; it is in fact appropriate. Expulsion would be too harsh. Detention maybe even too harsh. Removal of a leadership role int he school? Right on; she doesn't deserve it. If people don't learn this early, our world will be a very scary place.

What an incredible over reaction by school administrators...Avery Doninger served and contributed to the high school and its students for 3 years. After the use of 1 word and the wounding of hyper-sensitive administrators' egos --- administrators elected to pick-up the disciplinary ball and run with it...not bothering to first inform a parent for discussion and possible, alternate disciplinary actions. Ms. Doninger apologized both publicly and privately to the administrators. I invite all that currently feel that the 1 year reprimand is just & reasonable punishment, to visit, read and ponder the following site: www.progress.org/aclu20.htm

Jeremy wrote:

Some basic questions for this mother and daughter:
How would they feel if a website was created about them calling them names?
Does this mother realize she's taking district money (attourney's fees) away from other programs that would benefit the direct education of students that need it? I think that's more important than her daughter serving one more year as secretary of her class.
Are they aware that if they win this law suit, anybody in that district could say whatever they want about these administrators and, essentially, nothing could be done about it because of precedents? Why is that O.K.?
Why is it wrong that this girl learns a valid lesson at 16? Isn't this mother embarrassed that her daughter would publicly use that language regarding a school official? What kind of values is she teaching her daughter by fighting for her?
They seem to be out of tune with decorum, being a human being, and taking responsibility for their actions.

First of all a web site calling her names and making fun of her is exactly what you and those of your ilk are doing here. Secondly any public dollars being spent on this case are as a direct result of the illegal activities engaged in by the school board and administration, not this girl standing up for her rights. Thirdly anyone in the district SHOULD be able to say whatever they want, that is the point of the First Amendment. Forthly the 16 year old is teaching you and your ilk a valuable lesson, many have died on foreign shores to protect these rights from people like you. Fifthly, whether or not the mother is embarassed by the language used by her daughter is not the point, it is her right to use it. Lastly, she is teaching her the value of living in this great country, where our rights are not for sale and unless we guard them constantly, people like you and your ilk will steal them.

Annie G wrote:

You go girl!
While some of Doninger's comments were a bit coarse, the simple fact of the matter is that she was on her own time, using her own computer and blog to vent frustration at what was a very dissapointing turn of events.
The school officials behaved like "brats" in their response instead of using the situation as a springboard for more constructive dialogue. Shame on the principal and superintendant for being so self-absorbed they couldn't get past their ire at the insult to see this as the teaching/learning opportunity it was.
Doninger is right to fight this trampling of her (our!) rights.

What right? The right to be school secretary? I don't remember that being in the constitution or any amendment?

FIRE wrote:

<quoted text>
So your saying that we should all be able to go into a crowded place and yell fire; or threaten people with physical harm.

When you have to extrapolate to make a point, you have no point to make. The girl didn't commit either of the eggregious examples mentioned in your post. She used the adjective "douchebags" when writing to her friends in what she mistakenly believed to be a limited-access forum. She didn't even ascribe the adjective to any specific person, which is more indicative of a careless word choice vs. a malicious intent. Was it polite? No. Was it illegal? No. That's all.

Mac wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all a web site calling her names and making fun of her is exactly what you and those of your ilk are doing here. Secondly any public dollars being spent on this case are as a direct result of the illegal activities engaged in by the school board and administration, not this girl standing up for her rights. Thirdly anyone in the district SHOULD be able to say whatever they want, that is the point of the First Amendment. Forthly the 16 year old is teaching you and your ilk a valuable lesson, many have died on foreign shores to protect these rights from people like you. Fifthly, whether or not the mother is embarassed by the language used by her daughter is not the point, it is her right to use it. Lastly, she is teaching her the value of living in this great country, where our rights are not for sale and unless we guard them constantly, people like you and your ilk will steal them.

God, I hate my ilk.

I think you're standing a little too tall on your high horse. Come on down with the real people who value being a human being and showing respect for all people. I'm sure the first ammendment was created so bratty 16 year-old girls could call people who have dedicated their careers to helping children douchebags. You are right to defend this. I wish I had different ilk. Anybody know a good ilk store where I can some quality ilk?

Again, none of her rights were violated with the punishment. She has no right to be secretary. If you're going to be such a stickler for the law, then see that side too. Her education is not being denied. She still gets that; just not as a role model. Why is that bad?

Jeremy wrote:

<quoted text>
God, I hate my ilk.
I think you're standing a little too tall on your high horse. Come on down with the real people who value being a human being and showing respect for all people. I'm sure the first ammendment was created so bratty 16 year-old girls could call people who have dedicated their careers to helping children douchebags. You are right to defend this. I wish I had different ilk. Anybody know a good ilk store where I can some quality ilk?
Again, none of her rights were violated with the punishment. She has no right to be secretary. If you're going to be such a stickler for the law, then see that side too. Her education is not being denied. She still gets that; just not as a role model. Why is that bad?

You can't buy a good ilk, you have to earn it. Sorry.

TCMots wrote:

Have to agree with the first three posts. This should not even be a story in the paper. Mom should have sat her daughter down, explained the ins and outs of respect, etc. and organized a meeting with school officials so an apology could be offered. Done deal. Maybe a decent conversation would have ensued and everyone could learn something valuable.
I do think the school overreacted, though, which in this day and age does not surprise me.
When this sort of "story" makes the paper as news, it really irritates me. And the message being sent irritates me even more. Don't get your way? Take it to the courts and file a lawsuit. Not the best lesson for a 17 year old to learn.

A meeting with officials was sought and attained by Mrs. & Ms Doninger...but, the punishment had already been determined before the meeting. Then, after the meeting --- administrators' stuck to the punishment of 1 full year...

FIRE wrote:

<quoted text>
So your saying that we should all be able to go into a crowded place and yell fire; or threaten people with physical harm.

As you well know there is a Supreme Court case which says in fact that you cannot yell fire in a crowded place, nor can you threaten people with physical harm, however that is not what happened in this case and in fact maybe, just maybe the person she called a douche bag was indeed a douche bag masquerading as a person of authority deserving of respect.

How about a little perspective from a teacher -- one who believes that this young lady and her mother should win their suit easily.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/233952....