Facebook+Law

A Missouri teacher has sued the state over a new law that prevents teachers from contacting their students over the Internet, arguing that it will make it illegal for her to chat with her own student over Facebook. The law, which has been nicknamed the Facebook law, prohibits teachers from having exclusive communications with students over non-work Internet sites. Students are defined as anyone under 18 who attend or used to attend the school where the teacher works. In her [|suit] , Christina Thomas alleges that the Ladue, Mo., school district where she works has told teachers that they cannot have "exclusive communications" with their own students on Facebook if their student meets the law's definition of former or current student. Thomas says the [|law]  is violating her rights under the 1st and 14th amendments. Everyone agrees the law goes too far. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Thomas, argues that there are better ways to prevent teacher misconduct than infringing on free speech by blocking contact on social media sites. Banning Facebook conversations and the like also amounts to a restriction on students' ability to communicate with their teachers, and in the courts, the extent to which school officials can dictate students' behavior online has been a contentious subject. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that administrators could punish a student who raised a "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner across the street from his school because the banner created a "substantial disruption" within the school. Appeals courts have since tackled cases of disciplined students who say their off-campus online activity is free speech and not disruptive enough on campus to merit suspension. The 7th Circuit [|sided with two high school students]  who were punished for posting racy photos of themselves online. In June, the 3rd Circuit [|ruled that two students]  should not have been suspended for creating MySpace profiles while at home that mocked school administrators. "It would be an unseemly and dangerous precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a child's home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school-sponsored activities," the judges wrote.

Original Article: []