Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

2010

PDF

Selected Works

SelectedWorks

Robert M Quackenbush

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush Feb 2010

“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush

Robert M Quackenbush

This Article surveys the case law concerning public school officials sanctioning students for their off-campus online speech on social forums such as Facebook. In particular, it explores how many courts have continued to treat off-campus online speech as if it happened on-campus and within the legitimate authority of school officials. The Article argues that speech-restrictive courts have misread Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and its progeny such that they give school officials nearly unfettered authority to punish off-campus speech upon their mere speculation that it would disrupt school activities. Further, the author explores the collateral effects ...


“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush Jan 2010

“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush

Robert M Quackenbush

This Article surveys the case law concerning public school officials sanctioning students for their off-campus online speech on social forums such as Facebook. In particular, it explores how many courts have continued to treat off-campus online speech as if it happened on-campus and within the legitimate authority of school officials. The Article argues that speech-restrictive courts have misread Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and its progeny such that they give school officials nearly unfettered authority to punish off-campus speech upon their mere speculation that it would disrupt school activities. Further, the author explores the collateral effects ...


“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush Jan 2010

“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush

Robert M Quackenbush

This Article surveys the case law concerning public school officials sanctioning students for their off-campus online speech on social forums such as Facebook. In particular, it explores how many courts have continued to treat off-campus online speech as if it happened on-campus and within the legitimate authority of school officials. The Article argues that speech-restrictive courts have misread Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and its progeny such that they give school officials nearly unfettered authority to punish off-campus speech upon their mere speculation that it would disrupt school activities. Further, the author explores the collateral effects ...


“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush Jan 2010

“You’Re Only Asking For Trouble”: The Constitutional Limits And Collateral Consequences Of Censoring Youth Online Speech, Robert M. Quackenbush

Robert M Quackenbush

This Article surveys the case law concerning public school officials sanctioning students for their off-campus online speech on social forums such as Facebook. In particular, it explores how many courts have continued to treat off-campus online speech as if it happened on-campus and within the legitimate authority of school officials. The Article argues that speech-restrictive courts have misread Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and its progeny such that they give school officials nearly unfettered authority to punish off-campus speech upon their mere speculation that it would disrupt school activities. Further, the author explores the collateral effects ...