Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Facebook

Facebook Freedom

Sexy snapshots safe

Peter Suderman | From the December 2011 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Go ahead: Share those sexy slumber party pics. Public school administrators are not allowed to bar students from extracurricular activities for posting racy photos on Facebook, a federal judge in Indiana ruled in August. 

In the summer of 2009, two members of the volleyball team at Churubusco High School held a series of sleepovers during which they took photos of themselves posed with phallic, rainbow-colored lollipops in a variety of suggestive positions. Some of the photos were then uploaded and shared on Facebook. At least one of the images was labeled with a sexually explicit come-on. 

School administrators found the photos and suspended the two students from extracurricular activities for a year. They cited a provision in the school's code of conduct that says students may not "act in a manner in school or out of school that brings discredit or dishonor upon yourself or your school." 

The students sued in response, arguing that "discredit or dishonor" was an unconstitutionally vague standard and that the photos counted as protected speech under the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Philip Solomon agreed, if somewhat grudgingly. "I wish the case involved more important and worthwhile speech on the part of the students," he wrote, "but then of course a school's well-intentioned but unconstitutional punishment of that speech would be all the more regrettable." 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Whine Machines

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

Facebook
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (3)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. neoteny   15 years ago

    Were they under the age of 18? Because if so, they might have committed manufacture & distribution of child pornography.

  2. jb   15 years ago

    "I wish the case involved more important and worthwhile speech on the part of the students"

    Yeah, ya wish it could be, but it always seems the pornographers are the vanguard of spreech rights. Those fuckers have all the fun.

  3. alaamiah   12 years ago

    mselves posed with phallic, rainbow-colored lollipops in a

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: We Can Sort It Out

Charles Oliver | 7.27.2026 4:00 AM

Trump Says He Believes in Giving People a 'Second Chance.' For 6,000 People, the Answer Was No.

Billy Binion | 7.26.2026 7:00 AM

Bureaucracy, Labor, & Tariffs: How Government Is Making BLTs More Expensive

Eric Boehm | From the August/September 2026 issue

California's War on Goats Could Worsen the Wildfire Crisis

C. Jarrett Dieterle and Shawn Regan | 7.25.2026 7:00 AM

For Thousands of New York City Apartment Buildings, the Math Doesn't Math

Christian Britschgi | 7.25.2026 6:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Reason's July 4 Special!

For America's 250th, Get 2 Years of Reason for $17.76

Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.

Subscribe to Reason