Facebook Freedom
Sexy snapshots safe
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."
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.
Please
to post comments
Were they under the age of 18? Because if so, they might have committed manufacture & distribution of child pornography.
"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.
mselves posed with phallic, rainbow-colored lollipops in a