The Student Press Law Center blog
ANNAPOLIS, Md — Taking steps to protect students’ privacy rights online, Maryland lawmakers heard on Wednesday a bill that could prohibit school officials from digging through students’ personal social media accounts for incriminating information.
The bill, which Sen. Ronald Young introduced on Feb. 2 to prohibit school and college administrators from asking students to disclose the passwords to their personal social media accounts, met no opposition at a Senate education committee hearing.
Young’s bill expressly prohibits college athletic departments from requiring athletes to sign contracts forfeiting their social-media privacy as a condition of playing sports. University system officials attended Wednesday’s hearing of the Senate Education, Health and Environment Committee, but told the student newspaper, The Diamondback, that they were taking no position other than offering an amendment that would ensure the bill does not prevent professors and students from using social media for academic purposes.
During his testimony, Young said it’s an invasion of privacy to comb through anyone’s personal social media accounts, adding that fishing through the accounts is like listening to someone’s phone calls or reading their mail. Young said the bill would not stop school officials from monitoring students’ activity on school networks or computers.
Young’s bill protects high school and college students in both public and private institutions. Twelve states have laws protecting students’ online privacy, but most state laws only protect college students.
Bradley Shear, a privacy attorney who testified at the hearing, said he would not be comfortable if school officials asked for his children’s social media passwords, adding that the bill not only protects students’ privacy, but also the privacy of the friends and family they interact with online.
In his testimony, Student Press Law Center Executive Director Frank LoMonte said the bill could protect whistleblowers who use social media to interact with student journalists. Student journalism could be adversely affected, he said, if school officials could look through journalists’ messages and contacts to identify their sources
Young has proposed similar legislation in two previous legislative sessions. The Senate approved the proposals both times but they stalled in a House committee.
In 2011, Maryland became the first state to prohibit employers from requiring their employees to hand over social-media account information and passwords.
Tagged: Maryland, news, recent-news, Ronald Young, social media privacy
Reporters Without Borders released its
2015 World Press Freedom Index on Wednesday, revealing a worldwide decline in freedom for journalists. The United States, which has consistently slipped in the rankings since 2009, came in at 49 of 180 countries.
The United States fell three places in the index after a tumultuous year for American journalists, according to the nonprofit organization, which works to promote freedom of information and freedom of the press.
Delphine Halgand, the director for Reporters Without Borders USA, lead a panel discussion on Wednesday at the National Press Club, discussing the trends leading to dwindling press freedom and noting countries who had dramatically risen or fallen on the index this year.
The need for a federal shield law to protect journalists from being compelled to name confidential sources became a national conversation as the seven-year legal battle between the Department of Justice and The New York Times investigative reporter James Risen came to a head. Risen was issued a subpoena to testify against former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, who was accused of leaking to Risen information that detailed a botched CIA mission. Although the Supreme Court would not hear Risen’s case, Attorney General Eric Holder eventually conceded and did not force Risen to testify.
These issues are not unique from the experiences of student journalists, who often clash with school and public officials during the course of their reporting.
In November 2014, police arrested more than a dozen journalists during demonstrations protesting the fatal shooting of black teenager Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., including an American University student and a Tufts University student.
In New York City, a City University of New York student journalist was arrested in December 2014 at a protest over a grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the choking death of Eric Garner.
In March 2014, a photojournalism student at Temple University filed a lawsuit after he was arrested for photographing a traffic stop as part of a class assignment.
Student journalists also struggle with transparency issues when it comes to obtaining records from their schools.
School administrators often overreach when claiming protection from the federal student privacy law, creating barriers for journalists seeking information about university presidential searches and even campus parking tickets.
In some states, colleges have pushed for legislation which would make documents even harder for journalists to obtain, mirroring the national drop in press freedom. In January, the New Mexico Council of University Presidents proposed legislation which would add exemptions to the state’s public records law. Suggested exemptions include certain campus law enforcement records, and documents detailing the hiring of public employees.
Reporters Without Borders uses seven factors to calculate each country’s overall score, which is then used to rank the country, according to the World Press Freedom Index methodology. Countries are assessed based on pluralism, media independence, environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, infrastructure and abuses.
The United States scored 24.41, placing on the lower end of the “satisfactory” category.
Tagged: American University, City University of New York, James Risen, New Mexico Council of University Presidents, press freedom, recent-news, Reporters Without Borders, Tufts University
The Secret’s out: Eight-time Grammy winner Jack White demands his guacamole chunky and he hates fluorescent lighting.
These are just a few of the revelations reporters at The Oklahoma Daily learned about the musician through a public records request with the University of Oklahoma. The request showed university officials agreed to pay for hotel accommodations, ground transportation from the airport and “artist hospitality as mutually agreed upon.”
But arguably the most important detail was his pay. His concert on the University of Oklahoma campus on Monday cost the institution $80,000.
Whether it was because the newspaper leaked the details about his pay or his “FRESH HOME-MADE GUACAMOLE” recipe (“Mix all ingredients in a large bowl, careful not to mush the avocados too much. We want it chunky.”), White isn’t happy. Now, the rocker may never return to the University of Oklahoma.
During the sold-out performance, White blasted the student newspaper, telling the audience that “just because you can type it on a computer doesn’t make it right.”
“We can’t confirm this, because we’re making a paper right now, but we heard that Jack White called out The Oklahoma Daily at his Feb. 2 concert at McCasland Field House,” the student newspaper reported on its website during the show.
According to a statement on White's website, the newspaper staff's reporting was "unfortunate, unprofessional and very unwelcoming."
On Thursday, the student newspaper reported the William Morris Endeavor Entertainment talent company blacklisted the university because of the stories. The company, which has represented performers 2 Chainz, Selena Gomez and Kid Cudi, among others, said it wouldn’t book future shows with the university until “this policy is modified not to disseminate private information.”
That policy, by the way, is the state’s public records law, which requires public entities to be transparent about how they handle public money.
Tagged: Jack White, news, Oklahoma, recent-news, The Oklahoma Daily, University of Oklahoma
IDAHO — A family was charged $1,235 when they requested information about the upkeep and renovation costs of the Idaho State University president’s house. But after a three-week online fundraising campaign, the family raised enough money to cover the bill.
Eric D’Amico, an ISU alumnus, Rhonda D’Amico, a former ISU employee and alumna, and their son Sam D’Amico, a current ISU student, surpassed their fundraising goal on Tuesday and received $1,335, with much of the money coming from ISU alumni and staff.
The D’Amicos had requested a detailed breakdown on the $31,000 annual maintenance costs and the estimated $750,000 for improvements the university told the State Board of Education it would need in order the keep the Servel House as a residence for the university’s president, according to the Idaho State Journal.
In Idaho, the state’s public records law allows agencies to charge requestors a fee to cover the labor and copying costs needed to fulfill a request. The law allows agencies to charge the per-hour pay rate of their lowest-paid administrative staff employee to process requests.
Under a 2011 amendment to the state’s open records law, according to the Idaho Press Club, public agencies must provide for free the first two hours of labor and the first 100 pages of a records request. It also made clear public agencies are not required to charge a fee for records and may waive any of the costs associated with processing a request.
However, public agencies are not required to create new records to fulfill a request. The requested documents dated back 10 years, the State Journal reported, and university officials would have to compile new records about the house.
According to the Gofundme page, the university told the D’Amicos they would begin to locate the records once the family paid the bill. The family said they understood why they were being charged but thought the records would have been readily available because they should have been included in a proposal to the Board of Education to buy the president a new house.
The proposal was later withdrawn.
“We believe we are, in effect, being asked to fund that research and review,” the family wrote on their fundraising page.
Tagged: Idaho, Idaho State Journal, Idaho State University, public records
LOUISIANA — Attorneys for two Louisiana newspapers have appealed to the state Supreme Court a lower court’s decision that said the state’s largest public university could withhold the names of most applicants during presidential searches.
Attorneys for The Advocate and The Times-Picayune said in a letter to the Louisiana Supreme Court Thursday the appellate court was mistaken in its Dec. 30 decision that said Louisiana State University officials were required to release only the names of the four finalists for university president, according to The Advocate. The four finalists included F. King Alexander, who ultimately accepted the job.
The attorneys argued the names of all 35 semifinalists are a matter of public record. According to The Advocate, the attorneys said the appellate court’s ruling “frustrated” the purpose of Louisiana’s open records law, which is to ensure all information of importance to the public is open for inspection. They argued LSU violated the state’s open records or open meetings laws by conducting the search in private.
The appellate court’s decision rested on who is considered an applicant in a presidential search. The court ruled only those who expressed desire in the position were considered applicants.
In 2013, District Court Judge Janice Clark ruled LSU would have to release the names of all presidential semifinalists and pay a $500-a-day fine for every day the university didn’t disclose the information requested by the papers.
The newspapers are only urging the Supreme Court to compel the university to release the names of the 35 semifinalists, according to The Advocate. They are not asking for LSU to pay the contempt fines set by the district court.
Tagged: F. King Alexander, Louisiana, Louisiana State University, Louisiana Supreme Court, news, presidential search, recent-news, The Advocate, The Times-Picayune
Two generations after the Supreme Court recognized students’
right of free expression in the
Tinker case, today’s Court is being asked to reaffirm that the Tinker ruling really means what it says – by the Tinker family itself.
Brother-and-sister plaintiffs John and Mary Beth Tinker
filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to take up the case of
Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, in which students lost their First Amendment challenge to a school ban on American flag apparel during a Latino heritage event.
In a February 2014 ruling, three judges on the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
found no First Amendment violation in a California school’s decision to order
students to remove American flag apparel during a Cinco de Mayo celebration in
2010. The school justified the ban by pointing to a near-altercation at the
same event a year earlier, when a Latino student felt white students were goading
and taunting him by waving an American flag and chanting “U-S-A!”
Applying the 1969
Tinker case, which permits schools to
restrict speech if it portends a “material and substantial” disruption on
campus, the Ninth Circuit decided that the school acted lawfully. The history
of racial tension, and the prospect that tensions might escalate in reaction to
students’ American flag shirts “made it reasonable for school officials to
proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real.”
people who know the
better than anyone – the Tinkers themselves – say the Ninth Circuit got it
amicus brief, the Tinkers say schools
shouldn’t be allowed to ban provocative speech just because people who disagree
might try to silence the speaker by lashing out – what the Supreme Court has
termed a “heckler’s veto.”
is an ideal vehicle to clarify the holding of
Tinker, to reaffirm the vitality of the ‘heckler’s veto’ doctrine,
and to prevent students (both the potentially violent and the peaceful) from
learning a message that is the very antithesis of the First Amendment: that
speech can be effectively suppressed by threat of violence,” says the brief,
which likens the Morgan Hill students’ flag apparel to the Tinkers’ own Vietnam
war protest armbands, which also provoked harsh words from classmates yet were
deemed constitutionally protected.
was authored by a “dream team” of First Amendment litigators including Robert
Corn-Revere of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School
has hesitated to accept student-speech cases, rejecting several petitions in
2013 that asked for clarification of schools’ punitive authority over what
students say on off-campus social media. Most recently, the Court
refused to consider a federal appeals court’s decision protecting the right to wear
cancer-awareness wristbands bearing a word – “boobies” – that a Pennsylvania
school tried to forbid as “lewd.”
Dariano case presents unusually tempting
facts. It involves exactly the kind of speech – the American flag – that the
Court’s Republican-appointed majority would be most inclined to regard as
worthy of constitutional protection.
And there was substantial opposition to the
Dariano outcome within the Ninth Circuit itself. When the court refused to accept the February 14 opinion for reconsideration by the full (“en banc”) lineup of Ninth Circuit judges, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlian issued a resounding dissent joined by two colleagues.
the court for refusing to rehear the case, O’Scannlian wrote that the
Dariano ruling “permits the will of the
mob to run our schools.” The entire dissenting opinion is well worth reading
for its forceful defense of freedom of expression in schools, even when the
expression is challenging and suppressing it would make life easier for school
officials. But one passage in particular is the judicial equivalent of a
In this case, the disfavored speech was the display of an
American flag. But let no one be fooled: by interpreting
Tinker to permit the heckler's veto, the panel opens the door to
the suppression of any viewpoint opposed by a vocal and violent band of students.
The next case might be a student wearing a shirt bearing the image of Che
Guevara, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Pope Francis. It might be a student
wearing a President Obama "Hope" shirt, or a shirt exclaiming
"Stand with Rand!" It might be a shirt proclaiming the shahada, or a
shirt announcing "Christ is risen!" It might be any viewpoint
imaginable, but whatever it is, it will be vulnerable to the rule of the mob.
The demands of bullies will become school policy. That is not the law.
Tagged: dariano v. morgan hill, First
Amendment, Mary Beth Tinker, recent-news, tinker v. des moines
ILLINOIS — A letter from the Triad School District sent a community into a frenzy last week when it notified parents of an Illinois law requiring students to hand over their social media passwords to school administrators.
Multiple news outlets and blogs jumped on the story, including St. Louis television station Fox2Now and HLN, reporting on parents’ concern over their children’s privacy.
However, these outlets cited a 2014 law and misinterpreted the year-old law and a recent amendment to the Illinois school code, said Josh Sharp, the director of government affairs for the Illinois Press Association.
“Essentially, there is no requirement in the law that was passed earlier or the new law that anybody has to hand over a password,” Sharp said. “The law requires a school district to ask that they inform a parent or guardian if they’re requesting a password. There’s no penalty for saying no.”
Last year’s law required school districts to notify parents if they ask for a social media password to investigate cyberbullying. This year, lawmakers amended the school code to include cyberbullying in the language.
Rep. Laura Fine, who proposed the bill to amend the school code, said media outlets misinterpreted the law’s intent.
“There’s nowhere in the legislation that it says everybody has to give over their social network password,” Fine said. “Your password isn’t even mentioned in the legislation.”
Sharp said he believes Triad School District misinterpreted the law as well. He said if a parent or student didn’t give school administrators access to their social media accounts, they would not violate the law.
The amendment to the school code requires school boards to establish policies about investigating cyberbullying claims “but in terms of getting someone’s password, the law only requires school districts to inform parents or guardians that they are inquiring about a password,” Sharp said.
Statutes in 12 states protect students against demands for access to their social media accounts, and in some cases email accounts and other forms of electronic communication. However, many of these laws protect only college students and leave high school students vulnerable to violations of privacy by school officials.
Policies allowing school officials to search students’ social media accounts are not uncommon.
In 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against a Minnesota school after administrators searched a student’s Facebook account because a parent complained the student had talked about sex with her son on the social-media platform. A settlement was reached and the school agreed to change its social media policy.
In October 2014, the ACLU of Tennessee and the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on the Williamson County School District to change its technology and internet policy, which allows administrators to examine electronic devices students bring from home and monitor communications or data transmitted on the district’s network. According to the letter, the policy violates students’ right to free speech and protection against “suspicionless searches.”
Tagged: cyberbullying, Fox2Now, HLN, Illinois, Illinois Press Association, news, recent-news, social media, Triad School District
Louisiana State University won't have to pay contempt fines for defying a judge's order to disclose the names of applicants in a secretive 2013 presidential search, under a state appeals court's ruling.
And instead of revealing the 35 semifinalists who received serious consideration for the presidency, LSU will have to identify only four people (including the winning candidate, F. King Alexander), who actually got as far as an interview.
The Louisiana Court of Appeal's Dec. 30 ruling is a holiday gift to the trustees of LSU, who were facing a $500-a-day fine for every day they refused to disclose the information requested by the student newspaper, The Daily Reveille, and two professional papers.
Instead, the court decided Tuesday in a 3-0 ruling, LSU will have to pay only $30,800 in attorney fees to the publishers of two newspapers, The Advocate and The Times-Picayune, who challenged the closed-door search under Louisiana's Public Records Act.
A 2006 Louisiana statute explicitly entitles the public to the names and backgrounds of "applicants" for executive positions such as college presidencies. The issue in the case, Capital City Press v. Louisiana State University Board of Supervisors, is when a potential candidate crosses the line from "just browsing" to "applying."
Like many across the country, LSU's presidential search was conducted largely by a private contractor, R. William Funk & Associates, that maintains a stable of would-be presidents who've agreed to have their resumes kept on file for consideration in future searches. From that stockpile, LSU's trustees focused in on 35 "wish list" names and eventually contacted five about being interviewed. One took another position and another withdrew before being interviewed, leaving three who went through with the entire process.
The appeals court concluded that "applicant" means "an individual who has expressed his or her desire through words or actions to be considered for the position in question." In the case of LSU's presidency, that means not just asking for information about the position but affirmatively expressing willingness to be considered -- which, the court held, only four candidates did: the three who interviewed and the one who withdrew. The public is entitled to their names.
In a separate ruling, the court also threw out contempt fines against LSU, finding that the university did not act unreasonably in refusing to comply with District Judge Janice Clark's April 2013 disclosure order.
Tuesday's decision largely reverses a pro-transparency decision by Clark, who slapped LSU with contempt-of-court fines -- which ultimately totaled more than $46,000 -- after the university defied her order to surrender the resumes of the 35 candidates the trustees seriously discussed.
Lawyers for both LSU and the newspapers told The Advocate that an appeal is possible, since neither side won a complete victory. To appeal, either side would have to file a petition with the Louisiana Supreme Court within 30 days of the time the notice of the appeals court's decision was mailed.
Tagged: louisiana-court-of-appeals, lsu, news, presidential search, recent-news, search committee, search-committee
In a fittingly bizarre end to a case of police ineptitude too implausible for an episode of "Brooklyn Nine-Nine," prosecutors won't be able to use illegally seized drugs they found in a Missouri professor's home while searching for the guns he joked on Facebook about having.
A state appeals court threw out the evidence found at former Northwest Missouri State journalism professor Matthew Rouch's house, finding that the search warrant was so baseless that police could not even have been honestly mistaken in relying on it.
Remarkably, the case involved an illegal search for evidence that was then used to support a second illegal search, only the latter of which was at issue in Rouch's case.
Rouch was arrested in September 2013 when police -- while searching his house for guns -- instead found marijuana-growing supplies.
The Keystone Kops case began when the student newspaper, The Northwest Missourian, published an article mentioning a remark that an NMSU professor posted on Facebook, in which he joked about becoming so frustrated with students that he would "be wanting to get to the top of the bell tower with a high powered rifle" later in the semester. The professor wasn't named in the column.
After an editor mentioned the column in a conversation with NMSU's police chief, campus officers showed up at the newsroom with a search warrant and demanded the original screenshot of the Facebook post, which the editor surrendered.
That was illegal search #1.
The federal Privacy Protection Act, a 1980 statute that was specifically enacted to outlaw police searches of college newsrooms after a particularly egregious case at California's Stanford Daily, makes it illegal to search or seize property where a journalist stores unpublished newsgathering material. A warrant isn't good enough -- a search can take place only after a court hearing at which the journalist is represented. That didn't happen at NMSU.
But that wasn't the illegal search on which Rouch won his case.
In July, a Missouri circuit judge threw out the drugs and paraphernalia found at Rouch's home, on the grounds that an obviously joking Facebook post did not provide probable cause justifying a search warrant.
On Dec. 16, a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed:
[I]t is readily apparent on the face of the warrant and affidavit that
the items subject to the warrant were not contraband or evidence of a crime. The clear
reason for which the warrant was sought was to assess Rouch's capability to commit a
violent crime in the future.
The judges found that the search-warrant affidavit executed by the campus police chief was misleading, because it omitted the chief's interviews with Rouch and others on the faculty who read the Facebook post, each of whom considered it a harmless joke and none of whom took it seriously. Even if the search had turned up guns, the judges wrote, it was legal for Rouch to own firearms and the mere presence of weapons in the house would not have supported the leap that he intended to shoot up the campus.
Because the search for weapons was unsupported by probable cause, the marijuana plants and growing equipment serendipitously found during the search cannot be used against Rouch, likely ending any attempt to prosecute him for the drug charges. And reaffirming the adage that two wrong searches don't make a right.
Tagged: facebook, Fourth Amendment, news, recent-news, reporter's privilege, threat speech
It's painfully well-established that colleges lie about student privacy to conceal public records they'd rather not disclose. When the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") is misused to withhold information about athletic scandals or employee misconduct, it's aggravating.
But when FERPA is misused to withhold information about campus sexual assaults, it's disgraceful.
Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Education, through legal counsel with the Justice Department, served notice that it would be joining the University of Montana's appeal of a district-court order requiring the disclosure of public records about how the university system handed a star football player's disciplinary appeal in a sexual assault case.
Despite the Obama administration's lip service to improving the transparency of how colleges deal with sexual assault, at the first opportunity to put that resolve to the test, the federal government is throwing its weight behind continued concealment.
Today, the SPLC sent a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan urging him to pull the plug on this misguided use of federal resources. As the letter points out, the Department rarely intercedes in legal disputes involving FERPA and access to public records -- and has never done so on the side of disclosure -- and to decide that this case merits an exception to the Department's normal practice of abstention is, to say the least, tone-deaf.
We hope that Secretary Duncan and the White House will do the right thing and rescind the Department's Dec. 12 motion to join the Krakauer case.
Tagged: Arne Duncan, FERPA, Jon Krakauer, news, recent-news, sexual assaults, University of Montana