Heide Peek, a 2002 graduate of Whiteland Community High School in Whiteland, Ind., sued the Clark-Pleasant Community School Corporation in 2003, claiming an article in the senior edition of the student newspaper contained defamatory comments about her. She also claimed that the statements invaded her privacy and caused her serious emotional distress. A motion to dismiss filed by the school district was rejected in October 2005.

The district filed the appeal Jan. 5 with the Indiana Court of Appeals, said Rosemary Borek, an attorney for the district.

Smoke Signals, the school's monthly student newspaper, gave Peek the "worst reputation" award in its May 2002 issue. The paper also said her favorite song was "Underneath Your Clothes," and in the "ambition" category, made a reference to her being raped by a monkey, according to the Oct. 11 trial court decision.

Peek was particularly sensitive to the comments because she was allegedly raped in April 2002, according to the decision.

In addition to the school district, the lawsuit also named the superintendent, the high school principal, vice principals and the student newspaper adviser as defendants. No student journalists were named in the suit.

In his ruling, Judge Kevin M. Barton refused the school district's request to throw out Peek's libel claims finding that a jury could conclude that the statements published in Smoke Signals "imputed sexual misconduct" to Peek. However, the judge also acknowledged that a jury might find the statements were simply "nonsensical" and therefore not libelous.

The school district's appeal reiterated the "nonsensical" nature of the statements, and further asserted that the language was a "prediction" and a "parody," and therefore impossible of being proved true or false, a standard for establishing a statement as defamatory.

"In fact, any reader would realize that the statement does not discuss an actual event, past or future," according to the school district's appeal.

The case is likely to be closely watched by news media and lawyers in Indiana. In his lengthy decision, which touched on the history and background of libel law, the judge suggested that it may be appropriate for Indiana courts to recognize a "strict liability" standard in some libel cases involving private individuals.

Currently, courts have required that a person suing news media must show that reporters or editors were — at a minimum — negligent in publishing a libelous statement. Under a strict liability standard, a person suing would not have to show any wrongdoing on the part of news media, but rather simply have to prove that the statement was libelous and published, a much lesser standard.

The court also allowed Peek's claims for emotional distress and some of her invasion of privacy claims to continue, although it dismissed her claim that the statements constituted a private facts invasion of privacy, a subcategory of invasion of privacy claims that the judge said was not recognized by Indiana courts.

Finally, the judge threw out Peek's claim that the various school officials should be held personally liable, finding no evidence that their acts were "willful and wanton, malicious, or clearly outside the scope of [their] employment."

The school district's appeal seized upon the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claimed that while the conduct of the newspaper's faculty sponsor, Janet Mitchell, may have been deemed reckless or negligent, it was not "outrageous." Without proof of outrageous behavior, the appeal said, it does not matter whether the sponsor's actions intentionally caused emotional distress to Peek.

"Mitchell's shortcomings with respect to proofreading is not outrageous behavior," the appeal stated.

The case represents the rare situation of a public high school being sued for material published in a student publication.

"It appears that the school never attempted to argue that students, not school officials, were making the content decisions, which could have protected the school from liability," said Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.

Attorneys for the school district said they are waiting to see if the Court of Appeals of Indiana will accept the appeal.

An administrative assistant for Kevin Betz, Peek's attorney, said that his office had no comment at this time.

Case: Peek v. Whiteland Community High School, No. 41D01-0406-CT-00081 (Johnson Super. Ct. No. 1 Oct. 11, 2005)

—by Mike Hiestand, SPLC legal consultant, and Allison Retka, SPLC staff writer