Facts
For 18 months between March 2013 and September 2014, the appellants, fourteen students of Huntsville Schools in Huntsville Alabama, allege that the school illegally set up and maintained illegal and invasive systems to observe their activity on worldwide web social media sites, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. The appellants further allege that Huntsville Schools, working under the jurisdiction and authority of the Alabama Public School Systems (the defendant), expelled them from the institution based solely on the information unscrupulously acquired on the internet. The appellants additionally suggest that the defendant worked in collusion with the National Security Agency (NSA) and an independent internet-security consultancy firm, T&W Inc., to whom the defendant paid $157,190 in fees to conduct covert surveillance on the appellants’ social media activity. T&W Inc. has under its employ an unnamed former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, who conducted most of the direct surveillance on the appellants’ social media accounts (Wallace 14). All the parties involved are listed as co-defendants.
Issue
The appellants allege an invasion of their rights to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, their right to privacy, enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), through acquiring stored electronic communications in an unauthorized manner. Additionally, the appellant sought damage reparations for wrongful expulsion from the institution, breach of educational contract between the defendant and the appellants and undue emotional distress resulting from the expulsion.
The expulsion of the appellants from the institution is alleged to constitute invasion of the right to free speech, as it is a direct reprisal for expression of ideas and beliefs. The United States Supreme Court extends the protections of the First Amendment to online speech, as in Reno v. ACLU (Fraleigh 3). The appellants claim that their expulsion from the institution put them under undue emotional and mental distress, since the stress and anguish of how to proceed with their education weighed heavily on their minds and those of their guardians. Additionally, they argue, the public school system violated an educational contract by expelling from the institution. Both parties willfully entered the agreement through the appellants’ enrollment at the institution under the defendant’s mandate and the acceptance of this enrollment by the defendant.
Relief Sought
Pursuant to the issues presented by the appellants and discussed at length above, the appellants seek official apology from all the defendants. This is including but not limited to Huntsville Schools, the Alabama Public School System, the National Security Agency (NSA), the internet security consultancy firm, T&W Inc. and the currently unnamed former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent for their roles in facilitating and conducting covert surveillance against them. Additionally, the appellants seek immediate and unconditional re-admission into the institution from which they were expelled, this should include be along with the immediate striking of any claims from this incident from the appellants’ permanent records. Finally, the appellants also seek collective monetary damage reparation of no less than two million dollars.
Summary of Argument
While there were indeed online probes into the activity of a select group of students on social media, these were conducted in accordance with the regulations put forth by state and federal education policy. These investigations of students suspected of posing a threat to others, themselves or the property of others was motivated exclusively by prior in-person observation of students’ behavior at school and the disciplinary record the students had. There was no discriminatory system or motivation behind this selection and the sole target was to nip a growing problem of bullying and criminal activity among students in the bud before it actually manifested itself at our institution. The institution’s intention was wholly altruistic and sanctioned by the district’s education board. If anything, this is a demonstration of the boundless lengths to which the school will go to keep its students safe. According to the Pew Research Institute, only 15% of parents know about their children’s social networking habits, and how these behaviors can lead to cyber-bullying (Rainie 10). As such, the defendants took the mantle of policing the social media habits of the students in their care.
The allegations of contravention of rights to free speech and privacy put forward by the appellants are similarly baseless and unfounded in law. While the United States Supreme Court does indeed extend the provisions of the Constitution to online activity, there are exceptions to free speech, clearly defined by this same court (Brandenburg v. Ohio). Speech that willfully incites imminent lawless action, as exemplified by some of the appellants’ posts on Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, which were clearly either inflammatory statements targeted at students of an opposing social faction or rallying calls to violence towards similar-minded students. These posts would definitely have caused instances of violent behavior and are thus exempted from the right of free speech.
Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has severally held that the Fourth Amendment rights to privacy do not extend to social media. Most notably in United States v. Meregildo, where the court ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on social media. As such, by posting information on their public social media accounts, the appellants forfeited their Fourth Amendment rights to privacy, and can thus not sue the institution for breach of this right.
The institution also wishes to acknowledge and admit to the creation of unauthentic profiles on social media sites that it then used to facilitate surveillance on its students’ online activity. While this action may admittedly be going against the social networking sites’ user policy, this matter is not sub judice and since it did not go against any of the appellants’ rights or freedoms, they have no claim to presenting it before this court.
On the part of the contracted party, T&W Inc., the organization was acting wholly under the instruction of Huntsville Schools and the Alabama Public School System. Any claims put forward by the appellants towards this organization should, therefore, be instead directed towards these institutions. This policy applies to the entire organization of T&W Inc. and its employees, including the ‘unnamed former FBI agent’ under its employ. The defense would however like to reiterate that these claims are baseless and without legal foundation as discussed in detail above.
Works Cited
Browning, John G. "With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies: Passwords, Privacy, and the Discovery of Social Media Content." Am. J. Trial Advoc. 36 (2012): 505.
Fraleigh, Douglas. "Reno v. ACLU." Free Speech On Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions (2003): 298.
Parker, Richard A. "Brandenburg v. Ohio." Free Speech on Trial: Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions (2003).
Rainie, Lee. "Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics." Pew Internet & American Life Project 5 (2010).
Wallace, Kelly. "Schools Step up Social Media Probe of Students - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 4 Nov. 2014. Web. 15 July 2015. <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/08/living/schools-of-thought-social-media-monitoring-students/>.
