Justin Layshock v. Hermitage Sch Dist
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11994
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Justin Layshock, a 17-year-old senior, created a parody MySpace profile of his high school principal using his grandmother’s computer off campus during non-school hours.
- Profile copied a district photo and used vulgar, offensive content; access spread to most students in Hickory High School.
- School administrators learned of multiple profiles and attempted to disable them; Justin apologized after a meeting but was not initially punished.
- On January 3, 2006, the district formally charged Justin with multiple Code violations including disruption, disrespect, harassment, and computer policy violations.
- Justin was punished with a ten-day out-of-school suspension, placement in ACE, loss of extracurriculars, and prohibition from graduation, despite no substantial disruption being shown.
- District court granted summary judgment to Justin on the First Amendment claim; en banc review affirmed this ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off-campus speech connected to school? | Layshock argues district overstepped First Amendment bounds. | Hermitage asserts sufficient nexus to school due to targeted district community impact. | District violated First Amendment; cannot punish off-campus expressive conduct. |
| Can schools regulate vulgar/offensive speech posted online? | Plaintiff argues protected parody; no substantial disruption. | District asserts Fraser-type authority over lewd/offensive content even off campus. | Fraser does not permit punishment here; no substantial disruption nor proper nexus. |
| Does entering school website give school authority to discipline? | Speech occurred off campus; entry onto district site should not extend authority. | Speech began via school platform and targeted school community. | No, entering the district site does not justify extending school authority to punish off-campus speech. |
| Tinker framework applicability to off-campus speech? | Tinker guides whether speech disrupts; argued limits on off-campus reach. | Fraser/Morse guidance may apply to school-sponsored/order concerns. | Tinker framework governs ordering; off-campus reach limited; cannot punish here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (student speech may be restricted only to prevent material disruption)
- Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (schools may sanction lewd or offensive speech in school settings)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (school-sponsored speech may be controlled content-wise)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (schools may restrict speech at school events promoting illegal drug use)
- Saxe v. State College Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001) (no First Amendment protection for lewd speech in school context)
- Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2007) (off-campus online speech can be regulated if it disrupts school)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (off-campus speech may be restricted if it risks disruption)
- J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 569 Pa. 638, 807 A.2d 847 (2002) (state supreme court allowed discipline for off-campus online threats)
- Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 607 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1979) (off-campus activity can be related to school when distribution occurs on campus)