Many of the recent legal decisions regarding public employee expression, particularly in electronic environments, run counter to the culture being facilitated by the Internet. This article uses a legal analysis to examine recent decisions and then considers those legal positions within the context of digital expression.
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963).
3.
BeckstromD. C. (2010). Note: Reconciling the public employee school doctrine and academic speech afterGarcetti v. Ceballos. Minnesota Law Review, 94, 1202–1238.
Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
6.
BonkC. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Bowen v. Goldstein, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92140 (S.D. N.Y. 2007).
8.
ByrneJ. P. (1989). Academic freedom: A “special concern of the First Amendment.”Yale Law Journal99, 251–340.
9.
Caruso v. Massapequa Union Free School District, 478 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D. N.Y. 2007).
10.
Casey v. West Las Vegas Independent School District, 473 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 2007).
11.
ChristensenC. M., JohnsonC. W., & HornM. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns.New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
CollinsA., & HalversonR. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America.New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
Connecticut State Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education Members, 538 F.2d 471, 480 (2d Cir. 1976).
FulmerJ. R. (2002). Dismissing the “immoral” teacher for conduct outside the workplace: Do current laws protect the interests of both school authorities and teachers?Journal of Law and Education, 31, 271–289.
20.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
21.
GasawayL. N. (2003). Libraries, users, and the problems of authorship in the digital age. DePaul Law Review, 52, 1193–1227.
22.
Gaylord v. Tacoma School District No. 10, 559 P.2d 1340 (Wash. 1977).
23.
GeeK. (2009). Establishing a constitutional standard that protects public school teacher classroom expression. Journal of Law & Education, 38, 409–454.
24.
GeiselR. T., & KallioB. R. (2010). Employee speech in K–12 settings: The impact of Garcetti on First Amendment retaliation claims. West's Education Law Reporter, 251, 19–35.
25.
Green v. Board of County Commissioners, 472 F.3d 794, 800 (10th Cir. 2007).
26.
Hager v. Pike County Board of Education, 286 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2002).
Houlihan v. Sussex Technical School District, 461 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D. Del. 2006).
31.
HutchensN. (2009). Silence at the schoolhouse gate: The diminishing First Amendment rights of public school employees, Kentucky Law Journal, 97, 37–77.
32.
Johnson v. Poway Unified School District, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107665 (S. D. Calif. 2008); 2010 WL 768856 (S.D. Calif. 2010).
33.
KellyK. (2010). What technology wants.New York: Viking Adult.
34.
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 604 (1967).
LiC., & BernoffJ. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
39.
LimaA. (2008). Shedding First Amendment rights at the classroom door? The effects of Garcetti and Mayer on education in public schools. George Mason Law Review, 16, 173–201.
40.
LippsJ. (2011). State lifestyle statutes and the blogosphere: Autonomy for private employees in the Internet age. Ohio State Law Journal, 72, 645–685.
41.
Loeffelman v. Board of Education, 134 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
MawdsleyR. (2011). Garcetti v. Ceballos and classroom instruction: The Sixth Circuit create diminished free speech protection for classroom teachers. West's Education Law Reporter, 266, 1–17.
44.
Mayer v. Monroe County Community School Corporation, 474 F.3d 477, 480 (7th Cir. 2007).
45.
McCarthyM. M., & EckesS. E. (2008). Silence in the hallways: The impact of Garcetti v. Ceballos on public school educators. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 17, 209–235.
46.
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
47.
Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
48.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). School and staffing survey 2003-04.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
49.
NewmanJ. (2009). Will teachers shed their First Amendment rights at the school-house gate? The Eleventh Circuit's post-Garcetti jurisprudence. University of Miami Law Review, 63, 761–792.
Spainerman v. Hughes, 576 F.Supp. 2d 292 (D. Conn. 2008).
59.
StuartS. P. (2008). Citizen teacher: Damned if you do, damned if you don't. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 76, 1281–1342.
60.
Sullivan v. Meade County Independent School District No. 101, 387 F. Supp. 1237 (D. S.D. 1975).
61.
TapscottD. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.New York: McGraw-Hill.
62.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
63.
United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
64.
Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000).
65.
WagnerT. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need—And what we can do about it.New York: Basic Books.
Weintraub v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010).
69.
WelnerK. G. (2003). Looking up the marketplace of ideas and looking out school reform: Courts’ imprudent treatment of controversial teaching in America's public schools. UCLA Law Review, 50, 959–1030.
70.
Whitfield v. Chartiers Valley School District, 707 F.Supp.2d 561 (W.D. Pa. 2010).
71.
Wilcoxon v. Red Clay Consolidated School District Board of Education, 437 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Del. 2006).
Williams v. Dallas Independent School District, 480 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2007).
74.
WohlA. (2009). Oiling the schoolhouse gate: After forty years of tinkering with teachers’ First Amendment rights, time for a new beginning. American University Law Review, 58, 1285–1321.
75.
Woo v. Putnam County Board of Education, 504 S.E.2d 644 (W.Va. 1998).
76.
Yatzus v. Appoquinimink School District, 458 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D. Del. 2006).
