There is an interesting lawsuit in Philadelphia. Two students were suspended for posting derisive profiles of their principals on MySpace from home computers. The students' lawyers are arguing for freedom of speech and also are saying that once the students are home, the school has no right to interfere. What are your thoughts?

I found it interesting that the appeals court is hearing these cases in a "rare en banc session," meaning with all 14 eligible judges. That's because one 3-judge panel upheld the girl's suspension, while another found the boy's unconstitutional. I wondered if their was some sexism in this...that is, "boys will be boys."

IMHO, if it goes to the point of defamation, it goes too far. However, if one reads the defamatory statements made by some of this country's leaders early on, you'll be surprised that we ever coalesced into a country. Remember Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton? Insults flew, then lead flew!

Publishing on the internet is still publishing. Anything you wouldn't be prepared to put into a print medium you shouldn't put onto the internet. It's easy to make a mistake though because of the immediacy of the medium.

Looking at the article and what it is claimed was posted I'd say that the girl's offence was more serious as it made extremely serious allegations, allegations that if taken seriously could ruin the principal's life. It doesn't matter if it was a joke. If the same statements had appeared in print or even been made to an audience they could potentialy have had a disastrous effect.

I think they were very lucky to get away with such limited punishment.

I wish they would sue the talking heads on TV and other media who spew invective and uncivil bile on everything within reach. I'm sure their lawyers would make the First Amendment case for the noxious things their clients say about public figures and private.