•  
  •  
 

Computer Law Review and Technology Journal

Abstract

As Internet use increases, more websites authored by students will populate the World Wide Web (WWW). Indeed, about one-third of all personal websites now belong to students, who are mostly minors.' Students' increasing use of the web raises new questions about free speech. This article addresses one of them: May schools censor student-created websites? If so, under what circumstances may they delete pages, edit pages, or discipline students for website speech?

In answering this question, this article looks for guidance to the history of free speech in the classroom. And examining the problem from a free-speech perspective is appropriate. If the First Amendment were to be applied differently to the Internet than to other media, then its usefulness in protecting individual rights could be undermined. Therefore, this article analyzes the issues under traditional First Amendment principles.

Part II of the article discusses recent instances of school censorship of student websites. This part considers both the range of content of student-authored sites and the methods that schools adopt to limit website content.

Part III presents a property-rights approach to censoring websites. In general, ownership or sponsorship of a website should carry with it a relatively greater right of control. This part therefore argues that websites created on private servers should be afforded greater protection from censorship than sites created on school-owned servers. But even websites created on school servers should not be subject to unlimited censorship. This part discusses how and when schools should be required to apply the rules of traditional and limited public forums.

Part IV argues that even if a school holds no definable property interest in a website, it may still enjoy a limited right of censorship if the site's content creates a substantial disturbance within the school. Also, this part explores whether schools have any rights to monitor nonschool websites when the student authors do not actively promote awareness of those sites among their peers.

Part V argues that website authored by college students should be afforded greater free-speech protection than those authored by precollege students.

Part VI emphasizes the importance of carefully limiting censorship of student websites to only those steps that are necessary to protect students and to prevent serious school disturbances. By insisting on such limited censorship in this area, society can best promote the democratic participation of our future leaders.

Download

Share

COinS