i made a comment in response to a cost of assignment another student responded in a play discussion of the classroom assignment was carried on according to the assignment instructions at some point on september th the entire thread which is to say my original comment and all successive comments including those of another student were deleted later receive an email directly from parts personal charter oak state college email address where when she claimed that quote i will be deleting your post so it does not offend others it offended me unquote no clear explanation of what she found offensive was offered and she sought no explanation for me as to the meaning or intent of my comments the israelis argue that under the rule hazelwood my speech could be censored for quote legitimate pedagogical concerns but even if  taking personal offense to my opinion or on behalf of a hypothetical person might be considered a type of legitimate pedagogical concern which i find highly dubious the expanse of his would rule only applies when the speech in question was school sponsored or when a reasonable person might think that it was this court's decision and  you think it's what i do believe my view it was my viewpoint that you took issue with and i put that in my complaint specifically a comment to me to a joke about the nature of the video we had to watch which she in her e mail to  school i have not made any original legal arguments in my papers i've only side of this court's decisions like poison online right it is actually class a virtual classroom wholly owned and maintained by charter oak state college  i have not made any regional arguments my papers i've only side to this court's decisions and those of the supreme court and apply them to the undisputed facts has conceded the spire refusing to argue against them and instead cited to older cases from other circuits which are incompatible with the precedent set by this court and the supreme court the district court's ruling on this matter is therefore in big us and that line of the relevant precedence the a pelleas appeal brief even references this problem obliquely stating on page five that the district court did not explicitly state whether it was dismissing the individual capacity claims for failure state a claim on the grounds of qualified immunity or both which is merely a way of saying they could not tell for certain number of grounds for dismissal they prevailed contrary to the appeal his assertion however the district court did not conduct the proper qualified immunity analysis because as this court has held in cases such as penny v empire blue cross blue shield and we can have the right qualified immunity is only available at the stage of litigation if the necessary facts appear on the face of the complaint and quote it appears beyond good morning your honour's my name is mary lanahan i represent the app only defendant back apart in this matter this court should affirm the district court's decision on both the st amendment and procedural due process  grounds st the court correctly applied hazlewood the controlling legal president in a classroom st amendment cases the court consistent with the court's precedents gave deference to the professor's academic decision to remove the post based on its was addressed to the material a critique of the material being used in the class rather than to the assignment questions and therefore that it was not responsive to the classroom if the the response was to the material a critique of the material which the opponent himself in the complaint allege that it was the post should have been removed whether it was a compliment about the post the reason we know that this was not viewpoint discrimination and in it was in fact viewpoint neutral as required under his would is because the professor specifically said in her email that this is a rant about the material in the course and further the appellant himself has admitted that that's exactly what this was and his complaint he admitted that this was a rant about the material in the classroom and that was not responsive to the post so the fact that he expresse viewpoint about the material doesn't protect him from st amendment restrictions that are allowed in a non public forum under his would in fact his his we do think from the records that there's discrimination here no your honor in fact there's not an allegation in the complaint that there was another post that was in fact like the one you're describing positive that was allowed to stay in the classroom so you have a complaint that alleges i was ranting about the classroom material which is per se not responsive to the questions that are included in the complaint you can see what the israel but she content of the plaintiff's speech was not responsive to the question presented in the assignment and therefore she restricted it based on the content his viewpoint in order to be viewpoint neutral under his would any and there's no allegation in the complaint that the professor a lot of other viewpoints on the material on the course material that were complementary are positive to allow to remain  humorous because a lot of these discussions frankly are just students paraphrasing what they've read in the materials and there's really nothing interesting about it i was simply trying to do  were not there any of the other student who i was engaging in the discussion with the online discussion she was she believed that the materials were in fact useful or in fact she she said that i was misunderstanding them we had that conversation made were deleted also however i like to point out that that's not an indication that this was just it was impossible to delete my thread and not to leave her says well technically so other students in the class as i mentioned in my complain also had the same opinion that i did about the classroom materials and their comments were not deleted many students complained well i mean well other students were commenting that the character the disabled character was acting very unreasonable very angrily they knew it was hard to believe that he would act that way into personal exchange and those comments who were mean i think my comment was targeted because i wanted to more depth and made more arguments than other students did they made passing comments about it and i actually took up the idea that you know these materials did not adequately express the course intent or the course topics and concepts and i thought that was important i also felt like i said that the portrayal of the disabled person was offensive and mind offensive stereotypes and that when you watch the video what you come away with is that you should defer to this gentleman not for any of the reasons that were in the course textbook because he's angry and because maybe he's disabled and that should you know i guess pity him or i don't know it felt that way to be when i watched it i would love to show the video but copyrighted material you know thank you