George Mason Law Review: Rod Harrell, Editor-in-Chief Civil Rights Law Journal: Peter Donohue, Editor-in-Chief pdonohue@gmu.edu or Sam Parker, Senior Notes Editor sparker7@elon.edu Journal of Law, Economics & Policy: Manmeet Dhindsa, Editor-in-Chief mkdhind@gmail.com Journal of Int’l Com. Law: Taylor Hoverman, Editor-in-Chief Taylor.Hoverman@gmail.com National Security Law Journal: Rick Myers, Editor-in-Chief or Lynzi Maas, Managing Editor lynzi.maas@nslj.org 2015 Transfer Write-On Competition Instructions I. TOPIC To participate in the competition, you must a Comment (as defined below in Section III) on the sources included in this packet. II. CLOSED RESEARCH PROJECT The Transfer Write-On is a closed research project. Not all the materials included in the packet may be applicable to your analysis—you must decide what is relevant. You do not have to use all of the sources and you do not have to use any specific number of the sources. You may not conduct any outside research, and you are limited to the materials contained in thIS packet. The materials in this packet have been noticeably altered, and you may only use the sources as they appear in this packet (i.e., do not look up the listed sources on LexisNexis, Westlaw, or any other research tool, including Google). If you are found to violate this requirement, your entry will be automatically disqualified, and you will no longer be eligible for trial
2015 Please note that many of the sources below are edited. Please do not look up these sources to read the portions not included in the Write-On packet. Please also note that the sources below may not be cited correctly. Please consult the Bluebook for proper citations and formatting. PRIMARY SOURCES: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733 (1969) Bethel School District No. 403 et al. v. Fraser, a 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986) Hazelwood School v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988) v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007) Lauren Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2nd Circ. 2008) J.S., a minor, v. Blue Mountain School District, 650 F.2d 915 (3rd Cir. 2011) Kowalski v. Berkeley Count Schools, 652 F.3d 565 (2011) SECONDARY SOURCES: Reply Brief of Plaintiff Appellant, Doninger v. Nieoff, No. 07-3885-cv, 2007 WL 6158455 (C.A.2 2007) Mary-Rose Papandrea, Student Speech Rights in the Digital Age, 60 Florida Law Review 1027 (2008) Allison E. From Armbands to Douchebags: How Doninger v. Niehoff Shows the Supreme Court Needs to Address Student Speech in the Cyber Age, 43 Akron Law Rev. 247 (2011) Todd D. Erb, A Case for Strengthening School District Jurisdiction to Punish Off-Campus Incidents of Cyberbullying, 40 AZS LJ 257 (2008) Memorial Boulevard Middle School, Policy 5131.913(a) (lasted visited April 15, 2012, 5:00 pm) < http://www.bristol.k12.ct.us/page.cfm?p=5730> trial,
NOTE: This is a closed research project. All of the sources that you should use are included in this packet. No outside research is allowed. You may only cite to the above listed sources. However, if you wish to cite a source that is explained or quoted within the packet, please format the citation similar to one of the following examples: Johnson v. Quander, 370 F.Supp.2d 79, 85-86 (2005) (quoting United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)). Johnson v. Quander, 370 F.Supp.2d 79, 85-86 (2005) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)).
al., Pew Internet and American Life: Teens and Mobile Phones 59 (2010) (stating that 73 percent of teenagers use a social networking site). The line between “on-campus” and “off-campus” speech is not as clear as it once was. Today, students commonly carry cell phones with internet capabilities onto school grounds. Approximately 66 percent of students receive a cell phone before the age of 14, and slightly less than 75 percent of high school students have cell phones. Amanda Lenhart, et al., Pew Internet and American Life: Teens and Mobile Phones 9 (2010). Twenty-three percent of teenagers between the ages of and 17 who own cell phones use them to access social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. Id. at 56. The majority embraces a notion that student hostile and offensive online speech directed at school officials will not reach the school. But with near-constant student access to social networking sites on and off campus, when offensive and malicious speech is directed at school officials and disseminated online to the student body, it is reasonable to anticipate an *952 impact on the classroom environment. I fear that our Court has adopted a rule that will prove untenable. III. *** I respectfully dissent from the decision that the suspension of J.S. for making false and malicious accusations against her principal in the form of lewd and offensive speech violated her First Amendment rights. In student free speech cases, courts must grapple with the issue of promoting freedom of expression while maintaining a conducive learning environment. I believe the majority has unwisely tipped the balance struck by Tinker, Fraser, Kuhlmeier, and Morse, thereby jeopardizing schools' ability to maintain an orderly learning environment while protecting teachers and school officials against harmful attacks. C.A.3 (Pa.),2011. J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School Dist. 650 F.3d 915, 271 Ed. Law Rep. 656 END OF DOCUMENT