{"id":12244,"date":"2021-03-03T03:25:58","date_gmt":"2021-03-03T03:25:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bigislandthieves.com\/?p=12244"},"modified":"2021-03-03T03:26:00","modified_gmt":"2021-03-03T03:26:00","slug":"hawaii-attorney-general-conner%ca%bbs-joins-coalition-of-24-attorneys-generals-supporting-schools-ability-to-protect-students-from-bullying","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bigislandthieves.com\/hawaii-attorney-general-conner%ca%bbs-joins-coalition-of-24-attorneys-generals-supporting-schools-ability-to-protect-students-from-bullying\/","title":{"rendered":"Hawaii Attorney General Conner\u02bbs Joins Coalition of 24 Attorneys Generals Supporting Schools\u2019 Ability to Protect Students from Bullying"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"Hawaii Attorney General Clare E. Connors joined a coalition of 24 attorneys general in filing a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to preserve schools\u2019 ability to address cyberbullying and other forms of off-campus bullying that substantially affects students\u2019 education.<\/p>\n

The coalition, led by District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, filed the brief in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case concerning the ability of schools to hold students accountable for off-campus speech, and does not support either party. Because of public schools\u2019 obligation to protect students and promote learning, the Supreme Court has long given them more leeway to regulate student speech under the First Amendment than states have regarding adults\u2019 speech. But the lower court in this case ruled that schools may never regulate students\u2019 off-campus speech.<\/p>\n

In their brief, the attorneys general urge the Court to reject this rule, arguing that it would undermine state anti-bullying laws and prevent schools from addressing in-person and online bullying that originates off-campus. Instead, the coalition encourages the court to uphold an existing legal standard, which empowers schools to regulate speech that substantially disrupts school or interferes with other students\u2019 ability to learn.<\/p>\n

\u201cPublic schools clearly have the legal ability to regulate off-campus bullying that impacts a student\u2019s education,\u201d said Attorney General Connors. \u201cOur state DOE should have access to every available tool to combat bullying in the school system, including addressing off -campus intimidation and aggression.”<\/p>\n

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a landmark 1969 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that students have First Amendment rights in public school settings but also recognized that school officials may regulate student speech that would \u201cmaterially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school\u201d or interfere with the rights of other students. Every federal appellate court in the country, except the Third Circuit in the case now before the Supreme Court, has applied the Tinker standard to student speech that causes substantial disruption or harm at school, regardless of where the speech originates.<\/p>\n

Bullying is a harmful and disruptive form of student behavior\u2014often involving speech\u2014that public schools across the country prohibit. Bullying involves targeted intimidation or humiliation, typically through repeated, aggressive behavior perpetrated by students who are perceived to be stronger or more socially prominent than the victims. Bullying can take many forms, including physical violence, threats, offensive insults, or mocking. It can also take the form of indirect aggression, including spreading false or harmful rumors or distributing embarrassing images of targeted student. All 50 States have passed school anti-bullying laws, including laws requiring schools to establish anti-bullying policies and implement procedures to investigate and respond to bullying. More than two-thirds of these laws cover some bullying that occurs or originates off campus, and most state anti-bullying laws incorporate Tinker\u2019s standard of disruption to the school environment to determine when schools have authority to act.<\/p>\n

In their amicus brief filed in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the attorneys general do not take a position on the underlying facts of the case. Instead, they urge the Court to treat students\u2019 off-campus speech like any other students\u2019 speech, allowing schools to regulate it when it has substantial effects on the school or other students\u2019 learning, because:<\/p>\n