- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Last month I blogged about Missouri’s Amy Hestir Student Protection Act, a law which prohibits private communications between teachers and students on social media websites. Several readers shared their concerns about the vagueness and breadth of the Act in the comments. It seemed that the law was clearly running afoul of several Constitutional provisions. I also spoke to some Missouri teachers about their responses to the bill, and asked them what guidelines they had received in regard to staying compliant with the new law. They all seemed equally confused about what exactly the Amy Hestir bill prohibited, and answered that their school administrators had also not given them clear guidelines about what social media activities they were allowed to engage in.
The concerns of Missouri teachers were well received by Missouri judicial branch. A few weeks ago in response to a suit brought by the Missouri State Teachers Association, the Cole County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction (PDF) nullifying the portion of the bill which stated, “no teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student.” The judge, Jon Beetem, stated that the provision ran counter to the First Amendment by having a chilling effect on speech. Judge Beetem interpreted the prohibition broadly and explained that it would prevent teachers from using any social networking site that allowed private contact with students.
The decision will likely not receive too much push back from Missouri’s legislative or executive branches. Governor Nixon stated that he would ask the legislature to repeal the contested provision of the statute.
Missouri’s social networking law controversy stands as an example to other states if they want to pass laws regulating educator social networking. If states do want to pass laws, they must be very specific about the type of conduct they are prohibiting, and ensure they are not being more restrictive than student safety requires.
– Nadia Mozaffar
Recent Blog Posts
- Guest Post: Harnessing the Power of Fans in Sports Franchise Ownership through Crowdfunding
- Faceboculus: The Metaverse had a Kickstarter
- Heigl v. Duane Reed: A Battle for Publicity
- Weev Still Got a CFAA Problem: Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Conviction Vacated
- Monday Morning JETLawg
- Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government information security intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution