September 8, 2008

U. of Delaware Student Wins Free-Speech Lawsuit, but Is Awarded Only $10

A federal judge has ruled that the University of Delaware violated a student’s free-speech rights when it suspended him for content on his Web page, The News Journal, a newspaper in Wilmington, Del., reported.

But the judge awarded only $10 to Maciej Murakowski, saying that his suspension, in April 2007, was justified because of his other actions, including ignoring an order not to return to his dormitory. At the time, Mr. Murakowski was already on disciplinary probation. He had originally sought damages and reinstatement at Delaware, but according to the newspaper, his suspension ended long ago, and he returned to the university earlier this year.

Delaware suspended Mr. Murakowski shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings, for violating its policies on disruptive conduct and computer use. Among other things, his Web page contained a detailed description of how to skin a cat and jokes about rape, kidnapping, and torture. —Elyse Ashburn

Comments

1. Creepy, creepy guy. Wonder what he plans to do with the $10 he won as his “settlement”.

   I think that he SHOULD be able to put whatever he wants on his web page, but by acting so strangely, he is putting himself into a category of people that universities have learned, so tragically from Cho at Va Tech, should be very wary about and ignore only at their own risk…

   — Bob    Sep 8, 02:04 PM    #

2. He should be able to put whatever he wants on HIS web page, but not necessarily one hosted by the University at which he is a student. If he wants to purchase web hosting services from some private vendor, then it would be between him and his web hosting vendor whether whatever he posted fit under the TOS agreement that he signed with the vendor.

   — rg    Sep 8, 03:53 PM    #

3. Yeah sure, let him post things liberal minded folks and then when he shoots up your brother in a shooting spree please don’t stand up screaming at a University for not doing anything. Kudos to U of D for standing up to a disturbed student who should be on meds, in counseling and NOT in school scaring others. Way too many crazies in our schools today!

   — john doe    Sep 8, 03:59 PM    #

4. Academic institutions ought to develop and implement IT and web site development policies for students, staff and faculty. The policies should clearly state the penalties for violations!

   — Hii    Sep 8, 04:05 PM    #

5. I’m not sure I understand… liberal minded folks are those who protect free speech? Or liberal minded folks are those who suspend “disturbed” students?

   Your comment makes me wonder if you are not disturbed and perhaps worthy of suspension John.

   Or perhaps you trust my judgment a little less on that matter now?

   — liberal minded folks?    Sep 8, 04:06 PM    #

6. What is missing from the CHRONICLE article is that the judge described the writings as “racist, sexist, homophobic, insensitive, degrading and containing graphic descriptions of violent behavior.” But, ultimately that same judge found the sophomoric, immature, crude and highly offensive” essays were an “alleged attempt at humor or parody” and not a “true threat” targeting any specific individual or group.

   It is, of course, difficult to differentiate in advance between “threats” and “true threats”. Perhaps her honor should be asked to enlighten college administrators and others.

   — Harley    Sep 8, 04:13 PM    #

7. differentiate in advance? Is that some calculus for a time series? I think Harley, that telling the future, particularly of specific instances of humans behaving, is difficult.

   But there is a difference between “threats” and “true threats.” In this context, error in distinguishing them is known to result in injury and loss. This case is clearly a negative sum situation, although ten bucks is ten bucks. I think this is a legal matter that perfectly demonstrates that there are limits to what the law will do, the derivative of which is live free.

   — mnh    Sep 8, 07:08 PM    #

8. Hi guys.

   So, I can’t really expect anybody here to be familiar with UD’s policies for student web pages, but, in short, it says, “We will not monitor the content. Don’t use our logo or our name, and don’t try to make money from it. Beyond that, we don’t care.”

   http://www.udel.edu/webstart/stuorg/student.resource.html

   Harley: if you can identify a specific individual (or small group, not a whole class of people like women), time, and place, and if there are no conditions (unlike, “If we catch any of you going into any of them racist stores we’re going to break your damn neck.”), it might be a ‘true threat’. Otherwise, it’s not.

   — Maciej Murakowski    Sep 8, 07:36 PM    #

9. Mr Murakowski is a juvenile attention-seeker, and one of the less sympathetic plaintiffs one can imagine. Nonetheless, the University of Delaware flat-out violated the law when it punished him for his sub-Beavis-&-Buttheadesque effusions. For that reason alone, I consider the judge’s damages award unwise. If the cost of ignoring the Constitution is so trivial, the University will have very little incentive not to treat it equally lightly in the future.

   — Gustave    Sep 9, 11:28 AM    #

Previous: Big-Time Sports Programs Use 'Special' Criteria to Admit Athletes Who Are Subpar Students
Next: Hearings on Higher Education Act Regulations to Be Held at 5 Colleges