Fourteen federal appellate judges spent more than two hours talking about high school pranks on Thursday as the 3rd Circuit sat en banc to consider a pair of cutting-edge First Amendment cases brought by students suspended for ridiculing their principals on MySpace. While the legal issues in the two cases appeared identical, the courts have so far reached opposite conclusions -- both at the trial level and on appeal. The nature of the cases -- and the ribald speech at issue -- made for spirited arguments.
June 04, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Fourteen federal appellate judges spent more than two hours talking about high school pranks on Thursday as the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sat en banc to consider a pair of cutting-edge First Amendment cases brought by students who were suspended for ridiculing their principals on MySpace.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is representing both students and argues that school officials have no power to impose discipline for such off-campus speech.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
