The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is showing its pubescent side by bringing a lawsuit against a public school involving two teens who posted sexually provocative photos on an Internet social network site.
In between segments reporting on the Election Day results, “The Factor” included a brief discussion of this ACLU lawsuit. Its two legal experts predicted that the lawsuit would not succeed. Considering some of the activist judges sitting on the federal bench today, I am not so sure. The ACLU has been very successful in convincing gullible judges to protect so-called constitutional ‘rights’ that the ACLU has made up out of whole cloth.
This teenage version of a “Girls Gone Wild” episode is almost a comical relief from the pro-terrorist lawsuits that the ACLU has become famous for bringing. However, the school district is not laughing – they have to waste tax payers’ money defending against a frivolous lawsuit that purports to protect the teens’ sexually explicit Internet photos under the First Amendment as some sort of creative expression.
Apparently, at least five girls (inclduing the two involved in this lawsuit) were attending a sleepover during summer break and took photos of each other posing in lingerie and holding phallic-shaped suckers. According to the ACLU, the Churubusco High School violated the girls’ First Amendment right of free speech when it decided to suspend the girls from cheerleading and other sports for a semester because, in the administration’s judgment, the photos crossed the line of acceptable behavior for students who sought to represent the school in such extracurricular activities. The ACLU not only wants to overturn the suspension. It is also seeking to have all references to the incident expunged from school records and to prevent similar actions in the future.
Whether the school district acted wisely in making a big deal out of the girls’ summer break escapade may be debatable. But it should have every right to do so by denying the girls access for a time to extracurricular school privileges, without having to be answerable to the ACLU or to irresponsible parents who were apparently unable to control their kids’ sexually provocative behavior in the first place.
The Supreme Court has ruled that students can be disciplined for activities that happen outside of school if the school can prove the activities were dangerous or disruptive. Sexually provocative photos taken by sophomore girls appearing on the Internet, even if available initially to only a select group on a social network, provide a reasonable basis for the school to suspend their school privileges. Once something is posted on the Internet, it is potentially out there for the whole world connected to the Internet to see. And photos are cabable of being e-mailed by users of the social network to anyone.
The multiple pictures brought to school caused a disruption within our athletic teams at the beginning of this year’s seasons. The pictures were highly inappropriate in content and did not reflect the high standards of conduct we expect in our athletes and students who participate in extra-curricular activities.
Students who are athletes at CHS are subject to rules and expectations at a higher level than students choosing not to participate in extra-curricular activities. They represent our school and community through participation in extra-curricular events and sports in our community and other communities when traveling to away events…Voluntary participation on a student’s part in extra-curricular events requires students to abide by the code of conduct and identify their agreement to follow these standards of behaviors.
When students choose to violate extra-curricular expectations, there are consequences.
Left-wing groups like the ACLU too often equate constitutional rights for their clients with there being no consequences for their clients’ actions - whether for their teenage exhibitionist clients or for their far more dangerous terrorist suspect clients.