J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District and US v. Michael Anthony Essay

J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District and US v. Michael Anthony Marcavage, Appellant - Essay Example Michael Anthony Marcavage. The case was first filed in 2007 then the final decision took place in June 2010 in The Third Circuit. Michael Anthony filed an appeal against the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. In the first case two students from Blue Mountain School District were suspended. They had created a fake profile of their principal on MySpace. The eighth standard students did not mention the principal, James McGonigle’s name on the profile but they included his picture which they took from the website of the school district. They also identified this profile of a person who is a ‘principal’. The profile also contained many negative comments about McGonigle and his family along with characterizing the principal as a sex-obsesses paedophile. The school had thus determined that the students had violated the discipline of the school by creating a fake profile. The school discipline prohibited any student of making negative accusations of an y staff members of the school. Thus, the students were suspended from school for ten days. J.S. was one of those students who sued McMonigle the school district and his superintendent in account of violating her rights from the First Amendment. She argued that she could not be punished for her out-of-school conduct or speech which did not cause any disruption for the classes or administration. It was ruled that any out-of-school speech which affects the school campus could be punishable, even if the effect does not cause substantial disruption as decided in Tinker’s case in 1969. However, J.S. then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit held that in the Tinker case it was applied that a student’s speech, whether out-of-school campus or in school campus, that causes harm or threatens the school or any member of the school district is punishable. J.S. was granted an en branc rehearing for her appeal. The en branc reversed the decision of the District Court and held that there was an exception to Tinker’s case that the school district could not punish students for their 0ff campus speeches that have not affected the educational mission of school. Thus it was concluded that the school district held no authority to punish the students for their off campus behaviour or speech. In the second case, Marcavage had started an anti-abortionist demonstration with about twenty other people along the sidewalk of the Independence National Historical Park. He had not applied for any permission for the demonstration. The place where he demonstrated was the only entrance and exit access to the Liberty Bell Centre. They positioned themselves outside the entrance hindering the entrance and exit to the Liberty Bell Centre. Alan Saperstein was the ranger of the Park and he approached Marcavage asking him to relocate from the entrance and exit access to the area near the Visitor Centre on Market Street. He also ask ed Marcavage to stop using his bullhorn. Despite the requests Marcavage refused to relocate and continued his demonstrations. Saperstein approached him again with Ian Crane on the telephone line who was the chief ranger of the Park and who had dealt with Marcavage before too. Marcavage was ordered to obey Saperstein and relocate but he refused. Saperstein came several times and received negative responses from Marcavage who continued his demonstrations so finally Saperstein came with some other rangers and physically restrained Marcavage by holding his hands at his back and marching him off the sidewalk. Marcavage was accused of violating the permit terms and interfering with the agency functions. He