MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

Social Incrimination 283
University of Calgary, 276 a student successfully appealed a University
decision to reprimand him for comments made in a Facebook group
regarding a professor’s teaching style. The Court rejected the University’s
assertion that “expression in the form of criticism of one's professor must
be restricted in order to accomplish the objective of maintaining an
appropriate learning environment.” 277
While courts have found that students may criticize teachers,
educational institutes do have the ability to discipline students for
comments that violate the law or risk disrupting classes. An Ontario court
upheld the decision to expel a law student who, after being warned,
continued to post comments that his fellow students were “subhuman”
and which made reference to killing sprees. 278 The court rejected the
student’s contention that the comments were made out of school and
agreed that the comments could create fear and apprehension amongst
classmates. It also differentiated between acceptable social networking
statements and that which could be held against a student:
This court is mindful of the historical importance of encouraging free speech on
university campuses, and rigorously defending the right of students to debate
difficult and often highly unpopular issues with passion. However, free speech
has its limits, including the making of threats and defamation of character. 279
Courts in the US have taken a similar approach finding that online
postings can be grounds for dismissal if they are likely to disrupt class. In
JC ex rel RC v Beverly Hills Unified School District, 280 the court agreed with a
school’s decision to suspend a student who created YouTube videos
mocking another student. It found that statements or posts made on the
internet could be grounds for removal if it is “foreseeably likely to cause a
substantial disruption of school activities” and a “sufficient nexus exists
where it is “reasonably foreseeable” that the speech would reach
campus.” 281 The court also noted that it is reasonable foreseeable that
material posted on the internet would reach the school. Similar
276
Pridgen v University of Calgary, 2010 ABQB 644, 325 DLR (4th) 441.
277
Ibid at para 82.
278
Zhang v University of Western Ontario, 2010 ONSC 6489 at para 27, 328 DLR (4th)
289.
279
Ibid at para 35.
280
JC ex rel RC v Beverly Hills Unified School Dist, 711 F Supp 2d 1094 (CD Cal 2010).
281
Ibid at 1107.