Students nationwide might face restrictions on their freedom of speech on social networks if the University of Minnesota has its way.

A case brought before the Minnesota Supreme Court Wednesday questions whether the university’s disciplinary actions against mortuary science student Amanda Tatro violated her First Amendment constitutional rights.

Tatro was punished for posting comments on Facebook in 2009 about her laboratory course work that provoked complaints from supporters of the program.

Tatro wrote, “(I get) to play, I mean dissect, Bernie today,” referring to the cadaver she was working on in the lab.

She also said she wanted to use an embalming tool “to stab a certain someone in the throat” in an angry rant about her ex-boyfriend.

Although Tatro said her comments were jokes, the university gave her a failing grade in the course and required her to complete an ethics class and undergo a psychiatric exam.

Frank LoMonte, executive director at the Student Press Law Center — which co-authored an amicus brief in support of Tatro in Tatro v. University of Minnesota — said ruling in favor of the university might cause regulation of all off-campus speech, including journalistic writing.

“When you say colleges can control what their students say online, you are removing a huge amount of First Amendment protection that goes way beyond just Facebook,” he said in an email.

UNC Dean of Students Jonathan Sauls said the University doesn’t regulate online material unless legitimate threats, physical harm or harassment result from the posts.

“We support free expression rights for students,” he said. “We don’t want to take excessive disciplinary action.”

Several higher education groups, including the American Council on Education, filed an amicus brief in November in support of the University of Minnesota.

“The leading colleges all across America will see this as an opportunity to stake their claim to a big piece of First Amendment turf and expand their authority,” LoMonte said.

But Ada Meloy, general counsel at the American Council on Education, said mortuary science is a sensitive topic area, and the University of Minnesota exercised reasonable regulations.

She said she doesn’t think any university will be able to infringe on students’ constitutional rights.

“Taking into account the type of program and the effect that the postings had on faculty and students, this was an appropriate way for the university to deal with it,” she said.

The court could take several months to reach a verdict. Tatro said she intends to appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court if the university wins.

Contact the State and National Editor at state@dailytarheel.com.