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.
