Embittered over 'tweets' in Twitter, or How not to deal with controversial digital speech?

You updated your Twitter. You made a comment about your school. You are sure your school administrators wouldn't like. But, you think, it's a fair and valid comment. And to be scientific, it's a comment that is based on empirical evidence.

Then somebody print-screened your and your friends' tweets. The print-screened tweets found their way to your school administrator's table. The next day, you and those who made "negative" comments were called by school administrators.

You asked why. Nothing, they replied. The admin just wanted to talk to your group. Then you found out why. The admin was disappointed, nay, offended by you and your group's tweets. You were reminded not to do it again and to be careful with your tweets.

Worse is, just when you thought it's over, you found out you were punished. Your conduct grades were decreased. Why? For making such comments.

Too often, students find themselves embroiled in this situation. And too often, school administrators take punitive steps to respond to this.

It can't be denied that the Internet and the social networking sites are now the new plaza. That's where most of the young people stay and hang out, though they don't necessarily have to leave their homes. That's where students talk, send Private Message, Comment, Like,  Tweet and Retweet, search, select and invite Friends, and Share stories, photos and links.

Indeed, that's where everything gravitates towards, at least for the "Digital Natives."

The pervasiveness of the Internet and especially the social networking sites in the lives of young people poses several challenges, among others, to the school administrators.

The Internet has given young people another venue where they can exercise their freedom of speech and expression. Through the Internet, they voice out their opinions. They comment on issues which they think matter---the impeachment trial of CJ Renato Corono, the deluge of concert by foreign artists this Valentine season, the death of Whitney Houston, and, yes, the improvements or lack thereof in their school. They express their disgust over everything else they find disgusting.

No less than the Constitution guarantees and protects that freedom. And the students can enjoy that same freedom, and indeed a robust exercise of that freedom must be encouraged, provided they are forewarned not to go beyond the ambit of the law. As Justice Dante Tinga said, in his separate opinion on Chavez vs. Gonzales, "For as long as the expression is not libelous or slanderous, not obscene...it is guaranteed protection by the Constitution. I do not find it material whether the protected expression is of a political, religious, personal, humorous or trivial nature - they all find equal comfort in the Constitution. Neither should it matter through what medium the expression is conveyed, whether through the print or broadcast media, through the Internet or through interpretative dance. For as long as it does not fall under the above-mentioned exceptions, it is accorded the same degree of protection by the Constitution."

This freedom of speech, however, like all other freedoms, can be potentially abused. And if it is abused or seem to be abused, how then should we deal with it?

Should we punish students or threaten them with suspension or deduction of grades for posting innocuous remarks in Twitter or Facebook? Should we berate the students and give them a mouthful of reminders?

Justice George Malcolm, in United States vs. Bustos, wrote of those who were subjected to public scrutiny and criticism.

"Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech," Justice Malcolm said. "The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience."

Because teachers are public figures, their deeds and misdeed are open to public criticism. If and when criticized, Justice Malcolm wrote, "A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and the dignity of the individual be exalted."

But it seems that the tendency of those in authority who are criticized is to get even, invoking the sacrosanct rules and regulations of the school. They seem to take things personally, too. Though convenient, this approach is not a guarantee that others won't make similar comments in the future. If anything, this would only incite more loathing from the students. Punishing them is a dastardly  deterrent policy.

The better alternative, as Mary-Rose Papandrea argued in her article Students Speech Rights in the Digital Age, is to use non-punitive methods in dealing with digital speech controversies. They “are much more beneficial than simply punishing students the moment they engage in controversial speech.”

In what form will these non-punitive methods take?

“Schools,” Papandrea proposed, “should first begin to address perceived problems with student speech in the digital age by educating their students about safety and civility on the Internet and in digital media generally even before problems begin. Such an approach could begin with some education about the First Amendment generally, but then continue to a broader discussion about safety and responsible use of digital media.”

When Papandrea spoke of the First Amendment,  of course, she had in mind the USA. But her proposal might as well be applied on Philippine soil whose Constitution, after all, is considerably patterned after the American. In our case, we don’t speak of the First Amendment, but of the freedom of speech clause found in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

“When students engage in digital speech that concerns school officials,” Papandrea says, “the officials should resist their impulse to punish such speech and instead use the incident as an opportunity to teach important lessons about digital speech.”

Since students generally access the Internet from their individual homes, away from the reach of the school authorities, Papandrea points our that parents also play a role, a vital role at that, in the education of their children.

In any event, Papandrea proposes, “Schools should make their best efforts to educate their students’ parents about the harms and benefits of digital media and encourage them to be more proactive in the supervision of their children’s digital speech activities.”

The Internet and other ICT devices are already fixtures of the 21^st century world. Depriving the students of these ICT devices so that controversial digital speech might be avoided is a terrible prospect, and punishing the students because they have abused their freedom of speech would be terrible still.

"Rather than punish their students," concluded Papandrea, "schools must instead become more tolerant of speech that they do not like and focus more on educating their students to use digital media responsibly.”