Written by Kay Ashaolu and Suhani N Mehta with reference to this article:
On August 28, the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act was passed in Missouri which states that “No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related Internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting a teacher from establishing a nonwork related Internet site, provided the site is used in accordance with this section.” It is designed to prevent personal communications between a teacher and student using Internet based technology in order to protect students from sexual misconduct by teachers.
These days, websites are often used by teachers for one way communication to parents as well as to students. Local district websites also enable teachers to solve homework problems and enrich the learning of students beyond the classroom. In the process of preventing sexual communications between teachers and students, the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act is very well preventing many other legitimate avenues of communications.
The bill violates the First Amendment especially in terms of freedom of speech. A restriction on the freedom of speech requires a compelling state of interest and must be narrowly tailored. The bill is not narrowly tailored because it hinders even innocuous discussions between students and teachers. Also, such content neutral laws are required to allow ample number of alternate communication channels. This bill blocks all forms of electronic communication.
Moreover, this law forces “prior restraint”, i.e., it censors material even before it can be heard or read. Such restraint is permissible only under extreme circumstances. However, this bill does not define any particular circumstances that can be considered as potentially harmful.
A circuit court hearing in Cole County recently awarded the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA) a preliminary injunction in its legal case against this bill. As a result, this bill will not be enforced until Feb. 20, 2012, or as soon as the court reaches a final verdict on the case. Judge Beetem said (in his official order), “Even if a complete ban on certain forms of communication between certain individuals could be construed as content neutral and only a reasonable restriction on ‘time, place and manner,’ the breadth of the prohibition is staggering.”
It would be interesting to see what verdict is reached by the court and how it is reached…