By mid-afternoon, the ACLU said it had accepted the Plum explanation, with some concerns.
“While more cryptic than we would have liked, the ACLU-PA accepts the Plum Borough School District’s clarification that students have the right to speak about the ongoing investigations. Students should know that so long as they don’t disrupt classes or create a significant and material disruption in the school, they have the right to talk about the ongoing investigation, which is a matter of public concern,” said ACLU state legal director Witold "Vic" Walczak.
“That means they are free to discuss the issue in the hallways, the lunchroom, during non-instructional time in the classroom, or while on school buses. Students also have a right to discuss the matter outside of school and on social media. Students should only be concerned with not intimidating or threatening any potential victim or witness into silence or from cooperating with the police and district attorney, which is a crime.”
At three assemblies, the principal and Plum police chief said student posts to social media sites might compromise the investigations of two teachers accused of having sexual relationships with students and a third accused of intimidating a victim in the case.
Mr. Walczak said the ACLU had demanded, by noon today, an explanation of the reasoning behind the assemblies and assurances that students’ free-speech rights had not been violated.
The ACLU asked for a statement "clarifying that students will not be arrested or prosecuted for commenting on social media or at school about matters related to the investigation and that they will be subject to discipline only for comments made in school that create a significant risk of material and substantial disruption of the school day."
In his letter, Superintendent Timothy Glasspool said he wanted “to clarify the district’s position” in relation to the assemblies.
“The district will not take actions that infringe upon the First Amendment rights of its students or staff with respect to their use of social media,” the letter reads. “The district will not prevent or inhibit any individuals from engaging in constitutionally protected speech. ... It is not the district’s intent to prosecute or discipline any students for exercising those rights to the extent they are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
”Be assured that the intent of the assembly was to provide protection to all of our students,“ Mr. Glasspool said, noting the district again urges ”all individuals refrain from engaging in any irresponsible, harassing and/or intimidating communications with respect to the ongoing investigation.“
Two Plum Senior High School teachers, Jason Cooper, 38, and Joseph Ruggieri, 40, have been accused of having sexual relationships with students, and Drew Zoldak, 40, another teacher at the school, was arrested after police said he pointed out the victim in one of those cases during class and attempted to intimidate her.
Following the arrest of Mr. Zoldak, the school district notified police about social media posts "that were directly linked to that incident which were malicious, and brought into question our victim and witness integrity and truthfulness," Plum police Chief Jeff Armstrong said last week. "We got together with the school district and came to an agreement that it would be a good idea to get in front of this."
According to a tape of the assembly acquired by WPXI-TV, Principal Ryan Kociela introduced Chief Armstrong and the school resource officer, saying they were present "to reinforce the potential legal outcomes of any irresponsible, harassing and intimidating comments or actions that could compromise criminal investigations in any way."
Chief Armstrong then took the microphone. By taking to social media and posting comments about the situation, he said, "you're drawing attention to yourself and you're asking for officers from the police department or the district attorney's office to show up at your door and to your parent's and ask you for an explanation as to why you said what you said and why you did what you did..."
A short time later the principal again addressed the student body.
"...this is something I've asked my staff to keep close eyes on and ... the Plum Borough Police Department and Allegheny County District Attorney's Officer are prepared to arrest and charge people who engage in this type of behavior."
Mr. Walczak said the conduct in which the principal and police chief engaged is tantamount to prior restraint -- censorship -- which he said the U.S. Supreme Court views as the most "disfavored" type of First Amendment violation.
"This is wrong on so many levels. They can’t forbid the kids from discussing this in school unless it causes a material and substantial disruption," Mr. Walczak said.
"If they want to talk about it in the hallway, on the playground or in the lunchroom or waiting for the bus they have every right to do so. This is a matter of public concern. The school certainly can’t tell students whether they can talk about it outside the school.”
Mr. Walczak said that two federal court cases in which his office was involved, both of which were decided by an appellate court, made it "very clear that school officials' authority over students' out-of-school speech is very, very limited."
Mr. Walczak also called it "preposterous" that comments on social media by students would rise to the level of witness intimidation as defined by the criminal code.
"Under any theory, what the principal and the police chief said was way overboard and in our view amounts to a prior restraint on speech," Mr. Walczak said. "You're telling people they can’t talk about something before they even said it.”
Concerning Chief Armstrong specifically, Mr. Walczak said: “Maybe the worst is the police chief's threat to refer any kids who talk about this for criminal prosecution. He's not Vladimir Putin, and Plum is not in Russia. Last I looked it’s in the United States where we have something called the First Amendment, and what part of freedom of speech is unclear I don’t know.”
Reached later, the chief said he had no interest “in commenting on any characterization that Mr. Walczak made of me. I understand the ACLU's position. The students have a right to free speech; I don't argue that position whatsoever.
"What I was trying to get across to the students [Friday] concerned the context, content and intent of the messages they send on social media. It was a cautionary tale that sometimes these posts could meet the criteria of a criminal offense based on what was in those messages."
The chief said at least one message had been turned over to the Allegheny County district attorney's office for investigation. He wouldn't characterize the message as a threat to anyone, but he did say it was a personal attack on an individual and the "content, context and intent was different. It was more than just a personal opinion."
Asked whether he would change his remarks to the students if he could turn back the clock, Chief Armstrong said: "Hindsight being 20-20, I would have presented it differently. I regret, obviously, a misinterpretation by some of what the message was. I want to protect both the witnesses and the victims, but also other students."
The alleged victims, in particular, had already gone through the pressure and traumatic events leading to the teachers' arrests, he said.
"What we did not want was for them to go through this intimidation from their peers."
©2015 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
