In order to find this case on Findlaw, just search for it using "J.S. vs...." You can then create a free account. The link to the specific case is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/pennsylvaniastatecases/supreme/j-111-2001mo.pdf. 

   This case deals with a middle school student who created a Website with defamatory statements about one of his teachers and his school principle. The site, “Teacher Sux,” was created on his home computer but was accessed at school. When it was discovered, it created a stir at school and the teacher he had mentioned, Ms. Fulmer, suffered from stress-related illnesses. The following summer, the school board expelled the student from school for the Website. The student’s parents sued the school board for their decision. The case made it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that the Website did in fact cause “a material and substantial disruption of the school environment,” making it not protected under the 1^st amendment (even though the speech did not constitute a “true threat”). Because the Website affected the school environment, it did not matter that the student had created it at home.

   I am interested in how this precedent-setting case affects students’ postings on social networking sites of today, like Facebook.com and MySpace.com. Although these are log-in only websites, any one may gain access to them and may do so in a school environment. I wonder then if a student has been expelled for comments made on one of these social networking sites. This case brings to the forefront the issues of privacy and rights when it comes to personal postings on the internet, something that is all the more prevalent with the ubiquity of social networking sites in young people. The case illustrates the unique circumstances of a school environment and shows that the 1st amendment is limited in that space (going all the way back to the "Tinker" case which can also be found on FindLaw). What students put on their Facebook profiles or their friend’s wall can affect their standing at their university if it causes a “material and substantial disruption of the school environment” or portrays the student doing illegal activities. These Websites offer students a unique opportunity for self-expression and identity formation, but there is also the danger in the lack of privacy of internet postings.

Baker takes certain ideas touched upon in Bagdikian’s book, The (New) Media Monopoly and analyses them in much greater depth (Bagdikian has published many versions of his book, the first of which appeared when there were 50 major players in the media business… there are now only 5). He uses economic analysis to determine the efficiency of the current system (or lack thereof), and makes various policy arguments for remedying the current problem within our press. The structure is as follows: he illustrates the problem, proves it economically, introduces a policy proposal, compares it to programs implemented around the world, and then discusses the constitutionality of going forward with his recommendations.

Implicit throughout his book is that the media serves a distinct role in society and that given the current influence that advertisers can exercise, they prevent the media from fulfilling the needs of a democratic society. This idea is developed in greater depth in his book Media Markets and Democracy where he analyses a democratic society’s requirements of its press according to 4 different theories of democracy. He values diversity and that the media should work harder to meet the desires of its readers through content rather than from its advertisers by delivering the right readers.

Another key point of Baker’s argument is that advertising disproportionately hurts the poor. He points to the example of an English newspaper that had larger circulation than the other major newspapers combined, but not withstanding this fact, because the newspaper was read by people without a substantial disposable income, there were few (if any) advertisers who would subsidize the paper. Thus, the paper had to be profitable with only subscription revenues, and it eventually failed. Baker gives the case study and then explains why this is so on theoretical grounds and that this phenomenon most likely occurs rather often—advertisers seek a wealthy audience, and thus media products are disproportionately catered to their tastes, in terms of political leanings, interest pieces, and other editorial content.