This afternoon, Judge Kravitz heard the final testimony regarding a preliminary injunction in the Avery Doninger case. He stressed the preliminary aspects of this and that he was only ruling on the constitutional aspects. Testimony ended around 5 PM and his thirty four page opinion was available on the courts website about forty five minutes later. He has denied the Doninger's request for relief.

In the opening paragraph, he states that 'Just about everyone but Avery agrees that the manner in which Avery expressed her frustration was offensive and inappropriate.'

Everyone is very broad and I do not fall within his bounds of 'just about everyone'. He recognizes that what Avery wrote was on a personal blog, but fails to consider that context in his ruling.

He states 'it contained at best misleading and at worse false information regarding the music festival'. In this, he accepts the testimony of the principal despite its contradictions. My understanding from Avery's testimony is that her blog post contained information that she considered accurate.

The crux of Judge Kravitz' decision is that if a student, at home, writes on a blog using words that some members of the school administration consider offensive, inappropriate, or inaccurate, the school is within its bounds to punish the student. This overly broad ruling is damaging to democracy.

Our forefathers who recognized that civil discourse, even when it uses less than civil words, is a cornerstone of our democracy must be rolling in our graves.

During his final comments, he noted that this case is one that is likely to find its way to the Supreme Court. He has just moved it one step closer and an appeal appears likely.