The Freehold Regional High School District Board of Education will not seek a court order to enforce a subpoena it issued in an attempt to determine the identity of individuals who posted messages on an Internet forum.
On some Internet forums individuals are allowed to post messages by using a screen name. Some Internet sites require people who post messages online to use their real name.
Attorney Marc Zitomer, representing the school board, told Greater Media Newspapers on Oct. 23 that the FRHSD will not seek a court order to obtain the information it sought when it issued the subpoena in August.
Attorney Stuart Moskovitz, who represents some of the online posters whose identities were being sought by the FRHSD, confirmed that the district would not go to court over the matter. Moskovitz is representing 12 of the 20 screen names listed in the board’s subpoena.
The school board took action with the subpoena in an attempt to uncover identifying information about individuals who posted messages in online forums at the NJ.com Internet website.
Last week Zitomer said the board was seeking individuals who made defamatory and threatening statements about district employees and about the district as a whole.
Zitomer told Greater Media Newspapers on Oct. 23 that “the board and some of the individuals who have been the subject of the postings are considering other legal options.”
In light of the news that the FRHSD would not seek a court order to compel the website’s owner to divulge information about online posters, Moskovitz told Greater Media Newspapers, “We believe the school board did the right thing in choosing to halt its activities in connection with the subpoena, which we believe to have been a frivolous venture designed to retaliate against individuals who have serious disagreements with the board’s policies and actions.”
Moskovitz said he and his clients are cognizant of the fact that the school board is reserving its right to look at other options in regard to what the board has considered defamation.
“The board has the right to consider other options, but we would expect that in the process of such consideration, there would be cooler heads prevailing and explaining to the other board members that the business of the school board ought to be educating our children rather than focusing on pursuing personal perceived slights,” Moskovitz said.
During the board’s Oct. 19 meeting — prior to the date when Zitomer said the panel would not seek a court order in its bid to unmask the web posters — members of the public bombarded the board with questions and opinions about the FRHSD’s move to subpoena the identifying information.
Most of the residents who spoke during the meeting said the board was stifling freedom of speech by its actions. The general sentiment of the residents who spoke was that the FRHSD board should not seek to punish people who criticize their actions.
“It is time that you stop going on these witch-hunts, it is time that you stop behaving in a manner which warrants criticism. If you don’t like the criticism, don’t act that way,” Marlboro resident Joshua Pollak said.
Marlboro resident Ira Levin suggested that board members go after people who spread lies and defame individuals, rather than those who criticize the board and/or the district.
Board Vice President Christopher Placitella said criticism of the job he does as a board member is fine with him and said those types of comments are OK.
Placitella said his personal beliefs are that certain areas — including a person’s sexual orientation, family members who are not involved in the situation and wishing and encouraging physical harm — cross a line.
He said those are his personal feelings in general and he said they did not necessarily pertain to the situation regarding the board’s issuance of the subpoena to the owners of NJ.com.
Levin said he agreed with Placitella’s position on the specific issues the board member mentioned as being over the line of criticism.
Citizens questioned the cost of the venture and how far the school district would go to find the identities of the Internet posters.
“Why is my dollar going to look after who’s blogging? I don’t give a damn who’s blogging! That money, I want it directly to the education of these children and students. Why are you wasting our taxpayers’ money?” Manalapan resident Gloria Close asked the board.
The board said no money was spent in the initial attempt to seek the Internet posters’ identifying information.
When asked whether a public vote had been taken by the board to grant permission to move the action forward, the board’s attorney, Stephen Edelstein, said the particular form of subpoena used by the board is by statute issued by the board president and does not require a vote.
Marlboro resident Jim Sage asked the board members if the district’s legal team had advised them to contact the police if the messages being posted online were threatening in nature.
Board President Ronald Lawson said that during the past year there were various courses of actions presented to the board. Lawson said the board members were hoping the situation would calm down on its own and said officials did not want to add fuel to the fire, but he said their optimism went unrewarded.
The subpoena issued by the board to an attorney representing NJ.com stated that the information about the online posters was being sought in anticipation of disciplinary hearings. The subpoena states that it is the investigation of staff members in the FRHSD.
Marlboro resident BonnieSue Rosenwald said board members knew for a fact that some of the 20 screen names they subpoenaed information about were not the screen names of district employees, but were the names of private individuals.
She charged that the manner in which the board acted to issue the subpoena was false in light of that fact, since a disciplinary hearing could not be held for an individual who is not employed by the FRHSD.
Rosenwald said no taxpayer money should be expended in this matter. She said if a person believes he or she was defamed or attacked by what was posted online, that individual should pursue legal action on their own and not through the school district.