Not enough info. How did they “scam” the teacher exactly?

But for the heck of it, here are some thoughts:

Can you publish photos of someone without their consent (and I assume by posting the photos on the internet they have been published by this kid)? Maybe the teacher ought to sue the kid and see how he reacts then…

What the school needs is someone in the class to say they were “offended” by the actions of the picture taker. After all, if even one student is “upset” about a moment of quiet during the day when someone could be (GASP!) praying, then all it should take is one kid to be bothered about this kid’s actions and the ACLU will have picture taking banned forever…

Don’t schools prohibit the use of cell phones during class? Aside from the issue which the photos present, the student violated that rule too. This kid is a jerk - throw the book at him.

By the looks of the pictures it appears they were taken covertly. Which would probably indicate there wasn’t supposed to be a cell phone camera in the class. I can see where this probably went, teens post pictures of “hot” teacher on Facebook to see what kind of comments could be generated. I’m sure this is not the first time this has happened. Question is does the teacher have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her classroom?

I agree with Tim, the teacher should countersue not only the kid but the school as well. They are just as much to blame for not controlling the camera in class as the kid who took the pictures. I don’t see the basis for the kids suit.

If I were the kids dad the cell phone would be smashed under my boot and some sort of punishment would be handed down. Why does every clown in the world think their snot-nosed malcontent can do no wrong?

whenever I had to take pictures in a school, I needed “model release” forms for everyone (kids had to get them signed by parents, making it really suck to try and get pictures quickly) and that went for other government agencies and non-profits. I guess if you could consider his myspace page or blog or whatever some kind of “publishing or public display” then he could be open for a lawsuit. And most likely, since the school district has more money, the school district would be sued.
I think it isn’t really explained to many people (kids included), that when you put a picture on the internet, it then belongs to the world, and if funny enough, will never go away

The student’s actions were neither free speach nor free expression.

They were a surreptitious and insanctioned invasion of another person’s privacy performed by prurient juvenile stalkers.

Student needs his butt whipped, but instead he has parents that choose to retain an attorney.

This is an embarassing example of what our society has become.

As a teacher, I find this not only frightening, but absolutely appaling. As if the pay of next to nothing isn’t enough, this woman has to have her right to privacy violated? The school is most definitely not to blame. The parents of this social deviant are the sole reason for this behavior. Rather than parent, they have chosen to enable. This micreant has personally made sure this teacher will never feel completely comfortable in front of a classroom again. He has made sure that she will never trust a student again. He has invaded her her personal, private life. If the tables were turned, and this teacher were to do something to make sure that this student never felt comfortable in school, made it so that he never trusted an authority figure again and invaded his personal life, she would be put in jail and labled a predator. Quit enabling this kid and get him the help he obviously needs.

Some of the comments that have been left are hilarious.

In America people are allowed to take pictures of other people in public. The teacher had ZERO expectation of privacy. A search of other Lafayette High School students facebook pages will yield numerous other photos taken at school and posted online, and none of those other students have been suspended.

The school didn’t even suspend the student for posting the pictures online, but instead for “disrupting the school environment”, which is a complete joke considering they didn’t even find out about the pictures until two weeks later. And if you think thats constitutional please read Tinker v Des Moines, which is the famous black arm band case from 1969.

Previous posters just don’t get it. In the first place, the courts have ruled in a number of cases that students do have the right to take photos in school and put them on the internet — even when they put teachers in a much less flattering light than the rather innocent pictures you have published. (Hope the teacher doesn’t decide to sue the Post-Dispatch!) Secondly, after just a few minutes online, anyone can see that students all over the country are posting photos from their school on Facebook and similar sites. Why pick on this kid?

I agree completely. When schools don’t have something in their policy book, they will often try and lump it under the general disruption of school environment, but when they don’t find out about it for 2 weeks later and ONLY because the pictures were posted online, suspending him is pretty clearly unconstitutional. He could have even photoshopped the photos in a nasty way and it STILL would have been legal, but those photos appear to be pretty harmless so I don’t understand the schools position at all.