[EarlKing]

Their alleged standing is predicated on a single count of violating the Washington Public Nuisance Law, RCW 7.48.010 (see page 86 of their complaint[1])[2]. So their torturous logic is that somehow not only are the defendants' services addictive, but that the addiction thereof spurs students to engage in violent and/or disruptive behaviors that interferes with the enjoyment of school property and the safety of its employees (thus violating RCW 7.48.010 et seq.), thereby giving these clowns standing to sue.

Even if we take their claims at face value that the defendants knowingly created products that are demonstrably addictive, materially contributing to the conditions that occasioned this suit, the offences named in that section are unconstitutionally vague and, to the extent that it is those vague portions are those asserted in the cause of action, should be unenforceable.

I'm having a hard time believing Seattle School District No 1 actually thinks they'll succeed on the "merits" of this case, and am inclined to agree that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on their part to call attention to a "problem" that has a fairly clear solution: students with behavioral issues tied to use of social networking services that are disruptive to school functions can and should be expelled. Problem solved.

--

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.31...

[2] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=7.48

[lazyasciiart]

> a "problem" that has a fairly clear solution: students with behavioral issues tied to use of social networking services that are disruptive to school functions can and should be expelled. Problem solved.

That's not the problem, and that would be a poorly targeted and illegal solution if it were. You can't expel a child from public school for having a mental health problem.

[EarlKing]

And I'm sure you can point to the statute that violates. I'll wait.

[dragonwriter]

> And I'm sure you can point to the statute that violates. I'll wait.

Federally, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Besides that, Washington State Constitution, Art. IX, § 1.

[shkkmo]

I think you are confused about what "standing" means, it is the "legal capicity to sue". It generally means being directly harmed in a manner that the court can redress with a favorable decision.

So it is quite possible that the court will say SPS has standing but decide against them because of the vagueness of the public nuisance law.

[EarlKing]

No, I'm quite clear about what standing means, thank you. They're predicating their standing on this being a violation of a nuisance statute. I didn't say they don't have standing under that statute, just that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

[ClumsyPilot]

> just that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Half of your constitution is unconstitutionally vague