Student Speech on the Internet: The Role of First Amendment Protections. Jesulon S. R. Gibbs. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2010, 264 pp. $75 hbk.Hot or lists have existed since at least when I was in high school, but now they are posted all over the Internet. That changes everything from the 1980s (ancient times, according to my students, who take pity on us having had such primitive tech- nologies as record players and landlines). My generation took great pains to make sure only a small number of us had access to such lists, as we knew we would be in a buck- etload of trouble if discovered. We knew nothing of the Tinker ruling that protected us, only that you did not want to get busted by our principal, Dr. Grant, because he clearly had all the power, and we had none.But now posting a hot or list on a personal website is an entirely new ball game, as we attempt to understand new media through the lenses of old-media laws. Instead of attempting to hide the existence of questionable material, students use the Internet to make sure everyone sees it. Instead of busting students for behavior at school, administrators have a tougher time if the expression takes place off-campus. The Dr. Grants of the world are navigating a completely new legal area, and no one is quite sure what the rules are.Jesulon S. R. Gibbs, JD, PhD, attempts to make sense of it all. Beginning with the First Amendment rationale for protecting as well as punishing student expression, she moves on to discuss the differences between the pre-Internet and current eras, then analyzes recent cases before offering a framework for school officials.Noting that the Supreme Court has conflicting precedents, Gibbs details Tinker, Fraser, Hazelwood, and Morse v. Frederick (better known as Bong 4 Jesus). While the majority in Tinker decreed that expression in the schools could be limited only if it posed a threat to the orderly functioning of the school, the three later cases clouded things by adding considerations of whether the expression conflicted with the educational mission of the school and whether the forum for the expression is related to the curriculum of the school (in which case the school board would have the right to regulate). Bong Hits went a step further by ruling that expression off-campus yet related to a school function could indeed be limited.As no case involving student expression strictly online has been tried at the U.S. Supreme Court, Gibbs looks at the cases from federal district court and federal courts of appeals. She argues that the cases have relied on the Tinker ruling more than any other, but that standard gives us little meaningful guidance. The students who wore armbands to school in the iconic 1969 case were exonerated because they did not cre- ate a disturbance. If we take that standard and expand it to, say, that a student's off- campus expression can be regulated if it is causing a disturbance on campus, we have the potential to regulate just about everything. …