Back in 2007, honours senior student Katherine Evans posted a page on Facebook publicly criticising a teacher at the high school she attended in Florida. She told her friends on the social networking site that Ms X was "the worst English teacher she'd ever had". Two months later she was suspended for cyberbullying the teacher.

Last Monday, Judge Barry Garber ruled that Ms Evans, now a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of Florida, can sue her former principal, Peter Bayer, for suspending her, saying that her Facebook page is protected by free speech. Ms Evans is asking that the three-day suspension in 2007 be cleared from her academic record.

While the Evans' case is far from over and is expected to go to trial this spring, for now the First Amendment seems to have won precedence over the fight against cyberbullying.

Experts are predicting that the case will shape the legal debates about free speech on the internet. Mario Kayanan, one of Ms Evans' lawyers, called the ruling a victory for free speech on the web.

"It upholds the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression in America does not depend on the technology used to convey opinions and ideas," he said.

In his opinion, Judge Garber said the Facebook page was protected under the First Amendment because it wasn't violent.

"It was an opinion of a student about a teacher that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus, and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening or advocating illegal or dangerous behaviour," he wrote.

Across the Web, bloggers agreed with Judge Garber when he said Evans' Facebook page was offensive, not dangerous.

Erin Geiger Smith of the 'Business Insider' said it was "difficult to see how, aside from technology, it's any different than a student who writes a note at home (which is where Evans created the site) whining about a disagreement with her teacher."

Mr Smith says it is a clear case of the First Amendment at work.

"If she had done it at school and it was disruptive, that would be different," he wrote.

"But if it's an outside-of-school activity that remains opinion-based (i.e. isn't slanderous), then this is just a by-product of technology and the First Amendment." (Source: AOL News)