| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Student In Free Speech Case |
| 2021-06-24 |
| [Washington Gazette] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech rights for students outside of the classroom in a decision Wednesday. The court sided with former Mahanoy Area High School student and cheerleader Brandi Levy in the case, formally known as Mahanoy Area School District v B.L., with a 8-1 decision in her favor. Mahanoy Area High School is located in Pennsylvania. Levy, upset that she had not made her school’s varsity cheer team, posted on the social media site Snapchat a simple message with explicit language expressing her frustration. The message was captured by a classmate and was eventually presented to school officials, who decided to suspend Levy from the junior varsity cheer team for a year. The high court found the school violated Levy’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech since her comments took place outside of school hours and off school grounds. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In the opinion, Breyer discussed the school’s overreach of power by punishing Levy for comments which had little effect on the school itself. He also addressed the importance of protecting vulgar language when it does not have a specific negative effect on the school community. “It might be tempting to dismiss B. L.’s words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein,” Breyer said. “But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary.” Breyer also made clear that although the court reached the same conclusion as the third circuit court’s findings, its reasoning differs significantly. Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch, in which he explains it is beyond the jurisdiction of the school to punish students outside of the classroom, even if the speech would not be protected while on school grounds or at school sponsored events. “There are parents who would not have been pleased with B. L.’s language and gesture, but whatever B. L.’s parents thought about what she did, it is not reasonable to infer that they gave the school the authority to regulate her choice of language when she was off school premises and not engaged in any school activity,” said Alito. The lone dissent came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued precedent as it came to the school’s authority of loco parentis, or in the place of a parent, does not support the majority opinion. He also argued that the opinion failed to show why this situation would cause a break in precedent. “The majority fails to consider whether schools often will have more authority, not less, to discipline students who transmit speech through social media,” said Thomas. “Because off-campus speech made through social media can be received on campus (and can spread rapidly to countless people), it often will have a greater proximate tendency to harm the school environment than will an off-campus in-person conversation.” The American Civil Liberties Union argued for Levy in this case. |
| Posted by:Thring Hupavirong4453 |
| #4 NN2N1, no, the school absolutely does not have a right to limit any child's expression of dissatisfaction with their institution, regardless of how bad it makes them look, especially when they are expressing their thoughts entirely off-campus and through non-school sponsored activities. And as for your example of firing somebody who speaks badly about your business -- totally different context. First of all, your employees aren't LEGALLY REQUIRED to attend your place of employment (something that seems to escape everybody's attention when they call for limiting children's freedom of speech relating to government schools). Second of all, you have a vested profit motive in making sure that your institution remains in the good graces of the public. Frankly, public schools don't, considering that they're funded by involuntary taxation. |
| Posted by: Vernal Hatrick 2021-06-24 18:19 |
| #3 Given the horrendous job the |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2021-06-24 08:31 |
| #2 MIX FEELINGS While the little whiny brat has a right to say what she wants off school grounds. The school also has a right to protect its public image and limit the little whiny brats association with, and representation of the school. But lets us take this to the next level. Say YOU own a Small shop. You hire a teenager to stock the shelves that turns out to be a whiny pain in the A$$. That whiny brat makes a video slamming you and your shop while he still working there. Would you fire him? HELL YES, you know you would. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2021-06-24 07:18 |
| #1 About time the 1st Amendment were upheld by the USSC. Might be hope |
| Posted by: Passer Bydplace0624 2021-06-24 04:44 |