SCOTUS: 1st Amendment Protects Students Outside School Hours

probably a fat thumb as he's scrolling. But, even if he meant it, who cares? it's a pip on screen.

He's not a huge fan of nuance.

Absolutes are much more his thing.

Preferably stated angrily.

It's about me not realizing I have mashed the wrong imaginary buttons on this goddamn smart phone.

It happens. It's not that I was upset for getting a "negrep" (so to speak, not that we do pos and neg rep anymore) so much as I was confused about how you might have taken my comment such that that you'd disagree with it in this fashion

But of course, a thumb slip explains it all.

I basically agree. No need for a fuss; possible opportunity for a teachable moment.

Basically, Thomas raises a few points, some of which are typical Thomas about originalism and some of which are at least IMO at least somewhat legit:

1. Historically, public schools could discipline students for off-campus speech if it had an effect on the school environment, so there is no reason for a new standard.
2. The notion that a one-year ban from cheerleading in this case may seem disproportionate shouldn't matter to the decision of whether it is constitutional to punish the student at all for that speech.
3. The majority doesn't take into sufficient consideration the in loco parentis doctrine and the ramifications for when/how it applies to off-campus speech, and doesn't give any reason for why departing from the historical norm that public schools could punish off-campus speech in order to maintain discipline and school operations.
4. There's an argument that schools should have greater authority when it comes to social media created off-campus because of its potential reach.
5. There's an argument that schools should have greater authority when it comes to punishing participants in extracurricular activities for their off-campus speech.
6. There's an argument that the off-campus distinction is meaningless when it comes to social media because the speech can be brought on-campus.
7. The opinion doesn't really give any meaningful guidance for when a school is justified in regulating off-campus speech/online speech and when it is not, leaving the work for future cases.

Other than "also key her car" being arguably advocating for a crime, I would say that the two statements are about the same on the 1st Amendment scale, and the notion that a public school could punish one and not the other seems strange to me. And when the student could probably realistically say that the "key her car" part was just being dramatic and not a literal suggestion/order to commit vandalism.

I don't think the standard need be "compelling interest," though. Again, I don't think there's a reasonable argument that a school could assign a student who said "fuck" in front of a teacher to detention without running afoul of their constitutioanl rights.

Automatically, no. But should a school be able to penalize a student for foul language or for things that would otherwise be protected by the 1st Amendment? I would say so.

I agree that a smarter move would be to talk to the kid and explain to her that she overreacted and far less punishment. But that's a different issue than whether the school has no right to punish her for what she said because she did it off school grounds and not on a school computer or during school hours. Now I recognize that there would be a chance that things go too far the other way where what was posted that has nothing to do with school and no effect on school somehow gets punished. But that is probably why SCOTUS should have come up with a better rule than, "Sometimes schools can punish for off-campus speech, sometimes they can't, we'll leave it to another day to talk more about when they can or can't, but we think in this can't they can't."

I never said or implied that the notion that schools can ALWAYS and in all things supplant the place of parents. The concept is that schools derive some level authority because they are stand-ins for the parents. As the SCOTUS opinions discuss, the level of authority is going to vary depending on what we are talking about and other circumstances.

To quote Alito's concurrence:

Obviously there are going to be situations where the parents are going to come around and say, "I didn't authorize that!" and be right, such as spanking students, teaching about sex ed, racism and other topics.

School administrators are often adherents of the philosophy that "terror must be maintained or the empire will fall". The idea that kids need to be taught that anything they put on the Internet is open to the world and will never go away is a good one. They also should be taught that things in life aren't always going to go their way. In other words this could have been a teaching moment (point well made @tafkats) instead it was a chance for a heavy-handed, completely disproportionate response by thin-skinned, arrogant administrators with a jackboot mentality.

No. One is bullying, the other is venting. HHHUUUUUGGGGEEEEE difference.

Oops, sorry about that.

Exactly. "Fuck school" is a nonspecific, non-directional expression of anger and resentment at an institution. (In other words, being a teenager.) "Kayla's a bitch" is targeted at a peer, and may not cross the line into bullying all by itself, but could get there very quickly.

People's mileage may vary, but both are just being a teenager, and both can just be venting, depending on the situation

Complaining about getting passed over for a freshman is part of what the girl did in this case.

Under the 1st Amendment in a vacuum, a speaker would certainly have the right to say "Kayla took my spot on the squad, she's a bitch, everyone should tell her what a bitch she is" and probably be able to add "and key her car" without being punished for it. It may be that in the school context that it seems that making the "Kayla" statement is somehow worse than the "fuck school" statement.

Fair enough, but I think they are fairly close.

Bullshit. This is why kids get bullied. Because adults say “oh, it’s just kids being kids.”

There’s a difference. We all know it. Just because lawyers will say anything and misconstrue everything just to win a case does not mean bullying is the same thing as venting.

This is why people hate lawyers.

The First Amendment allows for bullying in most context is the point. That people don't like bullying doesn't make it non-protected speech when it's not straying into the criminal context. I'd argue that saying people should key her car is not meant to be taken literally as a message to actually do it.

Let's look at it another way.

A student sets up www.kaylaisaskank.com on her own time, on her home computer. It talks extensively about how Kayla took the last spot on Cheer, that the student hates her and mean jokes about Kayla.

Should the public school the student goes to be able to discipline the student for setting up this website? And why?

If your answer is yes, because this is harmful and bullying to Kayla, fair enough. But under the SCOTUS decision, it is not entirely clear that the school would not be violating the student's constitutional rights to free speech.

There is a reason yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater was excluded from the Freedom of Speech amendment in the early 1800s.

Our rights, the Constitution, all of it was intended to be fluidic and to be able to change as time, society, technology changed.

We still knew this in the early 1900s.

Because the Christian lobby has somehow convinced everyone in this country that it is set in stone, people are no longer willing to compromise or use their heads and make rational decisions. We all are learning the power of the internet at the same time. We have witnessed how people can be bullied and we've seen the results of that bullying.

Cyber "bullying."

Kids literally kill themselves over that shit, don't they? I know teenagers are dramatic to say the least, but apparently cyber bullying really does fuck them up.

If it's a problem that can be solved by turning off the devices and going outside for some fresh air, it's not a fucking problem. This cyberbullying bullshit is just an extension of the faulty thinking that has people growing up believing they should never have to see or hear anything they don't like.

Nope.

No. That is the problem and it starts in childhood. It's bullshit. No one has any right to antagonize and bully anyone anywhere for any reason. And if the fucker persists, he damn sure needs to have legal repercussions for doing so. No one should have to "turn off their devise" just because some asshole wants to be an asshole. Fucker can take that shit to prison with him.

They will always find shitty people in life, and you won't always be able to shelter them from it. What you CAN do is teach them to deal with toxicity and ostracization without immediately leaping to "Eh my gaad! My life is like totally ovAR!" ever time someone says something shitty online.

Jenee's preferences, y'all.

Yes, dickwad. It's bullying.

I got punched repeatedly as a kid, and called a fat fucker, a sad nerd and a hopeless unfuckable nobody.

Which one do you think I got over faster?

If you chose any option that can't be delivered over social media, then YOU CHOSE WRONG.

Sticks and stones etcetera is false because we CAN take broken limbs, but broken spirits are far worse.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a Libertarian, who thinks being raped against a fireplace is the highest expression of free will.

As an intelligent adult with a healthy amount of self-confidence, you still get upset at the very idea that someone might think you were racist, sexist or homophobic well before anybody actually accuses you of being such things. It seems ironic that you are telling kids who are far less well positioned than you to have developed a thick skin about such things to get over actual bullying.

Nothing wrong with being a chubby chaser.

UA is supposedly beefy. He's full of something related to cattle, anyhoo.

But I would hope there are chubby chasers out there, for my own sake.

Not that I'm running that fast.

There will be fewer shitty people in life if we stop teaching them from a very young age that their behavior will always be enabled for the sake of encouraging "toughness" in others.

The important lesson is that you endured, resisted and came out stronger, rather than futilely trying to turn the world into a nerf-padded safe space where you are never confronted with anything hurtful or upsetting.

Sure, false accusations get on my nerves. That is a far cry from declaring myself a victim and attempting suicide. I contend, and I carry on. THAT is the lesson