SCOTUS: 1st Amendment Protects Students Outside School Hours

https://t.co/pXIISBNmFZ?amp=1


I'm still reading the opinion and haven't gotten to the dissent yet. But it was 8-1 so fairly (but not totally) unanimous.

Any thoughts on this?

Seems like they got it right to me. They agreed with the 3rd circuit's take, but not their reasoning, which was interesting in of itself.

One of the key provisions is whether or not the speech would unduly disrupt school activities. The majority opinion written by Breyer:

“for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

Simply criticizing the school and engaging in vulgarities in off hours was not sufficient to deprive the student's rights. A good ruling IMO.

For a supposedly educated man, the reasoning behind Thomas' dissent sure was dumb.

Still reading it. (Multi-tasking actually ). I'll get to that part soon!

Pretty amazing that a teenage cheerleader who got cut from the team and got vulgar about it made it all the way to the SCOTUS

Seems like the right ruling. The girl wasn't even at school when she made the posts for crying out loud

This is one of those instances where the government finally catches up with the modern world. This was a no-brainer and the right call.

You're just happy because in light of today's decision, all that shit you posted on TikTok last night won't get you expelled from school.

The thing is, a social media posting -- even one like this that was apparently able to self-destruct -- has as high a potential to disrupt things as any on-campus speech.

I think that if a student said in school and in person the same thing as was posted here with no one present but the coach, few would say it's unconstitutional for the school to punish that student for the speech. The speech would be seen as obviously disruptive to school activities.

Here, the speech was apparently shared with who knows how many students? Having people forward the same speech in screen shots after the fact has even greater potential to be disruptive.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see the reasoning as dumb. Why do you think so?

I don't see this as representing government catching up with the modern world. Indeed, the Court in its opinion refused to adjust to the notion that the distinction between on- and off-campus speech is often meaningless when it comes to the Internet.

So I'm guessing Thomas' dissent was based on his general fondness for authoritarianism?

Now imagine a student posting on social media that they saw a teacher (or other school official) behaving in a manner that the student felt was inappropriate. In response, the school punished the student for their comments, rather than addressing the behavior that the student felt was inappropriate. Too many groups, when confronted with wrongdoing by one of their members (even when it is something minor), adopt a "circle-the-wagons" mentality, instead of dealing with issues. I can well imagine a school punishing a student for posting on social media "I don't like my <insert course name here> teacher." even though the student didn't name the teacher or give any reason for disliking the teacher.

I will say, however, that if a student does post something on social media that directly harms the school (say a false accusation that they're running a child-sex ring out of a non-existent basement) or posts a video where the student does something offensive (such as using a string of racial slurs) while wearing a uniform associated with one of the school's athletic, or other programs where students are required to wear uniforms) that the school should have the right to punish the student by kicking them off of that particular activity.

In my day, the Pop Warner girl who got cut made a stink about being in cheer since she was in diapers so the school just let everyone in that year.

Alas, I tried out for drill team that year instead, so my dream of being a melomaniac Head Bitch on Campus went unfulfilled

The girl's exact words were “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.”

Imagine being the adult who was such an insecure martinet that they thought this merited any official action at all...

I have no doubt that you were part of the drill team.

Lol I remember seeing wilder comments than that posted on MySpace and Live Journal back in high school. That's pretty tame.

This was a good ruling, and fuck Justice Thomas, fuck SCOTUS, fuck everything.

I would imagine if the girl had said "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything" in person at the high school, there would have been official action taken, even if it was just detention or something small like that.

It would still be overkill to administer punishment, but I don't think most people would say punishing someone for saying this at school would constitute a violation of the girl's First Amendment rights, even if it did absolutely no disruption.

So it doesn't make sense to me that the speech said here off the physical campus but said in a way that it was clearly brought among the virtual network of people belonging to the campus is apparently beyond the reach of the school; and yet the school can still punish bullying and other speech that originates outside the physical environment of the school.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the school lacks a compelling interest to punish her for saying "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything," but would have a compelling interest if she had said "Kayla took my spot on the squad, she's a bitch, everyone should tell her what a bitch she is and also key her car."

It seems to me that it's hard to make clear guidelines in the free speech area which is why the majority didn't in this case.

If Reggie Mantle says "Fuck Principal Weatherbee!" covered by the First Amendment such that they cannot be punished for that speech if Riverdale High is a public school? I would say that it depends. I would think most assuredly, if Reggie says it to Principal Weatherbee's face or at an assembly of students, it would not be a First Amendment violation to punish Reggie. If he spraypaints it on school grounds, same thing. How about if he puts a sign saying "Fuck Principal Weatherbee!" up at his home? Or if he drives around Riverdale repeating the message over a loudspeaker?

The notion that he could be successfully punished for saying that to Weatherbee so long as it happened on school grounds, but he could set up fprincipalweatherbee.com with everyone at the school logging on to the site and yetbe beyond the reach of school discipline doesn't make much sense to me.

There is the danger, of course, of the school overreacting.

Thin-skinned school officials. My students can talk all the shit they like, even to my face, as long as they don’t disrupt a lesson. What the hell do I care what teenagers think?

If it's not a threat, defamation, instigating a fight, or any of the other exceptions to the First Amendment right to profanity, why shouldn't a student be allowed to use profanity at school?

Saying "fuck this school" is a world apart from saying "fuck that slut, Becky."

Part of school education is learning how to deal with other people in a professional manner.

Wait.

Are you saying teenagers can stalk, threaten, and verbally abuse other teenagers online - to the point of suicide - and every fucking body is cool with it, but say “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” and the whole place goes mad?

Suddenly feeling a bit like Heath Ledger.

The school is acting in loco parentis, or in place of the parents, for its students. So it has the ability (and I would say the responsibility) to discipline students for speech that would otherwise be allowed under the First Amendment to teach students manners, restraint, and the like. School officials should also have the ability to maintain decorum and order.

I have no doubt that a student who said, "Fuck that slut, Becky" on school grounds within the hearing of a teacher could and should be subject to a trip to the principal's office and be subject to some form of discipline.

The SCOTUS opinion (and it sounds like, everybody involved in the case) acknowledges that schools may be able to take action for teenagers harassing others off-campus.

That doesn't answer my question. So students should be automatically disciplined for not behaving professionally?

Again, if it's not a threat, defamation, etc., where is the harm? Why should schools just have the ability to arbitrarily select what words can and cannot be uttered if those words aren't causing harm? That seems to go against the spirit of learning and education.

And what about when a school punishes a student for something that a parent would otherwise allow?

Consequences for dumb actions should be proportional to the original action.

In this case, one reasonable consequence would be for a teacher who the kid likes to sit down with her and say "you know, a lot of people work really hard to make this school a good place, including me. I know you're upset, but I don't think you really meant all of that, did you?" Another would be for any school employee (teacher, principal, counselor, whoever) to say "look, this got out and has been making the rounds, and it's going to affect how other students see you. Nothing you or I do can change that now, but I want to give you some advice. When you put something on the internet, you need to assume that it will be seen by more than just the people you intended it for."

Both perfectly reasonable, proportional, and educationally appropriate responses.

That's not absolute, but your comment doesn't seem to leave room for qualification on this point.

Also, if Raoul's statement were an absolute truth, permission slips wouldn't be necessary.

It sounds like the comment in question was just a rant by a frustrated teen. The above statements aren't going to change that. In a perfect world, an adult would look at that frustration and ask the teen for specifics, then investigate. If there is an issue, the school needs to address it. If she was just bitching to be bitching, I don't see any reason for a fuss. Even the above is beyond reasonable if she was just typing out her frustrations. Hey, at least she didn't steal her daddy's AR-15 and take out her frustrations that way.

No.

Legislate.

Make it costly, drawn out, disruptive to the lives, careers and education of all involved and cause distress and mistrust which will last throughout everyone's lives.

Far better.

What's this about, @Uncle Albert !?!?!?