Supreme Court Rules for High-School Cheerleader Brandi Levy in Free-Speech Case

[thetragichippy]

HUGE WIN for free speech 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[thetragichippy]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "If today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

[thetragichippy]

8-1 vote......apparently he thinks free speech should be different for different folks......

 

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the school was right to suspend Levy because students like her "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."

"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team," Thomas here. So, too, here."

[tvc184]

In this case they did not clear all off-campus speech as permissible. The United States Supreme Court in this case ruled very specifically for her situation. She criticize the school rules (which are open to criticism), did not specifically mention her school and it was a private conversation between her and a couple of friends. The school still retains the ability to regulate off-campus speech if it disrupts the school significantly. In this case the school’s  evidence of a serious disruption was that students in an algebra class discussed it for five or 10 minutes for two days. 

I am going to show just a couple of quotes from the actual Supreme Court decision. The opinions afterwards are mine but the quotes are the opinion of the Court

Held: While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.’s interest in free expression in this case

This section shows that the school may have a special interest in regulating off-campus speech. In the phrase “in this case” it shows that is a case by case basis, not always a free speech at any cost ruling nor is off campus free speech unlimited. 

(2) The circumstances of B. L.’s speech diminish the school’s interest in regulation. B. L.’s posts appeared outside of school hours from a location outside the school. She did not identify the school in her posts or target any member of the school community with vulgar or abusive language.

This is the part where it was a generality and did not target any specific person or group in her profanity. Any such action might have upheld the school’s actions but in this case as I have discussed, it was just a general I don’t like school rules but with the F bomb tossed in. That is free speech. Anything more specific likely would not have been. Of course it would still be free speech even if it was specific but the school would likely retain the right to punish her by removing her from a special team.

(4) The school’s interest in preventing disruption is not supported by the record, which shows that discussion of the matter took, at most, 5 to 10 minutes of an Algebra class “for just a couple of days” and that some members of the cheerleading team were “upset” about the con- tent of B. L.’s Snapchats. App. 82–83. This alone does not satisfy Tinker’s demanding standards. Pp. 10–11.

(5) Likewise, there is little to suggest a substantial interference in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain cohesion on the school cheerleading squad. 

This quote from the Supreme Court again goes to the very specific situation being discussed. It again shows that there was no substantial disruption of the ability to maintain authority in the school or the cheerleading squad itself. Merely a person being upset it’s not a violation.That is what the very essence of free speech means, that you can upset other people. The school has an interest in maintaining discipline however such a case is narrow in scope. It really comes down to one or two people or even a few people not liking her post, that is no way constitutes a serious disruption.

While this case is clearly the correct decision, free-speech does not allow that you can say anything you want to about your school, a student, a school official, etc., at any time for any reason. As several parts from the Supreme Court decision have stated, the school does have some authority and reasoning for regulating off-campus speech. It however has to be of such a disruptive nature that can be proven for them to take action. Merely  saying to heck with school rules but tossing in a little profanity, does not constitute that major disruption.

In someways the very ruling itself agrees with Justice Thomas’s  dissent. He states that a disruption is wrong and the rest of the court states that it’s wrong but they came to different conclusions on what a major disruption is.