Cheerleader prevails at U.S. Supreme Court in free speech case
President Joe Biden's administration supported the district in the case, arguing that off-campus student speech deserves broad protection unless it threatens the school community or targets specific individuals, groups or school functions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
June 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania teenager who sued after a profane social media post got her banished from her high school's cheerleading squad in a closely watched free speech case, but it declined to outright ban public schools from regulating off-campus speech.
The justices ruled 8-1 that the punishment that Mahanoy Area School District officials gave to the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, for her social media post - made at a local convenience store in Mahanoy City on a weekend - violated her free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. The decision was authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
Tags
Who is online
308 visitors
Good, the first time my daughter heard me say fuck, she was free to say it also. Any word found in the Unabridged O.E.D. was her's to use freely but within an understanding of the context.
I told my kids when it came to "shit, goddamn it, or fuck" that they should be aware of who is around them (mostly their grandmothers) and maybe curtail the use of them out of respect for that person. I never punished for profanity. To me they are just words like any other.
My kids learned their first curse words from me
So did mine. Favorite phrase in my house when things get fucked up "fuck me".
Good. Schools can take action against off campus speech to a degree (online harassment/bullying of another student, cheating on exams, making threats to the school or other students etc.), but this girl didn’t do any of that. She was just venting frustration, nothing more.
I remember that a couple of years ago when a student committed suicide because of social media bullying that was reported to the school the school said they couldn't do anything about it - funny that they can now.
We could sue Perrie, make a headline and quadruple the number of posters ... ?
She doesn't have any money! We need to go after the NT'ers who like to think they do
I don't doubt it, getting 2 daughters married off is expensive. I'm forever grateful to my daughter for having eloped and having divorced in the dark.
My daughter did me and her dad a favor by getting married on our deck with a justice of the peace and then a backyard barbq
The boy got married the same weekend at a chapel on Lackland AFB right after he graduated basic training
As of now we are down to which one of us is going to pay for my cremation and which one is going to pay for the booze.
Hooray! It's a victory for free speech, for the free speech of minors, and for common-freaking-sense.
Meanwhile the dissent from Justice Thomas is one of the dumber things I have ever read. He assesses the majority opinion as "vague" and not "stable" in spite of the fact that it cites to multiple Supreme Court precedents. He then attempts to define an opposing "rule" from 19th century cases in Vermont and Rhode Island (that never made it anywhere near the Supreme Court) as somehow binding on the current Court and situation. It borders on senile.
I am reminded of the suit that went through in the sixties I believe. Something about students wearing armbands and free speech.
Yeah, that's Tinker. Tinker dealt with on-campus speech, and created tough standards preventing a school from disciplining a student. In some cases, like school field trips, sporting events, or even online bullying, the school has an interest in controlling speech because it is disruptive somehow to the learning process or impacts other people directly. But here, the Court held that there wasn't enough of a disruption to warrant the school disciplining the student.
Thanks. I couldn't remember the details.
New day new age I guess.