PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court justices grapple with school speech case over cheerleader's profane Snapchat post



Teh One Who Knocks
04-29-2021, 10:33 AM
By Tyler Olson | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/yRKdZhT.png

The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled over the free speech rights of a student who was booted from her high school cheerleading program for an expletive-laden Snapchat post reacting to being cut from the varsity team.

Then-high school sophomore Brandi Levy was given the boot from her junior-varsity cheer team after issuing an off-campus screed in which she said "F--- school f--- softball f--- cheer f--- everything." School officials insist her Internet post disrupted the school environment and warranted her ouster.

But her lawyers argued different rules apply because her rant did not take place during school. They said students should not be forced to "carry the schoolhouse on their backs... everywhere they go."

The justices appeared suspicious of the sweeping arguments from both sides, worrying alternatively about squashing students' rights outside of school or handcuffing schools in their efforts to address bullying or other harmful behaviors.

"I strongly share Justice Breyer's instincts when he said we probably can't write a treatise here," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during oral arguments.

"I'm confused," Justice Neil Gorsuch said in reaction to arguments by Lisa Blatt, the lawyer for the Mahanoy Area School District, where Levy was a student. Gorsuch said Blatt seemed to be contradicting herself on to what extent schools may regulate speech that applies to race and religion.

"You're making Tinker basically a geographic test," Justice Elena Kagan told Levy's lawyer. She was referring to the landmark school speech case Tinker v. Des Moines. But, Kagan continued, with how pervasive the internet is on and off campus, it's difficult to tell "why we shouldn't acknowledge that and allow the school to deal with it."

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, meanwhile, challenged Levy's lawyers on the more granular point of whether it mattered that Levy agreed to participate on an optional cheer team, where members are held to a higher standard than the rest of the student body.

"It just seems entirely different to be talking about a team and not a school," Kavanaugh said.

https://i.imgur.com/rqtWWeB.png

"Why doesn't it make a difference that the speech here was addressed, by, in the context of an extracurricular activity?" Gorsuch asked. "I'm moving now from the general to the specific if we're going to write a narrow opinion."

"She didn't actually violate any of those rules," Levy's attorney said, also noting that the school district didn't appeal the case based on any alleged violation of rules from Levy. Lower courts had sided with Levy.

The justices also expressed a general concern over how specific the facts in the case were and whether they would be justified in issuing a ruling as far-reaching as either of the sides wanted. The court under Chief Justice John Roberts has often opted to decide cases on narrow grounds rather than upending or expanding long-established precedents like Tinker, which was decided in 1969.

The issue of speech for students has become complicated in recent years with the phenomenon of cyber-bullying, as schools, students and courts seek to strike a balance over what speech schools can or should regulate.

Some of the justices' most pointed barbs, however, were reserved for Blatt as she presented the school's case.

"Is there in the record something that shows what this young woman did... caused a material and substantial disruption? I don't see much evidence it did," an exasperated Justice Stephen Breyer said.

https://i.imgur.com/A4wcs6i.png

He continued to say that if swearing off-campus was punishable by a school, "I mean, my goodness, every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing."

"It didn't hurt others as far as I'm aware," Breyer said of Levy's post.

Blatt retorted that Levy "targeted the coaches, the sport" and her teammates, adding that someone who would say such things is "not somebody you'd want on the bottom of the pyramid."

Kavanaugh – known for his history as a youth basketball coach – invoked a well-known example of another athlete who was cut from a high school varsity team: Michael Jordan.
1387415925314445316
"Arguably the greatest basketball player of all time, inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2009, and what does he talk about? He talks about getting cut as a sophomore from the varsity team," Kavanaugh said. "He wasn't joking. He was critical 30 years later. It still bothered him."

Kavanaugh also said that Levy's post indicated that "she's competitive, she cares, she blew off steam like millions of other kids."

"I understand that Michael Jordan was upset, but at some point presumably he was respectful to his coaches," Blatt replied.

A decision in the case is likely in May or June as the justices wrap up their current term, which began in October of last year, ahead of their summer recess.

The Supreme Court is also expected to release major rulings in a number of other cases in the next couple of months. These may be indicative of the direction the court will take with Justice Amy Coney Barrett replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

FBD
04-29-2021, 12:06 PM
:hand: we cant be letting free speech and expression run too rampant, before you know it they'll be electing a non CIA ZoG president...

PorkChopSandwiches
04-29-2021, 02:55 PM
Fuck these schools that think they have any say on what you do off campus

Teh One Who Knocks
04-29-2021, 03:20 PM
Then-high school sophomore Brandi Levy was given the boot from her junior-varsity cheer team after issuing an off-campus screed in which she said "F--- school f--- softball f--- cheer f--- everything." School officials insist her Internet post disrupted the school environment and warranted her ouster.

Um, how exactly did it "disrupt" the school environment? :rolleyes:

FBD
04-29-2021, 03:43 PM
Um, how exactly did it "disrupt" the school environment? :rolleyes:

the school administrators interrupted the school environment to interject it, that's how

perrhaps
04-30-2021, 09:56 AM
I've had the misfortune to have to be in Mahanoy City several times. After spending five minutes in any decaying, crumbling PA coal town, all of us would feel like screaming "Fuck everything."

Graduate, beat feet, and leave a trail of smoke behind you, Brandi.

Teh One Who Knocks
06-23-2021, 03:03 PM
By Tyler Olson | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/5PEDlsn.jpg

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 8-1 that a Pennsylvania high school was in the wrong when it kicked a cheerleader off of her team for a profane Snapchat post that she made off of school grounds, a ruling that student speech advocates will likely claim as a victory.

The court ruled that while schools do maintain some interest in regulating students' off-campus speech, the factors in the case of the cheerleader, Brandi Levy, weighed against the school's actions.

"[T]he school argues that it was trying to prevent disruption, if not within the classroom, then within the bounds of a school-sponsored extracurricular activity," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in an opinion that was joined by all of his colleagues but Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented.

"But we can find no evidence in the record of the sort of ‘substantial disruption’ of a school activity or a threatened harm to the rights of others that might justify the school’s action," Breyer continued.

Then-high school sophomore Brandi Levy was given the boot from her junior-varsity cheer team after issuing an off-campus screed in which she said "F--- school f--- softball f--- cheer f--- everything," and posted it online.

The school district and those who sided with it said that schools should be able to punish off-campus speech like Levy's as part of their efforts to regulate cyber-bullying. But Breyer and the justices who sided with him said such off-campus speech limits must be light because "when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech," off-campus limits "include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day."

"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."

The justices' opinion was not as sweeping as that of the appeals court below it, which Breyer noted held the school could not dicipline Levy for "engaging in a form of pure speech" because it was off campus.

"The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances," it continued. "These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers."

But nevertheless, the school could not dicipline Levy, the court said, because her speech in this instance was not disruptive.

DemonGeminiX
06-23-2021, 05:19 PM
What did Clarence Thomas say in his dissent? Or did he not publish one?

Teh One Who Knocks
06-23-2021, 06:15 PM
What did Clarence Thomas say in his dissent? Or did he not publish one?

I can't find his full dissent, but this was from the NY Times article on the story:


In dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that “the majority fails to consider whether schools often will have more authority, not less, to discipline students who transmit speech through social media.”

“Because off-campus speech made through social media can be received on campus (and can spread rapidly to countless people),” Justice Thomas wrote, “it often will have a greater proximate tendency to harm the school environment than will an off-campus in-person conversation.”

And this from NPR:


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 wrote. "So, too, here."