- Mar 7, 2014
- Reaction score
Not in this case.School is in fact government – there’s no ‘maybe’ about it.Is the school government? Maybe.
‘In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Ms Levy's right to freedom of expression, protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, had been violated since the social media posts did not cause substantial disruption at the school.
"The vulgarity in BL's posts encompassed a message, an expression of BL's irritation with, and criticism of, the school and cheerleading communities," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion, using Ms Levy's initials.
"The school's interest in teaching good manners is not sufficient, in this case, to overcome BL's interest in free expression."
But the court added that schools still had a "significant" license to regulate student speech "in some off-campus circumstances". It said it would not categorically define which "school-related off-campus activities" this meant.’ ibid
Call it the ‘substantial disruption of schools’ test – and under this test, schools will need to demonstrate substantial disruption, where off-campus profanity via social media fails to pass the test.
I'd say they'd cause substantial disruption for the future of education in the US.
How can you prove it won't?
The reality is you can't.
The simple fact is that you could make a law that you say will have no impact, and yet a lot of teachers might be looking at this and thinking "shit, we're screwed".
How will kids react to this?