SCOTUS concedes school administrators can regulate off-campus speech

[The Purge]

Sit down and be quiet. School administrators, who are predominantly left-wing, will tell you when you're being disruptive.

SCOTUS, on June 23rd, ruled 8-1 in favor of the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, in a case involving her suspension after badmouthing her school on social media. Her profanity-laced diatribe was posted on SnapChat. She wrote the message after she failed to make the Varsity Squad and was being kept on the Junior Varsity Squad.

Her rant, "F**k school f**k softball f**k cheer f**k everything", accompanied a picture of herself, and a friend, showing the middle finger. (Note: she did not use asterisks.)

A student took a screenshot of the message and showed it to the cheerleading squad's coach and Brandi was subsequently kicked off the team. The parents made numerous appeals which ascended through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

At stake was the issue of whether a school has authority to take disciplinary action when a student speaks outside school grounds.

Schools have argued that extracurricular activities off-campus, but affiliated with the school, are within that purview. The school also argued that speech that leads to a "substantial disruption" to school activities is an actionable offense no matter where it is made, off school property or outside of school time.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

---------------

I’m so confused. I read here yesterday that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the foulmouthed little cheerleader. Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?

 

[Kilroy2]

Well what she said was inappropriate and that was the right ruling. It was really a majority of liberal and conservatives. The one denier really highlights why this person should even be on the court.

Clarence T well this is the guy who was accused of harassment of a woman. He should never have been confirmed as he is an idiot.

the main issue

serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals

They address that issue and it does not deny free speech unless it cause bullying or harassment

 

[ReinyDays]

Sit down and be quiet. School administrators, who are predominantly left-wing, will tell you when you're being disruptive.

SCOTUS, on June 23rd, ruled 8-1 in favor of the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, in a case involving her suspension after badmouthing her school on social media. Her profanity-laced diatribe was posted on SnapChat. She wrote the message after she failed to make the Varsity Squad and was being kept on the Junior Varsity Squad.

Her rant, "F**k school f**k softball f**k cheer f**k everything", accompanied a picture of herself, and a friend, showing the middle finger. (Note: she did not use asterisks.)

A student took a screenshot of the message and showed it to the cheerleading squad's coach and Brandi was subsequently kicked off the team. The parents made numerous appeals which ascended through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

At stake was the issue of whether a school has authority to take disciplinary action when a student speaks outside school grounds.

Schools have argued that extracurricular activities off-campus, but affiliated with the school, are within that purview. The school also argued that speech that leads to a "substantial disruption" to school activities is an actionable offense no matter where it is made, off school property or outside of school time.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

---------------

I’m so confused. I read here yesterday that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the foulmouthed little cheerleader. Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?

Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?

Yes, if the universe you've been in had no 1st Amendment protections ...

Keep in mind, SCOTUS' ruling is very NARROW ... this particular student in this specific situation was entitled to post that exact snap-chat ... leaving District Courts free to rule on a case by case basis ...

My question is why are the parents are endorsing their child's foul-mouthed ways ... my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap if I did this ...

 

[jillian]

Sit down and be quiet. School administrators, who are predominantly left-wing, will tell you when you're being disruptive.

SCOTUS, on June 23rd, ruled 8-1 in favor of the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, in a case involving her suspension after badmouthing her school on social media. Her profanity-laced diatribe was posted on SnapChat. She wrote the message after she failed to make the Varsity Squad and was being kept on the Junior Varsity Squad.

Her rant, "F**k school f**k softball f**k cheer f**k everything", accompanied a picture of herself, and a friend, showing the middle finger. (Note: she did not use asterisks.)

A student took a screenshot of the message and showed it to the cheerleading squad's coach and Brandi was subsequently kicked off the team. The parents made numerous appeals which ascended through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

At stake was the issue of whether a school has authority to take disciplinary action when a student speaks outside school grounds.

Schools have argued that extracurricular activities off-campus, but affiliated with the school, are within that purview. The school also argued that speech that leads to a "substantial disruption" to school activities is an actionable offense no matter where it is made, off school property or outside of school time.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

---------------

I’m so confused. I read here yesterday that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the foulmouthed little cheerleader. Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?

Why do you say”concedes” as if they’ve given up something. That’s kind of insane.
SCOTUS held that the student had a right to free speech and said the school acted improperly — which it did. The court also acknowledged that there are times when it is appropriate to regulate speech such as when that speech becomes disruptive to the educational process.

and that is in keeping with prior decisions of the Court.

what about that is confusing?

as to her being “foul mouthed”, I think the point is that it’s none of your business

 

[Winston]

Sit down and be quiet. School administrators, who are predominantly left-wing, will tell you when you're being disruptive.

SCOTUS, on June 23rd, ruled 8-1 in favor of the plaintiff, Brandi Levy, in a case involving her suspension after badmouthing her school on social media. Her profanity-laced diatribe was posted on SnapChat. She wrote the message after she failed to make the Varsity Squad and was being kept on the Junior Varsity Squad.

Her rant, "F**k school f**k softball f**k cheer f**k everything", accompanied a picture of herself, and a friend, showing the middle finger. (Note: she did not use asterisks.)

A student took a screenshot of the message and showed it to the cheerleading squad's coach and Brandi was subsequently kicked off the team. The parents made numerous appeals which ascended through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

At stake was the issue of whether a school has authority to take disciplinary action when a student speaks outside school grounds.

Schools have argued that extracurricular activities off-campus, but affiliated with the school, are within that purview. The school also argued that speech that leads to a "substantial disruption" to school activities is an actionable offense no matter where it is made, off school property or outside of school time.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

---------------

I’m so confused. I read here yesterday that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the foulmouthed little cheerleader. Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?

Why do you say”concedes” as if they’ve given up something. That’s kind of insane.
SCOTUS held that the student had a right to free speech and said the school acted improperly — which it did. The court also acknowledged that there are times when it is appropriate to regulate speech such as when that speech becomes disruptive to the educational process.

and that is in keeping with prior decisions of the Court.

what about that is confusing?

as to her being “foul mouthed”, I think the point is that it’s none of your business

Spot on synopsis. The speech might have been ugly, but it was not disruptive or threatening. And yes, Thomas is a fascist idiot.

 

[Rigby5]

The SCOTUS did not concede that schools can regulate off campus free speech.

{...
Nonetheless, SCOTUS held for the plaintiff (8-1), stating, "Her speech in this instance was not disruptive."

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. One of the tangential points he made was that speech made off-campus can be regulated by the school when it is made on social media.
...}

The plaintiff was the foul mouthed cheerleader.