At Supreme Court, Mean Girls Meet 1st Amendment

[McBell]

In this case, lawyers for both sides agree that schools are well within their rights when they deal with targeted harassment and bullying. In fact, 47 states require schools to enforce anti-bullying policies. But Brandi Levy's case is the only one in which an appeals court has ruled categorically that a student's off-campus speech is not subject to school discipline.

So now the Supreme Court is being asked to establish the rules for disciplining student speech in the internet age. And that is no easy task.

The Mahanoy Area School District contends that in the modern world of social media and COVID-19 lockdowns, there is no practical difference between student speech that is disruptive at the school itself and speech outside the school, whether it's across the street from the school or online.

Supporting that position are national associations that represent school boards, administrators, superintendents and principals.

"When you're talking about online speech," says their lawyer, Gregory Garre, "it really doesn't matter where the student hits send on his or her iPhone or makes the post. Whether it's in the classroom or in a Starbucks across the street from the school, the impact of that post is the same."

But ACLU lawyer Witold Walczak says that this argument would give schools the right to curb student speech for all kinds of reasons — cultural, political or even religious.

"You're essentially taking the diminished free speech rights that students have in school and pushing them out to their entire lives. They would not have full First Amendment free speech rights anywhere. And that would also interfere with parents' ability and right to direct their children's upbringing," he says.
​

At Supreme Court, Mean Girls Meet 1st Amendment​

 

[sun rise]

At least Thomas appears to be all in that students can have all the guns they want but have no right to free speech from what I read and know of Thomas.

The others? We'll see if freedom of speech enjoys the same rights as freedom to own a gun.

 

[Kooky]

At least Thomas appears to be all in that students can have all the guns they want but have no right to free speech from what I read and know of Thomas.

The others? We'll see if freedom of speech enjoys the same rights as freedom to own a gun.

I mean it makes sense, speech can be dangerous to the social order in ways that armed right-wing militias are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this case, lawyers for both sides agree that schools are well within their rights when they deal with targeted harassment and bullying. In fact, 47 states require schools to enforce anti-bullying policies. But Brandi Levy's case is the only one in which an appeals court has ruled categorically that a student's off-campus speech is not subject to school discipline.

So now the Supreme Court is being asked to establish the rules for disciplining student speech in the internet age. And that is no easy task.

The Mahanoy Area School District contends that in the modern world of social media and COVID-19 lockdowns, there is no practical difference between student speech that is disruptive at the school itself and speech outside the school, whether it's across the street from the school or online.

Supporting that position are national associations that represent school boards, administrators, superintendents and principals.

"When you're talking about online speech," says their lawyer, Gregory Garre, "it really doesn't matter where the student hits send on his or her iPhone or makes the post. Whether it's in the classroom or in a Starbucks across the street from the school, the impact of that post is the same."

But ACLU lawyer Witold Walczak says that this argument would give schools the right to curb student speech for all kinds of reasons — cultural, political or even religious.

"You're essentially taking the diminished free speech rights that students have in school and pushing them out to their entire lives. They would not have full First Amendment free speech rights anywhere. And that would also interfere with parents' ability and right to direct their children's upbringing," he says.
​

At Supreme Court, Mean Girls Meet 1st Amendment​

Interesting. The girls just flipped off the cheer leading squad and the school and dropped a few F bombs. There was no bullying. They are going to have a tough time defending what looks like their abuse of power. This was a very low hill for the school to decide to die on. I do not see it going well for them. I could see them losing and the court still saying that school application of discipline outside of school had not been determined yet.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting. The girls just flipped off the cheer leading squad and the school and dropped a few F bombs. There was no bullying. They are going to have a tough time defending what looks like their abuse of power. This was a very low hill for the school to decide to die on. I do not see it going well for them. I could see them losing and the court still saying that school application of discipline outside of school had not been determined yet.

This was my reading of it too, based on the linked article.

 

[epronovost]

In Quebec, schools are considered a point of service for harassment and bullying of its students even if it happens outside the school itself. If a child is bullied on the internet, they can complain to the school staff who will then contact the police/social services if needed, parents and refer the students involved to counseling should it be required. It seems to me to be a smart idea. Don't ask kids to contact the police themselves since they certainly won't do it and parents alone often have very little tools to help deal with serious case of bullying on their own.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least Thomas appears to be all in that students can have all the guns they want but have no right to free speech from what I read and know of Thomas.

The others? We'll see if freedom of speech enjoys the same rights as freedom to own a gun.

Are you sure that NPR's claim is cromulent?
I perused the linked opinion by Thomas, & didn't see
either claim, ie, nothing about guns, & no broad claim
that students have "no right to free speech".
Note that his view on free speech in pubic school
does comport with most justices that they don't
have the right there because of the school's right
to prevent speech that interferes with schooing.

 

[sun rise]

Are you sure that NPR's claim is cromulent?
I perused the linked opinion by Thomas, & didn't see
either claim, ie, nothing about guns, & no broad claim
that students have "no right to free speech".
Note that his view on free speech in pubic school
does comport with most justices that they don't
have the right there because of the school's right
to prevent speech that interferes with schooing.

The article linked to the decision which has this:

2 MORSE v. FREDERICK THOMAS,J., concurring Public Schools: From the Common School to ìNo Child Left Behindî 11ñ12 (2005) (hereinafter Reese). If students in public schools were originally understood as having free-speech rights, one would have expected 19th-century public schools to have respected those rights and courts to have enforced them.1 They did not. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/06-278P.ZC

 

[Revoltingest]

The article linked to the decision which has this:

2 MORSE v. FREDERICK THOMAS,J., concurring Public Schools: From the Common School to ìNo Child Left Behindî 11ñ12 (2005) (hereinafter Reese). If students in public schools were originally understood as having free-speech rights, one would have expected 19th-century public schools to have respected those rights and courts to have enforced them.1 They did not. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/06-278P.ZC

The quoted text deals with history.
While it hints at stare decisis, it doesn't actually say so.