Supreme Court says high school violated cheerleader's First Amendment rights

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Mahanoy Area High School student B. L. failed to make the school’s varsity cheerleading squad. While visiting a local convenience store over the weekend, B. L. posted two images on Snapchat, a social media application for smartphones that allows users to share temporary images with selected friends. B. L.’s posts expressed frustration with the school and the school’s cheerleading squad, and one contained vulgar language and gestures. When school officials learned of the posts, they suspended B. L. from the junior varsity cheerleading squad for the up-coming year. After unsuccessfully seeking to reverse that punishment, B. L. and her parents sought relief in federal court, arguing inter alia that punishing B. L. for her speech violated the First Amendment. The District Court granted an injunction ordering the school to reinstate B. L. to the cheerleading team. Relying on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, to grant B. L.’s subsequent motion for summary judgment, the District Court found that B. L.’s punishment violated the First Amendment because her Snap-chat posts had not caused substantial disruption at the school. The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment, but the panel majority reasoned that Tinker did not apply because schools had no special license to regulate student speech occurring off campus.

 

NewOldBlood

Well-known member
I'm wondering how this ruling will effect other actions schools take against students for speech occurring off campus, particularly in regards to bullying. I know a few kids in my area got in trouble for filming their version of the George Floyd incident, one almost didn't graduate after missing finals while suspended. This ruling could impact this kind of thing in the future. Personally, I have always felt it was kind of BS that schools could punish kids for something they did outside of school.
 

ProV1

Well-known member
I'm wondering how this ruling will effect other actions schools take against students for speech occurring off campus, particularly in regards to bullying. I know a few kids in my area got in trouble for filming their version of the George Floyd incident, one almost didn't graduate after missing finals while suspended. This ruling could impact this kind of thing in the future. Personally, I have always felt it was kind of BS that schools could punish kids for something they did outside of school.
Bullying is not protected by free speech.
 

sig4969

Well-known member
yep , in 50 to 100 years we are going to look back and wonder how this ruling happen.

For you that can not connect the dots I mean except for bullying.
 

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
Just curious how this will affect sports teams? A player gets mad at the coaches and says something negative off campus. Does the coach have the right to punish the athlete? Or is that freedom of speech?
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Just curious how this will affect sports teams? A player gets mad at the coaches and says something negative off campus. Does the coach have the right to punish the athlete? Or is that freedom of speech?
Well...the ruling clearly says the coach can not kick the student off the team for the off campus speech.
 

Caleb

Well-known member
Her parents should've took care of this and grounded her from the squad for as they use to say back in the day "having no shame". See how easy this was if the parents actually did their parent duty? Instead they became part of the problem.
 

Raider6309

Well-known member
Bullying is against the law. It is not protected speech.
Bullying is a vague term. Most of bullying would fall under civil administration code and not criminal code. Of course threatening someone is against the law but calling someone a whore or fat isn’t
 

Raider6309

Well-known member
Her parents should've took care of this and grounded her from the squad for as they use to say back in the day "having no shame". See how easy this was if the parents actually did their parent duty? Instead they became part of the problem.
Too many stupid parents. I still have no clue why I need a background check for a gun, need a license and insurance for a car, but a meth addict can get paid to have kids wtf
 

isadore

Well-known member
Bullying is against the law. It is not protected speech.
gosh a ruddies I got this list off a website
verbal bullying, are these all against the law?
Calling someone a mean name
• Teasing someone to make them feel bad
• Criticizing
• Threatening
• Swearing at someone
• Using put-downs
• Spreading rumors
• Making repeated abusive phone calls
• Making offensive remarks or joking about a person's religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or the way they look
• Using sarcasm to be mean
gosh I guess
Threatening in many cases is against the law.
Repeated abusive phone calls.

But wow I might go to jail for using sarcasm to be mean. I am going to jail
 

ProV1

Well-known member
Bullying is a vague term. Most of bullying would fall under civil administration code and not criminal code. Of course threatening someone is against the law but calling someone a whore or fat isn’t
Of course it depends on degree but for minors it kind of is illegal. Police get involved in these situations all the time. You stalk a 13 year old girl online calling here a whore and the police will show up at your door no matter how old you are.
 

SayMyName

Well-known member
Of course it depends on degree but for minors it kind of is illegal. Police get involved in these situations all the time. You stalk a 13 year old girl online calling here a whore and the police will show up at your door no mare how old you are.
Sorry this happened to you....
 

Raider6309

Well-known member
Of course it depends on degree but for minors it kind of is illegal. Police get involved in these situations all the time. You stalk a 13 year old girl online calling here a whore and the police will show up at your door no matter how old you are.
I’m talking about two juveniles at school
 

ProV1

Well-known member
And the court shot down the code of conduct for the school. I’m not a fan of real court wasting their time with these cases.
I don’t think this was a code of conduct issue. The court just said that school rules limiting her speech did not apply outside of school. It was the right call I think.
 

OhioBobcatFan06

Well-known member
Great decision by the courts. Public schools employees should stop stealing taxpayer dollars and work for free if they really care about kids like they claim.

Sadly most are just in it for the money.

Great to see this young lady stick it to the man.
 
.
Top