Posted on 06/25/2021 4:20:32 AM PDT by MtnClimber
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 ...
The school administrators don’t do what the parents of students want, what about that.
SCOTUS is the HOME of treason, judge-murder, sedition,
and has NO use for the 1st Amendment used by the
source of its future adrenochrome, sex trafficking
victim s, and their stolen children and “elections”.
I’m so confused. I read yesterday that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the foulmouthed little cheerleader. Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?
Sure. Of course. That's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Political free speech is OK. Just so long as it props up the status quo and never leads to anything like "substantial disruption". Just don't rock the boat. /[s]
Didn’t you notice the article itself REFUTES the headline?
>>Did I wake up in an alternate universe today?
No, Buchanan is just being hysterical. SCOTUS ruled for free speech, but acknowledged that it isn’t absolute; schools can still take action on outside speech if the student threatens violence, or is “disruptive”. But they left ‘disruptive’ to be defined by case law.
At one time I would have said government school administrators should have some control of students’ behavior “off campus”. I was wrong. Here’s the reason why. When we abdicate our own responsibilities to government, in this case school administrators, we no longer exercise our responsibilities. We basically get out of practice in their exercise and it bleeds over to other things. Given the majority of school administrators that exists at this time, I would not trust them to make correct choices. They fail at making the correct choices. It is best for parents to take full responsibility for their children’s action outside (and inside) school. Certainly there will be failures there, but it won’t be for children with good parents. The danger of school administrators to good students and good parents is too great. School administrators should be striped of many of their assumed responsibilities to focus on one thing: provide excellent quality education. Note: that requires control of students behavior on campus.
Read it...the headline is “clever” and doesn’t tell the true decision.
Whoever wrote this article is CONFUSED!
In their own article they say “Nonetheless, SCOTUS held for the plaintiff (8-1), stating, “her speech in this instance was not disruptive.””
The ruling was in favor of the cheerleader.
SCOTUS ruling conceded that the school has a right to regulate its brand like any company would have the right to do so. If this cheerleader said this about a place of employment she would have been fired. She has every right to say what she said, however, that right ends when it infringes on another person’s right which is the reason for “substantial disruption”. Substantial disruption infringes on the rights of other students to pursue an education. Because the cheerleader did not cause substantial disruption or infringe on the rights of other students they ruled in her favor.
There was a surprise dissenter but that is another discussion.
The headline is the alternate universe...
The ruling was for the cheerleader, and rightfully so (despite her foul choice of words).
The caveat is that threats against students, teachers, or the school itself uttered off campus are actionable, if I understand the ruling correctly. A student cannot threaten to attack or kill a teacher off campus and expect no reaction from the school.
Merely being offensive isn’t enough - one has to escalate into threats, which seems to me to be the right balance.
Some students. If a gang-banger posts a pic with a stack, a blunt and a neener, the school will ignore it.
“Supreme Court Rules for Cheerleader Punished for Vulgar Snapchat Message” NYT headline.
“RULES FOR CHEERLEADER”
“’Cussing Cheerleader’ Wins in Supreme Court” NY mag
“Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case” CNBC
The headline writer did not read the article.
The headline is the alternate universe...
The ruling was for the cheerleader, and rightfully so (despite her foul choice of words).
—
The headline is designed as click-bait as about 97% of all “news” articles are.
Well, if the school administrator can take action if the student is being disruptive it seems they CAN regulate. The court just happened to disagree in this case as to what disruption was. I’m sure if something is posted in the future that is counter culture it will be deemed disruptive. More rights up for interpretation is what this ruling says. More reason to be concerned for the future.
The answer is there should be no such thing as government schools.
Second, the fundamental problem is that parents, often unwittingly, have surrendered their rights to public schools by sending Johnny or Mary into that system. As was stated in the ruling itself:
But we have also made clear that courts must apply the First Amendment “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (internal quotation mark omitted). One such char- acteristic, which we have stressed, is the fact that schools at times stand in loco parentis, i.e., in the place of parents. See Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 684 (1986).
With that phrase, in loco parentis, the courts (and society) have granted public schools, teacher, and admistrators broad powers over the kids. In essence, the schools can't please everyone so you get a general application of the three Rs AND ethics that reflects that of society as a whole...or the political leaning of the local and/or state school administrators.
Decades ago, corporal punishment was acceptable in public schools. Now it's not. Today, unAmerican history is acceptable. If you don't like it, it's not necessarily the school's fault - it's all because society granted the school the power to stand in place of the parents. What's "in style" changes with the times, but the fundamentals of in loco parentis remain unchanged.
I will happily bash schools for their stupid actions. But the parents, in many ways, are codependent enablers. They're feeding the beast; if they knew the deal maybe they'd bolt, but there are plentry of parents who sort of don't care because "well, at least the kids are getting socialization" (like the foul-mouthed defendant...I bet her parents are proud of what they've raised).
And if I'm honest, many teachers go into the system not knowing that they're pawns because even THEY don't have much power to help the kids....that's why so many of them burn out. In turn, there are also plenty of detestable teachers who are totally fine with what's "in style" and THRIVE with their power and protection that comes with the job.
If you want to gut the schools, pull your kids out and either homeschool them or put them in a private school (where, in some way, you may have LESS rights...beware). Until then, you're sort of part of the problem.
thomas is our last vestige of hope...
i think.
the article was very confusing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.