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.
>>If you want to gut the schools, pull your kids out and either homeschool them or put them in a private school
That won’t “gut the schools”; they still get funded through taxes even if they had no students. We need to defund public education entirely; Separation of school and state.
I believe that CNN and the AssPress started it, but the cancer is quickly spreading through the rest of the media. GP is probably the worst example on the right, but Breitbart and American Thinker do this all the time as well.
People don't take the time to read the actual facts, nor do they think critically about anything. Headlines on all sides are tailored to the moron class, and many in the moron class only read the headline and the social media posts that the headline is pasted into.
Let's look at the FACTS:
SCOTUS: "Unlike the Third Circuit, we do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus. The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances. The parties’ briefs, and those of amici, list several types of off-campus behavior that may call for school regulation. These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers."
"We are uncertain as to the length or content of any such list of appropriate exceptions or carveouts to the Third Circuit majority’s rule. That rule, basically, if not entirely, would deny the off-campus applicability of Tinker’s highly general statement about the nature of a school’s special interests. Particularly given the advent of computer-based learning, we hesitate to determine precisely which of many school-related off-campus activities belong on such a list. Neither do we now know how such a list might vary, depending upon a student’s age, the nature of the school’s off campus activity, or the impact upon the school itself. Thus, we do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as “off campus” speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school’s special need to prevent, e.g., substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up a school community."
So, SCOTUS disagrees with the 3rd Circuit with a bright-line rule that says ALL off-campus speech is off limits. However, they don't precisely define the rule as to what speech can be regulated. Instead, they set up a three part test.
First, a school, in relation to off-campus speech, will rarely stand in loco parentis. The doctrine of in loco parentis treats school administrators as standing in the place of students’ parents under circumstances where the children’s actual parents cannot protect, guide, and discipline them. Geographically speaking, off-campus speech will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility.
Second, from the student speaker’s perspective, regulations of off-campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech, include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day. That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all. When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention.
Third, the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus. America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy. Our representative democracy only works if we protect the “marketplace of ideas.” This free exchange facilitates an informed public opinion, which, when transmitted to lawmakers, helps produce laws that reflect the People’s will. That protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas, for popular ideas have less need for protection. Thus, schools have a strong interest in ensuring that future generations understand the working in practice of the well-known aphorism, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Given the many different kinds of off-campus speech, the different potential school-related and circumstance-specific justifications, and the differing extent to which those justifications may call for First Amendment leeway, we can, as a general matter, say little more than this: Taken together, these three features of much off-campus speech mean that the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished. We leave for future cases to decide where, when, and how these features mean the speaker’s off-campus location will make the critical difference. . ."
So in a nutshell, SCOTUS is declining to create a blanket rule that would prohibit the regulation of *ALL* off campus speech, but says that in the limited instances that schools can regulate speech, the regulation has to fit within the three part framework created, AND such regulations will be rare given the diminished interests of the school in regulating off campus speech.
Regulating speech because a student is Cussing out the coach, expressing religious or political opinions, advocating against abortion, ect... would all be off limits for the schools.