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?
>>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.
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.
The headline writer did not read the article.
just a screwed up headline