Posted on 06/24/2021 8:55:59 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a Pennsylvania cheerleader punished for a vulgar message shared on Snapchat, with the justices ruling the school violated the student's First Amendment rights when it disciplined her for the off-campus rant.
The high court ruled 8-1 in favor of the cheerleader, Brandi Levy, with Justice Stephen Breyer writing the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
While the Supreme Court found Levy's school went too far when it punished her for her social media posts, which are entitled to First Amendment protections, Breyer wrote there is some student speech that takes place off campus that schools can regulate, such as bullying or harassment and threats aimed at teachers or other students.
"[W]e 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," he wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."
The dispute centered around a message Levy posted to Snapchat on a Saturday in 2017 after learning she didn't make her school's varsity cheerleading team as a rising sophomore. In an act of frustration, Levy, then 14 and a freshman in the Mahanoy Area School District, shared with her 250 followers a self-deleting Snapchat of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, captioned with the uncensored message, "f**k school f**k softball f**k cheer f**k everything."
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Maybe so... i was trying to find if the punishment was kicking her off the team, not allowing her to try out, or something else. Just didn’t find it.
The article indicates that as a result of her criticism of the program upon not making the varsity squad, she was removed from the cheerleading team totally. She was already a member of the cheerleading team.
FYI, that sort of remark could have been made if she lost out on varsity not because of insufficient performance but because she had insufficient melanin in her skin, an increasingly common thing these days.
As for Clarence Thomas? Foucha v. Louisiana. He opposed the removal of sane recovered patients from insane asylums and the restoration of their rights.
It *is* clear, as you have seen from others’ posts above. I’ll take a public retraction now.
Or CBA to read it. It’s right there in the article. Someone screenshotted the post, it got passed around, the coaches kicked her off the team for a year.
Thanks
So she did make the jv squad 9th
Then she did not make the varsity squad after that
Then she did her snapchat post that got her in trouble
Then the school said she can no longer try out...
I think
A schools standard of conduct ends at the school door, especially with an offense as minor as this one. No government organization should suppress free speech.
Now, if I was her parent, I would punish her for the foul language she used.
Too little discipline = Daddy issues
Too much discipline = Daddy issues
A girl needs her Dad to be the rock. Mom can smack her butt, while Dad doles out punishment in more creative ways.
exactly, and I bet if she said something “racist” they would be fine with her 1st amendment rights being tossed out of the window.
Our country has become a sad joke and will fall within the next 100 years.
If every conservative left right now and found a place to live in peace these communists would follow us to our new island and start harassing us. We want to be left alone, they want us gone.
This is a critical ruling!
It says free speech extends to social media.
ie you can’t attack or ban people from employment based on what they say on social media.
.
.
lol sure
there are different rules for us.
Very true. I’ve said for awhile now, that if a conservative somewhere is enjoying their life, you can bet there is a miserable liberal plotting how they can ruin that person’s life
Yeah? And if she did express her views at school and on school property, then it'd be OK to suppress her free speech?
I keep saying that where she made the comments - on or off school property - makes no difference.
I repeat myself. I admit I don't know all the real issues. But I trust Clarence Thomas over the rest of the justices.
If she is saying F you to the teacher in school, that violates conduct.It is a disruption, and could be interpreted as a threat.Outside of school is a different matter.
What if she posted on social media her school is @#$& because they are teaching CRT? She would have been suspended.
Freedom of speech, even hate speech, must be protected.
What is a self-deleting Snapchat? You post it and it deletes itself? That don’t make no sense as the hillbilly once said. ...brilliant.
My little mud turtle, eh turtle dove, yes.
Our fathers would have been ashamed to show their faces if their daughters acted in such a disgusting, slutty fashion. But these days....
Sadly, I can’t argue with you. But it has gotten much worse in recent years, I think.
I doubt it - I suspect that like so much else, now that we have cameras everywhere and social networking, it’s simply far more visible over a wider reach than it used to be.
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.