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 ...
Think about that.
BOOM!
BOOM!
Seems like a lot of people forget that these First Amendment cases don’t reach the Big Bench because the people involved are pleasant and admirable, and gosh darn it people like them.
It really doesn’t matter how foul and despicable the ‘speaker’ might be, they still have their First Amendment rights. And NOTHING in the Bill of Rights says anything about limiting those rights based on age.
Which brings up other interesting questions, of course.
What planet were you from? Dad had a belt which was not creative at all.
Wear a Trump shirt on vacation and post a pic to social media? Punished.It doesn't take any thought at all.Think about that.
If you don't like "social media" destroying and by extension controlling your life...DON'T PLAY ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
Whose the fool in this picture?
Think about that genius.
Hate to tell you, but in schools these days, social media is practically required. Not joking.
This decision also could end up applying to colleges.
Large tattoos at that age? What’s her future plans? A stripper’s pole?
14 in 2017 is 18 in 2021. That’s not a large tattoo by modern standards, either.
Well, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
It’s been a thing even before the Boomers. Remember Mae West?
American law..like much of politics..has become a clown show.
Now Levy and family must sue skool for legal fees.
But there were just a small number of floozies then, and few people celebrated their behavior. Mothers warned their daughters not to behave that way, and most of the girls followed the advice. Now....
Profanity and vulgarity are separate from ‘loose sexual mores,’ to start.
Second, your whole thing about ‘floozies’ and such? That’s literally just a 50s thing and more an exception to the rule of the past couple centuries. Remember the Jazz Age of the Twenties? Remember the flappers? Unfeminine, but that was the ideal of the time. Mothers were actually adopting the dress style along with their daughters - and profane language use was common among women at the time. Going back further, look at the suffragettes and the temperance movement - profane women, who had nothing to do with being ‘easy’.
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.