> However, from the court’s point of view only, this would seem to give “rights” to those who have been “offended”.
That’s certainly one way to look at it, and it’s a legitimate viewpoint.
Another way to look at it is the Court refusing to recognize a Right to Consequence-Free Speech, and allowing the girl to experience the consequences of her behavior, and declining to get involved in what is rightly a school’s prerogative to decide who may participate in school extramural activities and on what basis. This is how I see it.
Slippery slope. The school is not just another private entity -- it is a public school, i.e., a government agency. There should be limits on how much ability the school has to retaliate against students for legal off-campus activity. Saying that they have a free hand to punish such behavior opens the door for other governmental bodies to use punitive means to silence critics.