Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over profane Snapchat rant

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: New York Times



WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Pennsylvania school district had violated the First Amendment by punishing a student for a vulgar social-media message sent away from school grounds. The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. The case concerned Brandi Levy, a Pennsylvania high school student who had expressed her dismay over not making the varsity cheerleading squad by sending a colorful Snapchat message to about 250 people.

She sent the message on a Saturday from the Cocoa Hut, a convenience store popular with teenagers. It included an image of Ms. Levy and a friend with their middle fingers raised, along with a string of words expressing the same sentiment. Using a swear word four times, Ms. Levy objected to "school," "softball," "cheer" and "everything."

Though Snapchat messages are meant to vanish not long after they are sent, another student took a screenshot and showed it to her mother, a coach. The school suspended Ms. Levy from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to "avoid chaos" and maintain a "teamlike environment."

Ms. Levy sued the school district, winning a sweeping victory from a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia. The court said the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds, relying on a precedent from a different era.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/supreme-court-free-speech-cheerleader.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

---

Updated source with longer article.

Here is the ruling from the SCOTUS - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf

Link to tweet

TEXT

SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
·
Jun 23, 2021
BREAKING: In major First Amendment case on student speech, the Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of a former high school student who was disciplined by her public school after sending a vulgar message on Snapchat complaining about the school's cheerleading squad.
SCOTUSblog
@SCOTUSblog
Here is the opinion delivered by Justice Breyer in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Justice Thomas dissented. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
10:23 AM · Jun 23, 2021

Original article & headline -

Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over profane Snapchat rant

By Robert Barnes
June 23, 2021 at 10:29 a.m. EDT

Breaking news: Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over off-campus social media rant

Brandi Levy was kicked off her high school JV cheer squad by administrators who said her Snapchat missive sent to friends -- "F--- school, f--- softball, f--- cheer, f--- everything." -- violated policy. A lower court had said school officials had no authority over speech that occurred off-campus and on a weekend.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-cheerleader-snapchat-free-speech/2021/06/23/09b905ba-d42a-11eb-a53a-3b5450fdca7a_story.html

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Thanks. I was clicking all over the place to see if he had written about that yet.

Supreme Court rules for cheerleader in case involving profane snapchat rant https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf

Link to tweet

I couldn't find anything at the paper. The tweet went up, but that was all I could find.

Nada at Philly.com or PennLive.

Thanks.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. Just added the SCOTUSblog tweet!

Good morning!

[NYC Liberal]

2. Info from SCOTUS Blog:

The court holds that although public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B.L's interest in free expression *in this case.*

Breyer outlines three features of off-campus speech that, he says "often, even if not always, distinguish schools' efforts to regulate that speech from their efforts to regulate on-campus speech." Those features 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."

In this case, Breyer concludes, it "might be tempting to dismiss B.L.'s words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-june-23/

[malthaussen]

6. "public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus speech"

Say what? Golly, I wonder what the statute of limitations is on that. If I trash the high school I went to 45 years ago, is that actionable?

-- Mal

[unblock]

8. I don't think they're likely to send you to detention...

[Devil Child]

4. Excellent!

[Wingus Dingus]

5. They'd have to kick all the kids out of everything if the standard is

only inoffensive speech in communications with friends. School-spirit police overreach.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I would feel sorry for the cheerleader who would have to be kicked out of the team to accommodate

this less-than-enthusiastic cheerleader who thought she was too good for the junior varsity team. Whether, because this was a disputed situation, someone actually did lose a place to B.L. in the time it took to resolve it, I can't tell from the report.

The tantrum has won.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

9. Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Are you siding with Justice Thomas?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Not for the reason he gave, but yes, in a sane country, a cheerleader who said

'fuck school, fuck cheer' would be seen as having resigned from the team that exists to cheer on the school. If she says "you can't demote me, I quit", then she should be taken at her word. The 'forest' is cheerleading, which is literally about enthusiasm; putting the girl in the team when she's let her fellow members know she thinks she's too good for them, hurts the team and its other members.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

11. She's a teenage girl who was disappointed and went on a rant.

You seem bitter. Free speech won, end of story.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I didn't take a school to court. The bitterness was on her parents' part.

I think you are taking a superficial view if you think "free speech won, end of story" is an adequate discussion.

Yes, she went on a rant about cheerleading; this shows that she's not a good fit for cheerleading. It's an optional activity, and her unsuitability for it became more and more apparent. Maybe she should have tried debate instead.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

15. Cheerleading is not the point!

The point is whether schools have a right to suppress speech, the answer is NO!

Get off the cheerleading shit, it's irrelevant to the precedent this sets.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. LOL

If cheerleading is not the point, then it wouldn't have mattered when they decided not to use her in the squad, would it? She can say "fuck cheer" all she wants; the point is that she shouldn't have a right to a place in a cheerleading team if that's her attitude.

Crap decision. Crap society that produced it (and yes, I don't expect to be put forward as an advocate for the American way of life of suing, after saying that).

[twodogsbarking]

26. Schools like to use "bad attitude"

against students.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Schools like "good attitude" in cheerleaders; it's in the word (nt)

[Mysterian]

29. Yes, let's give the government more power to suppress free speech!

If the student said those things at school, then the school can take action. Outside the school, the government can mind its fucking business.

[AZLD4Candidate]

23. Would you have said the same thing for Mary Beth Tinker?

Speech is speech and obscenity is protected. Motive for the lawsuit is irrelevant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. No, because she was suspended

Not held to be unsuitable for cheerleading because of her disdain for it. The action that the lawsuit was brought to reverse it relevant.

[AZLD4Candidate]

30. You aren't an educator. Being suspended or banned from an extra-curricular is classified as

a school sanctioned punishment.

So, yes, she was suspended, just not from class. Any action like that is a punishment that can be sued over.

I almost did when I was suspended from my high school football for beating up a Nazi that has given my anti-Jewish attacks all season, while he got nothing because his uncle was the assistant coach.

Same thing. She had the right to sue and it is relevant.

The lawsuit was not about not making the team. The lawsuit was about the school's reaction to her posting on social media. The school REALLY overstepped its boundaries.

Also in my high school, a student was driving to school and cut off an old lady. She called the school and complained and the student lost his parking privilege. Parents fought it and won, because the actions didn't happen ON school grounds or on SCHOOL property.

[oldsoftie]

12. Wow, another near-unanimous decision.

I did expect her to prevail, but i figured There would've been 3-4 "no" votes

[oldsoftie]

14. Trump picks have been in the majority 95% of decisions.

That surprises me as well

[Jon King]

16. The correct decision, and the other kids are free to shun her if they choose.....

She has the absolute right to rant all she wants. The other kids also have the right to decide if they want to shun her for what she said or if they want to be her friends.

Free speech is a right, as are its possible consequences.

[bringthePaine]

17. Thomas once again shines as the utter, unqualified fuckhead he's always been

[Warpy]

18. Sounds like she dropped a few f-bombs, oh horrors

The sweet flower of young womanhood has a potty mouth, er, keyboard.

Unless it was an attack against another person, it should be protected speech, f-bombs and all. Good for her. Fuck the Puritans.

My crazy mother was occasionally very wise. Her worst insult for a prissy woman was "she wouldn't say 'shit' if she had a mouth full of it." She once said that if someone objected to salty language to ignore it. If the objector was that much of a lady (of either sex), s/he wouldn't know what the words meant.

[twin_ghost]

20. However, Making such videos can make you unemployable.

Socail media is a two edged sword.

[Jedi Guy]

22. Yup. Hence the saying, "The Internet is forever."

Though in this case not really, since Snapchat messages aren't permanent. But this is why I avoid social media. Prospective employers will absolutely go digging when considering you for a position.

[LiberatedUSA]

33. So now we want teenagers to be homeless, jobless, poor and broke...

...over things we disagree with that they did? I thought we were supposed to be against life long punishments for kids. Guess it just depends on the kid.

“What, they are just a kid, we shouldn’t make them suffer forever...cause I agree with their cause.”

“What! What did that teen do? Well I don’t agree with their actions, so let’s make sure they have to live off of welfare for the rest of their lives.”

[bucolic_frolic]

21. Meanwhile Florida brings the Thought Police to campus

and empowers students to sue for insufficient conservatism

[AZLD4Candidate]

24. I'm a public school high school social studies teacher. The school overstepped

and I would have supported the student 100% on this, even if it meant my position.

[twodogsbarking]

32. Teach on.

We need ya.

[twodogsbarking]

25. Lenny Bruce tried to warn everyone.

Some were listening.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

31. Court rules for high school cheerleader in First Amendment dispute over Snapchat profanity

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court rules for high school cheerleader in First Amendment dispute over Snapchat profanity

By Amy Howe on June 23 at 12:13 p.m.

A public high school erred when it suspended Brandi Levy from the cheerleading team for posting a vulgar Snapchat, the court ruled Wednesday, but schools still retain some authority to regulate off-campus speech.

{snip}