What say you, curtailment of free speech?

[Comshaw]

Synopsis:
A high school student gets turned down for a spot on the varsity cheerleader squad and is relegated to the junior varsity squad. A bit angry she and a friend post a picture (on Snap Chat) to 250 of her friends of them holding up their middle fingers and she using cuss words in a rant about "school" "cheer" "softball" and "everything". Another student see it, takes a screenshot and shows it to her mother who is a coach at the school. Girl who posts the bird and rant gets suspended for it. Student sues school and wins.

Court issued ruling: First Amendment does not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.

A divided 3 judge panel of the 3rd. Circuit Court opted that a blanket ruling such as the one handed down in the case was overly broad and it would have been enough for the court to say the school had limited her speech wrongly in this instance. The school decides to take it to the Supreme Court which will decide this spring whether or not to hear the case.

That's the gist of it.

I agree with the panel of judges. Judge Ambro of that panel declared in a concurring opinion that it was wrong to protect all off campus speech.

In the brief to the Supreme Court the Pennsylvania School Boards Association said:

“Whether a disruptive or harmful tweet is sent from the school cafeteria or after the student has crossed the street on her walk home, it has the same impact,” the brief said. “The 3rd Circuit’s formalistic rule renders schools powerless whenever a hateful message is launched from off campus.”

I tend to agree with that.

So what say you? How do you see it?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cheerleaders-vulgar-message-prompts-first-131037750.html
Comshaw

 

[KeithD]

It was about the school and its students. It wasn't off-campus speech. I don't see making a case out of it, though. I see the snotty students' parents lowering the boom on their daughters for this abuse of social media behavior and inappropriate response to life.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Yeah, gotta say that if the girl was off grounds and on her own time, her free speech should be protected from retribution in the form of a suspension from school and learning.

That's not to say there shouldn't or won't be consequences for the girl in the future. Her tirade can and will affect her life going forward because when you post something on social media, it's forever.

 

[Sean]

.
Yeah, gotta say that if the girl was off grounds and on her own time, her free speech should be protected from retribution in the form of a suspension from school and learning.

That's not to say there shouldn't or won't be consequences for the girl in the future. Her tirade can and will affect her life going forward because when you post something on social media, it's forever.

Your right to free speech does not provide you with immunity to the consequences of that speech.

 

[LLCox]

They are sKoOl children. There is no democracy in school. Their ass belongs to the school until they graduate. Just like the military. If you don't run a school with an iron fist you are fucked. If you don't like it, leave.

 

[Lazaran]

Your right to free speech does not provide you with immunity to the consequences of that speech.

True. However, in the age of social media kids communicate digitally rather than in person like when I was young. The girl posted the picture and rant to 250 of her friends on snap chat. She didn't publicly share it. I said some pretty negative things about my school and teachers off grounds to my friends when I was young. I'm sure glad those private off grounds conversations weren't able to be used against me.

 

[LupusDei]

The actual guilty party (if there any) is the guy who took the screenshot. That's exposure of private correspondence, even if it was sent to fairly large list, snapchat has to be considered private, or I'm outdated on that?

 

[KeithD]

I agree he shares in guilt, but, seriously, posting to 250 kids isn't privately sharing anything. The attitude, though, is separate and should lead to forms of attitude adjustment before these girls become fully formed adults. It directly affected the school, and that was the girls' target, so I don't agree that it's cut off from their relationship with the school and the problems caused or freedoms totally unrelated to the school.

 

[LupusDei]

Okay, to exclude discussion is or isn't specific means of communication private and all the digital weirdness, let's say there was a huge house party, in with the gal did exactly what she did in front of everyone, and it just happened someone had a (big, old, film reel) camera documenting it (note, without clear consent from the party host and unknowingly to our "performer"). The two situations should be seen as functionally and legally identical, imho. In that sense it definitely was off-campus. If she took stage in school sanctioned event (say, dance night) to do that, it would be different matter.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

After school activities are a privilege, kids can be removed from them.

 

[LupusDei]

After school activities are a privilege, kids can be removed from them.

Not the point. The point is can kids trash their school in front of their friends believing they are in private, or should they fear expulsion doing that because some creep may have filmed it.

 

[magicalmoments]

There's a girl who will be a Karen before her time.

 

[Dribble]

Free speech applies to everyone...unless the powers in charge disagrees...and then doesn't. Go figure.

If i can make a video flipping off a school...or teacher...or company...so can a kid

 

[jaF0]

Student did nothing wrong and should be fully vindicated and compensated. School official involved should be terminated from their positions.

 

[bodysong]

"People who claim to be patriots should defend the 1st Amendment as vigorously
as they defend the 2nd."
- Dr. Jonathan Reiner

Dr. James Phillips lost his job, because Presiderp Trump decided to do something that
could hurt the Secret Service agents that Trump exploited. He worked as a real doctor at
the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Dr. Phillips is also the chief
of disaster medicine at George Washington University.

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...zed-trump-parade-works-last-day-at-walter-ree

 

[KeithD]

It has already been said on this thread. The freedom to say something doesn't absolve you from the consequences (especially as they impact on the freedoms and well-being of others) of what you said.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Not the point. The point is can kids trash their school in front of their friends believing they are in private, or should they fear expulsion doing that because some creep may have filmed it.

She wasn't expelled.

 

[RobDownSouth]

School's right to curtail "free speech" ends at the schoolhouse door, imho.

Extracurricular activities can be relegated by a code of conduct.

I recall one instance of a HS basketball cheerleader raising a glass of wine with her family as a New Years' toast. She got suspended from cheerleading team for "underage drinking", even though she was given the glass by her parents, who were in the photograph (ah the many vagaries of Texas state law!). That's the ONE exception to draconian underage drinking laws in Texas...when alcohol is provided by parents and they remain supervised by parents.

She had, however, previouslysigned a "code of conduct" "contract" stating she wouldn't imbibe alcohol so she was in "breach of contract". School rulez trump parental authority. Twas quite a shitfest.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Bong HiTs for Jesus

 

[jaF0]

Again, I don't see where she did anything wrong. She expressed her opinion and someone took offense. I don't even see a claim of measurable harm. School rules should not apply while a student is off school time or supervision.

 

[LupusDei]

She wasn't expelled.

My bad, suspended (whatever it is, I honestly have no idea as nothing even close existed in educational system relevant to me), I should have said "repressed" or some such. Then, level of the penalty is secondary if at all relevant, the principles matter.

Actually, I personally think that knowingly public actions, like doing the same on street corner stage or national television, or publishing it on Facebook without restrictions could conceivably warrant a penalty from the school, but the important nuance for me is that she had a ground to believe she did it in private space. (You have to break EULA of snapchat to save or reproduce the message, and yes, it's easy and happens routinely and even purpose built third party tools to do just that exist, but that's besides the point).

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

My bad, suspended (whatever it is, I honestly have no idea as nothing even close existed in educational system relevant to me), I should have said "repressed" or some such. Then, level of the penalty is secondary if at all relevant, the principles matter.

Actually, I personally think that knowingly public actions, like doing the same on street corner stage or national television, or publishing it on Facebook without restrictions could conceivably warrant a penalty from the school, but the important nuance for me is that she had a ground to believe she did it in private space. (You have to break EULA of snapchat to save or reproduce the message, and yes, it's easy and happens routinely and even purpose built third party tools to do just that exist, but that's besides the point).

She wasn't suspended from school either.

 

[Lazaran]

She wasn't suspended from school either.

The OP said she was suspended so.....

 

[LupusDei]

She wasn't suspended from school either.

What matters is, school penalized her for what she did basically in her bedroom only made known by evidence unlawfully acquired by a third party.

 

[jaF0]

OP is an incomplete synopsis and doesn't really say either way. I'll guess suspended from the cheer squad, which is still a penalty that should not have happened.