The Times Australia
The Times World News

.

Schools must act carefully on students' off-campus speech, Supreme Court rules

  • Written by Katy Harriger, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

For decades, U.S. courts have ruled that public school students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate[1],” as the Supreme Court said in 1968.

In that case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the justices held that high school students who were suspended for protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school were protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

The standard the court set then, which has been narrowed and focused over the years, was that schools could only punish students for speech that “materially and substantially” disrupted the educational mission of the school. In several subsequent cases, about a student campaign speech full of sexual innuendo[2], a school newspaper article on teen pregnancy[3] and a student-created sign saying “Bong Hits for Jesus[4]”, the Supreme Court evaluated speech or expression that took place on campus or at a school-sponsored event. And in every case, the justices deferred to school authorities on their judgment of what disrupted their educational mission.

A case the court took up this year provided an opportunity for a wider view, specifically about what protections students might have for speech they engage in off-campus and away from school events[5], including online.

School districts and officials were anxious for guidance[6] about the extent to which they can police social media speech[7] by their students, especially with heightened concern about cyberbullying and threats of school shootings.

Free speech advocates were worried about the extent to which schools can extend their reach and control over students[8] outside of school grounds and hours, especially given the amount of time teens spend on social media.

The June 23, 2021, decision in that case, Mahanoy v. B.L.[9], is both a win and a loss for both sides. The 8-1 ruling, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, did not give either side the clear rules they may have wanted[10].

It says schools are not forbidden from disciplining students in cases of severe harassment and cyberbullying that happen outside school. But it does warn schools that their attempts to regulate off-campus speech will be treated with less deference than they would get when addressing events on campus.

An elderly man with wire-rimmed glasses in a Supreme Court black robe. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion in the case, saying a ‘school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention’ in student speech made off campus or outside school programs. Pool/Associated Press[11]

A quick synopsis

The case centered on Brandi Levy, who was a high school sophomore in 2017 when she failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at Mahanoy Area High School. She did make the junior varsity team, but expressed her disappointment at not making the top squad through a crude Snapchat post[12] involving raised middle fingers and multiple uses of the F-word.

She made the post over the weekend, from a location outside the school campus. Several members of the cheerleading squad saw the post and reported it to officials, who suspended her from cheerleading for violating team-conduct rules. Levy’s parents sued on her behalf, arguing under the First Amendment that the team rules were overbroad and unconstitutionally vague[13], and that the school had no authority over her off campus speech.

The federal district court that first heard the case[14] concluded that Levy’s post did not create the sort of substantial disruption to education that the Tinker ruling’s standard demanded. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit[15] held that Levy’s speech happened off campus and outside a school-sponsored event, so Tinker’s standard didn’t apply.

The school district appealed to the Supreme Court, noting that the appeals court ruling conflicted with other rulings around the country that had applied the Tinker precedent to off-campus speech.

The justices’ review

The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts that the school had violated Levy’s First Amendment rights. But it disagreed with the appeals court’s reasoning that the Tinker case would not apply to off-campus speech.

In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the court “did not believe the special characteristics[16] that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus.” At minimum, the ruling explains, schools must have the authority to regulate bullying, harassment, threats directed at staff or students, online learning and assignments and cybersecurity for school systems.

But the court also expressed reluctance to let schools very broadly regulate students’ off-campus speech, fearing the effect could be severe limits on student speech any time of day or night, in any location.

Instead, the justices said courts should be “more skeptical[17]” of schools’ attempts to regulate off-campus speech than when handling on-campus expression.

The ruling also reminded schools of their obligation to protect the expression of unpopular opinion. Schools are “the nurseries of democracy[18],” Breyer wrote, and have an obligation to teach their students about the importance of free speech.

As a result of this reasoning, the court found that Levy’s Snapchat post was protected under the First Amendment. It was not substantially disruptive to the school environment, wasn’t targeted at anyone in particular, was not obscene, and did not constitute “fighting words” or incitement to violence.

Breyer did observe that Levy’s word choice was vulgar and perhaps juvenile in tone, but said “sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary[19].”

As a result of the ruling, students don’t lose their rights when they enter through the schoolhouse gate – but neither do school officials lose all of their disciplinary power once students leave.

[Understand what’s going on in Washington. Sign up for The Conversation’s Politics Weekly[20].]

Read more https://theconversation.com/schools-must-act-carefully-on-students-off-campus-speech-supreme-court-rules-163347

Times Magazine

DIY Is In: How Aussie Parents Are Redefining Birthday Parties

When planning his daughter’s birthday, Rich opted for a DIY approach, inspired by her love for drawing maps and giving clues. Their weekend tradition of hiding treats at home sparked the idea, and with a pirate ship playground already chosen as t...

When Touchscreens Turn Temperamental: What to Do Before You Panic

When your touchscreen starts acting up, ignoring taps, registering phantom touches, or freezing entirely, it can feel like your entire setup is falling apart. Before you rush to replace the device, it’s worth taking a deep breath and exploring what c...

Why Social Media Marketing Matters for Businesses in Australia

Today social media is a big part of daily life. All over Australia people use Facebook, Instagram, TikTok , LinkedIn and Twitter to stay connected, share updates and find new ideas. For businesses this means a great chance to reach new customers and...

Building an AI-First Culture in Your Company

AI isn't just something to think about anymore - it's becoming part of how we live and work, whether we like it or not. At the office, it definitely helps us move faster. But here's the thing: just using tools like ChatGPT or plugging AI into your wo...

Data Management Isn't Just About Tech—Here’s Why It’s a Human Problem Too

Photo by Kevin Kuby Manuel O. Diaz Jr.We live in a world drowning in data. Every click, swipe, medical scan, and financial transaction generates information, so much that managing it all has become one of the biggest challenges of our digital age. Bu...

Headless CMS in Digital Twins and 3D Product Experiences

Image by freepik As the metaverse becomes more advanced and accessible, it's clear that multiple sectors will use digital twins and 3D product experiences to visualize, connect, and streamline efforts better. A digital twin is a virtual replica of ...

The Times Features

How to Choose a Cosmetic Clinic That Aligns With Your Aesthetic Goals

Clinics that align with your goals prioritise subtlety, safety, and client input Strong results come from experience, not trends or treatment bundles A proper consultation fe...

7 Non-Invasive Options That Can Subtly Enhance Your Features

Non-invasive treatments can refresh your appearance with minimal downtime Options range from anti-wrinkle treatments to advanced skin therapies Many results appear gradually ...

What is creatine? What does the science say about its claims to build muscle and boost brain health?

If you’ve walked down the wellness aisle at your local supermarket recently, or scrolled the latest wellness trends on social media, you’ve likely heard about creatine. Creati...

Whole House Water Filters: Essential or Optional for Australian Homes?

Access to clean, safe water is something most Australians take for granted—but the reality can be more complex. Our country’s unique climate, frequent droughts, and occasional ...

How Businesses Turn Data into Actionable Insights

In today's digital landscape, businesses are drowning in data yet thirsting for meaningful direction. The challenge isn't collecting information—it's knowing how to turn data i...

Why Mobile Allied Therapy Services Are Essential in Post-Hospital Recovery

Mobile allied health services matter more than ever under recent NDIA travel funding cuts. A quiet but critical shift is unfolding in Australia’s healthcare landscape. Mobile all...