ADVERTISEMENT

A teen was suspended from her cheerleading team for cursing on a Snapchat video. Now she’ll be heard by the Supreme Court.

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,133
58,316
113
Fourteen-year-old Brandi Levy was having that kind of day where she just w Fourteen-year-old Brandi Levy was having that kind of day where she just wanted to scream. So she did, in a profanity-laced posting on Snapchat that has, improbably, ended up before the Supreme Court in the most significant case on student speech in more than 50 years.
At issue is whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus. The topic is especially meaningful in a time of remote learning because of the coronavirus pandemic and a rising awareness of the pernicious effects of online bullying.

Arguments are on Wednesday, via telephone because of the pandemic, before a court on which several justices have school-age children or recently did.


The case has its roots in the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Ever since, courts have wrestled with the contours of the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969.

Levy’s case has none of the lofty motives of Tinker and more than its share of teenage angst.



Levy and a friend were at a convenience store in her hometown of Mahonoy City, Pennsylvania, when she took to social media to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.

“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers.

The post was brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year.

Levy, now 18, is finishing her freshman year in college. “I was a 14-year-old kid. I was upset, I was angry. Everyone, every 14-year-old kid speaks like that at one point,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Her parents knew nothing about the Snapchat post until she was suspended, she said. “My parents were more concerned on how I was feeling,” Levy said, adding she wasn’t grounded or otherwise punished for what she did.

Instead, her parents filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional speech rights.

Lower courts agreed and restored her to the cheerleading team. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that “Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.” The court said it was leaving for another day “the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others.”

But the school district, education groups, the Biden administration and anti-bullying organizations said in court filings that the appeals court went too far.

“The First Amendment does not categorically prohibit public schools from disciplining students for speech that occurs off campus,” acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote on behalf of the administration.

Philip Lee, a University of District of Columbia law professor who has written about regulation of cyberbullying, said it makes no sense to draw the line on policing students’ speech at the edge of campus.

“Most cyberbullying content is created off campus on computers, iPads, all kinds of electronic devices,” said Lee, who joined a legal brief with other education scholars that calls for a nuanced approach to regulating student speech in the Internet age.

“But at same time, you don’t want situation where schools are monitoring everyone’s speech at home,” he said.

The Mahanoy Area School District declined to comment on the case, its lawyer, Lisa Blatt, said.

But in her brief for the district, Blatt wrote, “This case is about how schools address the bad days.”

Schools should not be forced “to ignore speech that disrupts the school environment or invades other students’ rights just because students launched that speech from five feet outside the schoolhouse gate,” Blatt wrote.

The school’s approach would allow educators to police what students say round the clock, said Witold “Vic” Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Levy.

“And that is super dangerous. Not only would students like Brandi not be able to express non-threatening, non-harassing bursts of frustration, but it would give schools the possibility of regulating important political and religious speech,” Walczak said.

An unusual alliance of conservative and liberal interest groups has formed behind Levy, all pointing to the dangers of expanding school regulation of students speech.

The Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society urged the court to affirm the appellate ruling because of “the perils of schools regulating off-campus speech. Religious speech, in particular, provokes debate and inflames passions.”

Mary Beth and John Tinker, the siblings at the center of the 1969 case, also are on Levy’s side. Their protest, updated for the digital age, would have included a social media component, perhaps a black armband digitally imposed on their school’s logo, they wrote in a high-court brief.

The outcome proposed by the school district would have left them subject to discipline, the Tinkers wrote.

Walczak, the ACLU lawyer, acknowledged that the “speech here is not the most important in the world. This isn’t political or religious speech.”

But Levy’s outburst has made her a potential successor to the Tinkers and their antiwar protest from the 1960s.

“I’m just trying to prove a point that young students and adults like me shouldn’t be punished for them expressing their own feelings and letting others know how they feel,” Levy said.

 
This would have never happened if social media didn't exist.
And that's the threat here. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the girl then that pretty much eliminates any way for a school to discipline children for behavior that will get them fired when they are employed by a company later on. Now, I would agree that giving an out of school suspension would be too excessive. I think freedom of speech would protect her from being removed from school and harming her education (and it would be counter-productive). However, she wasn't barred from school. She was suspended from doing an extra-curricular activity. That's not essential to her education.
 
. . .Now, I would agree that giving an out of school suspension would be too excessive. I think freedom of speech would protect her from being removed from school and harming her education (and it would be counter-productive). However, she wasn't barred from school. She was suspended from doing an extra-curricular activity. That's not essential to her education.

She was penalized for speech. First Amendment does not make the distinction you are making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
I'm still torn on this case. I believe in freedom of speech, but if you were on her team and saw her talking about something that you love, could she really be a productive member of the team? I see both sides equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
I'm still torn on this case. I believe in freedom of speech, but if you were on her team and saw her talking about something that you love, could she really be a productive member of the team? I see both sides equally.
I mean, if you said that about your job, you’d almost certainly get sent home at the bare minimum for the day right?

I am for free speech, but actions do have consequences and idk if I’d be okay with this girl on the squad if I were the coach or another teammate.
 
“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything" is protected speech; bullying/harassment is not.
This girl wins.

This is where I fall on this case. If she was ranting about the school specifically or naming administrators, coaches or teachers I might feel differently. If she was ranting about specific students/teammates, that would also make this case very different.
 
I'm still torn on this case. I believe in freedom of speech, but if you were on her team and saw her talking about something that you love, could she really be a productive member of the team? I see both sides equally.

I said “football sucks” more than once back in the day during 2-a-days. I probably would have put that on social media at the time if it had existed.
 
“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything" is protected speech; bullying/harassment is not.
This girl wins.
Protected speech where? Not at school. She says this in the classroom and she's facing discipline and no SC would rule otherwise. Her case hinges on what she can say about school and her extracurriculars outside of school. What if she sad "F--- Coach X" who happens to handle the cheerleading squad? No consequences? Can the coach then go online in the middle of the night and post "F--- B. Levy"?

Her comments are likely generic enough that she'll win but there has to be a limit - as there always is. The SC will have a fine line to walk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteSoxClone
She was penalized for speech. First Amendment does not make the distinction you are making.
No, it doesn't make any distinction one way or the other. That is for the court to determine and why we have this whole process. You may end up being right about what the Supreme Court does, but it will be harmful for kids if they handle it that way.
 
No, it doesn't make any distinction one way or the other. That is for the court to determine and why we have this whole process. You may end up being right about what the Supreme Court does, but it will be harmful for kids if they handle it that way.
The SCOTUS isn't there to protect people from themselves.
 
The SCOTUS isn't there to protect people from themselves.
Well, that's your veiwpoint at least. The SCOTUS has taken very different approaches in the past. Although, in this case it wouldn't be protecting people from themselves, it would be whether a public school is being allowed to do the job it was set up to do. Or at least the "teach good citizenship" and "how to be a good employee" parts of it, at any rate. Again, I'm not saying your view is not how the SCOTUS will see it. I'm just saying that it will be harmful to society if they rule in favor of the kid.

I'm also have no idea what decision the SCOTUS will make. I think this is one where it's hard to predict exactly how the judges will rule.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Protected speech where? Not at school. She says this in the classroom and she's facing discipline and no SC would rule otherwise. Her case hinges on what she can say about school and her extracurriculars outside of school. What if she sad "F--- Coach X" who happens to handle the cheerleading squad? No consequences? Can the coach then go online in the middle of the night and post "F--- B. Levy"?

Her comments are likely generic enough that she'll win but there has to be a limit - as there always is. The SC will have a fine line to walk.

Ah - she didn't say that at school. That's sorta the whole issue before the Court.
 
This girl got an early lesson in life that *conditions may apply to that whole Land of the Free thing.

It used to be, “I’m may not agree with the substance of your speech but I support your right to say it.” Now it’s, “I don’t agree with the substance of your speech so you’re not allowed to say it.”

If she threatened anyone or any violence, then the school / authorities have a duty to act. But she was speaking generally, no threats, and outraged about frustrations in life, while away from school, and she was punished. That’s wrong.
 
Well, that's your veiwpoint at least. The SCOTUS has taken very different approaches in the past. Although, in this case it wouldn't be protecting people from themselves, it would be whether a public school is being allowed to do the job it was set up to do. Or at least the "teach good citizenship" and "how to be a good employee" parts of it, at any rate. Again, I'm not saying your view is not how the SCOTUS will see it. I'm just saying that it will be harmful to society if they rule in favor of the kid.

I'm also have no idea what decision the SCOTUS will make. I think this is one where it's hard to predict exactly how the judges will rule.
My comment was based on your post saying the girl might regret this later when she goes to get a job. Free speech doesn't harm society. Government control of speech harms society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Her parents knew nothing about the Snapchat post until she was suspended, she said. “My parents were more concerned on how I was feeling,” Levy said, adding she wasn’t grounded or otherwise punished for what she did.

Here is part of the issue in this ordeal.

As I said the last time this was discussed, if there was a student code of conduct outlined in the Athletic Handbook, the school is well within their rights to suspend her from extracurricular activities. Our local school has that language in the athletic handbook and my kids (who are in band) have similar language in the marching band handbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Here is part of the issue in this ordeal.

As I said the last time this was discussed, if there was a student code of conduct outlined in the Athletic Handbook, the school is well within their rights to suspend her from extracurricular activities. Our local school has that language in the athletic handbook and my kids (who are in band) have similar language in the marching band handbook.

High school athletic handbook trumps US Constitution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
We regulate speech all the time. Freedom of speech, doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Is speech free if there are consequences? This speech was outside of school grounds, and not made during the school activity.
 
Is speech free if there are consequences?
Depends on the situation. The coach could've just cut her in response to her general attitude and willingness to be part of the team.

This speech was outside of school grounds, and not made during the school activity.
So? Again, my kids participate in extracurriculars that have conduct rules when you are away from school grounds and not involved in the activity.
 
Depends on the situation. The coach could've just cut her in response to her general attitude and willingness to be part of the team.


So? Again, my kids participate in extracurriculars that have conduct rules when you are away from school grounds and not involved in the activity.
Yup, the coach could have cut the girl, for not being good enough. That's not what happened.

Do any of those conduct rules specify what your kids can't say when they aren't at school?
 
My comment was based on your post saying the girl might regret this later when she goes to get a job. Free speech doesn't harm society. Government control of speech harms society.
I didn't say that at all. I said that her behavior could get her fired from a job in the future. Not this particular incident, but if she thinks she can just spout off on social media saying whatever the hell she wants and then claim free speech, she's in for a world of hurt. I can Google probably hundreds of examples of people getting fired over things they posted on social media.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
Yup, the coach could have cut the girl, for not being good enough. That's not what happened.

Do any of those conduct rules specify what your kids can't say when they aren't at school?
Most schools have some sort of "citizenship" clause in their policies for situations like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatsup13579er
Kids get suspended from extracurriculars all the time for things that happen away from school. Having your picture taken at a party when minors are drinking is probably the biggest one. Her conduct would likely fall under some general conduct policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BioHawk
Kids get suspended from extracurriculars all the time for things that happen away from school. Having your picture taken at a party when minors are drinking is probably the biggest one. Her conduct would likely fall under some general conduct policy.

The whole issue is - she was punished for "speech."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
I didn't say that at all. I said that her behavior could get her fired from a job in the future. Not this particular incident, but if she thinks she can just spout off on social media saying whatever the hell she wants and then claim free speech, she's in for a world of hurt. I can Google probably hundreds of examples of people getting fired over things they posted on social media.
Free speech only applies to government, not private employers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Free speech only applies to government, not private employers.
Part of the job of schools is to prepare kids to be proper citizens. Do we want schools to be able to properly do this or not? Again, she wasn't denied rights. She wasn't kicked out of school and denied an education. She was prevented from being on an extra-curricular team that she was not guaranteed a spot on anyway.
 
Seriously? You think that because of the 1st amendment, people can't be held accountable for their conduct?

Conduct generally isn't speech. Underage drinking is conduct, not speech, and can be regulated. You'e getting conduct and speech mixed up. Conduct - such as kneeling for the National Anthem - can be speech. But generally, high school conduct codes don't impinge on speech.
 
Is speech free if there are consequences? This speech was outside of school grounds, and not made during the school activity.

Yes.

there are always consequences to everything we say and do. You can say almost anything you want really, but always expect consequences. Many are normally slight, like being ridiculed for saying something dumb or making a fool of yourself. This girl got kicked off the cheer squad. She wasn’t suspended or kicked out of school. I’m not positive this was totally right, but I’m not sure it’s not either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDallasRuss
Examples? What speech occuring outside of school is banned?

It is expected that all athletes will meet better than minimum standards in conduct at all times. An athlete may be suspended from participation during the period of time when such an infraction may have a detrimental effect upon the image of other athletes at High School.

Any athlete acting in a manner that brings embarrassment or shame to themselves and/or the school, or that negatively impacts the reputation of themselves or the school is strictly prohibited. This includes social media posts, comments, and pictures. Examples of such conduct include any illegal activity; any non-illegal activity that is lewd, vulgar, obscene, indecent, or that portrays sexual conduct done in a manner whereby the community learns of such activity; involvement in a physical altercation; destruction of property (school property or personal property); or any activity that degrades, demeans, or disparages any coach, activity sponsor, school official, or student.

This is pretty stock language in handbooks in our area.
 
ADVERTISEMENT