Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader who cursed on social media

Elias Hubbard
Июня 23, 2021

It has not addressed how school-related speech expressed off-campus can be handled until now.

Levy's case was closely watched to see how the court would handle the free speech rights of some 50 million public school children and the concerns of schools over off-campus and online speech that could amount to a disruption of the school's mission or rise to the level of bullying or threats.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, noting students "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs".

"The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances", it continued. Breyer further argued the school itself has an interest in protecting student free speech, even if that speech is unpopular or frowned upon by the administration. President Joe Biden's administration supported the district in the case, arguing that off-campus student speech deserves broad protection unless it threatens the school community or targets specific individuals, groups or school functions.

Although 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 case arose from Levy's posts, one of which pictured her and a friend with raised middle fingers and included repeated use of a vulgarity to complain that she had been left off the varsity cheerleading squad.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students in a case involving a cheerleader who dropped F-bombs on Snapchat against her school.

Levy, now 18, is a freshman at Bloomsburg University. "Because the board's April 2018 resolution purports to authorize certain school employees to go armed while on duty without also requiring that those employees satisfy the training-or-experience requirement (violates state law)".

The federal district judge found the post wasn't disruptive of school, as did one of three judges of the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals.

"It might be tempting to dismiss B".

Days before the case was heard in the Supreme Court Tinker and Levy sat down with the ACLU and discussed free speech for students in America. It would have been enough, he said, to say that her speech was protected by the First Amendment because it did not disrupt school activities.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion that school officials in Mahanoy got "carried away" in seeking to discipline Levy.

Put limits on when police can enter a home when chasing someone suspected of a misdemeanor.

Other reports by

Discuss This Article