Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's Next Big Free Speech Showdown

May public schools punish students for off-campus social media posts?

|

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court forbade public school officials from punishing students for exercising their First Amendment rights on school grounds unless the speech at issue "would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline and in the operation of the school." In the coming months, the Court will hear arguments in a new case that asks whether that rule should be interpreted to allow school officials to punish students for certain off-campus social media posts.

The case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. originated in 2017 when a then-high school freshman and junior varsity cheerleading team member took to the social media site Snapchat in order to complain about her failure to make the varsity cheerleading squad. The student—known by the initials B.L. in court filings because she is a minor—posted a picture of herself and one of her friends with their middle fingers raised. The post went up on a Saturday. Its accompanying text read "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything."

That post soon came to the attention of a cheerleading coach, which led to B.L.'s suspension from the team. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the school may discipline her for such speech without running afoul of the First Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the school was prohibited from dishing out such punishment for such constitutionally protected speech. "Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech—that is, speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school's imprimatur," the appeals court held.

The Mahanoy Area School District wants SCOTUS to reverse that ruling. Social media and related new technology act "as a megaphone for off-campus speech, ensuring that it reverberates throughout the classroom and commands the school's attention," the school and its lawyers told the justices. But thanks to the 3rd Circuit, school officials have been left with no authority "to discipline students for off-campus speech, no matter how obvious it is that the speech is directed at the school and will significantly disrupt the school environment."

B.L. and her lawyers counter that the case is a matter-and-shut application of the First Amendment. "In a weekend comment in an evanescent Snapchat message," they told the justices, "B.L. swore in expressing her disappointment at not making the varsity team to her friends. The notion that a school can discipline a student for that kind of spontaneous, non-threatening, non-harassing expression is contrary to our First Amendment tradition, and finds no support in this Court's student speech cases."

Oral arguments in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. have not yet been scheduled.

NEXT: Democrats Have No Excuse Not to Reform the Criminal Justice System

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The notion that a school can discipline a student for that kind of spontaneous, non-threatening, non-harassing expression is contrary to our First Amendment tradition, and finds no support in this Court’s student speech cases.

    So you are admitting that a school does have the right to punish speech that is non-spontaneous, threatening or harassing even if that speech takes place outside of the school or the school’s jurisdiction? I’m not sure you understand the concept of free speech.

    Sounds to me like we’ve already established what sort of woman you are, now we’re just haggling over the price.

    1. He’s admitting that that is what courts have indicated, at least.

      1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however BNG my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……..READ MORE

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take sfe a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page……..MORE READ

    3. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regularYGij office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page……Visit……….Home Profit System

      1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however JTU my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

        Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HARE

  2. No. If you want to do that, fine, be a private school.

    1. I note that at our local high school, cheerleaders and poms sign an additional code of conduct, with the penalty of being suspended or kicked off those teams. The theory is these girls are representing the school.
      Silly stuff and mostly related to behavior while in uniform, but there is a morality catch all clause.
      In Maryland, its legal to drink alcohol, if underage, with the supervision of your parent(s). However, if you are on a varsity sport, any amount of alcohol is grounds to get kicked off the team.

      Of course, this all depends on the number of yards per carry you get.

      1. These days, one has to pay fees for extracurricular activities (football, cheer, swim, etc.) and also sign a waiver of civil rights too? And be held to standards that appointed government bureaucrats, police and teachers, represented by collective bargaining unions, are not held to, as adults? We ask too much of children. Maybe corporal punishment was a better option in my day…

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person say join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
          COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

  3. Don’t send your kids to public school and these questions go away…

    1. Making money online more than 100$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18,376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info… >>>>>>>USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

  4. Sure, let the kids know the left wing shithouse they will eventually grow up and join.

  5. Seems like the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case would be relevant: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-278

    Tl;DR: Students only get some of the 1A protection the rest of us get, we’re not sure what kinds of things they aren’t allowed to say but we’ll know it when we see it.

    1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. say Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
      COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

  6. How bout we get the Freedom of assembly back first. Thanks.

  7. So in the free speech Olympics, what do you make of this?

    Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign

    Defendant Unlawfully Used Social Media to Deprive Individuals of Their Right to Vote

    BROOKLYN, NY – A criminal complaint was unsealed today in federal court in Brooklyn charging Douglass Mackey, also known as “Ricky Vaughn,” with conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 United States Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote. Mackey was arrested this morning in West Palm Beach, Florida and will make his initial appearance via videoconference today before United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart at the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach.

    1. Neither Reason nor SCOTUS are ever going to touch this case because this particular memelord did a racism, or something.

      1. He did more than “do a racism”. He’s a pretty vile anti-Semitic alt-right asshole.

        https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-white-nationalist-troll-ricky-vaughn_n_5ac53167e4b09ef3b2432627

        1. Oh, I forgot.

          Free speech is only for saints.

          1. Nope. But let’s be clear who you’re talking about here.

            1. Because that’s definitely a factor in whether the speech is protected under the First Amendment.

              It’s not.

        2. Well if Huffpost says it it MUST be true

    2. Speech in the pursuit of fraud is not merely a free speech issue.

      If we start from the premise that a vote is an object of value, then what Mackey was doing was trying to steal people’s votes using memes with a type of forgery that made them look more ‘official’.

      1. “If we start from the premise that a vote is an object of value …”

        No. We are not going to start there, because it’s bullshit. This asshole stole people’s votes about as much as Putin did … which is to say, not at all.

        1. No, what he did was, he told people that they could “text their votes” to him, and that would be in lieu of voting in person. That’s a lie, and that’s fraud. Moreover he did it with an image that made it look like it was sponsored by Hillary’s campaign, which was also a fraud. So this is different than censoring someone because you don’t like what they said.

          1. And if he told them they could vote by telepathy, in lieu of voting in person, and people “transmitted” their votes to him using only their brain waves, that would also have been a lie …. and fraud.

            “So this is different than censoring someone because you don’t like what they said.”

            No, it’s not. And yes, that’s exactly what it is.

            1. Except that telepathy is imaginary and texting is real.

              So you’re really going to die on the hill of “speech in pursuit of a fraud should be legal” then.

              1. “Except that telepathy is imaginary ….”

                Says you. This dumbass over here believed it, and thought he voted. What about him?

                1. Says you.

                  Says everyone with a functioning brain cell. This false equivalency is stupid.

                  You cannot have a well-functioning marketplace in anything, let alone voting, if fraud goes unpunished.

                  1. “You cannot have a well-functioning marketplace in anything, let alone voting, if fraud goes unpunished.”

                    You cannot have a functioning society if speech is prohibited based on your subjective assessments of human stupidity.

                    1. It’s not the speech per se that is the issue. IT’S THE FRAUD. That is what you are intentionally not getting.

                    2. A vote is not a tangible thing. That is what you are not getting, and you’re not getting it because you’re dumb. I don’t think you are smart enough to lie.

                    3. A vote is a thing of value. It can be bought and sold, right? (It’s illegal to do so, but it’s possible to do.) How can something without value be bought and sold?

                    4. You cannot steal a vote, Jeff.

                      Paying someone to vote a particular way is not “stealing” a vote, no matter how you slice it.

                      You can steal a ballot, sure. But, you cannot steal a vote.

                      Once you accept the notion of “stealing” votes, you inevitably end up in an arbitrary realm where all speech can be criminalized as a prelude to maintaining voter “integrity.”

                      The illegal part about paying someone to vote is the payment, not the vote.

                    5. How can something without value be bought and sold?

                      Because value is subjective. Not even neo-Marxists are stupid enough to cling to the labor theory of value anymore.

                      Also, aren’t you one of the abject fucking retards around here constantly railing against intellectual property because ideas are intangible?

                  2. You cannot have a well-functioning marketplace in anything, let alone voting, if fraud goes unpunished.

                    Hey cytotoxic, wasn’t it you telling us every single day for over a month, 8-16 hours per day, on every article published at Reason.com that investigating vote fraud was a waste of time?

                  3. Anyone with a functioning brain cell knows that you can’t vote by telepathy OR by text and would have ignored or chuckled at this meme.

        2. Yes. Maybe if a voter is too stupid to not know that they can’t vote via text they ought not be voting at all.

          1. Demoralizing voters by calling them stupid deprives them of their right to vote. What if they believe you? What if some poor sap gives up on himself, having come to the conclusion that he is too stupid to vote? That’s a tenner for you, Mr. Sarcasm.

          2. So fraud is okay if the defrauded are stupid?

            1. So speech is illegal if stupid people believe it?

              1. Let’s suppose I tell you, “Send me $100 and I will deliver a car to you.” You send me $100, but I don’t deliver a car. If I’m arrested and punished, it won’t be for my speech, but for the fraudulent transaction that took place. That is what’s going on here. I have the liberty to engage in free speech. I don’t have the liberty to defraud people.

                1. There was no fraudulent transaction here. There was no money exchanged.

                  Your false equivalency is stupid, but you already knew that.

                  1. The fraud was the false claim that a person could vote by text, along with an official-like looking insignia from the Hillary campaign. He was trying to steal people’s votes for Hillary.

                    1. A vote is not a tangible thing. The claim that somebody can vote by text is just as false as the claim that somebody can vote by telepathy. A vote cannot be stolen.

                      Keep digging that hole, and dig it deep. When you hit bottom, stand there and wait for rain.

                    2. I claim I am the Prince of Africa. I have an official looking email and ask you to email me your Mastercard information and I will use it to secure you a post in my cabinet. You email me that information but I don’t do anything with it. No strange charges to my card, no post in your cabinet.
                      Is that fraud?

                    3. *your card, my cabinet

                    4. The fraud was the false claim that a person could vote by text

                      You do understand that utterly undermines your own argument, right you colossally retarded piece of shit?

                      If I’m arrested and punished, it won’t be for my speech, but for the fraudulent transaction that took place.

                      Which transaction took place that constituted the fraud, distinct from the speech, in this case?

              2. Suppose a voter views a late night show and the host, in their monologue, takes a candidate’s words and twists them to make a joke. Suppose any thinking person would think that it was a joke and doesn’t seriously believe that what was quoted was accurate and in context.

                But, there’s that one stupid person who doesn’t get the joke and changes their vote or declines to vote at all because they are now misinformed on the candidate’s views.

                Is the host guilty of fraud?

                I can’t imagine that anyone would actually believe they could vote by text and I might will text someone, as a joke, that they can text their vote to me and I cast their ballot for them (and not one of my friends would think that was anything but a joke).

            2. Not my point.
              If someone whose valuable vote does not understand the process to secure the value of that vote perhaps they should not be voting at all.
              Because they are stupid does not make the twitter post fraud. Nothing is stolen. The voter could still vote and had their vote.

              1. The other major point is that prosecuting someone for posting memes opens the door to an infinite variety of arbitrary prosecutions, including the prosecution of people for the “crime” of attempting to persuade others.

                “Voting is pointless. Our leaders ignore us anyway. Stay home! Don’t vote!”

                Assume a voter reads the above, and is persuaded that voting truly is pointless and, by virtue of that belief, decides to abstain from voting. Then, years later, that person changes their mind and expresses regret about throwing away their vote. The poster is then indicted.

                What is the difference?

                1. The difference is, in this particular campaign, it was not general advocacy about the merits of voting or the lack thereof, but a fraudulent promise to deliver specific individuals’ votes to a specific candidate.

                  In your example, a potential voter who is persuaded by the statement “don’t vote!” KNOWS that he/she is specifically choosing not to spend that valuable vote. That person remains fully in possession of that vote and decides accordingly.

                  In the situation with Mackey, a potential voter believes that he/she is spending that valuable vote by submitting a text, and therefore believes FALSELY that he/she has already voted. It really is no different than literal theft of a paper ballot before it is counted.

                  1. When you have to draw distinctions between what a voter should or should not be permitted to believe about the truth of any particular political statement, you invariably have to make choices about what speech you think is acceptable, and what speech is not acceptable.

                    You are letting your perceptions about the mental impressions of others people dictate the legality of another person’s speech.

                    If you don’t see a problem with that, you may just be an authoritarian douche.

                  2. Again. I reiterate my statement. If the person doesn’t know HOW to vote, perhaps they should not be voting. Ignorance is not an excuse under the law and it isn’t here either.
                    If I’m driving down the road and all the speed limit signs say 30 but someone paints one to read 80 and I go 80 do I get a ticket? Yes, because I’m stupid.

                  3. It really is no different than literal theft of a paper ballot before it is counted.

                    It really is utterly and completely different than the literal theft of a paper ballot before it is counted. Which ironically enough, you dismissed and insisted should never be investigated or prosecuted up until a few days ago. An easy way to tell is because you had to create an analogy. You don’t need to analogize two things that are literally identical.

              2. Nothing is stolen. The voter could still vote and had their vote.

                The defrauded voter does not know this, though. From the defrauded voter’s point of view, he/she voted “by text” and if that person had tried to vote in-person, that person would believe that he/she was breaking the law. That is the con.

                Take the electronic aspect out of it for a moment. Suppose I show up at your house, claiming to be an agent of Hillary’s/Trump’s/JoJo’s campaign and promise to deliver your vote to the candidate of your choice if you just initial this one document. Of course I do no such thing, but YOU believe that you’ve just voted and so what you THINK has happened is that you have spent your valuable vote already. THAT is the fraud.

                1. The guy voting by telepathy does not know his vote isn’t getting to the board of elections, though.

                2. //Take the electronic aspect out of it for a moment. Suppose I show up at your house, claiming to be an agent of Hillary’s/Trump’s/JoJo’s campaign and promise to deliver your vote to the candidate of your choice if you just initial this one document. Of course I do no such thing, but YOU believe that you’ve just voted and so what you THINK has happened is that you have spent your valuable vote already. THAT is the fraud.//

                  The fact that you have to keep creating different hypothetical scenarios to justify the criminalization of pure speech in the absence of any conduct warranting criminalization means that you cannot defend prosecution on the facts as they are. In your hypothetical, the fraudster is actually taking somebody’s ballot and discarding it. That is not what this particular meme lord is being indicted for at all.

                3. Take the electronic aspect out of it for a moment.

                  You can’t. Because that is the part that invalidates the fraud. You can’t vote by text. If they believe they voted by text than that is on them. They do not understand how to vote. Their voting right does not disappear because they ‘believe’ they voted by text. If they understood how to vote, they can still vote. You have not taken their vote only preyed on their naivete.

                  Going to someone’s house and taking their actual ballot and telling them you are delivering it IS fraud. That ballot is a legitimate voting device. Taking it is wrong. The analogy is wrong.

                4. if that person had tried to vote in-person, that person would believe that he/she was breaking the law. That is the con.

                  Ha. If that person had tried to vote in-person, that person would pleasantly discover that yes, they could vote. What they ‘believe’ at that point would make no difference. Perhaps at that point the helpful pollster would explain to them that they could not vote by text and yes they can vote in person.

                  If the belief that they are breaking the law keeps them from the poll then, again, the onus is on them to understand how voting works. Naive or stupid is not an excuse and is not fraud. There is no con.

            3. Same memes had Trump’s name as well.

              those people, mind you, are not being investigated.

              Any idea why?

              1. I don’t care about your whataboutisms. They are boring and trite. Try discussing the issue at hand, if you can.

                1. Unequal treatment of the same situation by the same authorities is not “whataboutism” but evidence that legal standards are being applied arbitrarily to punish political opponents.

                  Stop being an idiot.

                  1. Stop being an idiot.

                    Ask the sun not to shine.

            4. So fraud is okay if the defrauded are stupid?

              You literally just said exactly that when faced with the example of someone who was dumb enough to believe they could vote telepathically.

      2. Why is it all about Trump and the election? Give it up…

  8. The Supreme Court will rule that such speech is punishable, because …. yada yada … schools … no freedom … kids … social cohesion … tranny bathrooms … listen to authority … sedition is born from unchecked sarcasm, so we should stomp it out now and forever … while they’re still young, and stupid.

  9. Well the thing is, what you say on social media is public knowledge. No amount of “thou shalt not judge students by what they post in public forums” is going to work.

    A friend of mine was going to be a teacher. Was in his “fifth” year, months within getting his credentials. It’s what he wanted to do all his life. Then he posted a rant to Facebook with a few “fucks” in it. He was instantly blackballed. I know this because other teacher friends told me he had been blackballed. One bad post still haunts him to this day.

    It’s not fair, but reality is not fair. No law would prevent the blackballing because the blackballing is not official, not documented, it’s just nods and winks on the side. The law can’t deal with that.

    Ditto for students who are assholes online. No amount of “the government can’t do that” is going to help with the assholery is public. Schools can’t expel them, but it definitely is on their permanent record because anything anyone says in on their defacto permanent record. It will affect their scholarships and admissions and employment.

    1. “It’s not fair, but reality is not fair. No law would prevent the blackballing because the blackballing is not official, not documented, it’s just nods and winks on the side. The law can’t deal with that.”

      Yea, of course. Tell that to every single fucking anti-discrimination statute in existence.

      We’re all listening.

    2. Yeah, the new teacher from the Big U started at our HS in 1977 – she had a dress that exposed her knees and was sent home to change. The John Birch Society held meetings in our Iowa school with required attendance by the teaching staff.

    3. Ditto for students who are assholes online. No amount of “the government can’t do that” is going to help with the assholery is public. Schools can’t expel them

      That’s the entire question at issue here you stupid fucking cunt. Not students being “blackballed” by private actors. Also your fabricated “friend” would have grounds for an employment lawsuit if a public school discriminated against him based on constitutionally protected speech. Your lies might be at least facially passable if you had the wherewithal to check a wikipedia summary, or the intelligence to comprehend it.

  10. What the heck does “matter-and-shut” mean?

  11. When did getting dropped from the team constitute a ‘punishment’? There is no right to be on a cheerleading team.

    If you say or do stupid shit, others will respond in kind. There is no such thing as “freedom from consequence”.

    1. Build your own cheerleading squad, clingers.

      1. So you should have total free speech rights to do or say whatever you like, but I should *not* have free speech rights to respond to what you say? Moreover, I should *not* have free association rights to choose to associate, or not associate, with you based on your speech?

        How does this liberty thing work, anyway?

        1. The same way it works when a policy of hiring niggers lands you in hot water with the EEOC.

          1. *Firing

            1. So what exactly are you demanding here? You should have the right to do or say whatever you like without consequence?

              1. I’m demanding that people should have the right to say whatever they want without the GOVERNMENT punishing them.

                Seems like you missed the entire point that we are talking about a public school here.

            2. If I don’t like your speech, I may call your employer and tell your employer about your speech. Should I not be permitted to do that?

              1. See above.

              2. You should absolutely be allowed to call my employer and tell them whatever you’d like. You’re also allowed to remain the pathetic fascist faggot you are.

              3. Yes, we know you’re a cancel-culture loving piece of snitching shit, cycotoxic. You probably don’t realize this because you’re a Canadian and have no training, experience, or even passing familiarity with American legal concepts, but the government has a completely different set of obligations than a private employer. And even private employers do not have the right to freely associate as a result of anti-discrimination laws that you vehemently support. If I have to bake your faggot wedding cake or hire you because of your skin color in order to operate my private business that never seen a whiff of public money, then you goddamn better believe you can’t get rid of a student at a PUBLIC FUCKING INSTITUTION for constitutionally-protected speech. This is the reason we codified the 1A, so we wouldn’t become fascist pieces of shit arbitrarily censoring people like you commonwealth nut huggers.

  12. “as a megaphone for off-campus speech, ensuring that it reverberates throughout the classroom and commands the school’s attention,”

    All speech does this. Not a valid argument to censor and punish.

    1. Yep.

      Social media and related new technology act “as a megaphone for off-campus speech, ensuring that it reverberates throughout the classroom and commands the school’s attention,” the school and its lawyers told the justices.

      And what does “commands the school’s attention” mean, exactly?

      1. It means they heard about it and didn’t like it.

  13. How do these cases not get dismissed with summary judgment at the first level they appear?

    1. it was already shot down but the school does not like to be schooled and has an unlimited lawyer budget to prove they can’t be schooled.

    2. The first amendment isn’t a SuperPrecedent like Roe v. Wade, so you can take as many bites at the apple as you want and we have to adjudicate every case as if it were a brand new experience.

  14. On a related note, it looks like Joe the Rapist is forming a “bipartisan commission” to figure out if he’s likely to get away with packing the court.

    If he actually pulls that shit, we’ll get the second constitutional convention, and the Democrats will NOT like the results.

    -jcr

    1. Look, when you already have an angry mob ready to storm the capitol, and your defense against them is a military that you don’t like, and doesn’t like you, you aren’t exactly off to an auspicious start.

      Given that the new administration seems to have no compunctions against adding provocation upon provocation, I’ll give it a year before the whole shit-show goes down in flames.

      1. The Left is making it’s Big Move, but it may reach too far too quickly. Two steps forward, one step back, comrades. They had the Trump step back and now they want their steps forward. More than two steps may be too many. Their utter disdain for and dismissal of the Average Joe may backfire. Time will tell.

        1. You people are so fucking stupid. “Surely the proles will never support Lenin’s overreach!” It doesn’t matter one fucking bit what the proles will or won’t support. We’re at the purges and gulags stage here, you’re just too fucking dumb to realize it.

  15. This has already been settled in the Supreme Court.

    There is a very interesting supreme court case that deals with the rights of a company that owns a town square to limit speech. Marsh vs Alabama. The ruling was that a company that owned a company town could not limit speech in that town. Here is a link to the ruling.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

    “ The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

    In other words, we carry our rights onto private property and everywhere we go.

    If you run a business like a school which is open for the general public, students, you are obliged to respect ALL their human rights.

  16. In Real English, one doesn’t say “the U.S. Supreme Court forbade public school officials from punishing students ….” but instead “the U.S. Supreme Court forbade public school officials to punish students ….” Even the Bible gets this right!

    1. Sounds like a racist construct.

  17. B.L. and her lawyers counter that the case is a matter-and-shut application of the First Amendment.
    The current Justices have no guts and are afraid for their own welfare. Don’t count on anything.
    Reason had a post about Trump abusing Presidential power. King Biden, sovereign ruler of the United States has signed 37 Presidential Decrees in the first week, and not one word on that.
    Also check out the Democrats plan for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER FEDERAL ELECTION FROM THE STATES.
    I mean what could go wrong with that?
    Reason – Libertarians for a Leftist Socialist Dictatorship.

    Have you heard about H.R. 1? If not, I would urge you to read the text of the bill immediately. It is called the “For The People Act”, and you can find it right here.
    The text of this bill specifically states that Congress has the “ultimate supervisory power over federal elections”, but of course anyone that is familiar with what the U.S. Constitution actually says knows that this is not true. The states are supposed to have final authority over their own election laws, and H.R. 1 is a blatant attempt to usurp that authority. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the riot at the U.S. Capitol, there are very few politicians in Washington that still have a willingness to stand up for election integrity. H.R. 1 is almost certainly going to get through the House of Representatives, and it has a really good chance of getting through the Senate as well.
    If this legislation is approved, it will fundamentally change the nature of our federal elections forever.
    And not in a good way.
    I do not think that Tucker Carlson was exaggerating by very much at all when he warned that “Democrats will control the federal government for decades” if H.R. 1 becomes law…

    1. the democrats will only control the federal government until there is a civil war. or we are attacked again.

  18. The First Amendment and Bill of Rights were designed to “restrain” government authority or limited government. In this case the child is the “citizen” and the public school official is the “government entity”. The First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular and even offensive speech.

    Since adults have been virtually silent for 20 years on constitutional abuses, maybe the next generation can uphold the U.S. Constitution? We shouldn’t let public school officials indoctrinate our kids, having them embracing constitutionally subversive authoritarianism. School officials should be teaching American Civics to our kids, not violating the U.S. Constitution.

    1. The last 20 years of constitutional abuse has resulted in an environment of apathy and brainwashing.

      The youth don’t know what they’re missing. They don’t know why velvet chains are dangerous.

      Our responsibility to put things right ends when we die.

  19. Violating our 1a rights with censorship and persecution has spread across social media like wildfire. Hell, they even censored the president of the United States.

    When I heard about Epoch, ostensibly a free speech platform, I gave it a few weeks.

    I noticed fluctuations in comments that indicated algorithms to surreptitiously and selectively display comments to users to control the narrative.

    Eventually I found out their real criteria for outright censorship. I provided irrefutable evidence that the holocaust is a false narrative and was banned. It was verboten.

    That should indicate the real source of this global media censorship and coercion violating our rights. It took pointing the finger at what Jews are doing and have done, with the facts of science and logic to cross the line the oligarchs can’t allow.

    Epoch is just another tool of censorship.

  20. Nobody gets to tell us that we don’t have the authority to communicate.

    Apply that notion to mental health. Shit the fuck up, we don’t want to hear about it.

    Free speech is an inalienable right.

  21. Schools practice exclusion all the time.

    Students who perform poorly do not qualify for performance achievement awards. Students probably can also be excluded from school events or club meetings for failing grades. Their conduct with other students or previously scandalized property can get them suspended or expelled.

    Sometimes the most constructive opportunities do not require Supreme Court approval of breaking hip bones with corporal punishment, but instead clearly already exist.

  22. If SCOTUS granted review for this, that seems like an extremely bad sign for student free speech rights. This should have been a no brainer to deny review on by itself and I’m not aware of any circuit splits that need to be resolved.

  23. If government isn’t contributing to student enrichment & opportunity, then it has no business acting on student free speech.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.