Free Speech

Americans Don't Want Schools To Punish Off-Campus Speech

Only students support extending the power to penalize speech, raising concerns about what they’re learning in school.

|

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers the limits of public schools' authority to penalize speech made outside the walls of the country's faltering government-run institutions of occasional learning, polling says most people want to leave kids free to speak their minds. Only one-in-four adults would let schools punish students for their online comments. A damning indictment of public education might be found in the single group to voice majority support for extracurricular censorship: children being taught in those schools.

"Just one-quarter of Americans (25%) believe that public schools should be allowed to punish students for what they say online, outside of school," The Economist/YouGov reported last week of polling results. "About half (52%) say that schools should not be allowed to punish students for this, and 23% are not sure."

Americans were asked their opinions on the issue as the Supreme Court mulls oral arguments over punishment meted out by a Pennsylvania public high school to Brandi Levy for comments she made online in 2017, as reported by Reason's Damon Root. Then a junior varsity cheerleader who failed to make the varsity squad, she vented her disappointment on Snapchat with a photo of herself and her friend flipping the bird, captioned "Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything." Her coach suspended Levy from the team for a year for the post. Levy and her family sued and are represented by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer David Cole.

Under the standard set in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, public school students enjoy First Amendment protection for their free speech rights while they are on campus unless the speech "would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline and in the operation of the school." Until recent years it was unusual for schools to try to regulate what students say on weekends and when they are otherwise off school grounds. Now, though, the Internet and especially social media have amplified the reach of everybody's jibes, jokes, and manifestos. And those inclined towards control are scrambling to punish comments once considered beyond their reach.

"[T]he school district is asking the Supreme Court to essentially decide that all students' speech, no matter when and where it occurs, is now to be regarded as on campus speech because of its ability to reach and affect the school," Frank LoMonte, Director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida, commented during a Foundation for Individual Rights in Education podcast.

Concerns about allegedly unacceptable off-campus speech are often framed in the context of "cyberbullying"—especially when directed at school employees. That has led to a flurry of disciplinary actions and specific laws that sometimes even allow for criminal penalties.

"School children have always criticized and made fun of their teachers and administrators, and no one thought that should be a crime until they started using the Internet to do it," the Pennsylvania ACLU's Mary Catherine Roper warned Reason about such efforts in 2012.

While lower courts are divided over the issue, the closest the Supreme Court has come to deciding the off-campus reach of school speech policies was in Morse v. Frederick (2007) when it said Alaska's Juneau-Douglas High School didn't violate the First Amendment by punishing a student for holding up a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner during the Olympic Torch Relay. But the court emphasized that students attended the event as part of a school-supervised activity. Brandi Levy was online on a Saturday when school was closed; allowing her punishment would be a significant extension of school officials' authority.

"If the Court adopts the school district's argument, individuals who attend American public schools will never have the same First Amendment protection as everyone else," warns the Student Press Law Center. "Speech that would be protected if they weren't students would be subject to punishment by school officials who weakly claim — as the cheerleading coach in this case did — that their speech disrupted the school."

The public seems to share the Center's concerns, as the results of polling by The Economist/YouGov demonstrate. About 52 percent of adults oppose letting public schools punish students for online speech, an opinion held by 64 percent of independents and 63 percent of Republicans. Democrats are more divided, with 38 percent opposing such extended authority for schools and 37 percent supporting it. Perhaps reflecting trust in the people to which they've handed responsibility for their kids' education, just 37 percent of parents of school-age children oppose punishment for off-campus speech, but still only 45 percent support it.

Disturbingly, the only group with a majority favoring punishment for off-campus speech are the kids who would be subject to such power. "Most full-time or part-time students (54%) say that it is appropriate for public schools to enforce punishments for their speech online while outside the classroom," notes The Economist/YouGov. About 31 percent oppose such penalties.

You have to wonder just what public school students are learning about individual liberty and the limits of authority. Apparently, they're not being taught to value and protect their free speech rights. One likely lesson in the results (as if we needed a refresher) is that, when given the chance, government officials will instruct their charges that government officials should have more power. 

Over the past year, as public schools have dropped the ball in their responses to pandemic concerns, families have turned in droves to alternatives such as homeschooling, private schools, and charter schools. Parents and students pick these options based on their effectiveness and their responsiveness to individual needs and preferences. If public schools are going to demand the power to regulate students' lives in the wide world beyond schoolhouse doors, that's just one more reason to look elsewhere for a good education as well as for respect for the boundaries needed to maintain a free society.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in Brandi Levy's case in late June. Families don't have to wait until then to decide how and what their children will learn.

NEXT: The Pandemic Will Make Kids or Break Them

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. It would be interesting to do a review on if teachers also agreed that students should be punished for things occurring off campus. Might clarify the situation a bit further.

      1. USA 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 ASAW 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…..VISIT HERE

    1. I’d also like to see administrators’ views.

      My initial thought though is that it isn’t the school system per se (they add to it) but kids having less unstructured play. They don’t learn how to resolve a conflict between peers without an authority figure, and social media being the cesspool that it is, exacerbates that problem.

      1. That makes some sense.

        And social media is far worse for teens than for adults because a)the part of their brain that is not developed is the rational, sensible, critical prefrontal cortex. That only starts developing as a teen and isn’t complete until early 20’s. and
        b)social media uses (and has advanced) the psycho/neurological techniques of mass manipulation that target what teens in particular are more subject to – the emotional amygdala/lizard brain, peer acceptance as rewards, etc

  2. This isn’t a case of ‘individual liberty and the limits of authority’. Seems perfectly reasonable in this case to kick them off the team for their conduct, not their speech.

    1. Their parents should be ashamed.

    2. Yes. Withdrawing a conditional privilege because the student failed to honor her commitment is not the same as “punishing”.

    3. the school made it a speech issue.

      1. Then this is the lamest ‘speech’ case ever.

        1. oh fer sure. more “we want tha power!” than speech

      2. Yeah, it seems like it was more a case of the coach deciding what was best for the team, than of the school as such officially punishing the girl. But it’s been interpreted as the latter, and that’s what the Court is going to make a decision about. A decision that needs to be made, hopefully not in the school’s favor. This probably wasn’t the best case to address the issue, but it’s the one that came up.

  3. If off-campus speech crosses the line into hate speech, there is a solid argument for punishing the offending student.

    You’d understand this if you were familiar with Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky’s piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

    #BringBackBerlatsky

    1. That’s a better troll than we’ve been seeing from you lately. Try to keep your standards up.

    2. Fuck man… is there a problem with the mute button?

      1. No. It’s you.

    3. The question isn’t what constitutes on or off campus. The question is whether or not the speech causes a disruption, pain or threat to a particular person, or some similar negative outcome like inciting to riot. This girl’s post didn’t name anyone or refer to anyone. There is no way that the school could justify punishing her.

      In jr. hi my son wrote a story for class about a school with a principal named S. A. Tan. There was no problem and the teacher didn’t mind.

  4. “Americans Don’t Want Schools To Punish Off-Campus Speech”

    That’s what government agencies and media companies are for.

    1. Stronger Together.

  5. “You have to wonder just what public school students are learning about individual liberty and the limits of authority.”

    No need to wonder, they are learning what they are taught; there is no such thing.
    Liberty, when discussed at all, consists of using the state to enforce your views on others.

    1. Not so simple – the kids are showing the practial ineffectiveness of allowing on campus regulation. Kids fear being held responsible for responding to bullies’ off campus speech while on campus. Regulating it all levels the field, and might make their lives easier. Terrible policy, but an understandable position for all but the likely bullies.

  6. Apparently, they’re not being taught to value and protect their free speech rights.

    Ya think? They’re being taught that America and American values are pure evil and need to be destroyed.

    1. Tuccille cannot note that and still continue to get paid by Reason’s corporatist masters.

      Dance for them JD, dance.

    2. It’s an easy audience to target for that. Adolescents normally have simplistic and merciless views about morality, ethics, and justice. They need teaching and experience to develop more nuanced opinions and empathy.

  7. The question has always been the right of the school to determine who can be a cheerleader or not.
    Whether @reason happens to think some of this is punishment (for speech) is irrelevant .

    As always, it is the actual action that must be judged – NOT the motive (of punishment) as Reason is suggesting.
    Reason is showing a basic lack of understanding of the situation.

    1. Or you know you can actually read the article you are commenting on. But I get it… reading hard.

      “Her coach suspended Levy from the team for a year for the post.” That statement shows she did make a team, she was upset at not making Varsity. The coach suspended her from the team she made purely for her statements.

      1. You really think your quote says anything different that what hpearce just said?

        1. To be fair, the soft grammar in hpearce’s post makes it difficult to understand exactly what s/he was saying.

    2. I’m on the fence about this particular case. Of course public schools should not be regulating or monitoring off-campus speech. But…

      … if framed as a question of someone voluntarily participating in team sports, and whether a coach of a team should be allowed to kick a player with a bad attitude off the team, I see the coach’s action as legitimate.

      1. Yup. You should be able to publish “fuck cheer” and not get suspended, or detention, but cheer can say “fuck you” back. Cheer is not a right.

        You can’t be denied school lunch because you publish that it sucks.

  8. The fact that this got to the SCOTUS, tells you how ridiculous this country has gotten.

    1. Remember the article last week and all the concern trolls talking about priorities?

    2. Yes. Literally making a federal case out of this is snowflakery that I’m surprised to see Reason commenters supporting.

    3. Gimme a Y. Gimme an E. Gimme an S. What does that spell?

      1. it spells whatever the coach say it spells – – – – – –

  9. It doesn’t matter. Schools don’t care what Americans want or don’t want. Americans get what the schools want.

    Americans don’t want open borders either, but are getting open borders, good and hard.

  10. “…the walls of the country’s faltering government-run institutions of occasional learning,”

    +

    1. ++

  11. Students agree with the courts because they live the online experience intimately. It’s probably more real and impactful than actual in-school speech acts. So yes, if a cheerleader is out there spreading hate via social media it is as relevant, and perhaps more relevant as if she were shouting it in the commons.

    And this is not a 1st amendment problem. Young people apparently understand better than their parents that you can’t trash talk your people and then expect the same privileges. That’s just basic common sense. What coach, club manager, or whatnot, would tolerate that from their members? Let’s assume that students do have this right. Then we have taken away the power of school leaders to create an atmosphere of order and group cohesion.

    Obviously this has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some speech acts are innocuous. Whistleblowers, for example, need protections. But a cheerleader having a tantrum for being cut from the team is not someone we should be protecting. Instead, we seem to be bending over backwards to protect her sense of entitlement and giving her Bill of rights rhetoric to empower her. That’s a mistake.

    1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      Note it doesn’t say “though shall not talk trash” nor does it give government authorities the power to “create an atmosphere of order and group cohesion.”

      Schools are not “clubs” or “whatnots;” they are for the most part government agencies. In your application of “common sense” to punish acts of free expression, do you not realize just how censorious such an extension of authority would become? Expressions of religious freedoms that some find offensive, unpopular political views, associations with the “wrong crowd.” What you propose is nothing less than an authoritarian state.

      We are free to express ourselves; now if you or I go out and say or publish something defamatory about someone that causes them harm and is false, we can be subject to legal actions called slander and libel, respectively. But this does not give government agencies the right to shut us down simply because they do not like what we are saying.

      1. Well said.

      2. Insofar as you are talking about students qua students you are spot on.

        If you are talking about students who then want to participate in some sort of school sponsored participant limited event – be it cheerleading, mathalympics, band, soccer, whatever – one where they will be wearing school colors AND agreeing to abide by the rules of the game/activity in order to participate then no, your otherwise spot on essay does not apply. Because, whether the agreement is tacit or implicit, that is how those activities work. Offer to participate is agreement to abide. Failure abide means loss of ability to participate.

        Anything above and beyond loss of ability to participate would indeed be punishment and would run afoul of what you otherwise clearly note.

        1. Your point is well taken, thank you; but I do have to inquire as to the extent of the agreement of said students who “want to participate in some sort of school sponsored participant limited event…where they will be wearing school colors AND agreeing to abide by the rules of the game/activity in order to participate.”

          Does the “agreeing to abide by the rules of the game/activity in order to participate” cover all aspects of their lives, beyond the school campus and or the activity itself? If so, how far? If said students [as young students often will] make statements that the administration or coaches or coordinators of the activity find offensive, or even it other students view private activity they do not like and report it, is there nothing that is protected under this arrangement?

          We have seen a number of cases in which a student posts something on social media, such as handling a weapon, or making a statement, that is perceived as threatening or offensive by those who chance upon it, and then the behavior or statement is reported and the student is suspended, either from the team or from school itself.

          Again, your point is taken as to voluntary participation, but I sense that such proscriptions that extend beyond the school or event itself, over considerably overbroad.

          1. “Does the “agreeing to abide by the rules of the game/activity in order to participate” cover all aspects of their lives, beyond the school campus and or the activity itself? If so, how far?”

            There really is no one answer. This is a case where indeed “community standards” will tend to dictate.

            If the school goes overboard in any direction then the school board will hear it from parents and/or students will decline to participate.

            In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people this is the most reasonable approach. It will never be perfect, but it will be the most representative. Anything different is simply going to make somebody else – be it a judge, or some other appointee final arbiter.

            1. I still maintain that if the speech is not relevant to the situation [in this case a voluntary participation AT or PART OF a school event, in which the person represents the school] it is an overreach. Otherwise school boards are going to be picking at everything students do and say, on their own time, no matter how removed it is from their venue.

              And I am specifically addressing speech, not criminal activity.

              1. “I still maintain that if the speech is not relevant to the situation…”

                Sure, that sounds like an eminently reasonable standard to me as well. But also misses the point.

                Who exactly decides where those lines of relevance get drawn? And who is that person or persons accountable to? And what is or are the means of accountability?

                Is a judge really preferable to a school board?

                1. I guess I am not engaged in a lawlerly struggle with this, as I believe the criteria is quite evident: AT or PART OF a school event.

                  If the behavior in question is indeed speech, and not criminal activity, the school has no part in it. Seems quite clear. No one need decide the nuances of that.

                  1. Again, seems entirely reasonable. So much so that were it an issue for me I’d be working to make that language explicit and explicitly from the school board.

            2. “Does the “agreeing to abide by the rules of the game/activity in order to participate” cover all aspects of their lives”

              Aspects as public as a Snapchat post? Yes, in this case. Cheerleaders have a highly visible public relations job with the school. It’s not the same as being in Chess Club.

              1. “Cheerleaders have a highly visible public relations job with the school. It’s not the same as being in Chess Club.”

                Seriously?

                1. Did I stutter?

                  1. No, not at all; I just find it hard to believe you would go so far as to carve out different rights for people, depending upon what club they belong to.

                    “Highly visible public relations job…” I didn’t know it was remunerative, or could go on a resume.

          2. She wasn’t even denied participation in cheer. She just wasn’t allowed on the varsity squad. She’s a snowflake who should take what she asked for and shut up.

      3. “Schools are not ‘clubs’”

        Totally agree, but is that still true of voluntarily participating in a public school sports team?

        1. Perhaps they are, but as I ask above, just how broad and encompassing is the requirement to participate?

      4. The most politically and socially unpopular speech is what the First Amendment most strongly protects because it’s the easiest to censor with no defense for the speaker.

        1. I pretty much agree with “fuck cheer”, but not with “fuck softball” nor “fuck everything”.

      5. The First Amendment was not created to protect speech we would agree with but speech we would not agree with. It protects hate speech, foul and obscene, it protects those who would dare what people label as racist and objectionable.
        The problem is that government run public education has been taken over by Marxists, communists and socialists who demand utmost obedience to the manifesto.
        The idea that “free speech is hate speech” needs to be rejected completely.
        Unfortunately America has begun a long slow decline into totalitarianism beginning with public education.

    2. “So yes, if a cheerleader is out there spreading hate via social media it is as relevant“

      Wow, that’s quite a contortion of fact to reach the conclusion “fuck cheerleading, fuck school, fuck softball” is spreading hate. It is a general statement that expresses frustration about a situation. And it is protected just the same way NWA’s Fuck tha Police is.

      1. me and Lorenzo rollin’ in a Benzo.

      2. ” And it is protected just the same way NWA’s Fuck tha Police is.”

        Protected does not mean consequence free.

        You publicly say “Fuck Activity X” and the leader/coach/mentor of the activity is entirely justified in tell you “why don’t you sit this one out.” If they are truly a mentor then they might preface it with an “I understand that you are upset, you are only upset because you think this matters, but if you think it matters then you should probably learn to control your behavior better before participating…
        So, why don’t you sit this one out.”

        1. I should probably add:

          This is also exhibit 20,0021,199 on why actual libertarians would stop to mention that public schools are inevitably a problem.

          Not that Toosilly would ever use this kind of article to advocate for an actual libertarian solution…

          1. Public schools are only part of the problem.

            1. Not part. In this case they are the veritable font of the problem.

              People decide the public should provide compulsory education.

              People then decide that this education system would also be a great way to offer all sorts of voluntary, participatory, but restricted activities.

              Doesn’t really matter what those restrictions are – because they have put themselves in charge of them – and to that extent whatever they say is what it will be.

              You can take Quo Usque Tandem’s approach and try to argue for a very reasonable, and well defined limit on those rules. But all you really have is persuasion, because there is nothing else that binds under those circumstance.

              Private schools could certainly have similar issues arise, but the ‘problem’ would not seen in remotely the same light.

              At least not at this publication, where Section 230 is treated like Holy Writ as opposed to the simple legislation it is.

        2. “Protected does not mean consequence free.”

          So if I as a parent or taxpayer want to punish a teacher or administrator for something they said that I don’t like, I’m free to go ahead and do so?

          1. Sure. Teachers and administrators get fired all the time.

            Basketball coach at East Tennessee State University recently decided it was ok if some of the players wanted to kneel during the National Anthem.

            He’s not the coach anymore.

            1. Not really what I asked. If I don’t like what my kid’s algebra teacher said on Facebook, can I suspend the teacher? Give him corporal punishment? Send him to bed without his supper?

              1. I gave you a general answer to your general question.

                As to your specifics:

                Not directly.
                Not legally.
                Not remotely.

                Did you have a point to this?

                1. The point of @Real Brooks post seemed pretty evident

                  Cheerleader posted something on her personal social media account. Not at school or during school time. She was punished for said post.

                  You say this is fine cause there are consequences to speech, even if it’s protected.

                  So let’s say a teacher posts on their personal Facebook page something someone find offensive (basically anything in today’s age of snowflakery) can that teacher be punished at work for posts to their personal Facebook page outside of their work? The logic you use above is yes they can and should be.

                  1. Cheerleader posted something very negative about cheerleading.

                    At which point it is perfectly appropriate for the person running the cheerleading squad to decide she should no longer participate. there no doubt being others who would otherwise want to participate and not be negative about it.

                    You can call it punishment if you want, but that does not make it so.

                    Libertarians love to say they should be free to do as they wish, and as long as they harm no one they should be left alone.

                    Well, that is exactly what happened. She got left alone.

                    1. (You are lousy at your namesake, BTW.)

                    2. And, the ‘point’ of Brooks was juvenile and idiotic hyperbole.

    3. Cool. Do you make your wives wear prairie dresses, and make your kids stand silently while you eat, too?

  12. “Over the past year, as public schools have dropped the ball in their responses to pandemic concerns, families have turned in droves to alternatives such as homeschooling, private schools, and charter schools.”

    My daughter bought a home in Georgia a couple of years ago, and is getting ready to move for work; her real estate agent told her that there is a huge demand for homes like hers and it may have increased in value by about a third; this is supposedly due to an influx of people from States like CA, NY, et al, who want their children to be taught in an actual school.

    Don’t know if this is accurate, or just a realtor talking out of his other orifice, but nonetheless interesting. If true however, you can count on those refuges of progressivism doing everything in their power to ruin that State, too.

    1. Demand is up somewhat but right now what is driving prices more than anything is limited supply. There are a lot of home owners in forbearance right right now, and that will be coming to an end fairly soon. If you are a seller now is a good time, next year might not be quite so good.

      1. Or as Warren Buffet would say, “buy low and sell high.”

      2. So basically, another housing bubble, but one caused by explicit government policy rather than banks handing out ARM loans like Halloween candy?

    2. Thing to keep in mind is many of the refugees from progressive states are conservatives. Sometimes more conservative than many of the people already in the red state they are joining.

  13. “School children have always criticized and made fun of their teachers and administrators, and no one thought that should be a crime until they started using the Internet to do it,”

    “so obviously the solution is to ban the Internet.”

    1. We could just go back to ARPANET. Then only the truly literate could use it.

  14. “Most full-time or part-time students (54%) say that it is appropriate for public schools to enforce punishments for their speech online while outside the classroom,”

    The brainwashing is working. Progressives high-five.

    1. That is a sad number. But, I always wonder exactly how these poll questions are phrased.

      1. I think “polling” these days is done by a facebook algorithm giving the answer, and the pollster then making up the question.

    2. Just think, they will soon reach voting age.
      Public education is more about brainwashing and indoctrination into socialist agenda.

  15. Bonkers

  16. Most full-time or part-time students (54%) say that it is appropriate for public schools to enforce punishments for their speech online while outside the classroom.
    https://gadgets.santalkhabar.in

  17. >>”[T]he school district is asking the Supreme Court

    Leviathan need food.

  18. The Public School is Mother. The Public School is Father.

    I suppose that is why the students are not very concerned about their rights being interfered with off campus.

    1. You are out of touch with these modern times.
      The terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’ were removed last year.
      Do pay attention.

  19. “About half (52%) say that schools should not be allowed to punish students for this, and 23% are not sure.”

    That’s because the polling question didn’t specify examples of speech that could be punished.

    Think of this like you would any other issue: The death penalty, defunding the police, etc.

    I’m all for defunding/abolishing the death penalty but…

    1. I’m not. I fully support the death penalty for certain crimes.

  20. “Disturbingly, the only group with a majority favoring punishment for off-campus speech are the kids who would be subject to such power. “Most full-time or part-time students (54%) say that it is appropriate for public schools to enforce punishments for their speech online while outside the classroom,” notes The Economist/YouGov. About 31 percent oppose such penalties.”

    As fun as it is to blame this entirely on our public education system failing our children, I would wager that a more important factor to consider is that the students in the schools are the ones on the receiving end of “cyberbullying” from outside of school, or know someone who is, or realize that bullying is not acceptable (but haven’t yet considered whether free speech outside of school is something that should be considered). Whether that is a good reason is certainly debatable, but it makes total sense for students to poll this way.

  21. Our schools teach White students that they are immoral and contemptible if they don’t support the White Genocide that’s being carried out by massive third-world immigration and FORCED assimilation i.e diversity in EVERY White country and ONLY White countries.

    Their teachers never tell them, “White self-hatred is SICK!!!“

    Those teachers claim to be anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

    1. BO-ring.

  22. Lots of sticky issues, which might have been expected, come from applying legal and cultural values to the new technology of internet and social media. I’m content for now with this being a controversy that needs to be thought through, but my instinct is to make schools leave their poking around people’s lives at the schoolhouse door.
    As for what to do about the phenomenon of an online cult cultivated by hostile foreign interests to undermine US democracy, and succeeding, I’m not so nuanced. Find the culprits and take them out. People who do harm to vast numbers of other people are usually considered criminals.

    1. As for what to do about the phenomenon of an online cult cultivated by hostile foreign interests to undermine US democracy, and succeeding, I’m not so nuanced. Find the culprits and take them out.

      So, death to social media companies? I guess the country would be improved by all these mentally ill tech goons getting put on a work gang in the blazing heat to build infrastructure.

  23. On the one hand, the distinction between “on-campus” and “off-campus” speech seems hypertechnical to me. Under that standard, a student can be punished for shouting something about the principal while standing on the corner of school property, but not be punished for it if he is standing across the street and says the same thing. Seems to me the better test is whether there is a Nexus to the school.

    Having said that though, the real test should be what the Tinker court discussed: whether there is a real threat of disruption to the education process. That the speech occurred off-campus during nonschool hours is a strong factor to be considered in this calculus.

    It seems to me hard to argue that what this young woman said had any real disruptive effect on the school other than the hurt feelings of the authority figures at the school. I note in this regard at her comments, although littered with F bombs, did not target any particular person or contain any derogatory references to any particular person.

  24. As government schools become less and less competent, they want to expand their reach more and more. The same bunch that can’t teach kids basic skills now wants them from the time they’re potty-trained, and for 12 hours and three meals a day. The one-room schoolhouse has become the “central hatchery and conditioning center”.

    Separate school and state, separate speech and state, separate sports and state – separate kids from the state, period.

  25. Schools are not parents. Schools are not bosses. Nobody ever asked schools to run peoples’ lives, only to educate them.

    The problem with bureaucracies like schools is they run amok if they are not kept in control by higher authorities.

    So let’s give schools the guide rails they need.

    1. Better yet, instead of de-funding police, how about de-funding public education.

  26. This f**ing B.S. is just another example of how both the liberals AND conservative twits have tried to suppress free speech. Most people say “meh” and move on in life. However, the vocal minority is constantly monitoring others to follow their personal agendas.

    People off-duty from a job are regularly fired or disciplined for things said or posted online REGARDLESS of their behavior at work. Why is it OK to blast the police online but if you use the word n***er you are fired? Why is it not OK to say a teacher or a person is an a**hole even if they truly are? I enjoy the cries from the left and right to suppress something when “free speech” doesn’t support their personal views.

    This country is rapidly moving toward its own demise.

  27. Where, pray tell, are students “learning” this rubbish, and perhaps more interesting is the following. Who are the instructors, and what is the source of the syllabus?

    1. Marxists, communists and socialists have taken over public education.
      Colleges and universities are the factories that create the public mis-educators.

  28. America is now on a slippery slope into a censorious culture that has no respect for the Bill of Rights. It has begun with the woke, cancel cult in colleges and universities and now manifests in public schools and social media. Soon it will be pervasive in society in general and those who violate will become unpersons.

    Young people are being brainwashed into the acceptance of censoring speech that is considered as hate, racist, transphobic, or what ever the next grievous victim declares. They are being prepared for what’s to come next: total control of all speech and control of thought through the control of speech. After all, if you censure enough speech, destroy enough of the proper words, the idea of freedom of thought and expression and the ability to question are completely wiped out. Do you understand this , Winston?
    Once a nations starts down the slippery slope first by censorship, then, by shaming and casting out, then finally by persecution is known as what David Icke calls, “the totalitarian Two step”.
    Parents need to become more active and proactive in their child’s education and if it means removing them from the public schools system, then so be it.

  29. What the fuck is our Supreme Court doing deciding a case that should have been disposed of at the lowest level of the courts? Isn’t this the same court that Biden and the Democrats wanted to expand to 13 justices? This is just one more example of a court that, because of the legislative disfunction in the US over the past decades has a dearth of actual work to do has decided to use its time playing around with various pet social theories.

    1. I had forgotten about Biden’s commission, since they haven’t been in the news. It has been almost five weeks and it looks like they are only getting around to having their first meeting this Wednesday:

      https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2021/05/17/bidens-coming-court-conundrum-492880

      “President JOE BIDEN’s Supreme Court commission is set to meet for the first time on Wednesday, starting a clock that will require it to produce a report on reforming the court by Nov. 15.”

  30. How about “school” is restricted to what happens in person, on campus?
    You know, teachers don’t get paid unless they are teaching in person on campus.
    Administrators don’t get paid unless they are on campus in person.
    And administrators who spend their time trolling through social media are fired for stalking.
    Or we just dump all public schools and send the funding to wherever the student wants to learn, whether staffed by the unions or individuals.

    1. How about we stop giving tax dollars to schools. Then they can do whatever they want. Win win.

  31. Yet another problem that just goes away if we abolish government schooling.

    -jcr

  32. Of course students support it; they’re kids. They’re just trying to get one over on someone else. It’s “ooh you got in trouble” all over again.

    1. They’re just trying to get one over on someone else. It’s “ooh you got in trouble” all over again

      Unfortunately, a lot of them don’t outgrow it and become journalists and government bureaucrats.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.