SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In Historic Opinion, Third Circuit Protects Public School Students' Off-Campus Social Media Speech:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an historic opinion in B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, upholding the free speech rights of public school students. The court adopted the position EFF urged in our amicus brief that the First Amendment prohibits disciplining public school students for off-campus social media speech.
B.L. was a high school student who had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and was placed on junior varsity instead. Out of frustration, she posted—over the weekend and off school grounds—a Snapchat selfie with text that said, among other things, "fuck cheer." One of her Snapchat connections took a screen shot of the "snap" and shared it with the cheerleading coaches, who suspended B.L. from the J.V. squad for one year. She and her parents sought administrative relief to no avail, and eventually sued the school district with the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
In its opinion protecting B.L.'s social media speech under the First Amendment, the Third Circuit issued three key holdings.
- Social Media Post Was "Off-Campus" Speech
- Vulgar Off-Campus Social Media Speech is Not Punishable
- Off-Campus Social Media Speech That "Substantially Disrupts" the On-Campus Environment is Not Punishable
[...] The Third Circuit's opinion is historic because it is the first federal appellate court to affirm that the substantial disruption exception from Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.
Other circuits have upheld regulating off-campus speech citing Tinker in various contexts and under different specific rules, such as when it is "reasonably foreseeable" that off-campus speech will reach the school environment, or when off-campus speech has a sufficient "nexus" to the school's "pedagogical interests."
The Third Circuit rejected all these approaches. The court argued that its "sister circuits have adopted tests that sweep far too much speech into the realm of schools' authority." The court was critical of these approaches because they "subvert[] the longstanding principle that heightened authority over student speech is the exception rather than the rule."
Because there is a circuit split on this important First Amendment student speech issue, it is possible that the school district will seek certiorari and that the Supreme Court will grant review. Until then, we can celebrate this historic win for public school students' free speech rights.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 02 2020, @03:19AM (8 children)
Off-campus is off-campus. Nothing that a student does off campus falls under the authority of the school. Nothing. The school has a duty to educate - nothing more, nothing less. The police, and the court systems have authority off-campus and on. If a crime is committed, the cops need to get involved. If only a thought crime has been committed, then no one need be involved.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @03:24AM
Well they're not managing the education part so I guess they try to feel competent and important in other ways
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @03:33AM
This is a ruling more in kind with the 1960s Supreme Court decisions that we discussed in Civics, while by the 1980s and on the "disrupting the educational environment" excuse had stripped students of most of their newfound rights.
I couldn't see a date for when this happened, as slow as American justice moves, she may be 25 already?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @05:09AM (5 children)
The ACLU have gone full woketard, I'm surprised they were involved in a 2020 free speech case.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @05:57AM (4 children)
I am too, considering their silence when conservatives are being deplatformed all around, religious services are outlawed and the national agora is essentially shut down.
I used to contribute to the national ACLU, but stopped after their beg letters became repetitions of "You won't believe what Trump is trying to do!", "Trump this", "Trump that" - I get that their consultants are trying to draft the appeal that will get them the most revenue, but the constant harping against our elected president got me to give all I budgeted in the "donations to guardians of freedom" category to the EFF instead, with a bit going to the state ACLU. I have hope that the state sections are still active in civil rights defense, and in this case it was ACLU Washington and ACLU Pennsylvania that worked on the case.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @06:29AM (1 child)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
If your "religious freedom" didn't require imposing The 10 Commandments on everyone, I could almost weep for you poor victims.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @06:47AM
I'm happy I'm causing you heartburn by holding opinions different to yours.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @06:31PM (1 child)
Or Trump is a criminal conman enacting racist policies that hurt people and violate constirutional rights. You overly sensitive white folk invested everything in the wrong guy, and being stubborn patriarchal fools you are incapable of admitting wrong so you gladly wolf down the most ridiculous propaganda that you could fact check in a few minutes.
Thanks for becoming traitors, super A+ job!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2020, @07:19PM
If White People weren't so ridiculously nice, you brown fucks wouldn't be here. Nor would you have electricity or running water in your home countries. You'd still be shitting in the street and carrying water on your heads.