The Supreme Court decided last month it would consider a potentially landmark case involving the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech), and the hearings began last week. This case centers around freedom of school speech, even though the speech in question occurred outside of school. It could be the most influential case on the 1st Amendment since the famous 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines – which cemented students’ rights to free speech in public schools to this day.
The dispute stems from Snapchat posts by a high school sophomore in Pennsylvania after she did not make the varsity cheerleading team. No big deal, right? But this case could well have long-lasting implications for students nationwide, and to what extent schools are allowed to regulate and punish students for speech that happens outside of school. Actually, the implications are much broader than just schools, as I will discuss below.
OK, here’s what happened. In 2017, a female high school student (I won’t use her name or include a photo) in a Pennsylvania public school failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad after tryouts. She was angry and posted some controversial language about the school, the coaches, etc. – including using the “F-word” several times. But this occurred AFTER school hours and NOT on school property. This is important as you’ll see below.
Her controversial Snapchat post got back to school officials, of course, and her coaches on the junior varsity cheer squad she was on – and she was immediately kicked off the team. She and her parents were outraged. Her parents sued the school to have her put back on the team. Some lower courts have ruled in her favor.
A federal district court ruled for the young woman in 2019, finding that – even if the Tinker standard applied off campus – the speech she used wasn’t disruptive enough to trigger disciplinary action. The Philadelphia-based US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit took the decision a step further, finding that Tinker does NOT apply to off-campus speech.
The unanimous opinion found her controversial message “crude, rude, and juvenile, just as we might expect of an adolescent.” But, the court also said, “the primary responsibility for teaching civility rests with parents and other members of the community.”
“Otherwise, we give school administrators the power to quash student expression deemed crude or offensive – which far too easily metastasizes into the power to censor valuable speech and legitimate criticism,” the court wrote.
Despite that, the case has now made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The High Court heard oral arguments last week and is expected to make a ruling by sometime in June.
You might be thinking: “Why should we care about a teenage girl who cursed about her school on Snapchat?
Because this goes far beyond simply this one girl. If the Court rules in favor of the school, it means that schools – and presumably other institutions (including the government) – have the power to monitor a citizen’s interactions at any time.
Specifically, it could give the government the power to punish us whenever they dislike what we have said on social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) or even in private conversations.
But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of this high school student, it means neither schools nor any other government body has the right to monitor our activity and control what we say or think.
In last week’s initial hearings, the Justices signaled that the decision may have a “narrow interpretation” and not extend to wider issues, but that remains to be seen based on the final decision later this year.
This case has brought together two unlikely allies: the American Civil Liberties Union and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Both this far-left group and conservative group believe in defending Americans’ First Amendment rights.
The Biden administration, of course, is siding with the school. They have made the weak argument that the school was right to punish this cheerleader because other students were supposedly “upset” – although I’ve seen no evidence to support this claim.
Civil liberties groups fear the Court will turn schools into “speech police,” limiting students’ First Amendment rights. School districts counter that they must be free to discipline off-campus speech that leaches into the classroom and the locker room – including their right to protect students from bullying which can be amplified online and miles from the schoolyard.
Many on the Left would have us believe that free speech rights END… IF it offends someone. Is that really what it’s come to? Something tells me the Supreme Court will disagree. Let’s hope so!
At last something we agree on.