High School Student "Free Speech" Case Before SCOTUS

[UltraVires]

@mhendo

The court did not make a general statement that social media posting could not or would not disrupt the school environment. The court argued that, in this particular case, “we can find no evidence in the record of the ‘substantial disruption’ of a school activity or a threatened harm to the rights of others that might justify the school’s action.” In fact, Breyer notes that the record shows that B.L.'s social media comments, and subsequent discussion of those comments at school, caused very little disruption to any school or classroom activities. As in the oral argument, Breyer (and some of the other justices) expressed a fair amount of incredulity that the school had been so petty and draconian in its response to a fairly minor, if vulgar, piece of rhetoric.

First, I think we’ve about played this out as it looks like I’m in the minority (about 8-1 as it would seem ). But you did bring up some unique points.

We still don’t know what would be a “substantial disruption.” This case had several differences from Tinker. The students in Tinker were not profane and made no comments at all about anything having to do with the school or the officials. They were protesting the Vietnam War by wearing armbands.

In contrast, B.L. made comments off of school property by using a technology that wasn’t dreamed of in Tinker, which could arguably and likely travel onto the school property—arguable because it did–and was directly profane and insulting to her team and her coach. Does any of that make a difference? We don’t know because the Court used the “substantial disruption” language from Tinker which applied to a whole different case and a whole different scenario and just used as bald ipse dixit, respectfully much like you did, that this wasn’t substantially disruptive. The school certainly thought it was and I agree. How do we decide under our Constitution? Just wait for judges to tell us?

Breyer says, as you quoted, that the school must do more that “avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness” but the school and me has stated that it is much more than the hurt feelings. It is the lack of commitment to the team, that she disrespects the coach and may not be amenable to instruction, and the effect that it will have on other girls who busted their asses just to make the J.V. team. This is dismissed without any analysis.

@mhendo

Will there be cases where it will be very difficult to balance the free speech rights of the student/s with the need for the school to maintain a safe and productive environment for learning? Absolutely.

The problem with this and all other balancing tests is the scale we use and what it things are measured against. Justice @mhendo believes that this was pretty trivial and therefore the Constitution itself requires that the girl’s interests are better. Justice @UltraVires would balance it the other way. Well, what kind of Constitution is that? It’s not law. If you are just going to have personal opinions and personal values guiding decisions then a school administrator, a legislator, or the first four people off of the street’s judgment is just as good. No reason to relegate that to any court.

ETA: Alito also suggested that the coach might bench her which makes the whole think academic. No “suspension” but a “benching.”