Right, which is what happened so far, with the federal judiciary following precedent.
Now it’s at SCOTUS, which can overturn or create new precedent.
I don’t see how a win for the school here doesn’t encourage school officials to increase the reach of their power over the speech and expression of their students.
It has certainly put quite a limit on it. This decision can dictate if those limits can be extended to conduct off campus as well.
No one has said that. What has been said is that a ruling for school in this case could limit student first amendment rights off campus.
Agree. Feeling disrespected is not “substantially disrupting school operations”. The coach should have expected that JV members that didn’t make the cut for the varsity team were going to be upset, and would need some way to vent. The response of the coach was way over the top.
The equal protection clause is a different section of the Fourteenth Amendment which would entitle her to a rational basis test, if she sought one. The Muslim ban would likely fail that test, adhering to a reasonable code of conduct would likely pass.
ETA: And yes, I would say it wasn’t depriving her of a first amendment “liberty” to freely exercise religion.
I am saying that in the context of social media it makes little sense to try to determine whether that is in school activity or out of school activity, because it is nearly always both. The Snapchat post can be accessed both at home and in school. The analogies to other forms of speech like a surreptitious recording fail due to the unique nature of social media.
To me, this is completely unlike me telling my buddy that the coach is a dick and him taking a secret recording to the coach. This girl sent the Snapchat to 250 people. I think it is silly to label that a “private” communication, and the provocative nature of it all but ensured that someone would forward it to someone and it would get back to the coach and other members of the team.
In addition, it makes little sense, in this context, to base a decision on whether the speech occurred on school grounds or off. Whether she posted it after school while waiting for the bus, or at home that night, the effect is exactly the same. And I think a government organization should have the same power as other organizations to police the off duty conduct of its members. If I, Ultravires, say that the coach is terrible, then that is simply free speech. But if I am a member of the team, that sows discord, and the team, through the coach, should be able to discipline me.
Of course they will be disappointed. But isn’t part of teaching showing young kids the proper way to handle that disappointment? I’ll try harder next year/I’ll practice more over the breaks. Congratulations to those who made the team.
When I lose a case, I go shake the other attorney’s hand. I don’t flip him off on social media. Why? Because someone, somewhere taught me that was the right thing to do.
Respect for the coach. Not just respect for its own sake, but for the team and its rules. You would agree that she couldn’t flip off the coach to his face. For that reason.
If you want a traditional analogy, say the student appears in a newspaper interview and trash-talks the team and the school that denied her varsity application. My analysis is unchanged. The constitution protects her liberty to give that interview; being kicked off the team does not deprive her of that liberty any more than being kicked off the team for missing practice would.
Well apparently the coach (one of the other cheer squad members mother) didn’t effectively teach the team how to handle disappointment. Regardless, trying to discipline anger, immaturity and outburst off campus isn’t the schools responsibility…it’s the parents.
Flipping off the coach to their face would indeed be something I would consider disrespectful, even when done in anger. But that isn’t what happened here.
Showing a basic level of respect when in company of others is one thing; demanding utter reverence even when not in company of others is not something I would condone.
I fully agree. But this is the crux of the case. Did that “off campus” speech disrupt the school environment and should a government school consistent with the First Amendment be able to control it?
Let’s say I work for Coke and post on Snapchat a “private” communication with 250 people that Coke sucks and to drink Pepsi. When (not if) Coke fires me, they are not doing so because they are closet tyrants who hate freedom of speech. They are firing me because I have interfered with their mission which is to sell Coke. When a government organization has a mission, why can’t it act like a private employer so that government organizations have the chance to be at least as effective as private organizations? They didn’t throw this girl in jail or fine her. She simply cannot be a part of the government organization that she disdains. Which is sort of what @Max_S is saying, so I’ll think on his position more.
Nobody is demanding “utter reverence.” I think disciplining a 14 year old kid for giving the finger and saying “fuck cheer” and “fuck everything” on a post seen by 250 people by her own action, knowing that others would see it is pretty far from demanding utter reverence. And, she was in the company of others: the people she sent it to knowing it would be forwarded.
The BOR says that the government as government can’t punish you for speaking. When a government acts in a private capacity (cheerleading is not one of the three branches of government) there is a line of cases that says, yeah, they can act as private people then.
Yeah, fair question. When the government is not acting as a government. When it is not the legislature, not a court, not vetoing a bill. The government conducts many activities which private organizations may also conduct, such as running a school. In that situation, the government can set rules for the school that it could not set for 3rd and Main because of the inherent nature of running a certain activity.
She’s still entitled to a rational basis test under the equal protection clause. Some low level employee at Coke wouldn’t have to prefer Coke over Pepsi to do a good job. Neither should a student be required to universally refrain from using vulgarities outside of class as a condition to education in the classroom. But a Coke employee can be required to remain certified, and an athelete can be required to show respect for her coach and team, especially if the activity is dangerous without proper coordination. And a public college may require its students to undergo militia training, regardless of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
That last one was a SCOTUS case if I remember correctly.
Yet schools can’t mandate reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. And they can’t lead students in prayer, even at a football game. And they can’t prohibit wearing black armbands. If you are saying the first amendment doesn’t apply to school administrations, you are quite mistaken. If you’re saying something else, please clarify.
First, I do lose sleep over some of my cases, even if I got paid. Second, of course they should not be punished for saying “fuck my lawyer” but if it was a juvenile client, the parents could take him home and spank him in their discretion. To your final question, I would not drop him, but it would be a concerning issue that would have to be discussed and possibly with the judge. It sounds like he wants to drop me.
I’m not sure how this relates to a kid on a cheer squad.