@UltraVires, are you saying that the cheer squad members are members of an organization? Because I don’t see how a student forced to go to school is a member of anything. I think your arguments could be applied to members of the cheer squad, since it’s not mandatory that you join the squad and they could have requirements in excess of what all students are required to do (assuming those additional requirements are reasonable).
Why does the forced nature of the membership mean that you are less of a member?
I think you have a stronger case for restricting the off-campus activities for students who consent to be there. Public school students don’t consent to be there – they must go to school. A school club, though, is something a student consents to join, as is a private school. I think it’s fine for a school club or a private school to say that a student must not do these things, even off campus, or I can kick you out. A regular student at a public school doesn’t really have a choice, so it’s a tougher hurdle for the school to police their off-campus behavior.
The salient point here is that the student voluntarily joined the cheerleading squad. The squad, like virtually all school-sponsored athletic activities, apparently had some sort of honor code that students sign in order to participate. These honor codes typically include requirements that students display good sportsmanship, represent the school and its teams in a positive way, etc.
While I have no issue with her Snapchat post in and of itself, she surely recognized that “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” was a violation of the code she’d signed. The fact she posted on Snapchat as opposed to Instagram or Twitter or some other social media seems to indicate she was counting on her post disappearing before she’d have to face the consequences for it.
Hey, if you agree to the rules and then break them, don’t be surprised when you get kicked off the activity.
My point was that it wasn’t like she violated a general ban on expletives (which may also be constitutionally suspect, but a general improvement in our discourse). No one is suggesting that she would have been disciplined if she has directed her ire at the current or former president, the governor, the police, or whatever. (It’s not even like the blanket ban on protest armbands in Tinker). It’s not viewpoint neutral – in fact, the rule is highly viewpoint dependent.
While the conduct occurred away from school, off-campus and after hours, it was clearly connected to school and to her specific activity at school. She wasn’t complaining about the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, and she wasn’t a random student complaining about some aspect of how the school cheerleading program was run; it was a member of the cheerleading squad disrespecting the squad, its coaches, her fellow members, etc. Handling it within the context of the squad (in this case, booting her off the squad) seems a reasonable and appropriate response, because this is an optional activity. Similarly, if a member of the football team demonstrates he doesn’t respect the coach and the coach’s decisions, the coach can make the call to suspend him from the football team.
I do not believe the school should have the power to punish her in school for opinions wholly unconnected to the school (“fuck Joe Biden”) or for something the school does that is not particularly connected to her (masking policies that apply to everybody, e.g.), nor should her cheerleading-squad-related opinions lead to in-school suspension, expulsion from school, or anything of that sort (or even restrictions on her participation in the debate squad or the volleyball team). However, “disrespecting an optional club or activity affects your future participation in that club” doesn’t trigger constitutional concerns for me.
With the specific caveat that she agreed to be bound by that rule. Imagine if she agreed to a cheer leading club rule that requires members to wear school colors 24 hours per day (including PJs). Wearing the wrong colors means she’s off the team. That’s life. I would have a totally different view if there was no pre-existing policy about trashing her team. If they tried to kick her off for saying “fuck cheer” in the absence of a rule, she’d have a case. General “disruptive” or “disrespectful” off campus conduct isn’t the school business.
I actually like the middle ground staked out by the Solicitor General. From the linked article:
I think that is a good dividing line as a general rule, whether the speech is on-campus or off-campus. That allows districts to act on cyber-bullying threats and statements directed at staff. Surely we would all agree that a student threatening to bring a gun to school is actionable by school officials even if it’s done off-campus, right?
However, in this particular case, I agree with some of the posters above that the nature of the speech is important. If this was truly a private conversation then I don’t see why it should be actionable. I should be able to bitch to my friends about a particular teacher, or even a fellow classmate without being subject to discipline.
Finally, and also specific to this case, is that the discipline was directly tied to a voluntary activity. I’m totally fine with the cheer team (or any other extra-curricular activity) having a certain code of conduct that may include public speech outside of school hours, and perhaps even some private communication if that makes it back to the activity’s organizers.
Is this what society has become? Does a high school kid need to sign a written form not to say “fuck” the team she is on for it to be binding?
I sure hope so. Freedom!
Saying it in class would rise to the level of disrupting the class, and it’s well established that preventing such disruption is an accepted aspect of school discipline.
Not saying it in class, but waiting until you’re off school property, is showing deference to the teacher’s authority, in the one place it matters - the classroom.
But it really isn’t. If a student has posted on Facebook that the teacher should go suck a donkey’s dick, it doesn’t matter if she says “Yes, sir” in class. The other students know that it is a false respect, and the authority is lost.
Cheerleading squad, though, isn’t really “in the classroom”–much of her interaction with the cheer coach and the rest of the squad will take place off school property as they go to games and competitions. Moreover, in a classroom twenty or thirty students might hear it; she sent the message to 250 of her nearest and dearest.
It doesn’t mean you’re less of a member, but it being a forced membership is already a significant imposition on your rights. Now, it’s accepted that educating kids is important enough that this imposition is justified, but that doesn’t automatically mean any imposition you apply in the name of “education” is also justified.
Any additional imposition should be subject to scrutiny, and if it doesn’t meet an acceptable threshold of justification, it should be discarded.
And this is a sufficient concern to override first amendment rights… why, exactly?
That’s question begging. It is what this case is about.
I disagree. Knowing that they’ll never had the guts to say it to the teacher’s face reinforces the teacher’s authority. And every kid knows that, I think. “Bob talks tough until it matters, then he chickens out!”
So, if the teacher asks, “Bob, I saw on Facebook that you wanted me to lick a donkey’s balls. Do you agree with that?” should the student get counsel? Is the question forbidden? If Bob says “yes” is that actionable?
Does that apply to off-campus speech? If the student repeatedly says while walking home and in her home and other students’ homes that the teacher should go suck a donkey’s dick, is that disciplinable? (Yes, I’m going to keep using it. 
) All her friends in that case know that she has zero respect of the teacher, but hasn’t said it anywhere near the school.
Any teacher stupid enough to do this should be fired immediately.
And as a voluntary employee of the school, this firing would be entirely justified. Any teacher who doesn’t understand that hormonal kids say stupid things, and goes out of their way to pick a fight with a kid over something this stupid shouldn’t be teaching.