Cheerleader's Snapchat profanity gets U.S. Supreme Court's attention

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,811
3,031
113
Cheerleader's Snapchat profanity gets U.S. Supreme Court's attention
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Andrew Chung
Publishing date:Apr 23, 2021 • 11 hours ago • 4 minute read • 9 Comments
Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania and a key figure in a major U.S. case about free speech, poses in an undated photograph provided by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania and a key figure in a major U.S. case about free speech, poses in an undated photograph provided by the American Civil Liberties Union. PHOTO BY DANNA SINGER /Handout via REUTERS
Article content
Two days after Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania held its cheerleading tryouts, ninth-grader Brandi Levy was still fuming about being passed over for a spot on the varsity squad.

While a younger girl had been picked for varsity, Levy was facing another year relegated to the junior varsity cheer squad. That Saturday afternoon in May 2017 – standing not on school grounds but in the Cocoa Hut convenience store in Mahanoy City in the state’s coal country – Levy pulled out her cellphone and, along with a friend, raised her middle finger to the camera.

Prince Harry reportedly met with Queen Elizabeth 'at least twice' in England
Trackerdslogo
Levy, age 14 at the time, posted the photo to the Snapchat social media platform, adding a caption using the same curse word four times to voice her displeasure with cheerleading, softball, school and “everything.”


That posting prompted the school to banish her from the cheerleading squad for a year. It also led to a major U.S. Supreme Court case testing the limits of one of America’s bedrock constitutional rights. The nine justices on Wednesday are due to hear arguments on whether this disciplinary act by a public school – a government institution – violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
For Levy, now 18 and a college student studying accounting, the punishment at the time felt instinctively wrong.

“I was thinking through my head that was unfair, like how could I be punished for something so small? And I didn’t do it in school, so I was questioning why,” Levy said in an interview.

“I shouldn’t have to be afraid to express myself and I should be able to do it how I want to without being punished by anybody. What I said, it wasn’t targeting, it wasn’t bullying, harassment, or anything like that,” Levy added.

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Levy and her parents sued the Mahanoy Area School District seeking reinstatement to the squad and a judgment that her First Amendment rights had been violated.


The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Levy, finding that the First Amendment bars public school officials from regulating off-campus speech. The district then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Under a 1969 Supreme Court precedent, public schools may punish student speech that would “substantially disrupt” the school community. Levy’s case will determine whether this authority extends beyond the schoolhouse gates.

The Supreme Court is due to rule by the end of June.

A decision in favor of Levy, according to the district and its supporters, could make it harder for teachers and administrators to curb bullying, racism, cheating and invasions of privacy, all frequently occurring online, outside school property or during off hours.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
President Joe Biden’s administration supports the district, arguing that off-campus student speech deserves broad protection unless it threatens the school community or targets specific individuals, groups or school functions.

“Principals have to ensure the safety and well being of everybody on their campus,” said Ronn Nozoe, chief executive officer of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. “It can’t be the Wild West.”

The district has argued that off-campus student speech can harm a school and its functions, noting that in the internet era the lines between on-campus and off-campus are blurred.

“If a student on the weekend uses her private email to blast harassing messages to school email accounts, where did the speech happen?” the district asked in a legal filing.

Levy’s photo was visible for 24 hours on Snapchat, along with another post questioning the younger girl’s selection. Some cheerleaders and students chafed at the posts and the controversy disrupted classes, according to court papers. The cheerleading coaches removed Levy from the team, saying she had broken various rules and undermined team cohesion.

After she sued, a judge ordered Levy’s reinstatement to the squad, finding that her actions had not been disruptive enough to warrant the punishment. The 3rd Circuit went further, deciding that the Supreme Court’s 1969 precedent, known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, does not apply to off-campus speech and school officials may not regulate such speech.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The ACLU said giving educators the power to police off-campus speech would extend censorship everywhere young people go and prompt schools to conduct “dragnet online surveillance” of students.

“There’s lots of things that schools can do to protect students from bullying and harassment that doesn’t involve punishing kids for speech that they engage in off campus,” said Sara Rose, an attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania who is involved in the case.

The religious-liberty group Alliance Defending Freedom told the justices in a brief to guard against fueling “cancel culture,” a term used by conservatives to criticize the pushback against public figures deemed to have said or done something deemed offensive by others.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,811
3,031
113
U.S. Supreme Court justices debate cheerleader's free speech case
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Andrew Chung
Publishing date:Apr 28, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation
Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania and a key figure in a major U.S. case about free speech, uses her phone in an undated photograph provided by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania and a key figure in a major U.S. case about free speech, uses her phone in an undated photograph provided by the American Civil Liberties Union. PHOTO BY DANNA SINGER/ACLU /via REUTERS
Article content
U.S. Supreme Court justices heard arguments on Wednesday on whether public schools can punish students for what they say off campus in a case involving a former Pennsylvania cheerleader’s foul-mouthed social media post that could impact the free speech rights of millions of young Americans.

The nine justices are considering an appeal by the Mahanoy Area School District of a lower court ruling in favour of Brandi Levy that found that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech bars public school officials from regulating off-campus speech. The arguments were ongoing.


Many schools and educators, supported by President Joe Biden’s administration, have argued that ending their authority over students at the schoolhouse gates could make it harder to curb bullying, racism, cheating and invasions of privacy – all frequently occurring online.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Levy, has argued that students need protection from censorship and monitoring of their beliefs.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Under a 1969 Supreme Court precedent, public schools may punish student speech that would “substantially disrupt” the school community. Levy’s case will determine whether this authority extends away from school.

Several justices asked questions of an attorney for the school district that seemed skeptical that Levy’s post was sufficiently disruptive of the school environment to have warranted the punishment she received.

They also raised concerns about whether allowing officials to regulate speech off-campus could prevent students from expressing political or religious views – and whether giving schools some authority over off-campus speech could be limited in any practical way.


Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said, “She used swear words – you know, unattractive swear words – off campus. Did that cause a material and substantial disruption? I don’t see much evidence it did. And if swearing off campus did, I mean, my goodness every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.”

Peeved because she was denied a spot in a tryout for the varsity cheerleading team after being a member of the junior varsity squad as a ninth-grader, Levy – age 14 at the time – made a Snapchat post that set the case in motion.

On a Saturday while at a convenience store in Mahanoy City in Pennsylvania’s coal region, she posted a photo of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, adding a caption using the same curse word four times to voice her displeasure with cheerleading, softball, school and “everything.”

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
As a result, Mahanoy Area High School banished her from the cheerleading team for a year.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said it appeared to him that kicking her off the team for a year was “a bit of an over-reaction by the coach.

“She’s competitive, she cares,” Kavanaugh said. “She blew off steam like millions of other kids have when they’re disappointed about being cut from the high school team or not being in the starting line up or not making all-league (honours).”


Levy and her parents sued, seeking reinstatement to the squad and a judgment that her First Amendment rights had been violated. A judge ordered Levy’s reinstatement, finding that her actions had not been disruptive enough to warrant the punishment.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year went even further, deciding that the Supreme Court’s 1969 precedent, known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, does not apply to off-campus speech and that the First Amendment prohibits school officials from regulating such speech.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has shown sympathy toward free speech claims in important cases in recent years.

Now 18 and a college student studying accounting, Levy said the case has taught her that school administrators should have limits on what they can enforce.

“If a student is targeting the school or threatening someone or bullying someone, that’s when I feel the school should step in. But for a student to express themselves and get in trouble for it, I feel like that’s not right,” Levy said in an interview.

The court’s eventual decision would affect public schools, as governmental institutions, but not private schools.

A ruling in the case is due by the end of June.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,811
3,031
113
U.S. Supreme Court signals support for cheerleader in free speech case
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Andrew Chung
Publishing date:Apr 28, 2021 • 19 hours ago • 3 minute read • 11 Comments
Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania and a key figure in a major U.S. case about free speech, uses her phone in an undated photograph provided by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania and a key figure in a major U.S. case about free speech, uses her phone in an undated photograph provided by the American Civil Liberties Union. PHOTO BY DANNA SINGER/ACLU /via REUTERS
Article content
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared ready to rule in favor of a former Pennsylvania high school cheerleader who was disciplined over a foul-mouthed social media post but cautiously approached the broader question of whether public schools can punish students for what they say off campus.

The nine justices heard nearly two hours of arguments in an appeal by the Mahanoy Area School District of a lower court ruling in favour of Brandi Levy that found that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech bars public school officials from regulating off-campus speech. The case could impact the free speech rights of America’s 50 million public school students.

U.S. Supreme Court signals support for cheerleader in free speech case

Close sticky video
The court pondered the competing issues of students having freedom of expression, especially political or religious views, and schools having the ability to prevent disruptions in the internet and social media era.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Its ruling, expected by the end of June, could clarify the limits of an important 1969 Supreme Court precedent that let public schools punish student speech when it would “substantially disrupt” a school community.

Many schools and educators, supported by President Joe Biden’s administration, have argued that ending their authority over students at the schoolhouse gates could make it harder to curb bullying, racism, cheating and invasions of privacy – all frequently occurring online.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing Levy, has argued that students need protection from censorship and monitoring of their beliefs.

The justices indicated they may avoid making a complete distinction between on- and off-campus speech or fashioning a legal test encompassing all possible scenarios schools may face.

“I’m frightened to death of writing a standard,” liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said.

The court also could issue a narrow ruling in Levy’s favour that does resolve the broader question of school regulation of off-campus speech.


PROFANITY-LACED POST

The justices seemed skeptical that Levy’s post was sufficiently disruptive of the school environment to have warranted the punishment she received.

Peeved because she was denied a spot in a tryout for the varsity cheerleading team after being a member of the junior varsity squad as a ninth-grader, Levy – age 14 at the time and currently 18 – made a profanity-laced Snapchat post.

Advertisement
STORY CONTINUES BELOW

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
On a Saturday while at a convenience store in Mahanoy City, she posted a photo of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, adding a caption using the same curse word four times to voice her displeasure with cheerleading, softball, school and “everything.” Mahanoy Area High School banished her from the cheerleading team for a year.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the school’s response seemed like an over-reaction.

“She blew off steam like millions of other kids have when they’re disappointed about being cut from the high school team or not being in the starting line-up,” Kavanaugh said.

Breyer said that if using swear words away from school merits discipline, “I mean, my goodness every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.”


Some justices raised hypothetical scenarios showing their concern over protecting student expression, including if a student wears a Black Lives Matter T-shirt, carries a Confederate flag or refuses to call transgender students by the names they have adopted.

“That sharp line I think you’re trying to draw between on-campus and off-campus, how does that fit with modern technology? If a text or a snap … is sent from the park and it’s read in the cafeteria, is that off-campus or on-campus?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked an ACLU attorney.

Fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about bullying and speech aimed at other students, but said: “If we’re going to address the broad issues, then I for one think we need clear rules that protect freedom of speech.”

Levy and her parents sued the district, seeking reinstatement as a cheerleader and a judgment that her First Amendment rights had been violated. Lower courts ruled in her favour.

The Supreme Court’s eventual decision would affect public schools, as governmental institutions, but not private schools.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
"Many schools and educators, supported by President Joe Biden’s administration, have argued that ending their authority over students at the schoolhouse gates could make it harder to curb bullying, racism, cheating and invasions of privacy".
Their authority ends at the schoolhouse "gates", PERIOD! Outside of school the PARENTS are the kid's authorities, Nothing more disturbing than a bunch of commie f*cks thinking they should have 24/7/365 authority over other people's kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdRatherBeSkiing