SCOTUS rules schools cannot police social media posts made off-campus!
MAHANOY CITY, Pennsylvania (PNN) - June 23, 2021 - In a landmark decision on campus free speech, the Supreme Court today ruled in an 8 to 1 vote in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. that students' social media speech conducted off campus is protected by the First Amendment.
The case involved a disgruntled cheerleader; B.L. was a student at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, who tried out for the school’s varsity cheerleading squad.
When she did not make the squad she was offered a spot on the junior varsity team.
B.L. met a friend at a local convenience store, and used her phone to post two photos on Snapchat.
In the first image, both B. L. and her friend are shown with middle fingers raised with the caption: “F**k school f**k softball f**k cheer f**k everything.”
In the second image, there is just a caption, which read, “Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but tha[t] doesn’t matter to anyone else?”
She was off campus when posting the Snapchat on a weekend day.
A lower court decided that the school overstepped by kicking B.L. off of the junior varsity squad, but the school district appealed.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, noted: "It might be tempting to dismiss B.L.’s words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary."
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
As a result of this decision, schools will no longer be able to retaliate when students voice their opinions off campus as long as the speech in question is not disruptive to the function of the school.
The "substantial disruption" test was established in Tinker v. Des Moines, which found that students were within their rights to wear arm bands protesting the Vietnam War to school because it did not substantially disrupt the school's operations.
During oral arguments in April, B.L.'s lawyer told the Court that she "was punished for merely expressing frustration with a four-letter word to her friends outside of school on a weekend. Her message may seem trivial, but for young people, the ability to voice their emotions to friends without fear of school censorship may be the most important freedom of all."