Public school administrators suspended Brandi Levy, a sophomore, from the school’s cheerleading team for the entire academic year because she shared a private message that contained profanity on Snapchat, on the weekend, off-campus.
The public school defended her suspension by claiming her speech was “socially unacceptable.” But Levy’s speech (even if crude) is private speech fully protected by the First Amendment.
If schools can police and sanction student speech regardless of where or when it occurs, this also gives public school officials (government actors) significant power to chill religious speech and infringe on the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children
. @BECKETlaw’s amicus brief in this case shows exactly how the public school’s broad rule would increase the likelihood for discrimination against students expressing their deeply held religious beliefs. https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/Mahanoy-v.-BL-amicus-brief-FILED.pdf
The brief also explains that, because public school administrations are less familiar with unknown or unfamiliar religious beliefs, there is a greater chance that this rule will harm religious minorities.
During oral argument, several Justices expressed concern with the possibility that public schools could punish students’ religious and political speech. But advocates for both sides disclaimed public school authority to censor student religious or political speech.
Justices also appeared skeptical of extending public school authority over off-campus student speech, with Justice Breyer and others explaining that Tinker (the Court’s key case on this issue) focused on protecting on-campus student speech—not giving schools authority off-campus.
A ruling will be issued by the end of June.
You can follow @esbax.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: