5 ms·

While students do not retain all their First Amendment rights, case law is clear that they retain them to some extent, and in particular Tinker makes clear to w

While students do not retain all their First Amendment rights, case law is clear that they retain them to some extent, and in particular Tinker makes clear to what extent schools may restrict those rights. Further, I believe the school will not be able to successfully argue that her speech posed a substantial disruption. As it was neither bullying nor threatening and shared privately, the extent to which it may have constituted a disruption was caused by the student who shared it rather than her; if it did pose a disruption, it wouldn't have done so had it not been shared by (I presume) one of her classmates. Anyway, another reason why I would be very surprised if SCOTUS rules against her is that criticism of government institutions is precisely what the First Amendment is designed for.

giantg2 6y ago
I thought her speech pertaining to the other girl constituted bullying. I doubt the privacy laws really hold snapchat as private communication. PA law is very restrictive about recording. If someone recorded her conversation so that it could be played beyond the 24hr period in snapchat, it's possible they could be prosecuted for a felony under the wiretap laws if snaps are actually considered private. Tinker doesn't really provide clear criteria. The disruption would have to be proven, but the articles don't give us all the details around the issues that were being caused on the team. It's possible she reiterated or confirmed her position at school or the activity, further causing the disruption even if some other person was the first to bring it up (ie it's likely not all of her speech occured off campus). Tinker also doesn't define censoring. It's mostly about not suspending or suppressing student speech on campus in a formal classroom setting. The nature of an extracurricular can carry additional responsibilities and expectations (things like illegal activities, bullying, not following team standards, even performance issues - which you could say this meets) . In this case the school did not try to censor the off campus speech, it merely took action to remove a team member that had a performance issue by violating team policy. There was no formal discipline and she was even allowed to continue with softball.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  > Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn’t matter to anyone else? I don't see how that can constitute bullying; the student mentioned here is her friend. It's critical of some freshman getting on the varsity team, but it doesn't appear here that she even mentioned said freshman. Privacy laws are not really relevant; I was speaking of privacy in a broader sense, in the sense that what she said was meant for just her immediate circle of friends, and not wider dissemination. If she had been disruptive in person at the school, that's a completely different story, but I would expect we would have heard of that if that had been the case. Judging it as a case of purely off-campus speech, there's no way this qualifies as disruptive. Extracurriculars can carry additional responsibilities, but if they are provided by a government institution, then they have to follow the Constitution. As for the definition of censorship, punishing a student for their speech is censorship. 'Team policy' is not an excuse if it is unconstitutional. If speech restrictions can apply off-campus and outside of school events, a 'team policy' could just as well include things like never making political statements, or never making left/right political statements, and so on.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. I did just see that text and agree that the text was not bullying. You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen. "there's no way this qualifies as disruptive." Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. "then they have to follow the Constitution" That's not really true as that's not happening now. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. This case is basically up for seeing if those exceptions apply here or if a new exception is to be created. I think that this team policy will be found to acceptable because it's really a performance issue, not a speech issue as she is going against the goals of the team.

giantg2 6y ago

I thought her speech pertaining to the other girl constituted bullying. I doubt the privacy laws really hold snapchat as private communication. PA law is very restrictive about recording. If someone recorded her conversation so that it could be played beyond the 24hr period in snapchat, it's possible they could be prosecuted for a felony under the wiretap laws if snaps are actually considered private. Tinker doesn't really provide clear criteria. The disruption would have to be proven, but the articles don't give us all the details around the issues that were being caused on the team. It's possible she reiterated or confirmed her position at school or the activity, further causing the disruption even if some other person was the first to bring it up (ie it's likely not all of her speech occured off campus). Tinker also doesn't define censoring. It's mostly about not suspending or suppressing student speech on campus in a formal classroom setting. The nature of an extracurricular can carry additional responsibilities and expectations (things like illegal activities, bullying, not following team standards, even performance issues - which you could say this meets) . In this case the school did not try to censor the off campus speech, it merely took action to remove a team member that had a performance issue by violating team policy. There was no formal discipline and she was even allowed to continue with softball.

mannerheim 6y ago
> Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn’t matter to anyone else? I don't see how that can constitute bullying; the student mentioned here is her friend. It's critical of some freshman getting on the varsity team, but it doesn't appear here that she even mentioned said freshman. Privacy laws are not really relevant; I was speaking of privacy in a broader sense, in the sense that what she said was meant for just her immediate circle of friends, and not wider dissemination. If she had been disruptive in person at the school, that's a completely different story, but I would expect we would have heard of that if that had been the case. Judging it as a case of purely off-campus speech, there's no way this qualifies as disruptive. Extracurriculars can carry additional responsibilities, but if they are provided by a government institution, then they have to follow the Constitution. As for the definition of censorship, punishing a student for their speech is censorship. 'Team policy' is not an excuse if it is unconstitutional. If speech restrictions can apply off-campus and outside of school events, a 'team policy' could just as well include things like never making political statements, or never making left/right political statements, and so on.
- giantg2 6y ago
  If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. I did just see that text and agree that the text was not bullying. You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen. "there's no way this qualifies as disruptive." Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. "then they have to follow the Constitution" That's not really true as that's not happening now. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. This case is basically up for seeing if those exceptions apply here or if a new exception is to be created. I think that this team policy will be found to acceptable because it's really a performance issue, not a speech issue as she is going against the goals of the team.