> If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. She didn't really even mention a freshman making the team, alt

> If you're the only freshman making the team, then you don't need to be named to be identified. She didn't really even mention a freshman making the team, although it was vaguely alluded to. > 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. The point was that it wasn't intended for a larger audience outside of her circle of friends. > Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit. Could complaining about the school off-campus and outside of school events disrupt student morale, justifying suspending a student? Anyway, even the judge who dissented in the appeal agreed that it wasn't disruptive: > Judge Thomas L. Ambro disagreed with his colleagues regarding off-campus speech and said it would have been enough for his colleagues to simply have ruled in Levy’s favor because her speech was not substantially disruptive. > That's not really true as that's not happening now. It did happen. She was already restored by a judge to the JV team years ago. > There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th. There are tons of Constitutional rights that are ignored by government at every level.