3 ms·

The article mentions the Tinker case, but recently there has been another case argued with the Supreme Court: Mahanoy Area School Districts vs BL: https://www.s

The article mentions the Tinker case, but recently there has been another case argued with the Supreme Court: Mahanoy Area School Districts vs BL: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ruling-in-student-speech-case/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ru... This is the infamous "cheerleader" case you may have heard on the news. I'm optimistic that the Court will rule against the school district and guarantee more free speech rights for students; I think it's ridiculous how schools are increasingly intruding more and more into the lives of children.

iammisc 5y ago
University students are not children which means no one should be monitoring their activity without the normal legal proceedings. I'm also hopeful the supreme court makes the right call but just wanted to make sure we are not confusing uni students with minors.
- duxup 5y ago
  >which means no one should be monitoring their activity On a public site? Like ... their friends who might monitor it?
- jalk 5y ago
  But neither is faculty, whom they are supposedly monitoring already. - so perhaps this is just a way to to get all of the monitoring removed
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
duxup 5y ago
That case the justices seem to be trying to figure out where the line is where a school might have legitimate concern about speech off campus, and what kind of speech is ok to take action on. It seemed to be less about monitoring in general and about where to draw the line. They did not seem interested in wholesale blocking any monitoring or requiring the school ignore public internet posts. SCOTUS seemed to be more interested where to draw the line on what actions schools could take on what types of speech, not so much about monitoring overall.
koheripbal 5y ago
It's a good lesson in privacy controls at a young age. I taught my daughter to never use her real name or post her face publicly. ...and to use different usernames on different sites.

iammisc 5y ago

University students are not children which means no one should be monitoring their activity without the normal legal proceedings. I'm also hopeful the supreme court makes the right call but just wanted to make sure we are not confusing uni students with minors.

duxup 5y ago
>which means no one should be monitoring their activity On a public site? Like ... their friends who might monitor it?
jalk 5y ago
But neither is faculty, whom they are supposedly monitoring already. - so perhaps this is just a way to to get all of the monitoring removed
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

duxup 5y ago

That case the justices seem to be trying to figure out where the line is where a school might have legitimate concern about speech off campus, and what kind of speech is ok to take action on. It seemed to be less about monitoring in general and about where to draw the line. They did not seem interested in wholesale blocking any monitoring or requiring the school ignore public internet posts. SCOTUS seemed to be more interested where to draw the line on what actions schools could take on what types of speech, not so much about monitoring overall.

koheripbal 5y ago

It's a good lesson in privacy controls at a young age. I taught my daughter to never use her real name or post her face publicly. ...and to use different usernames on different sites.