3 ms·

I've read it before. It mentions that the state must prove that the speech is disruptive to the administration of the school. The trouble there is the first ame

I've read it before. It mentions that the state must prove that the speech is disruptive to the administration of the school. The trouble there is the first amendment doesn't have that language. Further the type of speech that is disruptive to the administration of the school can also be the sort of speech the first amendment is there to protect. Under this standard a student who is molested by a faculty member may be forbidden from speaking out about it publicly as it is "disruptive to the administration".

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> under this standard a student who is molested by a faculty member may be forbidden from speaking out about it publicly as it is "disruptive to the administration" That's a leap. "Disruptive" was defined within the context of the facts and circumstances of that case. Courts are about balancing rights, in this case, the rights of students to receive a public education and the rights of students to speak freely under the First Amendment. This case narrowed the definition, ever so slightly, of what is and isn't "disruptive" within the meaning of this law.