3 ms·

> The Court was trying to find a balance that allows schools to prevent kids from going around spewing expletives all day long without consequence, while at the

> The Court was trying to find a balance that allows schools to prevent kids from going around spewing expletives all day long without consequence, while at the same time not treading too heavily on the legitimate free speech rights of students. Spewing expletives all day long without consequence is a right, guaranteed by the first amendment. If the school system doesn't like it, it's free to relocate to a country where free speech laws don't apply. I still don't understand why this went all the way to the supreme court. It's such a clear-cut case of free speech. Some school admin's reading comprehension must be really poor if they couldn't make sense of the first sentence of the constitution.

gnicholas 5y ago
> I still don't understand why this went all the way to the supreme court. It's such a clear-cut case of free speech. The previous Supreme Court precedent (Tinker, [1]) was from 1969, and it wasn't clear how it should/would apply in the case of digital speech. For example, a student can be off-campus and tweet something that is instantaneously seen by hundreds of students who are on-campus. It wasn't clear how Tinker's framework would apply to this, since twitter and other platforms for remote speech didn't exist at that time. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/503
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
Students don't (and shouldn't) have the right to disrupt the classroom with their speech. Like, you can't just go and yell expletives in a Wendy's and expect to not get kicked out, and IMO the same should apply to classrooms (even though it's the government that is enforcing these rules here, rather than private property owners).