3 ms·

Because it's a public school. It would not apply to private schools or private employers. Also note that this is a narrow ruling; the supreme court is not inte

Because it's a public school. It would not apply to private schools or private employers. Also note that this is a narrow ruling; the supreme court is not intending to set new precedent the way Tinker vs. Des Moines did. They just said this particular student's particular speech in this particular context was protected, not all speech by all students. This case won't be relevant to schools banning hate speech or bullying on social media, for instance. Nor would it have any consequences for public employers. There is a larger question here. Tinker, the existing precedent, was established long before social media. There will have to be a reckoning, the court will need to decide what speech on social media is protected and what isn't. Speech on social media is (by virtue of this decision) more protected than on campus speech, but less protected than speech by an adult who's not a student at the school. There's a line in there somewhere, and it's the court's duty to draw it. They did not draw that line today; they just said that the line is over there somewhere and saying "fuck" on social media didn't cross it.

EricE 5y ago
"There is a larger question here." Which is the point of Thomas's dissent. He does an excellent job outlining just how poor a job the court did with this decision. It starts on page 34: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
stale2002 5y ago
> There's a line in there somewhere, and it's the court's duty to draw it. No, not really. The courts often make an effort to narrowly define their rulings. Every last circumstance, and every last exception, does not need to be ruled on, immediately. Those can be addressed, as they come up.
- nwallin 5y ago
  > immediately. I didn't say immediately. It isn't their duty to draw the line immediately, but they will need to draw a line. The attention that this case received is evidence of that. Nobody really cares about whether or not Brandi was on the cheerleading team at Mahoney High School, but we do care very much about where the line is.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > It isn't their duty to draw the line immediately, but they will need to draw a line. Ok, so then there is no problem with this decision. Edge cases can be handled when they come up, and there isn't a problem with the fact that this decision did not address every single possible circumstance.

EricE 5y ago

"There is a larger question here." Which is the point of Thomas's dissent. He does an excellent job outlining just how poor a job the court did with this decision. It starts on page 34: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf

stale2002 5y ago

> There's a line in there somewhere, and it's the court's duty to draw it. No, not really. The courts often make an effort to narrowly define their rulings. Every last circumstance, and every last exception, does not need to be ruled on, immediately. Those can be addressed, as they come up.

nwallin 5y ago
> immediately. I didn't say immediately. It isn't their duty to draw the line immediately, but they will need to draw a line. The attention that this case received is evidence of that. Nobody really cares about whether or not Brandi was on the cheerleading team at Mahoney High School, but we do care very much about where the line is.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > It isn't their duty to draw the line immediately, but they will need to draw a line. Ok, so then there is no problem with this decision. Edge cases can be handled when they come up, and there isn't a problem with the fact that this decision did not address every single possible circumstance.