Title : "Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school."
link : "Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school."
"Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school."
"I never could have imagined that one simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I’m proud that my family and I advocated for the rights of millions of public school students."
Said Brandi Levy (now an 18-year-old college student), quoted in "Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over profane Snapchat rant" (WaPo).
The decision is 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting, and Justice Breyer writing the opinion about Levy's barbaric yawp: "Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck cheer, fuck everything."
From the WaPo article (by Robert Barnes):
In 1969, the Supreme Court famously held in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” But it also held that schools have broader authority over students than the state generally does when restricting speech, and that authorities can discipline students for on-campus speech that causes or is likely to cause “material and substantial” disruption of school functions....
In the half-century since, the Supreme Court’s decisions have been few and lean toward school administrators. The justices have upheld school disciplinary action regarding lewd speech by students at school events, a student newspaper that operated at the direction of school officials and a nonsensical sign with a seemingly pro-marijuana message — “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” — held by a student at a school activity.
Breyer said a school’s ability to discipline students does not disappear just because the speech is off-campus. “Serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers” are all areas where a school’s “regulatory interests remain significant,” Breyer wrote.
But he said courts considering such cases in the future should remember they rarely stand in place of parents regarding off-campus speech; and that monitoring student speech 24 hours a day would give students little room for expression....
Here's the opinion. In the second-to-last paragraph, Breyer, addressing the vulgarity of "fuck," quotes from the Court's most famous "fuck" case, Cohen v. California ("Fuck the Draft"):
We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamental societal values are truly implicated.
Thus articles "Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school."
You now read the article "Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2021/06/young-people-need-to-have-ability-to.html
0 Response to ""Young people need to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school.""
Post a Comment