Wary Supreme Court weighs student's Snapchat profanity case

  • 📰 AP
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 55 sec. here
  • 2 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 25%
  • Publisher: 51%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether public schools can discipline students for things they say off campus. The case centers on a 14-year-old cheerleader’s profanity-laced social media rant.

FILE - In this April 23, 2021, file photo members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In one of many examples members of the court offered, Justice Elena Kagan described boys who keep a sexually charged online ranking of girls based on their looks. “You can’t put people in jail for commenting on people’s appearance, but shouldn’t a school be able to deal with it?” Kagan asked. The current dispute stems from Tinker v. Des Moines, the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The posts were brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year. Levy’s parents responded with a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional rights to free speech. Suspending Levy from cheerleading was a reasonable response because she targeted her coaches and a teammate’s ability to compete, said Lisa Blatt, representing the district.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

I’m still thinking there’s only lingerie u der those robes victoriaxxxjustice

Next they’re going to want to throw kids/young adults in prison for “saying things”. 💆🏻‍♀️ I often disagree with things people say & I hate when people cuss a lot, but I will always respect their free speech. Stop trying to turn everyone into Stepford wives.

Logic would suggest the answer is no. What you do when not in school (or work) is not subject to judgment by school (or work).

First amendment, open and shut case. Private schools can do whatever, but public schools fall under the constitution. No pushing any religion, no censoring our free speech. Especially outside school, they cannot dictate kids lives when not under their supervision.

Are they their guardians? No? Okay, then no, they can't.

The public schools should be more concerned with parents failing to discipline their children. Our tax dollars have been wasted on so many who think success is associated with fame. Stop the waste!

American where we say we like freedom but also like to make rules to curb freedom, we don't want you taking advantage of freedom and being all freedomish everywhere...

The Supreme Court and Public Schools cant and shouldnt! But her parents should def give her a good ol ass whoopin! Kids these days 🤦🏻‍♂️

Did she have her uniform on as a representative of the school? Did she use the school’s internet access? Did she name the school openly? Any yes answers are a violation.

No. No. No. That is the job of parents.

Hell no

In my day, the parents would have been appalled at her behavior and made her understand that it was unacceptable.

No. They. Can’t. It’s called 1A. Why is this a thing? Wasting their time. Shouldn’t touch it.

Im starting to doubt her commitment to Sparkle Motion.

I was disciplined in 1982 for smoking a cigarette off campus and out of uniform. Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is not new.

What you say privately is quite a different situation from what you publish on social media.

This really should not be a difficult case to decide. Anything other than a flat no is completely untenable and unenforceable

no way this should have made it this far up the chain but maybe it's a good thing to carve it in stone again.

This is ridiculous

No wtf

Nope.

They should sit out Biden's address to congress out of an abundance of covid caution...

1st Amendment?

the answer is......... no.

Easy, the answer is no

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 728. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Cheerleader punished for a Snapchat takes her case to the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court will review this cheerleader's case and consider the authority of public school officials to discipline students for what they say outside of school. I'm disappointed in CNN. Why is rick 'a-hole' santorum on CNN? He has never had anything of value to say. I guess it time for me to stop watching CNN. FireRickSantorum at 12 go on line get a degree in 18 months say i would like to buy a house , boat, vacation google investing in real estate bonds stocks etf 's cryptos cars boats art horses antiques , mutuals ,robots, up starts , index Good.
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »

Supreme Court to weigh concealed carry rights amid surge in gun violence, salesAs the nation grapples with a surge in gun violence and record gun sales, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would consider whether Americans have a fundamental right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Looking forward to learning more about this story. More gun violence and death folks. Sell the guns, but only with rubber bullets.
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »

Supreme Court to weigh rollback of abortion rightsThe Supreme Court has agreed to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will take up Mississippi’s bid to enforce a 15-week ban on abortion. While the Court SHOULD roll back abortion 'rights' because no one has a right to kill another because they do not like the results of their choices, we should all keep in mind the court does like to protect its prior decisions. 15 weeks is much more reasonable than GregAbbott_TX and his 6 week abortion ban. The debate is “where the abortion time limit should be”. Not “should we have it at all”. Israel attacks on the Palestinians are against international law and basic morality and must come to an immediate end. We urge the world to take action now to stop the new waves of Israeli aggression. HopeToGaza
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »

Supreme Court to weigh rollback of abortion rightsThe Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb. The court’s order sets up a showdown over abortion, probably in the fall, with a more conservative court seemingly ready to dramatically alter nearly 50 years of rulings on abortion rights. The court first announced a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and reaffirmed it 19 years later. Anyone looking for ways to help abortion access in the US right now should read this thread!
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »

Supreme Court to weigh rollback of abortion rightsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb. America is just shit stacked up in a trench coat Kys Mississippi
Source: AP - 🏆 728. / 51 Read more »