Supreme Court Rules Student's Off-Campus Remarks Did Not Warrant Suspension 1

Supreme Court Rules Student’s Off-Campus Remarks Did Not Warrant Suspension


The Supreme Court has ruled in the favor of a student who was suspended after she used vulgar language in a post off of school grounds. The justices agreed that her remarks did not warrant suspension but did not go so far as to decide a larger ruling that all speech off grounds could not be punished by a school. NBC's Pete  WIliams has details.

» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, MSNBC offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Supreme Court Rules Student's Off-Campus Remarks Did Not Warrant Suspension


    1. ​@Scientific Methodologist Bethel School District vs. Fraser: “The First Amendment does not prevent the school officials from determining that to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as respondent’s would undermine the school’s basic educational mission. A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexually explicit monologue directed towards an unsuspecting audience of teenage students”

    2. America
      ….as a veteran I’m concerned.

      If people don’t know their rights, they won’t know when they’re being violated. What’s the point of defending our freedoms abroad if people won’t do it at home? This is a case where our blood and treasure wasn’t in vain. Unfortunately, its a rarity these days.

      That’s why groups like The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is so important; and why critical thinking and civics should be taught in all schools.

    3. @zain An assembly or a classroom is on school grounds. Off school grounds the school has no authority.

  1. Umm just let kids do what they want to say off campus , it’s not the school’s job to discipline students off campus

    1. @Pradeep
      ….it is also a matter of our Constitution that states our rights, including free speech: extends from humanity, and not the government. This is why CCP/PLA funded “Confucian Centers” are deeply troubling.
      ….because they censor the school and students from covering topics critical of china, and much worse.

    2. @Marshall Paul its 100% different…wow, you cant be that dumb to think being a cop is the same as being a student when off duty or off campus. just dumb

    3. The problem is that this behaviour is not just happening in schools / universities. It is also happening in the wider workplace.
      We have all seen cases of people losing jobs etc for comments that were made outside of work hours.

      I wonder how this case will play into those cases.

    4. We opted out of government school authority and curriculum in favor of home schooling, and have never regretted our decision. Both of our sons and their wives now home school their kids. Home schooling is legal in all 50 states.

    5. @M Robertson
      I don’t blame you. My sister was telling me how CRT being taught in schools is getting to the point of child abuse. Thats why she’s choosing private school, after my nieces came home crying….. after months of being hazed all day.
      ….apparently it started when the teacher made all of the caucasian students write apology letters “for being white”. And this applied to the confusion of the Hispanic kids in class, who were also made to do the assignment and read it out loud; but weren’t subjected to the same violence on the way to and from public schools.

    1. Remember when we were told this far right Court would bring about the end of our rights etc and MSNBC fear mongered to suggest that they would end ACÁ, voting rights, civil rights?

    2. @FartherDude I do. Chucky Schumer did a nice job of fear mongering. And his sheeple bowed to him.

    1. Why did the Supreme Court have to get involved? Why did it take the Supreme Court to tell us something like this?

    2. @eric because they wanted the Supreme Court to rule on SHUTTING people up outside their jurisdiction it’s all about CONTROL

    1. Turns out this happened in the 50s and it just took that long for this to make it to the Supreme Court.

  2. This is just common sense, it’s a sad sign that it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

    1. Watch the story. The court overturned a lower court decision stating the school can never band for off campus remarks…

    2. @Sam Smith See Sam that is NOT how it works. You cannot prove a negative. So you can’t prove that something DIDN’T happen.
      It is incumbent of those claiming that something DID happen to prove it did. 60+ court cases show that there was no proof of election irregularities etc.

    3. @Peter T its always a good way to tell someone is not from the USA or doesnt know how government works when they try to equate this to normal law and do the whole “cant prove something didnt happen”. What you fail to realize is that when it comes to elections they actually are required by law to do just that. They are required by law to audit. Since democrats keep refusing to do actual audits they are actually in fact breaking the law. So yes it is valid for a USA citizen to demand that the officials prove it was in fact a valid elections since they are required by law to do so.

      Before you pretend to be a USA citizen, at least look up USA law concerning elections.

    1. @tetleydidley Definitely none of the school’s business off-campus. On-campus I’d say it’s all fine as long as it’s not disrupting class. Listening to music during class, yah they can regulate that. But wearing a hat? No sorry you’re wrong there. Kids are already forced to go to schools to do busy work, taking away their freedom of expression is going wayyyy to far. During class, yah students have to focus on class, but what they do with their free time, none of the school’s business.

    2. @FartherDude Some people care. Like academics and intellectuals and those who actually refine themselves into decent human beings who actually don’t do ignorant and vulgar things in stupidity who also represent the school and doesn’t want to be associated with such minds. Naturally, people who like that stuff and don’t care about society or manners would support it. Use discernment and pick your battles wisely. Fight for a student who used free speech for a good cause without vulgarity and I would be on your side. I read your reply. But regardless, that is what it is and it does reflect on the institution and those students who want to align themselves with good people and good institutions do care. Common sense. We are losing more and more of it. Good luck.

    1. @Tim B they didn’t say that’s what happened here genius. They were stating a fact that people sued the schools for those cases FORCING schools to take responsibility for what happened off campus. Man you conservatives. Your brains just don’t work do they?

    2. @Katy McNiff who gets to decide what considered “bullying” ” offensive “??? Free speech is free speech

    3. @Jack Hoff Pretty much every school in the country has rules against bullying, this isn’t something new lol.

    4. ​@Katy McNiff So many things wrong or missed about what you said:
      1. The first issue is that the left&democrats have pushed laws into effect to allow schools to be sued for so many things & stuff that happens to kids off campus.
      1A. It wouldn’t matter about sue happy parents if the suit wouldn’t go anywhere in the first place and would be dismissed initially because the laws weren’t there in the first place and the root of the problem was addressed by other means.
      1A. Which leads to schools wanting to take action immediately on kids for doing anything off campus that might affect the school, including free speech statements, because they will be sued and it will stick. Which is this problem right here.
      1B. This is the problem with democrats overall strategy of removing the problem with legislation is that it always just creates more problems or makes it worse a lot of times farther down the road, like this problem and countless others.
      2. Left&Dems want government to protect the children in every aspect of their life and essentially remove parents from the equation, that’s the boiled down simple & brief explanation.
      Parental failures, societal failures, social media push and it’s failures all add to this problem. the only way for democrats to reach children through government organizations is at the school level, so that’s why these laws were added to allow schools to be sued for societies problems.

      Simplier solution is to make social media 18+ and to only hold schools accountable for bullying when it happens on school campus or during school hours.

    5. Campus speech codes are alot more strict than the First Amendment.
      They have no place off campus.

    1. @Michael Pettengill What are you talking about? Big brother is what we call surveillance not 1st amendment rights. For you to go straight to the 2nd amendment tells me a lot about who you are.

    2. @Richard Zhang i mean i understand what hes saying lol maybe you just havent read enough critical theory to understand it.

    3. @digidanshow you’ve no idea what critical race theory is by this comment. get deprogrammed.

  3. How did this even make it to the Supreme Court. Obvious decision. Common sense has left the public school system.

    1. @Swen the same can be said for you. Can we take a minute and educate ourselves on this Supreme Court case before assuming she was being racist or homophobic or something off campus? There is on SJW influence here.

    2. @Swen Wasn’t The Previous Precedent That Schools Were NOT Allowed To Punish Students For Remarks Made Off Campus?

    3. @Verify Truth yes they said that in the video. The lower court decision said the school can never suspend them for off campus remarks. OP didn’t actually watch the story before commenting lol.

    1. I’m conservative in the way of conserving what is good. What is objectively good does not come at the unfair price of others.

    2. @Tony Freedoms to do harm to each other? The school did their bit and the system said the harm it did was not in balance. Not a just decision on the school’s part. Do you honestly think the school was being just? Your asking about freedoms didn’t pull on anything that shouldn’t always be considered when balancing freedom vs freedom. My reference to harm is the correct premise in any justice system and country. The real problem tends to be from people denying that what was done was harmful. Think about it.

    3. @christian murphy conservatives have canceled more stuff than the ‘left’ could ever dream of. rock music, dungeons and dragons, anything remotely occult, the dixie chicks, liz cheney, the list goes on and on. these snowflake conservatives are trying to rip our freedoms away and you’re complicit.

    4. @skully_the_pepper while you’re hurling molotovs i’ll be hurling 7.62

      You guys are literally the definition of clown.

  4. Like the high school student that got suspended for going to the range with his dad and posting a picture on Facebook. Sue em all.

    1. @J Cockrell right wing extremist go to the gun range and follow gun safety? Crazy. I guess your precious life is saved daily from right wing extremist in the military.

  5. What someone — including a kid — decides to say on his or her own time, is nobody else’s business except that of the child and the parents.

    The school administrators need to mind their own business. Their interest in the activities of the students *stops* at the edge of the campus.

  6. The only out-of-school actions deserving discipline by the school are threats toward the faculty students or property. Anything else can be handled by the legal system exclusively.

    1. And just wait to see how schools respond to bullying. They are damned if they do damned if they don’t. Define what a threat is.

    1. but god forbid we teach the people about how race has affected every move of our government.

    2. @Ima Doll I’m not an advocate for bullying. However, I think the bullying I experienced in my child helped me grow as a person. Both as the bully and the one getting bullied. My issue is when we try to define what is acceptable speech and unacceptable speech we often don’t get to pick who sets the parameters. This is often the root of the problem when we start to police speech.

    3. @skully_the_pepper This is an incredibly simple comment on a complicated issue. I agree and disagree with this at the same time. Our government has and continues to legislate based on race, but to say “every move” is a bit of an exaggeration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.