Supreme Court sides with cheerleader who cursed online

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former high school cheerleader who argued that she could not be punished by her public school for posting a profanity-laced caption on Snapchat when she was off school grounds.
The case involving a Pennsylvania teenager was closely watched to see how the court would handle the free speech rights of some 50 million public school children and the concerns of schools over off-campus and online speech that could amount to a disruption of the school's mission or rise to the level of bullying or threats.
The 8-1 majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.
"It might be tempting to dismiss (the student's) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary," Breyer wrote.
Breyer said that the court has made clear that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression even 'at the school house gate."
"But," he said, "we have also made clear that courts must apply the First Amendment in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."
"F–k school f–k softball f–k cheer f–k everything" Brandi Levy, then 14, wrote in 2017. She was reacting to the fact that as a junior varsity cheerleader she had failed to get a spot on the varsity squad at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.
When school officials learned of the outburst, Levy was suspended from the JV team for having violated school rules. But her lawyers sued, alleging the school had violated her freedom of speech. Levy is now 18 and a freshman at Bloomsburg University.
"Today's decision may seem obvious to those who have a hard time seeing why public schools should be able to regulate any and all off-campus speech by students, but the fact that the court is identifying circumstances in which they can't is actually a big deal," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
"Although the line between the off-campus speech that schools can and can't regulate is less than clear, the fact that there is a line will have significant ramifications for just about all public school administrators going forward. It's a rare win for a student in a speech case before the current court," he added.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that students like the former cheerleader "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."
"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team. So, too, here," Thomas wrote.
#JessicaSchneider #JeffreyToobin #CNNNewsroom


    1. You know she walked back in that school shoulders high and walking around like she owned that school now…lol maybe a bird to the principal lmao

    1. @Jaime Martinez I knew it was a Bible verse because I’m just that damn smart..Pretty damn good for someone who you claim doesn’t read it..lmao

    2. @Happy Skillmore Did you not even look at the video, Of course you didn’t, I’ve seen you comment on so many threads with nonsense you are obviously just paid to post stupidity. She wasn’t at school when she posted this. By the way I don’t even believe you HAVE A JOB, other than “Youtube Troll”.

    3. @LLM lol Welcome to America Where Free Speech is Free of Criminal charges unless Monetary Damages are inflicted. Next We are going to be told we cant tell the US Government they are complete wastes of Air and Should be Voted Out. XD

    1. @soylentdean yeah the last meeting we had my boss started by asking if we’d all ‘been Toobin’. If not he’d give us five minutes 😂😂😂

    2. The lady on CNN looks very excited talking to Toobins. Pretty sure he had something in his hands.

  1. Lets be honest…. she was spittin’ 🤷🏾‍♂️ we’ve all been at the level of “f— everything”..ESPECIALLY at age 14.

    1. @Travis why do all the folks with no sense of humor all use “brain cells” for their insults? 🙄I swear

    2. @erynlasgalen1949 well, being on varsity meant a lot to her and thats why she was upset. You dont have to knock the sport. My comment section is not your soapbox. Nobody care less about anything you feel because you’re on borrowed time anyways. So relax and let the youth live.

    1. Stop being pedantic, that expression rarely refers to a literal crime against the law, — see the second definition of the word “crime” in most dictionaries.

    1. @Cesar S you didn’t vaguely mention anything. You LITERALLY stated snowflakes not wearing masks (which is an oxymoron ) caused more dangerous viral strains. That’s not vague. That’s just a stupid statement based on your emotions.

    2. @Cesar S Uh no. Wrong. You might’ve seen that in a horror movie but a virus can mutate without infecting anyone. Mutation happens as virus replicate themselves. And AGAIN, more statements based on compete ignorance. Sorry bro you just keep making yourself look more dumb!

    1. @Bentley B not infront of my co workers. That’s actually aggravated battery and indecent exposure

    2. @Dr Beechas yeah man it’s hilarious the double standards. CNN was all for that guy who was peeing in a bush registering as a SO for the rest of his life. That wasn’t that long ago. Now it’s like ‘well you know he was just cranking his wank’.

    1. If she was wearing a school uniform in her tweets I’d say she was representing, so within School jurisdiction. Otherwise , not. Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter saying because of the ubiquity of the media she was essentially sharing it on the school grounds so therefore they have the right to discipline her.

  2. The case Toobin is referencing: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

    1. The ABA published a pretty good article about what crt is on January 12, 2021.
      Worth reading for its classic examples.

    1. @Brad Putney I try to change the world by leaving comments on YouTube…..
      Of course I’m f*cking around, like everyone else, i just don’t take total strangers, too seriously.

  3. The school needs to mind its own damn business. It didn’t happen at school, they’re not the parents.

    1. Thank you!!!! It was likely (1) conservative stiff child who went and shared with her parents which then called the school. So naturally, they reacted!

  4. This case is simple: TEACHERS who are Paid to teach about “Free Speech” went after a CHILD Stasi-like for what the kid said off school grounds. Stasi-sh**.

    1. Whenever i was a kid teachers told me i didnt have rights until i was an adult. Idk wtf they were thinking

    1. @Reality Strikes Conservatives never try to stop or cancel anyones speech. Thats a leftist move.
      The amendment was written to protect, even offensive speech.
      Leftist can never make arguments and always resort to lables for opponents like “karen.”

    2. @Robin Lillian Well buddy, not too many rights for the dead baby. Birth control? What are you living in the 50s? No one cares about birth control, except you

    3. @Malo Otua Yeah thats the problem with leftist ideologues. Either vague or changing Definitions .And the childish attitude of a 5 year old….”we dont have to.”

  5. Why should schools have any jurisdiction over free speech? Schools should be teaching, not worrying about what students are doing OFF SCHOOL PROPERTY?

    1. If you have a student that is bullying another student off-campus, harasses them, and salts them, belittle them all on social media… The school has a vested interest because bullying is wrong in all cases in the school’s responsibility to protect students from bullying far outweighs in the assumed First Amendment rights.

      A student does not have a First Amendment right to bully somebody, and the school has every right to step in and squash them like a bug

  6. For the record this was the offending message:
    F— school, f— softball, f— cheer, f— everything.
    Coaches got mad, she got kicked out. She wasn’t being racist, or over the top threats. Clearly the school was in the wrong,

    1. @V for Wombat it’s a freedom of speech thing. Are we allowed to say anything we want without consequences or not? You can’t go one way when you like it and the other when you don’t. If groups can decide what members can say, they should be able to. If they can’t, they can’t. Which way is it?

    2. @LLM name literally ONE time in history where the entity doing the censoring was the “good guy”….. I’ll wait.

    1. No crime involved here; it’s over a punishment meted out by the school system in retaliation for a student flaming them on Snapchat after school hours. The powers that be at the school didn’t appreciate her choice of words and decided that suspending her from participation in cheerleading was appropriate. SCOTUS says it was not. Hooray for SCOTUS (this time at least)

    2. Schools can be stunningly stupid, and is usually because they don’t have the balls to tell an angry parent that they are stupid and wrong

    3. @Soundtracked you really don’t have anything else to do other than to keep commenting do you?I watch the video I understood that she said something that was offensive what I don’t get is why it ended up before the supreme Court. That’s something that should have been able to be handled by a lower Court. It is clearly a violation of her first amendment right to freedom of speech. Hence why I asked what’s the crime.

  7. Aren’t schools supposed to teach things, like how to: do research and learn things, such as the Bill of Rights

    1. Nope. It’s free child care. There’s some degree of indoctrination but ever since everyone’s had the internet in they’re pockets even the students themselves are aware that they’re being taught a bunch of garbage propaganda.

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.