SCOTUS Favors Profane Pennsylvania Cheerleader In Free-Speech Case


Supreme Court rules school wrong to punish cheerleader for profane Snapchat rant in 8-1 free speech decision

Justice Clarence Thomas, the only dissenter of the majority opinion, argued the ruling does not accurately reflect historical rulings from similar cases and is too vague for schools to interpret.

"The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances", he maintained. Breyer further argued the school itself has an interest in protecting student free speech, even if that speech is unpopular or frowned upon by the administration.

Levy's parents filed a federal lawsuit after the cheerleading coach learned of the posts and suspended her from the junior varsity team for a year.

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa. appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. On a Saturday at a Cocoa Hut convenience store in Mahanoy City in Pennsylvania's coal region, she posted a photo of her and a friend raising their middle fingers, adding a caption using the same curse word four times to voice her displeasure with cheerleading, softball, school and "everything".

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B".

Brandi Levy speaks with Fox News' David Spunt about a Supreme Court case stemming from a pair of shapchats she posted as a sophomore in high school.

Despite ruling in Levy's favour, Breyer wrote that "we do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus".

Wednesday's ruling basically adopted the reasoning of Judge Thomas Ambro of the 3rd U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Philadelphia.

Suspended from the team for disruptive behavior, Brandi and her parents went to court. It would have been enough, he said, to say that her speech was protected by the First Amendment because it did not disrupt school activities.

Days before the case was heard in the Supreme Court Tinker and Levy sat down with the ACLU and discussed free speech for students in America. "But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary". Levy has granted numerous interviews allowing her name to be used. Many schools and educators have argued that their ability to curb bullying, threats, cheating and harassment - all frequently occurring online - should not be limited to school grounds.

Put limits on when police can enter a home when chasing someone suspected of a misdemeanor.

Russian forces reportedly fire warning shots at British destroyer in Black Sea