SCOTUS Tells American Schools To Lighten Up!

The Supreme Court rules in a former high school student's favor.

BLACK LIVES MATTER

PROTECT BLACK WOMEN! 

STOP ASIAN HATE!

PROTECT AAPI WOMEN!

FREE PALESTINE🇵🇸!

WEAR A DAMN MASK! SAVE A LIFE! TRUST SCIENCE AND MEDICAL EXPERTS! THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC IS FUCKING REAL!

GET VACCINATED! IF THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE VACCINES ARE AVAILABLE, GET IT WHILE IT'S STILL FREE! THE MEDICAL EXPERTS SAY THE VACCINES DO WORK AND IT REDUCES THE RISK OF CORONAVIRUS INFECTION.

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE NOW! VOTE THESE DUMBASS LAWMAKERS OUT OF OFFICE! STOP SUPPORTING ALL FORMS OF EXTREMISM!

GIVE PUERTO RICO, GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS AND NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS! GRANT STATEHOOD TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MAKE IT THE DOUGLASS COMMONWEALTH.

GOOGLE'S BLOGGER IS STRAIGHT UP TRASH! THE BLOGGER INTERFACE IS A TOTAL DISASTER AND IT'S RIDICULOUS!

WHITE PRIVILEGE IS REAL! IT'S "SUIT AND TIE" WHITE SUPREMACY ON TELEVISION, RADIO, THE INTERNET AND AMERICAN POLICY!

YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!

EXPECT MORE!

I am getting the feeling that the Supreme Court will have a controversial ruling that will gravely impact all Americans. The Supreme Court is more conservative now that Washed Up 45 rammed through Karen Coney Barrett.

The Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) was a landmark ruling.

The woman in the center of the case won.

The latest Court decision handed changes the way American schools discipline students when they're not in session. Chief Justice Karen Roberts, Karen Coney Barrett, Karen Gorsuch, Karen Kavanaugh, Karen Alito, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ruled that a Pennsylvania high school violated a cheerleader's constitutional rights to First Amendment protected free speech. She used vulgar language while criticizing her high school on social media.

The dissenter was Karen Thomas, the Black enabler of white supremacy and autocracy.

The decision involved B.L. (known as Brandy Levy). Due to the fact she was a minor at the time, they disclosed her name and protected her image.

Levy was posting on Snapchat her disgust with school policies involving afterschool activities.

"Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck cheer, fuck everything" was posted on social media. She also posted a second Snap. "Love how we and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but tha[t] doesn't matter to anyone else?"

Well someone took her snaps, screenshot them and sent them to the school officials. The principal would suspend Levy and cut her from the cheerleading squad.

So she sued and the Court ruled in favor of her.

Now it voids school administrations from punishing students for doing things outside the school walls.

So if a student wants to criticize their school, teachers and policies without making threats to safety, active education procedures and on campus activities is protected speech. 

Schools will have to change their rules to accommodate to the new ruling.

Brandy Levy changed the way schools handle punishment.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 23, 2021, which affirmed the Third Circuit's ruling in a 8–1 judgement. The majority opinion was written by Breyer and joined by all other Justices excluding Thomas. Breyer's majority opinion overruled some of the Third Circuit's majority opinion in relationship to Tinker in that it was too broad towards off-campus speech, and that schools may have a legitimate interest to restrict off-campus speech, such as in relation to harassment and bullying. However, the majority did not try to define the bounds when this applies: "We do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as 'off campus' speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school’s special need to prevent … substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up a school community." Breyer identified three factors related to off-campus speech that should be considered in future litigation: that off-campus speech is usually the responsibility of the student's parents, that off-campus speech covers virtually any activity outside of the school facility, and that the school has a responsibility to protect unpopular ideas by students.

Turning specifically to B.L.'s case, Breyer wrote that while the school may have a valid interest to control student speech off campus, the school district violated B.L's First Amendment rights in reprimanding her for her post. Breyer stated that if B.L. had been an adult, her Snapchat post would have been protected by the First Amendment, and that there was no evidence that her post created the type of disruption that Tinker addressed. Other aspects of B.L.'s case worked towards her favor in protecting her First Amendment rights over the school's interests, including that her Snapchat message was sent to a private circle of friends, and that it did not explicitly name the school nor targeted any individuals.Breyer wrote "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 further stated "The school itself has an interest in protecting a student's unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus," because "America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy."

Alito wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Gorsuch.

Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion. After reiterating the argument from his Morse concurrence that the Tinker Court had never sufficiently explained how the First Amendment would have been understood as applying to student speech at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, and citing state cases from that period suggesting it was not, Thomas stated "the majority fails to consider whether schools often will have more authority, not less, to discipline students who transmit speech through social media". He also wrote that the school should have been able to restrict B.L.'s speech as students "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs".