Millions of students should look to the Supreme Court ruling in the Brandi Levy case, as it would reshape the rules in schools.
The photo of an American cheerleader became, unexpectedly, the largest legal dispute over the right to free speech in schools in a generation in the country.
In May 2017, cheerleader Brandi Levy posted a photo on Snapchat showing her frustration at not making the varsity cheer squad and being reassigned to the junior team.
“Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck, fuck everything,” he said in a message accompanying the photo in which he raised the middle finger of his hand.
Levy was told that to get into the Mahanoy Area High School college cheer squad he needed a year on the junior team first. However, another freshman was chosen to enter the top team. At the same time, Levy didn’t get the position he wanted on his softball team.
So far, the conditions of this case seem quite minor. But the problem came when the cheerleading team coaches suspended Levy for a year for cursing the school in his message.
It may interest you: Silencing Trump, a social error?
Thus arose the question: Does the First Amendment allow schools to sanction students who speak to off-campus institutions?
“(A ruling in favor of the teachers) would send a chilling lesson in citizenship to the nation’s students and expand government authority over students to dangerous new levels. It is one thing for the judiciary to allow a restricted conception of citizens’ freedom of expression rights when students are in school. But it is quite another for the judiciary to apply that same moody conception to discourse beyond the school environment. That limitless view of government authority even over young people is the antithesis of American traditions, ”said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School.
This is not an easy question to answer, and that is why the justices of the Supreme Court, where the case escalated, have been very cautious in determining a ruling on the Levy dispute.
On the one hand, it was found that the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the free expression of students and prohibits public schools from regulating speeches off campus. But on the other hand, schools warn that lacking authority and control over students off campus could make it harder to fight the bullying, racism, and invasions of privacy that occur online.
Follow the news of El Espectador on Google News“I’m scared to death to write a criterion,” said Judge Stephen Breyer.
And it is that this decision is delicate, because it would remodel the limits to the freedom of expression of the students. That is why the court is expected to rule in Levy’s favor but with narrow terms that do not involve the broader debate of the fight against online bullying and harassment.
Even conservative judges like Brett Kavanuagh, who is the coach of a high school basketball team, and Amy Coney Barret have said this issue should have been resolved with a softer warning, as the response to suspending Levy was “an overreaction.” .
“An alternative approach would be to give schools quite a wide margin to regulate the speech of student-athletes or others involved in extracurricular activities, as long as the rules are adequately conveyed to students in advance and students do not face penalties beyond of their ability to participate in extracurricular programs, “proposes Ian Millhiser of Vox .
We recommend: The danger of seeking the truth: the press, under siege in the world
This is not the first case in which the regulation of freedom of expression has been addressed in the United States. In 1969, students John and Mary Beth Tinker wore black armbands at Des Moines School to protest the Vietnam War, despite objections from the institution. The Supreme Court at that time vindicated the right of young people to express their opinions.
“It can be tempting to believe that in the digital age schools should have the power to punish speech that is delivered beyond the metaphorical ‘school door’. After all, cyberbullying and threats of violence directed at students, schools, and educators are unmistakably serious problems. But the existing laws already give the authorities scope to regulate this harmful behavior, ”Driver concludes in a column in The Washington Post.
