![]() School officials responded by kicking her off the team for a year, a draconian punishment for speech that didn’t even take place at school and was the mere venting of frustration.Ī federal district court and the 3 rd U.S. posted a Snapchat one Saturday afternoon expressing consternation that she did not advance from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading squad. This narrow exception applies because student-speech rights must be applied “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.”īut now, school officials in the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania argue that they can discipline a high school student for an off-campus social media Snapchat post because it somehow might cause a substantial disruption. The Court ruled that public school students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”Īccording to the Court in Tinker, in very narrow circumstances, public school officials can regulate student speech – when it causes a substantial disruption of school activities or invades the rights of others. In Tinker, the Supreme Court ruled that Mary Beth and John Tinker had a First Amendment right to wear black peace armbands to their middle and high schools respectively as a form of protest. ![]() Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Supreme Court on April 28.Īmong those interested observers are Mary Beth and John Tinker, the siblings who were key litigants in the Supreme Court’s landmark student-speech ruling more than 50 years ago in Tinker v. B.L., a K-12 student-speech case to be argued before the U.S. School administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other interested observers are paying close attention to the case of Mahanoy Area School District v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |