Despite My Misgivings About the Individual In Question, The Supreme Court Ruled Correctly

I've written previously about the bratty, foul-mouthed cheerleader who took to Snapchat to show that her maturity and vocabulary were as developed as her ability to make the varsity cheerleading squad--that is, not highly developed.  Read the first link to get caught up.

However, even though I don't have anything kind to say about the girl herself, she was right in that the school had no legitimate authority to penalize her for her Snapchat post--and the Supreme Court has thusly ruled 8-1:

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. 

I have a long history on this blog of saying that, in most circumstances, schools have no business trying to regulate the conduct or speech of students off-campus and away from school functions.  The "creating a disruption at school" argument needs to be applied very narrowly, not loosely:

Student speech advocates will likely claim the ruling as a victory, although it was very narrow. The court ruled that while schools do maintain some interest in regulating students' off-campus speech, the factors in the case of the cheerleader, Brandi Levy, weighed against the school's actions. 

"[T]he school argues that it was trying to prevent disruption, if not within the classroom, then within the bounds of a school-sponsored extracurricular activity," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in an opinion that was joined by all of his colleagues but Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented. 

"But we can find no evidence in the record of the sort of ‘substantial disruption’ of a school activity or a threatened harm to the rights of others that might justify the school’s action," Breyer continued...

"The school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances," it continued. "These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers."

But nevertheless, the school could not discipline Levy, the court said, because her speech in this instance was not disruptive. 

Chalk up another point for the First Amendment and for restraining petty school administrators.

I wonder if young Brandi ever made the varsity cheerleading team....

Update, 6/27/21:  A reasonable view:

While all the justices but Thomas joined Breyer’s opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion that Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

Alito’s opinion repeatedly inveighed against granting schools permission to impose a “heckler’s veto,” by invoking the hurt feelings of other students to justify punishing speech on or off campus.

“Speech cannot be suppressed just because it expresses thoughts or sentiments that others find upsetting,” Alito wrote.