"Fire" is not protected speech.

 

"N-word ...." is. If it's now allowed at school then it's no longer a "protected speech" issue.

 

Location matters which is why the "protected speech" argument fails.

 

Disagree. It's the school's property. They are allowed to police what occurs or is allowed or disallowed on their property.

Also from what appears to be her twitter account:

 

Caley Godino ‏@AllHailCails Nov 26

So happy my family is looking at houses out of this city #cya

 

https://twitter.com/allhailcails

Disagree. It's the school's property. They are allowed to police what occurs or is allowed or disallowed on their property.

 

I think we are agreeing. Guru's (and others) initial argument was "protected free speech."

 

We know that's not the case by the examples of forbidden otherwise legal speech pertaining to school grounds. So that tells us the school has rights to punish otherwise free speech.

I don't want to get too far off the reservation but we do agree location matters.

 

Schools can dictate what is and what is not allowed on their property. Schools can not dictate the administration of private twitter accounts.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. The fact that schools can limit types of speech on their property tells us they have powers to limit to an extent.

 

So now that we can move on from the "protected speech" argument we get to the issue of "limits."

I think we are agreeing. Guru's (and others) initial argument was "protected free speech."

 

We know that's not the case by the examples of forbidden otherwise legal speech pertaining to school grounds. So that tells us the school has rights to punish otherwise free speech.

 

Right. If it occurs on their property. They have no right to punish that same speech if it occurs elsewhere (i.e. Twitter in this case) IMO.

I think we are agreeing. Guru's (and others) initial argument was "protected free speech."

 

We know that's not the case by the examples of forbidden otherwise legal speech pertaining to school grounds. So that tells us the school has rights to punish otherwise free speech.

 

A private twitter account is protected free speech. Just because the school is punishing the girl doesn't mean the school has the legal right to punish the girl. For the girl and her family they are better off moving somewhere else vs. taking the school on in court and I am sure that is what the school is counting on. Schools always do count on bullying being a successful control strategy until you hire a competent lawyer and tell them in no uncertain terms you are going to sue their you know what off. Then it gets real.

Now we're getting somewhere. The fact that schools can limit types of speech on their property tells us they have powers to limit to an extent.

 

So now that we can move on from the "protected speech" argument we get to the issue of "limits."

 

No, you are playing both ends against the middle and ignoring location.

 

On School property = School do what School want

Off School property = School "go to the bathroom" out of luck

I think that the family will do both, move as well as sue.

It would be interesting to see how the argument would be made should this ever go to trial.

 

Schools have used the Des Moines v Tinker case from the 60s as their basis for suspensions re: speech. Courts have used it to apply to online postings as well.

 

There is a 3-pronged test that came out of the Tinker case and one involves the issue of "potential disruption" at the school.

 

One key caveat IMO still centers around extracurricular vs being suspended from school.

 

Do cheerleaders have some sort of official "code of conduct" agreement at this school?

No, you are playing both ends against the middle and ignoring location.

 

On School property = School do what School want

Off School property = School "go to the bathroom" out of luck

 

But what are you basing this on? Plenty of cases regarding speech and schools including off-campus speech. I haven't found many that deal with extracurriculars though. My guess is the school has even more rights in this area than with suspension from school.

A private twitter account is protected free speech.

 

Based on?

But what are you basing this on? Plenty of cases regarding speech and schools including off-campus speech. I haven't found many that deal with extracurriculars though. My guess is the school has even more rights in this area than with suspension from school.

 

Like I said, ultimately the courts are going to have to sort it out.

For those who are against it...

 

 

Do you think schools should be able to have rules regarding out-of-school actions for extracurricular activities/clubs/teams?

 

I'll assume that's a general "yes."

 

Would any of these warrant suspension/removal from the team/club/activity?

 

1. Alcohol consumption at a party

2. Posting on FB that a teacher is ugly/fat/seems gay/having an affair.

3. Posting that Mexicans are stupid.

4. Posting that blacks are lazy.

5. Juan's parents are probably here illegally.

 

Any of those warrant a punishment?

 

And what she tweeted I'd argue doesn't come anywhere close to any of those situations you just used as examples.

 

And 1-4...if I were an extra curricular activity coach and knew a kid had done any of those, I would have to think some sort of punishment would ensue. Not sure about complete dismissal, but missing some games/matches, extra work, something. #5, while possibly mean and hurtful I don't think approaches the level of the first four and would be more gray.

Based on?

 

We are living in a time of mass political correctness and huge concerns about our national security that clouds many minds when it comes to the power and rights of the 1st Amendment.

We are living in a time of mass political correctness and huge concerns about our national security that clouds many minds when it comes to the power and rights of the 1st Amendment.

 

I meant what court cases are you basing your contention that a student's social media postings can never be punished by the school?