A High School Cheerleader’s F-Bombs on Snapchat Could Blow Up Free Speech for U.S. Students

[Phenom]

When a high school freshman—disappointed that she hadn’t made her varsity cheerleading team—flipped off her school and dropped f-bombs on Snapchat, she couldn’t have known that the future of American First Amendment law hung in the balance of her middle finger.


The girl, known in pleadings as “B.L.,” was shopping with friends on a Saturday afternoon in 2017. She posted a selfie in her Snapchat story that included her best friend. The picture showed both girls extending the bird, with the caption “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” A second post said, “Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that’s [sic] doesn’t matter to anyone else?”


Among B.L.’s 250 online friends, a tattle-tale teammate placed a screenshot of the profane posts in a coach’s hands. The school in Pennsylvania threw B.L. off the junior varsity cheerleading team on the grounds that her post violated team and school rules, which the student acknowledged before joining the team. Those rules required that athletes “have respect for [their] school, coaches, . . . [and] other cheerleaders”; avoid “foul language and inappropriate gestures”; and refrain from sharing “negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches . . . on the internet.”


B.L.’s parents appealed the decision, but the athletic director, school principal, district superintendent, and school board all sided with the Mahanoy Area School District. Their next step was to file a First Amendment lawsuit, which they won at both the district and circuit court levels.

Source.

Thoughts?

 

[MrDawn]

From reading this, I realize that our "Democratic" government is one step closer to becoming a "Communist" one.

 

[Phenom]

Well, the most alarming and concerning thing is that the public school feels they have a right to make decisions and regulate people's personal opinions and thoughts on social media. It's a very close step to infringing on people's first amendment rights.

 

[MrDawn]

Well, the most alarming and concerning thing is that the public school feels they have a right to make decisions and regulate people's personal opinions and thoughts on social media. It's a very close step to infringing on people's first amendment rights.

I agree. But what pisses me off is that the government allowed them to do it which is what I find very offensive.

 

[Phenom]

I agree. But what pisses me off is that the government allowed them to do it which is what I find very offensive.

Which is why people should be concerned. It's the first step down a very dark path.

 

[Demon_skeith]

Well, the most alarming and concerning thing is that the public school feels they have a right to make decisions and regulate people's personal opinions and thoughts on social media. It's a very close step to infringing on people's first amendment rights.

I'm not sure what your point is. You join a workplace, organization, or anything that values its image you are required to follow their rules.

When you got someone taking to social media dropping F bombs, that will get you in trouble in a lot of places. Now if the cheerleader had taken a more respectful approach in showing her disagreement, then you have a point.

 

[Phenom]

@Demon_skeith she did this on her personal social media account. Her personal social media. The public school has no say and should have no say in what she says on there. I'm not saying that she may or may not have violated the social media's terms of service or policies; but, the fact that the public school board was trying to go after her because they didn't like what she was saying is wrong on oh so many levels.

Freedom of speech, heard of it? It's one of the core principals that makes this country great. You don't have to like what someone is saying or even agree with it; but, they have every right to say it.

I'm not sure what your point is. You join a workplace, organization, or anything that values its image you are required to follow their rules.

It's a f*king public school dude. Not a private one. Last I checked public schools have no say on what happens off school grounds.

 

[MrDawn]

EDIT:

The cheerleader and her parents sued the school and won the case. Not the other way around. Now she and her parents are taking it to the Supreme Court to allow full expression of the First Amendment in High Schools. There's also another case with another girl who received a similar experience. I think it's good that schools can no longer get away with ostracizing students and there not be repercussions.

Column: Two cheerleaders and the F-I-G-H-T for free speech

In some ways, it makes perfect sense that the future of free speech on the internet could turn on the cases of a couple of high school cheerleaders. Young people take it as their self-appointed duty to test boundaries, and the internet offers an abundance of boundaries to test. In January the...

news.yahoo.com

Although Snapchat’s snaps are famously ephemeral, B.L.’s selfie was preserved in a screenshot by another student and wound up in the hands of school coaches, according to court filings. The school suspended the student from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to “avoid chaos” and maintain a “teamlike environment.”

Her attorneys argued and an appeals court agreed that she could not be punished for what she said outside of school grounds. Now it’s the Supreme Court’s turn to give the final word, if it so desires. But the underlying issues aren’t going away any faster than some students might wish their ill-advised Snapchats would.

 

[Phenom]

Good for them to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, there needs to be a final ruling on this determining where exactly the line is drawn on when the authority and ability of the school to reprimand, correct or handle these sort of things.

 

[Demon_skeith]

@Demon_skeith she did this on her personal social media account. Her personal social media. The public school has no say and should have no say in what she says on there. I'm not saying that she may or may not have violated the social media's terms of service or policies; but, the fact that the public school board was trying to go after her because they didn't like what she was saying is wrong on oh so many levels.

Freedom of speech, heard of it? It's one of the core principals that makes this country great. You don't have to like what someone is saying or even agree with it; but, they have every right to say it.

It's a f*king public school dude. Not a private one. Last I checked public schools have no say on what happens off school grounds.

There's a wrong way and a right way to do things, and a cheerleader cursing out her fellow teammates and school needs to face consequences, if for nothing else breaking the basic Code of Conduct that all schools follow.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but only when it's kept on respectable level.

 

[Phenom]

There's a wrong way and a right way to do things, and a cheerleader cursing out her fellow teammates and school needs to face consequences, if for nothing else breaking the basic Code of Conduct that all schools follow.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but only when it's kept on respectable level.

How the hell should she be held accountable for things she said on her own time and outside of the school's realm of control? She didn't say it on the school grounds and last I checked it isn't a private school, they have no right to go after her.

 

[Demon_skeith]

How the hell should she be held accountable for things she said on her own time and outside of the school's realm of control? She didn't say it on the school grounds and last I checked it isn't a private school, they have no right to go after her.

It's because she acted like an anti-cheerleader because someone told her no. Why would any school want to keep her on a cheer squad after cursing them out publicly? Want to disagree? Keep it civil, so the person doesn't look like an idiot in the process. The student proved with this stunt she wasn't fit for the team and it doesn't matter if the Amendment protects it or not, if you throw a bad tantrum over something, on social media no less, that's something that will haunt the person for life.

I used to work for a retailer which me and hundreds of other people shit post them on the company's sub reddit daily, but we used usernames that can't be traced back to us otherwise we be walking into getting fired the next day. I've seen people delete their entire online accounts afraid of their workplace or other education places finding out about things they did and things they said.

 

[Phenom]

It's because she acted like an anti-cheerleader because someone told her no. Why would any school want to keep her on a cheer squad after cursing them out publicly? Want to disagree? Keep it civil, so the person doesn't look like an idiot in the process. The student proved with this stunt she wasn't fit for the team and it doesn't matter if the Amendment protects it or not, if you throw a bad tantrum over something, on social media no less, that's something that will haunt the person for life.

It doesn't matter why she did what she did. Her teammate should be the one getting punished. Last I checked, this is a free country and you should have every right to criticize your employer on your own time for things that you don't agree with. And you're missing the point. She wasn't kept from being on the team, they were trying to go after her to suspend her or more. They. Can't. Do. That. She was at home or wherever, off school grounds, the public school should have no jurisdiction there unless she threatens violence against another student or the school itself.

 

[MrDawn]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but only when it's kept on respectable level.

It sounds to me like you're trying to play both sides of the fence with the First Amendment. That's not freedom of speech at all. That's censorship.

 

[Phenom]

He's already stated as much.

I used to work for a retailer which me and hundreds of other people shit post them on the company's sub reddit daily, but we used usernames that can't be traced back to us otherwise we be walking into getting fired the next day. I've seen people delete their entire online accounts afraid of their workplace or other education places finding out about things they did and things they said.

How is it okay that you're allowed to critique your employer, albeit anonymously and yet she's not allowed to voice displeasure, something we've all wanted or have done, about not making the varsity squad?

 

[MrDawn]

He's already stated as much. How is it okay that you're allowed to critique your employer, albeit anonymously and yet she's not allowed to voice displeasure, something we've all wanted or have done, about not making the varsity squad?

Then that's hypocrisy. No one should have room to bash someone if they went and committed the same act.

 

[Ash]

Can someone explain freedom of speech to me? I always thought that in the US, it was related to the government. So you are free to criticise and comment on the government without fear of censorship.

 

[Phenom]

Can someone explain freedom of speech to me? I always thought that in the US, it was related to the government. So you are free to criticise and comment on the government without fear of censorship.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:​

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
  West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
  Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
  Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
  Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:​

• To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “shout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
  Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.

www.uscourts.gov

 

[MrDawn]

Can someone explain freedom of speech to me? I always thought that in the US, it was related to the government. So you are free to criticise and comment on the government without fear of censorship.

Yes. You can criticize and complain about the government in America all you want without fear of being arrested or being executed for it. Although, some people do get in fist fights over political discussions over here lol

 

[Phenom]

Yes. You can criticize and complain about the government in America all you want without fear of being arrested or being executed for it. Although, some people do get in fist fights over political discussions over here lol

Careful, there are limits per the courts and constitution on how you can carry out those protests.