The last day of tryouts is always emotion al. On that day, coaches announce who’ll be coming to the first practice and who’ll be staying home. Some have known for months that they were guaranteed a spot on the team. Others have been anxious throughout tryouts, petrified of a potential rejection, only to feel elated when they get chosen. And some, despite their hard work, must be sent home. Getting cut from a sports team is heartbreaking—dreams are broken, tears are shed, curses are howled.
Brandi Levy, a freshman at Mahanoy Area High School in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, desperately wanted to be on the Varsity Cheer leading squad after being on JV Cheerleading the year before. Tragically, on the last day of tryouts, she was cut from Varsity. Levy, furious with what she saw as an injustice, posted on her Snapchat story: Levy and her friend brandished their mid dle fingers in a picture captioned, “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” While the Snapchat story was only up temporarily (stories usually delete after 24 hours), one of Levy’s team mates took a screenshot of the outburst, and soon after, Levy was banned from cheerleading for the year. As an athlete, Levy had signed a code of conduct which forbade profanity and required athletes to be respectful towards their team mates and coaches. After receiving the suspension, Levy filed a lawsuit, claiming that her outburst was protected under her First Amendment rights. Levy’s claims were upheld by a few circuit courts, and her case is currently being evaluated by the Supreme Court.
Courtesy of INSIDER
Brandi Levy, Cheerleader involved in recent Supreme Court Case
Freedom of speech for students has always been hazily defined. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court established that students do not relinquish their freedom of speech at school, provided their speech passes the Tinker test—or in simpler terms, whether the speech of the student significantly disrupts the operation of the school. Further, in Tinker, the Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot regulate the speech of their students outside of school.
Using the Tinker precedent, Levy’s case is particularly dif ficult to evaluate. While Levy’s Snapchat post was related to a school activity, did it significantly disrupt the school? Further, are social media posts under the school’s jurisdiction? Levy’s case was examined by two courts (the Middle District of Penn sylvania and the Third Circuit), which both ruled that Levy’s Snapchat outburst was outside of her school’s jurisdiction, and thus Levy’s freedom of speech was violated by her school district. However, the two courts could not agree upon wheth er schools could regulate any speech made outside of school.
Levy’s case is now headed to the Supreme Court, which will attempt to clarify the dispute over the regulation of student speech outside of school.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have to be carefully written because the decision will have lasting ramifications for future students. For example, if the Supreme Court rules that students’ speech should not be regulated outside of school, the results would be disastrous. By allowing such free-speech liberties, schools would not be able to reprimand students for cyberbullying their peers. In contrast, if the Supreme Court rules that social media posts (as well as other speech outside of school) are under the jurisdiction of the school, students’ right to free speech would be severely limited.
Further, any Supreme Court ruling could set the standard for decades, or even possibly centuries. Tinker v. Des Moines, the case which set the current precedent, has remained in place for 50 years. Stephen Breyer, one of the nine justices, recognizes the danger of writing a poor precedent, saying, “I’m frightened to death of writing a standard.” Even so, with the Tinker precedent seeming antiquated in the modern, Snapchat era, a new precedent seems necessary.