The Daily A Cheerleader, a Snapchat Post and the Supreme Court
May 25, 2021
Adam Liptak, a Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, dives into a compelling legal case involving Brandi Levy, who faced a year-long cheerleading suspension for a Snapchat rant. The discussion centers on the First Amendment and the tricky balance schools must maintain regarding off-campus speech. Liptak analyzes how historic rulings influence current student rights and debates about social media's role in education. He highlights differing legal perspectives on school authority, free speech, and the impact of the digital age on student expression.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
First Amendment Argument
- Levy's case argues that her First Amendment rights were violated, as her Snapchat post was off-campus.
- The post, made at a convenience store, shouldn't be subject to school discipline.
Tinker Case Precedent
- The Supreme Court's Tinker case (1969) addressed student free speech during the Vietnam War.
- Students wearing black armbands to protest the war were protected under the First Amendment, as long as their protest wasn't disruptive.
Disruptive Speech Debate
- Schools can punish disruptive speech, according to the Tinker case.
- The question is whether this applies to off-campus speech like Levy's Snapchat post.