Added: Artavius Edens - Date: 22.11.2021 13:51 - Views: 47336 - Clicks: 5889
A teenager's rant that led to her getting kicked off her cheerleading team has reached the US Supreme Court. Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat inventing her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. But when coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year.
The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus.
It is being viewed as a major test of the US Constitution's First Amendment, which protects free speech rights. Ms Levy, then 14, posted the snap - a combination of photo and text that disappears after 24 hours - when she was upset about not being chosen for the varsity cheerleading team. The shop is not part of the school. It showed her with her middle finger raised, and her caption contained a four-letter swear word directed at cheerleading, softball, school, and "everything" generally.
The post was screenshotted by a friend and shown to another pupil, who was the daughter of one of the cheerleading coaches at Mahanoy Area High School. The coaches then suspended Ms Levy from the team for a year. She then sued the Mahanoy Area School District, arguing that the decision breached her First Amendment right to free speech.
Ms Levy, now 18, says the photo was posted from an off-campus location on a non-school day - meaning the school did not have the authority to discipline her for it. The court in that case ruled that pupils' speech was protected as long as it didn't cause "material and substantial" disruption to the school. When Ms Levy's case reached the Court of Appeal last year, the court in Philadelphia ruled in her favour.
It said that the ruling did not give school officials the authority to discipline pupils for things they say off-campus. The court emphasised that this ruling did not consider "the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others". Ms Levy told the Associated Press news agency: "I'm just trying to prove a point that young students and adults like me shouldn't be punished for expressing their own feelings and letting others know how they feel.
After the Court of Appeal ruling last year, the school district asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.
It argues that staff commonly take action against pupils for speech and actions that happen off-campus - and that in recent times this has become more important, as pupils learning remotely due to Covid has blurred the lines between off-campus and on-campus communications. It also says that, as Ms Levy's Snapchat post was sent to her school friends and fellow cheerleaders, it disrupted the school community.
The district argues that a decision in favour of the teenager would make it more difficult for schools to police bullying, racism and harassment that occurs outside of school hours on social media. Do US universities have free speech? How far do free speech protections go in the US? YouTube does not have to guarantee free speech. Arguments in the case will begin on Wednesday. What was in the post? What is Ms Levy's argument? YouTube does not have to guarantee free speech I lost my job over a Facebook post.
What does the school say?
You might also be interested in:. Related Topics. More on this story. Published 27 September Published 18 January Published 27 FebruarySnapchat girls teen
email: [email protected] - phone:(404) 589-4767 x 5107
Bing Google sitemap.xml
The Dark Side of Snapchat and Teens