Key moment in yesterday's student-speech hearing at SCOTUS: Justice Kagan asking Lisa Blatt about lower court rulings that interpret Tinker v. Des Moines in ways that greatly weaken speech protections
This is crucial: Blatt's central argument is that halting school regulation of student speech outside the schoolhouse gate is unnecessary to let kids express themselves freely. Controversial political and other forms of speech will still be protected under Tinker, Blatt insists.
But as Kagan notes, a district court in 2007 upheld a principal's ban on students wearing t-shirts w the message "We Are Not Criminals" (protesting an immigration bill) b/c it may have caused fights.
Here's that ruling, Madrid v. Anthony: casetext.com/case/madrid-v-…
First Blatt replies that such t-shirts are like "fighting words" that could ignite a riot.
First, a shirt saying "we are not criminals" counts as a fighting word? Really?! If so, schools could ban just about anything.
The trouble comes a moment later, when Blatt says about the opposite: you *can't* ban t-shirts because people threaten a riot. Huh. Now she says you can ONLY ban these things if they are designed to terrorize a particular student.
In sum: Kagan's characteristically masterful questioning tripped up even a SCOTUS ninja like Lisa Blatt, cornering her into a very tough spot.
Permitting schools to punish off-campus speech is really *not* worry-free from a First Amendment perspective. A student who wears a "we are not criminals" t-shirt in a Zoom class or posts the message on Instagram could be suspended under Blatt's position. That's not free speech.
To be clear, Blatt may not endorse such forms of discipline. But if (1) schools can punish off-campus speech and (2) lower courts interpret t-shirt wearing as a "substantial disruption" under Tinker, then (3) kids have little breathing room for controversial speech off campus.
...which lends credence to @DavidColeACLU's warning that under the petitioner's position, students “would be carrying the schoolhouse with them wherever they go”.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My favorite detail so far in the foul-mouthed cheerleader 1A case coming to SCOTUS next Wednesday: the cheer team advisor who isn't sure what viewpoint was behind "fuck cheer" and insists she would've kicked her off for saying "cheer is fucking awesome", too 🙄
Re-listening to the Obergefell oral arg with my students and boy, it's remarkable how an argument can be exposed as terrible and crumble before one's eyes when someone has to stand up and defend it in open court.
As of last June, Americans' support for legal same-sex marriage was as high as opposition to it was 25 years earlier.
John Bursch told the justices that opening marriage to gay couples would irreparably harm the institution by decoupling it from procreation. Children would doubt their parents would stay together if marriage is just about an "emotional commitment."