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
 

Keep Current with Steven Mazie

Steven Mazie Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stevenmazie

28 Apr
Mahanoy v. BL, the cheerleader speech case, begins now here:

c-span.org/video/?510036-…
Roberts to Lisa Blatt: what about political or religious speech that is directed at the school? Can that be regulated?

Blatt: no, b/c it's not directed to a school audience
Roberts: well but what if a Snapchat is critical of a school or a teacher?

Blatt: schools can't punish message, but they can punish the manner (no picketing)
Read 75 tweets
28 Apr
📣 📣 📣 three bites to prepare you for this morning’s big student-speech hearing at SCOTUS involving a cursing cheerleader...

1. my preview from @TheEconomist’s daily app espresso.economist.com/f05a5279ad8f88…
2. My debut TikTok vm.tiktok.com/ZMeCtWsTD/
3. Another TikTok focused on the gripping lawyer match-up vm.tiktok.com/ZMeCtv3MC/
Read 4 tweets
22 Apr
SCOTUS watch: a recent emergency-docket opinion suggests the Supreme Court has changed its mind on the meaning of religious liberty.

In 10 minutes, when rulings drop, we may find out if the Court is abandoning a 30-year-old precedent in its Fulton v. Philadelphia decision.
More opinions coming in 3 minutes. If Fulton v. Philly is coming today, all we know is that Justice Barrett did not write it.
2nd opinion in Carr v. Saul is unanimous: gives Social Security claimants a wider berth to make claims supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Read 4 tweets
22 Apr
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 🙄
The case is Mahoney v. BL and the joint appendix is rollicking good fun supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
Read 4 tweets
20 Apr
Derek Chauvin found guilty on second degree murder.
Guilty on all three counts.
His expression has not changed. Image
Read 4 tweets
20 Apr
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.

oyez.org/cases/2014/14-…
As of last June, Americans' support for legal same-sex marriage was as high as opposition to it was 25 years earlier. Image
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."
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!