There's lots of confusion about the Angry Cheerleader (A.C.) case argued yesterday. It echoes the 1A confusion you often see on this site.
Does the fact that A.C. doesn't have a "right" to be a cheerleader mean discipline for off-campus speech is appropriate? No. Here's why: /1
Does the fact that A.C. doesn't have a "right" to be a cheerleader mean discipline for off-campus speech is appropriate? No. Here's why: /1
Even if a student doesn't have a right to play sports or to participate in any selective extracurricular activity, they still may not be denied access to the activity for unlawful reasons. Easy example, you can't say cheer is for "whites only." /2
Or to take an easier free speech example than A.C.'s profane outburst. Would you see the case the same way if A.C. filmed herself at a Trump rally or wearing Biden swag? The state can't say cheer is for red or blue only. /3
Thus, the right in question is not some fictional "right" to cheer but rather the very real right to be free of government punishment for protected speech. Schools have some leeway to restrict disruptive speech on campus. But how far does their reach extend? /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
