May 30

Blog #138 – Prediction about the Snapchat Cheerleader SCOTUS case

First thing, please listen to this podcast from the NYT The Daily podcast – https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/25/podcasts/the-daily/free-speech-first-amendment-supreme-court.html

It’s about 20+ minutes long and shares some more details that we haven’t looked at yet, including the oral arguments before the Court last month.   You’ll want to take some notes on this podcast b/c I’m asking that you use some evidence from the podcast in your answer.

The Supreme Court's clear message to President Donald Trump: Stop - CNNPolitics

Don’t forget that you have read the intros to both Mahanoy School District’s and Brandi Levy’s legal briefs.  We have summarized them in our Google slides file for each class.  Feel free to jump into their full briefs here (Mahanoy) and here (Levy).

Your job:  Predict how SCOTUS will rule when they release their ruling in late June / early July (see format of answer below) Things to consider:

  1. Will SCOTUS make a sweeping ruling about whether off-campus speech that is not political CAN be disciplined by the public schools?  Things to keep in mind – how will they define where off campus speech begins?  If the schools can do this, what does this say about parental rights to discipline their own children for vulgar or lewd speech?   How can this ruling, if it is done, be reconciled w/ the concept of in loco parentis?  Also, what will a broad, sweeping ruling do to all of the existing state and federal laws that require schools to discipline harassment or cyberbullying off-campus speech?

A cheerleader talks on the phone as a disembodied hand covers her mouth and other disembodied hand steals her phone.

2. Will SCOTUS make a narrow ruling that only deals with this case, especially since it doesn’t involve cyberbullying or harassment like the school district asserts?  Stopping harassment has been one of the big reasons why Mahanoy and other school districts have signed onto this case with all of the additional amicus briefs supporting Mahanoy’s right to discipline off-campus speech.   But does this case rise to that level of harassment?  By making a narrow ruling that only deals with this particular case, it would not affect any existing state and federal laws that require public schools to monitor / discipline off-campus speech.  But it doesn’t solve the problem for future cases.

3. Does this case rise to the level of causing a “substantial disruption” at Mahanoy High School like is required in Tinker?  How do Fraser, Morse, or Hazelwood apply to this case, if at all?

Image

Your answer should look like a SCOTUS legal brief:

  1. Briefly summarize the situation including the procedural history.
  2. Briefly summarize Mahanoy and Levy’s arguments for their side.
  3. Connect any of the four previous SCOTUS rulings to this case.
  4. Prediction time: What do you think SCOTUS will do?  Provide specific reasons why.  Cite evidence here from any of the readings, videos, and the podcast we have listened to.  Feel free to use any of the additional resources listed below.

Your brief is due Wednesday, June 2 by midnight.  It should be a minimum of 400 total words. 

Additional resources:

A list of all of the briefs filed in this case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-255.html

SCOTUSBlog article on how the Court might be considering a narrow ruling on the case – https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/justices-ponder-narrow-ruling-in-student-speech-case/

Oral arguments for the case argued April 28, 2021 on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov9W1luRTjw

National Constitution Center’s We the People podcast (5th one down) – Snapchat and the Schoolhouse Gate – https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/podcasts


Posted May 30, 2021 by geoffwickersham in category Blogs

45 thoughts on “Blog #138 – Prediction about the Snapchat Cheerleader SCOTUS case

  1. Kirsten Jasinski

    1. I think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Brandi Levy. I think they will go on the basis of the Tinker case, that students do not shed their first amendment rights as soon as they walk through the school doors. With that being said, I think they will give schools the right to regulate speech on and off campus that causes immense chaos inside the school, such as a bomb threat towards the building. This means that the school has more control over what children say at school than their own parents do, which probably won’t sit right with many people. Ruling like this kind of is a win for both sides in a way. Brandi Levy’s snap didn’t cause mass chaos at her school to the point where there was a dysfunctional school day over it, so students will not really have to worry about what they say or post on the weekends or outside of school, as long as it doesn’t pertain to stuff that would cause a disruption in school.

    2. I definitely think the Supreme Court will be making a broader ruling that will set the boundaries of what the school can control and what the school can’t control, but not making two separate rulings for on and off campus speech. If a school official is made aware of problems that are happening outside of school grounds, but they don’t have the legal right to do anything about it, it kind of defeats the whole purpose of going to a trusted adult when you have problems. Maybe a child doesn’t feel comfortable telling their parents about issues they are experiencing, but they tell a teacher instead, how is the teacher supposed to help the student if he/she doesn’t have the legal right to do so? I think a narrow ruling is very unlikely in this case because something like this exact scenario has a very rare chance of occurring again, so the ruling will probably pertain to more common scenarios like cyberbullying and harassment. Making a broad ruling could potentially solve the debate over first amendment rights in schools temporarily, until another case like this comes up, right on the verge of having the right to control students off campus, and not having the right to control students off campus or some other once in a lifetime scenario.

    3. I don’t think this case rises to the level of disruption that was may be experienced in the Tinker case. The school’s argument relied solely on the fact that Brandi’s post contained profane language directed at the school. The court ruled in favor of Brandi saying that her suspension was not justified under the Tinker ruling because it involved off campus speech, not on campus speech like the Tinker case. The Mahanoy school district’s argument is that with technology vulgar speech can happen anywhere at any time and that geography shouldn’t matter in a case like this, anything that involves the school, the school should be able to control. The ACLU is arguing the exact opposite, that the speech needs to be made on school jurisdiction, school supervision, and school sanction in order for the school to have the legal right to regulate speech. This is kind of like the Fraser case, except for the speech was off campus instead of on campus. I think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Brandi Levy because towards the middle of the podcast, Kevin Rose says, “that this idea that this is an on-off switch— on campus gets one set of rules, off campus it’s a different set of rules— didn’t seem to appeal to most of them.” talking about the Supreme court Justices. If they aren’t too fond of the idea of on and off campus speech having different parameters to begin with, I don’t think they will make a ruling that has two separate sets of rules, I think it will be a broad ruling pertaining to all speech.

  2. Ella Blank

    #1. Levy was a high school student that was cut from the Varsity Cheer team in a Mahanoy Area School District school. She went on Snapchat on a Saturday and used profanity in a video that referenced her school and cheer team but did not directly name them. This video found its way to the cheer coach and she was suspended from the team for one year. She was suspended for bad sportsmanship and it would promote chaos on the team. Levy’s family sues the school district with the ACLU and they win so she is back on the team. The school appeals to the federal appeals court, which says that if it is off campus, it can not be regulated. This ruling would only apply to public schools because they are an extension of the government. The school wanted this case tried by the SCOTUS because it would mean that schools can’t regulate things like cyberbullying and cheating that happens online, off of school grounds.
    #2. Mahanoy: The school is arguing that there needs to be a widespread ruling about how schools can regulate off campus speech because different parts of the country are doing it differently. Tinker allowed schools to regulate speech that made a substantial disruption. Mahanoy wants to expand what “campus” means to include anything that relates to the school or is a school sanctioned event. They also say that if the school is referenced, they should be able to regulate it. They want to expand Tinker to apply to off campus speech too. Their biggest argument is that schools need to be able to regulate off campus bullying and cheating.
    Levy: They do not want to expand Tinker to outside of campus. They say that even if Tinker was expanded, it would not stop people from bullying online or outside of school. They explain that expanding Tinker would be very complicated and too hard to do effectively. They do say that if Tinker is expanded, it should only be for speech that was intended to be harmful. Finally, even if Tinker was expanded and did apply here, Levy did not cause a substantial disruption so her speech would be protected.
    #3.B.L. is similar to Fraser. In Fraser, a high school student (Fraser) gave a speech directed towards the school at a school sanctioned event with lewd speech and sexual innuendos. Levy’s case is similar to Fraser because they both used inappropriate speech in a setting where many students would see it. Fraser was different because it was in school and on campus while Levy was off campus. Fraser was also warned beforehand that his speech could warrant a punishment while Levy acted without telling others she was going to do so. In Fraser, SCOTUS ruled that the school was allowed to regulate Fraser’s speech because it was “vulgar and offensive language and that school boards should thus have the authority to determine what speech is inappropriate,” (Bethel v Fraser google slides). Based on the ruling from this case, Levy’s speech falls into the same category as Fraser’s because of her use of profanity. The difference here is that her speech was not given at a school event or on campus and it did not directly address the school like Fraser did. If the SCOTUS decides to expand the definition of “on campus” to include Levy’s speech, the court could rule in Mahanoy’s favor under Fraser because of her use of profanity.
    #4. In the podcast, we heard the justices ask about her use of swear words. The justices feel that if schools had a right to regulate and punish students for using swear words, “…my goodness, every school in the country. It would be nothing but punishment,” (Daily podcast). Based on that quote, I think that for this specific case with Levy, whether they change “on campus” or not, that the court will rule that her speech was protected under the 1st amendment. However, because her speech might have broken cheer team rules, I think it will be punishable. The cheer team is a non-required extracurricular activity that can make its own team agreement. If that agreement includes “no profanity on the internet” and Levy broke that rule, she can receive her punishment under the 1st amendment. To answer question 2 from above, I think the school will not waste its time making a narrow ruling about this specific instance because the larger issue at play is the “on campus” issue and they can let a private after-school activity decide for itself what they want to put in their rules. To answer question 3, I do not think the court will call this a substantial disruption. As in the above quote, the justices did not care that she swore, which is the only reason why this would really be a disruption in the first place. To answer question 1, I think the SCOTUS will need to redefine what “on campus” means. I think they will define it as anything that addresses the school (without specific names) or another student (specifically). This way, schools can prevent online bullying and cheating without being able to control students’ profanity or comments about anything else. This seems like the most fair solution, and most needed for our tech age.

  3. Hayley Bedell

    #1). In 2017, a 14 year old Brandi Levy (Pennsylvania) found out that she did not make her school’s varsity cheerleading team. Following the reveal of this news, she posted an image to her snapchat story, where she and a friend are at a local convenience store flipping off the camera. The snapchat is captioned, “F school, f softball, f cheer, f everything,” with ‘F’ taking the place of everyone’s favorite expletive. Unbeknownst to her, a teammate took a screenshot of her post, and reported it to the cheerleading coach. Levy was removed from the cheerleading team for the entirety of her Sophomore year of high school. Levy’s parents, along with the A.C.L.U, took action, and sued the school- they won the case, and Levy was reinstated on her school’s JV cheer team. The Third Circuit Appeals Court declared that if the speech originated off campus, then punishment is beyond the powers of the school. Levy’s school and school district disagree with this claim, and argue that disruptive speech, regardless of where it originates from, should be within the responsibilities of the school. The school has taken Levy’s case to the Supreme Court of the United States, for further guidance on a student’s 1st Amendment free speech rights, in regards to school and the school environment.

    #2). Manahoy, Levy’s school district, argues that any disruptive speech, regardless of where it originates from, should face punishment by the school. Manahoy’s lawyers argue that in the age of social media, the internet has no geography. Therefore, the location of the speech does not matter, and the school should have power in this situation. However, on the other hand, The A.C.L.U. argues that disruptive speech can only be punished at school, or students will be forced to carry the burden of school censorship on their backs 24/7. That would be an extreme limitation on one’s 1st Amendment speech rights. Additionally, Levy’s lawyers argue that students should have speech rights equal to those of adults. Expanding the ruling of Tinker vs. Des Moines to include off campus speech, would cut those rights significantly.

    #3). I think the most prominent case to connect is the infamous Tinker vs. Des Moines case from 1969. In 1965, students in Des Moines wore black armbands to school, in peaceful opposition to the Vietnam War. However, the district had implemented an unofficial rule where the armbands were not allowed. The case was taken to the Supreme Court on the basis of a student’s free speech under the 1st Amendment, and the final ruling declared that the armbands were acceptable, and students did not shed their 1st Amendment rights past the schoolhouse gates. Additionally, speech that does NOT cause a disruption is protected by the 1st Amendment. This case can directly connect to Levy’s case, on the basis of a student’s free speech rights. The ruling from Tinker, that undisruptive speech is protected, could also connect. However, it becomes a question of where the speech originated from. If Levy had posted that snap on campus, her speech would have been protected (it is documented that her coaches admitted to her speech not being disruptive, nor did it cause any issues on the team). However, because she was off campus, it became a question of the 1st Amendment having this on/off switch, with specific rules for the geography of the speech. But in the end, both cases have direct correlations to one another, especially as Tinker has been cited in the actual briefings and hearings of Levy’s case.

    #4). I genuinely do not know how the court will rule with this case. In the podcast, there were a few things that really stuck out to me, specifically when there was discussion of the Justices’ Comments- it just sounds like many of them are split on this case. First of all, Justice Breyer questions the need for this case to be in a federal court. Justice Kavanaugh understands Levy’s need to blow off steam, and does not believe that her punishment is correctly tailored to her offense. Lastly, a handful of the Justices seem to be unhappy with the ruling of the appeals court- they hold that student speech outside of the classroom could still be disruptive. Additionally, it is true that the cheer team could have their own rules, decided upon ahead of time, and Levy broke those rules. In this scenario, the Justices are split, and the Supreme Court is playing the role of a school board. I truly do not know what is going to happen, I am incredibly torn. It sounds like they could be leaning on the side of the school board, but at the same time, this feels like a petty case for the Supreme Court. Even on top of that, this case is so complex, especially with the introduction of the internet and social media. I don’t really know. But if anything does happen, it will most likely be that the Supreme Court sends the case back down to the lower court for a different or improved ruling.

  4. Allison Jasinski

    1. 14 year old Brandi Levy had just found out that she did not make the varsity cheerleading team after being on the junior varsity team. Brandi and her friend went to a convenience store on Saturday afternoon where they took a picture of themselves with their middle fingers up that had a caption saying “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything” and shared it to Brandi’s Snapchat story where 250 people were allowed to see. One of her snapchat friends took a screenshot of her post and showed it to one of the cheer coaches. The coaches suspended Brandi from the cheerleading team for a year because they said that her actions showed bad sportsmanship and promoted chaos on the cheer team. Her parents thought that this action was a violation of Brandi’s first amendment rights and decided to sue the school district. They win in the Pennsylvania district court and the judge orders that Brandi is put back on the junior varsity cheer team. The Federal Appeals court then rules that because the post happened off campus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the school.

    2. The Mahanoy School district argues that the First amendment does not prevent schools from regulating off-campus student speech that targets the school environment and substantially disrupts school activities or interferes with other students’ rights. They argued that Brandi Levy’s speech was disruptive to the school environment and directed at the school so it didn’t matter that it happened off-campus. Brandi’s lawyers argue that she has a first amendment right to express herself and that because her speech happened off campus, it did not interfere with anything related to the school so she should not be punished for it.

    3. Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. connects to Bethel School District v. Fraser because in both cases, the student speech had offensive words in it. Although the speech in Bethel v. Fraser happened on campus, it connects to Mahanoy v. B.L. because neither of the students’ speech was threatening to anyone, it just contained unrefined speech that the school thought was offensive and inappropriate. In both cases, the students were given a punishment because of their speech. In Bethel v. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that the school was allowed to regulate his speech because it was lewd and vulgar.

    4. I think that the Supreme Court will rule in Brandi Levy’s favor. I think they will go off of the Tinker case and say that not only did her speech occur off-campus, but it didn’t cause a major disruption to school activities or events so she and future students should not be punished. The justices didn’t seem too worried about the fact that she used swear words because they said that if every school punished every student for swearing then school would be nothing but punishment. Brandi Levy didn’t specifically mention the name of the school or team, just school and cheer in general. Also because the speech happened on a Saturday, Brandi Levy was under the supervision of her parents, the school was not in loco parentis. Overall, I think that the Supreme Court will rule that schools can not punish students or take action against students for speech that happens off-campus unless it poses a serious threat to the school or school activities/events.

  5. Faith Whitted

    1. In 2017, 14 year old B.L. found out that she didn’t make her school’s varsity cheerleading squad. After school that day, she went to a convenience store with a friend. They posted a picture of themselves on Snapchat raising their middle fingers with a caption that read, “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything.” Once B.L. made the post, she expected it to disappear after 24, but another student screenshotted the post and it found its way to the coaches of the cheerleading squad. As a result, B.L. was suspended from cheerleading for a year. I predict that SCOTUS will decide that off-campus speech that does not disrupt the school learning environment can not be monitored by the school/school district. I also think that SCOTUS will recognize that students still have their First Amendment right even in school. In the NY Times podcast, Adam Liptak states, “But just as adults have substantial First Amendment rights outside of school, so should students.” On the other hand, this is a very complicated case because with things such as social media, the lines are a bit blurred between what actually counts as “on-campus” and “off-campus” speech. If the court rules in favor of B.L., this will make disciplining students for things such as cyber bullying and online harassment much more complicated. It will also make the concept of in loco parentis much more complicated, as teachers will no longer be able to monitor students behaviors outside of school and on their private social media accounts.

    2. Mahoney claims that B.L.’s post disrupted the school environment. They suspended her because they believed that she promoted chaos, bad sportsmanship, and undermined team camaraderie. According to the NY Times podcast, the lawyer for the school district said that what matters is speech. If the specific issue is about school or concerns a topic about the school, then the school has the authority to act. B.L.’s lawyer does not believe that the school had any authority to punish her. Her lawyer claims that the students’ actions need to be under school jurisdiction, sanction, or supervision for the school to get involved. This case is very similar to the Tinker v. Des Moines case. The students who wore the black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war were punished because they were deemed as being disruptive of the school environment. The final ruling of this case stated that students do not shed their First Amendment rights upon entering the schoolhouse gates. That being said, when keeping this case in mind, I do not believe that SCOTUS will make a narrow ruling that only deals with this case. Tinker’s case is still very relevant in today’s world, especially with the added complications of social media. It would be very difficult for SCOTUS to make a decision in Levy v. Mahanoy without considering how other students in similar situations would be affected.

    3. I don’t think that this case rises to the level of creating a “substantial disruption” at Mahoney High School. B.L. was a 14 year old who made a bad decision online because she was upset. Nowhere in her post did she call out a specific student, coach, or school. Therefore, I don’t think that her actions called for school involvement or a year-long suspension. While the Fraser, Morse, and Hazelwood cases do apply to this case in some way or another, I do think that Levy v. Mahanoy is its own case because of the added social media factor. Social media really blurs the line between what is considered as “on-campus” and “off-campus,” which needs to be considered differently from the other three cases.

  6. Sam Walsworth

    After not making varsity on her high school’s cheerleading team, Brandy Levy made a video on her snapchat story about not making the team and used profanity. The school quickly found out and she was suspended from the team for a year for bad sportsmanship and disrespect. Levy’s parents and the ACLU sue the school and she is allowed back on the team, and the school appeals to the federal appeals court which also rules in favor of Levy, the school then takes the case to the Supreme Court which has not yet made a decision.

    Mahanoy (school) argued that the meaning of campus should be expanded to prevent cyberbullying and disruptive behavior off the school grounds; past rulings have defined campus as the school grounds. Because the school is referenced it is not protected under past free speech rulings on public schools they argue. Levy’s side argues that her speech was not cyberbullying, so even if it was expanded to prevent it it shouldn’t apply to cases such as hers, she did not cause a substantial disruption in the school by posting the video and is out of the school’s responsibility to punish them, that should be left to the parents they argue.

    Tinker v Des Moins is a remarkably similar case although with a few key differences, a group of students protested the at the time ongoing Vietnam War by wearing black armbands, the district did not allow the armbands, and eventually the case reached the Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the students. Even on school grounds if speech or expression is not substantially disruptive it is protected by the first amendment in public schools. This is important because a major part of Levy’s argument is that the snapchat video was not disruptive to the school, even the coaches conceded this.

    I will be very surprised if the ruling is not in favor of Brandy Levy, however we likely can’t know how broad or specific to Brandy’s case the ruling will be when applied to other public school situations. The Supreme Court’s precedent has always been that the speech or expression must be deemed substantially disruptive to the school environment, you can see this in Tinker v Des Moins, and even if this were to be expanded as Mahanoy is arguing to prevent cyberbullying or harassment outside of school this is not a case of such activities.

  7. Kasen Korstanje

    1. Brandi Levy was a high school freshman who found out that she wouldn’t get bumped up to the varsity cheer team from JV. After she found out, she went to a convenience store with her friend, where they posted a snapchat image of them holding up their middle fingers, with a caption using the “f-word” next to the words cheer, softball, school, and everything. The coaches found out and suspended her from the team, but Brandi Levy and her family decided to sue on the basis that her free speech was restricted. She won in the lower court and returned to the cheer team, but the school appealed to a higher court. They thought that the case should be tried at the supreme court, so a greater regulation can be put in place regarding this new frontier of cybermedia and schools.
    2. The Mahanoy school district argues that any sort of disruptive speech, regardless of origin, should be punished. Where the speech took place doesn’t matter, but if it’s content is related to the school, it does. They believe that the school has the right to intervene with off-campus speech if it affects the school’s environment. On the flip side, Brandi Levy’s legal team thinks differently. They think that the first amendment allows her to post what she pleases onto her social media off campus, since the first amendment guarantees free speech. On campus disruptive speech can be punished. If off campus speech were to be punished, students would be greatly restricted, as they wouldn’t be able to post their opinions and they would have the school constantly breathing down their necks.
    3. This case is similar to the Fraser case. In that case, Fraser was a high school student who was endorsing his friend’s campaign for vice president of student council. At an assembly, Fraser gave a speech in support of his friend that had some sexual references. The administration was not happy, and punished him for his speech. This is similar to our case because both students were punished over vulgar language. One was on campus and one was off, but both involved free speech. The court ruled for Fraser’s school, and that a school can limit inappropriate speech. This is in the same boat as our case, but Levy’s speech happened outside of school, still presenting that unanswered question of if a school can regulate off campus speech.
    4. I think that the court will rule in Brandy Levy’s favor. Her speech did not cause a disruption at school, as admitted by the cheer coaches that we read about in one of our readings. Also, her speech did not target the school, as it did not specifically mention Mahanoy High. In addition, after hearing the Supreme Court justices speak, I got the impression that they may support Brandy Levy. One argument that they brought up is that if off-campus speech was to be punished, students could be punished for using profanity, bad words, or anything that could be taken negatively. I think that Brandy Levy will win her case.

  8. Eleanor Limbaugh

    On Saturday, May 27 of 2017, 14 year old freshman at Mahanoy High School Brandi Levy ventured out to a convenience store with a friend. Levy was upset, as she had recently learned that she had failed to make her school’s varsity cheerleading team, as well as failed to obtain the position she wanted on the softball team. While at the convenience store, Levy made a post to Snapchat, venting her frustration. It was a picture of her and the friend she was there with, middle fingers raised, along with a caption that said “F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything”. Knowing that messages posted to Snapchat in this manner disappear irretrievably after 24 hours, Levy chose to share these feelings with a group of Snapchat “friends,” people who had previously agreed to receive her posts.
    Unbeknownst to her, however, another cheerleader from the team, someone who was not among the group of people Levy had originally chosen to share the post with, learned of the message, and shared it with her mother, one of the school’s cheerleading coaches, who presumably made the school’s other coach aware of it as well. In response to this message, the coaches chose to suspend Levy from the cheerleading team for the entire next year, her sophomore year of high school. They claimed that the profane message she had chosen to share violated the code of conduct or “cheerleading rules” she had agreed to follow when joining the team. While the coaches conceded that Levy didn’t cause any significant disruption in making the post, and indeed that this type of “electronic squabbling” was fairly common amongst the cheerleaders, they still chose to punish her for her use of profanity. Additionally, the Mahanoy Area School District asserted that Levy had violated a “Personal Conduct Rule” designed to ensure that members of sports or cheerleading teams didn’t negatively impact the school’s image with their behavior.
    Levy’s parents asked that the decision be reconsidered, but they were declined, resulting in the Levys filing a suit against the Mahanoy Area School District in district court, which then issued a temporary order reinstating Levy to the cheerleading team. Ultimately, the district court ruled in her favor, ordering that Levy be reinstated to the team and awarded nominal damages. The School District chose to petition, and the Third Circuit Court subsequently affirmed the earlier decision.
    During the district court’s summary judgement, the School District argued that Levy’s punishment was justified, owing to the profanity exception to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District found in Bethel School District v. Fraser. Tinker v. Des Moines mandated that student free speech be protected except in cases of significant disruption, although the interpretation of that phrase is highly subjective. The later case of Bethel v. Fraser, however, made a definite exception to Tinker in the case of speech that is vulgar or profane, giving schools the authority to punish such behavior. It was on this exception, coupled with the profanity in Levy’s post to Snapchat, that the School District chose to base their argument. Rather than contest these parameters, Levy chose to argue that they didn’t apply at all. Since the First Amendment doesn’t give the government authority to limit free speech simply because it’s profane or disagreeable, and additionally since her post was made outside of a school context where cases like Tinker and Fraser didn’t apply, the school lacked all authority to punish her. The School District felt that the Third Circuit had issued too broad a ruling, choosing to take it to the Supreme Court in the hopes of getting a more thoughtful, specific ruling, especially for a post-internet age.
    Based on all the evidence presented, as well as previous judicial precedents set by cases like Tinker and Fraser, it’s my personal opinion that this case swings in favor of Brandi Levy. It’s been testified by both Levy and her cheerleading coaches that her post didn’t cause a significant disruption, and additionally it was stated by the coaches in Levy’s brief that incidents such as this one are fairly common. Based on that, Tinker v. Des Moines fails to apply. If we consider the case of Fraser, while it’s true that Levy’s post included profanity, it was clearly removed from any school context, and indeed didn’t reference Mahanoy High School at all, so the exception presented in Fraser also fails to apply. While Levy’s post may have been in poor taste, in this specific incident it’s my belief that it was a simple mistake rather than a true disciplinary infraction, and the Supreme Court’s decision should reflect that. However, it’s also my belief that the decision is most likely going to come down to a factor that no one has yet considered–the current composition of SCOTUS. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court of the United States is made up of nine members, six of which are right-leaning, while the other three tend to be left-leaning. Although this is not a political case, there are still conservative and liberal sides to the argument. Based on current trends within American politics, it’s my belief that a majority of people who identify as politically conservative would side with the School District, and vice versa for liberal identified people, and the extremely partisan climate of the present day indicates that this idea would hold for Supreme Court justices. Therefore, my prediction is that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the school district, setting a new precedent that allows schools to police the off-campus speech of their students. While I personally believe that the evidence presented in this case ultimately indicates in Brandi Levy’s favor, and that a ruling should be crafted to reflect that, experience has taught me that none of that matters in the face of blind, partisan authority.

  9. Belle Mason

    1. Brandy Levy was a high school sophomore who did not make it to the varsity cheer squad in a Mahanoy Area School District. She got upset and needed to blow off steam. On Saturday morning, she and her friend went to the Coco Hut, the local convenience store. Brandy Levy posted a snapchat of her and her friend holding up their middle fingers with a caption that included vulgar language that referenced her school activities, but she did not specifically name them. The video was screen-shotted and shown to one of the coaches. Soon after, Brandy Levy was suspended from the jv cheer team for the rest of the year. She was suspended for bad sportsmanship and because this could cause a substantial disruption within the team. B.L.’s family sued the school with the ACLU and won. B.L was back on the team. The case was then taken to the Federal Appeals Court where B.L also won on the basis that if speech was said outside of school grounds, it could not be punished. The school brought this case to the SCOTUS because they didn’t like the idea that they could not control punishment of speech outside of school like cyberbullying and cheating. This case and its rulings only apply to public schools, as public schools are federal institutions.

    2. Mahanoy: The school is arguing that there needs to be a specific set of rules for regulating off-campus speech. The Tinker case regulated on-campus speech when it ruled that students could be punished for speech that caused substantial disruption. The school district wants the Tinker case to apply to all speech, on and off campus. They want this because they want a way to control cyberbullying and cheating when it happens off-campus.
    Levy: This side is arguing that B.L.’s speech did not cause substantial disruption and should not be punished. It also did not include specific school information and did not happen at school, under the supervision of a school official, or at a school-sanctioned event. They also argue that if Tinker was applied to all speech, things would get very messy and complicated because it is all up to opinions of whether it did cause substantial disruption or if it could cause substantial disruption. If Tinker applies to all speech, then students would never shed their school speech rights.

    3. I think that Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. connects to Bethel School District v. Fraser. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a student gave a speech at a school sanctioned event that was directed toward the school for a school event and included lewd speech and sexual innuendos. Brandy Levy’s case is similar to this because in both cases the student used lewd or inappropriate speech in a way where many other students would see/hear it. In Fraser’s case, the students heard his speech at the school sanctioned event. In Levy’s case, her snapchat was shared with many of her classmates and traveled to her cheer coach. Fraser is different from Levy’s case though because in Fraser, the incident happened at a school sanctioned event and included the school in the speech, whereas with Levy, the speech did not directly mention the school and happened outside of all school related things. Fraser was also warned about his speech ahead of time, whereas Levy acted with no outside opinions. In Fraser, SCOTUS ruled that the school was allowed to punish Fraser and regulate his speech because it included vulgar language. They also concluded that schools should have the authority to determine what speech counts as inappropriate. In both of these cases, the student was punished for lewd speech although their location was different. If SCOTUS rules to include B.L’s speech as under school supervision then they could rule against Brandy Levy under the Fraser decision.

    4. I honestly think that the decision could go either way, but based on the information I heard from the podcast, I think the court may rule in favor of Brandy Levy. The first thing in the podcast that stood out to me was when the judges talked about her swearing in her snapchat. “And if swearing off campus did, I mean, my goodness, every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.” This is the first part of the podcast that leads me to believe the court will rule in favor of Brandy Levy, in terms of school authority over student speech. They are basically saying that schools can’t regulate speech based on swear words because most teenagers swear, especially off campus. I do think, however, that the court may decide that Brandy Levy could be punished under her cheer team rules. In the podcast, the judges start to talk about how rules may be different for schools and team sports. “And there was a sense— it may not have been presented to the court directly— but there was a sense that that’s different, that the cheerleading team might be allowed to have different rules, at least if they were announced ahead of time and Brandi had agreed to them. And her own lawyer seemed to say that would have been possible.” “For example, I think a school could say, if you’re going to play on our team, you can’t personally demean other players. And if they set that out in advance, and the student agrees to it, and then the student does it, they can punish the student.” In both of these examples, the court is suggesting that there may be rules that team members have to follow that are different from school rules. In answer to #2, I think the court will make a narrow ruling that only deals with this case and does not set the precedent for all other cases like this because it is not an issue with the school. This started as an issue between Brandy Levy and her cheer coaches. That is not a school matter and might not be the right case to determine the precedent for school matters of speech issues, especially since it caused little to no distraction within school. With that being said, I don’t think the court will rule that this was a substantial disruption because, as stated in the pdf of arguments that we looked at, there was little to no disruption. In terms of the first question, I think that SCOTUS will not make a sweeping decision with this case. I don’t believe that this is the right case for that, considering it happened between B.L. and her cheer team, not the school.

  10. Lily Dittrich

    A high school student expressed her anger through social media, off campus without saying any names of students or teachers. The school tried to punish her, but her family though it was an infringement of her first amendment rights. Levy’s argument is that as a student, she has freedom of speech to express opinions, especially if she was off campus after school hours under her parents supervision. The school district, Mahanoy, argues that the snapchat post is harassments and bullying, and it could effect the school environment, so they have the right to punish her. In the Bell v. Itawamba County School Board case, two students were punished for criticizing school coaches in a song. This is similar to the Levy case as both argue first amendment rights were violated, but unlike the Levy case, the Bell case mentions people by name. I think Levy will win in the supreme court, because she was off school ground under her parents supervision, and did not say any names. The reason not mentioning names is important is because then it could not count as harassments or bullying.

  11. Alex Koellner

    1. Brandi Levy was suspended from her school’s cheer team for a year after she posted a snapchat story using vulgar language. This was in response to not making the varsity cheer team and believing she deserved to make it. She posted a picture of her and her friend saying “F*** school, F*** softball, F*** cheer, F*** everything”. Her parents were upset that she was suspended and filed suit against the school claiming this was a violation of first amendment rights. The Pennsylvania district court ruled on her side and reinstated her to the cheer team. Later the Federal appeals court ruled since her speech was off campus she didn’t violate rules and this was a first amendment violation.
    2. The Mahoney School District’s main argument is that the first amendment doesn’t restrict schools from regulating off campus speech. They say that because it is not restricted their actions are justifiable. Additionally they argue that because Brandi Levy signed an agreement for the cheer team saying that she could be punished for snapchat posts if they were vulgar. On the other hand Brandi Levy and family argue that schools cannot regulate off campus speech under the first amendment and thus it was a violation of Brandi’s first amendment rights.
    3. The case of Tinker Vs. Des Moines relates rather closely to this case. In the case of 13 yo Tinker, she wore a black armband to support ending the Vietnam War, she was suspended and the court ruled in her favor. The court said that free speech cannot be punished unless it causes substantial disruption or stops the school from functioning normally. This relates to Brandi Levy’s case because her speech on snapchat didn’t cause substantial disruption for the school if any disruption at all. This is being used as defense for Brandi’s actions by her lawyers.
    4. I think that Brandi Levy and her family will win this SCOTUS case. The first reason is because of the severity of the disruption she caused. As stated in the Brief for B.L., in the ruling of Tinker it says the disruption needs to be substantial, Brandi Levy’s speech will most likely be considered as not a substantial disruption seeing as there was no trouble in school resulting from it. The second reason is the nature of the speech from Brandi. In her post the issue resulting from it was her use of the F word. The F word is protected under the first amendment and is commonly used by many teenagers making her actions not too radical. The final reason is because of the power that would be granted to schools. If the court were to rule in favor of the school district, students ‘ freedom of speech would be indefinitely limited until they graduate. This would mean until the minimum age of 16 and average age of 21/22 the first amendment would not give its full effect. As Brandi’s lawyers state “Unmooring Tinker would have far-reaching repercussions”.

  12. Lauren Kamp

    1. While off campus, highschool student Brandy Levy posted a picture with her friend on her snapchat. They had their middle fingers raised and the caption of “F school, f softball, f cheer, f everything.” The message was screenshotted and shared with the cheerleading coach and Levy was suspended from cheerleading activities for a year on the premise that her message presented a substantial disruption to the school. Lower courts overruled the suspension because the offense was not done on school grounds and therefore, the school district did not have jurisdiction. The school district asked SCOTUS to review the decision and provide guidance on the school’s reach to discipline kids with the internet.
    2. Brandy Levy’s school district, Manahoy, argues that the First Amendment does not prevent school districts from limiting free speech if the speech is determined to disrupt the learning environment and undermine the school’s ability to discipline students. Levy’s Snapchat message originated outside of the school, but was seen by classmates, and potentially could have been read at school. The message, on campus or off campus, is a substantial disruption and the school’s authority to discipline is protected. Levy argued that when students are not in school, their right to free speech, regardless of its vulgar content, is protected by the First Amendment. If schools are allowed to police student conduct outside of the school, then this discipline may conflict with parent’s religious or private beliefs. Finally, the school’s ability to discipline is limited to ensuring a protected on campus environment for learning. Although Levy’s snapchat message is disagreeable, it must be protected.
    3. The main case that is similar to Mahanoy v BL is the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court decision. The decision protected a student’s free speech in the school but also said public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school. Since the Tinker case, rulings have mostly limited the school’s discipline to on or near campus free speech challenges. For instance, Morse v. Frederick (2007) upheld a school’s decision to discipline a student who hung a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” sign across the street from a school sanctioned function. Even though the banner was not on school property, the Court ruled that the school was within its rights because the sign was positioned near a school sanction event and the sign promoted illegal drug use.
    4. I honestly am not sure what the court will rule on this case. When we first started learning about Levy’s case, I was certain that the Supreme Court would rule in her favor but as we’ve been digging deeper into the case, I have switched back and forth. The podcast mentioned that they think the Supreme Court won’t rule on the case and they will send it down to the lower courts. After hearing that, I think it is highly probable they will send it down and let the lower courts decide.

  13. Kaitlyn Sanders

    1. Four years ago, on a Saturday in 2017, a fourteen-year-old freshman in high school decided to take her anger of not making Varsity Cheer to social media. Brandi Levy posted a picture to her main Snapchat story where she and a friend flipped off the camera while captioning the picture: “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything.” The girls were off-campus when they recorded and posted this picture, and later after 250 of her friends and peers viewed this message, one screenshot of her story made its way to her coaches where Levy was then suspended from cheer for the whole year. As stated above, the girls were off-campus, to add to that they did not direct any names including the school names, they simply let a general statement float around. Her statements were seen as unsportsmanlike and that they would “[undermine] the team camaraderie, and that they [ ] would provoke chaos on the team. Brandi Levy’s parents with help from the A.C.L.U sued the school, winning that case Pennsylvania district court reinstated Levy back onto the JV cheer team because the school violated her First Amendment rights. Brandi’s messages were seen as “insufficiently disruptive” for the school to be able to enforce any disciplinary action. Punishing a kid because they disagree with the kid’s views when these views aren’t harming anyone isn’t a strong enough case plus the majority of the 3rd Circuit Court said that the “Tinker” case wasn’t related to Levy’s in the sense of not referring to off-campus speech even if the speech created “a substantial disruption on campus.” But, of course, Levy’s school and the Mahoney School District disagree with those statements made by the courts. They can argue the fact that saying that could also put up firewalls in the way of schools being able to prevent and stop cyberbullying and online cheating. Brandi Levy’s school has taken her and her case to the SCOTUS in hopes to get a further examination on students’ 1st Amendment rights while in a school setting.

    2. Mahoney School District’s argument: Disruptive speech is disruptive speech, on or off-campus doesn’t matter. They’re arguing that there should be a nationwide rule on how schools can regulate and punish any off-campus speech which brings disruption back to school. A unique thing that the podcast had shared was, “The internet is ubiquitous [a]nd it [ ] doesn’t have a geography, [ ] that what matters is the speech. And if the speech is targeted at the school and concerns the topic about the school, then the school can act.” Mahoney is using this argument here to expand the meaning of campus, where they can claim control over students’ social media presence and have the ability to regulate any disruption related to the school or school-related activities – in this case; cheer. They’re also attempting to expand the Tinker case outcome to an off-campus level.

    The Levy’s and A.C.L.U’s argument: Their main argument is against the expansion of Tinker to off-campus regulations – which of course if expanded wouldn’t stop cyberbullying or any form of off-campus bullying. Another claim made was that expanding the punishment of disruptive speech would only bring extreme caution of unnecessary fear and censorship to students all the time. This makes the idea of expansion extremely complicated and deeper than what it seems if they did this and created such censorship that would heavily limit students’ First Amendment rights of free speech. Even if Mahoney wins and expanding Tinker to off-campus regulation follows through, it would only be done so for harmful speech and speech that causes “substantial disruption” – which lucky for Brandi Levy, her speech cannot be considered in this category therefore her speech is protected.

    3. Bethel Schools District vs. Fraser (1986). High school senior Mathew Fraser went all in for friend Jeff Kuhlman by delivering a controversial speech at a school assembly, in hopes of leaving a mark on students so they would remember Kuhlman when casting their class vice-president votes. Before Fraser’s delivery of this supreme court-worthy speech, he was told by two of his teachers that it would be deemed extremely “inappropriate” and he would face “severe consequences”, but Fraser doing what any other high school student would do delivered it anyway. While he read off numerous sexual innuendos and references, his fellow classmates and peers were either put into utter shock or reacted by causing a disruptance such as yelling and making “obsecene gestures.” Mathew Fraser was suspended for three days and “removed from the list of possible graduation commencement speakers.” Soon after, his father filed against the school staying they were taking away his first amendment rights of freedom of speech. The ninth circuit court claimed officials weren’t responsible for protecting minors from “lewd and indecent” language as well as “officials [did not] have the authority to control speech that occurred during a school-sponsored event.” Fraser’s case is similar to the Tinker vs. Des Moines’s case and now Brandy Levi’s, but one big difference is the fact that his speech actually caused a disruption. Both Levi and Fraser have been punished over vulgar language, as for Fraser SCOTUS ruled that the school was not in violation of his first amendment rights by protecting students from offensive speech. But Brandi Levi didn’t cause a disruption, as well as the fact that her actions were done off-campus. Although they are both similar, there are some significant differences therefore I think Levi will end up winning her case, and this will allow students to express themselves without facing backlash or being under complete control of an institution that represents 17+ years of their lives.

    4. I think – and hope – SCOTUS will lean in favor of Brandi Levi. Some of the important facts are that this was A. done off-campus, and B. never directly placed these words to someone or her school/cheer program. Tinker case vs the Fraser case, SCOTUS will use Tinker as an argument stating that her actions were off-campus and dint cause disruption at school or school-related events/activities. I think once it gets to the ruling the judges will see how blown out of the water Levi’s school made this incident, if schools were entitled to directly punish students every time they used vulgar language, then I know almost every other student would be suspended at least once. Of course, the school can argue Fraser’s case’s turnout with the use of vulgar language, but that was on campus, at a school event, naming the school and a student as well as the fact it was during the week/school hours. Brandi Levi posted this off-campus, on a Saturday, and never once directly mentioned anyone or a school. Many may seem concerned and think that SCOTUS will favor the school because it would give all schools a chance to police off-campus cyberbullying, but I think at the end of the day the most they would do would be putting in a new set of “rules” for schools that DIRECTLY relate to cyberbullying…therefore Brandi Levi would not be placed in this category. She will win her case.

  14. Maggie DuRoss

    1) After learning that she didn’t make the varsity cheer squad from her current rank of JV, Brandi Levy and a friend went to a convenience store on a Saturday, where they posted a Snapchat message in which they were flipping the camera with the caption F school, F softball, F cheer, and F everything. A student took a screenshot of it, and that photo was seen by a coach. Brandi Levy was then suspended from cheerleading for a year, launching the case and the debate over whether the school had the right to punish her for what she said off school grounds. Levy and her parents, along with A.C.L.U., sue the school district and win, getting Levy reinstated on the JV team. The case then goes into the federal appeals court, resulting in a win for Levy with a broad ruling saying that since it was off-campus, it doesn’t fall under the school’s jurisdiction. The Mahanoy school district then wanted to take this case to the federal supreme court, saying that the broad ruling issued would cause chaos in regards to schools’ limited power to control and punish off-campus cyberbullying and the like.
    2) Mahanoy’s case appeals to the Tinker ruling, saying that schools should have the ability to punish any student speech causing substantial disruption in school, regardless of place/time of origin. They specifically attest to the internet’s “lack of geography,” saying that anything can be said anywhere, so whether or not the post occurred at school is irrelevant. Levy’s case asserts that her free speech shouldn’t be controlled or monitored by the school when she’s not on school property or during school hours. She posted from a gas station on a Saturday, her post mentioning no specifics of her school or the teammates/coaches involved. She and her representation argue that granting Mahanoy’s proposed expansion of the ruling on Tinker to all student speech anywhere causing class disruption would put too big of a burden on students’ shoulders to watch their mouths or else.
    3) I don’t know how much relevance previous cases have in regards to Levy’s case. Tinker, Morse, Fraser, and Hazelwood all had connections to school. Tinker was a political protest by wearing black armbands in school. Morse was a student advocating drug use at a school event. Fraser was a student giving what was referred to as a “lewd” speech at a school assembly, in school. Hazelwood debated students’ rights to print controversial topics in the school newspaper. Brandi Levy may have been venting about a school sport and may have used the word “school” in her post, but the post she made wasn’t during school, in school, or at a school event. It was on her own time, completely out of school. Despite this, I think the previous case ruling with the most relevance to this case is Tinker, ruling that student speech shall not be restrained on school grounds, with exception of said speech causing “a substantial disruption” in the learning environment. This is the case Mahanoy clings to and tries to expand, as their sole argument is that Levy’s post caused a disturbance in school. Mahanoy seeks an expansion from speech regulation in school to whenever school is concerned or involved, regardless of time and place.
    4) I think the supreme court will rule on the side of Brandi Levy. Schools shouldn’t have an all-reaching control over what students say, especially when they’re not even in school. As the court transcript says, “Expanding Tinker would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule that would upend the First Amendment’s bedrock principle and would require students to effectively carry the schoolhouse on their backs, in terms of speech rights, everywhere they go.” Even if the burden wouldn’t be so heavy on students even while off-campus, I don’t think Mahanoy even has a leg to stand on in this case. Their strongest point is that Levy’s case caused a substantial disruption. “And if swearing off campus did, I mean, my goodness, every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.” It’s not like students never swear in school, and it’s not like everyone stops what they’re doing and riots whenever they hear someone say the F-bomb. I’m fairly certain that there would’ve been no disruption in class if the school hadn’t treated it like something to react to by punishing it.

  15. Luke Goodwin

    1. In the Mahanoy area school district, Brandi Levi was a student trying out for the varsity cheer team at her high school. When she was rejected to be on varsity, she was really mad. She let our her anger by going on a social media rant on snapchat. She used multiple profanities and swear words to express her anger towards the school. While she didn’t directly mention the schools name or anything about the school, she was suspended for her actions. The issue with this suspension and this case is that her actions took place off of school grounds, and she is arguing that her suspension was unjustified and a violation of her freedom of speech in the first amendment. 2. Depending on how this case goes, schools could be more capable of regulating what their students do outside of school, and more suspensions such as this one could ensue.
    The mahanoy area school district is firm in arguing that the first amendment doesn’t prevent them from being allowed to regulate what their students do outside of school as long as their actions are aimed at the school or are related to the school. Part of their argument argued that Brandi’s language was disruptive to the school’s learning environment. Brandi and her lawyers are arguing that the first amendment grants her immunity to suspensions and punishments such as this one for the actions that she took. They argue that because it was off of school grounds, it isn’t her fault that it was disruptive and so a punishment isn’t acceptable given the circumstances.
    3. In my opinion, this case best connects to the Fraser case because of the issues with the profanity in both cases. In both cases, the speech was harmless and not aimed at any individual person, and they shouldn’t have been punished for.. One large difference I can think of is the outcome of both of the cases. The Fraser case was ruled in the favor of the school, although I think the Levy case will turn out differently.
    4. I believe that the Supreme Court Of The United States will rule the Mahanoy Area School District vs Brandi Levy case in the favor of Brandi Levy. I say this because the disruptions at school seemed very minimal and non-distracting to the students and school environment. This on top of her being punished for exercising her first amendment right and speaking freely and how she wants should result in a verdict favoring her side of the case.

  16. Emerson Lagrou

    1.Brandi Levy, a cheerleader, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team. Upset, she posted an angry message to snapchat that included profane language. This was posted from an off campus location called the Coco Hut. It was also posted at a time which meant that it would disappear from the platform before school resumed.A cheerleading teammate saw the post and shared a screenshot with one of the coaches. The school responded by suspending Levy from the team for the rest of the school year. After the school refused to lift the punishment, Levy’s parents sued at the appeals court and won. This case was accepted to the supreme court because, until now, schools’ abilities to discipline social media posts have been mostly undefined.
    2. Mahoney argues that anything that disrupts the school environment should be able to be disciplined. Even though the social media post occurred off school campus and time, it still had the ability to disrupt, and therefore, Levy can be punished. Mahoney argues that if a post mentions the school, or school in general, as Levy’s did, then it is only fair for the school to be able to act. They also feel that if their right to discipline is restricted to the physical campus, the ability to stop cyberbullying will be reduced. Levy argues that extension of school power over off campus activity would do little to hinder online bullying and harassment, and that there are laws that would still allow cyberbullies to be stopped without the schools being given this power. Levy also argues that if the schools are given this extension of power, it will be too much, and students will have to be burdened by school censorship and the threat of discipline twenty four hours a day.
    3. The case that comes closest to this case is the Fraser case. This is because, unlike the Tinker case, Levy was not making any kind of political statement or protesting anything. Like Fraser, she said things that the school found inappropriate and wanted to discipline. It is also similar because in both cases, most of the disruption was among teachers or staff instead of students. One obvious difference, however, is that Fraser was at school speaking directly to the members of the school, while Levy shared her speech to a select number of students off campus.
    4. I think that SCOTUS will most likely rule in Brandy Levy’s favor. This is because they seem very nervous about setting a universal standard for schools to have off campus power. As we heard in the podcast, there was also concern expressed about giving schools power to discipline all swearing, because it could create an excess of punishment. Since the court does not seem to wish for punishment for all profane language, there does not appear to be a compelling reason for them to rule in the schools favor, a ruling which could certainly prove to have a bigger impact than ruling in Brany Levy’s favor. The court does not seem to want a ruling that would make too big of an impact because social media is just to complex an issue.

  17. kate amend

    1. Brandi Duty was a cheerleader in high school trying out for her first high school season, who discovered that she wouldn’t get pushed up to the varsity cheer. After she discovered it, she went to a general store with her fellow cheer member, where they posted a Snapchat picture of them holding up their center fingers, with F cheer, F school F everything The cheerleading coaches discovered and suspended her from the group, Brandi levy, and her family chose to sue. She won in the lower court and got back to the cheer group, yet the school engaged a higher court. They believed that the case ought to be attempted at the high court, so a more noteworthy guideline.

    2. Brandi’s school region states that any problematic words, paying little heed to where it starts from, should confront discipline by the school. Manahoy’s legal counselors contend that in the period of online media, has no location services The area of the photo doesn’t make any difference, and the school ought to have power in the present circumstance. That would be a limit restriction on one’s first Revision discourse rights. Also, Levi’s attorneys contend that understudies ought to have discourse rights equivalent to those of grown-ups.

    3. Tinker v Des Moines a gathering of understudies fought at the time of the Vietnam Battle by wearing dark armbands, the area didn’t permit the armbands, and ultimately the case arrived at the High Court which decided for the understudies. Indeed, even on school grounds if discourse or articulation isn’t generously problematic it is ensured by the first amendment. This is significant because a significant piece of Levi’s contention is that the Photo was not troublesome to the school.

    4. I have not fully decided which way I will learn. The information from the podcast leads me to believe they are in favor of Brandi Levy. I believe the judges are in favor of the brandy levy because he says that if swearing was not allowed off campus all of the students would be in trouble. The judges state that the school cannot puns every student for swearing-in or off-campus, let’s just say you should take me to court. However, the judge does explain how you have to sign a contract when joining a cheer team. I have seen examples of this on tik tok, girls not being able to swear when singing songs due to contracts they sign with their school’s cheer teams.

  18. Drew Ruprich

    1.) Brandi Levy, when this case began, was 14 years old. She was a public school student in 2017 and she had been on her school’s JV cheerleading team. She had hoped to make varsity, but after she found out that she wasn’t going to make the team, she and her friend made a Snapchat post on her story. They visited the Coco Hut, a convenience store in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania. They posted a picture of the two of them flipping off the camera and adding a caption: “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything.” After someone screenshotted it, the picture made its way to a cheer coach. After the coach decided that Levy violated the team rules, she was suspended from the cheer team for a year. Levy’s family sued the school, along with the ACLU, and eventually won in the Pennsylvania District Court. Levy was then allowed back onto the team. However, after the Third Circuit Appeals Court ruled that Levy’s speech was off campus and therefore not controlled by the school. When the school disagreed with this decision, the case was then taken to the Supreme Court to settle the issue.

    2.) Mahanoy’s Argument: The Mahanoy School District argues for the side of the school. Mahanoy thinks that whether or not disruptive speech occurs outside the school or inside the school, they still have the ability to regulate it. The schools argue that the first amendment shouldn’t be treated as an “on/off switch” that only applies in one place. Mahanoy believes that schools must exercise their authority to regulate speech when it has the potential to cause a substantial disruption to the school, no matter where that speech happens. The school argues that if the 3rd Circuit’s ruling comes to pass, then students will begin to engage in disruptive speech as soon as they step foot off of the school’s campus. The school also defines the school grounds as any “context owned” by the school, and any school-controlled or school-sponsored settings.

    Levy’s Argument: Levy argues for the free speech of students in and out of school. Her argument begins with the statement that the school’s regulation of speech would be a “tedious fixture” in their lives. If the school’s argument comes to pass, then students would have to worry every day about saying something politically incorrect or accidentally offensive, in or out of school. She also brings up that limiting free speech to that extent limits student expression and creativity. She argues that because students can’t disrupt the school when they are not in the school, there should be no restrictions to free speech when they are not on campus. Lastly, Levy’s argument points towards the dangers of expanding the school’s power. The in loco parentis idea would be completely pointless because the school would have entire control over the parents, regardless of where they are. She also argues that her speech was in no way disruptive to the school.

    3.) One case that connects well to Brandi Levy’s case is the Tinker v. Des Moines case is 1989. In this case, students were attempting to protest involvement in the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The school’s principal learned about the plan and warned the students that they would get suspended if they followed through with the protest. He was anticipating that the armbands would cause a disruption. When the student’s parents sued the school, all of the lower courts ruled in favor of the school. However, when it went to the Supreme Court, the case was ruled 7-2 in favor of the students. It ruled that neither students nor teachers lose their rights to free speech at the “schoolhouse gate” and that suspecting or anticipating a disruption is not enough reason to limit the freedom of speech. The court also created the rule that a school may regulate student speech that is disruptive, lewd, inappropriate, etc. This case relates to Brandi Levy because in her argument, she mentioned the Tinker case as supporting evidence. She says that her speech was not disruptive, under Tinker’s ruling, and that the constitutional limitations under the Tinker case are already very broad. Expanding the capacity of Tinker regulations, under Levy’s argument, is unnecessary to limit bullying, threats, or harassment. So, she used the Tinker ruling to help support her argument that the school should not be able to regulate speech off campus.

    4.) I think that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Brandi Levy, but it might not settle the issue of on-campus or off-campus regulations. First of all, the podcast had many specific examples of support for Levy. For example, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that what “bothers me when I read all this is that it didn’t seem like [Levy’s] punishment was tailored to the offense.” David Cole also said, “So schools can prohibit pro-drug messages at school, but not elsewhere. They can ban profanity at school, but not at home. So, too, they can punish disruptive speech at school, but not at a convenience store on the weekend.” These two arguments are pretty strong in my opinion and are in favor of Levy’s. These two pieces of evidence show that it is probable that the Supreme Court will rule Levy’s speech as protected. However, the podcast also mentions that now doesn’t have to be the time to settle much larger, broader issues. The podcast said, “if the court, having decided to take this case, wants to decide it without addressing those broad issues, of course the court could dismiss the case.” The podcast also discusses the idea that many of the Supreme Court Justices probably don’t feel confident ruling something that involves so much of the Internet. The justices, being of an older generation, don’t necessarily know it all when it comes to speech on the internet, so they might not want to address the on/off campus speech just yet. For this reason, among others, I predict that the Supreme Court will likely choose to rule in favor of Levy but not necessarily address the broader campus issue with exact rules just yet. This means that it would be a narrow ruling.

  19. Matt Meilinger

    1. Brandi Levy was a highschool student who hoped to make the varsity cheer team. However, she didn’t make the squad, and posted her feelings on Snapchat. She said F school, F softball, F cheer, and F everything. She posted this to her story where 250 friends could see it. One of these people screenshotted the post, and showed it to one of the coaches. As a result, Levy was suspended from the team for an entire year. The school’s reasoning for the suspension is because of bad sportsmanship and they said it would cause chaos on the team. The district also added that her presence would cause “grave damage” to the team. Levy’s parents were furious, and they sued the school with the ACLU’s help, and won. Levy is put back on the team after the lawsuit, but the case goes to the federal appeals court. The court issued a broad ruling, saying that the speech was off campus, therefore the school cannot regulate it, because it is a public school. The court is appealing to the SCOTUS because they want to be able to regulate other off campus things such as cyberbullying.
    2. Mahanoy: Mahanoy argues that it should be able to regulate speech if it causes a substantial disruption, even if it’s off campus speech. The school believes that the ruling in Tinker should be expanded so they can regulate off campus speech such as cyberbullying and cheating on tests. They believe keeping the rule would cause havoc if it isn’t expanded. Mahonoy believes that the boundaries of the school can go anywhere where the school is referenced, even off campus. They take the case to the SCOTUS because they believe it is very important.
    Levy: Levy argues that this speech is protected because it was off campus. Additionally, they argue that Levy’s speech was not disruptive. In their eyes, an expansion of the Tinker ruling would severely infringe upon students free speech rights. They also argue that the expansion would be confusing, because it puts a constant monitoring on student speech outside of school, which Levy’s side believes is a place where a person can speak freely.
    3. I think the case that relates the closest to Levy’s is Bethel School District v. Fraser. In both cases, the student was punished for using lewd language. Fraser was a student who gave a speech at a pep rally on the school campus. His speech contained lewd language and sexual innuendos. He was punished for his speech, and banned from giving another speech he was supposed to give. However, there were many differences in the cases, which proves why Fraser was punished. Firstly, Fraser was on campus, meaning that the school could regulate his speech. Additionally, Fraser was warned by multiple people that his speech could result in his punishment, yet he continued to give it.
    4. I think that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of Brandi Levy. Like they said in the podcast, they can’t punish someone for using a common swear word off of the school’s campus. Stephen Beyer said, “And if swearing off campus did, I mean, my goodness, every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.” I completely agree. I think that if a school can regulate what Brandi Levy did, student speech would constantly be censored during the school year. I think that Levy’s speech wasn’t enough to cause substantial disruption, and a ruling that says it causes a disruption would strip students of their First Amendment Rights.

  20. hailey young

    1) Brandy Levy was a sophomore in high school, and she posted a Snapchat of her flipping the camera off and saying f- the school, cheer, and some other nonimportant things after not making the cheer team. Levy’s post was taken to the cheer coach, and she was then suspended from cheer for the following year. Levy and her parents then sued the school and won at the local court, but the school appealed it to the federal courts. They did this because they made a case for cyberbullying and wanted to limit free speech rights off of school grounds. (Public schools only)
    2) Manahoy’s argument (the school) argued that this post was a form of cyberbullying, and if they couldn’t regulate it, they couldn’t regulate or stop any cyberbullying. The school wants a ruling for all people and schools about regulating off-campus speech. Since all schools handle these things differently, they want to make a coherent ruling for everyone. Manahoy wants to expand free speech rights and make a broader ruling for what is off-campus, changing it to anything relating to the school or a school-sanctioned event. They wanted to expand the previous Tinker v. Des Moines case. Levy, on the other hand, did not want to expand the Tinker ruling to outside campus. They argued that it would not effectively help cyberbullying or cheating. They also say that it would be too hard to expand Tinker’s ruling effectively. They finally argued that this case doesn’t apply to Tinker’s legislation, as Levy did not cause a substantial disruption.
    3) I relate BL’s case to Tinker v. Des Moines. This is because they both deal with the first amendment right of freedom of speech. In T v. DM, students (Tinker) wore armbands in protest against the Vietnam war. The school made a rule that these armbands weren’t allowed, so the Tinkers brought it to the Supreme Court. In this case, the final ruling was that their first amendment right was protected against their school due to having non-disruptive speech. This can relate to Levy’s case because it deals with the question of free and non-disruptive speech. This case is most linked to Levy because it is used in arguments in the actual hearings. While Levy’s case brings on the question of off-campus speech, it still revolves around the ideas of free and non-disruptive speech, as did Tinker v. Des Moines.
    4) After viewing podcasts and reading about this case in school, I believe that the SCOTUS will side with Levy. For example, in the Daily Podcast, a justice said that if schools had the right to punish students for swear words, the day would be filled to the brim. Based on this idea, I think the court will side with Levy’s free speech argument even if it was off-campus. Although the SCOTUS may rule in favor of Levy, she may still be punished. Her punishment, though, would come from the cheer team because she violated their rules. This ruling really could go either way because, in the podcast, most of the justices were torn. No matter how this case goes, it will affect students all around the world.

  21. Ava Gailey

    Pennsylvanian Brandi Levy (BL) in 2017 was a freshman at Mahanoy Area School District. She had been on JV cheer in hopes of making varsity. When she discovered that she had not been picked for the varsity team, she became upset. She took this anger to Snapchat posting a photo of her holding up her middle finger saying “F** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything” knowing that it would be gone from her Snapchat story in 24 hours. What she didn’t know is that a fellow teammate shared the snap with the cheer coaches. The coaches learning of this information suspended BL from the JV cheer team for a year. As for the procedural history, a Pennsylvania district court ordered that Brandi was to be placed back on her cheer team with the decision being made that the Snapchat didn’t cause a significant enough disruption to fall outside of the ruling for the Tinker v. Des Moines case. Mahanoy appealed the court decision and the Third Circuit Court upheld it stating that the Tinker case didn’t apply to this because the snapchat was made off of school property.

    The Mahanoy school district makes two arguments in this case. The first one being that BL’s appeal is invalid because of their claim that the First Amendment does not include anything that prohibits schools from disciplining students for speech that targets and substantially disrupts the school’s learning environment and activities. Their second argument is that getting rid of schools’ authority to regulate off-campus speech with on-campus effects would mess up school operations and “invalidate scores of state and federal laws in all 50 States as applied to off-campus speech”. Levy’s arguments state that applying Tinker outside of school would undermine teen’s rights, and that outside of school grounds, students have a First Amendment right to free speech. They also say that limiting Tinker to the school grounds makes doctrinal sense because the only reason there is censored content in school is because there is uncensored content outside of school.

    Tinker v. Des Moines is a very similar case to BL. Both these cases have to do with First Amendment rights and free speech. In Tinker, a group of students planned to wear black armbands in support of a truce for the Vietnam War. The principal was made aware of this plan and suspended the students. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression, which was affirmed by The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In Tinker’s case, the student’s right of expression was wearing the black armbands, and for BL, it was writing that Snapchat post. A difference in these cases is that BL was off school property, and Tinker was on school property, which caused a stir in the court of BL.

    In my opinion, I think SCOTUS will take BL’s side. Levy’s first argument from the brief was that if Tinker was applied outside of school it would hurt teen’s rights, especially first amendment rights. School is a completely different world compared to outside. I agree that there needs to be order in schools for them to function, but it is not the schools responsibility or obligation to control what their students do or say outside of school grounds and time. Instead, this is the student’s legal guardian’s responsibility. Take for instance a student was cyberbullying another student from their laptop at home after school hours, even though both students go to the same school, this is a problem for their guardians. They can figure out the punishment instead of the school because it is off of school property and outside of school hours.A good point made in the NYT podcast is that if schools punished swearing off campus, every student would be punished. I can assure you that nearly every student had bad-mouthed their school, a teacher, another student, their school sport, etc. It’s just that they didn’t get caught like BL did.

  22. Mark Bossio

    1.Brandy Levy was a high school student who tried out for the varsity cheerleading team and did not make it. On Saturday May 27, 2017, out of frustration she posted a snapchat while at the local convenience store. She posted “F school F softball F cheer F everything” with a picture of her and her friend flipping the camera off. The post made its way through the school and got to the cheer coach. She was suspended from the cheer team for the whole year. The cheerleading team said it was because what she said was unsportsmanlike conduct which includes foul language and inappropriate gestures. The school district also said that she violated the school’s personal conduct rule. Her parents thought this was a violation of her First Amendment rights, and with the help of the ACLU they decided to sue the school district. They won the case and she was put back on the junior varsity team. The Third District Court of Appeals decided that since the post happened off campus the school has no right to discipline her. The school district has now asked the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on this case.
    2. The Mahanoy School District believes that schools should have the power to regulate student speech that happens outside of school when it would target the school, and affect school activities or interfere with the rights of other students. They say in this age of social media and students’ access to the internet, it has blurred the line between on campus and off campus. Levy’s argument is that only disruptive speech falls under the can be punished by the school and that her post did not cause a significant disruption and it is her First Amendment right to express herself outside of school.
    3.Bethel V.Fraser has some similarities in that they both revolve around inappropriate language. Matthew Fraser was a high school student who gave a speech about a classmate that was filled with inappropriate but not obscene language. A major difference is that in Fraser the inappropriate language happened within the school where Levy was off campus. Tinker also has similarities in that both instances caused disruptions within the school and Levy did not cause a significant disruption.
    4.I think that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule in Brandy Levy’s favor. In listening to the podcast, it seemed to me that many of the justices didn’t feel that her language or post was disruptive and that it was along the lines of a typical high school student. I think they will cite the Tinker v. Des Moines case and rule that her post did not cause a substantial disruption to school and the school has no right to discipline her because of her post.

  23. Jack Abbot

    Brandi Levy was 14 at the time when she was cut from the varsity cheerleading team at Mahanoy high school. Angered by that and other situations, she went on snapchat at a convenience store and posted a picture of her and a friend holding up the middle finger, with the caption, “f school, f softball, f cheer, f everything”. She sent out that snap to 250 students with the thought that it would disappear after 24 hours(a snapchat function). Although the snap did not disappear because 1 of 250 students screenshotted the message and shared it with the daughter of the cheerleading coach. After hearing this news Brandi was suspended from a year of cheerleading because the snap broke the cheerleading rules because it had profanity in front of cheer. Brandi’s parents asked the school to reconsider the punishment, but the school declined, so Brandi’s parents, with the help of the A.C.L.U filed a lawsuit saying that Brandi’s first amendment rights were violated. The first ruling by a district court ruled in favor of Brandi saying that the speech was off campus and out of the jurisdiction of the school. The Mahanoy school district then appealed to SCOTUS on the grounds that Brandi broke the schools Personal Conduct code and to clarify the extent of schools loco parentis role in regards to students.
    One of Mahanoy school districts main arguments is that schools have a parental like role in the students lives, and it is important that the schools can look over and discipline students for their actions when directed at the school. Mahoney believes that because Brandi mentioned cheerleading at the school, that obligates the school to make decisions about her actions as if she was in school. In a world where people are connected to everyone no matter where they are with social media and technology in general, the school argues that time and geography dont matter in social media, and that if the speech references the school, the school should be able to act. The Mahanoy School district also makes the point that if they rule in favor of Brandi, students would just wait until they are 1 step off of campus to criticize the school and how it is run. Cyberbullying is an issue that the Mahanoy school district has connected to this case because it could cause harm to students and disrupt schools ability to teach.
    Levy’s argument focuses on the fact that Brandi was not on school grounds, she did not disrupt school(as said by her cheerleading coaches), and it is her 1st amendment right. School grounds are considered at the school, or at school events, Brendi does not follow under that definition as she was in a convenience store. Also, under the Tinker ruling the speech has to disrupt school in order for the student to be punished, and Brendi’s speech did not cause a disruption in the classroom. Lastly, the Levi’s argue that if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the school district, students will have to “carry the schoolhouse on their backs in terms of speech rights everywhere they go”.
    The previous SCOTUS ruling that will have the biggest impact on the Brendi Levy case is the Tinker v Des Moines case in which Mary and John Tinker were suspended for wearing black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. The SCOTUS ruled that students do not lose their first amendment rights when they go to school and that a “substantial disruption” has to take place for the school to interfere. This connects to the Brandi Levy case because it defines what student speech is at the moment. Both sides will use the Tinker case to prove their point. The Levy’s will most likely talk about how the Tinker case does not regulate out of school speech, while the Mahoney school district will try to prove that a “substantial disruption” took place.
    I think that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Brandi Levy because of the fact that she was off school grounds, and she was using her 1st amendment rights. The argument that Brandi broke the school’s personal conduct code seems unwinnable to me because of the fact that she was not in school. How can you break the rules of an establishment, if you are not in that establishment. Also, I agree that schools do and should have a loco parentis role in students lives, but to expand their “parenting” to when students are outside of the classroom would affect the freedom of speech too harshly. Additionally, after hearing the judge’s statements on the case that Brandi was just “acting like a teenager”, I started leaning more towards the Levy’s. Another part of the case that I think will push the Levy’s case ahead of the Mahanoy school districts, is that the Levy’s will win the debate over “substantial disruption”.

  24. Grace Khamis

    1. Four years ago, a 14-year-old cheerleader named Brandi Levy from Pennsylvania found out she did not make the varsity cheerleading team. Upset, she went to the Coco Hut, the local convenience store, with a few friends and vented on social media. She took a picture of her and her friend holding up their middle fingers with the caption “F*** school, f*** softball, f*** cheer, f*** everything” and posted it for hundreds of her friends to see. One of the viewers happened to screenshot the photo and showed it to one of her cheer coaches which ended up getting Levy kicked off the team for the rest of the year. Angered by this, her parents got involved. They attempted to sue because they saw this as a violation of Levy’s First Amendment rights and won the case, having her put back on her school’s JV cheerleading team.
    2. Despite Levy’s win in the lower court, the school continued to appeal to a higher court. They argued that the post was disruptive to the school environment. Although the picture was posted off campus and beyond school hours, Mahanoy argued that they should have the power to regulate any sort of speech that, in their eyes, caused a disruption to the students and their education, such as cyberbullying and spreading cheating tactics. Levy’s argument was that speech of this sort should only be restricted on school grounds and during school hours. Attempting to restrict speech outside of these parameters would be a violation of the students’ First Amendment rights.
    3. In my opinion, this case connects greatly to the Tinker v. Des Moines case from 1969. In this case, two students named John and Mary Beth Tinker decided to wear black armbands to school as a form of peaceful protest against the ongoing Vietnam War. The school argued that the armbands caused a disruption, but the court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. I think this connects to the Levy v. Mahanoy case because both attempted to restrict the First Amendment rights of students. Both schools’ reasoning was that the students were causing a disruption even though the only disruption was the school getting involved in the first place.
    4. Ultimately, I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in Brandi Levy’s favor. After all, if all students were to be punished whenever they swore on social media, administrators would not be able to keep up. It’s typical for teenagers to vent on social media nowadays. Like the podcast said, I feel like this case’s circumstance might be a bit too modern for the Supreme Court to decide on at the moment without further discussion. I also feel like the SCOTUS might send the case back down to a lower court to decide instead. But, if this does happen, it might be “unlikely that we’ll get any clarity on this bigger free speech issue anytime soon’, as stated in the podcast.

  25. Ian Duncan

    1) The case in question is Mahanoy Area District v. B.L., a case that questions first amendment rights of students outside school campuses. Brandi Levy (B.L.), who was 14 at the time of this incident (2017), received the news she did not make her school’s varsity cheerleading team. She did not take the news lightly, as she had been putting a lot of effort into practice. So, she took to snapchat, Levy took a picture of her and her friend captioning “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything” and shared it to her story with 250 viewers. The post made its way to the coaches of the cheerleading team, and she was in return suspended from cheerleading for 1 year. Brandi Levy and her family decided to take the issue to court on the basis her 1st amendment rights were violated. With help from the ACLU, the Levy’s won their first court case against the school. The school appealed, and the case was taken to the Third Circuit Appeals Court where the Levy’s once again won on the basis speech off campus grounds can’t be punished. The school has taken the case to the Supreme Court, in order for lines to be made on a student’s 1st amendment free speech rights corresponding to in and out of school environments.

    2) Brandi Levy’s side argues that her speech did not cause severe disruption, and in return she should not be punished. Also, she argues that since her speech occurred off campus, that the school has no right to punish her. That since Levy’s speech did not occur under school jurisdiction, so they have no say. Mahony argues the opposite, they say that Levy’s speech did disrupt the school environment. That her post promoted bad sportsmanship, and incited chaos among the team. Also, Mahony claims that they do have jurisdiction over Levy’s speech because it did relate to the school. Since Levy explicitly mentioned school in her post, the school has authority to give proper punishment on stated grounds.

    3) I believe this case (Mahanoy Area District v. B.L.) is most similar to Bethel School District v. Fraser. Both contain the use of offensive and potentially damaging speech in correspondence to school. Bethel v. Fraser contained a student named Fraser who gave a speech with sexual innuendos at a school sanctioned event. This is very similar to Levy as both cases are about students who use damaging speech around a main audience of certain school kids. The two cases also share some differences, Fraser’s speech was given directly in school, and he also received a warning by staff of the potential consequences. With that in mind, the Supreme Court ruled that Frasers’ speech could be regulated because of vulgar and offensive language around students. But, Levy’s circumstances are not the same as Fraser’s. Levy did not use her words on school grounds, and she did not use her words directly to a certain school’s audience.

    4) I believe that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Brandi Levy. Through in-depth evaluations of the justices by the podcast and articles, I believe that the feelings towards the case are in favor of Levy. Many of the justices have mentioned concerns with the power schools may be given from a ruling in this case. “Justice Elena Kagan also worried that, under the rules proposed by the school district and the federal government, a wide swath of off-campus speech would be fair game for school discipline.” I believe that the ruling will come with the explanation that Levy’s speech was off-campus, and that her speech did not cause damage to the students. But, because of the circumstances of the case, I do not believe that the Supreme Court will set a universal law for free speech in schools. With the combination of online speech, individual sports rules, and other specific facts to the case, it would be hard to draw a line when determining whether speech can be monitored according to schools. I believe in this specific case, they will rule in favor of Brandi Levy, but not make a universal law that can be applied to free speech and schools everywhere.

  26. Chase Richardson

    #1: Brandi Levy is a 14-year-old girl that participated on her school’s cheerleading team. In 2017, Levy (a freshman at the time) found out that she did not make the varsity cheerleading team and decided to voice her anger on social media (Snapchat, in particular). Levy posted a picture with a not-so-nice caption on her story and unbeknownst to her, a member of the cheerleading team took a screenshot and shared it with the cheerleading coach. Levy was suspended from the JV team for a year, and this is where the legal issues started to take place. Levy’s parents sued the school and won, which allowed Brandi to return to the team. The school then appealed to the Federal Court, where they were told that since her actions took place off-campus, they could not be regulated. After that, the school decided to take the case to the Supreme Court because they felt that without being able to regulate speech off school grounds, they couldn’t prevent cheating and cyberbullying from happening off school grounds either.
    #2: Manahoy: One of the school’s proposed arguments was that the laws in DC and at least 25 other states require schools to address off-campus harassment and/or bullying that cause a substantial disruption to the school environment and/or violates other students’ rights. Federal laws also require schools to address any discriminatory or pervasive student-on-student harassment that affects a student’s access to educational benefits. They can do this without any limitation as to where the harassment happens. The school argued that if more than 25 other states require off-campus harassment to be addressed by the school, why were they not allowed to address Levy’s statement as it was considered harassment by their policies.
    Levy: Brandi Levy and her lawyers argued that expanding Tinker’s regulations would be a daunting task and would not help limit the amount of harassment and cyberbullying. Levy also argued that erasing the line between inside and outside of school would be too dangerous because it would give too much power to the school and take away power from the parents. Finally, Levy argued that she did not even cause enough of a substantial disruption for the hypothetical situation that Tinker’s laws did expand for them to apply to her.
    #3: This case is similar to the Fraser case because they both have to deal with the vulgar language being used. In the Fraser case, a student (Fraser) gave a speech at an assembly to help support his friend who was running for vice president. Fraser’s speech contained some vulgar language and the school punished him for using that language. The Fraser case is similar to the Brandi Levy case because in both instances the schools tried to punish the student for using vulgar/unlikable language against the student’s 1st amendment rights.
    #4: I think that the supreme court will rule in Brandi Levy’s favor. I think they will rule in her favor for a few reasons, the first being that her speech did not cause a disruption within the school, which was one of Manahoy’s big arguments. The second reason is the Judges within the daily podcast seem to realize that Levy needed to blow off some steam, and was not angry with her using vulgar language. My final reason why I think that the Judges will rule in Brandi Levy’s favor is that her snap was not directed to the school or any students at the school which defeats another major argument from the Mahanoy school district.

  27. Max Young

    #1 This case is about a girl named Brandi Levy. Brandi was a cheerleader who got cut from the varsity cheer team and decided to put some of her harsh feelings on video onto her snapchat story. She brought up her school and team but never explicitly called them out. This video ended up getting to her coach where she would then get suspended from the cheer team for a year. Levy’s parents were very upset with their daughter getting suspended so they took action. Her parents with the A.C.L.U sued the school, which they ended up winning. The Third Court ruled that since the explicit actions were off campus, the school doesn’t have the ability to punish Mrs. Levy. On the other hand Levy’s school and school district disagreed with that claim. They said since her post was disruptive and it could have caused other horrible actions, then they have the audacity to punish her. With the opposing ideas, the school has taken this case to the Supreme Court on whether or not Brandi Levy’s comments were protected by the First Amendment Right.

    #2 Mahony (school) argues that Levy’s comment disrupted the school environment and that she should be punished. In the podcast, a lawyer that was defending the school district summed it up that the school will have the ability to punish students for wherever their speech is that threatens the school environment. On the other hand, Levy and her crew think otherwise. The A.C.L.U. argues that off campus speech can’t be authorized by the school because then it’d feel like the kids are being watched 24/7 and can’t express their own feelings. The school can’t be responsible for students when they aren’t on school property, so why would they be able to patrol their speech when they aren’t in their hands. This would also contradict the First Amendment as kids wouldn’t have full rights on freedom of speech.

    #3 I think the best case to compare Mahony v. Levy would be Fraser v. Bethel. In both of these cases there was unprofessional language by students. Although the Mahony v. Levy case was an off campus speech, they both contained similar speech where the school thought it was threatening to the school environment. Another similarity between these cases is that both the students got punished. While we don’t know what the Supreme Court will do in the Mahony v. Levy case, the ruling in the Bethel v. Fraser case was that the school had the power to authorize the speech because it was “lewd and vulgar”.

    #4 I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Mrs. Levy. I believe this because nothing in the podcast really convinced me to go to the other side. Her cheer coach said it for herself that Brandi’s speech didn’t cause a disruption at school. In the podcast there was basically a split between the Justices on whether they should side with Levy or the school. Also, as much as the school wants to regulate speech mentioning the school, it’s too hard and unfair for the school to be responsible for speech off campus. Lastly, I believe the SCOTUS will side with Brandi Levy.

  28. Austin White

    1. Freshman year, B.L. made the JV cheerleading team. But next year, as an upcoming sophomore, she was hoping to make the varsity team. But when the coaches announced the results she was upset, she hadn’t made varsity. She was especially upset because she found out that an up and coming freshman had made varsity. So B.L. texted the coach asking if it was required to do a year of JV before going on varsity, which the coach responded with, “No.” So the next day B.L. posted a picture, off-campus, in which her and her friend stuck up their middle fingers and wrote a caption that said, “F*ck school f*ck softball f*ck cheer f*ck everything.” The case was first introduced in a Pennsylvania district court which ordered that B.L. be let back on her cheerleading team, because her post did not substantially disrupt the school environment as protected by Tinker. Mahanoy appealed the ruling; the Third Circuit Court upheld it because the protections did not necessarily apply to off-campus speech.

    2. The first argument presented by Mahanoy argues that B.L.’s claim is invalid because the First Amendment does not prohibit schools from disciplining students. The district’s second argument argues that if students were protected under the First Amendment outside of school grounds, it would undermine federal laws that require the school to intervene. As for B.L., their first argument is that since Tinker only limits free speech while on school grounds, which implies that students should be able to say whatever they please off of school grounds. They also argue that making schools be able to regulate student speech outside of school wouldn’t help their goal of limiting bullying and/or harassment.

    3. I think that the Tinker Supreme Court ruling may have a significant part in this upcoming case. While the case does not specify that the “disruption” has to be at school or out of school, I think that the decision that stated that student speech is ok as long as it does not significantly disrupt the school learning environment could be beneficial for the B.L. side since it was in fact not disruptive to the school environment, as were the armbands worn by the Tinkers.

    4. I think that the Supreme Court will narrowly rule on the side of B.L.. Judging by the comments made by the justices mentioned in the podcast, it sounds like even the justices themselves are pretty split on the issue. At one point a quote from Justice Breyer is mentioned, “I mean, she used swear words— you know, unattractive swear words— off campus. Meh. Did that cause a material and substantial disruption?” (NY Times: The Daily). From what was quoted in the podcast it seems like the justices are still trying to get answers, but since I believe that the post didn’t cause a substantial disruption, and the court may find this to be the case as well, I think that the court will utilize the student free speech rule from Tinker. But what I believe will come out of this case is a change to the rule that will include out of school speech to be punished if it causes a substantial disruption, such as social media posts, cyberbullying, or harassment.

  29. catherine bean

    1) Brandy Levy, a 14 year old freshman at Mahoney Highschool, learned that she did not make her varsity cheerleading team and subsequently would remain on the JV team until next year’s tryouts where she could try again for a varsity spot. In addition to not making Varsity, she did not get the position she wanted on JV. Having experienced what it feels like to not make the position that one would like, I can understand both her sentiments of frustration as well as her subsequent actions. Levy was stressed out and overwhelmed. In addition to not making Varsity, Levy experienced what many high schoolers feel: anxiety over final exams and grades. Additionally, like the majority of her peers, Levy turned to social media, specifically, snapchat, and vented her feelings of anger and frustration. What is key to this instance is that the snap was made off campus and during the weekend. With that said, in that heat of the moment Levy posted, “F** school” F** cheer” F**everything”. She posted this with her friends holding up the middle finger. She posted this picture to a private story with a small group of her closest friends. One of these so-called friends took a screenshot of Levy’s post and shared it with her mother as well as the cheerleading coaches. Once that snapchat was in the hands of the coaches, Brandy was immediately suspended from JV cheerleading for the remainder of her sophomore year. The coaches took the position that Levy’s use of profanity along with the word “cheer” violated two cheerleading rules of conduct: first to have respect for your school, coaches, teachers, and other cheerleaders and schools and second that there will be zero toleration for any negative information regarding cheerleading, It was also argued by the coaches that Levy violated the “Personal Conduct Rule”. Coach Nicole Luchetta-Rump testified that she punished Levy for the profane referencing to cheerleading in the snap post. Levy’s parents requested that the school board and principal reconsider, however, they both refused.

    2)Mahanoy High School has historically possessed a very disciplined off campus speech policy. The school states/argues that they stand in loco parentis ( in the place of parents) when the students are in and out of school. Furthermore, the school district argued that the First amendment does not prevent schools from regulating off-campus student speech that targets the school environment and substantially disrupts school activities or interferes with other students’ rights. They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tinker which held, “ that student free speech rights are diminished within the school context. A public school may punish its students for speech that would,” materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” In response to Brandi’s punishment, Levy and her parents filed a lawsuit against the school. Brandis’ lawyer argues that the school/school district violated her first amendment right to free speech and expression and unlike Tinker, Brandi’s post did not happen during school or at a school sanctioned event. Thus the question being asked of the Supreme Court is whether a school district can or should be allowed to discipline a student when they engage in speech not in school or at a school sanctioned activity. Because Brandi’s post was made on the weekend and not at a school sponsored event, she therefore should not have been suspended and the school district has violated her First Amendment rights. Schools don’t suspend kids cursing amongst themselves in the hallways…..

    3)Mahanoy School District vs B.L relates to Bethel vs Fraser because both these cases relate to the use of offensive words. In Bethel a high school student gave a crude speech during a school assembly. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech when such speech was inconsistent with the values of public school education.( paraphrased) This is entirely different from Mahoney. In Mahoney, the speech was made off campus, on the weekend, and done on a private snap chat to people within a group, not to the student or faculty population at Mahoney High School. In both cases, the language used was deemed lewd and offensive.In Bethel the venue was the school at large while in Levy, it was a select group. Had the other student not taken a screenshot, this case probably would not be in front of the Supreme Court. My guess is that It just contained speech that the school took offense to. In both cases the students received punishments due to their speech. While the language may be deemed offensive, the question being asked today looks at speech outside of school and can this be extended to whether public schools can punish students for posts that bully and or harass? It will be very interesting to see the Court’s interpretation of the case.

    4)I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Brandi Levy case. I think that the Justices may rely on Tinker and its ruling school officials could not prohibit free speech based on the suspicion that the speech might disrupt the learning environment . Here, Levy’s speech was not disruptive towards the school. In fact, it can be said that Brandi was simply venting in the most teenage way possible. Where was the “injury” to the school? What was the disruption? Is dissing cheerleading and school in a moment of frustration grounds for a year suspension? After listening to the podcast, I am under the impression that the SC will likely rule in favor of Levy over the school district. If the school were to punish her for cursing in her snapchat, they would not be able to keep up with the amount of cursing by students that occurs every minute if not second. As stated above, do schools suspend students swearing amongst their friends in hallways? The ramifications of this ruling are huge and, like Tinker and Bethel, Levy will do doubt be an important interpretation of the First Amendment.

  30. Diego McIntyre

    I think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Brandi Levy. Judging by how the Tinker case went, stating that students at public schools don’t lose their rights as soon as they enter school I doubt that they will overturn their decision with a harsher ruling. If they were to make a ruling I believe that it would only be for this specific case. This belief is reinforced by the fact that Levy’s post didn’t cause significant disruption.
    I do believe that the Supreme court will make a very narrow ruling because the chances of a situation like this one occurring again are very small and not only that but the supreme court has stated many times that they do not want to make extensive changes and rules.
    I don’t think this case rises to the level of disruption that was may be experienced in the Tinker case. The school’s argument relied on the fact that Brandi’s post contained profane language directed at the school. The court ruled in favor of Brandi saying that her suspension was not justified under the Tinker ruling because it involved off-campus speech, not on-campus speech like the Tinker case. The school district argues that with technology vulgar speech can happen anywhere at any time and that geography shouldn’t matter in a case like this, anything that involves the school, the school should be able to control. The school also, argues the point that if the court were to rule in their favor, cases of cyberbullying would go down and teachers would be able to help students outside of their normal legal boundaries. The ACLU is arguing the exact opposite, that the speech needs to be made on school jurisdiction and supervision for the school to have the legal right to regulate speech. This is kind of like the Fraser case, except for the speech was off-campus instead of on campus. The Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of Levy because when Kevin Rose says this when discussing the Justices for the case, “that this idea that this is an on-off switch— on campus gets one set of rules, off-campus it’s a different set of rules— didn’t seem to appeal to most of them”. If they don’t like the idea of on and off-campus speech having different parameters, it’s very unlikely they will make a ruling that has two separate sets of rules, I think it will be a broad ruling about all speech.

  31. Mori Miller

    1. In May of 2017, a young high school student, who will be referred to as B.L. posted a picture containing vulgar language to her snapchat. This post came in response to her finding out that she had not made her school’s varsity cheerleading team. She posted this picture captioned, “F*** school, f*** softball, f*** cheer, f*** everything”, on a weekend, at a convenience store not inside the school campus. A student who is friends with B.L. on snapchat showed this picture to a teacher and it eventually was shown to B.L.’s cheerleading coach. Her coach decided to suspend B.L. from the team for a year because of her post, and when B.L. and her parents challenged this decision, the school district and principal backed up the coach’s decision. B.L. and her parents enlisted the help of the ACLU and sued the school district on the basis of restricting the free speech of B.L. The case was tried in a district court, which ruled in favor of B.L., and then the decision was appealed until it eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.
    2. The main argument of the Mahanoy school district is that schools should have the right to regulate disruptive speech. This builds off of the precedent established in the Tinker case that free speech can be regulated if deemed disruptive to school activities. In Tinker, it established this for inside school campuses, but this case seeks to expand this jurisdiction to all speech by students, wherever they are. Mahanoy believes that this jurisdiction will help schools combat cyberbullying. The argument made by B.L. is that schools have no right to regulate off campus speech, and that her speech was not disruptive to the school environment. If Tinker is expanded to outside of the school campus, then schools will have nearly full control over what students can or can not say.
    3. This case relates to the Fraser case as they both pertain to students using vulgar language. Fraser was a case in which a student was making a speech promoting his classmate for a student council position, and he used an inappropriate sexual reference. The student was suspended, but he argued the school was repressing his free speech. Because the school was able to provide reasonable grounds that the speech was disruptive and inappropriate for a school environment, and the speech was done on school grounds, the school won the case.
    4. My prediction is that the supreme court will side with B.L., yet establish that her speech is protected only due to the fact that it is not harmful to anyone. They will make this decision to allow schools to be able to regulate cyber bullying that occurs out of school. A large part of the school district’s argument is the necessity of regulating “off campus abuse”. While this is a valid argument, it does not pertain to this particular case, as B.L.’s post was not directed, targeting, or attacking another person. It did not cause substantial harm to any person or any school environment, which means it was not cyber bullying. The post is not in violation of any previous SCOTUS decisions, most specifically Tinker, which prohibited disruptive speech that disrupts the school environment. B.L. was not in school, was not during school, and was not at a school related activity at the time of her posting the image. Her post did not affect any environment at school, and therefore the school has no legal basis to punish her for her free speech.

  32. Liv Chapman

    1. In 2014, a 17 year old girl identified as “BL.”, was cut from her high school’s varsity cheerleading team in Pennsylvania. Once BL heard the news, she was furious and flooded with emotion including loads of anger. BL retaliated by posting a photo of her and a friend flipping off the camera with a caption that write “F* school, f* softball, f* cheer, f* everything”. On the app snapchat, you are able to post an image to a select number of people for 24 hours, after 24 hours the photo is gone. Inconveniently for BL, a fellow peer of hers screenshotted the photo, one way or another the photo landed in the hands of her cheer coach and the school. BL was banned from the cheer team for her entire season. BL parents and the ACLU took matters into their own hands and sued the school. They believed that this was an invasion of BL privacy and an abuse of BL’s first amendment right. In the lower court levels, BL and her team were successful, they demanded she be put back on the cheer team. That being said, the school was not very happy and insisted on her being appointed to a higher court. The schould suggested the case to SCOUTS because they were not pleased with the idea that they were not in control when it came to punishment of speech outside of a school setting. This is such a worry due to cyberbullying and harassment amongst students.
    2. Mahanoy: Argues that any form of disruptive or inappropriate speech, regardless of where it came from, should be punished by the school, and willingly accept the consequences. The lawyer argues that with the state of technology that we are in and at the rate of development, there is no way to control where on when things are said. The lawyers are attempting to eliminate the discussion of location and “In and out of school” boundaries. A.C.L.U: They argue that disruptive speech can only be punished in a school setting. They are claiming that BL’s statement was not a form of bullying or harassment, but rather a broad statement with no direct intentions.
    3. I think the most connected/similar case would be Tinker V Des Moines. It’s a very very famous case that surrounds the ideal freedom of expression and speech. In 1965, students in Des Moines school collectively decided to wear black armbands to school as a way to peacefully protest against the vietnam war. Inconveniently, the school had a sort of unwritten rule that prohibited the armbands. The case was taken straight to the supreme court in an argument regarding students first amendment rights. In moral, the ruling said that the arm bands were acceptable and did not cause a disruption to education. I think this connects to BL’s case due to the fact that they are both arguments of free speech and expression. The factor that makes this case so difficult is the “on/off campus” idea. If BL posted this off or on campus decides a lot when it comes to her protection of speech.
    4. If we are being totally honest, I have no idea how the court will rule this case. I see both sides very well and I understand both arguments. I do think that since they didn’t directly call out someone’s name or a specific school, the vague-ness may have saved her. I wouldn classify this as cyberbullying personally, but when it comes down to the legalities this could go both ways. If I had to make a prediction, I would lean more towards the court ruling in favor of BL. To be ruled in favor of the school board, BL’s statement must have been a sort of disruption to the school and education of other students, which it was not.

  33. Elizabeth Culbertson

    Part 1: What’s Happening + Procedural History
    On a normal Saturday in 2017, Brandi Levy, a 14 year old girl (at the time) posted an extremely frustrated Snapchat rant onto her main, public story. This comes after Levy didn’t make the varsity cheerleading team like she hoped, and was disappointed because Brandi was on JV the year before. She was seen with her girlfriend at a local convenience store in her area of Mahanoy City, PA, flipping off the camera and saying, “F- school, F- softball, F- cheer, and F- everything.” This post obtained over 200 views throughout the 24-hour period you could see it, and someone screenshotted it. This screenshot made its way to one of the coaches on the Mahanoy girls cheerleading team, where Levy faced a suspension from the cheerleading squad for an entire year for violating their guidelines of respecting your coaches and your team. In terms of procedural history, Levy’s parents were enraged by their daughter’s suspension, so on September 25th, 2017, they sued the school district. Brandi Levy was allowed to return to the cheerleading team the next day, on the basis that the Snapchat post she made caused no substantial disruption to the school environment, and did not target anyone in particular. Even if the off-campus speech impacts the school, the Tinker case standard will not apply. Levy won her case all the way up until the appeals court, where they gave a broad ruling that prompted the school to label this case as SCOTUS-worthy. Right now, the Mahanoy district is seeking an answer as to what schools can or can’t police when it comes to off-campus speech.

    Part 2: Mahanoy and Levy’s Arguments
    The Mahanoy school district argues that if the student’s actions outside of the school campus threaten to disrupt the environment, the authority from the district should be maintained. The location of said speech does not matter, nor does the First Amendment hold insight into the situation, because it does not prevent schools from using authority. Any viewpoint as to whether the speech is disruptive is irrelevant because there are laws and regulations in place to prevent any sort of issue. Lastly, taking away the schools’ authority to regulate off-campus speech will lead to the end of a plethora of state and federal laws, creating chaos.

    Next, we’ll move onto Brandi and the Levy family’s arguments against the Mahanoy school district. Their arguments admit the fact that if any speech encourages threat, harassment, or bullying – the school has every right to police it. However, Levy’s post, littered with cuss words and a pretty bad symbol, does not fall into this category. Her snap did not cause substantial disruption to the school environment. Allowing school districts to use the Tinker standard outside of school speech is unconstitutional, unclear as to what is offensive or not, and interferes with parents’ authority over their children.

    Part 3: Fraser Standard vs. Mahanoy/Levy
    To summarize the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser, Matthew Fraser delivered a speech about his friend running for school council vice president. The speech contained many inappropriate messages and undertones that were deemed offensive, obscene, and vulgar. Fraser was immediately suspended and removed from speaking at the graduation ceremony, so his dad filed a lawsuit, where both the district court and court of appeals ruled in favor of Fraser. However, this case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, where they ruled in the opposite: the school’s actions were not in violation of Matthew’s First Amendment rights. As a result of this case, we now have another definition into the mix – the Fraser Standard. This states that any political speech in school, controversial or not, is protected by the school under the Tinker case we all know and love. However, vulgar speech, like Fraser’s, that occurs during a school-sponsored event, is not protected speech. Between the Fraser and Mahanoy cases, these are similar because they both present issues of drawing a line between what is deemed to cause substantial disruption or not. Viewpoint analysis is the main issue at hand here, especially with young, impressionable high school students, who carry different opinions as to what they find offensive.

    Part 4: Predicting SCOTUS’ Decision
    I’m a pretty bad predictor of situations already, just ask any of my friends, but this case proves to be even more difficult when looking at its background. There are so many factors as to what is deemed offensive or not, especially in this day and age. You’re either told that you don’t take things seriously enough, or that you’re overreacting and it’s not a big deal. However, based on the history of cases like Tinker and Fraser, I believe that the Supreme Court will make a broader decision that covers similar cases in the future. It would turn into something like the Levy standard, which defines what a student can or cannot say about their school, on or off of campus. I remember in the podcast how Liptak and Roose discussed how there are way too many specifics to make a clear-cut decision, and I totally agree. Trying to account for every side of the equation, whether that be Mahanoy’s claims of irrelevance regarding location and the First Amendment, or Levy’s protest that her speech did not cause substantial disruption. I’m thinking that the Supreme Court decision will come with many guidelines as to what qualifies something as substantial disruption, however, I don’t believe they’ll deal with the specifics of Levy’s case much more.

  34. Alexander Moore

    1. Brandy Levy is a student who tried out for the varsity cheer team at her highschool. Brandy Levy was informed that she in fact did not make the team and she was upset. While Brandy Levy was at a convenience store, she posted a photo on her Snapchat story reading, “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything.” In the photo, Brandy Levy and her friend were both holding their middle finger up. The photo made its way to one of the coaches and Brandy Levy was suspended from the cheer team for a year. Brandy Levy and her parents sued the ACLU. Brandy Levy won the case and was back on her cheer team. The Federal appeals court then took the case and won again. The case was then taken to the SUpreme court awaiting a decision
    2. Mahanoy argues that disruptive speech should be punished whether it was on campus or not. Mahanoy argues that Brandy Levy’s post caused a disruption to the school environment so it should be punished. Brandy Levy argues that because her Snapchat post was off-campus, she should not be punished for it. If she were to be punished because of it would violate her first amendment right to free speech.
    3. I think that this case is very similar to the Fraser case. In the Fraser case, a highschool student was giving a speech to support his friend’s vice-president campaign. In his speech, he made some sexual and lewd jokes. The school was not happy about these jokes so naturally, they punished him. This is similar to the Brandy Levy case because they are both being punished for speech that is seen as inappropriate in the school’s eyes. However, the difference is that Fraser’s speech was on campus while Brandy Levy made a post off-campus.
    4. I think that the SCOTUS will decide that Brandy Levy’s post was not a disruption to the school environment. It was not a disruption because the post happened outside of the school campus. Brandy Levy’s Snapchat post cannot be called bullying because she didn’t single out one person. Brandy Levy was venting rather than cyberbullying someone and I don’t think that she should be punished because of it. I think Mahanoy might have a chance of winning this case because it will allow the school to better prevent cyberbullying. This case may set the precedent for off-campus speech and whether or not you can be punished for it.

  35. Rachel Mercer

    1. SCOTUS is deciding on what to do about the Brandy Levy case at the moment. They are deciding if off-campus speech can be disciplined by the public schools. In past court hearings such as Tinker, political speech on campus was disciplined because it was disruptive. The court actually turned down the case to argue for the Tinkers since they felt that the school had been right in the situation. Mahanoy believes that this case will help make for less cyber bullying out of school since they can be punished. Levy believes she has the right to free speech especially on her own time when she is not in nor at school. I believe SCOTUS will not have a sweeping ruling in this court case. As the people said in the Podcast, it is unlikely that this case will be what defines what students can and can not say and be punished for. If it is decided that the school district has won, the schools will gain more control over students speech rights, which many people are against because it can affect student’s first amendment rights. If B.L. wins, it will result in clarity of where students will be punished by the school for saying certain things and where the school will have to rely on the parents to keep kids safe. No matter who wins, a more defined line will be drawn about what students can and can not say.
    SCOTUS may make a narrow ruling that only deals with this case if they cannot come to a conclusion about how to deal with online and off-campus speech. This case does not rise to a high enough level of harassment to be the case that will decide the amount of free speech a student that attends a public school. It does not cover bullying and harrassment in what was said in Brandy Levy’s statement on snapchat and had nothing to do with the school or team she tried out for in particular. This makes it difficult for the court to decide what to do with Brandy and her case because it is a smaller case that does not require such a large solution. I believe that if the SCOTUS can come to an agreement and can put together a deal where it will not limit students speech into very small select things they can say, it will fill in the gaps that were created when making laws that decided what to do when students speech was a disruption. They will have better policies for students and speech for future cases like this and it will not be left undone and unfinished.
    I do not believe that this causes a substantial disruption at Mahanoy High School because it did not target any students, it did not name the school or team, and it was off campus. This case does not rise to the level of what Tinker was at because Tinker was surrounded around students who were wearing armbands at school in order to protest a war. The difference between these two is that B.L. posted on snapchat off campus and outside of school hours on a weekend while the Tinkers protested in person, on campus, and during school hours. This makes a large difference because students can then be in the area and see the Tinkers at school which makes this more relevant to the school. The court also decided on vulgar language as being disruptive in the case with Fraser. Fraser was on campus and making a speech to his fellow classmates. While Fraser was older, there were also younger students in the crowd which he should not have said those things around. It was disruptive of the school environment and important because it keeps many things that students and teachers are uncomfortable talking about out of school.

  36. Dylan Stojanovic

    A 14-year-old girl named Brandi Levy tried out for her high school cheer team. She ended up not making the varsity cheer team and in a response posted on her Snapchat story profanity towards the school for hundreds of people to see. When one of her followers on Snapchat showed the school, Levy was suspended from cheer for the rest of the year. Outraged, Levy’s parents sued and won in the lower courts with the reasoning that the school could not discipline a student for something they did outside of school. She was also reinstated to be able to cheer again. However, the school has since gone to the Supreme Court as they did not agree with the law that schools could not discipline students for outside actions.

    For Mahoney Districts’ argument, they believe that the control the district has should be expanded to the point that the district should be able to control the speech even if it is on-campus, as long as it could interfere with the school environment. For Levy’s argument, they believe that Levy had her first amendment rights to use the speech and even if it was negative it did not cause any substantial effect on the school. It also did not have any specific information regarding the school as the only thing she even said that implies the district is “f–k school” but no specific school.

    One similar case that connects to this is Bethel School District v Fraser. In this case, Matthew Fraser made a sexual metaphor in a school assembly about a friend who he nominated for school office. The school found what he said unappealing and suspended him for two days. The question of the case when it went to the SCOTUS was if the first amendment prevented a student from giving lewd speech at an assembly and the answer was no. The reasoning was that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Unlike Fraser, when Levy had used inappropriate speech, it was off school campus rather than in an assembly. However, both had the use of vulgar language regarding a school and if the supreme court were to expand what “on campus” means it could make it reasonable for the school to have disciplined Levy.

    I think ultimately the supreme court will rule in favor of Brandy Levy as I think her speech will be protected under the first amendment. Levy’s post which was off school grounds. wasn’t targeted towards anybody, didn’t cause any negative harm towards the school, and didn’t even mention the school or the district. She flat out just dropped an F bomb out of anger that she didn’t make the team. Hearing the supreme court justices talk in the podcast I agreed with the statement that if schools punish kids for swearing they would be handing punishments non-stop.

  37. Lindsey DeGrendel

    14-year-old Brandi Leevy was having a very day when she learned that she wouldn’t make the varsity cheerleading team at Mahanoy High School. Levy and her friend went to a convenience store and she made a post with derogatory language about the cheer team and her school. Her snap post was shared with her cheerleading coaches and they suspended Leevy from the team for a year. Levy and her family sued the school and won their first two cases up until the appeal court.

    Brandi argued that her post was off-campus, outside of school hours, and therefore it shouldn’t be punished. Brandis layer claimed that it had to be under the school’s supervision or else the first amendment still applies. Mahanoy School District argued that in the age of cyberbullying, much off-campus student social media expression has direct, harm at school, and does constitute a substantial disruption or interference with the rights of others. They argued that oftentimes the intended audience of students’ social media expression is the school community and, thus, they are targeting the school environment.

    The key case is from 1969, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. Students in this case were protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The court ruled that because their protests weren’t disruptive, they were protected. This is similar to Leevys case although there are some differences, such as the location of where the event took place.

    I think the Scouts will rule in favor of Leevy. The podcast says, “The Supreme Court stated that the First Amendment provides the substantial right for students to say what they’de like to say.” To me, this is pivotal evidence of how they’ve ruled other court cases in the past. If they stick to this perspective, Leevy’s post should have been protected. Though the Supreme court could just go back and reverse the other cases, they think they will stick to claims they have made in the past. By ruling in favor of the school, the Supreme Court would be disregarding their previous statements. Additionally, if the Court rules in favor of the school, students’ rights will be heavily limited. This means that regardless of if you’re on or off-campus, your speech is being watched, monitored, and could be used against you. I’m personally very cautious about what I post online but the determination of this case could change a lot for students like me who use social media every day.

  38. Milan Tillman

    1.A 14 year old freshman at Mahoney High School, Brandi Levy, learned that she did not make her school’s varsity cheerleading team and that she would remain on the junior varsity team. She also did not get the position that she wanted on her local softball team and she was stressed about her upcoming finals. While in a convenience store she typed on her phone “f school f softball f cheer f everything”. She posted these words along with a picture of her and her friend using their middle fingers in her private story. One of the cheerleaders on the team screenshotted the snap and showed it to her mother, a coach of the cheerleading team. Brandi Levy was suspended from the cheerleading team for her entire sophomore year. The coaches claimed that B.L’s use of profanity along with the word “cheer” violated cheerleading rules: to have respect for your school, coaches, teachers, and other cheerleaders and schools and that there will be no toleration of any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches put on the internet. Brandi Levy’s parents asked the school board and principal to reconsider, but they both refused. Brandi’s parents decided to sue the school through the ACLU in the Pennsylvania district court and the judge ruled that the school had violated Brandi’s first amendment rights since she was off campus. She was let back on the team, but the case went further and a year later, the 3rd Circuit ruled that public schools cannot censor off-campus speech based on a fear of disruption of school activities. The school has taken Levy’s case to the SCOTUS because they are afraid that they won’t be able to limit harmful speech such as cyberbullying and the ruling is still in progress.
    2. Mahoney’s side of the argument is Brandi Levy violated two cheerleading rules: to have respect for your school, coaches, teachers, and other cheerleaders and schools and that there will be no toleration of any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches put on the internet. They also stated that she violated the “Personal Conduct Rule”. The cheerleading coach, Nicole Luchetta-Rump, testified that she did not punish B.L. for a possibility of a disruption, but for the profane referencing of cheerleading. Brandi Levy’s argument is that because she didn’t post those words online while she was on campus, she was under the authority of her parents thus preventing the school from punishing her in any way. She also argued that her first amendment rights were being violated because she has the right to express herself when she is not at school.
    3.Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier relates to this case because it also dealt with the first amendment in the school environment. The difference with this case is that the girls were writing about sensitive topics in the school newspaper which was monitored by the school and reflected the reputation of the school. Brandy Levy’s case had ruled in her favor to this point because her profane speech was posted off campus, but in this case the girls were writing in something sponsored by the school, so the school was able to filter out what they wanted.
    4.I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of the school because of things like cyberbullying. Brandi Levy won her case and was able to get back on the cheer team, but I think on a larger scale, it will benefit schools to have the authority to monitor off-campus speech if it is harmful to other students. Many schools were worried about not having this authority anymore, but I believe that the Supreme court will push for schools to prevent threats/disruption instead of leaving them helpless in situations like this.

  39. Chelsea Wallington

    Brandi Levy was 14 years old when she posted a controversial snapchat post. She had recently found that she had not made the varsity cheer team, but the J.V. varsity team. She also did not get the position that she wanted on her softball team. Frustrated, she went to the Coco Hut, a popular teen hangout in Pennsylvania, with a friend. They took and posted a picture with their middle fingers up, with the caption “F school, F cheer, F softball, F everything”. The post made it back to her cheer coaches, and they decided to suspend her from the ream for the rest of the year. Brandi and her parents were naturally upset, so they decided to sue, saying that the school was infringing upon her first amendment right. Brandi did win in some lower courts, but the school appealed. The case has made its way to the Supreme Court because we need to make a clear statement on what schools can and can not police on the internet.

    Manahoy School District is arguing that they have the right to punish Levy because she was being disruptive. They are claiming that it shouldn’t matter where the speech takes place, as long as it has to do with the school, they have the right to intervene. Levy and her legal team are arguing that she has the right to post whatever she wants or feels on her social media. They feel that the school can not punish her because she was off-campus expressing herself.

    I don’t think this case is as disruptive as Tinker. I think the fact that she did not say her statement at school plays a role in that. The Tinker case did occur during a tense time in the nation with the debate on whether or not we should be involved in the war. Brandi is in court because of her language choice, and because the school wants more power. I think Levy’s case is more similar to Fraser. They both went to court because the school is accusing them of using inappropriate speech. The main difference is that Brandi was not on campus. She was at a different location on the weekend.

    I think SCOTUS is going to rule in Brandi’s favor. I think that the point that she was not at school, and she wasn’t specific in naming her school or teams helps her. In my opinion, she did nothing wrong. Most teenagers swear and get upset. Levy just did not hold it in. I do th9ink it needs to be more than just who won and who lost. I think SCOTUS needs to make a policy. In the transcript, you can see “I suppose you need something where the lines are clean enough that you can say one side or the other wins and here’s why rather than something where you have crosscurrents and different issues.

  40. Colin Keane

    1. Brandi Levy was a highschool student who really wanted to make the Varsity cheerleading team. However, she ended up not making the team and made the Junior Varsity cheer team. After this happened she posted her anger on an app called snapchat, saying “F school, F cheer, F softball, F everything”. When she posted this, one person saw this message and showed it to the cheer coach. After all this happened she was suspended from the cheer team for a whole year. This was because the school thought this was bad sportsmanship and said it would cause a disruption to the team. Brandi Levys parents were not ok with this happening. They said it was a violation of the first amendment, and the parents ended up suing the school. The parents ended up winning, and everything in the school goes back to normal. Brandi Levy was put back on the team. The reason why the parents ended up winning was because what Brandi said was considered off campus. Since the school that she went to was a public school the school could not do anything about it.
    2. Mahanoy argues that they should be able to hand out consequences for speech if it causes a disruption, even if it’s off campus speech. Mahanoy also argues that if they could not regulate a form of cyberbullying then they cannot stop cyberbullying. Because of this Mahanoy wants to make a better ruling for free speech rights. They wanted to change it to anything that can affect the school or a school event. They wanted to expand the Tinker v. Des Moines case.
    However levy did not want to expand the Tinker ruling to outside campus. They argued that it would not help cyberbullying or cheating. And it would be a violation of their rights if they expanded this more. Lastly they argue that the constant monitoring of student speech would be very hard to keep up. They think you should be able to speak freely.
    3.Bethel School District V.Fraser. Mathew Fraser was a student who gave a speech about a classmate which used inappropriate language. is similar because they both involve the use of inappropriate language. The difference between the two was that one was on the campus of the school and one was not.
    4.I think that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule in Brandy Levys favor. in the podcast it sounded like the supreme court justices did not feel like what she said was a disruption to class. I think that because this is kind of like Tinker v des Monies that the school has no right to give out consequences for something that did not disrupt the class or school for the matter. If this is ruled the other way it would be hard for schools to keep up with monitoring everyone’s social media, and every time anyone used inappropriate language for the matter.

  41. Ciera Green

    1)In this case, a 14 year old girl named Brandi Levy was a student at Mahanoy Area high school who was angry and used social media to express her emotions. She did not make the varsity cheer team like she had hoped, and one weekend, she and her friend were at a convenience store and took a picture with the caption “F School, F Softball, F Cheer, and F everything”. Brandi posted this on her private story on snapchat but apparently one of her friends screenshotted it and it got all the way to the coach of the cheer team. Brandi was suspended from the team for an entire year and her parents felt this was unnecessary and sued. Brandi’s case has won in two courts, the Pennsylvania District Court ruled that the school violated her first amendment rights and the post was not “sufficiently disruptive”, and the 3rd Circuit Court ruled that the Tinker case does not apply to off campus activity.
    2)The Mahanoy district argues that they have always disciplined off campus speech so that it would not become a problem once students are on campus. They said that they are limited to what they can punish due to Tinker but they can’t treat the First Amendment right to free speech as an on and off switch depending on whether they are on or off campus. The Mahanoy district says that they are allowed to address off campus speech when it is directed at the school environment. Brandi Levy’s side argues that schools have no authority over students outside of school grounds because they can’t disrupt the academic setting if they aren’t in school. They also argue that if they expand Tinker to off campus speech, then student’s would have to carry the schoolhouse on their backs everywhere they go.
    3)In the supreme court ruling of Bethel School District v. Fraser, the court decided that the school officials did not violate Matthew Fraser’s free speech and due process rights when they disciplined him because he was being disruptive to the school environment AT school. If Fraser had given this speech elsewhere, his consequences very likely would not have been the same. This case is different from Brandi’s because she did not cause a disruption to school and she wasn’t even at school when she posted.
    4)I’m not 100% about what I think SCOTUS will rule but I’m pretty sure it will be on Brandi’s side. In the podcast, they mentioned how the members of the supreme court had wished they didn’t even take the case in the first place. Besides this, Stephen Breyer said “I mean, she used swear words— you know, unattractive swear words— off campus. Meh. Did that cause a material and substantial disruption? And if swearing off campus did, I mean, my goodness, every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.” so this shows that he’s not really looking at this case the way the school district is. He’s looking at it more logically and realistically and recognizing the fact that she’s a teenager who did a dumb teenager thing. However, David Cole said “I think a school could say, if you’re going to play on our team, you can’t personally demean other players. And if they set that out in advance, and the student agrees to it, and then the student does it, they can punish the student.” Which shows that he was taking the side of the school saying that if they put rules in place that Brandi had to agree upon to be on the team, she needed to abide by those rules. In all, I’m still undecided on how I think SCOTUS will rule but I think the case is too complicated and if they rule against Brandi Levy it will create more problems in the future.

  42. Kyle Konopka

    In 2017, Brandy Levy failed to make the varsity cheer team at her school. Because of this she posted a snapchat story containing some profanity. The coaches of the cheer team found out and suspended her for one year saying that she violated the rules of the team. B.L. and her team decided to sue the school on the basis that the school violated her freedom of speech. They argue that the school’s rules do not apply to students outside of the school. They won the case in a lower court but the school appealed to a higher court which ruled in favor of the school. Because the two courses decided different things it had to be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has yet to come to a decision.

    The school (Mahanoy) says that Levy knew the rules and violated them anyway. They say that it does not matter where the violation occurred physically. The school decided to suspend her for her actions in a way that they felt was appropriate for the violation of the rules. They know from previous cases that any disruptive speech can, and in their opinion, should be punished. Brandy Levy’s team say that the rules “don’t extend past the school’s gates.” They cite a term called “en loco parentis” which is latin for “in place of a parent” or “instead of a parent.” This means that the school takes responsibility for the children when they are at school instead of their parents.

    One case that this strongly resembles is Tinker vs Des Moines. In that case, two kids were suspended for wearing black armbands at school in protest of the Vietnam War. The school suspended the students but they sued and it was taken to court. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students saying that they had the right to express their beliefs at school. They stated that the students were not causing a disruption in school so it was not a problem. This is relevant because Levy’s snapchat post did not disturb anything at school.

    I believe that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule in favor of Brandy Levy. I think that they will see the similarities between this case and the case of Tinker vs Des Moines. I am curious to see if Levy will receive any compensation too.

  43. Mike Ajluni

    1.In 2017, a student at high school in Pennsylvania by the name of Brandi Levy did not make the cut for her varsity cheerleading team team. As the sophomore girl was upset, she did something to take out her anger, posting on snapchat cussing out lots of things, including F School, F softball, F cheer, and F everything with a middle finger as well.. As someone snitched and showed the screenshot to the varsity cheer, which led to Levy getting suspended from cheer. The debate that came from this was a big one over the power of school. Could they punish a student for what they do off school grounds? And if they were caught was simply taking out anger a big enough offense for those rules to be enforced? After suing the school and winning, Levy was allowed back on the JV cheer team. Levy got another win in the federal appeal court. Now the school district wants to take this to the Supreme Court as they claim they need the power to stop cyber bullying.

    2.They Levy family and their lawyers argue that her being punished for what she posted is a violation of their first Amendment Rights. They are also claiming that what Brandi said did not disrupt or disturb anyone, therefore it is not punishable. Meanwhile, the school district thinks the opposite. They think any disturbing/disruptive act should be punishable, regardless of where it took place (At school grounds or off.) The school district thinks that if a problem will cause lots of problems to the school, they can step in regardless to maintain peace. They also claim there is nothing in the first amendment to stop this.

    3.I think this case has a lot of parallels to the Fraser vs Bethel Case. Both of these cases involved a Student using inappropriate language (Levy a post, Fraser an analogy during a speech) and getting punished by the school for it due to them viewing it as threatening to the workspace. For Frazer, it was ruled the school could limit inappropriate language.

    4.I think it is tough to predict, as I could see it going ether way, but if I had to pick I think Brandi Levy will win. First, I think it is important to remember that Levy won after suing the school and the federal appeal court. It is different now that it is the supreme court, but I still think its valuable to know. I think it will have a different result than the Fraser vs Bethel case since that was on school grounds, while the post was not on school grounds. I think the ruling will be very similar to the result of the Tinker vs Des Moines case, which said the action was not disturbing to the school nor was in on school grounds.

  44. Lea Milanini

    1. Brandi Levy, a fourteen-year old public school student, learned that she wouldn’t be part of the varsity cheerleading team of her school the following year (and would only be on the Junior Varsity team). In the city of Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, she and one of her friends went to Coco Hut, a convenience store, on a Saturday. There, she posted a Snapchat where the two girls both showed their middle finger, and in which the caption said: “F school, F softball, F cheer, F everything”. Brandi sent it to her friends on that social media, expecting it to disappear after twenty-four hours. However, one of her Snapchat friends took a snapshot of the post. The snapshot was eventually shown to one of the coaches, and Brandi was suspended from the cheerleading team for a year. Brandi’s parents got the help of the A.C.L.U. to win their lawsuit: Brandi got back on the team. Then, the case went up to a federal appeals court, which said a vague statement: when the occurrence is off campus, the school can’t control it (Brandi therefore won the case up until there). The school district asked for the Supreme Court to judge the case, as the outcome of the ruling could be really critical to the laws already in place in the states.

    2. Brandi Levy’s side thinks that, according to the First Amendment rights, students have a right to express themselves in a public school. In the young girl’s case, she was posting this Snapchat outside of campus, and the post was therefore not related to the school and can’t be punished. Schools can only prohibit disruptive messages or issues in school, not at the exterior of the campus. If Tinker were to be expanded, it “would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule that would upend the First Amendment’s bedrock principle and would require students to effectively carry the schoolhouse on their backs…everywhere they go”. Finally, adults have First Amendment rights outside of school. Why should students not have them?
    Mahanoy’s side states that, if the school districts can’t monitor off-campus speech anymore, then cyberbullying and cheating on a test would be tolerated. With the propagation of the Internet, you can now post things that are of concern to the school even when you’re not on campus. The Internet “doesn’t have a geography”. The speech is therefore what should be looked upon: if it’s targeted at the school, then the school should be able to take action.

    3. In the ruling of 1969, Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, it was decided that it was okay for students to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. Through this settlement, the First Amendment rights of students on campus were recognized, as long as they didn’t cause any disruption in the learning environment of the school. However, at the time, the issue with the Internet wasn’t prominent, whereas it is today. The current question is if it’s important to consider whether a disruptive act aimed at the school is considered differently when it is off campus or not, and deciding the importance of the Internet in this decision.

    4. I don’t really know what the Supreme Court is going to say, as not all of the judges are thinking the same way. Some say that using a bad word off-campus is not a big deal and a significant disruption to the school. Justice Brett Kavanaugh even states that “it didn’t seem like the punishment was tailored to the offense”, as Brandi simply “blew off steam”. Others say that speech outside of school can still be disruptive and that it should be left to the school to take care of that. Finally, it was mentioned that Brandi declared her words against an extracurricular activity, and that the policies she signed for this outside-of-school activity should be looked upon to decide whether she is defensible or not. With this variety of opinions, I don’t really know what the outcome of the case will be. However, I’m pretty sure that the Supreme Court will not proclaim a final statement that could be used for situations to follow. As it was mentioned in the podcast, “if it’s cyber bullying, if it’s racist harassment, if it’s in aid of cheating, the courts are likely to say schools can address that”. However, it’s hard to generate a very specific theory when some situations are not as extreme as those ones. The case with Brandi Levy is very complex and specific: it represents a “particular dispute”. As it’s impossible to imagine all of the hypothetical situations that might occur, I think the Supreme Court will simply judge this specific case, but will not offer any conclusion that could really be helpful for the future.

  45. William Penoza

    1. Brandy Levy was a high school student who was trying out for the Varsity Cheer team. When she was cut from the team she made an angry post about it on snapchat that called out “cheer”, “softball”, and “school”. She didn’t, however, directly call out the school or any of the schools programs (such as the sports teams). As punishment for her actions, she was suspended from cheer for a year. This was later appealed and overturned after her family sued the school. The school appealed to the federal court who claimed that if speech is off campus it mustn’t be regulated. The school wished for the case to be herd by SCOTUS.

    2. The school (Mahanoy) claims that Levy’s speech was explicit and caused a substantial disruption at the school. They claim that because the snapchat post was about the school, they should be able to regulate it. Levy claims that since the post was neither taken on school grounds nor posted on school grounds that it is off campus speech. She also never directly mentioned the school or cheer team by name. She simply named the concept of school and the sport of cheer.

    3. This case relates to Fraser. In the Fraser case, a student was punished for giving a speech with lewd speech and sexual innuendos. This speech was seen as inappropriate and caused a disruption. This case is similar to Levy’s because it is about inappropriate language. The difference in the two is that Fraser’s speech was given at school during school hours while Levy’s was not at school and after school hours. If SCOTUS extends the term “on campus” to mean anything about the school then this will fall under the same ruling as the Fraser case. If not, it is hard to say.

    4. I think that this is the wrong case for the Supreme court to try to make an overall decision on. Given that they have chosen this case to rule it on, I think they will rule in favor of the school. The term off campus is an extremely loose term, especially these days with virtual school and the incredible growth of social media over the last ten or so years. I think that we need to establish a fine line between what is on campus vs what isn’t, and that is what the Supreme Court is trying to do with this case. The problem, in my eyes, is that they are trying to judge this as all social media posts about the school rather than a post about a school sports team. No, I do not think that SCOTUS will make a sweeping ruling about off campus speech. If they do I think it will be vague and hard to apply to most situations.
    I think that they should make a narrow ruling but I’m not sure that they will. This case is especially unique given that it is one girl who is posting about a branch of the school but is still under school regulation. It is also a strange situation because Levy didn’t directly mention the school. I think that SCOTUS will make a wide ruling to try to stay out ahead of the extremely quickly changing world of social media. I do not think it will last long and I think it is the wrong decision.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*