Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School
B.L. was 14 years old when she posted eight words on Snapchat that got her kicked off her school’s cheerleading team. She never imagined that four years later, her snap would be the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case.
While hanging out with a friend at a convenience store on a Saturday afternoon, B.L., our client and a high school cheerleader who hadn’t made varsity, posted “Fuck school fuck cheer fuck softball fuck everything” on Snapchat. The words were superimposed over a photo showing B.L. and her friend with their middle fingers raised. The snap disappeared 24 hours later, long before school resumed. Yet, her school responded by kicking B.L. off the cheerleading team for an entire year. Although B.L.’s snap may seem trivial, the stakes could not be higher. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in B.L.’s case, and the decision could alter the free speech rights of millions of students and young people across the nation.
The court’s decision in this case, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District, will define the scope of young people’s free speech rights whenever they are outside of school — whether they’re marching at a weekend protest or posting on social media — and determine whether schools have the right to punish students for speech and expression in these out-of-school contexts. Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP filed a brief arguing that outside of school, young people should have every right to express themselves and voice their opinion without worrying if their school will punish them for it.
Fifty years ago, the court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, under current law, school administrators can discipline students for speech inside school that is deemed likely to be “disruptive” or that interferes with the rights of others. That is not the standard that should apply once young people leave the school or a school-sponsored activity. At that point, they should be free to speak without fear that a principal or school administrator will punish them if they find their speech “disruptive.” The question before the court in this case is what happens beyond school — do young people keep their full free speech rights when they are off campus, or are they always subject to having their expression policed according to the lower protection they have as students in school?
Giving school officials power to monitor and punish off-campus speech just because they deem it “disruptive” would put an unprecedented limit on the free speech rights of students and all young people. Students’ off-campus speech can be punished if it threatens violence or engages in harassment or bullying, much like adult speech can be. But extending the in-school standard outside of school could lead to schools preventing young people and students from criticizing school policies, raising important concerns about racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic or just plain inappropriate behavior by school staff or other students, talking about religion, making a joke, or using profanity to emphasize frustration. Young people’s speech rights everywhere would be limited to what they can say in school.
In the past, schools have punished students for what they considered “disruptive” expressions inside school, including speech on racial justice and other social issues. For example, authorities have punished Latinx students for wearing shirts that read “We Are Not Criminals” to protest anti-immigrant legislation, religious students for speaking out against abortion or quoting Bible verses, and have punished students for as a background during remote school.
These examples of discipline show how often school officials misuse their authority to police student speech. Giving them the power to police young people’s speech will have even worse results: Students won’t be able to discuss their views on racism, national policy, or religion even outside of school. And, as with most government authority, it’s not hard to imagine how that power will be applied in discriminatory ways. In fact, we’ve already seen schools misuse their power in troubling ways to punish young Black people for what they say outside of school, including for posting a photo of a , a photo of a boy “,” , and posts used by their white classmates.
Protecting students’ and young people’s full free speech rights when they are outside of school is vital. Taking away that safeguard would have a chilling effect on free speech, deterring young people from engaging in political, social, or religious expression out of fear of punishment. If schools could control young people’s speech rights outside of school like they do inside, young people could never express themselves freely. They’d learn that, in our society, saying anything controversial, unpopular, or critical of the established order can lead to punishment. That’s certainly not the lesson that schools, or the Supreme Court, should be teaching.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.