Running SCOTUS thread

' F - 'em all...' Cheerleader wins! But seriously, this was a no doubter (despite Thomas' dissent" ) - my guess is that SCOTUS wanted to wade into social media as speech. though quite a heel turn by Roberts from his affirmation in Morse v. Frederick (Bong Hits 4 Jesus). It's kind of funny because the brother of a friend of mine was suspended for using chalk to write out a derogatory message aimed at one of the deans at our high school on a hill across the street from the schoo.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cheerleader-case-presents-free-speech-test-for-public-schools

 

This one was interesting because SCOTUS was walking the line here. They basically said BL's actions didn't violate the Tinker standard so the school was wrong but the Third District went too far in its restrictions on schools to regulate off-campus matters that might bleed into the school sphere. They really put strict limits on how far outside the school gates educators can reach, but they said that reach wasn't completely gone. BL just didn't disrupt the learning environment nor did her actions go beyond what parents should be able to punish on their own.

 

Huge swing and a miss by SCOTUS. When she specifically called out the school and various programs, she made it a school issue. If she had targeted McDonald's or Walmart or wherever, it's not a school issue.
Participating in extracurricular activities is a privilege, not a right. If that's your opinion of those programs and the school, you have no business representing the school.
If the school had made her do detention or something, it would have been different. The punishment would not have fit the crime.
You have free speech. You don't have freedom of consequences from that speech if it is disruptive.

 

They shouldn't have applied Tinker. Bethel vs. Fraser is more appropriate.

 

This is how I would have come down. She signed a paper saying she would behave in a certain manner as a member of the cheer team and she violated that by posting a thinly veiled vulgar criticism of the team. The team punished her. She could still go to school and all of that.

That said, I see where the court was going with this. They were trying to basically establish a line to where off-campus speech finally crosses over to on-campus speech. They punted on the other stuff because the school basically admitted there was no disruption so they went with that to protect the first amendment but allow wiggle room.

 

This one's pretty important to bolster the Fourth against "gray area" illegal search and seizure, especially when law enforcement has no reason to expand their investigation of a possible misdemeanor. I'm somewhat surprised but pleased. It's a welcome pushback for citizen's rights.

The CHP officer did exactly what I did -- stuck his foot in the door. If that's trespassing for me, it should be the same for him.

Supreme Court Restricts Police Powers To Enter A Home Without A Warrant

 

disagree. “F school and F cheer” are broad. If she’d said F the coach by name or a teammate by name I’d agree with you. Generic “cheer” and “school” are not disruptive.

 

All they'll do is try to Terry stop people.

 

I always applaud when the Court restricts violations of the Fourth Amendment. I mean tell the State "do your job"; if you think there's a crime, get a warrant (of course if there are "exigent circumstances" that make a warrant not possible, ok). Don't let police break down doors without cause, then when they get lucky and find something say "see we can't let criminals off the hook!" That's not how our Constitution was written.

 

You come at the king, you better not miss.