Читать книгу Ethics and Law for School Psychologists онлайн

116 страница из 160

A district federal court, relying on Tinker (1969), found that the Snapshot posts had not caused a substantial disruption of school functioning, and ruled in Brandi’s favor. The school appealed. The Third Circuit court also held that Brandi’s speech did not interfere with “the work of the school or impinge on the rights of other students.” However, the Third Circuit Court also opined that public schools do not have the authority (“license”) to discipline off-campus student speech (2021, p. 3). The school district subsequently asked the Supreme Court to decide “whether [Tinker], which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus” (p. 4).

The Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Breyer, relied on Tinker and weighed student First Amendment rights versus school interests as they apply to the specifics of the case. He reaffirmed that schoolchildren are entitled “to a significant measure of First Amendment protection,” but that courts must apply the First Amendment “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment” (2021, p. 5). He explained that: “we do not believe that the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus” (p. 5). He further opined that, with remote and other computer-based learning, the distinction between on-campus and off-campus activity is no longer clear cut, and he identified examples of off-campus speech that might call for school regulation, including bullying or threats targeted to students or teachers or cheating on papers or assignments.