Читать книгу Ethics and Law for School Psychologists онлайн

117 страница из 160

The Court also identified three features that distinguish off-campus speech from on-campus speech in the context of regulation. First, schools do not stand in loco parentis when the student is off-campus and not at a school activity. Second, because allowing school regulation of off-campus speech would regulate student communication 24 hours a day, it could chill protected speech resulting in students being unable to speak at all. And third, the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus, because America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy. Taken together, these three features of much off-campus speech mean that the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light of their special characteristics is diminished (pp. 6–8).

Like the lower courts, the Supreme Court found no evidence that Brandi’s crude off-campus Snapchat protest resulted in a “substantial disruption of school activity or a threatened harm to the rights of others that might justify the school’s action” (p. 10; here quoting Tinker) and ruled in Brandi’s favor.