Sun, 06/27/2021
As part of the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center’s “Teach Me” series, we sit down with the center’s faculty, fellows, and grant recipients to share their work and expertise with the public and other scholars.
In this edition, NGTC faculty member Elana Zeide responded to the recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. to briefly discuss its implications for online student speech.
By way of background for those unfamiliar with the case, what were some of the basic free-speech questions the Supreme Court addressed in this decision?
Elana: First Amendment doctrine has long held that while students do indeed have free speech and expression rights on school premises, administrators can discipline students for speech that significantly disrupts the educational experience. Schools’ authority can also extend to some extent off campus, such as signs displayed by students across the street from a school-supervised event. Here, however, the court took up the increasingly relevant question of how far schools’ authority reaches with respect to off campus but online communication.
It also reviewed whether the student’s vulgar words were sufficiently disruptive to permit school involvement in off-campus student speech. And in this case, they determined that the student’s vulgar words - which were not directed to the school or anyone in particular and were only communicated to a limited number of people through a Snapchat disappearing message - did not rise to the requisite level of disruption in this instance.
What are some of the policy implications of this decision?
Elana: So much of students’ communication and expression today occurs out-of-school through social media or mobile communication apps. A ruling that made schools responsible for policing all this communication would not just be impracticable, but would also risk chilling students’ intellectual, social, and civic development. The court recognized this in noting three factors that militate against school supervision of students’ off-campus speech: that doing so is primarily the role of parents rather than administrators, that continual surveillance undermines traditional free speech values, and that schools play an important role in teaching students that unpopular speech deserves constitutional protection.
What questions regarding the scope of online student speech, or other forms of online or student speech in general, does this decision leave unaddressed?
Elana: The only clear guideline is that schools do not have the authority or responsibility to monitor and police all of students’ off-campus speech. The Supreme Court explicitly refused to establish a line for when — or, importantly where — off campus speech does or does not fall under schools’ authority. In fact, many experts believe the opinion is so narrow that it will be difficult to apply its ruling to future situations. So stay tuned.
Tags: Interviews
