June 23, 2021 12:52 PM | With information from .
15 minutes. The Supreme Court of the United States (USA) gave the reason this Wednesday to a cheerleader who was removed from the team of her institute for sharing with her classmates a foul message through the social network Snapchat, considering that she was protected by the right to the freedom of expression.
By 8 votes in favor and one against, the highest court in the country found that a Pennsylvania school district violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. And he did so by expelling the student from the Mahanoy Area High School junior cheer squad.
The cheerleader Brandi Levy received that punishment in 2017, when she was 14 years old.. She sent some 250 friends a curse-filled message to express her frustration at not joining a larger cheer squad than she was at the time.
“Fuck school, softball, fuck being a cheerleader, fuck everything.” This is what Levy wrote along with a picture of her and a friend showing their middle fingers to the camera.
The message was scheduled to disappear in 24 hours. However, her coaches on the cheer squad found out. The teenager ended up being suspended for a year, although not from high school.
Levy and his parents sued the school district. They argued that they did not have the right to expel her from the team for opinions expressed outside the institute’s premises, as was her case. He did it from a store in his spare time.
The Supreme Court concluded that school administrators do have the right to punish students for opinions expressed on the Internet or outside the institute in the event that they seriously disturb the study in the class, but determined that the case of the Snapchat animator did not it reached that level.
Schools can punish
“The special interests alleged by the institute in this case are not enough to sidestep BL’s (Levy) interest in freedom of expression“This was pointed out by one of the progressive Supreme Court justices, Stephen Breyer, in a writing.
The case could have had major implications for the right to freedom of expression on the Internet for students across the country. However, the Supreme Court avoided reaching that extreme and preferred to maintain its jurisprudence that schools can punish speeches they consider “disruptive” to the task of teaching.
That precedent was set by the Supreme Court in 1969, when it allowed a group of students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, but clarified that any expression that interfered with the discipline and study of the school could be punished.