{"id":337,"date":"2025-01-07T17:59:48","date_gmt":"2025-01-07T17:59:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=337"},"modified":"2025-01-07T17:59:48","modified_gmt":"2025-01-07T17:59:48","slug":"student-speech-in-the-era-of-social-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2025\/01\/student-speech-in-the-era-of-social-media\/","title":{"rendered":"Student Speech in the Era of Social Media"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Throughout the years, social media has become a powerful tool for people to share their opinions, thoughts, and beliefs. It has also evolved to become a powerful tool for activism. For example, movements like #BlackLivesMatter<\/a> and #MeToo<\/a>have gained huge momentum through social media use and uplift voices, create awareness, and demand social change. For students and young people, social media allows them to share their opinions and participate in public discourse without traditional age barriers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this rise in social media use has also created complex problems when it comes to regulating speech, especially in an educational setting. For students sharing their opinions that criticize their school, school policies, peers, and even specific educators, it can create a gray area between free speech and speech that could be considered disruptive to the school environment itself. While this speech can arguably be protected under the First Amendment, schools can also argue that the speech is disruptive to the school environment. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahoney Area School District v. B.L.<\/em><\/strong> Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Mahoney Area School District v. B.L<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>, this very issue was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States in 2021. A 14-year-old high school freshman named Brandi Levy who attended Mahoney Area High School in Pennsylvania tried out for her school\u2019s varsity cheerleading squad in 2017. After trying out, she was offered a spot on the junior varsity team instead. She was upset by this result and went onto her Snapchat account. She posted a picture of herself and her friend with their middle fingers raised with a caption full of expletives targeted at the school. She posted a second caption that emphasized how frustrated she and another student had been when they were told that they had to have a year of junior varsity before they made the varsity team, a rule that was not applied to any other students. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The caption of the second post said, \u201cLove how me and [another student] got told we need a year of JV before we make varsity, but that doesn\u2019t matter to anyone else.\u201d<\/a> Both posts were uploaded on a Saturday and shared with approximately 250 of her Snapchat friends. Another cheerleader took screenshots of the posts and sent them to the school\u2019s cheerleading coaches, who were also informed by other students and team members. The next week, the posts created tension at school, with multiple students being upset and voicing their concerns about Levy joining the team. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The coaches decided that Levy had violated team rules requiring respect for the school, coaches, and other cheerleaders. They found that she had broken a school rule against posting negative content about the cheer program online, as well as a school policy mandating that student athletes must conduct themselves during the season \u201cin such a way that the image of the Mahanoy School District would not be tarnished in any manner.\u201d As a result, the coaches removed her from the team and suspended her for the rest of the year, with the option to try out again the next year. Levy and her parents tried to appeal the decision, but school authorities upheld the coaches\u2019 decision. This case would ultimately find its way up to the Supreme Court, to test the balance between a school\u2019s ability to discipline its students and the students\u2019 right to exercise free speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lower Court\u2019s Decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Levy\u2019s lawyers sued and argued that the school had violated her First Amendment right of freedom of speech since her speech wasn\u2019t on school grounds, and she wasn\u2019t wearing school attire in the pictures of the post. The District Court<\/a>found that the school violated her First Amendment Rights, and the Third Circuit affirmed<\/a>. The Third Circuit said that the post \u201cwas crude, rude, and juvenile, just as we might expect of an adolescent,\u201d but also said that school administrators should not have \u201cthe power to quash student expression deemed crude or offensive\u2014which far too easily metastasizes into the power to censor valuable speech and legitimate criticism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Mahanoy School District argued that a decision against them would threaten to \u201chandcuff coaches, principals and teachers nationwide.\u201d They also said that \u201ccoaches and school administrators, not federal courts, should decide whether the coach can bench someone or ask a player to apologize to teammates. The First Amendment is not a tool for micromanaging school determinations.\u201d They also argued that they suspended Levy from the team for a year to try and prevent school disruption. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1<\/a> that Levy\u2019s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The majority stated that students maintain their right to freedom of speech and expression while attending school. However, because schools act in a parental role during the school day and must maintain an orderly environment, they may regulate student speech in certain situations. They can regulate speech in following specific scenarios: (1) speech on school grounds that is indecent, lewd, or vulgar, (2) speech advocating illegal drug use during a school trip, and (3) speech that could reasonably be seen as carrying the school’s endorsement, such as content in a school-sponsored publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, Levy\u2019s speech occurred under her parents’ authority rather than the schools, and it neither caused a “substantial disruption” nor threatened the rights of others. As a result, her off-campus expression was protected under the First Amendment, and the school’s decision to suspend her violated her constitutional rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was decision was notable, as it was the first time in over 50<\/a> years that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school student in a free speech case. The decision did not impose a categorical ban on regulating student speech outside of school, recognizing the need for schools to address issues like bullying and threats. Instead, it outlined factors for courts to consider when evaluating similar situations like Levy\u2019s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As our society continues to rely on social media, issues of regulating speech in an educational setting could potentially rise. Mahoney Area School District v. B.L. <\/em>created safeguards for a student\u2019s freedom of speech, while recognizing the important circumstances in when speech should be regulated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Noor Sandhu<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2026, Staff Member<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Throughout the years, social media has become a powerful tool for people to share their opinions, thoughts, and beliefs. It has also evolved to become a powerful tool for activism. For example, movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToohave gained huge momentum through social media use and uplift voices, create awareness, and demand social change. For students and young people, …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=337"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337\/revisions\/338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}