Name: EFF to First Circuit: Schools Should Not Be Policing Students’ Weekend Snapchat Posts
Brand: eff.org
SKU: eff-org-439
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

EFF to First Circuit: Schools Should Not Be Policing Students’ Weekend Snapchat Posts

preview

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItThis blog post was co-written by EFF&nbsp;intern .EFF filed an &nbsp;in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit urging the court to hold that under the First Amendment public schools may not punish students for their off-campus speech, including posting to social media while off campus.The Supreme Court has long held that students have the same constitutional rights to speak in their communities as do adults, and this principle should not change in the social media age. In its landmark 1969 student speech decision, , the Supreme Court held that a school could not punish students for wearing black armbands at school to protest the Vietnam War. In a resounding victory for the free speech rights of students, the Court made clear that school administrators are generally forbidden from policing student speech except in a narrow set of exceptional circumstances: when (1) a student’s expression actually causes a substantial disruption on school premises; (2) school officials reasonably forecast a substantial disruption; or (3) the speech invades the rights of other students.However, because Tinker dealt with students’ antiwar speech at school, the Court did not explicitly address the question of whether schools have any authority to regulate student speech that occurs outside of school. At the time, it may have seemed obvious that students can publish op-eds or attend protests outside of school, and that the school has no authority to punish students for that speech even if it’s highly controversial and even if other students talk about it in school the next day. As we argued in our amicus brief, the Supreme Court’s cases following Tinker all involved discipline related to speech that may reasonably be characterized as on-campus.In the social media age, the line between off- and on-campus has been blurred. Students frequently engage in speech on the Internet outside of school, and that speech is then brought into school by students on their smartphones and other mobile devices. Schools are increasingly punishing students for off-campus Internet speech brought onto campus.In our amicus brief, EFF urged the First Circuit to make clear that schools have no authority under Tinker to police students’ off-campus speech, including when that speech occurs on social media. The case, Doe v. Hopkinton, involves two public high school students, “John Doe” and “Ben Bloggs,” who were suspended for making comments in a private Snapchat group that their school considered to be bullying. Doe and Bloggs filed suit asserting that the school suspension violated their First Amendment rights.The school made no attempt to show in the lower court that Doe and Bloggs sent the messages at issue while on campus, and the federal judge erroneously concluded that “it does not matter whether any particular message was sent from an on- or off-campus location.”As we explained in our amicus brief, that conclusion was wrong. Tinker made clear that students’ speech is entitled to First Amendment protection, and authorized schools to punish student speech only in narrow circumstances to ensure the safety and functioning of the school. The Supreme Court has never authorized or suggested that public schools have any authority to reach into students’ private lives and punish them for their speech while off school grounds or after school hours.This is exactly what another federal appeals court considering this question concluded last summer. In , a high school student who had failed to advance from junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading squad posted a Snapchat selfie over the weekend with text that said, among other things, “fuck cheer.” One of her Snapchat connections took a screen shot of the post and shared it with the cheerleading coaches, who suspended the student from participation in the junior varsity cheer squad.The Third Circuit in Mahanoy made clear that the narrow set of circumstances established in Tinker where a school may regulate disruptive student speech applies only to speech uttered at school. As such, it held that schools have no authority to punish students for their off-campus speech—even when that speech “involves the school, mentions teachers or administrators, is shared with or accessible to students, or reaches the school environment.”This conclusion is especially critical given that students use social media to engage in a wide variety of self-expression, political speech, and activism. As we highlighted in our amicus brief, this includes expressing dissatisfaction with their schools’ COVID-19 safety protocols, calling out instances of racism at schools, and organizing protests against school gun violence. It is essential that courts draw a bright line prohibiting schools from policing off-campus speech so that students can exercise their constitutional rights outside of school without fear that they might be punished for it come Monday morning.Mahanoy is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court, which will consider the case this spring. We hope that the First Circuit and the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to reaffirm the free speech rights of public-school students and draw clear limits on schools’ ability to police students’ private lives.Share ItFormer EFF intern Shashank Sirivolu contributed to this blog post. Social media users who have sued companies for deleting, demonetizing, and otherwise moderating their content have tried several arguments that this violates their constitutional rights. Courts have consistently ruled against them because social media platforms themselves have the First Amendment...In a new round of talks this week to formulate a , EFF is calling for strictly limiting the scope of the convention’s international cooperation provisions and safeguards to ensure that states respect human rights when responding to legal assistance requests.EFF is among a group of ...Since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a half century of precedent supporting the constitutional right to abortion access, numerous states have moved towards making abortion illegal and restricting additional reproductive health services. In South Carolina, Republican state Senators Richard Cash, Rex F. Rice and Daniel B. Verdin III introduced ...Originating from the streets of Chicago, drill music is a creative output of inner-city Black youths. It is defined by real life experiences and perspectives, and whilst drill rappers often document gang-related conflict and anti-establishment narratives in their lyrics and music videos, the rap genre is a crucial mouthpiece of...Even in the face of strong public protest over a set of proposed revisions to criminal laws that infringe Indonesians’ free expression rights, the Indonesian Ministry of Law and Human Rights last month that threatens to further...The U.S. (OFAC)'s of “Tornado Cash” as an entity on the raises important questions that are being discussed around the world. OFAC explained its sanction by saying “Tornado Cash (Tornado) is a virtual currency ...Even if you think that online intermediaries should be more proactive in detecting, deprioritizing, or removing certain user speech, the requirements on intermediaries to review all content before publication—often called “general monitoring” or “upload filtering”—raises serious human rights concerns, both for freedom of expression and for privacy.General monitoring is problematic...Government involvement in content moderation raises serious human rights concerns in every context, and these concerns are further troubling when the involvement originates with law enforcement. We recently filed a with the Meta Oversight Board urging it to treat this issue seriously.When sites cooperate with government agencies, it...Students should not have to fear expulsion for expressing themselves on social media after school and off-campus, but that is just what happened to the plaintiff in C1.G v. Siegfried. Last month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the student’s expulsion violated his First Amendment rights.The UK government has had to revise its into a proposal that wouldn’t harm users’ basic rights. It has failed to do so, and the bill should be scrapped. The current bill is a threat to free expression, and it undermines...Share It

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItThis blog post was co-written by EFF&nbsp;intern .EFF filed an &nbsp;in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit urging the court to hold that under the First Amendment public schools may not punish students for their off-campus speech, including posting to social media while off campus.The Supreme Court has long held that students have the same constitutional rights to speak in their communities as do adults, and this principle should not change in the social media age. In its landmark 1969 student speech...

public

Naomi Gilens

Sophia Cope

We're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We defend your civil liberties in a digital world.

EFF to First Circuit: Schools Should Not Be Policing Students’ Weekend Snapchat Posts

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS