Americans aren't quite sure how much they like free speech. The cultural left thinks that various standards of harm should be used to limit its scope. The political right is quite eager to use state power to curtail academic freedom on race and related issues. These days the ACLU often places other considerations ahead of an absolute defense of the First Amendment. And polling shows widespread ambivalence about allowing free and open debate and discussion, with young people especially dubious about its worth.
But, as we learned Wednesday morning with the Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy Area School District v B.L., the high court (minus one of its members) is strongly committed to the unfashionable position that the First Amendment's speech protections should be strongly defended.
With only conservative justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the Supreme Court ruled in the case that high school student Brandi Levy's profanity-infused Snapchat posts objecting to her school's varsity cheerleading squad were constitutionally protected speech and therefore that the school should not have been allowed to punish her for them. A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit had sided with the plaintiff, though it was divided on the rationale, with two of the judges protecting the posts because they were composed and sent while the student was off campus, and the other judge ruling more narrowly that the posts were protected only because they did not disrupt school activities.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The court's majority decision by Stephen Breyer conceded something to both Third Circuit arguments while strongly supporting the student's free speech rights. And that is what places the Supreme Court so out of step with current trends. Thomas' dissent pointed out that schools "historically could discipline students in circumstances like those presented here," and he was right about that. This is something new. Or rather, it's just the latest sign that the Roberts court is firmly committed to an especially strong defense of free speech.
Fashionable or not, that's something that civil libertarians of all stripes should cheer.
-
Trump limits refugees mostly to white South AfricansSpeed Read The administration is capping the number of refugees at 7,500
-
Political cartoons for October 31Cartoons Friday's political cartoons include presidential pardons, bombing boats, and Andrew Cuomo's big scare
-
Believe it when AI see it: have we reached a deepfake turning point in politics?Today’s Big Question AI ‘slopaganda’ is becoming a ‘feature’ of modern elections
-
Is Mike Johnson rendering the House ‘irrelevant’?Talking Points Speaker has put the House on indefinite hiatus
-
Voting Rights Act: SCOTUS’s pivotal decisionFeature A Supreme Court ruling against the Voting Rights Act could allow Republicans to redraw districts and solidify control of the House
-
Will Republicans kill the filibuster to end the shutdown?Talking Points GOP officials contemplate the ‘nuclear option’
-
Millions turn out for anti-Trump ‘No Kings’ ralliesSpeed Read An estimated 7 million people participated, 2 million more than at the first ‘No Kings’ protest in June
-
Supreme Court points to gutting Voting Rights Actspeed read States would no longer be required to consider race when drawing congressional maps
-
‘An exercise of the Republicans justifying their racist positions’instant opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Are inflatable costumes and naked bike rides helping or hurting ICE protests?Talking Points Trump administration efforts to portray Portland and Chicago as dystopian war zones have been met with dancing frogs, bare butts and a growing movement to mock MAGA doomsaying
-
Supreme Court: Judging 20 years of RobertsFeature Two decades after promising to “call balls and strikes,” Chief Justice John Roberts faces scrutiny for reshaping American democracy
