[brid autoplay=”true” video=”691115″ player=”23886″ title=”Rep.%20Biggs%20The%20fight%20for%20freedom%20must%20be%20fought%20at%20the%20polls%20in%20Georgia” duration=”3296″ description=”Sara is joined by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Andy Biggs, who says the fight for freedom must be fought by voters in the upcoming Senate elections in Georgia. Biggs also slams liberal leaders who have acted as tyrants but don’t actually follow their own lockdown orders.” uploaddate=”2020-12-14″ thumbnailurl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/thumb/691115_t_1607968027.png” contentUrl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/sd/691115.mp4″]

By Jenny Goldsberry

The Supreme Court of the United States voted eight to one in favor of a high school cheerleader, saying it was against her first amendment rights to kick her off of the squad for using profane language off campus. The school suspended then sophomore Brandy Levy for saying “”F— school f— softball f— cheer f— everything,” in a Snapchat.

While the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania has strict regulations within the school, the justices agreed that to include students’ language off-campus is extreme. In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that a regulation that strict would “include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day. That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.” That effort obviously infringes on one’s right to free speech.

“It might be tempting to dismiss B. L.’s words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein,” Breyer wrote. “But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary.”

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one who dissented. He claimed that it is the school’s have a right to discipline their students. “When students are on campus, the majority says, schools have authority in loco parentis—that is, as
substitutes of parents—to discipline speech and conduct,” Thomas wrote. The majority Justices agreed with that premise, but Thomas claimed that they were veering from precedent.

“A more searching review reveals that schools historically could discipline students in circumstances like those presented here,” Thomas wrote.

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.