A 14-year-old goes off on Facebook, and it gets all the way to the Supreme Court. Amazing? Hang on.
Back in 2005, the Court also heard the case of a Juneau, Alaska teenaged smart-aleck who displayed a ridiculous, nihilistic sign that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the 2002 Olympic torch-passing parade took place. He and his schoolmates were given permission to line the streets and watch, so he thought he'd take the opportunity to act like a jackass.
The school suspended him, the parents sued for his First Amendment rights. None other than Kenneth Starr, late of the Clinton-Lewinsky dust-up, got called into Washington to argue the case for the school district. The Court came down on the district's side, because--it said--that the core message (not that there actually was one; go look again) was a pro-drug one, and so it was antithetical to what the school stood for.
I believed then, and as a member of the NEA Executive Committee and said so (and was roundly criticized for it), that the issue was certainly not drugs, but religion. If the sign would have said something like Bong Hits for Dubya, making fun of the then president, the Court would have been in a real quandary, that being political speech. But it said Jesus, which brought Starr running, he of the effort to morally purify most things, including a philandering president, whether he actually did so or not; remember, the ensuing impeachment ran into a dead end.
Legal eagles within the NEA actually called me aside and tried to lecture me about, I presume, going public in an e-mail in which I and other Executive Committee members were asked whether or not the NEA should have filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, defending the kid, and starting it by saying, as I recall, "What the hell is this case doing in the Supreme Court?" They thought of me as incredibly naive and not at all in the realm of reality. They were unsuccessful in their attempts, I'm guessing, to have me apologize. I thought it made them look a little out to lunch themselves.
In any event, tinged with controversy as it was and hovering with the possibility that some of our more religiously dedicated members would howl like mad and force the state presidents to explain what we did--strictly verboten; you never make a state affiliate president uncomfortable if you can at all avoid that--we voted (I the only one against) to refrain from filing. I still believe it to be a mistake.
What most people don't know is that the school district settled with the parents out of court, which is, of course, an admission that the whole thing wasn't worth it, except by then it was certainly worth something, at least the lawyer's fees (which must have been enormous). That brings us to the present situation, which originated in Pennsylvania in 2017. The girl involved was a freshman at the time, which means that she's graduated by now.
Nonetheless, she went on a vulgar rant, liberally using the f-word to trash school, softball (I guess she must have ridden the bench, or just didn't like the coach), cheerleading, and "everything," which, if you've ever taught freshmen, is something that's never far from their thinking and attitudes (and which, if you haven't had the same thought during the pandemic, you're a better person than I am). Except she posted that on Facebook, while not actually in school at the time.
A number of states and school districts have made such postings, though not actually part of a school, subject to school punishments (like Little Rock, Arkansas, where I used to work as a teacher consultant, ten years ago). Another student, for instance, gave a printed copy to a high school coach, and the girl was suspended from cheerleading. These parents sued, too.
Two lower courts said that Brandi's (her name) free speech rights had been trampled (information on this case provided from The Week magazine), so up the ladder it continued. But it seems to me that the Supreme Court has already ruled, above, and its ruling against something as mild as a pro-drug message meets a pretty low standard, and frequent use of the f-word has to at least achieve that standard. So this should be open-shut.
But an insult to Jesus, now dead these two thousand years, doesn't equal that of a real human. A narrow ruling, recommended by Justice Brett Kavanaugh (He of transgressions early in his own life, remember?), might invite school principals to overregulate student behavior in the name of "morality," and set up an omnipresent language police. We end up right back in 1984, and students are stifled yet again, not even within the school's walls.
And of course, it's the f-word that's really at stake. If she should have said "screw softball," that would probably have resulted in a good talking-to, even a threat of removal, and the parents would probably have yelled but not sued with no actual penalties assigned. But f- is the ultimate, deserving of the ultimate punishment, I suppose.
Trashing individuals connected to the same school, though, which happens often and everywhere, is going on at atrocious rates. And kids have killed themselves due to the humiliations caused by the insults and bullying. So free speech, in the larger sense, is at issue. A line does have to be drawn, but it's tough to know where.
So is this: If Brandi cannot be regulated, if she or some other freshman or sophomore or whatever is allowed to widely use the f-word to criticize a publicly-paid for entity such as a high school sports team on Facebook, why wouldn't a former presidential candidate be allowed to utilize the same venue to insult others who have been elected, as he has endlessly, horribly, annoyingly, and obnoxiously these past several years (and within which he, in fact, has said "hell" once or twice, but that's about it)? Where would Facebook's justification of barring him, presently in effect, then land? And why wouldn't he take that same claim to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible?
Yeah, I know. It's a problem. Grey areas usually are. Hang on tight.
Be well. Be careful. Wear a mask indoors. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment