Scenario B Court Ruling: Student Social Media Post, Bullying and Off-Campus Speech (Mahanoy and Tinker)

Scenario B: A social media post about a classmate

During a live online U.S. Government class, students discussed the characteristics of political parties. Two students, J.B. and W.S., got into a debate, and J.B. took a screenshot of W.S.’s opinion and posted it on J.B.’s private social media page with W.S.’s name and several emojis, including a skull emoji that was interpreted as threatening. The caption ridiculed W.S.’s opinion, the post got many likes and J.B.’s friends posted awful responses. W.S. showed the post to the teacher and principal and said they were now afraid to attend live online classes, which the program requires. J.B. was suspended from online courses for 5 days and removed from the U.S. Government course. J.B.’s parents argued their child had the right to post on a private page without consequence; the school argued it was bullying, which it does not tolerate.

• Identify the precedent and explain why; explain your ruling, including how the school’s action aligns with or violates the Constitution and how the precedent influences you; state whether your ruling reflects loose or strict interpretation; and discuss a possible dissent.

Original example for study purposes.

Precedent

The best precedent is Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021). In that case, a cheerleader posted a profane Snapchat message criticizing her school’s cheer team from an off-campus location on a weekend, and the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 that the school violated her First Amendment rights by suspending her. The Court explained that schools have less authority over off-campus speech, but it also recognized that schools may still regulate some off-campus speech, including “serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals” and threats. It applied the standard from Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which allows schools to restrict student speech that causes a substantial disruption or invades the rights of others. Like Mahanoy, this case involves a student’s post on a private social media page, so it directly addresses how far school authority reaches.

My Ruling

I would rule for the school. The First Amendment protects students’ expression, including political opinions, and J.B. has the right to disagree with W.S. However, J.B.’s post was not simply an expression of political views. It targeted a specific classmate by name, ridiculed them, included a symbol reasonably interpreted as threatening and encouraged others to pile on. The post grew directly out of a required class activity and caused W.S. to fear attending required live classes. Under Tinker, this speech invaded the rights of another student and substantially disrupted the educational environment, and Mahanoy specifically identified targeted bullying and threats as off-campus speech schools may address. Unlike the cheerleader in Mahanoy, who criticized the school generally without targeting anyone, J.B. singled out a classmate. The school’s response, a 5-day suspension and a change of course to protect W.S., was reasonable and tied to its duty to provide a safe learning environment.

Loose or Strict Interpretation?

This ruling reflects a loose interpretation. The First Amendment does not mention schools, social media or bullying. Applying it requires interpreting broad principles of free speech in modern contexts and balancing them against schools’ responsibilities, as the Court did in Tinker and Mahanoy.

Possible Dissent

Dissenting justices would argue that Mahanoy protects J.B. because the post was made on a private page, outside school, about a political topic, which is speech at the core of the First Amendment. They might argue that ridicule, however unkind, is protected and that a skull emoji is ambiguous; it is often used to mean “I’m dying of laughter” rather than as a threat. They could cite Counterman v. Colorado (2023), which requires proof that a speaker was at least reckless about the threatening nature of a statement before it loses protection as a “true threat.” They would warn that allowing schools to punish students for private online posts gives schools too much power over students’ lives at home and that parents, not schools, should handle off-campus conduct.

Cases cited

Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023).

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180 (2021).

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).