In the B.L vs Mahanoy Area School District the Supreme Court ruled correctly. Brandi Levy, a 14 year old girl, was having a rough week when she didn’t get a spot on the varsity cheerleading team or a position on the softball team. On a Saturday, she posted a picture to her Snapchat story flipping off the camera and using curse words as she expressed her negative feelings toward school and the sports of both cheerleading and softball. This post was available to be seen by her 250 friends and one of them showed it to their mom who was a coach at her highschool. After being reported the school then took action and kicked her off the junior varsity team.
Her dad filed a case to sue the school and won, it then reached the supreme court and she won again. The school has every right to give her consequences if she is on school grounds when this is posted, inflicting harm on someone at school, or even saying this to someone at school, but when it’s a Saturday at her house the school can’t be in charge of what she says. When Brandi is home, she is under her parents’ control, and it’s their problem what she posts and says when she’s with her friends.
The words she said, although they were rude, did not inflict harm on a specific person or a team she expressed her thoughts on topics as a whole. To take disciplinary action for something she said when school is not in session is a violation of the First Amendment. It’s a personal choice, and although it was a bad one, she does have the right to say it.
The SCOTUS decision in the B.L. vs Mahoney Area School District to protect Brandi Levy’s free speech was the right call. While schools should be able to regulate speech that is truly disruptive-such as bullying or threats- Levy’s Snapchat rant did not meet that standard. She was venting frustration off campus on her own time and her words did not target or harm any singular student in school which makes the school’s involvement in removing her from the team unfair.
Schools shouldn’t have the power to police everything students say outside of school or online if it isn’t harming anyone. If harmful speech is being done outside of school and if it affects the child in their learning environment in school, it is disruptive and should be disciplined, but Levy’s vent of frustration wasn’t directed at anyone, meaning it does not fit that definition.
This case also raises broader questions for student’s free speech nationwide, especially in private institutions, which don’t have to follow the First Amendment in the same way and can punish speech more freely. However, just because they can doesn’t mean they should. If a private school values its student’s self-expression and freedom, it should allow students to speak their minds in a non-discriminatory, threatening, or disruptive way to individuals, even if that includes an occasional F-bomb.
Ultimately, students shouldn’t have to censor every off-campus thought for fear of school punishment. Schools exist to educate, not control, and students — just like anyone — deserve free speech when it does not harm others.
In Levy vs. Mahanoy Area School District, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Levy, arguing that swearing may be distracting in school, but it shouldn’t be a punishable offense.
In 2017 Brandi Levy, a freshman at Mahanoy Area High School, published a vulgar post on her public Snapchat, reaching about 250 people. She posted upset about not making a varsity cheer team and not qualifying for the softball position she wanted, and took the opportunity to express her anger using the f-word four times. She was with a friend outside of school and didn’t bring up any one specific person or entity, but a student who’d received her Snap saw it and showed it to their mother, who was a sports coach at Mahanoy Area. Levy was then suspended from her JV cheer team for a year until the courts ruled in favor of her, allowing her to compete again.
When she was removed from the team, her father filed a case report saying that it’s his job as a parent to monitor the choices she makes outside of school and that she shouldn’t be punished by school administrators for something she didn’t do at school.
Lawyers have claimed that, with the internet, it doesn’t matter where you are because everything has become so interconnected and that by mass posting on social media, she should’ve been ready for repercussions.
Pre-internet, this wouldn’t have been a problem, so why is it one now?
Just because information and ideas are more able to be widely spread doesn’t mean control now is stretched as well. School administration can control what goes on in school, and that control is only expanded if something happens outside that’s harmful in regard to school. If it isn’t directly disruptive, it shouldn’t be considered an offense, and the Supreme Court agrees.
SCOTUS’ decision to rule in favor of fourteen-year-old Levy was the correct and protective decision. Her angry story post did not directly target the school, the teams, or a person, but was, rather, a way to get out her anger. Like any teenager, Levy exercised her right to free speech off school grounds, and the school decided to punish her for it by diminishing that free speech right. Levy only sent it to a close-knit circle of friends. There was no place for the school to get involved, especially since it did not significantly impact the learning environment or safety of other students and staff members.
The case for private schools is different. They are not subject to federal or state constitutions and, therefore, can make rules on school grounds.
A private school like SPA could prohibit students from swearing on school grounds or in relation to the school. Legally, they can agree with the families choosing to affiliate with the school and decide if they’d like to implement consequences for swear words. Still, students have the right to free speech outside of school, and Levy’s post was more about expressing her negative emotions towards her situation and not a direct attack on the school. Clearly, she wasn’t purposefully attempting to threaten the school in any way, so even if it were a private school, they still wouldn’t have the right to punish her for using swear words if it was on her own device and to her own friends.
During the time of that post, she carried her right to free speech entirely outside of the school’s ability to implement rules in her life. SCOTUS was right to set that clear boundary again.
In the case of Brandi Levy v. Mahanoy Area School District, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. As a teenager, emotions can compel you to act without thinking or express your thoughts indelicately.
Levy’s situation is no exception to this common occurrence.
She was off school grounds when she made her obscene statements, and she did not use them for harassment or bullying. This girl who got kicked off her cheerleading team was just an angry fourteen-year-old. I believe that some private schools might agree with this decision, or at the very least, give a warning instead of a punishment.
Additionally, other private schools may have different behavioral expectations around swearing that could impact off-campus comments. Still, it is critical to note the impulsive nature of Levy’s swearing. She herself has stated the importance of “young people [needing] to have the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished when they get to school.”
The case of Brandi Levy v. Mahanoy Area School District shows how context and location are critical when regarding school free speech and swear words. Given these specific circumstances, I support the SCOTUS decision and believe that all American schools (public and private) should too.
Pro Supreme Court Ruling:
Teenagers get angry. It’s a fact of life. In every teenager’s life, there will be a moment of frustration that doesn’t reflect their character, but just big feelings. Who can confidently say that they have never acted on impulse and done something emotional? I have had plenty of angry rants with friends about how much a class annoys me, or how a recent assignment is getting on my nerves. I certainly would not want this moment of irritation to be brought to the Supreme Court.
In 2017, freshman Brandi Levy had just had the worst week. She didn’t make varsity on her school’s softball or cheer team. She and a friend posted a story on Snapchat, visible for 24 hours to 250 friends, using inappropriate language to share her anger about her not being placed on the varsity teams. She also expressed anger specifically with her cheer coach for not allowing her and a friend to be on varsity, but another freshman could be on the team. This outburst caused her dismissal from the junior varsity team, which she had got on to, for a year.
Levy and her family sued the school district and won in a sweeping victory. It was later brought to the Supreme Court which again, ruled in favor of the student and defended her First Amendment right to free speech.
Using this kind of language outside of school is a personal decision. If somebody feels comfortable with using that language, that is on them. Levy’s Snapchat fit only reflects t a teenager during an emotional time, which high schools should be able to deal with. A team suspension only escalated the conflict. Levy’s suspension from the team was unwarranted and the school should have stuck to internal conflict resolution measures to resolve Levy’s post. Taking a 14-year-old’s outburst as an example of her character is an overstatement and doesn’t take into account context.
Anti Supreme Court Ruling:
Would you swear to your friend? What about your parents? What about a coach or teacher? What about your school as a whole?
In 2017, Brandi Levy had just had the worst week. She didn’t make varsity on her school’s softball or cheer team. She and a friend posted a story on Snapchat, visible for 24 hours to 250 friends, using inappropriate language to share her anger about her not being placed on the varsity teams. She also expressed anger specifically with her cheer coach for not allowing her and a friend to be on varsity, but another freshman could be on the team. This outburst caused her dismissal from the junior varsity team, which she had got on to, for a year.
Levy and her family sued the school district and won in a sweeping victory. It was later brought to the Supreme Court which again, ruled in favor of the student and defended her First Amendment right to free speech.
Teenagers have feelings, that’s a given. Levy had a right to be upset when she did not get on to the team. Not making the cut and feeling disappointed is a classic coming-of-age experience. Levy’s social media outburst, targeting teammates, was unwarranted. Levy’s dismissal from the junior varsity team for a year made sense, after how she treated her placement. Her fit would create an uncomfortable environment for the team. Simply because Levy had a bad day, is no excuse for her actions of actively insulting and harming other students. Freedom of speech is essential, it’s our First Amendment, but schools need to step in when a student’s messages are actively harming a school’s community. These messages directly impacted students negatively, so negative consequences for Levy were warranted.
Brandy Levy was a 14-year-old girl who attended Mahanoy High School in 2021, got cut from her cheerleading team, and figured out she didn’t get the position she wanted for the high school softball team. On a public Snapchat story, she posted a picture of herself and a friend holding the middle finger with a caption that used multiple F-words when talking about her anger towards school, cheer, and softball.
A Third Circuit Court ruled that Levy can exercise her First Amendment Rights because she was not at school and it is free speech. One would think that a 14-year-old teenager can be able to express her emotions, right? As it turns out, no, she cannot. The Mahanoy Area School District decided to take the case to the Supreme Court to continue to fight against Levy.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Levy, who by that time was a senior, stating that she should have the right to free speech, as well as her other First Amendment Rights. This should be the case federal judges and judges look to when discussing Free Speech. The Mahanoy District had no right to infringe on Levy’s actions or words outside of the school campus, especially when she was expressing her emotions and not directing her anger toward someone. She was an innocent 14-year-old girl who was angry at the circumstances and her athletic performance, not the people behind the decision.
Levy vs. Mahanoy is an example of how students can access and express their emotions, free speech, and First Amendment Rights. Levy will continue to be an example as this type of situation appears throughout the future.
SCOTUS was right in their decision to favor B.L. in this ruling. I think it is normal to feel angry about things that have a bad outcome, and when growing up, kids aren’t always the best at regulating their emotions, so kids will most likely make mistakes.
Levy sent this on Snapchat while outside of school grounds, so school punishment goes against the First Amendment since her speech was outside of the school grounds and, therefore not punishable by the school. She also didn’t target her message to anyone at all. She didn’t state what school and didn’t target any individual with her vulgar language.
She never intended for this message to be seen by the school or anyone working there, and it was just meant to be a way to express her anger and to only let her Snapchat friends know that she was feeling angry.
I think private schools should not be able to punish students for actions outside of school that aren’t directed to any individual, like this case. But if any offensive language is directed towards an individual, I think that should be punished, as well as the use of slurs.
One of the most significant legal educational cases in decades was the B.L. v Mahanoy Area School case, where a 14-year-old girl, Brandi Levy, was suspended from her high school cheerleading team for the season for using vulgar language on her Snapchat story. The Supreme Court chose correctly with the ruling in favor of Brandi.
Brandi was having a bad week when she found out she didn’t get a spot on the varsity cheer team as well as not getting a starting position on her softball team. She was rightfully upset, so in turn, decided to post a picture on her Snapchat story of 250 people. The story was a picture of her and her friend flipping off the camera and expressing her negative feelings with a curse word towards “school,” “cheer,” “softball,” and “everything.” A student on the Snapchat story saw it and reported the image to her mom who was the school cheer team coach. The coach brought it to the faculty, who then decided to suspend Brandi from the cheer team for the rest of the season.
Brandi and her family didn’t take this lightly. They decided to sue the school and bring the case to court.
There are two arguments that one could have on this case. One could be siding with the school, who’s argument was that it shouldn’t matter where you are, off-campus or not, that students shouldn’t be using harmful language towards the school and its sports teams. They argued that it was Brandi’s fault that she posted that language and picture on a public story, and that she should face the consequences.
The other argument was that Brandi was in the right. What she did goes along the terms of the First Amendment, where she was using her freedom of speech.
Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote that he would have ruled for the student on narrower grounds. He said that it would have been enough to say that her speech was protected by the First Amendment because it did not disrupt school activities. The majority was wrong, he said, to protect all off-campus speech.
Although what Brandi said could have been slightly rude, she is a 14-year-old girl who was rightfully upset about something that happened to her. She was simply expressing her anger, which everyone should be able to do. Students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment, and Brandi was using her rights.
Schools should only be able to punish students if what they are saying actively harms another student at school, causes distractions in learning, causes fights, or if the word was said on campus. What Brandi said was none of these things, so therefore, the Supreme Court correctly ruled in favor of Brandi Levy.
The SCOTUS decision in the B.L. vs. The Mahanoy Area School District case was one of the most assuring in recent times. The Supreme Court ruled to protect student free speech under the claim that the post was not targeted, nor posted at school. After a controversial recent past, it’s gratifying that free speech is protected in the Supreme Court.
Brandi Levy, a high school freshman at the time, posted a vulgar message using several swear words addressing “school,” “softball,” “cheer,” and “everything.” In response, she was suspended from the JV cheer team for a year, which provoked a lawsuit from Levy’s father against the school. While swear words in school are hardly respectable, if there’s no targeted use of the word and it’s not being used at an inappropriate time, there’s no punishment necessary. If a student were joking around with their peers and used a swear word, a punishment would be an infringement of free speech.
Swear words exist for a reason, to express a deep, typically negative, emotion. When words that are not necessarily offensive or used for harm are prohibited, the First Amendment right is violated.
At public schools, certain rights are checked at the schoolhouse gate. If a behavior is deemed as disruptive, it can be subject to punishment.
SPA’s harassment policy states that a post or statement that has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive learning
or working environment is subject to consequence.
Because there was no target in Lyle’s post, it could not be considered harassment. Sure, maybe the rest of the JV cheer team wouldn’t want to work with someone that has a negative attitude, but other than that nobody was hurt.
If a private school administration punished a child for a post that didn’t hurt anybody, it would be an infringement of the constitutional rights given to the child as a citizen of the United States.
