Summary of Argument

At issue in this case is whether students’ off-campus speech that is not threatening or harassing is entitled to full First Amendment protection or, instead, subject to the lesser protections set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Expanding the authority of schools to regulate off-campus student speech has “ominous implications” for students of color and other marginalized student groups who already face disproportionate and excessive discipline, particularly for so-called “infractions” that permit discretion and invite subjective interpretation. J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 939 (3d Cir. 2011) (Smith, J., concurring). Indeed, the highly subjective Tinker standard itself fosters discrimination because it empowers school officials to decide based on highly subjective and often arbitrary determinations which speech will “materially and substantially interfere” with school activities. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509. This discriminatory trend is already evident nationwide as schools disproportionately discipline students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+2-identifying students, too often based on vague and subjective standards, such as “being disruptive, acting disrespectfully, tardiness, profanity, and dress-code violations.” Arne Duncan, U.S. Sec’y of Educ., Remarks at the Release of the Joint DOJ-ED School Discipline Guidance Package (Jan. 8, 2014), https://archive.is/Qh5wA.

Given the ubiquity of social media and students’ increasing reliance on it to express themselves, extending Tinker to off-campus speech risks sweeping age-appropriate, everyday youth interactions within the “material disruption” standard. As the Court has long recognized, the developmental stage of adolescence is marked by flawed decision-making that warrants specialized treatment. This case does not concern student speech that threatens violence or harasses others. Thus, allowing schools to regulate non-threatening, non-harassing off-campus student expression on social media will remove the space for healthy development, and further expose students of color and other marginalized students to risk of disparate discipline for this developmentally appropriate expression.

Finally, expanding Tinker to off-campus speech would undermine the Court’s efforts to calibrate legal standards to developmental science and subject students of color, students with disabilities, and students who identify as LGBTQ+ to potentially life-long adverse consequences.

Summary of Argument

This article examines the legal debate surrounding the extent of First Amendment protection afforded to students' off-campus speech. While the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of free speech in schools, it has also established a lesser standard of protection under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) for speech that could materially and substantially disrupt school activities.

The article argues that expanding Tinker to off-campus speech would have detrimental consequences for marginalized student groups, who are disproportionately disciplined for subjective infractions. The highly subjective nature of the Tinker standard allows for arbitrary decision-making by school officials, fostering discrimination.

Furthermore, the ubiquity of social media and its role in youth expression raises concerns that extending Tinker to off-campus speech would stifle age-appropriate interactions and healthy development. The article highlights the unique decision-making challenges faced by adolescents and the need for specialized treatment.

In conclusion, the article advocates against expanding Tinker to off-campus speech, arguing that it would undermine efforts to align legal standards with developmental science and expose marginalized students to the risk of disparate discipline and long-term adverse consequences.

Summary of Argument

The question arises whether students' speech outside of school, if not threatening or harassing, deserves full First Amendment protection or the lesser protection outlined in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

Potential Consequences for Marginalized Students

Expanding school authority over off-campus speech could have negative consequences for students of color and other marginalized groups. These students already face disproportionate discipline for subjective "infractions" that allow for discretion and bias.

Subjectivity and Discrimination in the Tinker Standard

The Tinker standard, which allows schools to restrict speech that "materially and substantially interferes" with school activities, is highly subjective and can lead to discrimination. School officials have wide latitude in determining what speech meets this standard.

Disproportionate Discipline

Statistics show that students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students are disproportionately disciplined for vague and subjective offenses like "disruption" and "disrespect."

Impact on Youth Development

Social media is an important platform for youth expression. Extending Tinker to off-campus speech could stifle age-appropriate interactions and hinder healthy development. It could also expose marginalized students to further risk of disparate discipline.

Developmental Considerations

Adolescence is a time of flawed decision-making, which the Court has recognized warrants special consideration. Regulating non-threatening, non-harassing off-campus speech would undermine efforts to align legal standards with developmental science and could have long-term consequences for students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students.

Summary of Argument

The question is: should students have the same free speech rights off-campus as they do on-campus? Or can schools punish them for things they say online, even if it's not threatening or harassing?

Students of color and other marginalized groups are often punished more harshly in school for things like being "disruptive" or "disrespectful." If schools can also punish students for what they say off-campus, it could make this problem even worse.

The "Tinker" standard is a rule that says schools can only punish student speech if it "materially and substantially interferes" with school activities. But this rule is very vague and can be used to punish students for almost anything.

Social media is a big part of how young people express themselves. If schools can punish students for what they say on social media, it could stifle their voices and prevent them from developing in a healthy way.

Expanding the power of schools to punish off-campus speech could have serious consequences for students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students. These students are already more likely to be punished in school, and this could make it even easier for them to face lifelong consequences for their actions.

Summary of Argument

Some people think schools should be able to punish young people for what they say on social media, even if they're not at school. They say it can cause problems at school.

But others say that young people should be able to say what they want on social media without getting in trouble at school. They say that young people need to be able to express themselves and that schools shouldn't have so much power over them.

It's especially important for young people who are different, like people of color or are LGBTQ+, to be able to speak freely. These young people often get punished more often and for things that other kids don't get punished for.

Young people are still growing and learning, and they sometimes make bad decisions. They need a safe space to make mistakes and learn from them. If schools can punish kids for what they say on social media, it might make them afraid to speak up or express themselves.

It's important to remember that young people are different from adults and that they need to be treated fairly. We need to make sure that schools don't have too much power over young people and that they can have the freedom to be themselves.