Whispers Only Allowed

Commentary on Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. continues to focus on the vulgarity" of the woman's statements, and not the substantive content.  See, e.g., Dorf.  The oral argument before the Supreme Court did not much concern the use of "Fuck".  It focused on criticism of a school and its personnel and how the criticism was voiced.  As it should have been.  I cannot believe that a Cheer Squad member would be suspended for 1 year because she said "Fuck" within hearing of another member of the squad. It is not credible to maintain that there was any disruption of school or negative effect on team solidarity or cohesion because of the use of the word.  Usage is entirely too common for that to be sustainable.  Would the school have done nothing if only she had expressed her frustration and disappointment more politely?  The argument was about the reach of school control of speech, and the argument was properly about how far outside a school itself its control should reach.  And Cohen made clear a long time ago that the mere presentation of the word is not sufficient basis for discipline.  This thought is also supported by the arguments in favor of the school, which had to do with pervasive criticism -- students criticizing an administrator daily in online media.  One interesting thing about the responses to the case, before and after the decision, is how far across the political spectrum can be found a rejection of Tinker.  Students do not shed their rights at the school house is great left back in opposition to the Vietnam War, but not now.  This case was about a private statement about something important to the student.  Is it a good idea to set the boundaries of permissibility by the size of the audience?  Or by whether third parties spread the message?  She is fine to say what she wants to six friends in person but not....