Cheerleader banned from Snapchat for Supreme Court hearing case

0

A high school cheerleader who was kicked off her squad for posting “ f ** k school, f ** k cheer ” on Snapchat will now have her case heard by the Supreme Court after arguing her was freedom of speech violated when she was punished.

Brandi Levy, then 14, was banned from her cheerleaders by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania in 2017 after sending the Snapchat to her friends over a weekend.

The sophomore later successfully sued the school district for its decision to kick her off the squad by stating that she should not have been punished for speech that took place outside of school.

Her Snapchat and suspension will be the subject of a Supreme Court case later this month that will test the boundaries of student freedom of speech and school discipline.

The case, which will be the first of its kind, will essentially determine whether schools can discipline students for speech outside of campus and outside of school hours.

Brandi Levy, then 14, was banned from her cheerleaders by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania in 2017 after sending the Snapchat to her friends over a weekend.

Brandi Levy, then 14, was banned from her cheerleaders by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania in 2017 after sending the Snapchat to her friends over a weekend.

Brandi had posted a Snapchat to her friends one weekend in May 2017, when she failed to make varsity in her freshman year.

The post included her holding up her middle finger with ‘f ** k school f ** k softball f ** k cheer f ** k everything’ written about it.

She was banned by the coach for the full year a few days later after another student showed screenshots of the post saying it was against the cheerleaders’ rules.

Her school’s cheerleading team rules prohibit students from posting “negative information” about cheerleading online.

‘I was frustrated. I was upset. I was angry. And I posted a message on Snapchat, ”said Levy ABC news of the post.

‘I said,’ F school, F cheer, F softball, F everything. ‘

Brandi and her family sued the school district for her suspension, and she was reinstated on the cheerleading squad that same year after she received a temporary restraining order.

Brandi had posted a Snapchat to her friends one weekend in May 2017, when she failed to make varsity in her freshman year.  The post included holding up her middle finger with 'f ** k school f ** k softball f ** k cheer f ** k everything' written about it

Brandi had posted a Snapchat to her friends one weekend in May 2017, when she failed to make varsity in her freshman year.  The post included holding up her middle finger with 'f ** k school f ** k softball f ** k cheer f ** k everything' written about it

Brandi had posted a Snapchat to her friends one weekend in May 2017, when she failed to make varsity in her freshman year. The post included holding up her middle finger with ‘f ** k school f ** k softball f ** k cheer f ** k everything’ written about it

Brandi and her family sued the school district for her suspension, and she was reinstated on the cheerleading squad that same year after being given a temporary restraining order.

Brandi and her family sued the school district for her suspension, and she was reinstated on the cheerleading squad that same year after being given a temporary restraining order.

Brandi and her family sued the school district for her suspension, and she was reinstated on the cheerleading squad that same year after being given a temporary restraining order.

A federal judge and a federal appeals court later sided with her, arguing that the school could not punish Brandi for extracurricular speeches just because it violates the teachings or because other students were complaining.

Brandi insists her Snapchat hasn’t violated the cheerleading squad’s code.

‘I don’t think so, because I didn’t focus on coaches. I didn’t have the name of the school in it. I didn’t have the name of the coaches or the names of teammates in it, ”she said.

Brandi’s father, Larry Levy, said the school should have handled the whole incident differently.

‘If they’d just taken her aside and said,’ Watch, be careful. “But the action they took went beyond where they should be, in my opinion,” he said.

In a letter to the Supreme Court, the school district said the federal appeals court ruling in the case threatens to lead to handcuffs for coaches and teachers across the country.

“The First Amendment is not a territorial straitjacket forcing schools to ignore speech that disrupts the school environment,” the district wrote.

Coaches and school administrators, not federal courts, must decide whether the coach can put someone on the bench or ask a player to apologize to teammates.

The sophomore later successfully sued the school district for the decision to kick her off the squad by stating that she should not have been punished for speech that took place outside of school hours.

The sophomore later successfully sued the school district for the decision to kick her off the squad by stating that she should not have been punished for speech that took place outside of school hours.

The sophomore later successfully sued the school district for the decision to kick her off the squad by stating that she should not have been punished for speech that took place outside of school hours.

“The First Amendment is not a tool for the micromanagement of school provisions.”

The case will raise the question of whether a 1969 landmark decision by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which allows schools to regulate student speech on campus when it is disruptive, also applies to off-campus speech.

It involved 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker who was expelled from her school in December 1965 after she and other students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

The school forbade the students to wear them and told them they could return until they removed them.

Tinker and the other students returned to school – but wore black for the rest of the year – and filed a First Amendment lawsuit.

The Supreme Court ruled that because wearing a black bracelet was not disruptive, the students were protected by their First Amendment rights to wear them.

Brandi’s case will be heard by the Supreme Court on April 28.