Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. (20-255)

argument 20-255

Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 51m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue of the Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case twenty two fifty five, Mahanoi Area School District versus BL.

0:08

Ms.

John G. Roberts 0:08

Blatt.

Unknown 0:10

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Tinkers should apply off campus for three reasons. First, such speech can cause on campus disruption. Second, respondents approach would create chaos. And third, a school nexus requirement and tinker substantial disruption test. Guard against abuse. First, off-campus speech, particularly on social media, can be disruptive. The internet's ubiquity, instantaneous and mass dissemination, and potential permanence make the speaker's location irrelevant, yet the decision below arbitrarily treats location as dispositive. Second, respondents concede schools can address off campus speech, but they propose an administrative nightmare where the sheer complexity heightens the risk of calamitous error.

Unknown 0:57

First, a seven part test would define the school environment. Second, then one would check if the off campus speech fits within five separate First Amendment doctrines that have never been defined in the school context. Tanker would mystifyingly toggle in and out of coverage as kids move about the day. This court should not substitute the twenty-year status quo of applying Tinker off campus. Third, schools cannot target political and religious speech. Tinker applies off campus only when the student targets both a school audience and a school topic. And more broadly, this court can clarify Tinker's reach both on and off campus. It is irrelevant that critical or unpopular speech is the butt for cause of substantial disruption.

Unknown 1:43

The speech itself must be culpable. It must inherently compromise school functions like organizing walkouts. Or the speech must objectively interfere with the rights of others, like severe bullying. But if listeners riot because they find speech offensive, School should punish the rioters, not the speaker. In other words, the hecklers don't get the veto. School special needs are limited to teaching kids how to think, not what to think. I welcome your questions.

John G. Roberts 2:10

Uh counsel, you said that the the schools can't regulate political uh or religious speech. But but also that the schools can regulate uh speech from off campus that is directed at the school. So what do you do with political or religious speech that is directed at the school? You know, a uh uh sign the student is carrying around off campus uh that says uh don't approve the uh school bond funding uh uh referendum. Uh where how do you balance the the one situation uh uh against the other?

Unknown 2:48

Well that that speech would not come within the school's regulation even remotely because it would fail both Nexus and Tinker. It fails the Nexus case because it's not directed to a school audience, that's the public, and it has nothing to do with the particular school. It's just not a school topic. So under our approach, and I think this is the government's approach too, it's identical, you go to two steps Either of which is easier for a court to handle in terms of protecting uh free speech. One, make sure the audience is the school and the topic has to be about the school. And if it's easier, go ahead and jump to Tinker and say that no matter how much offense someone takes to that speech, that's not a substantial disruption just because listeners are offended.

Unknown 3:28

Well Well

John G. Roberts 3:28

well let's let's say that the the the the protest is don't approve the school referendum because this school is uh is awful or because uh uh Ms. Johnson is is teaching at the school. And it and and it's it's and it's put out by somebody on there uh as a Snapchat, so it certainly reaches the school audience. Political speech that's directed at the school.

Unknown 3:51

Yeah, so you can have that would be a school audience and it's Miss Johnson is a school topic, so it's a Nexus test and the reason why i that could never satisfy Tinker Um and that is because if it's just the litter's reaction, speech that's critical, uh even ridicule of a school Schools cannot punish it because of their offense or their reaction to it.