The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free expression for all citizens, and is interpreted by the courts on a case by case basis. In the last decade, the internet and social media have become fundamental parts of students’ lives. School is no longer limited to books, paper, and pencils, but laptops, Microsoft Word, and Google. This development of technology allows students to converse through different mediums. As a result, a First Amendment issue arises: is speech that takes place online and off school grounds protected under the First Amendment? Recent cases indicate that freedom of speech is protected when it takes place off school property as long as it isn’t sponsored by the school or threatening to others’ rights.

The issue of school-sponsored speech has come up in multiple cases including one between cheerleaders from Kountze, Texas, and the high school administration. The girls created banners stating religious messages such as “If god is for us, who can be against us?” (Mateer). The administration took action against these religious messages because of an anonymous complaint and concerns about the Establishment Clause, a pronouncement in the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Establishment). The girls’ parents fought back with a court case, claiming their daughters’ right to free speech had been violated because the creation of the banners wasn’t school-sponsored. School sponsorship can be considered anything endorsed by the school. The court ruled in favor of the girls based on their separation from the school, despite displaying the banners on school property (Mateer). The precedent derived from this case is that if a school declares something a public forum, in other words not sponsored by the school, then all acts of speech are protected. However, if the school doesn’t declare an event public it is assumed to be a school-sponsored forum. This ruling can be extended beyond school grounds because any act performed by a student off school property, as long as it wasn’t school sponsored, is protected.

In order for speech to be a protected right it must not disrupt in class student learning. JD v. Blue Mountain School District and the Layshock v. Hermitage School District are cases that support  this standard. In both cases, a student created a social media account that mocked the principal of their school. As a result, the school punished the student with a suspension on the basis that the account contained lewd and vulgar language that was meant to hurt the principal. When brought to court, the rulings were in favor of the students. The JD ruling stated that the student’s actions didn’t “Materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” (Cosgrove). The account didn’t disrupt the school day and therefore the school could not take action against it.

The only scenario in which speech that occurs at a non-school-sponsored event isn’t protected is when the speech threatens the rights of others. This is illustrated in the Wynar v. Douglas County School District case. Landon Wynar, a sophomore at Douglas High School, sent messages to his friends that expressed his desire to shoot fellow classmates on the anniversary of the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres. One of the messages read (spellings are as originally printed):

Its pretty simple / I have a sweet gun / my neighbor is giving me 500 rounds / dhs [Douglas High School] is gay / I've watched these kinds of movies so I know how NOT to go wrong / I just cant decide who will be on my hit list / and thats totally deminted and it scares even my self. / And ill probably only kill the people I hate? who hate me / then a few random to get the record / that stupid kid from vtech [referring to the assailant in the 2008 shootings at Virginia Tech] he didnt do s*** and got a record. I bet I could get 50+ people / and not one bullet would be wasted (Walsh).

Wynar’s friends found these messages alarming and told the school football coach, a man that the boys felt they could trust. The coach reported the friends’ concerns to the administration which took action against Wynar. As a result of these threats, Wynar received a 90-day expulsion from school (Walsh). When the court case reached the 9th Circuit Court of Nevada, the court sought to distinguish between threats and speech that ridicules and publicly criticizes others. After determining that Wynar's message was a threat, the court reasoned that, “When faced with an identifiable threat of school violence, schools may take disciplinary action in response to off-campus speech that meets the requirements of Tinker” (Hudson).  In Tinker, the court ruled that school officials can limit student speech as long as it interferes with the rights of others, even when a student only discusses violent actions. In the Wynar case, Landon Wynar’s threat to “get 50+ people” was a threat to the rights of students, teachers, and administrators in his school. This violated their right to safety (Hudson).

These cases show that a school’s right to limit a student’s First Amendment right can be determined by examining if the student’s speech was school-sponsored, and if it threatened the rights of others. If either is true, then the school has the right to limit free speech. However, if neither apply, the student has the right to say whatever he or she wishes to, both online and in person, as long as he or she is not on school property.