Summary Of A Cheerleader's Vulgar Message

In the texts, “A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message”, “Should schools be able to punish kids based on social media posts?”, and, “Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School” they all shared a common topic of schools viewing students' social media accounts and imposing consequences based on post. The author of “A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message” claims that the court case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The Supreme Court is controversial. The author of “Should schools be able to punish kids based on social media posts?” claims that schools should be able to punish students for bad posts that they view on their social media accounts to an extent. The author of “Punished for a Snapchat: Why Schools Shouldn’t Police Students’ Speech Outside of School” claims that students should be free to post whatever they

In the text, “A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message” the author, Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, argues that the court case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The Supreme Court involving a 9th grade student in Pennsylvania that didn't make the varsity cheer squad and posted vulgar language with her friend on social media to show her frustration and getting punished for a whole year from cheer was a controversial topic and presents both sides. Liptak shows one side of the argument by stating, “The court said the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.” This helps to prove the author's claim that this was a controversial topic because he is stating what the court's response to the case was and that this is also improving his credibility because he uses the First Amendment to show why the court thinks the school was in the wrong for the students'