Introducing our four remarkable new Board members:

The Student Press Law Center has named four new members to our Board of Directors to serve our mission to support, promote and defend the First Amendment rights of student journalists and their advisers at the high school and college levels. 

• Media attorney Matthew Cate of Ballard Spahr
• Lynette Clemetson, who heads Wallace House, home of the Knight-Wallace Fellowships for Journalists and the Livingston Awards for Young Journalists at the University of Michigan
• Steven A. Holmes, recently retired executive director of Standards and Practices for CNN
• Ava Lubell former general counsel of Quartz Media and current Legal Fellow at the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic

“Steve, Lynette, Ava and Matt represent the best of thoughtful leadership in the fields of journalism and law. I know that they will each share their expertise and insights to help the Student Press Law Center continue to grow and respond to the needs of student journalists. Our mission has never been more important and the voices and perspectives of young journalists are essential to preserving and protecting democracy. We welcome our new Board members and look forward to their active engagement,” said Jane Eisner, chair of the SPLC Board of Directors.

Q: What authority do public school officials have to punish me for my off-campus use of Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and other private social media platforms?

A: That’s a much-debated — and still open — question that depends on where you are and what you’re posting. But some general rules are emerging and a federal appeals court this summer drew some important lines protecting student free speech rights outside of school that other appellate courts, until now, have been hesitant to recognize.

First, there is no debate that school officials’ authority to control or punish you for speech outside of school is much more limited than when you’re in school. But some courts, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, have continued to allow schools to punish students for their off-campus speech when administrators show that it would have a disruptive effect on school operations. That’s allowed many school officials to try and punish students for speech and conduct that in years past, if punishment was warranted, would have been the responsibility of parents (or in extreme situations, police or courts.) 

SPLC has argued, with others, that school officials should have almost no authority over students’ off-campus speech. That is, students should not automatically be put into some “second-class citizen” category allowing a principal or other school official to police their speech 24/7, but should generally have the same First Amendment protections as everyone else when away from school. Likewise, students are fully responsible for their speech and subject to the same laws and restrictions. In a late-June decision, a federal court of appeals agreed and ruled that school officials went too far in punishing a student for posting a vulgar, but otherwise lawful, comment on her Snapchat while away from school one weekend. The court held that school officials cannot use the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker to target students’ off-campus speech that occurs on platforms that are not owned, operated or otherwise tied to the school. Given the different approaches taken by courts around the country and the ever-increasing use by students of non-school speech platforms, it looks like it will be up to the Supreme Court to finally settle the issue. This decision will be key in framing the argument.

Share this newsletter