Justice Thomas cites "150 years of history supporting" school censorship because "schools act in loco parentis when students speak on campus" (and, "because speech travels, schools sometimes may be able to treat speech as on campus though it originates off campus").
He accuses the Court of taking "a common-law approach to today's decision."
What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Justice Thomas?
History is one means of discovering original meaning, but when history is used to limit the plain meaning of the written text ("no law...abridging the freedom of speech"), should the Court follow the text or history? And, of course, history and tradition provide little insight to an off campus Snapchat or X post sent via the student's smartphone to the student's "friends" and followers on social media.
But always keep your eye on Justice Thomas--he is the most interesting Justice on this Court and his opinions are well-reasoned and persuasively written.
No comments:
Post a Comment