The one fact that shifted my view on campus speech codes

I was reading through some old Supreme Court cases last week and stumbled on the exact wording of the ruling from Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). What surprised me is how narrow that famous quote about students not "shedding their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" actually was. The ruling let schools restrict speech if it would cause a "substantial disruption." But here's the thing - that standard was decided before the internet, before smartphones, before viral protests. I found a law review article from 2022 (University of Chicago) that tracked how "substantial disruption" has been interpreted differently across 50 federal cases. In the 1970s, a disruption meant a literal riot. By 2019, some courts ruled a single angry email counted. Does anyone else think we need a clear update on what counts as "disruption" in the digital age?

2 comments

2 Comments

jenny5802d ago

Honestly, are we really gonna pretend a single angry email is the same as a riot? Like yeah, times change, but this feels like people overthinking a pretty basic concept. Maybe some courts just got it wrong and we don't need to rewrite the whole rule.

jordancoleman2d ago

Agreed fully, but I'll admit I used to think differently. A few years back I probably would have rolled my eyes at the comparison too. Then I actually read through some old court cases about what they called "riot" back then and realized it was often just a loud disagreement in a town square. The whole rule was built around local disturbances, not organized violence. So when a modern lone wolf sends a nasty email from his basement but gets charged under the same law, it does feel like the rule got stretched way past what it was meant for. I don't think we need to throw out the whole system, but maybe we need to admit some of these old laws just don't fit the world we live in now.