I agree with you on general principles. However, the whole point of this case being in front of SCOTUS is that other courts have ruled that schools aren't obligated to provide that experience. Levy's suing because she disagrees (and I do too).

I think she should be allowed to be a cheerleader even after complaining about her coach and school, as kids are wont to do. Now we'll find out if the courts see it the same way.

I predict the SCOTUS will see cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity outside of the scope for which a public school is obligated to provide and thus may restrict access to that activity in any manner they see fit. If they don't rule it that way then SCOTUS is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.

It would already be subject to Title 9, they have to provide equal access.

The school can certainly argue that all students have to meet the same requirements to participate, which would hinge on whether the student could reasonably anticipate the consequences here (an example where that isn't possible is if the school created and applied a policy for the incident).

My first comment is in response to the people inventing parallels that don't exist at all because schools and work places are very different things and wasn't an attempt to thoroughly examine the specifics. A finding that the existing obligations of the school do apply to this situation is irrelevant to at will employment.

> in any manner they see fit.

That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine if a school banned people from sports, because they expressed support for Obama or Trump.

Clearly that would be a government infringing on people's right to speech, as it is expressely political.

Or imagine that a school gave certain benefits, only to students, who publicly support a certain political candidate. If you don't support their choice of president, you lose privileges or benefits or get expelled.

Or, if we are truly talking about "any manner they see fit", an obvious counter example would be if they just banned women from playing sports.

> is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.

There is no can of worms being opened here. A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established.

I am not sure why people are making out speech laws, which have a long history of how they apply to public institutions, as some sort of alien topic.

You wouldn't say that a school could expel people, for example, for this kind of speech, out of school. Why is it so crazy, for this to be applied to other activities?

> A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established.

Free speech laws apply differently in school. They're not exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times.

Bethel v. Fraser[0] is an example where the Court ruled pretty clearly that the school can go as far as to prohibit sexual innuendo, it doesn't even have to be obscene or vulgar.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fras...

> They're not exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times.

I didn't say that they were exactly the same. Instead I am saying that there is not some "huge can of worms" that is opened on up this topic, if the supreme court rules in favor of the student in this case.

It is instead something that predictably might happen, and which will have predicable results that are in line with how things work in other examples.

So, in other words, the sky will not fall, and schools will not collapse under the weight of not being allowed to punish students for purely off campus speech.

Schools sort of fall in an area between private employer and government entity. They have to allow more leeway than a private employer (they can't prevent speech just because it makes them uncomfortable) but they can put more limits on speech than the government normally would be allowed (in the interest of the educational mission).

I guess this case is about whether cheerleading falls into the former or latter category.