Talk:Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

Nominate for DYK?
since you expanded this, and it meets the criteria, I was wondering if you think this should be nominated for DYK? (today is the last day it could be nominated as-is, since it was created on the 4th). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; it will get expanded again when the decision comes in and that's probably where it would be more interesting, or alternately after the decision is filed, once it is promoted to a GA. --M asem (t) 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should be nominated now – the question itself is very interesting, regardless of what the ruling ends up being. (I got interested in this case earlier and have expanded the article just now to cover certain aspects of it.)  And the f-bombs will make for a very popular DYK hook :-)   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wont' stop a DYK nomination, I just feel it could wait. In terms of doing it I don't have the time at the moment to do the legwork on the DYK side (namely the QPQ part) but I have no problem if someone else wants to run the nomination to ground for this, I would then support it as needed. --M asem (t) 23:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've created the nomination just now to get it under the wire. I will do the QPQ shortly.  Any alternate suggestions for a hook are welcome as well.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The background question
What this article currently misses completely is the federal question which gave rise to the circuit split that forced this case to the Supreme Court: Does Tinker extend the First Amendment's protection to all off-campus student speech? That's what the Third Circuit held, in contradiction to previous precedent from the Second and Fourth Circuits that says, yes, schools can constitutionally discipline students for speech off-campus (i.e., online ... this was never an issue for schools, really, until the Internet (Addendum: Not exactly, it seems ... the Second Circuit dealt with this in Thomas v. Board of Education, 607 F.2d 1043 (2nd Cir., 1979)), on the grounds that it might have a disruptive effect on school operations.

SCOTUS can decide that issue without settling the underlying dispute. It could say, Tinker allows discipline for off-campus speech but remand the case back to the Third Circuit for "further proceedings consistent with this opinion" (i.e., the circuit, or the district court if the Third Circuit decides to kick it back down there, could hold that, even so, B.L.'s snap was beyond the reach of the school district as it was unlikely to disrupt school operations). It could take Judge Ambro's position that B.L.'s First Amendment rights were violated but even she said this wasn't the case to re-evaluate Tinker with, so they won't reach that today. Or it could decide both the constitutional question and the case, much as O'Connor v. Ortega concluded that, yes, public employees have Fourth Amendment rights against searches by their superiors for evidence of administrative violations, but those rights weren't violated in this instance (the latter question led to the 5-4 split). It could also agree completely with the Third Circuit and extend Tinker that far, but I doubt it will ... at most it might supersede Tinker in the same way Connick v. Myers supersedes Pickering v. Board of Education.

We will need to make this clear. My edits to the article, now that my approval of the DYK nom has gone through and is slated for the Main Page at the end of the month, will be focused on clarifying that issue. We will need to go into more detail about the Third Circuit's decision and Wisniewski and Kowalski, the Second and Fourth Circuit precedents that Judges Krause and Bibas analyzed closely and rejected. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As a comment, I think you have far too much detail about past case history on prior cases related to student speech at this point, until we know how SCOTUS will rule. We already have School speech (First Amendment) which should be where most of this should be documented, and we should only summarize the key points that RSes acknowledge that affect this case --M asem  (t) 06:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had the same feeling. At over 2,200 words, the "Prior jurisprudence on student speech" section is too much of a good thing for this article. The School speech (First Amendment) article seems like a better home for it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll stress this is not bad information, just not best suited on this page. --M asem (t) 13:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that all those cases come up in the arguments in this case, on both sides. They will in all likelihood be referenced at oral argument and in the briefs and amici. Depending on what the ultimate decision is and how much it relies on those precedents or comments on them, we can then trim it down to whatever's necessary. The appellate cases, as the article states, are limited to the ones that address the issue of where the school's authority over the speech ends, particularly but not exclusively when said speech is online and off-campus, in ways that are relevant to B.L.'s Snap. If you want I will add in where they are cited in the briefs so far. All the previous SCOTUS student speech decisions are also cited, and also seen as relevant because they touch on the issues of allegedly disruptive and profane off-campus online speech without the imprimatur of the school. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But there hasn't been any oral arguments yet (so that would be speculation against WP:NOT) and we're not supposed to do much legal analysis without the aid of third-party sources per WP:OR. What's cited in legal briefs without the final decision is not relevant to us yet, outside of what the lower courts said (which basically is Tinker and Fraser). Again, most of what you have written can go into the Student Speech article as existing case law that generally applies, and we can link to that article from this as a general references to understand past case law, but until we know how SCOTUS rules, all that background is excess noise for this article. --M asem (t) 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Third Circuit's decision (still the last word) cites Layshock and J.S. over 30 times each (understandably, since both cases are circuit precedent); Thomas, Wisniewski, Kowalski, Doninger seven times and Bell four. That's a lot more than "basically just Tinker and Fraser". And I haven't even searched the district court decisions yet. Now, if we do not consider one of the United States appellate court's decisions to be a reliable source, there are some law review articles, besides the ones I cited, that cover similar ground that could certainly be added as sources (If someone with the access could take a look at this one and see how relevant it might be, then send me a copy, that might be nice as well). Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we're talking what the Supreme Court will decide, and thus what its impact will be, which may or may not touch on all those cases; the lower court rulings are important to establish the case but since SCOTUS has taken the case and presuming nothing to render it moot before a decision, it will be what SCOTUS decides that carries weight. Right now, we have no idea how influential or importance this case will be yet because we have no inclination which way the justices will decide even. This could be a major landmark case on student speech, which may mean a larger background section is appropriate to establish the points made by the justices for it. But we can't say that. And the bulk of SCOTUS decisions aren't landmark, and typically we only give enough salient coverage (without digging too much into lower court decisions but using other RSes) to explain the relevance).
 * What you have done is drawn out good material for the School speech (First Amendment) page; I can't see the 2nd one as it says invalid, but the other two are both good articles to support that over on that article. There's clearly more than just the four cases listed and more arguments to be presented there, so I'm not saying your work has gone to waste, its just better suited there. --M asem (t) 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I accept that. However, the fact that four justices agreed to take the case is generally seen as indicating that they believe a circuit split exists, whatever B.L. argues in her reply brief. At the very least we need to explain why, since all those cases are good law in their respective circuits; once the Court decides (if it chooses to decide, which it doesn't necessarily have to do), all that would largely be irrelevant save for this case or Bell, really. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even on split decisions, what the circuits decided usually aren't as important; establishing that a split exists is necessary, no question, but establishing the details of all the other cases at the split is rarely done, unless this is the essential part of the SCOTUS decision or post-case law analysis. I do agree that it probably important to call out the Third Circuit cases that are at split with this but that's about all that is needed, alluding to the agreement in the other circutis. Also, I will stress: we should not be using case decisions as the sole sourcing in this article, as othewise that's us interpriting case law and a violation of OR. So the section you expanded in "Appeal" for example is pulling far too much from the decisions as OR. We are also not supposed to cite, at all, petitions or other works that are not from judges (unless backed by third-party sources). --M asem (t) 02:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

On further reflection, I've seen your point, and I will be moving the entire section on the appellate cases to the student speech article, and deleting the petitions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead
The very first sentence is way too long. Can someone break it up a bit? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. It's 34 words—25 if you exclude the case caption—and I can't think of what could be removed from it without making things less clear to the reader. -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We may be referring to two different things (namely, two different versions of the intro sentence). Someone must have made some edits after my complaint, but before your reply.  I did a very quick Microsoft Word "spell-check analysis" of the sentence that I was complaining about.  And the Microsoft Word data analysis said that the sentence contained 67 words.  With a 0.0 Reading Ease Score; and with a 31.3 Grade-Level Score.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It was too long, I'd have to agree. It trying to cram the entire crux of the case into that single line, which isn't necessary. You can always always break up complicated thoughts into multiple, consecutive sentences without losing meaning but improve comprehension. --M asem (t) 16:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Landmark case
My edit citing two reliable sources that this is a landmark decision was reversed. The editor that reversed it contends that reliable sources do not dictate whether this case should be described as landmark or not. He didn't clarify exactly what is used to determine if its a landmark case or not. I say it should be added back since reliable sources dictate what is on Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you are using to justify for a "landmark" status are rather weak; neither is a typical reliable source we'd use on WP particularly for legal cases. Most of the sources recognized the decision was rather narrow, tailored to B.L.'s case, and while the case could have had a landmark ruling, instead the court effectively punted on a first decision. As a counter example, Bostock v. Clayton County is widely considered a landmark case by multiple media outlets. --M asem  (t) 23:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did clarify the reason for my decision; you didn't want to delve into it apparently. List of landmark court decisions in the United States, which you linked to because it has this case listed there (although the editor who added it seems to have added some other dubious ones there as well, and has been reverted in those additions; I attempted to remove this case from that article but another editor reverted that with a rather broad application of the article's criteria, so I had to explain myself better. In any event the criteria at the list of landmark decisions require that the case does at least one of these four:


 * establish[es] a significant new legal principle or concept;
 * overturn[s] prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning;
 * distinguish[es] a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
 * establish[es] a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.


 * I don't see Mahanoy as doing any of these. The Court held for the respondent, that she was unconstitutionally disciplined, but at the same time rejected the Third Circuit's holding that Tinker does not in any way apply to off-campus student speech. As I said in one of the edit summaries linked above, had the Court adopted that position, that would have easily met the third criterion above. Instead it recognized that this was not the case to do that with, at the very least.


 * Yes, I saw that you put in reliable sources calling it a "landmark" case, but you need to step back and think about how, in the absence of the criteria above, that term is so open and subjective as to be almost meaningless when applied to a court decision, indeed a word we should avoid in this context. One of your sources was some sort of student-speech group ... well of course they're going to consider it a landmark case! Their side won! For at least someone, some organized interest, every case SCOTUS decides is a landmark decision. If we relied just on RSes for that, every one of our articles on court decisions would describe it that way. Certainly at the appellate level they are all notable as binding precedent ... but that doesn't make them "landmark" cases.


 * I concede that in one small way, Mahanoy is a landmark case: for the first time since Tinker, the student plaintiff won one of these cases at the Supreme Court. But that makes it only historically a landmark case. It may in some way we are not aware of yet be a landmark case legally, but for that we must await the learned opinions and analyses of law professors and a consensus opinion from the pages of the nation's many law reviews. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I don't see the particular need in going back and forth on trying to justify if this is a landmark case are not based on the case itself. It's not our place to. However, with 2 sources stating it's landmark, I think its compelling enough to call it land mark. You mentioned one might have a little bias, but the Bill of Rights Institute is an educational source and should be considered credible. I think it makes sense, since the case set some standards for out of school speech. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out and as Daniel Case also suggests, the word "landmark" is frequently tossed around for Supreme Court cases by numerous groups if they think the decision was significant for them. We'd much rather see multiple (more than 2) legal analysis sources - like law journals or mainstream media that regularly reports on the Supreme Court - to show us that there's broad agreement that "landmark" applies. --M asem (t) 04:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of speech in schools page
I just added a section on this case to the Freedom of speech in schools in the United States page, incorporating some content from the lead. Internetronic (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)