Opinion | Supreme Court Rulings: N.C.A.A., Student Speech and Gay Parents – The New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Justices Rein In Schools’ Power to Limit Speech” (front page, June 24):
Two observations on this Supreme Court decision. First, I don’t understand why the court agreed to hear the case to begin with. The Supreme Court receives over 7,000 petitions each year, and hears between 100 and 150 cases. Granting certiorari to hear an appeal when the student’s First Amendment right to flip the bird and use a vulgar word was affirmed in the lower appellate court just does not seem to rise to the level of other pressing legal matters. What an extraordinary waste of the scarce resources of the Supreme Court.
Second, while I agree with the decision, I feel sorry for the plaintiff. The wide publicity may come back to haunt her when she is applying for jobs.
Her parents did her a disservice by bringing this lawsuit in the first place. They missed an opportunity to teach her that vulgar words and petty, immature actions have consequences. While the Levys may have won the lawsuit, it may be at a big cost to their daughter’s social growth and moral development.
Mary Ann Lynch
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
To the Editor:
Shock. I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the case. As soon as a cellphone message shows up on phones to 250 “friends,” many of whom no doubt were in the school building, it becomes school business. That is my opinion as a teacher. Perhaps the Supreme Court members are too old to realize the damage that technology has wrought.
Emily Farrell
Media, Pa.
To the Editor:
Re “Two Cheers for a Free Speech Ruling,” by Justin Driver (Opinion guest essay, June 25):
While it is a victory for free speech, this is not a victory for civilized behavior. Brandi Levy’s extremely vulgar temper tantrum in a Snapchat message has no place in civilized society and has no redeeming value like a political opinion. She was simply allowed to be disgusting, rude and vulgar because the law protected it.
That her parents would not simply reprimand her for her disgusting behavior, apologize and move on says a lot about where we now are as a society. Civil discourse does not seem to have an important place. We are willing to defend the worst impulses using the law. And I am as progressive as they come.
Michael McElfresh
Livermore, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “Court Supports Catholic Agency in Dispute on Gay Foster Parents” (front page, June 18):
The Supreme Court decision regarding a Catholic foster care agency’s refusal to screen same-sex couples for adoptions does not end the issue; it merely moves the goal post. The court’s decision hinged on Philadelphia’s contract with the agency, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation but allows city officials to make exceptions. As a result of the court’s decision, youngsters needing placement are now systematically denied access to potentially solid, beneficial placements.