in school rather it is a case about the men who wear the law allows school administrators to do their job to keep him safe on physically and emotionally we have imposed upon the administrators of our public schools the duty to oversee and promote emotional intellectual physical and sexual safety of students in their school in their care we don't really come to the obligation to confront in a draft behaviors that are  antithetical to the school's mission an effort to promote a safe environment conducive to pretty productive learning and student success from ensuring physical emotional safety to combating it like illegal drug use to a founded alarmist suggestion of danger and culpability it is specific and personal there at a rate that in other words a particular person in our school the very place that the school administrators have an obligation to keep them and by posting those words by sounding mad alarm and triggered a legally mandated obligation by the school to investigate the allegation to find out who the sexual predator was so that as doesn't apply here because you believe this is not political speech and therefore we should use a standard other than the kink or standard believe all three are involved there was actual disruption and any event even if there wasn't the school system could have reasonably anticipated there justification as i read your brief it amounts to the district court abused its discretion in finding that par we had to do an investigation and that was disruptive and nd well this student number one was ostracized justification under those categories that has to do with the fact that you had to do an investigation that's very dangerous at the school system had to do an investigation under title nine of any complaint and are you seriously suggesting that when the school system has such an carrying out the title nine investigation talents and was disruption of the school under the concurrent analysis knows who the complainant has that suggests that there is a violent predator in the school that the obligation of the school is to find out who that is and find out immediately and because of you would have had to intend to kate correct we would have to investigate ok no so you're saying there's something special about the fact here that tr human here which is that what the district court was saying was that if you couldn't determine that there had been a collision with the rights of another or that there had been substantial disruptions what the appropriate test our contention is is whether a reasonable school administrator could believe that this would cause disruption so ok so let's let's let's go to  your nd justification which is putting aside the fact that you had to investigate the nd justification was well  was obviously bullying of a student and led to his os true and being ostracized by your very investigation showed that rumors had been circulating for months about this particular student the note was anonymous the note did not name him there is a dispute sacked as a district court found about whether the student who norris who posted the note in fact was referring to him and indeed this happened after a long series of events in which he tried to call to the school systems attention and ongoing problem sexual harassment and attacks in the school so what is it about this which would lead a reasonable administrators in the face of they know which did not name a particular student and after the i september th meeting that i am had what the assistant principal that she talked about student one that she said that she thought it was unfair that he was on idol i'd spent the faculty and that she said that she her intention was to create a culture where you put those two things together as well as other things that are in it and i'm like i thought the district for was that the no a was potentially oh as for serious disruption of schools pedagogical functions school administrators reasonably perceive the note to be an act of what we do why do i understand that those are the two central arguments that you're making on this point yes you're all right now with with respect to that how do we how do we how should the district court hav the potential for serious disruption does that have to be judged at the time the note is posted because at that time we don't know how long it's going to stay all power how exactly people are going to respond to it because we're dealing here with but tensional or do we judge it in a more post hoc fashion that the no was only three or five minutes separate server so let me explain to you why i have why i think that's a good question but it's difficult one and i look i'm specifically  all and i look specifically at the language i think are because what they're talking about in tinker is a reasonable belief that that there could be construction that would be at the time that the no  though that you'd be well advised to leave that to one side we're really looking at the forest of those considerations whether whether or not there was a reasonable apprehension on the school and i think it's reasonable to assume that that note would be disruptive i also want to add that even though we're putting aside the disruption prong there is also the collusion with the act of an act of war we right because because that would be another way of saying that it was an interference with the with the rights of students on and on that point a reasonable administrator could construe that as bullying and we know that that is what young people in the school department did because back to back the things on district court found that that w for the reasons that would allow you to restrict undertaker but here if you're going to rely on potential disruption and not on the bully what you're asking us to do is say well we're punishing the speech to a suspension based on both or we'd like you to uphold that punishment of the speech based on the ground we didn't get as the reason for the punishment which would be substantial disruption i just don't know t find out that and at least in theory determination that the no was wearing a student one now they have an obligation under main law to crack the bullying so that's what they get so i think that initially they had the right to restrict the speech because good substantial disruption but then i think when they find out that the speech is bullying speech mean they certainly have a right to restrict that as well ok supreme court has made clear that we need to hear deference to the discretion of the of the school administrator so i think she has the burden to show that this was a clear abused their discretion  deciding what they can sign it ok one last set of questions if we now go to the threshold is you a good think or a plot at all here i take it you have not made an argument on potentially protected speech in the sense that we know defamatory speech is not protected so it's at least potentially protected and then the question is is there some reason because of the school context that unlike the type of speech and tinker this is more like the speech in morris frazier etc as to that question not talking about if thinker applies the right ground restricting it because of an invasion of a rd party interest or successful disruption but at the threshold question of is it protected speech at all undertake or what is your argument for why not my argument has that important such ads on prohibit illegal drug use and that's why and more they say if the language promote their legal drug use then it may be respected by the school and my ar have more like more because it's certainly true that if we can allow schools to control our language that promotes drug use we can even if it's not what with them what would be the reason to think that an accusation of serious misconduct that could pose a danger would become a thing that shouldn't be protected after all it's pretty different than advocating illegal activity in calling out illegal activity for somebody to do something about it why would that not be protected under taker what a priority would suggest it would make that to treat that with the same thing as advocating doing something illegal well i would suggest that by posting the note in the bathroom the students bathroom i made it clear that it's not calling something out it's trying to scare people and trying to scare people it's something that i think that we take into account what the school already knows from prior than yours that they already knew from prior round that but it is the only sensible way to approach that would be to look at what the school knew at the time of the punishment that is the moment when there she did the plan what they are offering  the justification for get the planning so that is the moment when it makes most sense to consider the totality of the circumstances that the school knew so in this case what the school knew at the time that it  argument as she has made that no it itself is sick strangely alarming it's an anonymous accusation of criminal activity occurring at the school and it's not sort of responsibly brought to the attention of the school officials it's posted on the mirror in the girl's bathroom and to say that i know is alarming in the school deal is not a legal standard and when you look at the facts of what the quote found here that's well known about sexual assault and critiquing the school handling of it perhaps had family members or friends who had died in the vietnam war i would have found out to get the again the water to be alarming or distracting but you these are important topics of public concern and one that peaches and when when disturbing that that balun could enable school to silence speech that they don't like or that it's critical of them that they view to be inconsistent with the school environment that they want to foster so the administrators and the and say well we did understand you and you know who it is to be a reference to the school administration but as the note is good it's not clear who the you in the you could be a reference to those who use the women correct period of time for us to look at this reasonable apprehension question good time again to look in at that moment of punishment and you would expect anyone but we've been students to read to know if it's posted in the women's restroom which is a student facility not a teacher's raci am concerned with what a reasonable school administrator would think when that note was discovered in those circumstances yet the beginning you might hear any is there different issue council that's a that's a different issue but before i can figure out all right yet you have to be here with me to be from a little fellow and before i can figure out all right certain frazier all right i got to know what the what a reasonable interpretation of the know would be when it was discovered i think you've now i think you've now answered that question secondly we agree ship to to anyone who were pure if that is not correct that they are it was totally anonymous is there anything in the district court's opinion as you some deference was due to be administrator is that he took that into account you want to be able to point me to a particular sentence or passage i haven't been able to find it if i had found it on my own i wouldn't be less wind of cases where they have where they have balanced the speech and its purposes and effect when we have the need within the school setting name the tinker framework apply in that we're dealing with protected speech and i want them as well that the school district for purposes of not applying the thinker framework is stuck the evidence is unclear as to whether an administrator had a reasonable basis for concluding that there was barely how can you show that you have a likelihood of s injunction which means what exactly we're not just looking at the complaint because we've now got additional discovery right while we have the record from the former injunction hearing you know which included some discovery right cramped a reading of the methods that the court has been giving to lower courts in merced and frazier is there an affirmative case to make as to why for example the st circuit case in which i think they destruction standard would you do you think you would in that case also say alleging wrongdoing by another did and again i named that still it be done a matter of public concern it certainly of concern to other students and to school to the school  disruption that's what happened here but a good school apartment found that no thought it was likely to cause destruction and at that point that it had the ability to respect the beach the fact that action to address that does not mean that you have to sort of really allied whether or not the speech is protected it was not protected because it was that is the appropriate and flexible approach to take when the exact issues in this case are presented with barrett the question how do we could have student beat and ensure that students are able to rein in issues that are of concern to them and