Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

McPherson,  483  U. S.  378,  387  (1987)  (“The  inappropri-
ate . . . character of a statement is irrelevant to the question 
whether it deals with a matter of public concern”). 

Consider  too  when,  where,  and  how  B.  L.  spoke.    Her 
posts appeared outside of school hours from a location out-
side the school.  She did not identify the school in her posts
or target any member of the school community with vulgar
or  abusive  language.  B. L.  also  transmitted  her  speech
through a personal cellphone, to an audience consisting of
her private circle of Snapchat friends.  These features of her 
speech, while risking transmission to the school itself, none-
theless (for reasons we have just explained, supra, at 7–8)
diminish  the  school’s  interest  in  punishing  B.  L.’s  utter-
ance. 

But  what  about  the  school’s  interest,  here  primarily  an
interest in prohibiting students from using vulgar language
to criticize a school team or its coaches—at least when that 
criticism might well be transmitted to other students, team
members, coaches, and faculty?  We can break that general
interest into three parts. 

First, we consider the school’s interest in teaching good
manners and consequently in punishing the use of vulgar 
language aimed at part of the school community.  See App.
35  (indicating  that  coaches  removed  B. L.  from  the  cheer 
team because “there was profanity in [her] Snap and it was
directed towards cheerleading”); see also id., at 27, 47, and 
n. 9, 78, 82.  The strength of this anti-vulgarity interest is
weakened considerably by the fact that B. L. spoke outside 
the school on her own time.  See Morse, 551 U. S., at 405 
(clarifying that although a school can regulate a student’s
use of sexual innuendo in a speech given within the school,
if the student “delivered the same speech in a public forum 
outside the school context, it would have been protected”);
see also Fraser, 478 U. S., at 688 (Brennan, J., concurring
in  judgment)  (noting  that  if  the  student  in  Fraser  “had 
given the same speech outside of the school environment,