Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. B. L. 

Opinion of the Court 

in  practice  of  the  well-known  aphorism,  “I  disapprove  of
what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it.”  (Although this quote is often attributed to Voltaire, 
it was likely coined by an English writer, Evelyn Beatrice
Hall.)

Given the many different kinds of off-campus speech, the
different potential school-related and circumstance-specific 
justifications, and the differing extent to which those justi-
fications may call for First Amendment leeway, we can, as 
a general matter, say little more than this: Taken together,
these three features of much off-campus speech mean that 
the leeway the First Amendment grants to schools in light 
of their special characteristics is diminished.  We leave for 
future cases to decide where, when, and how these features 
mean the speaker’s off-campus location will make the criti-
cal difference.  This case can, however, provide one exam-
ple. 

III 
Consider  B.  L.’s  speech.  Putting  aside  the  vulgar  lan-
guage,  the  listener  would  hear  criticism,  of  the  team,  the 
team’s coaches, and the school—in a word or two, criticism 
of the rules of a community of which B. L. forms a part.  This 
criticism did not involve features that would place it outside 
the First Amendment’s ordinary protection.  B. L.’s posts, 
while crude, did not amount to fighting words.  See Chap-
linsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942).  And while 
B. L.  used  vulgarity,  her  speech  was  not  obscene  as  this
Court has understood that term.  See Cohen v. California, 
403 U. S. 15, 19–20 (1971).  To the contrary, B. L. uttered 
the  kind  of  pure  speech  to  which,  were  she  an  adult,  the 
First Amendment would provide strong protection.  See id., 
at 24; cf. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 461 (2011) (First 
Amendment protects “even hurtful speech on public issues
to  ensure  that  we  do  not  stifle  public  debate”);  Rankin  v.