Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

14 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. B. L. 

ALITO, J., concurring 

50,  63–64  (1976)  (plurality  opinion)  (“Nor  may  speech  be
curtailed because it invites dispute, creates dissatisfaction
with conditions the way they are, or even stirs people to an-
ger”); Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969) (“It is
firmly  settled  that  under  our  Constitution  the  public  ex-
pression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the 
ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers”).  It 
is unreasonable to infer that parents who send a child to a 
public  school  thereby  authorize  the  school  to  take  away
such a critical right.

To  her  credit,  petitioner’s  attorney  acknowledged  this 
during  oral  argument.
  As  she  explained,  even  if  such
speech is deeply offensive to members of the school commu-
nity and may cause a disruption, the school cannot punish
the student who spoke out; “that would be a heckler’s veto.”
Tr. of Oral Arg. 15–16.17  The school may suppress the dis-
ruption, but it may not punish the off-campus speech that
prompted other students to engage in misconduct.  See id., 
at 5–6 (“[I]f listeners riot because they find speech offensive, 
schools should punish the rioters, not the speaker.  In other 
words, the hecklers don’t get the veto”); see also id., at 27– 
28. 

This is true even if the student’s off-premises speech on a 
matter of public concern is intemperate and crude.  When a 
student  engages  in  oral  or  written  communication  of  this
nature,  the  student  is  subject  to  whatever  restraints  the
student’s parents impose, but the student enjoys the same
First  Amendment  protection  against  government  regula-
tion as all other members of the public.  And the Court has 

—————— 

17 Counsel  was  asked  what  a  school  could  have  done  during  the  Vi-
etnam War era if a student said, “[the] war is immoral, American soldiers 
are baby killers, I hope there are a lot of casualties so that people will 
rise up.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 15.  Counsel agreed that “[e]ven if that would 
cause a disruption in the school,” “the school couldn’t do anything about
it.”  Ibid.  In her words, “that would be a heckler’s veto, no can do.”  Id., 
at 15–16.