Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

13 

ALITO, J., concurring 

see Lane v. Franks, 573 U. S. 228, 235 (2014) (“Speech by
citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the
First  Amendment”);  Schenck  v.  Pro-Choice  Network  of 
Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357, 377 (1997) (“Leafletting and 
commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms 
of  speech  that  lie  at  the  heart  of  the  First  Amendment”); 
Capital  Square  Review  and  Advisory  Bd.  v.  Pinette,  515 
U. S. 753, 760 (1995) (“[A] free-speech clause without reli-
gion  would  be  Hamlet  without  the  prince”);  McIntyre  v. 
Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 347 (1995) (“[A]dvo-
cacy  of  a  politically  controversial  viewpoint  . . .  is  the  es-
sence of First Amendment expression”); Hustler Magazine, 
Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 50 (1988) (“At the heart of the
First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental im-
portance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of 
public interest and concern”); Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 
138,  145  (1983)  (“[S]peech  on  public  issues  occupies  the
highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,
and  is  entitled  to  special  protection”  (internal  quotation
marks  omitted)),  and  the  connection  between  student 
speech in this category and the ability of a public school to
carry out its instructional program is tenuous. 

If a school tried to regulate such speech, the most that it
could  claim  is  that  offensive  off-premises  speech  on  im-
portant matters may cause controversy and recriminations
among students and may thus disrupt instruction and good 
order  on  school  premises.    But  it  is  a  “bedrock  principle” 
that  speech  may  not  be  suppressed  simply  because  it  ex-
presses ideas that are “offensive or disagreeable.”  Texas v. 
Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989); see also Matal v. Tam, 
582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 1–2) (“Speech may
not  be  banned  on  the  ground  that  it  expresses  ideas  that 
offend”);  FCC  v.  Pacifica  Foundation,  438  U. S.  726,  745 
(1978) (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“[T]he fact that society may
find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppress-
ing it”);  Young v. American Mini  Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S.