text:
BH Appellees Brief FINAL
Uploaded by Molly Tack-Hooper
saveSave BH Appellees Brief FINAL For Later
United States v. Stacks, 4th Cir. (2005)
David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E, 3rd Cir. (2013)
Murphy v. DEA, 10th Cir. (1997)
Alexis Opinion
United States v. Alfonso Gonzalez-Florez, 11th Cir. (2014)
United States v. Jeremy Atkins, 4th Cir. (2016)
First Amendment Rights at Issue in Keene vs. Robin Hooders Case
Butler v. Biocore Medical, 348 F.3d 1163, 10th Cir. (2003)
United States v. Phillip David Fussell, 11th Cir. (2010)
AZ Candidate Eligibility Bill - 2012
United States v. Christopher Gay, 4th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Fullilove, 4th Cir. (2004)
United States v. Bermudez-Melendez, 1st Cir. (2016)
United States v. Garland George Curtis, 400 F.3d 1334, 11th Cir. (2005)
Doe v DHW 141 Idaho 511
Alphonso Cave v. Dept. of Corrections, 11th Cir. (2011)
United States v. David, 4th Cir. (1996)
Chicago Bears tax ruling
USA v. Turek Doc 80 Filed 23 Apr 14
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________________________________________________________ No. 11-2067 _________________________________________________________________ B.H.
, a minor, by and through her mother, JENNIFER HAWK, and K.M., a minor, by and through her mother, AMY MCDONALD-MARTINEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EASTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________ On Appeal From The Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Of The United States District Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Dated April 12, 2011, At Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-6823 _________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEES _________________________________________________________________ Mary Catherine Roper AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 40008 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1513 ext. 116 MRoper@aclupa.org Witold J. Walczak AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Telephone: (412) 681-7736 VWalczak@aclupa.org Molly Tack-Hooper BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-5814 MTack-Hooper@bm.net Seth F. Kreimer 3400 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 Tel: (215) 898-7447 Fax: (215) 573-2025 skreimer@law.upenn.edu Counsel for Appellees
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL .......................................1 SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ..............................................................2 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................4 The Keep a Breast Bracelets .........................................................................4 Plaintiffs Purchase of the Bracelets ..............................................................8 EASDs Ban on the Bracelets ..................................................................... 11 Enforcement of the Ban .............................................................................. 13 EASDs Breast Cancer Awareness Day ...................................................... 14 The Districts Justifications for the Ban ...................................................... 17 Procedural History ...................................................................................... 22 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................ 23 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 25 I. THE SUPREME COURTS STUDENT SPEECH CASES ESTABLISH THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND BAR THE DISTRICTS NOVEL LEGAL ARGUMENTS. ............................................................................. 25 THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT FAILED TO JUSTIFY ITS CENSORSHIP UNDER TINKER. ....................................... 30 A. The District Court Understood And Followed Tinker........................ 30 1. The Record Demonstrates That Plaintiffs Bracelets Caused No Disruption And That The District Lacked Any Reasonable Basis For Anticipating That The Bracelets Would Cause A Substantial, Material Disruption To School Activities ............ 31
Tinker Is Not Limited To Viewpoint-Discriminatory Restrictions On Speech, But The School Districts Rules Regarding Breast Cancer Awareness Speech Do Constitute Viewpoint Discrimination. ...................................................... 36
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICTS CENSORSHIP OF THE BRACELETS WAS UNREASONABLE UNDER FRASER. ....... 40 A. The District Court Properly Held That Plaintiffs Speech Must Be Interpreted In Context, Not In The Abstract, To Determine Whether It Is Lewd Or Vulgar, And That Determination Is A Question of Law For The Court. .................................................................................. 41 1. The District Court Properly Held That Applying Fraser To Speech With Multiple Possible Meanings Requires That The Speech Be Viewed In Context................................................. 43 Courts Do Not Defer To A School Officials Decision Whether Speech Is Protected................................................... 47
2. B.
The District Court Correctly Found That The Plaintiffs Bracelets Were Not And Could Not Reasonably Be Considered Lewd In This Context. ............................................................................................ 49 1. The District Court Properly Found That Neither The Word Boobies Nor The Phrase I Boobies! Is Like Cohens Jacket Inherently Lewd Or Profane. ..................................... 50 The District Court Properly Found That Neither Boobies Nor I Boobies! Could, In The Context Of The Bracelets Worn By Plaintiffs At EAMS, Reasonably Be Considered The Equivalent Of Matthew Frasers Assembly Speech. ................ 52
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT PLAINTIFFS ESTABLISHED IRREPARABLE HARM AND THAT THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS THE ISSUANCE OF THE INJUNCTION. ........................................................................................... 54
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 57
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000) ..................56 Barber v. Dearborn Pub. Sch., 286 F. Supp. 2d 847, 849, 856-57 (E.D. Mich. 2003).................................................................................................................34 Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) ..............................passim Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984) ......... 2 Boyd Cnty. High Sch. Gay Straight Alliance v. Bd. of Educ., 258 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Ky. 2003).................................................................................................34 Broussard ex rel. Lord v. Sch. Bd. of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992) .................................................................................................47 Brown v. Entmt Merchs. Assn, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (June 27, 2011) .........................25 Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of Calif., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010) ..................................................................49 City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) .........................29 Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876 (3d Cir. 1997) ....55 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .....................................................................54 Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975) .........................................25 Gillman v. Sch. Bd. for Holmes Cnty., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (N.D. Fla. 2008) .....34 Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) .....................................27 Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) .........................................35 J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., No. 08-4138, 2011 WL 2305973 (3d Cir. June 13, 2011) (en banc) ................................................................ 26, 30 Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist., No. 074465, 2011 WL 2305970 (3d Cir. Feb. 4, 2011) ........................................................................................48 Mercer v. Harr, No. H-0403454, 2005 WL 1828581 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2005) ....47 - iii -
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) ....................................................................56 Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007) ...................................................passim Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2000) ........................................... 2 Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) .................................................................48 Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 1997) (en banc) ................26 Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth., Nos. 09-3352, 093563, 2011 WL 3375651 (3d Cir. Aug. 5, 2011) ............................... 3, 28, 37, 39 Poling v. Murphy, 872 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1989) ...................................................47 Pyle v. South Hadely Sch. Committee, 861 F. Supp. 157 (D. Mass. 1994).............47 Quarterman v. Byrd, 453 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1971) .................................................47 Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2004) ............................39 Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) ................39 Saxe v. State College Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2001)........... 27, 42, 50 Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960).................................................................25 Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) ..............................................................46 Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Reg. Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2002) ..passim Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) ..............................................................46 Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., Granville Cen. Sch. Dist., 607 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1979)....................................................................................................41 United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2010).....................................34 United States v. Playboy Entmt Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000) ...............................26
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ON APPEAL I. Did the District Court commit error when it applied this Courts precedents to a careful review of the record and concluded that the District failed to justify its censorship under Tinker? II. Did the District Court commit error when it considered the context of the Plaintiffs speech and the school officials inconsistent reaction to the speech over a two-month period and concluded that the District failed to show that it reasonably characterized Plaintiffs speech as lewd under Fraser? III. Did the District Court commit error or abuse its discretion when it held that the Plaintiffs loss of First Amendment freedoms constituted irreparable harm and that absence of any evidence of harm to the Defendant tipped the balance of equities in favor of an injunction? Suggested answer to all: No.
SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction, this Court reviews the district courts legal conclusions de novo, its findings of fact for clear error, and its ultimate balancing of the relevant factors for abuse of discretion. Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243, 252 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Highmark, Inc. v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 170 (3d Cir. 2001)); see also Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2000) (An abuse of discretion can . . . occur when no reasonable person would adopt the district courts view. We will not interfere with the district courts exercise of discretion unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.). The fact that this case concerns First Amendment rights does not change this standard of review. The Supreme Court, in Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984), directed appellate courts to engage in an independent factual review of the full record in certain First Amendment cases to ensure that the [district court] judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression. Id. at 499. Where, as here, the district court judgment protects free expression, the rationale for applying the Bose heightened factual review is absent. Cf., Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund v. Port Auth., Nos. 09-3352, 09-3563, 2011 WL 3375651, at *3 (3d Cir. Aug. 5,
2011) (noting that Boses . . . speaker-protection purpose is triggered only in cases where the speaker lost at the trial level but declining to decide whether Bose standard applies where the decision below limited the government rather than the speaker).
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS
In the fall of 2010, B.H. was a thirteen-year-old eighth grader and K.M. a twelve-year-old seventh grader at Easton Area Middle School (EAMS or the Middle School) in the Easton Area School District (School District or the District). J.A. 7. Easton Area Middle School is a large complex that holds two separate schools. J.A. 7. The fifth and sixth grade school has a separate entrance, separate classrooms, separate lunchrooms, and is administered separately from the seventh and eighth grade school. J.A. 7. Plaintiffs attended classes in the EAMS 7-8 Building, which houses student from twelve to fourteen years of age. J.A. 7; J.A. 488 (DiVietro Dep. 16:9-11). The Keep a Breast Bracelets The bracelets at issue are bands of colored rubber that bear the slogans i boobies! (KEEP A BREAST), check yur self!! (KEEP A BREAST), or an amalgam of similar slogans (KEEP A BREAST, KAB, Glamour Kills, and boobies!). J.A. 7-8 & n.2.1 The web address for the Keep a Breast Foundation,
The bracelet with the amalgam of slogans is co-branded with the clothing line Glamour Kills. J.A. 8 n.2. Through co-branding or cause marketing, the Keep a Breast Foundation allows select businesses to market themselves or their products using the Keep a Breast name and slogans, in exchange for a donation. J.A. 8 n.2.
which distributes these bracelets, is keep-a-breast.org and is printed on the inside of all of the bracelets. J.A. 8. The Foundations mission is to help eradicate breast cancer by educating young people on methods of prevention, early detection, and support, and it operates many different breast cancer education programs and campaigns oriented towards girls and women up to thirty years of age. J.A. 8-9. The Foundation prides itself on the fact that its programming reaches a demographic that other breast cancer non-profits do not touch. J.A. 155:21-23; see also J.A. 157:4-11 (were a youth-based nonprofit so we always want to interact with young people, people [whose] voices might not be heard by other breast cancer foundations). Among other goals, the Foundation seeks to empower young women to take charge of their breast health and to be able to discuss their breast health with their doctors. J.A. 9. The Foundation encourages young women to establish a baseline knowledge of how their breasts feel in order to improve their ability to detect potentially deadly changes in their breasts. J.A. 9. The Foundation believes that negative body images among young women pose a barrier to achieving these goals, and that many young women feel that a stigma is associated with touching, looking at, or talking about their breasts. J.A. 9. The Foundations i boobies! campaign seeks to reduce this stigma and help women talk openly and without shame or embarrassment about their breasts. J.A.
9. The campaign is designed to reach young people by employing commonplace language that young people will find natural and non-threatening. See J.A. 150:1319 (boobies is a commonplace word); J.A. 166:2 (describing i boobies! as a very young sounding campaign); J.A. 150:17 (explaining that boobies is a word that people are comfortable using to describe breasts to babies); J.A. 166:1-8 (same). The campaign uses the heart graphic because that is a common symbol for love, and the theme of loving ones own body is an important part of the Foundations message. J.A. 148:9-15, 149:16-20. The Keep A Breast Foundation did not intend for the phrase i boobies! to be sexual. J.A. 150:9-12, 151:15-23, 163:17-164:3. Rather, by associating boobies with the concept of love, the language of the i boobies! campaign takes aim at negative body images and taboos about self-touching and encourages young women to appreciate and actively care for their breasts. J.A. 148:9-149:1, 149:4-22, 170:16-171:2. The i boobies! bracelets serve as an awareness and fundraising tool. J.A. 8-9. The Foundation carefully controls the distribution of the bracelets to reach its target demographic and to ensure that wherever the bracelets are sold, the campaigns message and educational materials will be properly communicated to the purchaser and the purchaser. J.A. 10; J.A. 146:4-20, 151:24-152:6, 152:14153:13. The Foundation has rejected requests from truck stops, convenience stores, and vending machine companies to sell the bracelets because of the
difficulty of ensuring communication of its message in those venues. J.A. 152:1-6 (McAtee testifying); see also J.A. 10. The Foundation also has refused to allow porn stars and others to promote or sell the bracelets, J.A. 10, because they would be inappropriate for our audience. J.A. 151:18-152:13 (The Foundation absolutely did not market the bracelets as sexy, and declined to associate with porn stars or other people who might have just wanted to use [the i [heart] boobies! campaign] in a different way.). In addition, the Foundation raises awareness through the slogans on the bracelets themselves, which encourage the wearer to learn about breast cancer and breast health. J.A. 159:21-160:11. The web address printed on every bracelet directs the wearer to a wealth of information about breast cancer, prevention, and detection. J.A. 159:25-160:1; see also J.A. 339; J.A. 340; J.A. 341; J.A. 146:24147:7. The bracelets are intended to start conversations among young people not only to facilitate the sharing of information about breast cancer, but to help overcome the fear and taboo associated with discussing breast health. J.A. 9; see also J.A. 9-10 n.3 (The Court finds . . . that the bracelets are intended to be . . . speech designed to raise awareness of breast cancer and reduce stigma associated with openly discussing breast health.).
Plaintiffs Purchase of the Bracelets B.H. purchased her first i boobies! bracelet before the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. J.A. 10. She initially learned about the bracelets and their purpose from her friends. J.A. 10. She then learned more about the Keep A Breast Foundation through in-store displays and the Foundations website. J.A. 92:12-25. She and her mother sought out the bracelets, making multiple attempts to find them in stores, and finally driving to the Lehigh Valley Mall to get them. J.A. 72:15-21, 73:4-17; J.A. 520-21 (B.H. Dep. at 16:24-17:2, 18:2-4).2 After purchasing the bracelets, B.H. wore them every day for two months, until her suspension at the end of October. J.A. 10. By purchasing and wearing the bracelets, B.H. hoped to raise awareness and initiate dialogue about breast cancer, support the Keep A Breast Foundations cancer prevention programs, and show her support for the cause. J.A. 10. B.H. also wanted to honor a close friend of the family who survived the disease after undergoing a double mastectomy. J.A. 10-11. K.M. first learned about the i boobies! bracelets over the summer of 2010 from B.H. J.A. 11. Before the school year started, K.M. and her mother travelled to the Lehigh Valley Mall to purchase i boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelets for K.M. J.A. 11. Then K.M. wore the bracelets every day for two
The Lehigh Valley Mall is about twenty minutes drive from Plaintiffs homes. J.A. 557 (K.M. Dep. at 15:22-16:8).
months, until her suspension at the end of October. J.A. 11. K.M.s mother also wears a Keep a Breast Foundation bracelet bearing the slogan check yur self!! (Keep A Breast). J.A. 11. After purchasing the bracelets, both B.H. and K.M. sought out and acquired more information about breast cancer. J.A. 11. B.H. learned about the Keep a Breast Foundation through in-store displays and the Foundations website. J.A. 11. K.M. learned that the youngest girl diagnosed with breast cancer was only ten years old. J.A. 11. She also learned about breast cancer risk factors, the effects of breast cancer, and how to check ones self for lumps. J.A. 11. She learned about her great aunt who had breast cancer and that breast cancer can run in the family. J.A. 11. K.M. testified that she would not have learned this information about breast cancer if she hadnt purchased the i boobies! bracelets. J.A. 141:22142:6. K.M. wanted to wear the bracelets to draw attention to the issue of breast cancer, to demonstrate her own concern about the issue, to promote education about breast cancer, and to honor the memory of her deceased great aunt, who had breast cancer. J.A. 106:9-108:9; 127:2-10. She believes that an understanding of breast cancer issues is important for people of any age. J.A. 127:10. Neither B.H. nor K.M. considers boobies to be an offensive or vulgar term. J.A. 528 (B.H. Dep. 45:13-15); J.A. 131:11-12; J.A. 561 (K.M. Dep. 31:24-
32:1); cf. J.A. 138:6-10 (K.M. testifying that there may be different synonyms for breasts that are gross and that she would not want used to refer to her breasts). B.H. and K.M. and their peers and families including a friend of B.H.s grandmother who suffered from breast cancer commonly use the term boobies to refer to their own and other womens breasts. J.A. 35; J.A. 75:21-25, 76:1977:1, 111:2-9; see also J.A. 137:14-21. Neither B.H. nor K.M. interprets the phrase i boobies! as a sexual double entendre, or believes that the bracelets could be construed to have any sexual meaning. See J.A. 90:8-10, 99:25-1000:19, 133:16-24; J.A. 528 (45:21-23), 532 (64:9-15), 535 (75:7-21) (B.H. Dep.). B.H. explained that the text on the bracelets that says KEEP A BREAST, a reference to breast cancer awareness and to the Keep A Breast Foundation, makes the breast cancer awareness context of the bracelets clear. J.A. 99:25-100:19; J.A. 528 (45:21-23), J.A. 535 (75:7-21) (B.H. Dep.). Both B.H. and K.M. believe that the i boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelets raise awareness of breast cancer more effectively than wearing the color pink as a symbol of support for breast cancer awareness. J.A. 11. B.H. testified that she thinks pink does not grab the attention of young people as much as the i boobies! bracelets, explaining that no one really notices [the color pink], and that young people do not necessarily interpret pink clothing or ribbons as symbolic support of breast cancer awareness. J.A. 11; J.A. 74:12-23 (B.H. testifying); J.A.
527 (42:4-12), J.A. 532 (63:21-64:8) (B.H. Dep.). K.M. testified that wearing pink did not draw attention to the issue of breast cancer the way that the i boobies! bracelets did because pink is just a color and does not start conversations about breast cancer or adequately give attention to the issue of breast cancer. J.A. 114:25-116:4; see also J.A. 129:10-16 (K.M. testifying that she didnt think that pink was enough of an expression); J.A. 569 (K.M. Dep. 61:20-62:2) (observing that the only school-sanctioned form of expression about breast cancer was wearing pink, and that teachers pink T-shirts did not have any kind of word [for] breast on it and that she had no idea whether anyone would understand that the Tshirt was about breast cancer).
EASDs Ban on the Bracelets The i boobies! bracelets have been popular among Easton Area middle schoolers since the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, which began on August 30, 2010. J.A. 12. B.H.s i boobies! bracelets have caused people to ask her about the purpose of the bracelets, but they have not provoked any offensive or negative comments or inappropriate jokes about boobies. J.A. 76:11-18; J.A. 527 (B.H. Dep. 44:4-7). K.M. also testified that many people asked her about the bracelets and that the bracelets drew the attention of most of the students in [her] school[.] J.A. 115:4-24. By wearing the i boobies! bracelets, B.H. has learned of more people including teachers and friends at - 11 -
school who have lost family members to breast cancer, because wearing the bracelets leads to conversation about the disease. J.A. 89:4-90:7. In the EAMS 7-8 building, teachers are responsible for identifying dress code violations and reporting them to the principals. Appellants Br. at 7. The building has three principals: Mr. Viglianti, the seventh grade assistant principal; Ms. Braxmeier, the eighth grade assistant principal; and Ms. DiVietro, the head principal of the 7-8 building. J.A. 203:9-18. In mid- to late-September, 4 or 5 of the 120 teachers in the EAMS 7-8 building spoke to Ms. Braxmeier about the i boobies! bracelets, seeking instruction on how they should be handled. J.A. 12. On or before September 23, 2010, Mr. Viglianti, Ms. Braxmeier, and Ms. DiVietro conferred and agreed that the bracelets should be prohibited. J.A. 12. At the time of their decision to ban the bracelets, neither Mr. Viglianti, Ms. Braxmeier, nor Ms. DiVietro had heard any reports of disruption or student misbehavior linked to the bracelets. J.A. 13.3 Nor had any of the principals then heard reports of inappropriate comments about boobies. J.A. 13.4
The District claims that some teachers had reported to the principals that the bracelets were causing disruption in their classrooms. Appellants Br. at 7-8. The District Court correctly found otherwise, based on overwhelming evidence. See J.A. 182:10-14; J.A. 764; J.A. 450; J.A. 228:20-229:4; J.A. 260:13-21; J.A. 494. Although Ms. DiVietro seemed to suggest at one point during the evidentiary hearing that, by September 23, she had heard one or more teachers report disruption caused by the bracelets (see J.A. 261:4-9), she testified otherwise several times, see J.A. 260:16-21; J.A. 494 (DiVietro Dep. 39:13-18); J.A. 288:25- 12 -
Enforcement of the Ban The principals did not announce the bracelet ban to the students at the time of this decision. J.A. 12. Instead, on September 23, 2010, Mr. Viglianti sent an email to the staff of the 7-8 building that stated: If students are wearing any wristbands that have the word boobie written on them please ask them to remove the band and keep it at home. They can instead wear pink on October 28th when the entire district will be wearing pink to recogniz[e] Breast Cancer Awareness Month. J.A. 12; J.A. 342. Students continued wearing the bracelets after September 23, 2010. At the request of teachers tired of constantly asking students to remove the I Love Boobie Bracelets!, the school finally announced the ban to students in the 7-8 building on the afternoon of October 27, approximately two months into the school year. See J.A. 351; J.A. 13. Toward the end of that school day, at Ms. DiVietros request, Mr. Viglianti read a prepared statement over the PA system describing the 289:18, and she ultimately conceded at the hearing that she was not aware of any actual disruption due to the bracelets at the time of the ban. J.A. 291:17-292:17.
The District describes a few incidents involving inappropriate touching or comments about boobies as having taken place during the September through November 2010 timeframe. Appellants Br. at 8. There is absolutely no evidence of any incident involving inappropriate touching being linked to the bracelets. J.A. 19. And at any rate, the principals were not aware of any of the incidents referred to by the District on September 23, 2010 when they decided to ban the bracelets. J.A. 13; see also J.A. 182:10-17 (Viglianti testifying); J.A. 450 (Braxmeier Dep. 29:14-18); J.A. 494-95 (DiVietro Dep. 39:13-44:4).
ban. See J.A. 13; J.A. 268:6-9; J.A. 756 (Viglianti Dep. 66:13-22); J.A. 345. The next day during the morning announcements on the schools TV station, a student delivered a statement written by the administration reiterating the ban. J.A. 13. The TV announcement contained the word boobies. J.A. 13. That day after school, B.H. told her mother that the i boobies! bracelets had been banned and asked permission to wear her bracelets despite the ban. J.A. 16. Her mother agreed. J.A. 16. That day, K.M. also obtained her mothers permission to wear her bracelets on the schools Breast Cancer Awareness Day in spite of the schools ban. J.A. 16. EASDs Breast Cancer Awareness Day Thursday, October 28, 2010 was Breast Cancer Awareness Day in the Easton Area School District. J.A. 16. The Easton Area Middle School encouraged faculty and students to wear pink that day to demonstrate support for breast cancer awareness. J.A. 16. The school solicited donations from teachers for the Susan G. Komen Foundations Passionately Pink for the Cure breast cancer campaign, and teachers who donated received a pin bearing the name of that campaign or a Real Rovers Wear Pink T-shirt that they could wear to school on Breast Cancer Awareness Day. See J.A. 208:12-17, 238:5-13, 268:25-269:19; J.A. 743 (Viglianti
Dep. 16:19-17:3); J.A. 523 (B.H. Dep. 27:2-28:6); J.A. 561 (K.M. Dep. 29:11-22).5 Neither the T-shirts nor the pins contained the word breast or any synonym for breast. See J.A. 412; J.A. 743 (Viglianti Dep. 15:1-11). The school did not conduct any educational programming about breast cancer that day. J.A. 126:1416, 176:18-23; J.A. 492 (DiVietro Dep. 32:2-8).6 B.H. and K.M. wore their i boobies! bracelets to school on Breast Cancer Awareness Day. J.A. 82:20-25 (B.H. testifying); J.A. 116:16-117:16 (K.M. testifying). Neither the girls nor their i boobies! bracelets disrupted any school activities that day. See J.A. 17,223:10-18, 82:20-83:7, 83:22-85:6, 85:10-21, 117:14-119:10, 189:12-190:1, 223:10-18, 224:6-8, 225:9-13. During the lunch period, a cafeteria monitor observed that B.H. and K.M. were wearing the bracelets and summoned a security guard, Mr. Border. J.A. 16. Mr. Border asked B.H. whether she was wearing a bracelet, and B.H. admitted that she was, as did K.M. and another girl, R.T. J.A. 16-17. The girls declined to
The school did not make these breast cancer awareness pins or T-shirts available to students, contrary to the Districts suggestion. Compare Appellants Br. at 6 with J.A. 245:10-20 (affirming that none of the awareness avenues that were available to the faculty were also made available to the students); J.A. 572 (K.M. Dep. 73:20-74:2).
Notwithstanding this uncontroverted evidence, the District suggests that the schools Breast Cancer Awareness Day included an educational component. See Appellants Br. at 6 (citing J.A. 336-39). The evidence relied on by the District shows only that its health class textbook contains a few sentences mentioning the existence of breast cancer, and suggesting women ask their doctors or the American Cancer Society about how to perform monthly breast self-exams. - 15 -
remove the bracelets. J.A. 16-17. Mr. Border allowed the girls to finish eating their lunches, then took them to Ms. Braxmeiers office. J.A. 17. Ms. Braxmeier spoke with each girl separately in her office. See J.A. 17-18. R.T. agreed to remove her bracelet, and was allowed to return to class without punishment. See J.A. 17. B.H. and K.M. each refused to remove her i boobies! bracelets. J.A. 18. B.H. explained to Ms. Braxmeier that the bracelet was for breast cancer and people in [her] family have been affected by breast cancer, and that it was her freedom of speech to wear the bracelet. J.A. 18. K.M. explained to Ms. Braxmeier that she wanted to wear the bracelets because it was Breast Cancer Awareness Day. J.A. 120:13-18. Ms. Braxmeier conferred with Mr. Viglianti and Ms. DiVietro, and they agreed that B.H. and K.M. would be punished with an in-school suspension for the remainder of that day and for all of the following day, and could not attend the upcoming school dance. J.A. 18. The Plaintiffs families each received a letter notifying them of the girls suspension and stating that the suspension was due to disrespect, defiance, and disruption. J.A. 301; J.A. 302. The principals have conceded, however, that Plaintiffs only offense was refusing to remove the bracelets. See J.A. 454-55 (Braxmeier Dep. 43:14-46:21); J.A. 189:12-190:1.
The Districts Justifications for the Ban The Districts justifications for the ban have changed over time. Initially, in its November 9, 2010 letter to Plaintiffs counsel, the District claimed that it banned the bracelets because some middle school students are uncomfortable with discussion of the human body; some male middle school students had made embarrassing comments to female students about their breasts; the students who defied the ban were then observed high-fiving each other in the cafeteria; and some EAMS teachers believe the bracelets trivialize the subject of breast cancer and are personally offended by the bracelets cutesy message. J.A. 15 n.5 (citing Compl. 29; Answer 29). After litigation commenced, however, the three principals offered several different reasons for their decision in September to ban the bracelets. J.A. 13. Mr. Viglianti testified that their decision was based on the term boobies, which was not appropriate. J.A. 13. He thought some middle school students were not mature enough to understand and see that [as] appropriate, and he was concerned that the use of the word boobies in the bracelets would cause students to start using the word just in communication with other students, talking with other students. J.A. 13-14. At his deposition, Mr. Viglianti testified that it would be similarly inappropriate for either the word breast or the phrases keep-abreast.org or breast cancer awareness to be displayed on clothing in the middle
school. J.A. 14; see also J.A. 748 (35:2--23),759 (81:2-4) (Viglianti Dep.); J.A. 174:18-175:7. Nine days later, during the evidentiary hearing, he changed his mind and testified that a bracelet bearing only the phrase keep-a-breast.org would be permissible. J.A. 14. Ms. Braxmeier and Ms. DiVietro agreed with Mr. Viglianti that the word boobies is vulgar and inappropriate for use in the middle school. J.A. 446 (Braxmeier Dep. 11:22-12:10); J.A. 497 (DiVietro Dep. 51:10-12); see also J.A. 489 (20:1-12), 490(25:1-4) (DiVietro Dep.). Ms. DiVietro also equivocated as to whether the words breast cancer awareness or keep-a-breast.org would be inappropriate on student clothing. At her deposition, she testified that the words keep-a-breast.org are offensive, vulgar, and not acceptable for middle schoolers because the word breast can be construed as a sexual connotation. J.A. 14; see also J.A. 490 (23:4-25), 497 (51:24-52:2) (DiVietro Dep.). At the evidentiary hearing, however, she testified that she would not deem the words breast cancer awareness or a bracelet that simply said keep-a-breast.org to be vulgar in the middle school context. J.A. 14. Ms. Braxmeier and Ms. DiVietro testified that the bracelets violate the Middle School dress code because the phrase i boobies! is an impermissible double entendre referring to a sexual attraction to breasts. See J.A. 14-15; J.A. 488 (16:5-7, 16:14-16), 489 (19:22-24) (DiVietro Dep.); J.A. 466-67 (Braxmeier
Dep. 93:15-94:2); J.A. 229:15-22 (Braxmeier testifying). They emphasized that the bracelets were particularly susceptible to interpretation as having a sexual meaning in the middle school context, given the age and relative immaturity of the students. See J.A. 238:22-239:2 (Braxmeier testifying); J.A. 260:21-261:23, 264:12-24 (DiVietro testifying); J.A. 446 (Braxmeier Dep. 10:7-14, 12:12-15). Indeed, all of the principals expressed concern that the bracelets might cause other students to make offensive remarks about breasts or inappropriately touch female students. All three principals admit, however, that inappropriate sexual statements and touching are unfortunate but common behavior by middle school boys. See J.A. 195:24-196:7, 233:9-11, 243:8-22; J.A. 496 (DiVietro Dep. 46:619). Ms. Braxmeier acknowledged that sexualizing words is common among middle school students. J.A. 457 (Braxmeier Dep. 56:4-17). Ms. DiVietro agreed. J.A. 284:9-10 ( Im not surprised. The students are middle school students. You know, it could happen before, it could happen after and it can still happen even though the ban is in effect.). Additionally, Ms. DiVietro, the ultimate decision maker regarding the ban, testified that her decision was motivated by a belief that the bracelets sent students the wrong message regarding socially acceptable and appropriate behavior and
statements.7 She added that while the school administrators dont have the right to say what [students] can or cannot wear outside of school, inside the school we have to regulate these types of things. J.A. 276:1-4. Ms. DiVietro also noted that one teacher found the bracelets offensive because they did not treat the issue of breast cancer sufficiently seriously. J.A. 272:7-14. Finally, Ms. DiVietro testified that allowing students to wear the Keep A Breast Foundations i boobies! bracelets would diminish her authority to prevent students from wearing clothing with other statements that the administrators deemed inappropriate. J.A. 15. She explained that banning the i boobies! bracelets makes a statement that we as a school district have the right to have discretionary decisions on what types of things are appropriate and inappropriate for our school children. J.A. 15. The District also argued that the bracelets had caused disruption. In late October and mid-November, 2010, well after the administrators of the EAMS 7-8 building decided to ban the bracelets, the administrators received two reports of boys making inappropriate remarks about boobies. First, during Ms. Braxmeiers October 28, 2010 conversation with R.T. about removing her i boobies! bracelets, R.T. told her that she believed some boys had acted
J.A. 275:13-24; J.A. 502 (DiVietro Dep. 70:19-22); see also J.A. 501 (DiVietro Dep. 69:5-9) (Its not appropriate terminology. Its . . . the wrong context to be wearing I heart boobie bracelets. And I heart boobie T-shirts is inappropriate[.]).
immature and made remarks to girls about their boobies. J.A. 17. On 15, 2010 (after receiving the Plaintiffs November 4 letter demanding that the school lift the ban), the school elicited a written incident report from R.T. in which she alternately described the incident as involving multiple boys and just one boy, and stated that she did not know the students name. J.A. 17-18. Second, on or about November 16, 2010, the middle school administrators received a report that two female students were discussing the i boobies! bracelets when a boy sitting with them at lunch interrupted them and made statements such as I want boobies and made suggestive gestures with two spherical fireball candies. J.A. 19. The administrators spoke with the boy, who admitted that he had said something rude, and he was suspended for a day. J.A. 19; see also J.A. 447 (Braxmeier Dep. 14:24-15:3, 16:9-17:5). Ms. Braxmeier also testified regarding two unrelated incidents in October of inappropriate touching by middle school boys of eighth grade girls. J.A. 19. There is no evidence that either incident was caused by Plaintiffs i boobies! bracelets. J.A. 19. Ms. Braxmeiers only reason for identifying these incidents in connection with the bracelets is that they occurred at the same time the bracelets were on campus. See J.A. 242:18-243:1-5; J.A. 449 (Braxmeier Dep. 25:1-11).
Procedural History On November 15, 2010, B.H. and K.M., by and through their mothers, Jennifer Hawk and Amy McDonald-Martinez, filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Easton Area School District from enforcing its ban on the i boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) bracelets. J.A. 4, 5. During a telephone conference, the court urged the school to allow Plaintiffs to attend the winter dance from which they had been barred, while reserving the right to impose comparable punishment if the Court upheld the ban as constitutional, and the District acquiesced. J.A. 6. The court thus denied Plaintiffs TRO motion without prejudice. J.A. 6. After a day-long evidentiary hearing, submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by each party and additional oral argument, on April 12, 2011, the district court granted Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. J.A. 3. The School District subsequently filed a notice of appeal, and a motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The district court denied the motion for a stay on June 21, 2011. The District has not sought a stay from this Court, thereby leaving the injunction in effect.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case illustrates why the government bears the burden of proving that restrictions on speech are justified in First Amendment cases. Until the commencement of litigation, the District was describing the Plaintiffs bracelets as inappropriate, potentially embarrassing to some and offensive to others because of their cutesy presentation. After suit commenced, the District changed its tune and argued that the Plaintiffs bracelets could be prohibited either on the ground that they caused substantial and material disruption, or as lewd and indecent speech. The bracelets, however, caused no disruption and neither Plaintiffs, their classmates, nor the school administration treated the bracelets as a sexual message until suit was filed. In light of this, the court below correctly concluded that the Districts post hoc reasons for the ban were not credible, reflecting, instead, a bare desire to exercise plenary authority over student expression: It appears to the Court that the Middle School has used lewdness and vulgarity as a post-hoc justification for its decision to ban the bracelets. Ms. Braxmeier testified that banning these bracelets makes a statement that we as a school district have the right to have discretionary decisions on what types of things are appropriate and inappropriate for our school children. J.A. 36-37 (citation omitted).
The record does not support either the contention that these bracelets caused substantial and material disruption or the assertion that they are lewd. The court properly found the Plaintiffs likely to prevail on their First Amendment claims and preliminarily enjoined the School District from enforcing its ban on the bracelets.
ARGUMENT I. THE SUPREME COURTS STUDENT SPEECH CASES ESTABLISH THE RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND BAR THE DISTRICTS NOVEL LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
Public school students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Rather, [t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. Id. at 512 (quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960)). 8 Just this term, the Supreme Court reiterated that: Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. Brown v. Entmt Merchs. Assn, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2736 (June 27, 2011) (quoting Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14 (1975)). With respect to minors, then, as with adults, the burden is on the government censor to demonstrate that there is a reason to suppress speech including the speech of school students beyond concern for the tender ears of youth. In
The Court went on to state: The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513.
order for the State . . . to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509; see also United States v. Playboy Entmt Group, 529 U.S. 803, 816-817 (2000) (When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.) (citing, inter alia, Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509); accord Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 172-73 (3d Cir. 1997) (en banc). The Supreme Court has delineated the limited circumstances that justify censorship in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506. The Supreme Courts decision in Tinker established the general rule that, to justify a ban on particular student speech, public school officials must demonstrate that the forbidden speech would materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the school. Id. at 509; J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., No. 08-4138, 2011 WL 2305973, *7-8 (3d Cir. June 13, 2011) (en banc). Since Tinker, the Court has identified three categories of speech that fall outside of this analysis and, because of their unique effect on the school environment, may be punished or prohibited without regard to whether they cause disruption: speech that is offensively lewd and indecent, Bethel School District No.
403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986); school-sponsored speech, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); and speech that advocates illegal drug use, Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). Speech falling outside of these categories is subject to Tinker's general rule: it may be regulated only if it would substantially disrupt school operations or interfere with the right of others. Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200, 214 (3d Cir. 2001) (Alito, J.). The Supreme Court has made clear that school districts do not have the power, under Fraser or otherwise, to disallow speech in public schools simply because it is deemed offensive or inappropriate. In Morse, Chief Justice Roberts explicitly rejected the school districts attempt to expand Fraser in this manner: Petitioners urge us to adopt the broader rule that Frederick's speech is proscribable because it is plainly offensive as that term is used in Fraser. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 14-15. We think this stretches Fraser too far; that case should not be read to encompass any speech that could fit under some definition of offensive. After all, much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some. Morse, 551 U.S. at 409. And Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kennedy, wrote separately to emphasize that his concurrence was conditioned on the majoritys rejection of the idea that schools may regulate speech as they see fit: The opinion of the Court does not endorse the broad argument advanced by petitioners and the United States that the First - 27 -
Amendment permits public school officials to censor any student speech that interferes with a school's educational mission. See Brief for Petitioners 21; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6. This argument can easily be manipulated in dangerous ways, and I would reject it before such abuse occurs. Morse, 551 U.S. at 423 (Alito, J., concurring); see also Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509 (school may not prohibit speech based on the mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint). As the district court found, the Easton Area School District offered quickly shifting positions on the bracelets at issue in this case at first they were inappropriate, then, after Plaintiffs counsel demanded the District lift the ban, the District said they were potentially embarrassing to some and offensive to others because of their cutesy presentation, and finally, after suit was filed, described them as disruptive, lewd and vulgar. This compels the conclusion that the school officials had no basis for the ban, beyond discomfort and unpleasantness (or perhaps their preference for another breast cancer awareness message). It appears to the Court that the Middle School has used lewdness and vulgarity as a post-hoc justification for its decision to ban the bracelets. J.A. 36. The District thus runs afoul of a fundamental principle of First Amendment law: the governments post hoc rationalizations can never justify censorship. See Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund, 2011 WL 3375651, at *5 (The Port Authority claims to have rejected the coalitions ad on the grounds that it was
political and noncommercial two types of ads that are banned under the advertising policy. The political ground can quickly be dismissed. Because the Port Authority did not mention this basis until after the lawsuit had been filed, the District Court permissibly found that it was not a real basis for rejecting the ad but was, instead, a post hoc rationalization.). 9 Allowing government officials to rely on post hoc rationalizations . . . mak[es] it difficult for courts to determine in any particular case whether the [government] is permitting favorable, and suppressing unfavorable, expression. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 758 (1988). If the Districts post hoc rationalizations are analyzed on the merits, they fare no better. The record does not support either the contention that these bracelets caused substantial and material disruption or that they were lewd.
School speech cases are no exception to this rule. In concluding in Tinker that the record contained no evidence that the school had any reason to anticipate disruption from the bracelets, the Court noted that an official school memorandum listing the reasons for the ban did not cite anticipated disruption as having motivated the ban, and that the testimony of the school officials revealed that the ban was not motivated by fear of disruption, but rather, by the belief that the schools are no place for demonstrations. 393 U.S. at 509 & n.3.
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT FAILED TO JUSTIFY ITS CENSORSHIP UNDER TINKER.
A. The District Court Understood And Followed Tinker. School officials may only proscribe speech on the basis of its anticipated disruptive effect if they establish that their expectation of substantial, material disruption is well-founded. Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Reg. Bd. of Educ., 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist., 240 F.3d 200, 214 (3d Cir. 2001)); see also Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 253 (Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.); see also J.S., 2011 WL 2305973, at *7 (quoting Saxe, 240 F.3d at 211 (Tinker requires a specific and significant fear of disruption, not just some remote apprehension of disturbance.)). Meeting this burden generally requires identifying specific historical evidence that supports the schools expectation of disruption, such as past materially disruptive incidents arising out of similar speech. Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 254-55 & n.11 (citing Saxe, 240 F.3d at 212); see also Tinker, 393 U.S. at 514 (concluding that nothing in the record could reasonably have led school authorities to forecast the kind of substantial, material disruption of school activities that is required to justify banning speech). Evidence that a student has worn a particular piece of expressive clothing several times
without incident . . . speaks strongly against a finding of likelihood of disruption . . . . Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 254. Rather than applying the fact-specific standard set forth in these cases, the School District attempts to re-write Tinker, asserting: (1) that Tinker requires a court to presume that any speech that could be interpreted as sexual innuendo will cause substantial disruption in the form of sexual harassment, no matter what the historical record;10 and (2) that Tinker applies only to restrictions on student speech that discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and that the School Districts decision was not discriminatory.11 These arguments are specious. 1. The Record Demonstrates that Plaintiffs Bracelets Caused No Disruption and that the District Lacked Any Reasonable Basis for Anticipating that the Bracelets Would Cause a Substantial, Material Disruption to School Activities. The District Court correctly found that, [a]t the time that the ban initially went into effect, September 23, 2010, none of the three principals had heard any reports of disruption or student misbehavior linked to the bracelets. Nor had any of the principals heard reports of inappropriate comments about boobies. J.A. 13. It also found that, at the time of the ban, the bracelets had been on campus for at least two weeks without incident, J.A. 39-40, which undermined any expectation of
E.g., Appellants Br. at 21, 52, 53-54. E.g., Appellants Br. at 24, 30.
disruption. Id.; see also Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 254 (evidence that banned T-shirt was worn several times without incident speaks strongly against a finding of likelihood of disruption). The Court concluded that, at the time of the ban, the School had at most a general fear of disruption. J.A. 40. The district court also correctly rejected the School Districts reliance on two incidents that occurred after the ban was enacted: one in which a student stated that she thought one or possibly more boys had made comments to girls about their boobies in connection with the bracelets, and one in which a boy interrupted two girls discussion of the bracelets with statements such as I want boobies and inappropriate gestures with two spherical candies. J.A. 40. The district court suggested that it need not consider incidents after the enactment of the ban in determining whether the ban was justified under Tinker, and held that, at any rate, neither of the incidents caused a disruption to the schools learning environment; rather, they were well within a schools ability to maintain discipline and order[.] J.A. 40-41. The School District does not challenge any of the district courts findings of fact about disruption; it challenges only the district courts refusal to credit the Districts unsupported claims of an impending wave of sexual harassment, arguing that no risk of sexual harassment is acceptable. But the nature of the feared disruption cannot, alone, determine whether a schools censorship is justified under
Tinker: the school must always establish some likelihood that the feared disruption actually will follow tolerance of the student speech at issue. A presumption of disruption reverses the constitutionally mandated burden of proof. This Courts decision in Sypniewski makes this clear. In Sypniewski, school officials took a number of actions to quell a devastating period of racial intimidation and violence, much of it perpetrated by a gang of white students who called themselves the Hicks. 307 F.3d at 246-49. During this period, the District banned a shirt that recited jokes about rednecks, fearing that the term redneck would be associated with the bigotry and violence of the Hicks. Id. at 249-51. This Court, however, held that the school officials had failed to show any evidence that the student body equated redneck with the dreaded Hicks or with racial intimidation, and that the absence of any evidence connecting the censored shirt with the feared disruption precluded a finding that the school officials had a well founded fear of future disruption that would satisfy Tinker. Id. at 254-58. Sypniewski bars the Districts inevitable sexual harassment argument. Moreover, the Districts proposed reading of Tinker would allow a school to use the lack of self-control on the part of unruly students as an excuse to ban speech by other students that could conceivably be misconstrued and cause misbehavior. The Districts reading of Tinker is incompatible with a long line of cases in which the federal courts have consistently rejected the idea, known as a
hecklers veto, that speech may be restricted because of the likelihood that a speaker will be harassed by listeners or spark other misconduct by listeners. See, e.g., United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264, 282 (3d Cir. 2010) ([T]he Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have consistently held unconstitutional regulations based on the reaction of the speakers audience to the content of expressive activity.). This principle applies equally in public schools, and prevents school administrators from banning student speech on the basis of the anticipated reaction to the speech except where the anticipated reaction would be beyond the schools ability to control.12 In other words, school officials may not
See, e.g., Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508-09 (school officials may not justify regulation of speech by their desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint); Gillman v. Sch. Bd. for Holmes Cnty., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1374 (N.D. Fla. 2008) (school could not ban stickers, armbands, t-shirts, and buttons advocating equality for sexual minorities on the basis of a forecast of substantial disruption by opponents: If a students conduct traverses the threshold of acceptable heated exchange into the realm of material and substantial disruption, the law requires school officials to punish the disruptive student, not the student whose speech is lawful.); Barber v. Dearborn Pub. Sch., 286 F. Supp. 2d 847, 849, 856-57 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (school could not ban shirt calling President Bush an International Terrorist where there is no evidence that the t-shirt created any disturbance or disruption, even though another student confronted plaintiff in angry and tense way); Boyd Cnty. High Sch. Gay Straight Alliance v. Bd. of Educ., 258 F. Supp. 2d 667, 690 (E.D. Ky. 2003) (There was no proof elicited during the hearing that, if the GSA Club were provided equal access, Defendants ability to discipline any student who is disruptive would be diminished in any way. Tinker and Terminiello are designed to prevent Defendants from punishing students who express unpopular views instead of punishing the students who react to those views in a disruptive manner.).
sacrifice freedom upon the [altar] of order, and allow the scope of our liberty to be dictated by the inclinations of the unlawful mob. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1276 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that Even if [a teacher] were correct in fearing that other students may react inappropriately or illegally, such reactions do not justify suppression of [students] expression). Contrary to the School Districts assertion, the Tinker Court in no way suggested that a school could ban speech that might incite other students to interfere with their classmates rights: rather, the Court merely distinguished the Tinkers silent, passive demonstration from more obtrusive forms of speech such as group demonstrations or other expressive conduct that, by its nature, might impinge on the rights of other students. See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508 (The . . . present case . . . does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations . . . . The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners interference, actual or nascent, with the schools work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.) (emphasis added).13
See also id. at 505 ([T]he wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it.) (emphasis added); id. at 513 (These petitioners . . . neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others.) (emphasis added). - 35 -
The special circumstances of the school environment do not justify disciplining young women who seek to engage their peers on important health issues in order to prevent misbehavior by immature classmates who might hear them. Under Tinker, the schools responsibility is to discipline misbehavior, not to silence student speech.
2. Tinker Is Not Limited to Viewpoint-Discriminatory Restrictions on Speech, but the School Districts Rules Regarding Breast Cancer Awareness Speech Do Constitute Viewpoint Discrimination. The District also argues that the Tinker standard applies only when a school seeks to silence a particular viewpoint, apparently suggesting that in the absence of viewpoint discrimination there are no limits on a schools authority to censor student speech that falls outside of the exceptions outlined in Fraser, Kuhlmeier, and Morse. Tinker and the other cases cited by the District reflect a special concern about viewpoint discrimination because [v]iewpoint discrimination is anathema to free expression. Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund, 2011 WL 3375651, at *5. But there is no support, in any case cited by the District, for the proposition that in the absence of such discrimination there is no protection for student speech. Even on the erroneous premise that Tinker only prohibits viewpoint discrimination, there is ample evidence in the record that the District did engage
in viewpoint discrimination. The District explicitly endorsed wearing pink as the only acceptable way for students and faculty to express their support for breast cancer awareness: the color pink is the way to show support for the . . . cause. J.A. 744 (Viglianti Dep. 20:20-21).14 The District also made available to teachers merchandise bearing various Susan G. Komen Foundation breast cancer awareness slogans that do not contain any references to breasts.15 In contrast, both before and after the commencement of this litigation, District officials and their counsel criticized the Keep a Breast Foundation as being commercialized16 and maligned the Keep a Breast Foundations body-affirming i boobies! (KEEP A
See also J.A. 492 (31:14-15, 32:13-18), 493 (34:8-35:3); J.A. 464 (83:15-84:1, 85:11-21), 465 (86:7-20); J.A. 744 (20:24-21:6), 752 (50:2-7); J.A. 12; J.A. 342 (Defs. Ex. 1).
See J.A. 208:12-17, 238:5-13, 268:25-269:19; J.A. 743 (Viglianti Dep. 16:1917:3); J.A. 523 (B.H. Dep. 27:2-28:6); J.A. 561 (K.M. Dep. 29:11-22).
J.A. 68:18-20 (Evidence . . . will show that these bracelets did not only have a charitable or eleemosynary message . . . but also that there is a[n] underlying commercial purpose.); Defs Mem. Supp. Proposed Conclusions of Law, Dkt. No. 34-1, at 13 (In addition to the public interest message, the I Boobies bracelets undeniably serve as a platform for commercial advertising.); Def.s Proposed Findings of Fact, Dkt. No. 34, 75-76 ([The Foundation] does a lot of cobranding . . . .); Defs Mem. Supp. Proposed Conclusions of Law, Dkt. No. 34-1, at 11 (The Keep-A-Breast Foundation uses its revenue mostly for its own awareness events and none of its revenue goes to the American Cancer Society or the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.).
BREAST) breast cancer awareness campaign as inappropriate,17 distasteful,18 trivializing,19 uncivil,20 and as touting sexy breast cancer.21 It is of no moment that the District did not enact a ban on all breast cancer awareness messages. As this Court very recently explained, viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, suppressing certain speech on a topic because the underlying ideology or perspective that the speech expresses is disfavored or unpopular. Pittsburgh League of Young Voters Educ. Fund, 2011
N.T. 225:13-24; DiVietro Dep. 70:19-22 (its an inappropriate statement to wear at that age level); J.A. 501 (at 69:5-6) (Its not appropriate terminology.).
Defs Mem. Supp. Proposed Conclusions of Law, Dkt. No. 34-1, at 2 & n.1 (describing bracelets as vulgar, meaning characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste) (citation omitted); see also J.A. 66:2-4 ([Plaintiffs] were counseled and encouraged to find other means of better expression to support their support for this cause.) (emphasis added).
J.A. 15 n.5 (citing Compl. 29; Answer 29); N.T. 214:3-9
Def.s Mem. Opp. Mot. for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. No. 9-1, at 18-19 (public interest favors empowering the District to prohibit students from expressing their viewpoints in a vulgar, uncivil manner, particularly because there are numerous [other] ways to express support for breast cancer awareness . . . . and permitting the District to teach students civil and mature conduct); Tr., Oral Arg., Dkt. No. 37, 13:6 (referring to uncivil nature of the bracelets); Def.s Proposed Conclusions of Law, Dkt. No. 34, 7 (The public interest is in teaching students civility and mindfulness about the sensibilities of others.). 21 E.g., Appellants Br. 47 (citing J.A. 327); Def.s Mem. Supp. Mot. to Stay, Dkt. No. 43-1, at 5. Notably, the record is devoid of any evidence that the plaintiffs understood the bracelets as having any sexual connotation or presented them in a sexual manner.
WL 3375651, at *5 (citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995); Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 82 (1st Cir. 2004)). Not all breast cancer awareness campaigns embody the same perspective on breast cancer. While Susan G. Komens Real Rovers campaign employs a slogan that focuses on survivors of breast cancer and its Pink for the Cure slogan focuses on cancer treatment, the Keep a Breast Foundations i boobies! (KEEP A BREAST) slogan focuses on fostering positive associations with breasts and breast cancer awareness among young people. REAL ROVERS WEAR PINK TO SUPPORT THE FIGHTERS, ADMIRE THE SURVIVORS, HONOR THE TAKEN, AND NEVER GIVE UP HOPE does not communicate the same perspective as i boobies! (KEEP A BREAST). The record reflects the School Districts clear preference for the former type of breast cancer awareness, and distaste for the latter. What the record does not reflect is any evidence that the Plaintiffs bracelets caused any disruption or were likely to. The District cannot justify its censorship under Tinker.
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICTS CENSORSHIP OF THE BRACELETS WAS UNREASONABLE UNDER FRASER.
The District argues that its administrators perception of sexual innuendo should have been found reasonable regardless of context that the proper question is not whether Plaintiffs use of the word boobies or the phrase i boobies! in the Easton Area Middle School was reasonably understood as being sexual, but whether the word and phrase could be used sexually in any context for example, in Playboy Magazine, or on clothing sold by retailers such as www.foulmouthshirts.com and www.sikworld.com. Appellants Br. at 20-21, 38, 46, 48. The District asserts that School principals are not required to interpret words out of context according to their dictionary definitions. In the context of I Boobies!, a reasonable interpretation is the slang term for a female breast. . . . Under the Fraser standard of deferential reasonableness, the inquiry should go no further. Appellants Br. at 37 n.13 (citations omitted). The court below erred, says the District, when it did not defer to the reasonable sensibilities of a school principal. Appellants Br. at 34. The Districts argument boils down to the proposition that Fraser allows it to censor any statement that can be taken out of context and misinterpreted as lewd whether or not it is understood that way. Such a rule would be contrary to both
common sense22 and the First Amendment, as is clear from the Supreme Courts analysis in Morse and the approach that this Court took in Sypniewski.
A. The District Court Properly Held That Plaintiffs Speech Must Be Interpreted In Context, Not In The Abstract, To Determine Whether It Is Lewd or Vulgar, And That Determination Is a Question of Law For The Court. Fraser announced the principle that the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinkers armband, but not Cohen's jacket. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682-83 (quoting Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., Granville Cen. Sch. Dist., 607 F.2d 1043, 1057 (2d Cir. 1979)). In Fraser, the Supreme Court upheld discipline against a student who, at a mandatory school assembly, delivered a speech that was heavily and deliberately laden with elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 678. The speech at issue in Fraser was not merely sexual and not age-appropriate for the entire audience it was obscene, id. at 679, vulgar, id. at 684, offensively lewd and indecent, id. at 685, and plainly offensive to both teachers and students indeed to any mature
Under such a rule the District could punish a student for reading aloud the Districts argument that the ruling below promotes . . . impotence for principals . . . . Appellants Br. at 39. Although the District of course did not intend for impotence to have a sexual meaning, this excerpt might elicit giggles from some EAMS students, who admittedly are prone to sexualizing words. Certainly, whether the student may be disciplined for reading from the Districts brief should depend on whether circumstances suggest that impotence is being used and understood as a sexual reference in that context.
person. Id. at 683. According to Fraser, then, there is no First Amendment protection for lewd, vulgar, indecent, and plainly offensive speech in school. Fraser permits a school to prohibit words that offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends a dichotomy neatly illustrated by the comparison between Cohens jacket and Tinkers armband. Saxe, 240 F.3d at 213 (Alito, J.); cf. Morse, 551 U.S. at 422-23 (Alito, J. concurring) ([Fraser] permits the regulation of speech that is delivered in a lewd or vulgar manner as part of a middle school program.). The Fraser Court did not discuss whether it was reasonable for the Bethel High School principal to have understood Matthew Frasers speech as a sexual metaphor the lewdness of that speech was beyond question, and was admitted and, indeed, intended by the student. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 681, 684. And the speech in Fraser had precisely the impact on the audience that one would expect from the presentation of a graphic sexual metaphor in a school: During Frasers delivery of the speech [s]ome students hooted and yelled; some by gestures graphically simulated the sexual activities pointedly alluded to in respondents speech. Other students appeared to be bewildered and embarrassed by the speech. One teacher reported that on the day following the speech, she found it necessary to forgo a portion of the scheduled class lesson in order to discuss the speech with the class. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 678. Because the speech was clearly lewd and vulgar, the Court in Fraser did not discuss how to evaluate speech that could be lewd in some
contexts, but not in others. For that, the district court properly turned to the Supreme Courts most recent student speech case, Morse v. Frederick.
1. The District Court Properly Held That Applying Fraser To Speech With Multiple Possible Meanings Requires That The Speech Be Viewed In Context. To the extent that Fraser reaches beyond speech that is patently, unambiguously lewd and vulgar and offends for the same reason that obscenity offends, few lower court cases since Fraser have offered any guidance as to how to distinguish between speech that is proscribable under Fraser and that which is not. But in Morse v. Frederick the Court makes clear that a schools interpretation of student speech must be reasonable in the context in which the speech was uttered. As in Fraser, the Morse Court carved out a narrow and specific category of speech that can be censored without evidence of a disruptive effect, because the nature of the speech is inimical to the special characteristics of the school environment. Morse, 551 U.S. at 406-08 (pro-drug speech poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care from the dangers of drug abuse). Unlike in Fraser, however, the Morse Court had before it an ambiguous statement: BONG HiTS 4 JESUS[.] Id. at 401 (The message on Fredericks banner is cryptic.). Principal Morse read the banner as promoting or celebrating illegal drug use, while Joe Frederick claimed it was - 43 -
simply gibberish intended to catch the attention of television crews. Id. at 401-02. The Court did not simply defer to the principals reading of the banner, but weighed the plausibility of the competing interpretations: [S]he thought that the reference to a bong hit would be widely understood by high school students and others as referring to smoking marijuana. App. 24. She further believed that display of the banner would be construed by students, District personnel, parents and others witnessing the display of the banner, as advocating or promoting illegal drug use . . . . *** At least two interpretations of the words on the banner demonstrate that the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs. First, the phrase could be interpreted as an imperative: [Take] bong hits ...-a message equivalent, as Morse explained in her declaration, to smoke marijuana or use an illegal drug. Alternatively, the phrase could be viewed as celebrating drug use-bong hits [are a good thing], or [we take] bong hits. . . . *** The pro-drug interpretation of the banner gains further plausibility given the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. The best Frederick can come up with is that the banner is meaningless and funny. 439 F.3d, at 1116. The dissent similarly refers to the signs message as curious, post, at 2643, ambiguous, ibid., nonsense, post, at 2644, ridiculous, post, at 2646, obscure, post, at 2646, silly, post, at 2649, quixotic, post, at 2649, and stupid, ibid. Gibberish is surely a possible interpretation of the words on the banner, but it is not the only one, and dismissing the banner as meaningless ignores its undeniable reference to illegal drugs. *** [N]ot even Frederick argues that the banner conveys any sort of - 44 -
political or religious message. Morse, 551 U.S. at 401-03. Faced with a choice between the principals cogent interpretation of the banner and Fredericks unadorned assertion that it meant nothing at all, the Court held that the principals interpretation was a reasonable one under the circumstances, and therefore justified Fredericks suspension under the drug promotion exception to Tinker announced by the Courts decision. Id. The lesson of Morse is that where the speech at issue is capable of multiple meanings, courts should not simply defer to any position articulated by the school. Instead, courts should consider the context of the speech and the evidence supporting the different interpretations, including how the speech is understood by the school community and whether it can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue. Morse, 551 U.S. at 422 (Alito, J., concurring) (I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that (a) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues.). This does not mean that the schools interpretation must be the only reasonable interpretation of the speech, but that it must be reasonable in the context in which the speech occurs. If the weight of the evidence cuts against the schools interpretation of the speech, that
interpretation is not reasonable within the meaning of Morse. 23 This is the same approach applied by this Court albeit under a Tinker, not a Fraser, analysis in Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Board of Education, 307 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2002). In Sypniewski, this Court rejected the argument of Warren Hills that because redneck is sometimes synonymous with hick, a tshirt reciting redneck jokes should be treated as a reference to the white racist gang called the Hicks that had terrorized the Warren Hills schools. Sypniewski, 307 F.3d at 256-57. Instead of crediting Warren Hills narrow focus on dictionary definitions, cf., Appellants Br. at 37 n.13, this Court held that the proper analysis had to deal with the realities of the school environment, and that there was no evidence that, in that context, the word redneck was associated with the schools history of racial violence. Id. at 257. In this case, the Districts only justification for employing an entirely different approach to analyzing student speech under Fraser than is employed under Morse or Tinker is the Fraser Courts statement that [t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate
See also Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1216 (2011) (Deciding whether speech is of public or private concern requires us to examine the content, form, and context of that speech, as revealed by the whole record.. . . In considering content, form, and context, no factor is dispositive, and it is necessary to evaluate all the circumstances of the speech, including what was said, where it was said, and how it was said.) (citations omitted).
properly rests with the school board. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 684. But that cannot be read as a delegation to schools of authority to interpret the First Amendment. 2. Courts Do Not Defer To A School Officials Decision Whether Speech Is Protected. The District argues and cites some cases that suggest that school officials have the final say over whether student speech is lewd and profane and therefore outside First Amendment protection.24 See J.A. 276:1-4 (explaining that while the school administrators dont have the right to say what [students] can or cannot wear outside of school, inside the school we have to regulate these types of things). The Districts use of these cases is inconsistent with the discussions above from Morse and Sypniewski. But, more fundamentally, the District misstates the principle of deference to school administrators. As this Court recently reiterated. the question whether speech is proscribable under Fraser is a question of First Amendment law: In Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200, 213 (3d Cir. 2001), we interpreted Fraser as establishing that there is no First Amendment protection for []lewd, vulgar, See, e.g., Appellants Br. at 27 (quoting Mercer v. Harr, No. H-0403454, 2005 WL 1828581 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2005); id. at 31 (citing Poling v. Murphy, 872 F.2d 757, 762 (6th Cir. 1989); Quarterman v. Byrd, 453 F.2d 54, 56-57 (4th Cir. 1971); id. at 32-33 (citing Pyle v. South Hadely Sch. Committee, 861 F. Supp. 157 (D. Mass. 1994); Broussard ex rel. Lord v. Sch. Bd. of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992).
indecent, and plainly offensive speech in school. Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist., No. 074465, 2011 WL 2305970, at *5 n.12 (3d Cir. Feb. 4, 2011). And the Supreme Court has explained that the deference due school officials at any level of schooling relates to school policy and operations, not to the determination of rights under the First Amendment: Our inquiry is shaped by the educational context in which it arises: First Amendment rights, we have observed, must be analyzed in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Widmar, 454 U.S., at 268, n.5 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court is the final arbiter of the question whether a public university has exceeded constitutional constraints, and we owe no deference to universities when we consider that question. Cf. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827 (1974) (Courts cannot, of course, abdicate their constitutional responsibility to delineate and protect fundamental liberties.). 25 *** FN16. The dissent mischaracterizes the nature of the respect we accord to Hastings. See post, at 3000, 3008, 3014 - 3015. As noted supra, at ---- ----, this Court, exercising its independent judgment, must interpre[t] and appl[y] ... the right to free speech. Post, at 3008. But determinations of what constitutes sound educational policy or what goals a student-organization forum ought to serve fall within the discretion of school administrators and educators. See, e.g., Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982).
The Court went on to cite secondary school cases, including Kuhlmeier and Tinker. See Christian Legal Soc., 130 S. Ct. at 2988-89.
Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of Calif., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2988, 2989 n.16 (2010) (parallel citations omitted) (emphasis added). School administrators, even the most careful and honest, are not infallible, and have no special expertise in interpreting the law. It is the courts that make legal decisions, and they owe no deference to the administrators views in that regard.
B. The District Court Correctly Found That The Plaintiffs Bracelets Were Not And Could Not Reasonably Be Considered Lewd In This Context. The i boobies! bracelets are not the equivalent of Cohens jacket. They are also, as the district court found, not reasonably seen as the equivalent of Matthew Frasers assembly speech. They are not the sort of speech that can be censored under Fraser. The district court properly asked whether, in the context of the Plaintiffs presentation and the realities of the Easton Area Middle School, the Districts interpretation of the bracelets is a reasonable one, and properly held that it is not.26
The District concedes that the district court properly articulated this standard, but asserts that the court inverted the analysis. Appellants Br. at 37. In fact, the district court followed carefully the proper analysis. See J.A. 34 (the phrase I Boobies! in the context of these bracelets cannot reasonably be deemed to be vulgar); id. at 38 (For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that it would have been unreasonable for these school officials to conclude that these breast cancer awareness bracelets are lewd or vulgar under the Fraser standard. Even in a - 49 -
1. The District Court properly found that neither the word boobies nor the phrase i boobies! is like Cohens jacket inherently lewd or profane. Plaintiffs bracelets are not patently sexual speech: words that offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends. Saxe, 240 F.3d at 213. Plaintiffs bracelets undeniably express a message of positive body image and support for breast cancer awareness. J.A. 9 & n.3; J.A. 148:9-15; J.A. 149:16-20. They seek to save lives. But they also, says the District, refer to a sexual part of womens bodies (the word boobies) and express sexual attraction to womens breasts (the phrase i boobies!). 27 The district court flatly rejected the School Districts position that all references to womens breasts are inherently sexual, and so should this Court. There is nothing sexual, much less lewd or patently offensive, about talking about breasts and breast health, even in a middle school context. See, e.g., J.A. 336-39 (EAMS health curriculum). Nor is the word boobie an informal term for breast inherently sexual. As the district court found, it is a common
middle school, these bracelets do not offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends.) (citation omitted).
E.g., Appellants Br. 20; Def.s Mem. Law Supp. Mot. to Stay at 11; id. at 12 n.10. The District apparently doesnt read anything into KEEP A BREAST.
informality used by adults and children alike. J.A. 35, 75:21-25, 76:29-77:1, 111:2-9; see also J.A. 128:14-21. This analysis highlights why the Fraser standard cannot be rewritten to permit censorship of any speech that offends the sensibilities of a school principal. Appellants Br. at 19, 34. In this case, deference to the reasonable sensibilities of a school principal could well have resulted in a ban of the word breast at EAMS. See J.A. 14; J.A. 748 (35:2-23), 759 (81:2-4) (Viglianti Dep.); J.A. 490 (23:4-25), 497 (DiVietro Dep. 51:2452:2); J.A. 174:18-175:7; Appellants Br. at 37 n. 13 (In the context of I Boobies!, a reasonable interpretation is the slang term for a female breast. Under the Fraser standard of deferential reasonableness, the inquiry should go no further.).28 The Districts position that Plaintiffs lifeaffirming and potentially life-saving speech is lewd because it discusses the female anatomy is manifestly unreasonable (and offensive).
The Districts argument that Fraser should be interpreted in light of community standards, and that those standards are what the elected school board members say they are, is similarly misguided. Fraser does not incorporate Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). And if it did, the District would need to show much more than a reasonable interpretation and would have to explain why the community standards are not reflected by the fact that scores of EAMS parents allowed their children to wear these bracelets to middle school, and presumably took their children to buy them since nearest place to buy them was 20 minutes away by car, see J.A. 557 (K.M. Dep. at 15:22-16:8), and middle school students do not drive.
2. The District Court properly found that neither boobies nor i boobies! could, in the context of the bracelets worn by Plaintiffs at EAMS, reasonably be considered the equivalent of Matthew Frasers assembly speech. The District argues that Plaintiffs bracelets should be judged according to the dictionary and adult contexts outside the school and, as in the Wizard of Oz, that the Court should pay no attention to the actions of the people who actually pulled the levers its own school principals. But the district court properly held that the question is not whether one can find any lewd reference to boobies in this world, or whether the phrase I love boobies can ever be used lewdly, but whether the use of boobies or i boobies! in this context could reasonably be viewed as lewd. J.A. 34 (If the phrase I Boobies! appeared in isolation and not within the context of a legitimate, national breast cancer awareness campaign, the School District would have a much stronger argument that the bracelets fall within Fraser. ).29 The court below exhaustively reviewed the context surrounding the wearing of the bracelets at EAMS and found nothing to suggest that they communicated anything lewd in that context. There was no evidence that the Plaintiffs presented
The Districts argument that the district court held that schools can only prohibit unspeakable profanity under Fraser misreads the district courts opinion. The holding below was not that the innuendo in i boobies! is not profane enough to sanction, but that the innuendo cannot reasonably be read into Plaintiffs presentation of the speech.
the bracelets in a sexual manner,30 and the testimony was that their peers with two exceptions did not understand or react to the bracelets as lewd or sexy. And the evidence supports the district courts conclusion that even the EAMS administrators did not consider the bracelets lewd at least, not until suit was filed. The principals banned the bracelets in late September, but did not tell the students that they were prohibited. And when they did announce a ban to the students in late October, it was inspired, apparently, by the teachers frustration with having to enforce a rule that the students didnt know, rather than any new concerns with the bracelets. Finally, the official school announcement of the ban included the word boobies and, until the commencement of litigation, the District was describing the bracelets as inappropriate, potentially embarrassing to some and offensive to others because of their cutesy presentation. In light of all of this, the court below correctly concluded that the Districts post hoc reliance upon Fraser was not credible.31
The District complains that any consideration of the Plaintiffs intent in wearing the bracelets improperly creates a subjective analysis under Fraser. But it is not subjective to ask how the girls presented the bracelets to their peers, and whether they did anything to convey a sexual meaning. The words used in Fraser were not sexual until they were presented in that fashion.
This finding eliminates any ground for deference. When courts extend a margin of deference to school administrators on the ground for reasonable conclusions, that is based in part on a desire to respect the expertise of administrators. Christian Legal Soc., 130 S. Ct. at 2976. Where the administrators - 53 -
The District itself best explains why these facts are important. In contending that it was factually erroneous for the district court to compare the reactions of the EASD administrators to the reactions of the Bethel School District, the District argues that Frasers speech and the bracelets are very different speech, and that the EASD administrators reacted appropriately by treating the bracelets as a mere dress code violation. Appellants Br. at 51. If even the District concedes that the bracelets were not the equivalent of Frasers speech, then its argument is truly no more than that it should be able to make[] a statement that we as a school district have the right to have discretionary decisions on what types of things are appropriate and inappropriate for our school children. J.A. 15.
THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT PLAINTIFFS ESTABLISHED IRREPARABLE HARM AND THAT THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS THE ISSUANCE OF THE INJUNCTION.
The district court properly applied the legal presumption of irreparable harm upon finding a First Amendment violation: The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); see also American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2000) (generally, in First did not actually reach the conclusion, no amount of deference is appropriate to their post hoc effort to cloak their actions in reason
Amendment challenges, Plaintiffs who meet the merits prong of the test for a preliminary injunction will almost certainly meet the second, since irreparable injury normally arises out of the deprivation of speech rights.). And the courts have long recognized that the publics interest favors the protection of constitutional rights in the absence of legitimate countervailing concerns. Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 884 (3d Cir. 1997) The District argues that because the Plaintiffs could express their support for breast cancer awareness in other ways, the bracelet ban did not infringe upon their rights. There are undoubtedly many different ways to communicate a concern for breast cancer awareness. However, these many means of communicating a similar message are not fungible. As discussed above, the Keep a Breast bracelets worn by Plaintiffs embody a different perspective from the breast cancer slogans preferred by the School District. The District Court found that the particular means chosen by Plaintiffs and the Keep a Breast Foundation to express their message of cancer awareness was not gratuitous. J.A. 34. Rather, the words on the bracelets were chosen to enhance the effectiveness of the communication to the target audience. Id.; see also id. at 8-10 (findings of fact regarding the goals of the Keep a Breast Foundation and its i [heart] boobies! campaign). The District Court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction preventing the School District from punishing them for their
chosen means of protected expression. The First Amendment protects [Plaintiffs] right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for doing so. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 424 (1988). In this case, there are no countervailing concerns to tip the balance of harms in the Districts favor. The District asserts that it cannot, while the preliminary injunction remains in effect, meet its statutory obligation to maintain order in the schools, Appellants Br. at 59-60, but the District neither explains nor supports this remarkable assertion. The district court did not prohibit the District from enforcing its ban on lewd and vulgar language and apparel or changing its dress code, but held that it was unconstitutional for the District to ban the Plaintiffs bracelets under such rules. Indeed, the district court went out of its way to explain that its ruling in no way compromised Defendants ability to discipline students for truly vulgar or lewd speech: The School has expressed concern that if the ban is lifted, then students will try to test the permissible boundaries with other clothing. Nothing in this decision prevents a school from making a case by case determination that some speech is lewd and vulgar while other speech is not. It should be clear, however, that a school must consider the contours of the First Amendment before it decides to censor student speech. J.A. 42. In the absence of any threat of harm to the District or the public, the equities clearly support the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. - 56 -
CONCLUSION The Districts arguments boil down to an assertion that a court should never draw different conclusions than school administrators. But the First Amendment does not provide such deference to a government censor. The district courts order should be affirmed. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mary Catherine Roper Mary Catherine Roper AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 40008 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1513 ext. 116 Witold J. Walczak AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Telephone: (412) 681-7736 Molly Tack-Hooper BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-5814 MTack-Hooper@bm.net SETH F. KREIMER 3400 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 Tel: (215) 898-7447 Fax: (215) 573-2025 skreimer@law.upenn.edu Dated: August 26, 2011.
CERTIFICATES Mary Catherine Roper, one of the attorneys for Appellees, hereby certifies that: 1. I caused two true and correct copies of the foregoing Brief of Appellees to be served upon the following counsel of record this 26th day of August 2011, by First Class Mail to: John E. Freund, III, and Keely Espinar, One West Broad Street, Suite 700, Bethlehem, PA 180182. 2. The Brief of Appellees was filed with the Court by hand
delivery on August 26, 2011, in accordance with Rule 25(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3. 4. I am admitted to the bar of the Third Circuit. This Brief complies with the type/volume limitation
contained in Rule 32(a)(7)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the limitations governing second-step briefs. The brief contains 13,645 words, excluding the Cover Page, Table of Contents, Table of Authorities, and the Certifications. 5. The printed Brief of Appellees filed with the Court is
identical to the text in the electronic version of the Brief filed with the Court. 6. The electronic version of the Brief of Appellants filed
with the Court was virus checked using AVG Security Business Edition 2011, version 10.0.132 on August 26, 2011, and was found to have no viruses. /s/ Mary Catherine Roper Mary Catherine Roper
Standard Of Review
First Amendment To The United States Constitution
Documents Similar To BH Appellees Brief FINAL
pauloverhauser
CopBlock
Stephen L
Mark Reinhardt
Steve Warmbir
washlawdaily
scion.scion
Ulpiano Varela Cartagena v. United States of America, Ramon Lopez Rosa v. United States, 397 F.2d 278, 1st Cir. (1968)
McDonnel v. First Unum Life Insurance (S.D.N.Y.)
jsherkow
United States v. Jordan, 10th Cir. (2014)
Christine A. Fuller v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Benefits Appeal Committee, 423 F.3d 104, 2d Cir. (2005)
Department of Labor: Jensen
Veterans and Reservists for Peace in Vietnam v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, Region II and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, 459 F.2d 676, 3rd Cir. (1972)
12-1159 Petition for Rehearing en Banc
BC SubpoenaNews
United States v. Michael Fykes, Also Known as Bam, 19 F.3d 34, 10th Cir. (1994)
Judith P. Masella v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., 936 F.2d 98, 2d Cir. (1991)
United States v. John Fritz, 3rd Cir. (2016)
An Introduction to Rainwater Harvesting
Abhinandan Patil
Report - October 2009
fraudblawg
Misunderstanding Gold Demand
rblumen
2 People v Cayat Digest
Hershey Gabi
Unit - 1
Harsha Pania
Urethane Trading Specialist Inc vs. Edwin Ong & Leticia Ong
Kay Aviles
Amitabha-Sadhana[1]
David Moerler
281529833 Sample Psychiatric Case Study
Dar Lynn
Cabotaje vs. Pudunan v
Abraham Basilio
Dialnet-ThinkingThroughTheDecolonialTurnPostcontinentalInt-3979025 (1).pdf
Diego Morollón Del Río
Master Investor Magazine - Fund Manager in Focus
amvona
ADIDAS PP
mea_thermopolis
Ecological Planning - Ndubisi
Maja Gostrec
_The beauty of compromise_ Revisiting some of the more intractable conflicts in Southasia begs the question_ Could conciliatio.pdf
Mukesh Rawat
Oc Lolicon vs. Nha CD
bam112190
Voluntary Statement Roel Bermea
KRGV
Your Status SL Nov 2013
Vigneshwar Raju Prathikantam
Lecture Aid in Obligations
Airah Cruz
Taiwan Insurance market driven by Bancassurance: Ken research
KenResearch
MNC's From Emerging Economies
Ritesh Kumar Singh
Lewis, Randolph. Prankster Ethics
richardjcam
55 Interesting Facts About Ads
Sajini Jacob
AMBUS Repair Form
odoylrulz
Jacques Lacan Biography
CarpathianS0
Eugene Waterfront Project
Sinclair Broadcast Group - Eugene
UT Dallas Syllabus for eco4381.501 05f taught by Susan Dadres (sld035000)
UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group


This entry was posted on October 29, 2016 at 4:30 am	and is filed under science fiction. Tagged: book reviews, books, military sci fi, reviews, sci fi, science fiction. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.