No, the school did not get in trouble for suspending the student. The court decided that even though the student made the page at home, it was so connected to the school that the school had the right to step in. Because the online bullying targeted a classmate and caused a real disruption (like the student being too upset to be in class), the school's duty to keep order and protect students allowed them to punish Kowalski. Her right to free speech doesn't protect targeted bullying that messes up the school day for others.

Yes, the school can punish Kara. Even though she made the webpage at home, it caused a lot of trouble at school. I agree with the lower court. The school has rules that let it stop students from saying things that can disrupt school or hurt other students. This is important to make sure all students can learn without being bothered or bullied. Kara's webpage was clearly about school and other students, so it's closely connected to school. It made another student so upset she didn't want to come to school, which is a big problem. The school told Kara about their rules before, and they gave her a chance to explain herself before punishing her. The school didn't do anything wrong when they suspended Kara.

No, the public school's disciplinary action does not violate the student's First Amendment rights because the off-campus speech had a sufficient nexus to the school and caused a material and substantial disruption. The court applied the standard from Tinker v. Des Moines, reasoning that schools may discipline students for conduct that 'materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.' Kowalski's speech, though originating off-campus, was targeted at a specific student, invited other students to participate, and foreseeably reached the school environment, where it interfered with the school's work and collided with Shay N.'s right to be secure and to be let alone.

Yes, the school's actions were justified because the speech, though originating off-campus, created a foreseeable and substantial disruption within the school environment. I affirm the district court's decision. The nexus of Kowalski's speech to Musselman High School's pedagogical interests was sufficiently strong to justify the action taken by school officials in carrying out their role as trustees of the student body's well-being. We are confident that Kowalski's speech caused the interference and disruption described in Tinker as being immune from First Amendment protection. The 'S.A.S.H.' webpage functioned as a platform for Kowalski and her friends to direct verbal attacks towards classmate Shay N., causing her to miss school and creating a risk of further harassment. While there is a limit to the scope of a high school's interest in regulating off-campus speech, in this case, the connection to the school environment was strong enough to warrant disciplinary action. The school's Harassment, Bullying and Intimidation Policy, along with the Student Code of Conduct, adequately put Kowalski on notice that such behavior could be punished. Furthermore, Kowalski was afforded due process through notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond. The school's actions did not violate Kowalski's constitutional rights, and her claim for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress lacks merit.

Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot