English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In  Mahanoy Area School District  v.  B.L . (2021), the Supreme Court held a public school could not discipline a student for posting offensive snaps about her cheer team on social media. In an 8-to-1 decision siding with the student, the Justices reaffirmed  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District  (1969), a landmark decision by the Warren Court that extended speech rights to public school students. The majority in  Mahanoy  was, however, unwilling to “set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as ‘off-campus’ speech and whether First Amendment standards must give way off-campus to the school’s desire to prevent … disruption of learning-related activities.” Instead, Justice Breyer offered a narrow opinion confined to the facts of the case that provides little practical guidance to students, school officials, and lower courts dealing with thorny issues related to off-campus speech. Further compounding matters, the “three features of off-campus speech” identified in his majority opinion will likely lead to more restrictions governing what students may say on their own time and using their own equipment.

Tending the nurseries of democracy: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L . and the future of student speech rights