来源：《洛杉矶时报》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月24日
文章结构
第一段，提出论点：当最高法院不做一刀切判决时，它对宪法权利的保护最为有效。
2到6段：以Mahanoy Area School District vs. B.L.案为例进行论证。
第七段：结论。
Sometimes the Supreme Court protects constitutional rights best when it doesn’t establish what lawyers call a bright-line rule applicable to every possible future situation. That was the case Wednesday when the court ruled in favor of a high school cheerleader who had been disciplined for a vulgar outburst on social media.
有时候，当最高法院没有制定律师所称的适用于未来所有可能情况的明线规则时，它对宪法权利的保护最为有效。周三，最高法院做出了支持一名高中拉拉队队员的判决，这名队员因在社交媒体上爆粗口而受到所在学校处罚。
In Mahanoy Area School District vs. B.L., the justices ruled 8-1 that a Pennsylvania school district violated the free-speech rights of Brandi Levy when it suspended her from her school’s junior cheerleading team. The school acted after Levy, disappointed that she hadn’t made the senior cheerleading team, took a photo of herself and a friend raising their middle fingers and posted it on Snapchat. She also used a vulgarity to denounce the school, the cheerleading team and “everything.”
在Mahanoy学区诉布兰迪·利维案中，大法官以8比1的票数裁定，宾夕法尼亚州的一个学区将布兰迪·利维从学校的初级拉拉队停职，这侵犯了她的言论自由权利。利维对自己未能加入高级拉拉队感到失望，于是拍了一张自己和朋友竖起中指的照片，并发布在Snapchat上，之后学校采取了行动。她还用粗俗的语言谴责学校、拉拉队以及“一切”。
In agreeing with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that the school violated Levy’s 1st Amendment rights, the court essentially reaffirmed the position it took in a landmark 1969 case that students at public schools have free-speech rights so long as their speech doesn’t create the risk of a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.”
最高法院同意联邦第三巡回上诉法院的判决，认为这所学校侵犯了利维的第一修正案权利，最高法院基本上重申了它在1969年一桩具有里程碑意义的案件中采取的立场，即公立学校的学生有言论自由的权利，只要他们的言论不产生“对学校活动造成实质性破坏或实质性干扰”的风险。
The 1969 case, Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, involved students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Levy’s speech obviously was more personal than political. But, writing for the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer properly said that it constituted “criticism of the rules of a community of which B.L. forms a part” and thus deserved protection.
在1969年的廷克诉得梅因学区案中，学生们戴着黑色臂章抗议越南战争。利维的言论显然是个人的，而不是政治的。大法官斯蒂芬·g·布雷耶在为最高法院撰写意见书时表示，利维的言论是“对其所在社区规则的批评”，理应受到保护。
Yet, even as it agreed with the appeals court that Levy’s rights were violated, the court rejected the lower court’s sweeping conclusion that schools couldn’t punish off-campus speech. Breyer rightly suggested that there were circumstances in which a school might regulate off-campus speech, such as “severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals.”
然而，尽管最高法院同意上诉法院的意见，认为利维的权利受到侵犯，但驳回了上诉法院关于学校不能惩罚校外言论的笼统结论。布雷耶提出，在某些情况下，学校可能会规范校外言论，比如“针对特定个人的严重欺凌或骚扰”，这毫无疑问是正确的。
He warned, however, that “courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.” That makes sense. Even in the internet age, conduct by students off campus should generally be the responsibility of parents, not school officials.
然而，他警告说，“法院必须对学校监管校外言论的做法持更怀疑的态度，因为监管可能意味着学生根本无法发表那种言论。”这是有道理的。即使在网络时代，学生在校外的行为也应该是家长的责任，而不是学校管理人员的责任。
The court in this case declined to establish a rigid rule. School administrators now know that they aren’t overseers of everything their students say online. The court has spoken clearly and powerfully, even if it hasn’t addressed every possible contingency.
在这个案件中，最高法院拒绝建立死板的规则。学校管理人员现在知道，他们并不是学生所有网上言论的监督者。最高法院的表态清晰有力，即使它没有解决所有的可能性。