13-year-old’s Snapchat drinking binge isn’t protected by First Amendment, judge rules
Mother sought to lift girl’s suspension from the volleyball team
By Bay Area News Group
August 23, 2021
A 13-year-old’s drinking binge on Snapchat video is not protected by the First Amendment, a judge ruled in declining to order the girl’s school to allow her back on the volleyball team.
The eighth-grader’s mother had filed a motion seeking an injunction against the 45-day suspension that was imposed by the North Platte School District in Dearborn, Missouri, a small town north of Kansas City. She had contended her daughter’s case was analogous to that of a Pennsylvania teen who recently won a closely watched U.S. Supreme Court case after she was kicked off her school’s cheerleading squad because of a foul-mouthed Snapchat post.
The Missouri judge’s decision, issued last week in U.S. District Court, rejected that argument, saying that the school district was punishing the girl’s actions — underage drinking — rather than her speech or her mother’s subsequent statements on Snapchat, a messaging app on which posts disappear after a short time.
The girl, identified in court documents as “N.C.,” on May 9, 2021, shared with a private Snapchat group a video of her drinking in her bedroom. She was found incoherent and barely conscious by her mother, who called an ambulance.
On their return from the hospital, the mother posted Snapchat messages castigating those who had “encouraged” or “dared” her daughter to drink to the point of blacking out. Screenshots of the mother’s messages were sent to school officials by students and parents.
Citing a rule barring students from being under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs, on or off campus, the district suspended N.C. from extracurricular activities for 45 days starting on the first day of the fall term, Aug. 16.
The suspension covers about half of the season for the volleyball team, on which N.C. expected to play. She is allowed to practice with the team but not compete.
The mother had argued that her daughter would suffer “irreparable harm” from missing several weeks of competition, but the judge rejected that claim as well.