Thanks for your response and research. You've given me a lot to think about.

One of the points of disconnect between us is that you are focusing on the big picture where as I am concerned with a very specific detail.

I want to start by focusing in on that detail - the heart of my concern with this decision. Doninger publicly advocated that people express their views about the administration's policies. This is the very essence of democratic political discourse. The court, however, took the view that the mere fact that administration officials might have to listen to and respond to opinions expressed by people who were inspired by this blog post satisfies the "substantially disruptive" standard set forth in Tinker.

Thats wrong, and its not just a little wrong. To place such a basic characteristic of political discourse within the bounds of what may be constitutionally prohibited is to do away with the First Amendment entirely.

I don't think anything else really matters.

I don't think it matters that this is a preliminary injunction. The court makes the argument that this speech is "substantially disruptive." The argument is clear and presented without caveat. I would be just as concerned about this view if it appeared in a news paper oped signed by the same people.

It also doesn't matter if there is another way of thinking about this that is both Constitutionally acceptable and allows the school to bar Doninger from participating in the student council. The reasoning that the court used to reach its conclusion is more important than the result they reached.

Nevertheless, you do raise an interesting argument in favor of the court's result - that participation in extracurricular activities requires a condition of mutual respect between student and administrator.

There is something to be said for that. But there is also a problem - the power relationship between student and administrator is not balanced. If the administrator perceives that the student does not respect her, she can impose nearly arbitrary consequences. Conversely, if the student perceives that the administrator does not respect her, she has almost no recourse whatsoever.

(A similar problem exists in the coach case. Its not like the students can just go play for a different football team...)

In this case it sounds like the student was banned from participating in the student council and any future Jamfest. This doesn't really sound like a legitimate attempt to teach a lesson. It sounds an lot like "arbitrary consequences."

I honestly don't think that this is a reaction to the use of "inappropriate language." The student and the administrator got in a fight. The administrator, in anger, decided to react to the situation by using her power to impose arbitrary consequences, rather then trying to reconcile the situation. This court case tests the limits of the administrator's ability to impose arbitrary consequences.

I honestly think the judges ruled in favor of the administrator because they like this arbitrary use of power - the "respect for authority" they refer to in the conclusion is not the sort of mutual respect that you refer to. It is a respect born of fear and not understanding. It is the respect a slave has of his master.

Powerful people in the government often believe they are entitled to this kind of respect. Teachers, police, and judges often expect and enjoy a respect for their authority - for their power not their reasonableness. A respect born of fear.

Make no mistake - I think this entire idea is wicked and has no legitimacy. Nevertheless, it is quite popular in our society, particularly among those who believe they are entitled to its benefits.

I think this court here sympathizes with the administrator because they expect to be paid the same sort of respect, and they were willing to engage in a wild logical adventure in order to support the administrator. I don't agree that this ruling is conservative in light of existing precedents. Its a tortured reading that attempts to find some way to hammer a blog post made off campus into the framework introduced in Tinker for prohibiting disruptive speech on campus. Tinker is very clear that substantial disruption has to actually be substantial, and the mere fact that administrators have to respond to opinions is obviously not substantial.

The purpose of civil liberties is to limit the sort of arbitrary consequences that may be imposed by government officials who have an over inflated sense of their importance. While I think you are right - working within the student council requires mutual respect, civil liberties are part of the structure that ensures that respect is actually mutual.

Students have a right to disagree with administrators and express that disagreement without being subject to arbitrary consequences - and that fact still seems to me to be the heart of this case. You can probably create an example of a case where blog posts would really make it impossible for the administration to continue to work with a student on a student council, but a single utterance of douchebag doesn't get me there. It obviously wasn't necessary for the school to bar this student from participating in the student council. In the absence of such an imperative, the student's concerns about freedom of expression must carry the day.

RE: Why the Doninger decision is dangerous and Sotomayor must not be confirmed.