Reply #68: This is the actual ruling . . .

[toopers]

From the court’s opinion, “In her capacity as cheerleader, XX served as a mouthpiece through which SISD could disseminate speech))namely, support for its athletic teams. Insofar as the First Amendment does not require schools to promote particular student speech, SISD had no duty to promote XX’s message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit. Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, XX was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ First Amendment claim.”

Link: http://www.silsbeebee.com/news.php?viewStory=2165