🗣️ Should Schools Regulate Off-Campus Speech? I’d Like Your Input.

So, my constituents — I’ve come up with a couple of suggested changes to District 77 Internet Use Policy, and I’d really like to hear what you think.

You can scroll down to Option 1 and Option 2, or continue reading to understand why I’m submitting these revisions.

In 2021, our district adopted new language in its Internet Use Policy giving the school “a special interest in regulating off-campus speech.” Changes are highlighted in red on page for of the linked document.

I was told to submit suggested changes to the Superintendent: Paul Peterson ppeter1@isd77.org .

📜 The Policy Currently Reads on Page 4 of the above linked document:

“The school district has a special interest in regulating off-campus speech that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. A student or employee engaging in the foregoing unacceptable uses of the Internet when off school district premises also may be in violation of this policy as well as other school district policies… including serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals, threats aimed at teachers or other students, failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers. . .”

💬 Policy Options: What Do You Think?

Below are two possible revisions to consider.
Which one do you prefer — or would you suggest something different?

Option 1

“The district may regulate off-campus online activity only when such conduct constitutes serious bullying, harassment, or true threats targeting specific individuals; breaches school security systems; or results in a material and substantial disruption of school operations. Routine off-campus speech, even if critical or controversial, shall not be subject to discipline under this policy.”

Option 2

“Any regulation of off-campus speech must be narrowly tailored to address specific conduct—such as true threats, severe bullying, or significant disruption of school activities—and must be documented with evidence of such impact. The district shall not discipline individuals for off-campus speech that merely expresses opinions or criticism of district matters.”

🗳️ I’d Like Your Input

Both options aim to bring our district’s Internet Use Policy into closer alignment with Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus speech.

Your perspective matters — which version do you believe better protects both student safety and First Amendment rights?
Share your thoughts in the comments or reach out directly.

507.351.3367

Why it matters? At first glace our current policy may sound reasonable; no one wants harassment, threats, or serious disruption to go unchecked. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that schools have limited authority to regulate off-campus speech.

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), the Court ruled that public schools cannot punish students for speech made off-campus unless it falls under very specific exceptions — like true threats, targeted harassment, or serious bullying that causes substantial disruption to school operations. The Court warned against schools acting as “round-the-clock regulators” of students’ or employees’ speech outside of school grounds.

“The school district has a special interest in regulating off-campus speech that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. A student or employee engaging in the foregoing unacceptable uses of the Internet when off school district premises also may be in violation of this policy…”

While this language sounds similar to Tinker, in my opinion the scope is much broader than what Mahanoy allows. Here’s how:

Policy Clause	Issue Under Mahanoy
“The school district has a special interest in regulating off-campus speech…”	The Supreme Court held that schools have very limited interest in regulating off-campus speech — not a general “special interest.” This phrase suggests broader authority than is constitutionally permitted.
“Materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder”	Acceptable only if the disruption is clearly proven or reasonably foreseeable — not just speculative or based on offense.
“Invasion of the rights of others”	Ambiguous and potentially overbroad; it must be limited to legally recognized harms (e.g., true threats, harassment).
“A student or employee engaging… off school district premises also may be in violation…”	Extends school discipline into off-campus, non-school activities, which Mahanoy sharply limits.
“Failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers…”	If referring to class assignments, fine; but as written, it could be interpreted as regulating personal computer use or online expression outside of school hours — constitutionally problematic.

🧠 In Summary

Mahanoy reaffirmed that off-campus speech is generally protected by the First Amendment.
The district’s current policy appears to overstates its authority by implying a “special interest” in regulating off-campus speech.
Unless the speech falls under one of the Mahanoy exceptions (true threats, severe harassment, or substantial disruption), discipline for such speech would likely be unconstitutional.

🧭 What To Do If You Believe Your Off-Campus Speech Rights Were Violated

Step 1: Document Everything

Keep a detailed record of what happened:

Save emails, messages, or notices from the school related to the disciplinary action or post.
Take screenshots of the online post or comment in question.
Record the dates, names of administrators, and specific consequences imposed (e.g., suspension, meeting notice, deleted comment).
This documentation will be crucial if you pursue a complaint.

Step 2: Request an Explanation in Writing

Ask the district to provide a written explanation of the action taken and the policy it relied upon.
You can write:

“Please provide the specific policy and rationale for the district’s action regarding my off-campus speech, as well as the factual basis for determining that the speech caused a material and substantial disruption.”

This request creates a paper trail and ensures accountability.

Step 3: Use Local Remedies First

Submit a formal complaint to the Superintendent and School Board.

Reference Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021) and Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).
Explain that your speech occurred off campus and did not materially disrupt school operations or threaten anyone.
Ask for review and reversal of any discipline or censorship and for a policy review to prevent future violations.
Ask that your complaint be entered into the public record at the next board meeting.

Step 4: Escalate to State or Federal Authorities (if unresolved)

If the district fails to correct the issue:

🏛️ Minnesota Attorney General’s Office – Civil Rights Division

The AG can review potential violations of constitutional rights by public entities.
📞 651-296-3353 | 🌐 ag.state.mn.us

⚖️ U.S. Department of Education – Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

If the restriction targets a particular viewpoint, identity, or protected class, you can file a complaint within 180 days.
🌐 ocrcas.ed.gov

🗣️ ACLU of Minnesota

The ACLU may intervene in free-speech or public-forum cases.
🌐 aclu-mn.org/en/get-help

Elizabeth Hanke for Mankato School Board