3LOLs v. Gunners
73 U.Va. 10, 2020
I.
With great power comes great responsibility. The job of this Court today is no easy task, but the scales of justice must be restored to their proper balance. Petitioners bring this case by way of appeal from the Circuit Court of Petty Appeals, claiming that Justice Amy acted improperly in denying them injunctive relief. In reviewing the evidence and briefs de novo, it is clear that the Circuit Court overextended its authority (a/k/a a 1L justice thought their opinion mattered) and attempted to legislate from the bench. Due to this error and the plaintiffs proving beyond a reasonable doubt[1] that the Gunners’ speech falls within the category of ‘fighting words’ and incites violence/lawlessness, I hereby reverse the Circuit Court of Petty Appeals. In doing so, I issue a permanent injunction against the respondents, ruling no further annoying or double questions may be brought in class. Welcome to the Thunderdome.
II.
For some unbeknownst reason, law schools still strictly adhere to the Socratic method as their primary mode of instruction. In most cases, this involves the professor peppering a student or class with generally vague and leading questions, hoping to elicit answers that will elucidate the key findings of a case. In reality, especially after 1L year, this ends with the professor asking basic questions and hoping someone (anyone) responds because grades stop mattering after OGI. Enter the respondents.
Law students are generally a curious bunch. Whether it is staying after class to clarify issues with the professor, vigorously attending office hours to impress the professor to hopefully get that half-grade bump after finals, or taking the professor out to lunch,[2] most students are curious yet respectful of other students’ time and attention. But then there are the respondents. You know the type. Each class has a few students who exude a “holier than thou” attitude regarding their education.[3] They manifest their self-entitlement in multiple ways, either by posing extravagant self-created hypotheticals, asking multipart questions that lose everybody, including the professor, or raising their hand at every possible chance, leading the instructor to feign blindness to avoid the morass of the pending question and doom. Petitioners have had enough.
Petitioners, suing as a class of 3LOLs, allege that the incessant and wasteful questioning by Gunners falls within the category of ‘fighting words’ and is ‘vulgar and offensive,’ both grounds that would disqualify this speech from being protected by the First Amendment. They further argue that this speech incites violence[4] under Brandenburg.[5] Lastly, 3LOLs argue that they spend their tuition dollars to learn from the professor, not the students who think they’re smarter than the professor.
Countering, Gunners claim that their speech is protected, that the 3LOLs are being ‘snowflakes’ in claiming ‘hate speech,’ and that any ruling against the Gunners would have a chilling effect on their right to free speech.
III.
The First Amendment codifies that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech.” Arguing in support of this, defendants point to Tinker v. Des Moines as their seminal touchstone. In doing so, they claim that prohibiting the expression of their opinion is unconstitutional unless petitioners can show that the expression would interfere with the operation of the school.[6] Countering, petitioners point to Cohen v. California,[7] Brandenburg, and Morse v. Frederick[8] as precedent, showing that the incessant questions do not fall within a protected class of speech, because students generally do not hold this right. Additionally, the obscenity and audacity of such questions, coupled with how much petitioners hate hearing them, led to their application of the incitement test from Brandenburg.
Relying on the wise words from my homie Clarence, the respondents’ claim fails because “as originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.”[9] While this language dispels the notion that the defendants’ speech is protected, further analysis must be done to establish the petitioner’s case. First, in applying the Brandenburg test, the respondents’ questions/speech must be analyzed for 1) an intent to incite lawlessness/violence; 2) imminence; and 3) likelihood. As intent is subjective, petitioners point to the smug smiles and continued actions of the respondents as evidence to prove their intent, to which this Court sympathetically agrees. While defendants argue that a resting b***h face, throwing a pencil, or failing to invite respondents to any type of social gathering are not forms of lawlessness/violence, I vehemently disagree. UVA Law is known for collegiality. By responding in these three ways, petitioners have effectively overturned a welcoming culture to shun the nonbelievers. Therefore, petitioners have succeeded in proving the respondents; negative intent to incite lawlessness pursuant to Brandenburg. Imminence and likelihood are subsequently easily satisfied, as petitioners point to multiple instances where they immediately contemplated retaliation and violence during the respondents’ questions, with nobody doubting whether they were serious or not.
Second, petitioners also succeed in proving respondents’ questions are ‘fighting words.’ Describing the hypotheticals and multi-parted questions as “lewd, obscene, and profane,” they incline me to agree with them. Although it may be a slight stretch to classify otherwise innocent questions as ‘fighting words,’ especially since I highly doubt most law students have ever been in a fight,[10] the thought of throwing a punch at the respondents must have crossed the petitioners’ mind, thus satisfying the second prong.
In a last-ditch effort to salvage their case, defendants claim that any attempt to limit their speech by this Court, as an extension of the state, amounts to a chilling effect on their constitutional rights. They’re right, for once. The goal of this decision is for the defendants to chill out[11] and let everyone else enjoy their law school experience. If we give any merit to the respondents’ argument, it would be “the latest stage of prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined Constitutional restrictions”[12] upon what could be deemed inciteful fighting words. The Gunners can’t talk their way out of this problem. They lose.
---
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] Or is it preponderance of the evidence? Oh well, it’s not like I go off any standard other than my own personal opinion anyway.
[2] Only virtually now, thanks COVID.
[3] Bet these kids don’t even know how to properly shot-gun a beer, noobs.
[4] Moreso perceived than actual, but you’ve all had those thoughts when a Gunner drones on.
[5] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
[6] Thanks for the assist, Quimbee.
[7] Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
[8] Morse v. Frederick, Frederick, (551 U.S. 393 (2007)
[9] Id., Thomas J., concurring.
[10] Fighting with your mom over increasing your credit card limit doesn’t count here, unfortunately.
[11] Someone order them a prescription of chill-pills please, or a frozen marg. Your choice.
[12] Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990) Scalia J., dissenting.