In this case, the court must decide whether a public school teacher’s intemperate remarks about students on her personal blog – remarks that provoked considerable community outrage when they became known – were nonetheless constitutionally protected. 

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. Did the plaintiff speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern? Why or why not?  

3. Was the plaintiff’s speech sufficiently disruptive to justify the school district taking action against the teacher? Why or why not? Does the court give too much weight to the negative reactions of students and parents? Why or why not?  

4. Is the school district’s argument that it terminated the teacher for her poor performance, rather than her speech, convincing? Why or why not? 

5. How much did it matter that the teacher’s speech took the form of blog posts (and later, interviews with news organizations)? Would the outcome be the same if she had said these things to a colleague and was overheard by a student, who then told others? 

6. To what extent is the analysis in this case particular to a public school context? Does it effectively mean that public school teachers have more limited speech rights than do other public employees?