Could you help me to brief this case ,please ?

2. The Story of J.C. The Speech Incident: The YouTube Video of R.S. After Beverly Vista High School, California, closed on Tuesday May 27, 2008, J.C. and a group of her thirteen-year old classmates visited a local restaurant (J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, 2010). During the early dinner, J.C. used her personal video recorder to document the conversa- tions among her friends about C.C- their classmate. The video, which lasted four minutes and thirty-six seconds, featured one of the students calling C.C. a "slut" and a "spoiled" child (p. 1098). The student's comments included various profanities. For instance, she referred to C.C. as "the ugliest piece of shit I've ever seen in my whole life" (p. 1098). She also discussed "boners" (p. 1098). As the student spoke, J.C. could be heard in the background cheering on the student's comments about C.C. with phrases such as "continue with the Carina rant" (p. 1098). One of the students was troubled by the group's attacks against C.C., prompting her to ask her classmates if she was "the only one that doesn't hate Carina?" (p. 1108). Later that evening, after J.C. returned home, she used her personal computer to upload the video of the group's attacks on C.C. to YouTube for public viewing (J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, 2010). Shortly after the video was uploaded, J.C. asked ten students to view it. She also told C.C. about the video. All of these contacts originated from J.C.'s home. After watching the video, C.C. told J.C. that she felt the comments in the video were mean. J.C. then offered to delete the video from You Tube. However, since C.C.'s mother planned to report the video to school officials the following morning, J.C. declined the offer. At least fifteen people viewed the video that evening, resulting in 90 "hits" (p. 1098). By the beginning of school the following morning, the video had 100 "hits" (p. 1119). J.C. never accessed the video at school. Additionally, while at school, she never encouraged anyone to view the video. About a month before this You Tube recording, J.C. had been disciplined in another case for surreptitiously recording her teachers. On the morning of May 28, 2008, C.C. and her mother reported the video to school officials (J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, 2010). C.C. was visibly agitated about the video and cried at school. During a twenty-five minute counseling session with the school counselor, C.C. revealed that she felt humiliated and hurt. She also expressed reluctance to return to class though the counselor successfully persuaded her to return. That morning, J.C. heard approximately ten students talking about the video. However, students were not able to view the video from the school's computers because the computers were configured to block student access to YouTube. While students could view the video on their cellphones, there was no proof that students used their cellphone for this purpose. Moreover the school had a cellphone policy that banned on-campus cellphone use. Even though s officia