The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2022

articulate how the students’ silent act of protest “materially and substantially interfere[d] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” thus the students’ speech was protected. 8 A trio of post- Tinker decisions by the court has further clarified limitations on student free speech, permitting the restriction of on-campus speech that is indecent, lewd or vulgar and involves a cap tive audience; 9 school-sponsored speech that is reasonably related to pedagogical concerns (in this case, a school newspaper); 10 and speech that promotes illicit drug use. 11 Education law practitioners have relied on Tinker and its progeny to advise school district clients regarding limitations on student speech in the school environment, but the rise in online communica tion platforms among students has blurred the lines between on- and off-campus speech, causing confu sion for school officials and their counsel when the speech in ques tion occurs outside the schoolhouse gate. By 2018, 97% of 13- to 17-year olds used at least one social media platform. 12 Ninety-five percent of teens have access to a smartphone, and 45% claim to be online “nearly constantly.” 13 With smartphone

SEPTEMBER 2022 | 23

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL