Supreme Court Rules for Graham in Graham v. Aker School District

 On January 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of student Alex Graham in the landmark free speech case Graham V. Aker School District, after listening to both the petitioners’ and respondents' arguments.

Alex Graham sued the school alleging she was punished for t a comment she made online on a school-sponsored website intended to voice her political and environmental beliefs. Graham, a strong environmental advocate, felt insulted by a comment made by businesswoman Elizabeth Young, whom Graham accused of working for a company that “destroys the world.”

 Cooper Young, Mrs. Young’s son, interpreted the use of 🌲🔥😉 emojis as insinuating drug use, which he referred to as “gen-z lingo.” As a result, the school’s teachers believed Graham participated in drug use. There were also accusations of lude sexual content when Graham states in her comment “If I wanted to interact with people who sell themselves, I could’ve just walked down to Robinson Street lol.” which could insinuate prostitution. Graham also used the term “idiotic” when describing Mrs. Young which the school deemed disrespectful and decided to issue a five-day suspension. 

Petitioners Samantha Gotimer and Lucas Daly argued that the comment was free of lude content as one could not infer it was lude based on what was written. Similarly, they argue that one could not infer that the emojis insinuate drug use as it doesn’t explicitly show or state anything related to drugs. Daly argued that “Miss Graham’s rights were grossly violated by the school board as well within her First Amendment rights of speech and freedom.” 

The petitioners also clarified that only one person interpreted the comment relating to drug use and prostitution which was Cooper Young, while the majority of the students hadn't interpreted it that way.  Gotimer also argued that everything Graham said is under protected speech and doesn’t violate the First Amendment. She states that Graham might not have been respectful when calling Mrs. Young an “idiotic woman,” but it didn’t provoke violence so it was still under protected speech. 

Petitioners Gotimer and Daly said the comment was a political opinion on Graham’s environmental beliefs. Graham is a huge environmental advocate, and as said by the petitioners, wanted to rally students in a peaceful protest by wearing green to school. Taken the wrong way, it wasn’t seen as a peaceful protest, but Petitioners Gotimer and Daly fought this, saying no violence took place. They explained in detail the rights of Graham and that she had every right to peacefully protest and rally together with people online. Nothing she said violated her rights and her words were taken completely out of proportion, they argued. 

Respondents Pia Cho and Seona Srivastava refuted claims made by Gotimer and Daly stating that the comment was made on a school-sponsored platform. Although everything said by Graham is under protected speech, Cho and Srivastava said, she was still disrespectful on a school-sponsored website and the school had every right to punish Graham. According to Srivastava, “This school has a right to punish speech that is not respecting members of the community.” 

The respondents also argue that the school did not silence Graham, they merely suspended her. They said high school students should know right from wrong, but petitioners strongly refuted this, saying the school shouldn’t tell their students what is right and wrong when it comes to their own beliefs. The respondents also voiced that this comment should be taken from a gen-z perspective to understand the overall message that was trying to be conveyed by Graham. 

After their hour-long court case, the decision was finalized and Petitioners Samantha Gotimer and Lucas Daly won their appeal, swaying the Court and coming out victorious.

This article was written by Arya Khanna