Word of the posts spread quickly throughout the school and caused outrage among students and their families. Students and their families held unity rallies on and off campus as the school community grappled with the incident.
Some of the students targeted in the posts began to suffer in various ways, including losing sleep and missing days of school. Many students reported to administration that they were too upset to go to class. One student even withdrew from the school altogether. The school administration responded with various kinds of discipline, and eventually expelled both Epple and Chen.
Both students sued, claiming that the expulsion was a violation of their free speech rights under both the First Amendment and California law. Their lawsuit argued that the Instagram posts had been private, and that like the cheerleader in the recent Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything case, they should have the right to speak freely in an off-campus setting. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of the cheerleader. The justices found that although her speech had been vulgar, the teen had a right to criticize her school, particularly given that the speech had occurred off-campus and did not risk classmates safety. However, the 9th Circuit, as had been the district court before it, was clear that Epple and Chens conduct was a far cry from the cheerleaders protected comments.
A three-judge panel which included U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, a Donald Trump appointee; U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee; and Senior U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, another Clinton appointee sitting by designation from the District of Arizona; ruled that the likelihood of substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities in the case was obvious and that the district was well within its rights to expel both students. Collins wrote the opinion for the unanimous panel, which noted that the posts created havoc at the school. Even students who were not targeted by the posts became distraught and were among a group who spontaneously gathered together, crying and yelling and too upset to go to class,' Collins noted.
The panel made short work of any argument that Epples posts should not have been censored by the school as they might be protected as political ideology. Collins wrote that given that Epple admitted that he posted simply to entertain [his] friends, any claim that they sought to make a political statement rings hollow.
Similarly, the panel smacked down Epples argument that his posts were meant to be private and circulated only among a small group of chosen followers.
Collins wrote called the posts a ticking bomb of vicious targeted abuse that could be readily detonated by anyone following the account, and said Epple should have expected the school to retaliate with discipline.
Got what they deserved.
---
It's not the end of the world, but we can see it from here.