美国最高法院周二裁定，一所高中因为学生在社交媒体上发帖而对其进行惩罚，这侵犯了她的言论自由权。
By a vote of 8-1, the nation's highest court ruled in favor of Brandi Levy over Mahanoy Area School District in the state of Pennsylvania.
美国最高法院以8：1的票数裁定布兰迪·利维胜诉，宾夕法尼亚州马哈诺伊地区校区败诉。
In 2017, Levy was upset that she did not make the top cheerleading team at the area's high school. She was selected for the second-best team.
2017年，利维为自己未能进入这所地区高中的啦啦队一队而感到诅丧。她被选中进入二队。
Levy, who was 14 at the time, then posted on Snapchat an image of herself raising a middle finger, an offensive sign, and using bad language to criticize the school and the team. The action took place outside of school hours and away from the school grounds.
当时14岁的利维在Snapchat上发布了一张她竖起中指的照片，这是一个冒犯性手势，并使用粗俗语言批评了学校和啦啦队。这一举动发生在课后并且远离校园。
The Snapchat messages could only be seen for a short time. But the post was captured and shared with parents and school officials. Some students approached school officials about the post and were "visibly upset."
这条Snapchat消息只能在很短一段时间内被看到。但是这个帖子被截屏并分享给家长和学校官员。一些学生就此帖子跟学校官员交涉，并“明显感到诅丧。”
School officials punished Levy by banning her from cheerleading for one year. They decided that her offensive action was related to cheerleading, a school activity, and disruptive.
学校官员决定禁止利维一年内参加啦啦队作为惩罚。他们认为她的冒犯行为跟学校的啦啦队有关，并且具有破坏性。
Levy and her parents took their case against the school to court. A lower court judge ordered the school to let her back onto the team. But the school appealed the decision to a federal court in Pennsylvania and then the Supreme Court.
利维及其父母将学校告上法庭。一家下级法院命令学校让她回到啦啦队。但是该学校就此裁决向宾夕法尼亚州联邦法院，以及随后向最高法院提出了上诉。
The school argued that it was permitted to punish Levy based on a 1969 Supreme Court ruling. The ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines protected students' rights to protest the Vietnam War. But the court also said students could be punished for disruptive speech.
学校辩称，根据1969年最高法院的一项裁决，惩罚利维是法律允许的。这起廷克诉得梅因案的裁决保护了学生抗议越战的权力。但是法院也表示，学生发表破坏性言论就会受到惩罚。
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion for the majority. Some might think Levy's words were not worthy of the First Amendment protection of free speech rights, Breyer noted. "But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary," he added.
斯蒂芬·布雷耶大法官为多数派撰写了意见。布雷耶指出，有人可能认为利维的言论不值得动用第一修正案对言论自由权利的保护。他还表示：“但是有时候必须保护这些不必要的，以便维护那些必要的。”
A lower court had ruled that schools have no authority over a student's speech when it happens away from school grounds. But the Supreme Court's ruling is more limited.
一家下级法院曾裁定，当学生的言论发生在校园以外时，学校就无权干涉学生的言论。但是最高法院的裁决更有局限性。
Breyer wrote that the school's interests "remain significant in some off-campus circumstances." He added, however, "When it comes to political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity, the school will have a heavy burden to justify intervention."
布雷耶写道，学校的利益“在某些校外情况下仍然很重要。”然而他还表示：“当遇到发生在学校以外或是学校课程或活动中的政治或宗教言论时，学校有责任证明干预是合理的。”
Levy said she was glad the Supreme Court agreed that her school went too far.
利维表示，她很高兴最高法院认同她的学校管得太宽。
Now, an 18-year-old college student, she told Reuters, "I never could have imagined that one simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I'm proud that my family and I advocated for the rights of millions of public school students."
现在作为一名18岁的大学生，利维对路透社表示：“我从未想过一张简单的图片会演变成为最高法院的一起案件，但是我很自豪，我和我的家人为数百万公立学校的学生倡导了权利。”
I'm Dan Friedell.
我是丹·弗雷德尔。(51VOA.COM原创翻译，请勿转载，违者必究！)