"The question before the court on Wednesday was whether the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, holding that public school officials can regulate speech that would substantially disrupt the school’s work..."

"... applies to speech by students that occurs off campus. Arguing for the school district, lawyer Lisa Blatt told the justices that Tinker should apply off campus because off-campus speech can also cause disruption, particularly when it comes to social media. 'Time and geography are meaningless' when it comes to the internet, Blatt emphasized.... Justice Stephen Breyer described [the student's Shapchat] as using 'unattractive swear words' off campus. But, Breyer continued, he didn’t see evidence that the snap caused the kind of 'material and substantial disruption' that Tinker requires. If Levy can be punished for this snap, he suggested, 'every school in the country would be doing nothing but punishing.'... The court, Alito proposed, could reiterate that Tinker applies in school, without saying more about a school’s power to discipline off-campus speech. And the court could make clear that although the comments in Levy’s snap are 'colorful language,' they 'boil down' to disliking the cheer team and her private softball team, and the school can’t discipline Levy for having no respect for the school...."

From "Justices ponder narrow ruling in student speech case" (SCOTUSblog).

Here's the transcript. 

FROM THE EMAIL: rrsafety writes:

I think Kavanaugh is asking the right questions here. This case is about coaches, not schools. School athletes have often been told they will be held to a higher standard of behavior than other students and are responsible for doing their part in support of team unity and team chemistry. Off-field behavior has always been part of a coach’s calculus and the courts should (generally) not intervene.

I notice you said "behavior." We're talking about freedom of speech, and the young woman only wrote something. Searching the transcript, I notice that only Amy Coney Barrett used the term "behavior":

And let me ask you this, in so far as the policy concerns go, nothing in the First Amendment prohibits soft discipline, right? Like in this case, the cheerleader coming to school and rather than being kicked off the team and punished, being told, “We’re aware of the Snapchat, this is not good for team cohesion. This is not respectful of your coaches. If we see any of this kind of behavior on the field, or at practice, or undermining morale, there’s going to be a consequence,” but not imposing one yet. That would be okay. Right? 

What Kavanaugh said was: 

[T]he context here is a team and a coach, not the school more generally. But as a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent too, it seems like maybe a bit of a overreaction by the coach. So my reaction, when I read this, she’s competitive, she cares, she blew off steam like millions of other kids have when they’re disappointed about being caught from the high school team or not being in the starting lineup or not making all league.... So maybe what bothers me when I read all this is that it didn’t seem like the punishment was tailored to the offense. Given what I just said about how important it is and you know how much it means to the kids. I mean, a year suspension from the team just seems excessive to me, but how does that fit into the First Amendment doctrine or does it fit in at all in a case like this?