False statements on social media can seriously damage Tennessee teachers, but defamation suits here face steep hurdles. Tennessee courts classify teachers as public officials, meaning they must prove actual malice—that the poster knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (Campbell v. Robinson; Finney v. Jefferson). Teachers must also show real injury, such as reputational harm, emotional distress, or financial loss—anger alone isn’t enough. With strict deadlines (one year for libel, six months for slander), swift action and evidence preservation are critical. Cease-and-desist letters or retraction requests may help before filing suit. While difficult, litigation remains an option when actual malice and clear harm can be proven.

Public school teachers do not give up their First Amendment rights, but those rights are limited. Under the Pickering-Connick test, teachers’ speech is only protected if it addresses a matter of public concern and does not cause substantial disruption. In today’s digital age, off-duty social media posts can quickly go viral, leading to parent complaints, media attention, and even safety concerns. Courts have consistently upheld discipline—including termination—when such disruption occurs. For private school teachers, the protections are even slimmer, as most work under at-will contracts. The takeaway: off-duty speech is never fully off-duty for educators.

When evaluating a teacher's speech, leaders must first determine if the teacher was indeed speaking pursuant to their official duties. In many cases, this is easy to determine. A teacher's speech in the classroom (virtually now), while conducting their daily duties or in accordance with assignments would likely not be protected by the First Amendment.