Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
1–10 of 474 posts
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#2For those who can't read the article, here's a summary:
> Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as a major test of the US Constitution's First Amendment, which protects free speech rights.
As for my own thoughts... I'm hoping the outcome of this case can be used as a litmus test for related bannings/cancellations when people express an opinion "off-campus" (so to speak).
Edit: More info about the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v....
Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a period. Clicking the link above won't work; you have to manually terminate it with a period before loading (should end with "B.L.", not "B.L")
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#3As someone who grew up before the Internet perhaps I have a less than optimal view of the issue. I think that in the case of non-threatening speech, the school has no business disciplining students for off campus speech.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#4For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as…
Thank you for the summary! I was just going to ask...
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#5I stopped reading the article when I realized the student was 14 at the time of the post.
Anything posted by someone at that age, especially on a temporary medium such as snapchat, should have an implicit "for entertainment purposes only" label on it along with a EULA that says that unless it might cause immediate danger to someone else that it should be treated as satire.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#6For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as…
> I’m hoping the outcome of this case can be used as a litmus test for related bannings/cancellations when people express an opinion “off-campus”
Additionally, I hope this can also apply to the workplace.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#7For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as…
Is being on the cheerleading squad a natural right?
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#8For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as…
It's not just that it was expressed off campus. It was expressed privately. Her speech on its own never reached the school. It was deliberately recorded and rebroadcast. The disruptive speech was the replaying of what she said, not her saying it. There is a huge difference.
If everything private is fair game, then I expect we should be able to depose all parties involved for any disparaging statements they have ever made. Then we can proceed with either cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the rest for perjury. I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime.
Sure, there is a blurred line with posting something on a forum which is read in school, but this case clearly isn't that. The speech wasn't public and wasn't available at large.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#9As someone who grew up before the Internet perhaps I have a less than optimal view of the issue. I think that in the case of non-threatening speech, the school has no business disciplining students for off campus speech.
Even in the case of threatening speech, I’m not sure the school is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#10For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as…
Is being on the cheerleading squad a natural right?
It's a qualified right, which she qualified for. A state actor doesn't get to dictate acceptable speech outside of that activity.