Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 474 posts

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#11

Post by scoopertrooper »

ecf wrote: post #6
umvi wrote: post #2

For 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.

Private companies are not subject to the first amendment.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#12

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

What was her initial conflict with cheerleading team?

I think an unsubstantiated temper tantrum is a perfectly reasonable cause to suspend her from the team. The real cause for concern is their blanket policy against any form of criticism whether warranted or not:

> The coaches said Levy’s snap violated the team rules she had agreed to, including showing respect, avoiding “foul language and inappropriate gestures,” and a strict policy against “any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches placed on the Internet.”

It seems like they're justifying the suspension by saying something far more incriminating. What exactly are they trying to hide? A culture of undue pressure, bullying, maybe groping? Cheerleading has after all turned into quite a sexually suggestive form of entertainment.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#14

Post by scoopertrooper »

LanceH wrote: post #10
optimalsolver wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it's fine for a police officer to attend klan events on the weekend?

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#15

Post by joshuaheard »

While I support the general proposition that students should not be punished for off-campus speech, there is more to this case. My daughter is a cheerleader, a voluntary association within the school, which has a strict code of conduct. There are rules against public intoxication, sexual promiscuity, and disparagement of the school. So, it is a case of a student violating a voluntary association's code of conduct and being removed from that association. I think this is distinguished from a normal school/student free speech relationship. I look forward to reading the court's opinion.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#16

Post by kstrauser »

umvi wrote: post #2

For 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…

This case will be irrelevant to workplace firings. It's the specific situation of children in schools having fewer rights than adults in the workplace that's the issue here. Some courts have already ruled that kids don't enjoy a full separation between school and personal lives because what they do at home can be disruptive at school, and this ruling is expected to address that specific line of thinking.

And really, any grown adult who says the same things about their employer that Levy did about her school should expect to find themselves unemployed as soon as word gets back. I don't mean that to diss Levy, who was a kid at the time, and besides, what kids don't privately rant to their friends about school? It's neither appropriate nor desirable for a school to say "you don't like it, then quit" to a child, whereas it's reasonable for most work settings to fire a disgruntled employee.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#17

Post by LanceH »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14
LanceH wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a qualified right, which she qualified for. A state actor doesn't get to dictate acceptable speech outside of that activity.

So it's fine for a police officer to attend klan events on the weekend?

The analogy would be the officer (the state actor) refusing service to someone who exercised objectionable speech.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#18

Post by bombcar »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #12

What was her initial conflict with cheerleading team? I think an unsubstantiated temper tantrum is a perfectly reasonable cause to suspend her from the team. The real cause for concern is their blanket policy against any form of criticism whether warranted or not: > The coaches said Levy’s snap violated the team rules she had agreed to, including showing respect, avoiding “foul language and inappropriate gestures,” a…

The "cheer industry" is a incredible cesspool of dirty tricks and corporate malfeasance that would make the tech industry blush for shame.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/in-depth/news/2020/09/18/ch...

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#19

Post by rdtwo »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14
LanceH wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a qualified right, which she qualified for. A state actor doesn't get to dictate acceptable speech outside of that activity.

So it's fine for a police officer to attend klan events on the weekend?

Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org. But yeah that’s the kind of edge case you have to allow for in order to have freedom. Cause today it’s a clan rally but tomorrow it could easily be a BLM rally and the state has historically been more harsh on BLM rallys.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#20

Post by josefresco »

joshuaheard wrote: post #15

While I support the general proposition that students should not be punished for off-campus speech, there is more to this case. My daughter is a cheerleader, a voluntary association within the school, which has a strict code of conduct. There are rules against public intoxication, sexual promiscuity, and disparagement of the school. So, it is a case of a student violating a voluntary association's code of conduct and…

They actually have rules against "sexual promiscuity"? What do those rules look like and how are they enforced? Is it just a dress code, or do they actually discipline students for being "promiscuous".
Post reply on HN