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

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #16

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,…

Post by wil421 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

anaerobicover wrote: post #22

kstrauser wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for letting fly some profanity privately as an expression of human emotion cannot be so high in any reasonable civilization.

Post by anaerobicover » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 5:07 PM UTC

hackeraccount wrote: post #24

underseacables wrote: post #3

As 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.

What if it's not phrased as discipline? What if they said "This speech is an example of your character and we'd rather not have you on our squad." The assumption is (as someone pointed out up thread) that there's no right to be on the squad; that you can (as the joke goes) be fired or not hired at anytime for no reason but not any reason.

Post by thissorthatt » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #33

anaerobicover wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for letting fly some profanity privately as an expression of human emotion cannot be so high in any reasonable civilization.

How’s it any different from writing a letter to 25 coworkers saying F** my employer? If one of the 25 recipients showed the letter to my employer I’d be fired. How’s a private snap any different than a private letter?

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

rdtwo wrote: post #19

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.