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

41–50 of 474 posts

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

#41

Post by metiscus »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #25
LanceH wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Should a police officer be fired, if they express views prejudicial to people that belong to minorities they are meant to serve, even if they express these views while off-duty?

I believe as public employees, they should be held to at least the same standard as people in private employment. If I, as the employee of a company, make a Facebook post outside of work denigrating a group of people and my employer is made aware of that, I believe that I can be terminated. Should termination be the only solution? I don't think so. In a functioning society, there must be room for genuine contrition and redemption of those who have erred. I don't know what the proper method of addressing it should be, however.. The removal of the offensive speech and an immediate and heartfelt apology would be a firm minimum IMHO. The same should be true for public employees with the difference being that the appearance of impropriety should weigh towards sanctions. In both cases, pending conflict with employment contracts or local law, suspension, re-training, and demotions are all possible alternative sanctions.

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

#42

Post by rbanffy »

As I'm not American, this whole cheerleading thing feels very weird to me. It's weird to see the role of boys to play sports while the girls cheer doing elaborate choreographies.

Does anyone else feels it weird from a different cultural framing?

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

#43

Post by virgil_disgr4ce »

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?

The snap self-destructs. The correct analogy would be showing a photo of the letter to others.

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

#44

Post by js2 »

On the one hand:

> 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.”

On the other hand:

> Some cheerleaders complained about Levy’s message, and the coaches decided to suspend her from the squad for a year.

This entire thing could've been avoided with a reasonable response. Like a reminder about the team rules. Maybe a one week suspension. A full year suspension is insane.

That said, she obviously had no choice but to agree to the rules, so that's no defense against a First Amendment violation.

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

#45

Post by FalconSensei »

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.

Exactly. Isn't that the whole point of free-speech?

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

#46

Post by themgt »

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…

"Placed on the internet" is imprecise but my interpretation would be "posted in public on the internet/web". If Snapchat is equivalent to "placed on the internet" presumably so would be simply saying something to someone 1-on-1 in a voice-over-IP phone call.

Can a public school make participation in extracurriculars (often key to future college applications and thus your life/employment prospects) contingent on never even in a private context criticizing the school's management of said activities? That strikes me as an extremely expansive power open to all sorts of abuse, and almost certainly unconstitutional.

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

#47

Post by textgel »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #36
textgel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of it isn't something that should be trivialised?

This case would be argued along exactly the same lines before the court had the student in question thrown in a racial slur. It will also have an impact on the ability for schools to punish students for racist cyberbullying in future. So I don't think it's problematic in the slightest to bring race into the equation.

One is criticism of the running and operation of an organisation; the other is steeped in the history of genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around the world to protect people from it because of it's heinousness. But you're professing that advocacy of racism is no more malignant than basic complaints about a company?

I'm not sure if what you're advocating is because of perhaps missing education on the subject but this is a serious hot button issue at the moment; I'm honestly surprised you'd espouse this so freely.

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

#48

Post by jaywalk »

rbanffy wrote: post #39
rdtwo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org The fact the Klan is not labeled as one is deeply shocking.

"The Klan" has no relevance these days, and is used as a boogey man more than anything else.

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

#49

Post by anaerobicover »

anaerobicover wrote: post #35
hackeraccount wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would reply that the adults in that case should demonstrate their own character by recognizing that teenagers are humans with emotions¹ who get frustrated and make mistakes. And that a mistake that doesn't really harm anyone (an F said in conversation with a friend) merits a discussion in the worst, not a dismissal dropped like a bomb. --- ¹Maybe even more so than the adults.

Although to be exact I would not even call this any "mistake". It is simply human. But I do understand that others might consider it to be so.

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

#50

Post by klmadfejno »

LanceH wrote: post #8
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…

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…

I think its perfectly fine to shun people if you think they're awful. Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things. Choosing not to decide is still a choice.

The question at hand is whether you believe isolated private communications to be representative of true nature.

Post reply on HN