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

51–60 of 474 posts

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

#51

Post by scoopertrooper »

textgel wrote: post #47
scoopertrooper wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An unreformed racist sprouting out bigotry and a teenage girl having a bit of a moan about the cheerleading squad are both protected forms of speech under the first amendment.

If the Supreme Court made an exceptionally broad ruling to the effect of forbidding any organ of the state revoking an appointment on the basis of first amendment protected speech uttered while not performing duties, then the ruling would protect a racist police officer and irate cheerleader equally.

The Supreme Court is, of course, very unlikely to make such a broad ruling in this case, but it does seem like that's the remedy which quite a few people in this thread would like to see decided.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

textgel wrote: post #47
scoopertrooper wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by wnoise »

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 by-default ephemeral nature?

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

#54

Post by kstrauser »

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.

I don't completely disagree with you, FWIW. I do see it as fundamentally different to gripe about your job to a coworker in your living room or at a bar after work. That's the most natural thing ever. It's a different animal to make a public post telling the world that your company sucks and f- the company and your boss.

In Levy's case, she made a public post (even if she didn't mean for it to be public). And to be clear, I'm not going to judge a 14 year old for doing things that I'd be annoyed with a 30 year old for doing. A kid got frustrated with her school and complained about it? Ooh, stop the presses and clutch some pearls! I have a much harder time sympathizing with people twice her age who complain publicly about how much their job sucks, then complain that their boss has relieved them of the burden of ongoing employment.

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

#55

Post by chmod775 »

Why the fuck did anyone at that school even care what a 14 year old said? That is not normal behavior for adults.

At that age I could've exclaimed something along those lines to my teacher's face and they'd just have laughed at me and asked me to calm down.

If I pulled that at work I'd be asked whether everything is alright.

Apparently nowadays the appropriate response to a child throwing a tantrum or having a mental breakdown is to have one as well.

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

#56

Post by kstrauser »

maxerickson wrote: post #31
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,…

It's the other way around. Public schools have more obligations than private employers. That a school is obligated to provide the cheerleading experience to a student they "don't approve of" doesn't imply that an employer is obligated to provide employment to anybody, whether they approve of them or not.

I agree with you on general principles. However, the whole point of this case being in front of SCOTUS is that other courts have ruled that schools aren't obligated to provide that experience. Levy's suing because she disagrees (and I do too).

I think she should be allowed to be a cheerleader even after complaining about her coach and school, as kids are wont to do. Now we'll find out if the courts see it the same way.

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

#57

Post by listless »

klmadfejno wrote: post #50
LanceH wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think that’s true. If you visit a convicted rapist in prison when nobody else will do you condone rape? Or are you performing an act of kindness?

I think the ironic and not obvious answer here is that we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning. That reaction is what gives bad ideas power.

People are complicated. You can’t boil them down to a true nature that is “good” or “bad”. That’s “us vs them”. Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are.

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

#58

Post by umvi »

klmadfejno wrote: post #50
LanceH wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things

I disagree. Why should associating with someone automatically mean you condone all of their beliefs/actions? You can disagree with parts you disagree with. Otherwise that's like a religious person saying they have to shun all democrats, because to associate with them is to condone abortion.

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

#59

Post by klyrs »

josefresco wrote: post #20
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".

I can't help but wonder if the football team also has such rules

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

#60

Post by em-bee »

umvi wrote: post #58
klmadfejno wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things I disagree. Why should associating with someone automatically mean you condone all of their beliefs/actions? You can disagree with parts you disagree with. Otherwise that's like a religious person saying they have to shun all democrats, because to associate with them is to condone…

worse. if you can't associate with such people, then you can't work to change their mind either. i remember a story about someone who made friends with kkk members, and one by one managed to turn them away from the kkk. that probably took some time for each person, during which he had to have been seen associating with them.
Post reply on HN