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

61–70 of 474 posts

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

#61

Post by Hfjfjdjfjceijfj »

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…

My understanding is that the first amendment prohibits federal and state governments (and therefore public schools) from placing restrictions on free speech in the first place. Therefore, parts of the code of conduct are unconstitutional and so unenforceable.

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

#62

Post by CheezeIt »

rbanffy wrote: post #42

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?

There’s also a band in the stands that marches in formation on the field at halftime.

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

#63

Post by taylodl »

kstrauser wrote: post #56
maxerickson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

I predict the SCOTUS will see cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity outside of the scope for which a public school is obligated to provide and thus may restrict access to that activity in any manner they see fit. If they don't rule it that way then SCOTUS is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.

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

#64

Post by em-bee »

rbanffy wrote: post #42

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?

cheerleading is like nurses and teachers. male cheerleaders do exist, they are just a small minority. we are arguing for more male teachers and nurses, and we could just as well be arguing that there should be more male cheerleaders.

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

#65

Post by taylodl »

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.

Having worked in several youth organizations and youth sports for the past 30 years, I bet what actually happened is this kid has been "problematic", the adults have been trying to do right by the kid, and this was the final straw. I've seen that happen. The act resulting in a kid getting dismissed from an activity in and of itself isn't egregious when considered in isolation. It's all the other stuff going on preceding that act that caused the response. Obviously I don't know the details of this particular case, but it wouldn't surprise if that is what happened here. It's typically the way such things go.

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

#66

Post by maxerickson »

taylodl wrote: post #63
kstrauser wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

I predict the SCOTUS will see cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity outside of the scope for which a public school is obligated to provide and thus may restrict access to that activity in any manner they see fit. If they don't rule it that way then SCOTUS is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.

It would already be subject to Title 9, they have to provide equal access.

The school can certainly argue that all students have to meet the same requirements to participate, which would hinge on whether the student could reasonably anticipate the consequences here (an example where that isn't possible is if the school created and applied a policy for the incident).

My first comment is in response to the people inventing parallels that don't exist at all because schools and work places are very different things and wasn't an attempt to thoroughly examine the specifics. A finding that the existing obligations of the school do apply to this situation is irrelevant to at will employment.

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

#67

Post by thatguy0900 »

listless wrote: post #57
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.

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…

" Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are." Well, historians do. Subject to change.

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

#68

Post by listless »

thatguy0900 wrote: post #67
listless wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

" Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are." Well, historians do. Subject to change.

Accurate.

Although I suppose I was referring to "history is written by the victor". America is a great nation, but had the revolution failed, it would have been a disgraceful insurrection instead.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN