If the school uses public funds, isn't she protected by the first amendment?
Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
71–80 of 474 posts
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#72Earlier 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.
You are conflating your individual right to hang out with who you please with that of an institution like a school or company.
Nobody would disagree with the individual right.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#73So will the SCOTUS uphold the "not a cheerocracy, it's a cheertatership" rule?
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#74For 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 is a lot different than being "canceled". The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, access to education, and equitable access to related school services and programs (including cheerleading).
Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or simply damaging to their brand and business goals. This is entirely a social phenomena and has no legal basis. People legally can and will fire/hire people as it serves my business goals even if you think it is lame. There is no 1st amendment violation here.
Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#75For 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…
here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
url encoding the dot with %2E does work around it.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#76On 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 s…
> That said, she obviously had no choice but to agree to the rules, so that's no defense against a First Amendment violation.
Not sure what you mean by this, cheerleading is optional, right?
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#77For 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…
Plus the school is “government”. This creates an interesting wrinkle here.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#78I'm reading she essentially agreed to a contract in the form of the "team rules" and then violated those rules for which she was held accountable. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a contractual issue.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#79Earlier 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.
> in any manner they see fit.
That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine if a school banned people from sports, because they expressed support for Obama or Trump.
Clearly that would be a government infringing on people's right to speech, as it is expressely political.
Or imagine that a school gave certain benefits, only to students, who publicly support a certain political candidate. If you don't support their choice of president, you lose privileges or benefits or get expelled.
Or, if we are truly talking about "any manner they see fit", an obvious counter example would be if they just banned women from playing sports.
> is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.
There is no can of worms being opened here. A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established.
I am not sure why people are making out speech laws, which have a long history of how they apply to public institutions, as some sort of alien topic.
You wouldn't say that a school could expel people, for example, for this kind of speech, out of school. Why is it so crazy, for this to be applied to other activities?
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#80Why 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…
[flagged]