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

91–100 of 474 posts

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

#91

Post by teawrecks »

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 difference is, one is a private company that you are gainfully employed at of your own volition. The other is a public school that students are legally obligated to attend. The two have nothing to do with each other.

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

#92

Post by ryandrake »

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 thought the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" supreme court case [1] established the school's ability to punish views expressed off campus. So, is this just down to whether her intent was that the message was to be private? The distinction between public and private speech is already fuzzy on these hosted chat platforms, and some would argue is disappearing. The difference between a public and private message in a forum or social media platform might just be a single bit in a database. Ignoring the technicalities of end-to-end encryption, at the end of the day, you're sending your message to a 3rd party company, and that company decides ultimately whether it is public or private. As much as I'd like to see more first amendment protections for school students, I don't think this case is going to be decided in favor of the girl.

1: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

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

#93

Post by jfengel »

em-bee wrote: post #60
umvi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As a control, how many people left the KKK without knowing him?

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

#94

Post by axaxs »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74
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 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 damagin…

Not necessarily.

There are already basic protections in place. For example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for being a satanist.

I don't see a problem with extending such protections to include more free speech. The problem is, where does one draw the line? If one is against abortion and protests that, seems different than say if one is a full fledged neonazi spewing rhetoric.

The way it sits today, the majority of people are afraid to speak their thoughts for fear of workplace retaliation. This is effectively corporate controlled speech, which is not a good thing for society.

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

#95

Post by fighterpilot »

ses1984 wrote: post #76
js2 wrote: post #44

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 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?

So is advanced math, using the library, and so on.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

anonymousisme wrote: post #83
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…

"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 made. Then we can proceed with either cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the rest for perjury." Worked for O.J. when his attorneys questioned Mark Fuhrman. Probably had a substantial impact on the jury verdict. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20…

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by nitrogen »

em-bee wrote: post #60
umvi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

i remember a story about someone who made friends with kkk members, and one by one managed to turn them away from the kkk

Daryl Davis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

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

#98

Post by not2b »

taylodl wrote: post #65
anaerobicover wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 preced…

Sorry, not buying it. If the kid had a pattern of problematic behavior they could have said that she was being dismissed for behavior that took place at team practices or events. But they didn't. They are saying that it was for the Snapchat rant. If they had something else, they could have avoided the court fight.

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

#99

Post by formerly_proven »

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…

The answer should be rather obvious if you put it like this: Should a school get to regulate the speech and expression of its students outside the class room?

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

#100

Post by dnautics »

vmception wrote: post #85
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 damagin…

The first thing I always look for is if I can find some level of discretionary public funding that ties the organization to being a public institution. Or at least creates funding consequences for them if they try to act like a private organization that actually has rights like a private citizen. specifically, when an organization tries to "cancel" someone, it makes me wonder if they are A) able to, or if they must t…

> some level of discretionary public funding

That's going to be everything.

Is there a categorical difference between, say UVA, and Harvard? Arguably Harvard takes much more federal funding than UVA.

How about a local dance studio that got $160,000 in federal loans to keep it afloat during COVID pandemic?

Post reply on HN