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

101–110 of 474 posts

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

#101

Post by dqpb »

i_haz_rabies wrote: post #86
dqpb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime. “Silence is violence”

No, it isn't. Scenario 1) someone who has bullied you in the past calls classmate a racist term. you stay silent for reasonable fear of reprisals. Scenario 2) your boss says something overtly sexist. you know he is fairly temperamental, so stay silent because you want to keep your job so as to continue paying your bills. Scenario 3) the government is jailing a certain ideological group you happen to somewhat agree wi…

I wasn't declaring that silence is violence. I was providing it as an example for the OP's enumeration. Hence the quotes.

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

#102

Post by tantalor »

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…

> It was expressed privately

That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited any statements of that nature, in private or public.

The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If not, then every rule would have a limited scope. The article gives some examples of problems this would cause, e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment.

If the rules only apply while on school property or in public, then why even have rules? The student can just flaunt the rules and claim "privacy" when challenged.

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

#103

Post by lostlogin »

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…

> try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career

I’m pretty sure that people would give me a weird look and then it would carry on as normal. Is this different somewhere?

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

#104

Post by nitrogen »

thissorthatt wrote: post #37
wil421 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.

Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.

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

#105

Post by jerkstate »

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.

Sounds like Daryl Davis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6FDQ301Q7s

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

#106

Post by mistermann »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #90
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…

Visiting a criminal in prison does not condone their crime. Associating with someone that commits crimes, while turning a blind eye to their criminal behavior, does condone their crimes. What do you mean by "stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning"? Do you have a social group in mind that does not enforce its own social norms?

> Visiting a criminal in prison does not condone their crime. Associating with someone that commits crimes, while turning a blind eye to their criminal behavior, does condone their crimes.

To me, this does not seem logical (for the dictionary definition of "condone"). Would you mind explaining your reasoning?

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

#107

Post by newacct583 »

axaxs wrote: post #94
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…

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 si…

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

That's not "basic protections", it's existing case law about a conflict within the constitution. Freedom of religion and freedom of association are both protected, but where they conflict we generally find that whichever side is providing some kind of good to the public (be it products or employment) needs to bend. You can't fire me for my religion because of the nature of "firing" (being something that denies me something most people have), not "religion". It can't be extended without stepping on some other right-holder's toes.

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

#108

Post by tantalor »

FalconSensei wrote: post #45
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?

"Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.

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

#109

Post by xenadu02 »

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…

There is obviously a balance to be struck here and I don't think we yet have a great framework for thinking about such problems. A lot of what makes a nice society is social norms and conventions. The group must have a way of punishing bad behavior or that system falls apart.

If there are no consequences for "acting like a Karen" what is the social incentive to stop behaving like an angry toddler anytime you don't get your way? Now extend this to even more extreme behavior like people who say you should be killed just for existing because you're an abomination. Is the argument that we should just get along and there shouldn't be any social consequences for that? Such a view would be incredibly naive at best.

On the flip side clearly people's views do sometimes change, people make mistakes, etc. Changing minds and hearts is a process, not a one-time event, so complete shunning for any perceived slight is rather extreme and can be counterproductive.

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

#110

Post by tantalor »

kube-system wrote: post #84
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…

It's irrelevant whether it's voluntary or not, it matters whether it's an establishment of the state.

No. Schools are obviously allowed to limit speech inside the classroom. The question is whether that right extends outside.
Post reply on HN