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

121–130 of 474 posts

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

#121

Post by eagsalazar2 »

lostlogin wrote: post #103
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…

> 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?

If you are a politician, performer, athlete, or CEO in the United States of a high profile company - yes absolutely this is different. Are you an IC in Finland or something? People here get very upset and judgmental as a rule.

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

#122

Post by joshuaheard »

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.

Actually one of the issues in the case was whether she waived her 1st Am rights by voluntarily joining the team.

https://casetext.com/case/us-v-levy-22

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

#123

Post by listless »

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?

I don't think you have to "turn a blind eye". It's not a zero-sum game. But it does mean you have to engage with people. Shunning would be the opposite of that.

The best modern-day example of how we should all live is probably Daryl Davis...

"It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. If you spend five minutes with your worst enemy — it doesn't have to be about race, it could be about anything...you will find that you both have something in common."

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...

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

#124

Post by disabled »

axaxs wrote: post #113
newacct583 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

Sure, but it's worth considering whether we should care about stepping on the right-holder's toes. That's what got us into corporate controlled speech, doxing, and twitter mobs in the first place. Read, people wouldn't do it if it weren't effective. It probably wouldn't be -as- bad if in the US healthcare wasn't tied to employment. As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen…

> As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with.

Exactly, this is a great reason to leave the USA, especially if you already have health issues. With AI taking hold and it getting harder to emigrate, the time to leave is now. Jobs with benefits for programmers are going to become more uncommon, with remote work being possible, as more contract work is going to be offered.

I am a dual US|EU (Croatian) citizen, who is culturally American. I can legally live in about 30 countries (Freedom of Movement rights) as an EU citizen. I left the US over healthcare. For most people on here, Ireland is the place to go to get EU citizenship. Once you get EU citizenship, it levels the playing field and you can go to places with better healthcare than Ireland.

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

#125

Post by klondike_ »

Related case:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

>...the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at or across the street from a school-supervised event.

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

#126

Post by lostlogin »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #121
lostlogin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

If you are a politician, performer, athlete, or CEO in the United States of a high profile company - yes absolutely this is different. Are you an IC in Finland or something? People here get very upset and judgmental as a rule.

I’m in New Zealand. Maybe my assumption that people wouldn’t particularly care is wrong, or my oddities are already factored into their behaviour towards me.

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

#128

Post by mannerheim »

lostlogin wrote: post #112
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?

> How’s a private snap any different than a private letter? I thought that letters had a copyright? The recipient has ownership but cannot publish. If they do copy and distribute (as a screenshot of a Snapchat message) does this not break copyright? Edit: In New Zealand (where I am), an employer screenshooting and distributed an employee’s Facebook messages breached privacy laws. https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledg…

Copyright generally doesn't protect usage of a work in criticism of it, even if it is basically verbatim usage without added commentary. I think Hughes v. Benjamin is salient here.

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

#129

Post by smolder »

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.

There's also the question of how to reform people who misbehave and whether shunning is appropriate or effective for that purpose.

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

#130

Post by setr »

jfengel wrote: post #93
em-bee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It doesn’t matter. Guilt by association implies you can’t even attempt the idea, regardless of success rate. It’s very strictly an us vs. them heuristic, with little to no room for nuance.
Post reply on HN