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

131–140 of 474 posts

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

#131

Post by teawrecks »

nitrogen wrote: post #104
thissorthatt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What would/should actually happen in this case is HR/the manager would meet with the employee and ask them to vent any apparent frustrations. If the statement was made publicly, they would probably be fired outright for making public statements about the employer without permission. If it's only internal, they wouldn't be fired outright, but they will likely be passed over for promotion. Makes sense, why should a company invest in someone who apparently isn't invested in the company? If they are ever fired, the reason given would be for some other unrelated infraction that they are legally allowed to terminate for.

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

#132

Post by eagsalazar2 »

akiselev wrote: post #88
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, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately) Are we talking Church of Satan or the Satanic Temple here?

Either although mainly from ignorance in the later case. TST is freaking awesome, seriously American heroes. (and hilarious)

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

#133

Post by ohyeshedid »

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?

As a control for what, exactly?

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

#134

Post by kube-system »

joshuaheard wrote: post #122
kube-system wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you post the wrong link? Looks like that's about a case regarding distribution of heroin in the 80s?

I have not seen any analysis that suggests that the school district has used that argument, but I'd be interesting in reading it.

The analysis here[0] (which is the most detailed I've seen) suggests that Mahanoy is arguing that this off-campus speech is causing on-campus harm.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-255

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

#135

Post by axaxs »

newacct583 wrote: post #118
axaxs wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ridiculous hyperbole. First, because it imagines that people get killed for tweets, and second because it hilariously invokes the idea that this is a new thing. You genuinely don't think people have been persecuted for opinions in the past? Let me get my dead buddy Galileo to drop a few r…

I certainly didn't mean to offend you, or to pretend things today are worse than at any point in the past. It was more an argument against this weird celebration of getting people fired. I mean, there's even a subreddit called ByeByeJob. Just pointing out it's not so simple as 'hur hur he got fired.' Imagine you just found out you got cancer, and had a public meltdown on the way home that someone happened to film. Somewhere people would be laughing at you, while others are trying to get you fired, and poof there goes your health insurance. Crazy world.

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

#136

Post by plank_time »

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…

> we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning

There’s also religious-like forgiveness too. Some incredible acts of forgiveness were accomplished by very religious people. Pope John Paul II immediately forgave the person who almost killed him.

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

#137

Post by josefx »

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?

How many people left the KKK without ever associating with people outside of it before?

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

#138

Post by dmitrygr »

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…

adding a pointless query string to the url helps, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...

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

#139

Post by stock_toaster »

ryandrake wrote: post #92
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 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 socia…

I think the key is that [1] was part of an off campus school supervised activity.

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

#140

Post by djrogers »

rattlesnakedave wrote: post #9
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.

Even in the case of threatening speech, I’m not sure the school is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.

You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? (and yes - that would be considered cyberbullying in many schools)

That's a really bad idea.

Post reply on HN