151–160 of 474 posts
"Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck cheer, fuck everything." Wait, that's it?!
There was a case of a student making a joking fake myspace for a Principal that landed the student in jail for a year and a half, happened half an hour away from this place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They actually have rules against "sexual promiscuity"? What do those rules look like and how are they enforced? Is it just a dress code, or do they actually discipline students for being "promiscuous".
I can't help but wonder if the football team also has such rules
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the case is about a school punishing her for it. I mean, sure, YOU can choose to ignore this 14 year old as irrelevant satire, but the school can't. Taking kids' communication seriously and teaching them how to interact with the broader world in a civil way is literally what schools are for. And that includes incentives like punishing them when they act like an asshole. The question is whether this mandate school…
> but the school can't Oh yes it can. And should. > The question is whether this mandate schools have (which we all agree they have!) No we don't. It's literally the first amendment. Student was exercising her first amendment rights. School has a right to tell her that they don't agree with the opinions she expressed but certainly not the authority to punish her. Else it's a slippery slope [0] [1] [2] [0] https://nyp…
The question here is under what circumstances student speech can be regulated, not whether.
I'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.
1: She could not legally sign that contract 2: The cheerleading team is ultimately an extension of the government (as it is part of a government institution).
By literal means, the state is punishing someone for what is ultimately private, off-campus speech. A lawyer with goals in life would see that as a case worth fighting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.
Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. The principle of free speech is one we all ought to attempt to live up to, and that principle goes far beyond what the first amendment may protect. Take that phras…
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…
"Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd.
Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws providing greater protection for freedom of speech." - https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
As I'm not American, this whole cheerleading thing feels very weird to me. It's weird to see the role of boys to play sports while the girls cheer doing elaborate choreographies. Does anyone else feels it weird from a different cultural framing?
How about modelling? It's dominated by women while men are relegated to the proverbial shadows.