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

161–170 of 474 posts

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

#161

Post by intergalplan »

CheezeIt wrote: post #62
rbanffy wrote: post #42

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?

There’s also a band in the stands that marches in formation on the field at halftime.

In fact, the primary band program at my high school seemingly only existed to fulfill this role. I ultimately dropped it because I was sick of doing unpaid work for the football program outside school hours.

I'm pretty sure the extreme emphasis on marching-compatible instruments in high school music programs is entirely due to this, in fact. I wonder how many 17-year-olds play the tuba or trombone or clarinet in Europe, versus the US, for instance? In an ideal world I'd see all non-specialist students at that level learning piano/keyboard, or maybe guitar or ukulele. Something with good general utility, acceptable when played solo even at not-great skill levels, and relatively easy to reach a point where you can lead a sing-along. Nice, physical, evident mapping of notes and theory to the instrument, too, unlike wind and brass instruments.

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

#162

Post by nradov »

disabled wrote: post #124
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. 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 c…

More people migrate from the EU to USA than the reverse. So it seems the majority disagree with you.

https://mises.org/wire/3-times-many-europeans-move-us-other-...

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

#163

Post by filoleg »

klyrs wrote: post #59
josefresco wrote: post #20

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

From what I personally have seen and heard from other people, football teams either have no such rules or those rules are not enforced about 100% of the time.

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

#164

Post by jjcon »

newacct583 wrote: post #116
908B64B197 wrote: post #5

I stopped reading the article when I realized the student was 14 at the time of the post. Anything posted by someone at that age, especially on a temporary medium such as snapchat, should have an implicit "for entertainment purposes only" label on it along with a EULA that says that unless it might cause immediate danger to someone else that it should be treated as satire.

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…

> Taking kids' communication seriously and teaching them how to interact with the broader world in a civil way is literally what schools are for

In no way is that the original or even modern purpose of schooling

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

#165

Post by neogodless »

kstrauser wrote: post #54
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.

I don't completely disagree with you, FWIW. I do see it as fundamentally different to gripe about your job to a coworker in your living room or at a bar after work. That's the most natural thing ever. It's a different animal to make a public post telling the world that your company sucks and f- the company and your boss. In Levy's case, she made a public post (even if she didn't mean for it to be public). And to be c…

I've always thought of Snapchat as "hanging out on your back porch with a beer". On the other hand, I've never sent any Snaps to more than like... 3 people. Sending it to 250 is a bit like hosting the entire class from your school at a party, and then getting on a microphone and saying "F--- all of you and f--- cheer!" and then someone recording that on their phone and showing a coach.

I don't think it's fair to call her action "making a public post" because she did not make it public. Someone else did.

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

#166

Post by jandrese »

em-bee wrote: post #64
rbanffy wrote: post #42

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?

cheerleading is like nurses and teachers. male cheerleaders do exist, they are just a small minority. we are arguing for more male teachers and nurses, and we could just as well be arguing that there should be more male cheerleaders.

Back when I was in High School there were a handful of male cheerleaders. Their job was to fling the girls so high in the air that they could break bones if not successfully caught.

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

#167

Post by akomtu »

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…

I find it entertaining that in our society, a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Our free speech laws are very selective.

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

#168

Post by mannerheim »

RankingMember wrote: post #155
ecshafer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that the government can't suppress your speech (with certain narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.

In this case, it's precisely a government institution suppressing speech.

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

#169

Post by exporectomy »

xenadu02 wrote: post #109
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…

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 ge…

> 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.

Yes. But it's a problem when different cultures coexist and see each other's good behavior as bad. Societies that kill their "abominations" are also enforcing their social norms. And they may even be right to do so given the environment they live in and their desire to continue existing as a society. Modern western culture has the luxury of being very tolerant of diverse types of people because we're so wealthy and safe, but many societies or their members are closer to the brink and the presence of too many ineffective or counter-productive members is an existential threat.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #146
chmod775 wrote: post #55

Why the fuck did anyone at that school even care what a 14 year old said? That is not normal behavior for adults. At that age I could've exclaimed something along those lines to my teacher's face and they'd just have laughed at me and asked me to calm down. If I pulled that at work I'd be asked whether everything is alright. Apparently nowadays the appropriate response to a child throwing a tantrum or having a mental…

Casual reminder that this school is less than 30 minutes from the one that jailed a girl for a year and a half for making a fake myspace page lightly making fun of the principal. (As seen in the excellent doc: Kids For Cash) PA has some extreme deep south vibes in some areas that constitute an aggressive hatred and power addiction over younger people.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN