Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

201–210 of 474 posts

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

#201
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?

Afaik, cheerleading is very physically demanding. In terms of strength, agility and how many injuries happen as a result. They also have competitions that are quite serious.

As in, if you refuse to accept that it is real physical effort kind of like gymnastic or dance, both of which counts a sports, then maybe you should look again.

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

#202
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

If one can set up a "church of satan" and call it a religious organization with all protections that come with that, someone else can set up a "church of two genders" and also call it a religious organization and then their holy book would be a very protected speech.

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

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Isn't that the whole point of free-speech?

"Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.

Ah, this trite argument. It doesn't even apply when it comes to public services or the government, as is the case here, in which action is being taken by a public school.

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

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Euro…

I would guess that fewer kids in EU play instrument. And when they do, it is either classic or self taught hobby. Here, basically you can't start officially in high school. You are deemed too old.

No one cares that you play, unless you are from family that actively encourages it.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired? I don't think so.

>If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired?

You raise an interesting point, because I feel like they would be fired for that indeed. What makes it interesting is that it becomes a political message wrapped in a religious statement, and I have zero clue as to how courts would approach that.

I think it just could be the case of a simple misconduct that has nothing to do with religious prosecution, because I don't think you would be able to get away with wearing a tshirt with a lot of really explicit and graphic quotes from the old testament at work, despite them having nothing to do with gender or politics (e.g., the example of Ezekiel 23:20 with very explicit content about reproductive anatomy of horses and donkeys comes to mind).

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

#206
it's in her interest to be banned from cheerleading anyway. so many better sports or other things to do with that time. I don't get why cheerleading is so popular. a "sport" that just sexualizes little girls, parading them at half times. if there was ever a sexist tradition that doesn't die, it's this one -- women training to "cheer" male teams where cheer means doing sexy dances at half time to entertain the men drinking beer in the audience

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

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired? I don't think so.

Nothing can prevent the firing but they would most likely have civil rights lawsuit available to them unless the company had less than 15 employees and was in a state without a more restrictive law than the federal Civil Rights Act.

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

#208
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but wonder if the football team also has such rules

If anything, sexual promiscuity is how you get respected and are more likely to play in games.

Look, I realize there can be a double standard, but please, this is a bit much.

As someone who played on the football team, you are more likely to play in games by being bigger, stronger, faster, and more intense than the other dudes at your position. Coaches give no consideration to anything beyond that.

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

#209
post #194

> “Wherever student speech originates, schools should be able to treat students alike when their speech is directed at the school and imposes the same disruptive harms on the school environment.” This reads like harm prevention rhetoric with a thin veil of authoritarianism.

It makes sense, as culturally the US is collapsing rapidly into a cesspool of nanny state authoritarianism in every possible manner. I can't figure out why anybody would want to live here, it's an increasingly despicable, suffocating culture. We're starting to see the first hints of an American firewall on expression and speech. It has gotten drastically worse over the past 10-15 years.

Every time I watch a movie made before approximately 2010, I laugh about the fact that almost no good movie (any IMDB decent rated movie) made prior to then could be made again today, due to the authoritarian SJW cancel culture, everyone must be protected from being offended at all times. Padded intellectual prisons for all.

The biggest hint of the US intellectual infantile collapse and how far along it is, is that "hate" speech is increasingly taken serious as a notion. Anyone that refers to "love" and "hate" as intellectual concepts that should govern human rights or speech, is a terrifying and dangerous mental infant. Hate is a particularly vague term to use to govern speech, which is the entire point, so the people in control can decide what can be said and what can't be (including restricting criticism directed at those in power; restrictions all authoritarians will always pursue).

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

#210

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…

Clearly you haven't dealt with many schools. Only when the stakes are so low can people afford to be so petty. Some school faculty and administration are incredibly petty and vindictive. Certainly not all but a lot. Grown adults absolutely pick favorites, bully students, talk down to them, and carry out petty beefs for any reason or no reason at all. Sometimes they hurt the children to get back at parents they don't…

Reading this gave me flashbacks to high school. This is very sad but true. While I typically kept to myself and avoided their wrath, certain members of the administration were just horrible, and I could clearly see the mental toll it took on fellow students.
Post reply on HN