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

221–230 of 474 posts

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

#221

Post by will4274 »

Y_Y wrote: post #174

> I know a man who is rock hard – he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but most of all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts – he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally – he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go…

That speech was given in person, in the school building, where other students were required to attend, during school hours.

This speech occurred on snapchat, outside of the school building, outside of school hours, with no requirement that anybody pay any attention at all.

That speech is funny tho.

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

#222

Post by calvinmorrison »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74
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…

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…

Well, that's a weird take on things for being a member of a voluntary group activity at school. I certainly wouldn't want someone to be banned from school, expelled or given detention based on what they said, but I don't see why a coach should be keeping people on the team who bad mouth the team, or a music director keeping a tuba player on who continually speaks out about how bad the flute section is on instagram.

Does that difference make sense?

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

#223

Post by vmception »

dnautics wrote: post #100
vmception wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing I always look for is if I can find some level of discretionary public funding that ties the organization to being a public institution. Or at least creates funding consequences for them if they try to act like a private organization that actually has rights like a private citizen. specifically, when an organization tries to "cancel" someone, it makes me wonder if they are A) able to, or if they must t…

> some level of discretionary public funding That's going to be everything. Is there a categorical difference between, say UVA, and Harvard? Arguably Harvard takes much more federal funding than UVA. How about a local dance studio that got $160,000 in federal loans to keep it afloat during COVID pandemic?

Try it in court. Who cares about the hypotheticals or the line? Well I mean, I don't. That's the beauty of it, you don't really need to have strong opinions on anything, just the ability to make an argument that is convenient for you and persuasive to a judge.

The extent of consensus, for me, is understanding what reality can match the arbiters that matter. So I don't really have a fixed world view on much of anything. (sidenote: I'd probably be a decent lawyer, but software earns so much more without any licenses needed.)

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

#224

Post by ascorbic »

Anyone else find it ridiculously coy that the Washington Post censors the word "fuck" in the quote that is the crux of the case. I'm sure the readers are all adults who can handle them accurately reporting the quote. Kids aren't reading the Washington Post Courts & Law section.

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

#225

Post by tengbretson »

I'm trying to figure out a litmus test on how the content of what is said could make this justified or not.

Like if a football player got on snapchat and said that they hope they lose the game this coming Friday and that they intended to take actions that undermined the team, would they be justified in being kicked off the team? I think so.

Is there a similar line for cheerleading and did this cross it? I don't think so, but it's hard to say for sure. I don't know if it's possible to make a ruling that simultaneously defends the cheerleader's speech without also preventing the football coach from acting in this hypothetical situation.

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

#226

Post by teachrdan »

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.

They say that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Kentucky in between.

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #222
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…

Well, that's a weird take on things for being a member of a voluntary group activity at school. I certainly wouldn't want someone to be banned from school, expelled or given detention based on what they said, but I don't see why a coach should be keeping people on the team who bad mouth the team, or a music director keeping a tuba player on who continually speaks out about how bad the flute section is on instagram. D…

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by extropy »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #212
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…

> 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 damaging to their brand and business goals. Being "denied a wedding cake because one is gay" is a choice that private bakeries and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or…

That is not random speech however. That is a protected affiliation. Similarly you cannot discriminate on political or religious grounds.

Some speech is more protected than others.

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

#229

Post by FalconSensei »

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.

> This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will

But that's a _public_ school, right?

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

#230

Post by foolinaround »

filoleg wrote: post #205
foolinaround wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Ok, but as this example demonstrates, a person's political views may stem from his religious views, which are protected.
Post reply on HN