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

231–240 of 474 posts

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

#231

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a period. Clicking the link above won't work; you have to manually terminate it with a period before loading (should end with "B.L.", not "B.L")

Did you try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v... ?

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

#232

Post by pessimizer »

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…

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with workers' rights. You can't be fired for belonging to a protected class, but you can be fired for literally anything else - hence people are still rarely punished for firing members of a protected class.

There was an upheld case a few years ago where a man fired one of his employees for being too sexy. Not acting too sexy, or dressing too sexy, but being too sexy. You can fire someone for wearing Adidas, or for breathing too loudly (unless it can be shown to be the effect of a disability.)

The idea that we should have special rules for racists and sexists is an insult. It would be in effect creating a protected class for bigots, who could still be fired for wearing green on Thursday.

The most absurd part of this is that the vast majority of the people decrying "cancel culture" are the most antagonistic to any normalization of worker's rights, or enforcement of minority protections. Apparently, the only real racism is when you call someone a racist.

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

#233

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#234

Post by ohyeshedid »

jfengel wrote: post #219
ohyeshedid wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reread what they said; it's not their friend and he made no claims to efficacy. Your response seems off-context.

You're correct: it wasn't their friend, it was something they read. It does sound like they're making a claim to efficacy. It says "one by one managed to turn them away". That's the part I'm asking for clarification on.

The anecdote about Daryl Davis is the preamble, the last sentence is their point.

I'm not saying that's not a valid point of conversation, I'm saying it comes across as off-context to the point where it seems a little like bait.

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

#235

Post by Glyptodon »

It's not like students have a right to participate in particular high school extracurricular activities like sports, right? Could this case end up making varsity sports not allowed to cut players, or is the expectation just that they turn cuts/bans into another "nod and wink" thing where you just aren't chosen/stay benched?

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

#236

Post by pessimizer »

ascorbic wrote: post #224

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.

If you don't want to swear in your newspaper, you shouldn't have to swear in your newspaper to seem "adult." People reading the Courts & Law section are also old enough to know what the fuck "f--k" means.

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

#237

Post by goatcode »

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…

>Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions

You're making a lot of assumptions about the comment above yours. Language changes.

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

#238

Post by fanciestManimal »

foolinaround wrote: post #193
filoleg wrote: post #179

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.

The analogy isn't really 1:1 in the first place. I see plenty of people wearing cross necklaces every day, which is more equivalent to wearing a shirt with an upside down pentagram on it. If the Satanist started wearing shirts with hateful stuff about other people, fire that person too.

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

#239

Post by Fern_Blossom »

nradov wrote: post #162
disabled wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Nah, people escape from the USA all the time. No one moves here. Our border walls are to keep people in, not out. I mean, why else would 2018 and 2019 have record immigration?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-finding...

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested...

Look, people should live where they want, be happy and be proud where they're at. Nothing wrong with that. But single platform ideals to make wide sweeping judgements are a good reason to keep a two party political system. Focusing on one issue and bringing a hammer down to shatter everything is rather unproductive. Yea, the USA has it's problems. Duh. Just like everywhere else has problems too. But more people run to the USA. If someone is privileged enough to find somewhere better, good, go for it. No one wants to stop you.

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

#240

Post by Balgair »

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…

> The problem is, where does one draw the line?

The article goes into one of the possible problems: cyberbullying.

Especially with young women, cyberbullying is a bit of a problem. Though the people involved in this case are not involved with cyberbullying, it's not difficult to jump to that issue with the people involved.

Though it depends on local laws, schools often have the mandate to stop bullying and other such behaviors. Courts have been mixed thus far on how cyberbullying is legalistically different than regular bullying and where the mandates/responsibilities (if they exist) start and end for the school administration, especially with mixed minor-adult populations. It is, admittedly, a very difficult line to draw.

As the article states, SCOTUS rarely gets into school-student speech issues, so this decision is expected to set the stage for the next 25-50 years of US policy in the now digital era

EDIT: It's not just young women, cyberbullying is more of an universal problem.

Post reply on HN