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

251–260 of 474 posts

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

#251

Post by axaxs »

pessimizer wrote: post #232
axaxs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Good points all around. Since work is so vital to our everyday survival, and as pointed out, often health insurance, it should be much harder or with much better reason to fire someone than what currently exists today(which, in most states is nothing). I by no means intended to advocate for chiseling out special protections for bigots or antagonists.

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

#252

Post by nightski »

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…

That only makes sense if the "optional" activity is not funded by a public school and does not make use of any public school property. Otherwise it is a government sanctioned activity, however optional.

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

#253

Post by cozuya »

ecshafer wrote: post #119
tantalor wrote: post #108

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…

I'm going to cherry pick your slippery slope argument:

> Should certain speech mean imprisonment?

Yes. Credible death or terroristic threats in 1st world countries can mean you can go to jail. Society has decided that people don't have the "natural rights" to threaten to murder other people.

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

#254

Post by fanciestManimal »

baryphonic wrote: post #241
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…

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same. Can you direct me to any incidents where someone expres…

Maybe I missed something in this discussion, has someone ever said "I'm a Christian" and then been fired?

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

#255

Post by cjohnson318 »

listless wrote: post #123
cjohnson318 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visiting a criminal in prison does not condone their crime. Associating with someone that commits crimes, while turning a blind eye to their criminal behavior, does condone their crimes. What do you mean by "stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning"? Do you have a social group in mind that does not enforce its own social norms?

I don't think you have to "turn a blind eye". It's not a zero-sum game. But it does mean you have to engage with people. Shunning would be the opposite of that. The best modern-day example of how we should all live is probably Daryl Davis... "It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. If you spend five minutes with your worst enemy — it doesn't have to be about race, it could be about…

I think what you're trying to say is that compassion is a more effective tool for bringing people back into the fold of widely accepted facts and norms, and you offer Daryl Davis as an example.

I hear what you're saying, but I think Daryl Davis is an inexplicable exception, not the rule. I think most people know someone that has held onto truly shocking beliefs for decades, and hasn't responded to reason or compassion.

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

#256

Post by tomp »

Balgair wrote: post #240
axaxs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If cyber-bullying is really that problematic, it should be a crime.

Schools aren’t called to solve crime; they should defer to the police.

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

#257

Post by LurkersWillLurk »

pessimizer wrote: post #245
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…

Are you saying that I can't make any sort of negative decision about you no matter what you say, or I'm violating the principle of free speech? > Alienation and banishment from society? I literally have to still be friends with you, or I'm oppressing you? What are we using language for anyway, if we have to ignore it?

You don't have to associate with anyone as a private individual if you don't want to. In the present case, the school district is an arm of the state and cannot punish a student for constitutionally protected speech.

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

#258

Post by JohnBooty »

akomtu wrote: post #202
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 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.

No. There are some interesting conundrums one might imagine but not the example you give; that's straightforward.

You can't be fired simply for belonging to a religion.

However, belonging to a religion doesn't legally excuse your other actions such as harassing others based on their religion/sex/whatever.

So, you can belong to the Church of Satan, and even tell people that you belong to it -- that's your business. But you can't harass Christians for being Christian. That's their business.

Similarly, you can believe there are only two genders and those who transgress those boundaries are wrong. That's your business. But you can't harass coworkers based on those beliefs. That's their business.

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

#260

Post by dnautics »

vmception wrote: post #223
dnautics wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anythin…

> Who cares about the hypotheticals or the line?

Well, for one, anyone administering anything IRL. You're a programmer, so you're not really responsible for much besides your own code. If you were a school principal (or a dance studio runner), knowing where the line exists (or is "liable to exist") BEFORE having to walk into court is important. A legal battle is not as easily ninja'd out as println debugging.

Post reply on HN