Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
271–280 of 474 posts
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, as a Mormon, faced more social pushback in Georgia ~15 years ago, than my Wiccan friends, but neither of us faced any work pushback or worried about our jobs based on our religious beliefs. Though I did have a co-member there get fired for being a Mormon and win a discrimination suit. His religiously motivated abstemiousness regarding alcohol got him fired from an aircraft maker since they worried about him NOT dr…
Was the abstaining done in an offensive or obnoxious manner?
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#273For 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…
If I'm reading you right, then you are very wrong [0]. So much so that the court's own website addresses this:
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
The idea of free speech is that for it to be free, you MUST allow unpopular speech (otherwise, it's not free!). This is hard to remember when we disagree with someone' actions.
A government agent (the school) taking repercussions against a child (she was 14 at the time) because she expressed frustration about the government should clearly fall into the violation category.
To not be a violation would be have an incalculable chill on free speech across schools impacting roughly 70 million kids (plus their parents).
[0] - https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#274Earlier 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…
But is it really only jerks? I've seen attempts to get people cancelled for what they've posted on social media over 10 years ago. Sometimes cancellation happens over allegations that are later proven to be false. There was a TED talk once about a woman who found out she was fired after getting off an airplane because she posted an insensitive joke. Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. Should she have been fired o…
Too be honest, that depends entirely on the joke and her role, doesn’t it?
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#275In the old days, we could separate our "school life" and "off-campus life" into neat little spheres. But these days we live our lives digitally. In this new world the spheres are not as separate as they used to be. The student may have typed the message while off campus, but her classmates may see the message while on-campus. So there is no clear geographic boundaries, and there are no "spheres" really.
The same issue appears when a high school teacher publishes nude pictures of herself. She may have done it while off campus, but the students who see the picture may not see that as a separate sphere.
In the digital world there are no distances. Everyone is everywhere at the same time.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Bu…
If yes, then it would mean that wearing a "there are only 2 genders" tshirt would essentially count as harassing a protected class based on their belonging to that protected class. Which seems like pretty clear grounds for termination, and no "this is just my religion" excuses are going to help here.
Just like wearing a quote from the bible on your tshirt saying that women aren't supposed to hold seniority over men would very certainly get you fired as well, despite that being a part of your religious textbook and you belonging to that protected class.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#277For 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…
Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the meaning of free speech. Forcing a private entity to provide an unpaid service is something quite different.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#278Earlier 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…
But is it really only jerks? I've seen attempts to get people cancelled for what they've posted on social media over 10 years ago. Sometimes cancellation happens over allegations that are later proven to be false. There was a TED talk once about a woman who found out she was fired after getting off an airplane because she posted an insensitive joke. Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. Should she have been fired o…
However, the term "canceled" itself is more typically about a specific and recent set of peers and biases - people on the right who are angry that people on the left are telling them to stop using the f-g or n-word, etc or angry that guys are getting outed for doing exactly the rape-y crap they themselves did and normalized and probably celebrated when they were in college.
Now, I honestly don't know if Louis CK should have had his career ended because he was pervy (pulled his junk out a lot, right? I get these stories confused), but that is more a function of social media being a huge, new megaphone for ostracizing people, not that the left is on some spectacular cancel rampage as it is normally characterized. We do need to grapple with how to deal with this new megaphone, I agree.
However, again, mostly this angst is not about a genuine desire to be good citizens and calling out dangerous corner cases. If it were, we'd be having a very different and much more constructive conversation. Most of this angst is really about the right wanting to keep being the right and going back to good old days, defensively dismissing the way the good old days were actually pretty terrible for a lot of people and we've learned a lot about how to be better humans. Of course there are cherry picked examples (in a population of 7B you can probably found thousands). But those examples don't change the underlying dynamics and motivations of what is going on here on average*.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#279Earlier 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,…
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in any manner they see fit. That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine if a school banned people from sports, because they expressed support for Obama or Trump. Clearly that would be a government infringing on people's right to speech, as it is expressely political. Or imagine that a school gave certain benefits, only to students, who publicly support a certain political candidate. If you don't suppo…
> A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established. Free speech laws apply differently in school. They're not exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times. Bethel v. Fraser[0] is an example where the Court ruled pretty clearly that the school can go as far as to prohibit sexual innuendo, it doesn…
I didn't say that they were exactly the same. Instead I am saying that there is not some "huge can of worms" that is opened on up this topic, if the supreme court rules in favor of the student in this case.
It is instead something that predictably might happen, and which will have predicable results that are in line with how things work in other examples.
So, in other words, the sky will not fall, and schools will not collapse under the weight of not being allowed to punish students for purely off campus speech.