Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #278

iczero wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes these things happen, humans are judgmental and leery of being associated with people who are undesirable in the eyes their peer group and the specific biases of that group - so it isn't always fair. That is life and has always been true. 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…

[deleted]

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

#282

Post by rtpag » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

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,…

Where did the post you reply to mention "racists and sexists"?

The post mentions people afraid to speak up, like Gen-X members educated by super progressive people from the real student revolts in 1970.

Except that this education is not sufficient to keep up with the arbitrary word games of rich elites, who incidentally do not care about worker's rights.

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

#283

Post by giantg2 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

I don't think schools should get involved in off campus speech or activities. However, we are seeing more and more of it. This case isn't even that extreme compared to others. There are people being suspended from actual school for non-threatening photos with guns or even just liking a photo of a gun.

On the other hand, I don't see the problem with cutting a student from an extracurricular for actions that contradict its intended purpose or standards. If you're saying f the school and f cheerleading and the goal of the cheer squad is to promote school spirit and pride... (she wasn't suspended, given detention, or kicked off the softball team) I know I would have been benched or cut if I talked about throwing a game or not trying my hardest and those statements made it back to the coach. It's not like they were monitoring social media for this.

I'll probably get downvoted, but I guess that's the cost of exercising my free speech.

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

#284

Post by Zee2 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #283

I don't think schools should get involved in off campus speech or activities. However, we are seeing more and more of it. This case isn't even that extreme compared to others. There are people being suspended from actual school for non-threatening photos with guns or even just liking a photo of a gun. On the other hand, I don't see the problem with cutting a student from an extracurricular for actions that contradict…

Certainly agreed, for the speech that has nothing to do with any school activities. Your comparison about talking about throwing a game and the coach learning about it is apt; that sort of speech is essentially the same as your boss at work overhearing that you want to sabotage your work. I feel like the coach, or boss, taking action because they don't feel their player or employee has the best interests of the team or company at heart is well-warranted.

However, for speech that does not relate to any school activities (for example, taking your point of a student exercising their Second Amendment right) should not result in action against the student.

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

#285

Post by iczero » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #278

iczero wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes these things happen, humans are judgmental and leery of being associated with people who are undesirable in the eyes their peer group and the specific biases of that group - so it isn't always fair. That is life and has always been true. 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…

I'm not defending the "right" in any means at all. For me, the term "cancel" means any attempt to ruin anyone's livelihood for saying or doing something considered "wrong", sometimes as a baseless accusation. It doesn't matter what political opinion they hold. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that the political "right" is the only group capable of being "cancelled". I disagree.

If I see something I disagree with on the Internet, maybe a joke gone wrong, I do not necessarily have to like it. But I will, nonetheless, celebrate that they are able to post what they have without facing potentially career-ending repercussions from the other side.

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

#286

Post by milkytron » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

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.

Growing up in PA I definitely experienced this. Some teachers were great, but I remember a particular few who would get noticeably upset, angered, and irritated when challenged or questioned by students.

The worst case I experienced was when a gym teacher was teaching a "graduation course" which was required to be passed in order to graduate. We were the first year to have this class, and I was in the first semester, part of the guinea pig group. We had a semester long project and the teacher in charge would not approve my project because it did not involve raising money for charity (not a requirement on the rubric). Some students sold t-shirts, some organized 5k runs, others wrote children's books. We were encouraged to make money for a cause, but it was not required. I wanted to build an Android app since Android was recently released, and I wanted to make something anyone could use.

The teacher repeatedly told me to go back to the drawing board, fabricating missed requirements that were not on the rubric. Only on the final day of project approvals did he say I needed to raise money, which was not a requirement (more like a suggestion or even trend). I never got the approval, so I shouldn't have passed, but he didn't bring it up the rest of the semester and never looked at my work afterwards.

Final day presentations, the principal (awesome guy who knew nearly every student) watches and asks what I thought about the class and I told my experience. They got rid of that "graduation project" class the following year, and the next semester had all new teachers for it. Half of the kids didn't even donate the money they made.

tl;dr - almost didn't graduate high school because a gym teacher wanted me to raise money as part of a project.

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

#287

Post by stale2002 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

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?

> I can't make any sort of negative decision

Are you saying that you believe that any negative consequence at all, against someone, should be allowed for their speech?

Because if the answer is "No, there are some consequences that I do not think should be allowed, against speech", then you believe that freedom of speech does mean freedom from some consequences.

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

#288

Post by Frondo » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:05 PM UTC

iczero wrote: post #266

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…

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…

For those not familiar with the lady he's referring to, her name is Justine Sacco. She was a senior director of corporate communications, and this (among several tweets making fun of people or places) is the one that presumably got her fires:

“Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...

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

#289

Post by hodgesrm » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:07 PM UTC

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 way it sits today, the majority of people are afraid to speak their thoughts for fear of workplace retaliation.

I hear this argument regularly. Can you cite evidence showing it's actually true?

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

#290

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 11:08 PM UTC

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #278

iczero wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes these things happen, humans are judgmental and leery of being associated with people who are undesirable in the eyes their peer group and the specific biases of that group - so it isn't always fair. That is life and has always been true. 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…

Respectfully, I think some introspection would be helpful here. You're responding to someone with a seemingly reasonable question about "cancel culture", and providing an explanation that the concept was made up by angry people with bad politics who don't want to be good humans. Do you see how this might be incompatible with the kinds of constructive conversations you're looking for?