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

291–300 of 474 posts

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

#291

Post by rbanffy »

watwut wrote: post #201
rbanffy wrote: post #42

As I'm not American, this whole cheerleading thing feels very weird to me. It's weird to see the role of boys to play sports while the girls cheer doing elaborate choreographies. Does anyone else feels it weird from a different cultural framing?

Afaik, cheerleading is very physically demanding. In terms of strength, agility and how many injuries happen as a result. They also have competitions that are quite serious. As in, if you refuse to accept that it is real physical effort kind of like gymnastic or dance, both of which counts a sports, then maybe you should look again.

I'm just wondering how it reinforces stereotypes.

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

#292

Post by a1369209993 »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #267
tomp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm confused: you say only the police should do something about it, so do you mean that society shouldn't try to prevent bullying, or that the police should run the schools?

I assume they mean (and I agree) that society should try to prevent bullying (that is, criminal harrasment) by reporting it to the police, not by engaging in vigilante 'justice', which is what any school discipline for off campus activity (and really, cancel culture in general) amounts to.

If you believe your vigilanteism is justified (because, and only because, the police won't or can't do their jobs) the onus is on you to clearly communicate that your actions are because the police won't or can't do their jobs, and to support that assertion with resonable evidence, in every single case.

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

#293

Post by jVinc »

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…

> I know I would have been benched or cut if I talked about throwing a game or not trying my hardest and those statements

Do you think you'd get a years suspension as a 14 year old if you'd said "fuck this team" to a friend after losing a match? And do you really think that would have been an appropriate response?

You can't compare her venting to threats of throwing games or intentionally under-performing.

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

#294

Post by vquantum »

hodgesrm wrote: post #289
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 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?

Look at this mail from the Python Steering Council:

https://marc.info/?l=python-dev&m=161652621725348&w=2

Similar rants from last year have been deleted.

Whenever someone posts the evidence you ask for, it is usually flagged instantly. Perhaps that is why evidence is rarely seen.

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

#295

Post by tzs »

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.

> Kids aren't reading the Washington Post Courts & Law section.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I remember as a kid we were occasionally given homework to find an interesting current events newspaper story and bring it to class to read out loud. I remember going over all the news sections when looking for a good story, not just the sections you would have expected an ~9 year old to be interested in.

I remember once finding a story in the international news section about a legislator in some other well known country that all of us kids would have heard of who had yelled during a session that some other legislator was a son of bitch, and then a fistfight broke out between them.

When I brought that and read it aloud to the class and got to say "son of a bitch" in front of everyone and not get in trouble for it was the highlight of my week, and earned the admiration of all the other boys in class.

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

#296

Post by cbnotfromthere »

filoleg wrote: post #179
akomtu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it entertaining that in our society, 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. Our free speech laws are very selective.

>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…

"Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement."

Why would biological facts be considered "political statements"? (assuming gender = biological sex, which is the usual usage from regular talk to identity papers throughout the world).

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

#297

Post by kokanator »

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.

I just want to point out. This was first a religious belief prior to it being a political view.

Therefore, it is an assumption to say the individual is conveying a political view. It very well may be a religious view that is being challenged in the political arena.

Some doctors would also state that it is a scientific argument. ( not protected I know but just showing it isn't entirely political )

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

#298

Post by sanderjd »

axaxs wrote: post #251
pessimizer wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll admit to a little frustration with people who act like current law (usually the first amendment) protects people from "cancellation" by private actors. But I'm more open to arguments that we should create new employment law that makes it harder to arbitrarily fire people. I don't think this is a good idea, for the record, but it is a reasonable argument to make. Many other countries have much stronger worker protections, which work well for them. I don't personally think they would fit with all the other interlocking policies in the US, but it's definitely not a crazy thing to discuss. But it's also not the case that it's a first amendment issue.

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

#299

Post by jessaustin »

jaywalk wrote: post #48
rbanffy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org The fact the Klan is not labeled as one is deeply shocking.

"The Klan" has no relevance these days, and is used as a boogey man more than anything else.

This is a common practice in media and politics. There are more "Klan" members than there are anarchists, yet supposedly those anarchists burned down every urban business in the nation last summer.

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

#300

Post by giantg2 »

jVinc wrote: post #293
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…

> I know I would have been benched or cut if I talked about throwing a game or not trying my hardest and those statements Do you think you'd get a years suspension as a 14 year old if you'd said "fuck this team" to a friend after losing a match? And do you really think that would have been an appropriate response? You can't compare her venting to threats of throwing games or intentionally under-performing.

Yeah, if I said that, I could see myself being cut for that season (year). I think that could be appropriate depending on the circumstances. To make it similar to this case, it wouldn't just be a friend who heard it, it would be the majority of that school. In which case, I can see that as reasonable.

"You can't compare her venting to threats of throwing games or intentionally under-performing."

You seem to be missing the fact that these are one in the same for her scenario. Dragging down school spirit and pride through her comments is exactly the opposite of the cheer squad's function. Note that she was not kicked off the softball team.

Post reply on HN