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

301–310 of 474 posts

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

#301

Post by tomc1985 »

disabled wrote: post #124
axaxs wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's worth considering whether we should care about stepping on the right-holder's toes. That's what got us into corporate controlled speech, doxing, and twitter mobs in the first place. Read, people wouldn't do it if it weren't effective. It probably wouldn't be -as- bad if in the US healthcare wasn't tied to employment. As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen…

> 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…

Wonderful, so how does a natural-born US citizen without a dual citizenship get the right to live and work in Europe?

The only ways I am aware of are having a work sponsor, the Dutch-American friendship treaty, or taking advantage of a country that offers citizenship to descendants of emigres, like Greece

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

#302

Post by jessaustin »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #247
gonehome wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing for a school to exercise editorial control over a student paper (previous SCOTUS case), but it's quite another for them to try to control student speech outside of school. A lot of public schools in the US are miserable places with dumb and often hostile adults. I agree that they are the ones bullying the student here - I hope the school loses.

They can definitely regulate the use of the word fuck in the school or in class, I am fine with that, but I know others that would disagree. You could definitely change the facts just slightly, where a student posts something on social media during school hours while on campus...then is it fair game for the school to regulate/punish? I have to admit myself I’d want to know the context, but it really shouldn’t matter,…

I'm glad they're cherry-picking. They're more likely to get it right, and it's best if they move slowly. Ten years from now they can take a case from a student who will have been sent to detention for cursing her teacher's parentage during class.

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

#303

Post by a1369209993 »

watwut wrote: post #176
axaxs wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly didn't mean to offend you, or to pretend things today are worse than at any point in the past. It was more an argument against this weird celebration of getting people fired. I mean, there's even a subreddit called ByeByeJob. Just pointing out it's not so simple as 'hur hur he got fired.' Imagine you just found out you got cancer, and had a public meltdown on the way home that someone happened to film. So…

That is exactly what happened to gays and lesbians and single moms in conservative places. That is what happens to anyone with history of sex work. There is actual organization right know to collect wrong thing said by liberal professors and to try them get fired. The abortion clinic volunteers that go with you so that you are not yelled at alone are a thing for a reason. And in civil rights era, white who did not su…

And?

The direction of implication is "people are evil because they do evil actions", not "actions are evil because evil people do them".

Unjustifiedly firing people is wrong, and therefore conservatives are wrong to do so.

Unjustifiedly firing people is wrong, and therefore liberals are wrong to do so.

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

#304

Post by jessaustin »

FalconSensei wrote: post #229
RankingMember wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that the government can't suppress your speech (with certain narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.

> This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will But that's a _public_ school, right?

This may be a reason why we've been served the private "charter" school Kool-Aid for a decade now... after all, nearly all discourse has been moved to private online platforms.

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

#305

Post by kokanator »

filoleg wrote: post #276
JohnBooty wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To add on top of that, isn't gender now a protected class when it comes to employment as well? 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 quo…

First wearing either t-shirt is no way to approach these subjects as they are very nuanced.

Dispelling a myth here, the Bible doesn't actually say "women aren't supposed to hold seniority over men". It is true that it has been used in this manner and interpreted by certain organizations as such. Strong lined Complementarianism [0] espouse this belief.

However, the conclusion is not supported by the text and context nor by the rest of the Bible. [1]

To use a verse already quoted here Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". This verse has everything to do with equality and nothing to do with the topic it was used for elsewhere in this thread. ( read it in context and you will see ).

I know I may get flamed/down voted for this but it is extremely important.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism

[1] https://almostheretical.com/episodes/authority-over-a-man

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

#306

Post by shkkmo »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #255
listless wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compassio…

No solution is perfect, but I can't doubt that the world would be a better place if more people tried a little compassion and outreach first instead of going straight to assuming the worst and shunning.

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

#307

Post by SiempreViernes »

a1369209993 wrote: post #292
SiempreViernes wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Uh, so if a kid needs a stern talking to you better call the police (and not their parents) is what you are saying?

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

#308

Post by axaxs »

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?

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-th...

I've read this multiple times over the last couple years. Please don't accuse me of cherry picking, I don't know anything about Cato, I just googled it and it was the first link(well, via thehill).

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

#309

Post by exporectomy »

watwut wrote: post #188
xenadu02 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is obviously a balance to be struck here and I don't think we yet have a great framework for thinking about such problems. A lot of what makes a nice society is social norms and conventions. The group must have a way of punishing bad behavior or that system falls apart. If there are no consequences for "acting like a Karen" what is the social incentive to stop behaving like an angry toddler anytime you don't ge…

Interestingly, the most common use of Karen I have seen is women being assertive and actually right. Yes, sometimes it is in racist or exaggerating context. But, most often, Karen is used to shut up woman who don't want to be doormat or is telling you off for good reason.

You can respectfully communicate your feelings about somebody without being horrible and hurting people or losing control and getting laughed at. It's not easy but women shouldn't aspire to be bitches because they might succeed and then everyone suffers.

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

#310

Post by screye »

xenadu02 wrote: post #120
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…

Clearly you haven't dealt with many schools. Only when the stakes are so low can people afford to be so petty. Some school faculty and administration are incredibly petty and vindictive. Certainly not all but a lot. Grown adults absolutely pick favorites, bully students, talk down to them, and carry out petty beefs for any reason or no reason at all. Sometimes they hurt the children to get back at parents they don't…

> "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."

Sayre's law makes a return

Post reply on HN