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

331–340 of 474 posts

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

#331

Post by nxc18 »

standardUser wrote: post #324
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…

> There are people being suspended from actual school for non-threatening photos with guns or even just liking a photo of a gun. You may get downvoted for making a preposterous claim with no supporting evidence.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/10/students-suspended-over-snapch...

Just one of several incidents, I chose the first one that popped up on DDG.

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

#332

Post by hluska »

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'd be more inclined to agree but the Snap was hardly public - it disappeared long before school resumed - and her parents were heavily involved, appealing this decision to all levels of school admin before launching a suit. A teenager saying "fuck this $whatever" outside of school hours is hardly disruptive enough to justify this level of punishment. And that level of punishment over something so trivial makes it more difficult for other students to exercise their right to speech without government interference.

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

#333

Post by busymom0 »

standardUser wrote: post #324
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…

> There are people being suspended from actual school for non-threatening photos with guns or even just liking a photo of a gun. You may get downvoted for making a preposterous claim with no supporting evidence.

There have been several examples. Here's one from recently:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/family-of-boy-suspen...

> Nine-year-old Ka Mauri Harrison was taking a test virtually when he saw his teacher rush to get his attention after she spotted the BB gun in his room, a New Orleans NBC affiliate WDSU reported.

> Ka Mauri's parents chose to start the school year off remotely, due to the coronavirus pandemic.

> The incident resulted in the fourth grader being expelled from his school. However, his punishment was reduced to a suspension this week.

> Harrison's family called the punishment a mistake, adding that it threatens their son's academic future.

> "This is an injustice. It's a systemic failure," Chelsea Cusimano, the family's attorney, told The Washington Post on Friday. "They're applying on-campus rules to these children, even though they're learning virtually in their own homes."

> The boy's father, Nyron Harrison said, "They are treating it as if he brought a weapon to school," according to The New Orleans Advocate. "They told me he would be facing expulsion."

> Jefferson Parish Schools, a Louisiana school district that includes Ka Mauri's school Woodmere Elementary, told The Hill that it does not comment on individual student records.

> "Regarding discipline, it is our policy that teachers and administrators may employ reasonable disciplinary and corrective measures to maintain order," the district added.

Here's one suspended for liking picture of gun:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4488386/Boy-suspend...

Another one:

https://nypost.com/2019/04/10/students-suspended-over-snapch...

In a country where arms are part of the constitutional rights, students liking picture on social media or having it in the background during a virtual zoom conference is natural. Getting suspended over it is absurd.

Here's another related one. Virginia Tech Women's soccer player Kiersten Hening alleges she got benched for not taking the knee before a soccer match. Now she is suing. Here is a lawyer's breakdown of the lawsuit:

https://youtu.be/kMDN-9HoTbw

https://youtu.be/iPZbygw5PN4

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

#334

Post by a1369209993 »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #307
a1369209993 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If all they need is a stern talking to, then what they did isn't criminal harrassment.

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

#335

Post by joshuaheard »

kube-system wrote: post #134
joshuaheard wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually one of the issues in the case was whether she waived her 1st Am rights by voluntarily joining the team. https://casetext.com/case/us-v-levy-22

Did you post the wrong link? Looks like that's about a case regarding distribution of heroin in the 80s? I have not seen any analysis that suggests that the school district has used that argument, but I'd be interesting in reading it. The analysis here[0] (which is the most detailed I've seen) suggests that Mahanoy is arguing that this off-campus speech is causing on-campus harm. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supc…

Oops, sorry. Here is the correct link.

https://casetext.com/case/bl-v-mahanoy-area-sch-dist-2

In Part II B. iii Section B: "B.L. Did Not Waive Her Free Speech Rights", the court discusses the defense of waiver for voluntary activities with a separate code of conduct.

"The School District next argues that by agreeing to certain school and team rules, B.L. waived her First Amendment right to post the “fuck cheer” snap. We disagree."

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

#336

Post by mensetmanusman »

aksss wrote: post #325
jVinc wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To be clear, isn't the suspension from participating in those activities (cheer) not from school itself? The former seems completely appropriate to me. The latter not at all.

It seems she could still be in cheer, just not on the higher status squad.

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

#337

Post by kingdomcome50 »

newacct583 wrote: post #116
908B64B197 wrote: post #5

I stopped reading the article when I realized the student was 14 at the time of the post. Anything posted by someone at that age, especially on a temporary medium such as snapchat, should have an implicit "for entertainment purposes only" label on it along with a EULA that says that unless it might cause immediate danger to someone else that it should be treated as satire.

But the case is about a school punishing her for it. I mean, sure, YOU can choose to ignore this 14 year old as irrelevant satire, but the school can't. Taking kids' communication seriously and teaching them how to interact with the broader world in a civil way is literally what schools are for. And that includes incentives like punishing them when they act like an asshole. The question is whether this mandate school…

It’s mind boggling to me that an adult human being (who was once 14!) can hold such a ridiculous point of view. You must have simply forgotten what it was like...

The behavior of this young child warrants (at most!) a sit down with an authority figure to discuss the problematic elements. If this wasn’t her first lapse of judgment, maybe hand down a temporary suspension from the team or something similar.

The idea that this fiasco is somehow helping this kid is... I mean... come on now.

What is happening to us? I’m not even old and I feel like that old man yelling at people to get off my lawn.

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

#338

Post by krapp »

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…

>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.

I take it, then, you are against existing laws against slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence?

And that if I were to try convince your family and coworkers that you were a pedophile, or of some other scandalous rumor, you wouldn't do anything because it would be illiberal and immoral of you to demand that my speech has consequences?

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

#339

Post by fouc »

giantg2 wrote: post #300
jVinc wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 missin…

If you angrily told a personal friend "fuck this team" after a losing game, does that get you suspended? No it doesn't..

A 24 hour self deleting vent to a personal circle of friends should be treated similarly.

As someone else in this HN thread eloquently said:

> It's not just that it was expressed off campus. It was expressed privately. Her speech on its own never reached the school. It was deliberately recorded and rebroadcast. The disruptive speech was the replaying of what she said, not her saying it. There is a huge difference.

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

#340

Post by propernoun »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #321
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 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. It's a symptom of a bigger problem in that U.S.A. schools and companies can terminate for arbitrary reasons. Such w…

>It's a symptom of a bigger problem in that U.S.A. schools and companies can terminate for arbitrary reasons.

Is this specific case really arbitrary though? Did you read the contract/terms & conditions that this individual was under? Was this termination random or on personal whim? Because it sounds like it's the result of an individual's actions in violation of an agreement between that individual and another entity.

>The U.S.A. seems culturally built upon a mentality that one should fear government, but never citizens, and consequently has developed an idea of “Free speech is only from the government.” whereas in most developed nations, freedom of opinion is a more active right that the government also attempts to safeguard from private citizens and schools.

Yes, that mentality is literally part of American culture. In the U.S., governments, unlike citizens, are granted a monopoly on the use of force so a natural distrust is not only appropriate but warranted. The government is under no obligation to defend your rights if you literally sign them away (although there are some rights which cannot be waived). You can say whatever you want, but there may be consequences depending on what you say and where you say it.

>> 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. > Luckily I can't be let go for this either.

People, including children, must learn there are consequences for what they say, particularly in a public forum (and this was effectively so). The only recourse in cases such as this is whether the response was appropriate e.g., within terms of a contract. I personally do not believe that what was said and who it was said to would warrant expulsion, but that's just an opinion, not a contract.

Post reply on HN