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

351–360 of 474 posts

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

#351

Post by KMag »

Igelau wrote: post #80
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…

[flagged]

I generally agree with your sentiment, but am disappointed by the ageist phrasing. Your statement would have been much more convincing without it.

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

#352

Post by GauntletWizard »

giantg2 wrote: post #322
david38 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was 14. It’s unreasonable to expect a 14 yo to always represent an organization. Hell, almost no adults ever do that.

I don't see how being 14 is an excuse. People mature at different rates, but I reasonably believe she knew right from wrong. After all 14 is way past mens rea for much more serious topics.

I am going to impart upon you the worst curse I know: I hope you are held to the standards you hold others to.

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

#353

Post by cjohnson318 »

exporectomy wrote: post #319
cjohnson318 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> bringing people back into the fold of widely accepted facts and norms > held onto truly shocking beliefs Can you see the extreme subjectivity in your comments? Why should your opinion of what's a norm or shocking be the ultimate judge? What if its your ideas which are actually shocking and violate the norms? For example, you should believe in a god because that's normal and if you're an exception, you need to be br…

Okay, believing (without evidence) that high ranking Democrats, [sic] globalist Jews, celebrities, and coastal elites are eating aborted babies and performing satanic rituals involving pedophilia and human sacrifice is a truly shocking belief.

I'm okay with being extremely subjective and saying that's actually shocking. Claims that strong should be accompanied by at least circumstantial evidence. If you don't believe this is a real world view that people are trying to spread, look up Q-Anon.

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

#354

Post by krapp »

a1369209993 wrote: post #350
krapp wrote: post #338

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. 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 famil…

> slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence? They're not saying that what speech qualifies as free speech has no exceptions whatsoever[0]. They're saying that you can't do a end run around the entire concept of free speech by laundering your enforcement under the vague heading of "consequences", when those consequences are a result of your enforcement. 0: It should have as few exceptions as possibl…

>They're not saying that free speech has no exceptions whatsoever.

That is literally what they're saying - "Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences" precisely means free speech has no exceptions whatsoever, because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech.

Had they said free speech should have as few exceptions as possible, they would have.

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

#355

Post by ohgreatwtf »

If I was in charge(and I should be, you should all appoint me dictator and get it over with already) we'd have a common sense solution to this problem. It's obvious what to do.

There are two kinds of speech- expressive speech and active speech. Expressive speech can be a rant, a dialogue, swearing, etc. You can call people the N word. That's all expressive. it is you expressing your opinions and your views. You have an absolute right to that and nobody should be able to challenge you on this.

Active speech is speech that seeks to push an action agenda or is supporting actions. When you talk about what you are doing -and- what you are doing is offensive, then your speech is an extension of your offensive actions and does not stand on it's own. As a result, it may not be protected, depending on if your actions are offensive, harmful, or even if someone just doesn't like them.

For example, if an employee says "i hate working here" and you terminate them for that, then you have violated their free speech. if instead they say "bathroom strike #notworking to protest horrible job" and you terminate them for saying that, then you have not violated their free speech, you have acted upon the information presented in their words to respond to their actions or planned actions.

Simple as

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

#356

Post by [deleted] »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74
umvi wrote: post #2

For 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…

[deleted]

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

#357

Post by JohnBooty »

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…

    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.
Do you honestly not see a difference between believing a thing, and emblazoning that thing on a t-shirt that your coworkers have to see?

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

#358

Post by Balgair »

tomp wrote: post #256
Balgair wrote: post #240

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.

I think the issue is if adolescent cyberbullying rises to the level of a crime.

Similar to the US military's idea of Non-Judicial Punishment[0] (drop and give me 50!), school administration often also has the lee-way of assigning punishment to students [1]. This punishment often does not rise to the level of a crime, but still requires action. Things like detention, cleaning toilets, scrubbing hallways, etc. Often, the bully is a minor themselves, and may not understand the implications of their effects. Giving them a police record may not be appropriate if a talking-to will stop the behavior.

SCOTUS's ruling will flesh out this idea a bit more, maybe. If they rule that school administration is able to punish as they see fit for this case, then cyberbullying may be seen as something that does not typically rise to the level of a crime. If they do not, then cyberbullying may need to be revisited as a more serious action on the part of minors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_discipline

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

#359

Post by AnthonyMouse »

root_axis wrote: post #250
foolinaround wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Religious affiliation is protected but that doesn't mean every action taken based on a religious belief is protected. For example, if the individual started wearing the t-shirt the day after a heated religious debate in the office with an individual that identifies as non-binary, that could be perceived as targeted harassment.

> For example, if the individual started wearing the t-shirt the day after a heated religious debate in the office with an individual that identifies as non-binary, that could be perceived as targeted harassment.

But most of these cases are equivalent to someone being fired for wearing whatever t-shirt at home, so that's not really a distinction that gets you out of the problem.

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

#360

Post by Igelau »

KMag wrote: post #351
Igelau wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I generally agree with your sentiment, but am disappointed by the ageist phrasing. Your statement would have been much more convincing without it.

Ageist? I didn't say they all were, just the ones with this special kind of anti-youth aggression. You know, the ageist ones.
Post reply on HN