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

#361

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #343

giantg2 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see an issue with it legally/constitutionally. Case law has been pretty clear that it's not an unrestricted right, this punishment seems logical and thus likely acceptable under common law, and I haven't seen any real support for a theory in which this is not acceptable (besides 1A MFer).

While students do not retain all their First Amendment rights, case law is clear that they retain them to some extent, and in particular Tinker makes clear to what extent schools may restrict those rights. Further, I believe the school will not be able to successfully argue that her speech posed a substantial disruption. As it was neither bullying nor threatening and shared privately, the extent to which it may have…

I thought her speech pertaining to the other girl constituted bullying.

I doubt the privacy laws really hold snapchat as private communication. PA law is very restrictive about recording. If someone recorded her conversation so that it could be played beyond the 24hr period in snapchat, it's possible they could be prosecuted for a felony under the wiretap laws if snaps are actually considered private.

Tinker doesn't really provide clear criteria. The disruption would have to be proven, but the articles don't give us all the details around the issues that were being caused on the team. It's possible she reiterated or confirmed her position at school or the activity, further causing the disruption even if some other person was the first to bring it up (ie it's likely not all of her speech occured off campus). Tinker also doesn't define censoring. It's mostly about not suspending or suppressing student speech on campus in a formal classroom setting. The nature of an extracurricular can carry additional responsibilities and expectations (things like illegal activities, bullying, not following team standards, even performance issues - which you could say this meets) . In this case the school did not try to censor the off campus speech, it merely took action to remove a team member that had a performance issue by violating team policy. There was no formal discipline and she was even allowed to continue with softball.

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

#362

Post by giantg2 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #352

giantg2 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see that as a curse. That's what everyone should be doing.

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

#363

Post by Igelau » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #341

Igelau wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D_wnv_te ratio here is a decent indicator of the proportion of readers who are out of touch with the experience of being a teenager in an environment run by administrators who are violently hellbent on making sure no one is allowed to do anything they did as teenagers. Either you get it or you don't, but I'm not sorry for using HN's "B-word". Before you click the button, do some introspection.

FWIW, I downvoted you for the grossly unjustified implication that this sort of unconscionable malfeasance on the part of school administrators is in any way "shocking", unbelieveable, or specific to "lead-contaminated Boomer"s, rather than a predictable result of putting small-minded fascistic pricks (of any generation) in that sort of position of authority.

Noted. Next factor in: [1] the fascistic pricks of my generation (who are still most of today's fascistic pricks) happen to be what I said they were, and [2] I never said all Boomers were lead-contaminated or that this was historically unique to only them.

Now we don't even disagree on semantics.

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

#364

Post by chillwaves » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

kokanator wrote: post #305

filoleg wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Is there really a point in arguing over the Bible?

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

#365

Post by hluska » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:37 AM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #349

hluska wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

It sounds like it was pretty disruptive to the cheer squad with the bullying and interference with the team dynamic. They didn't suspend her nor cut her from the softball team. The only "discipline" she recieved was being cut from the cheer squad that year due to the disruption she was causing there. She became an active participant in speech that is contrary to the purpose of the cheer squad. I don't know of any spo…

Two judges have held that:

- BL did not waive any constitutional rights when she signed the cheer contract.

- BL’s Snap was off campus speech.

- BL’s Snap did not cause any actual or foreseeable disruption of school activities.

Here’s the appeal court’s ruling:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191842p.pdf

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

#366

Post by KMag » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:40 AM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #360

KMag wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without supporting justification, you literally said that only members of the baby boomer generation who also have lead poisoning would continue to act in such a shameful way after being rebuked. I'm not a Boomer, but I feel like sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered.

Saying "only a boomer with lead poisoning would continue to act so shamefully" isn't conceptually different from saying "only a black person with lead poisoning would continue to act so shamefully". Does that make it more clear why that phrasing should be called out?

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

#367

Post by a1369209993 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:46 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #354

a1369209993 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech.

Sorry, should have been more explicit - edited to clarify that I was talking about exceptions to what qualifies as free speech in the first place, not exceptions to what consequences constitute restriction.

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

#368

Post by nl » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #334

SiempreViernes wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So "stern talking to" is the only action a school is allowed to take?

If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment?

Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.

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

#369

Post by a1369209993 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #363

a1369209993 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I downvoted you for the grossly unjustified implication that this sort of unconscionable malfeasance on the part of school administrators is in any way "shocking", unbelieveable, or specific to "lead-contaminated Boomer"s, rather than a predictable result of putting small-minded fascistic pricks (of any generation) in that sort of position of authority.

Noted. Next factor in: [1] the fascistic pricks of my generation (who are still most of today's fascistic pricks) happen to be what I said they were, and [2] I never said all Boomers were lead-contaminated or that this was historically unique to only them. Now we don't even disagree on semantics.

> Now we don't even disagree on semantics.

Yes, we do.

> > > That's what shocked me about this. I can't believe how doggedly the schoolboard pursued this

We agree that it's bad, but it isn't surprising.

> I never said [...] that this was historically unique to only [Boomers].

> > > (anyone who isn't [both] lead-contaminated [and a] Boomer)[superset] would just shrug and walk away.

> > > (anyone who isn't a Boomer)[subset] would just shrug and walk away

Yes, you did.

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

#370

Post by odessacubbage » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 3:05 AM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #16

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 case will be irrelevant to workplace firings. It's the specific situation of children in schools having fewer rights than adults in the workplace that's the issue here. Some courts have already ruled that kids don't enjoy a full separation between school and personal lives because what they do at home can be disruptive at school, and this ruling is expected to address that specific line of thinking. And really,…

she didn't say them about 'her school' though, she expressed the sentiment of 'fuck school' which is pretty much as vague and general as possible. should your employer have grounds to fire you if you, in a private conversation, express dissatisfaction with the concept of 'work'?