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

371–380 of 474 posts

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

#371

Post by bostonsre »

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…

> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same.

I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation argument is purely made by evil jerks (e.g. I don't consider lex to be a jerk). You don't think it's easier now than ever before to be 'canceled' by a social media mob? Don't there have to be some negative consequences to allowing for permanent cancelations? By all means, people that do extremely horrible things should be shunned but how and where does the line get drawn for the more mediocre offenses? Also, people are fallible, they screw up and make mistakes. Do they have a right to make amends and be forgiven for dumb things they did in the past?

It almost seems like it's trending towards a crowd sourced social credit system similar to what the CCP implemented.

I am not on the left or right, but shouting social media mobs with pitch forks doesn't seem like the best way to achieve internet 'justice'.

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

#372

Post by JohnBooty »

chillwaves wrote: post #364
kokanator wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the micro, it certainly isn't. I mean, at least in the context of HN or the workplace.

In the macro, it's relevant to issues of school/workplace speech in the sense that it's good to remember that major religions are awfully large tents and represent a wide plurality of beliefs. Christianity is not necessarily synonymous with any particular belief regarding gender, etc. The same could be said of other major world religions.

I'm an atheist and therefore don't have a horse in this race. But it's one reason why merely identifying as belonging to a religion is fine in the workplace, whereas espousing specific religious beliefs that disparage others is a problem.

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

#373

Post by a1369209993 »

nl wrote: post #368
a1369209993 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure how you got from "(responce = criminal harassment)" to "(severity If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.)

0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".

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

#374

Post by [deleted] »

david38 wrote: post #317
giantg2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

[deleted]

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

#375

Post by Causality1 »

nl wrote: post #368
a1369209993 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You interpreted his comment in exactly the opposite of the way it was written, as best I can tell.

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

#376

Post by foobarian »

a1369209993 wrote: post #373
nl wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not sure how you got from "(responce = criminal harassment)" to "(severity If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved . (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.) 0: T…

> with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion

Expulsion is not really on the table, at least in the U.S.

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

#377

Post by dannykwells »

I bet it's not even close.

The Roberts court loves free speech even in far more harmful forms - see Citizens United. They will be very wary of implications of "liberal" companies governing speech outside of work too.

This was a huge over reach by the school and now they're gonna lose big time.

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

#378

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

Another workaround for the issue in Edit 2 is to use the page ID number instead of the title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1019908655

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

#379

Post by netrus »

vquantum wrote: post #294
hodgesrm wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well yes, many people will want to say "fuck you" to their boss at some point in time, and will not do so for fear of retaliation.

In the example you post, someone is ridiculing a group decision on a sensitive topic. Do you actually think that there should be no negative consequences to _ridiculing_ the decisions of your boss or coworkers? Being a dick has always been a way to lose your job, and I think that's okay.

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

#380

Post by ALittleLight »

david38 wrote: post #317
giantg2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I think the penalty is far too extreme, I think the cheer-squad equivalent of running laps should've been used. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though, that the cheer squad can have standards around esprit de corps and have some mechanism to enforce that. The girl didn't just talk to her friend, wholly understandable, but also sent a message to 250 people many of whom, presumably, are fellow students and cheer leaders, some of whom were upset.

I think you're right that it's unreasonable to expect a 14 year old to always represent an organization well, but, that's kind of the point of both being in the organization and punishing poor behavior. The child, who isn't ready to act like we expect an adult to, gets lessons in how we expect adults to act. The cheer leading program is a great way to teach that, provided you don't go too extreme with it, like banning the girl for a year.

Imagine going through school learning that you're allowed to say whatever outside of school and can't be punished for it. Then you get a job and talk shit about it on social media the same way you've been taught is perfectly acceptable, and... You get fired. Conversely, imagine being a student in a student org and getting scolded and minor and increasing punishments for acting inappropriately and you come to understand what's expected of you. I think the latter student is better equipped for the real world.

Post reply on HN