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

391–400 of 474 posts

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

#391

Post by [deleted] »

axaxs wrote: post #94
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#392

Post by Igelau »

a1369209993 wrote: post #369
Igelau wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)[s…

I can't even read your butchering of my words for all the bracketing. You call it implication born between my words, but I call it interpretation born between your ears. What it's confessing, I have no idea.

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

#393

Post by XorNot »

umvi wrote: post #58
klmadfejno wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its perfectly fine to shun people if you think they're awful. Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things. Choosing not to decide is still a choice. The question at hand is whether you believe isolated private communications to be representative of true nature.

> Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things I disagree. Why should associating with someone automatically mean you condone all of their beliefs/actions? You can disagree with parts you disagree with. Otherwise that's like a religious person saying they have to shun all democrats, because to associate with them is to condone…

That's irrelevant: this is a social issue not a legal or technological one. "Associating" is covering an awfully broad amount of ground there.

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

#395

Post by agogdog »

Mirioron wrote: post #386
ryanong wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled It is important to disambiguate the two

The difference being that in one case they harass you directly and in the other they harass your employer, family, and any future employers?

Unorganized individuals from twitter contacting your employer isn't harassment. If it is the implications would be scary the other way around: would you punish someone who pointed out a problem that happened to become popular on a social network?

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

#396

Post by mannerheim »

giantg2 wrote: post #361
mannerheim wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn’t matter to anyone else?

I don't see how that can constitute bullying; the student mentioned here is her friend. It's critical of some freshman getting on the varsity team, but it doesn't appear here that she even mentioned said freshman.

Privacy laws are not really relevant; I was speaking of privacy in a broader sense, in the sense that what she said was meant for just her immediate circle of friends, and not wider dissemination.

If she had been disruptive in person at the school, that's a completely different story, but I would expect we would have heard of that if that had been the case. Judging it as a case of purely off-campus speech, there's no way this qualifies as disruptive.

Extracurriculars can carry additional responsibilities, but if they are provided by a government institution, then they have to follow the Constitution. As for the definition of censorship, punishing a student for their speech is censorship. 'Team policy' is not an excuse if it is unconstitutional. If speech restrictions can apply off-campus and outside of school events, a 'team policy' could just as well include things like never making political statements, or never making left/right political statements, and so on.

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

#397

Post by kangaroozach »

She made a side-deal to be on the team. Seems like they are litigating the validity of that deal and nothing more.

[The coaches said Levy’s snap violated the team rules she had agreed to, including showing respect, avoiding “foul language and inappropriate gestures,” and a strict policy against “any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches placed on the Internet.”]

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

#398

Post by Grustaf »

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…

> This is entirely a social phenomena and has no legal basis.

It can still be a major problem in a supposedly "free" society if there is a culture of punishing people for their thoughts. For one thing, it makes democracy pointless.

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

#399

Post by istjohn »

My experience as a student in a US public school a dozen or so years ago was that it functioned as a borderline fascist institution, to an extent that I think would be quite surprising to the rest of the world. Every day began with the Pledge of Allegiance recited in the classroom, facing the US flag, hand on chest. Permission was required to use the restroom during class. Class changes were anounced by automated bells in the hallway, at which time students stampede to their next class within 6 minutes, including any necessary pit stops, such as a restroom break. This is high school, where students typically attend until 18.

Schools loom so large in students' lives; and when school attendance is compulsory for all, and public school the only option for many; and when these institutions so easily sacrifice respect for individuality in favor of keeping order inexpensively; I am all for ensuring students can enjoy their full speach rights when they come home at the end of the day.

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

#400

Post by tomp »

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’m ok with schools “punishing” people for breaking social norms, but the punishment should be proportional - detention, extra homework, public shaming, etc.

But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.

Post reply on HN