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

#451

Post by akomtu » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #179

akomtu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it entertaining that in our society, a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Our free speech laws are very selective.

>a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

In other words, if you were a judge and we're presented with a range of offenders wearing tshirts with "two genders", "satan church", "flat earth" and "vaccine hoax" logos, you'd selectively label them as political, religious, unscientific and "dangerous disinformation" and issue sentences accordingly? If that's the case, this isn't different from how the inquisition operated long ago, except that they would praise the flat earth and two genders guys, and execute on the spot the satan worshipper. Freedom of speech is about protecting all viewpoints, including the ones you don't like and even the ones you deem offensive.

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

#452

Post by bostonsre » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

nonameiguess wrote: post #439

bostonsre wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 arg…

I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable…

> I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion.

I was talking specifically about "cancelling" people with social media mobs to shout down opposing views or harass them into submission. The scale and ease at which it can be done has allowed it to be used as a tool to beat down morally reprehensible individuals as well as some that have arguably reasonable views.

> Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.

I make no claim that sexual harassment and racism are good things or that they should be allowed. My problem is with the gray area that is harder to say whether or not it is allowed. I think trump is a corrupt numbskull, but I think it is absolutely horrible to attempt to "cancel" people or organizations that openly support him and I think the whole idea of shouting down or harassing opposing viewpoints that a good portion of society consider to be reasonable into submission is reprehensible.

Vigilante mobs are not rational entities, they should not be used as a tool to win arguments. Their use will continue to further radicalize both sides of the spectrum and I don't see how they could possibly lead to anything good for humanity. Anyone or any group that says I think this therefore I am correct and they are wrong should be looked at skeptically. Policies and issues need to be discussed academically and not through twitter shouting matches.

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

#453

Post by em-bee » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #430

umvi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you employ jack and jill, and jack tells jill he wants her to be killed, your relationship with jack is not isolated. The way you treat jack signals whether you think it is important that jack hates jill. If you go grab a beer with jack and hang out on weekends, that sends a strong message. If you do nothing, that means its ok for jack to think jill should die and jill can fuck off. If you fire jack, you've sent a…

If you refuse to accept pro-choice individuals and then hang out with them, you're just an inconsistent person

you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. but that is wrong. i can, even must accept you as a person, even if i violently disagree with your opinions. if i don't then it would be impossible for us to have any dialogue, and for me to learn and understand why you have this opinion, and also for you to learn and understand mine.

this idea that i must not associate with people who i disagree with is a core problem. we must get away from that otherwise we won't ever be able to resolve our differences.

virtue of your religious objections

there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated.

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

#454

Post by zepto » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #179

akomtu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it entertaining that in our society, a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Our free speech laws are very selective.

>a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

What about a t-shirt that says ‘the devil told me there are only two genders’?

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

#455

Post by valarauko » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #405

axiosgunnar wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 damaging to their brand and business goals. Being "denied a wedding cake because one is gay" is a choice that private bakeries and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or…

Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else. Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork.

> Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else.

To quote the dissenting Opinion in this case, written by Justice Ginsburg,

In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold.

The "Jack" in question:

> William Jack visited three Colorado bakeries. His visits followed a similar pattern. He requested two cakes “made to resemble an open Bible. He also requestedthat each cake be decorated with Biblical verses. [He]requested that one of the cakes include an image of two groomsmen, holding hands, with a red ‘X’ over the image. On one cake, he requested [on] one side[,] . . . ‘God hates sin. Psalm 45:7’ and on the opposite side of the cake ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin.Leviticus 18:2.’ On the second cake, [the one] with the image of the two groomsmen covered by a red ‘X’[Jack] requested [these words]: ‘God loves sinners’ and on the other side ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 319a; see id., at 300a, 310a.

...

The bakeries agreed to bake & sell him these cakes, but without the specific messages he wanted. Jack filled charges against these bakeries, and the Colorado courts upheld the rights of the bakeries in this case. The Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Bakery used this case as the precedent, and I agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissent that it should not apply.

> The Court concludes that “the Commission’s considera-tion of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

> Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork.

This is addressed in her dissent as well.

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

#456

Post by a1369209993 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #426

a1369209993 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to be making a bright line distinction between "at school" and "not at school". This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school? Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into…

> I don't see what is different or new here.

That's fair as far as it goes, but I'm not claiming it's different or new; I'm claiming it's bad and needs to be stopped.

> Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports?

Probably. Probably. Debatably and depends on the mode of transport.

> Bullying that extends from school to out of school?

That's two items; yes to the former, no to the latter.

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

#457

Post by hodgesrm » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:09 AM UTC

axaxs wrote: post #308

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?

https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-th... I've read this multiple times over the last couple years. Please don't accuse me of cherry picking, I don't know anything about Cato, I just googled it and it was the first link(well, via thehill).

Thanks for following up. It seems like a reasonable source. This is sad and worth thinking about.

I wonder how this compares with other countries but I can look that up myself. The article you referenced from The Hill considered the issue but didn't provide much useful data either way. [1]

[1] https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/510402-afraid-to-sp...

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

#458

Post by sellyme » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 2:27 AM UTC

iczero wrote: post #425

sellyme wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. You're being somewhat generous here.

Am I though? She posted a joke on Twitter mocking the idea that white people couldn't get AIDS. It's only unfortunate that her statement was immediately interpreted as racist.

> Am I though?

Yes.

> She posted a joke on Twitter mocking the idea that white people couldn't get AIDS.

Even if you believe the subsequent backtracking, that's still a profoundly stupid thing to be doing in that circumstance, and it shows a complete lack of any critical thought as to how your actions and words are perceived.

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

#459

Post by int_19h » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 2:45 AM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #179

akomtu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it entertaining that in our society, a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Our free speech laws are very selective.

>a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

Speaking as a Satanist, it's kinda hard to draw a line between religion and politics. For example, one of the seven fundamental tenets that my organization of choice espouses is, "the struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions."

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

#460

Post by int_19h » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 2:51 AM UTC

mavhc wrote: post #189

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a politician, performer, athlete, or CEO in the United States of a high profile company - yes absolutely this is different. Are you an IC in Finland or something? People here get very upset and judgmental as a rule.

The more imaginary friends you have, the more you're angry about the imaginary friends other people have.

Not really - pagans tend to be more open-minded about such things than monotheists.