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

141–150 of 474 posts

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

#141

Post by javawizard »

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…

Redirect created, so your link should work now. Given that Hacker News isn't the only platform that does this, I wonder if there's a world in which it makes sense for Wikipedia to redirect "foo" to "foo." by default, assuming a page named "foo." exists and a page named "foo" does not?

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

#142

Post by lindy2021 »

newacct583 wrote: post #116
908B64B197 wrote: post #5

I stopped reading the article when I realized the student was 14 at the time of the post. Anything posted by someone at that age, especially on a temporary medium such as snapchat, should have an implicit "for entertainment purposes only" label on it along with a EULA that says that unless it might cause immediate danger to someone else that it should be treated as satire.

But the case is about a school punishing her for it. I mean, sure, YOU can choose to ignore this 14 year old as irrelevant satire, but the school can't. Taking kids' communication seriously and teaching them how to interact with the broader world in a civil way is literally what schools are for. And that includes incentives like punishing them when they act like an asshole. The question is whether this mandate school…

That's clearly inconsistent. You don't let 14 year olds vote, drink, drive, or own a gun. They are expected to make mistakes. Chastising them for a private comment made outside of school is inconsistent with their obligations.

The problem is you have these dying institutions riddled with power hungry sycophants who feel empowered with this wave of cancel culture.

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

#143

Post by 908B64B197 »

newacct583 wrote: post #116
908B64B197 wrote: post #5

I stopped reading the article when I realized the student was 14 at the time of the post. Anything posted by someone at that age, especially on a temporary medium such as snapchat, should have an implicit "for entertainment purposes only" label on it along with a EULA that says that unless it might cause immediate danger to someone else that it should be treated as satire.

But the case is about a school punishing her for it. I mean, sure, YOU can choose to ignore this 14 year old as irrelevant satire, but the school can't. Taking kids' communication seriously and teaching them how to interact with the broader world in a civil way is literally what schools are for. And that includes incentives like punishing them when they act like an asshole. The question is whether this mandate school…

> but the school can't

Oh yes it can. And should.

> The question is whether this mandate schools have (which we all agree they have!)

No we don't.

It's literally the first amendment. Student was exercising her first amendment rights. School has a right to tell her that they don't agree with the opinions she expressed but certainly not the authority to punish her.

Else it's a slippery slope [0] [1] [2]

[0] https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/georgia-students-punished-over...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/08/us/georgia-teen-photo-crowded...

[2] https://www.popsugar.com/family/Student-Punished-Sharing-Sch...

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

#144

Post by exporectomy »

em-bee wrote: post #60
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…

worse. if you can't associate with such people, then you can't work to change their mind either. i remember a story about someone who made friends with kkk members, and one by one managed to turn them away from the kkk. that probably took some time for each person, during which he had to have been seen associating with them.

Why change their mind? You can also let them change your mind. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. For these big ethical and moral issues, people are often completely certain their view is right but they can't explain why. The reason is probably because their society tells them they'll be a bad person (at risk of being shunned!) for thinking otherwise. Strong social punishment for holding a belief isn't a good reason that belief is wrong.

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

#145

Post by bluefirebrand »

tantalor wrote: post #102
LanceH wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that it was expressed off campus. It was expressed privately. Her speech on its own never reached the school. It was deliberately recorded and rebroadcast. The disruptive speech was the replaying of what she said, not her saying it. There is a huge difference. If everything private is fair game, then I expect we should be able to depose all parties involved for any disparaging statements they have ever…

> It was expressed privately That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited any statements of that nature, in private or public. The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If not, then every rule would have a limited scope. The article gives some examples of problems this would cause, e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment. If the rules only apply while on school property or in public, then why…

Of course every rule should have a limited scope. Institutions absolutely should not be allowed to have any say about what you do outside of their actual purview (ie: off of their property, not during work hours, while not representing them, etc).

Almost any way that Institutions have to detect rule breaking outside of their purview involves serious privacy breaches.

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

#146

Post by agloe_dreams »

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…

Casual reminder that this school is less than 30 minutes from the one that jailed a girl for a year and a half for making a fake myspace page lightly making fun of the principal. (As seen in the excellent doc: Kids For Cash)

PA has some extreme deep south vibes in some areas that constitute an aggressive hatred and power addiction over younger people.

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

tantalor wrote: post #102
LanceH wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that it was expressed off campus. It was expressed privately. Her speech on its own never reached the school. It was deliberately recorded and rebroadcast. The disruptive speech was the replaying of what she said, not her saying it. There is a huge difference. If everything private is fair game, then I expect we should be able to depose all parties involved for any disparaging statements they have ever…

> It was expressed privately That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited any statements of that nature, in private or public. The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If not, then every rule would have a limited scope. The article gives some examples of problems this would cause, e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment. If the rules only apply while on school property or in public, then why…

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by agloeregrets »

underseacables wrote: post #3

As someone who grew up before the Internet perhaps I have a less than optimal view of the issue. I think that in the case of non-threatening speech, the school has no business disciplining students for off campus speech.

Ever see the documentary Kids For Cash? Happened 30 minutes away from this school.

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

#149

Post by shadowgovt »

newacct583 wrote: post #107
axaxs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There are already basic protections in place. For example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for being a satanist. That's not "basic protections", it's existing case law about a conflict within the constitution. Freedom of religion and freedom of association are both protected, but where they conflict we generally find that whichever side is providing some kind of good to the public (be it p…

Specifically, one cannot be fired for being a satanist because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Constitution is completely silent on the interaction of corporations and the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights; those rights describe a relationship between the people and the government. Within that framework, government crafts law that determines how business may legally operate.

Congress made a specific choice to extend (part of) a protection similar to the one described in the First Amendment to employees. It is not a complete extension; for example, at the federal level, freedom of association is not protected regarding one's business relationships, and you can be fired in most states for being a member of the KKK (there are some specific states that have added additional protections for political activities or political beliefs that would preclude such a firing). And most of the rights in the Bill of Rights aren't extended at all to the employer-employee relationship; employers may demand employees (and customers, for that matter) bear no arms on their premises, for example.

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

#150

Post by lindy2021 »

rbanffy wrote: post #42

As I'm not American, this whole cheerleading thing feels very weird to me. It's weird to see the role of boys to play sports while the girls cheer doing elaborate choreographies. Does anyone else feels it weird from a different cultural framing?

How about modelling? It's dominated by women while men are relegated to the proverbial shadows.
Post reply on HN