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

171–180 of 474 posts

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

#171

Post by ecshafer »

RankingMember wrote: post #155
ecshafer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. The principle of free speech is one we all ought to attempt to live up to, and that principle goes far beyond what the first amendment may protect. Take that phras…

In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that the government can't suppress your speech (with certain narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.

Yes the constitution, but that still goes against the principle. In the Scarlet Letter, the main character is made a pariah for having sex. I think we can all agree that is morally wrong, on the part of the town that ostracize them. To banish someone for being against your ideas, or principles, is inherently to try and be an authoritarian. To say that "if you do not follow this ideal, I will do what I can to destroy you". It is an illiberal idea. liberalism is comfortable with competing ideas because ideas stand on their own.

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

#172

Post by jfengel »

ohyeshedid wrote: post #133
jfengel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a control, how many people left the KKK without knowing him?

As a control for what, exactly?

The assertion is that his friend's acquaintance with KKK members was effective at helping them leave. But we can't tell how effective unless we know how many people would have left without the friend's assistance.

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

#173

Post by KittenInABox »

axaxs wrote: post #113
newacct583 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sure, but it's worth considering whether we should care about stepping on the right-holder's toes. That's what got us into corporate controlled speech, doxing, and twitter mobs in the first place. Read, people wouldn't do it if it weren't effective. It probably wouldn't be -as- bad if in the US healthcare wasn't tied to employment. As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen…

I'm super ignorant on this case but has there been a case in which speaking one's mind has caused their death and how was that death actually prosecuted, if it was?

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

#174

Post by Y_Y »

> I know a man who is rock hard – he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm – but most of all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts – he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally – he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end – even the climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be.

That's the student body election speech that was ruled not to be protected in _Fraser_, one of the main precedents in this case.

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

#175

Post by dls2016 »

taylodl wrote: post #65
anaerobicover wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would reply that the adults in that case should demonstrate their own character by recognizing that teenagers are humans with emotions¹ who get frustrated and make mistakes. And that a mistake that doesn't really harm anyone (an F said in conversation with a friend) merits a discussion in the worst, not a dismissal dropped like a bomb. --- ¹Maybe even more so than the adults.

Having worked in several youth organizations and youth sports for the past 30 years, I bet what actually happened is this kid has been "problematic", the adults have been trying to do right by the kid, and this was the final straw. I've seen that happen. The act resulting in a kid getting dismissed from an activity in and of itself isn't egregious when considered in isolation. It's all the other stuff going on preced…

I would place more money on her being of lower socio-economic class than her peers. These "zero-tolerance" policies are rarely applied equally across class.

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

#176

Post by watwut »

axaxs wrote: post #135
newacct583 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with. Ridiculous hyperbole. First, because it imagines that people get killed for tweets, and second because it hilariously invokes the idea that this is a new thing. You genuinely don't think people have been persecuted for opinions in the past? Let me get my dead buddy Galileo to drop a few r…

I certainly didn't mean to offend you, or to pretend things today are worse than at any point in the past. It was more an argument against this weird celebration of getting people fired. I mean, there's even a subreddit called ByeByeJob. Just pointing out it's not so simple as 'hur hur he got fired.' Imagine you just found out you got cancer, and had a public meltdown on the way home that someone happened to film. So…

That is exactly what happened to gays and lesbians and single moms in conservative places. That is what happens to anyone with history of sex work. There is actual organization right know to collect wrong thing said by liberal professors and to try them get fired.

The abortion clinic volunteers that go with you so that you are not yelled at alone are a thing for a reason.

And in civil rights era, white who did not supported segregation was economically punished and had hard time to find job.

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

#177

Post by dls2016 »

josefresco wrote: post #20
joshuaheard wrote: post #15

While I support the general proposition that students should not be punished for off-campus speech, there is more to this case. My daughter is a cheerleader, a voluntary association within the school, which has a strict code of conduct. There are rules against public intoxication, sexual promiscuity, and disparagement of the school. So, it is a case of a student violating a voluntary association's code of conduct and…

They actually have rules against "sexual promiscuity"? What do those rules look like and how are they enforced? Is it just a dress code, or do they actually discipline students for being "promiscuous".

> how are they enforced?

I can guarantee these rules are not enforced uniformly across socioeconomic class.

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

#178

Post by watwut »

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.

However, he did not managed to endanger KKK power one bit.

And way more people who socialize in KKK circles end up naturally moving toward racism and extremes of it. They change toward racism, because that is what choose to hear most of time.

It so happens that these are quite aggressive when voice disagreements with them, so socialising with the requires you to pretend you agree, at least on the edges. It works like any other bubble overtime, the anti-racists become crazy ennemies.

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

#179

Post by filoleg »

akomtu wrote: post #167
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…

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 when it comes to employment, while political affiliation/speech typically isn't.

Post reply on HN