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

181–190 of 474 posts

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

#181

Post by tehwebguy »

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.

Has that ever happened?

It's worth noting that it's legal in all states but Montana to fire someone for absolutely no reason at all, meaning that in 49 states + DC all firing discrimination is effectively legal so long as it's obfuscated enough to stay out of court.

I see people asking for legal advice online re: being fired as soon as they come out as gay or refuse to attend the church suggested by their boss like once or twice a month. Often times the company has less than 15 employees so there's no violation even if it's spelled out.

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

#182

Post by gotoeleven »

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.

I like how cancellation apologists excuse cancel culture by saying "oh its just people choosing not to associate with rude jerks."

If it were just that then who cares. No, the problem is that a small group of agitators whip a mob into a frenzy of targeted harassment at friends, family, and employers of the person being cancelled, a process that naturally gives no way for the target to defend themself or for the true facts of the situation to even be known. This is literal mob justice.

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

ecshafer wrote: post #119
tantalor wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.

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…

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by watwut »

xenadu02 wrote: post #109
listless wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that’s true. If you visit a convicted rapist in prison when nobody else will do you condone rape? Or are you performing an act of kindness? I think the ironic and not obvious answer here is that we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning. That reaction is what gives bad ideas power. People are complicated. You can’t boil them down to a true nature that is “good…

There is obviously a balance to be struck here and I don't think we yet have a great framework for thinking about such problems. A lot of what makes a nice society is social norms and conventions. The group must have a way of punishing bad behavior or that system falls apart. If there are no consequences for "acting like a Karen" what is the social incentive to stop behaving like an angry toddler anytime you don't ge…

Interestingly, the most common use of Karen I have seen is women being assertive and actually right.

Yes, sometimes it is in racist or exaggerating context. But, most often, Karen is used to shut up woman who don't want to be doormat or is telling you off for good reason.

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

#189

Post by mavhc »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #121
lostlogin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career I’m pretty sure that people would give me a weird look and then it would carry on as normal. Is this different somewhere?

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.

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

#190

Post by infogulch »

dmitrygr wrote: post #138
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…

adding a pointless query string to the url helps, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...

A hash/fragment at the end likely also works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
Post reply on HN