The reason the kids are penalized is not because it disrupts the school. It's because it destroys their authority. Schools cling desperately to authority because they are unwilling or unable to use different methods to teach.
Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
191–200 of 474 posts
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#192There is validity in the idea that off campus speech on social media can interfere with on campus activities, but I think the slope is far to slippery to allow the government (yes public schools are the government) to extend to all students and all times because social media posts can disrupt the learning environments. Kids already check their constitutional rights at the door of the school, and they can regulate their own platforms, but there is no way the courts can allow schools unmitigated power to rear children on behalf of the government 24/7 in all mediums of expression.
The bullying argument by the school is rich, because that is exactly what these adults are doing, they are bullying a kid into keeping quiet about the schools behavior.
Sure kids can be bullied on social media off campus but the school doesn’t need to regulate that, the law provides remedies, and if the bullying extends from an off campus social media post to an on campus violation then the school can step in at that time and punish that behavior.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#193Earlier 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…
If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired?
I don't think so.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#194> “Wherever student speech originates, schools should be able to treat students alike when their speech is directed at the school and imposes the same disruptive harms on the school environment.”
This reads like harm prevention rhetoric with a thin veil of authoritarianism.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the case of threatening speech, I’m not sure the school is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.
You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? (and yes - that would be considered cyberbullying in many schools) That's a really bad idea.
>You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis?
I don't think that counts as "threatening speech" in terms that the parent comment was attempting to describe it. This feels more like cyberbullying, which I agree on with you, cops shouldn't be dealing with this kind of stuff.
In this context, I think "threatening speech" refers more to stuff like an actual threat of imminent danger to people, like a bomb threat or other things of similar nature.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#196Earlier 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.
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…
You're describing harassment, not cancelation.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the case of threatening speech, I’m not sure the school is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.
You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? (and yes - that would be considered cyberbullying in many schools) That's a really bad idea.
Cyberbulling and threatening is not the same thing. And I think its clear from the OP, that "threatening" speech would be voicing intent to do violence. Yes, law enforcement should be the ones to handle those situations.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#198Earlier 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…
Basically, the difference is whether the US government can compel private organizations to give a platform to someone.
The idea of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights against states and cities is a result of the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. (For example, I wouldn't be surprised if the Heller decision would eventually result in US cities like NYC, SF and LA being unable to require gun licenses anymore, after someone sues them like in MacDonald vs Chicago).
That said, Facebook and Twitter are not publicly owned, they are "private" corporations (which are publicly traded). The problem isn't their specific decisions, but that they are too big.
The Sherman Antitrust act actually gave a lot of teeth to the idea that the public government can break up businesses if they abuse their monopoly power (and supported even by Republican presidents like Teddy Roosevelt). Ma Bell. Standard Oil. Etc. Today, people look at Facebook and Google as targets for breaking them up into competing companies or unbundling their departments from favoring one another.
As a left-libertarian, I would instead like to subsidize open-source software to disrupt these Big Tech monopolies from the ground up. And it's a subtle point, but I would like for the State to simply pass laws explicitly declining to enforce property rights and other rights of entities that "control too much". Landlords who own too many houses, or banks that merge together into large conglomerates will be put on notice that the public system will not enforce their rights against members of the public, past a certain point. It doesn't serve society for private property to have no limits, similarly to how you can't scale up Roman era ships and still have them seaworthy.
I recently gave an interview at Glasgow Caledonian University about the economics of free speech, where I go into detail about the problems and solutions in all the aspects around Capitalism and Free Speech, from money in politics, to deplatforming, to Big Tech filter bubbles, to clickbait news, to the Sinclair television chorus. It contains a lot of critiques of Capitalism and Competition as the basis for free speech.
If anyone has about 30 minutes to listen through it, I would love your feedback: https://youtu.be/M8HbvC6vqIY
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Reread what they said; it's not their friend and he made no claims to efficacy. Your response seems off-context.
Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
If said dude had the bible quotation about there being two genders, will that change the statement from being political to being religion, and prevent him from getting fired? I don't think so.
Galatians 3:28?