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

211–220 of 474 posts

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

#211

Post by gonehome »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #192

There 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 the…

It's one thing for a school to exercise editorial control over a student paper (previous SCOTUS case), but it's quite another for them to try to control student speech outside of school.

A lot of public schools in the US are miserable places with dumb and often hostile adults. I agree that they are the ones bullying the student here - I hope the school loses.

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

#212

Post by axiosgunnar »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74
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…

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…

> 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 simply damaging to their brand and business goals.

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

#213

Post by mason55 »

maxerickson wrote: post #31
kstrauser wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case will be irrelevant to workplace firings. It's the specific situation of children in schools having fewer rights than adults in the workplace that's the issue here. Some courts have already ruled that kids don't enjoy a full separation between school and personal lives because what they do at home can be disruptive at school, and this ruling is expected to address that specific line of thinking. And really,…

It's the other way around. Public schools have more obligations than private employers. That a school is obligated to provide the cheerleading experience to a student they "don't approve of" doesn't imply that an employer is obligated to provide employment to anybody, whether they approve of them or not.

Schools sort of fall in an area between private employer and government entity. They have to allow more leeway than a private employer (they can't prevent speech just because it makes them uncomfortable) but they can put more limits on speech than the government normally would be allowed (in the interest of the educational mission).

I guess this case is about whether cheerleading falls into the former or latter category.

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

#214

Post by will4274 »

klmadfejno wrote: post #50
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…

I think its perfectly fine to shun people if you think they're awful. Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things. Choosing not to decide is still a choice. The question at hand is whether you believe isolated private communications to be representative of true nature.

Have you ever watched The King and I? The original

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

#216

Post by will4274 »

LanceH wrote: post #8
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…

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's amusing to think that, if she had said it with her boob out, she likely would not have been punished by the school, because nobody would have saved and rebroadcast it for an adult.

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

#217

Post by paxys »

Can't say about legal rulings and precedent about free speech, but I can't remember it ever being okay to, for example, swear in front of teachers outside school. Especially in small enough towns, conduct outside of the school always came back to bite you in the ass since everyone would hear about everything. And I imagine social media has amplified this x1000.

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

#218

Post by mason55 »

stale2002 wrote: post #79
taylodl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I predict the SCOTUS will see cheerleading as an extra-curricular activity outside of the scope for which a public school is obligated to provide and thus may restrict access to that activity in any manner they see fit. If they don't rule it that way then SCOTUS is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.

> in any manner they see fit. That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine if a school banned people from sports, because they expressed support for Obama or Trump. Clearly that would be a government infringing on people's right to speech, as it is expressely political. Or imagine that a school gave certain benefits, only to students, who publicly support a certain political candidate. If you don't suppo…

> A school is a public institution. How speech laws apply to public institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well established.

Free speech laws apply differently in school. They're not exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times.

Bethel v. Fraser[0] is an example where the Court ruled pretty clearly that the school can go as far as to prohibit sexual innuendo, it doesn't even have to be obscene or vulgar.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fras...

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

#219

Post by jfengel »

ohyeshedid wrote: post #199
jfengel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're correct: it wasn't their friend, it was something they read.

It does sound like they're making a claim to efficacy. It says "one by one managed to turn them away". That's the part I'm asking for clarification on.

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

#220

Post by rtsq »

I wonder how many of the functionaries who take a private rant of a 14 year old seriously are on some form of medication.

In open source projects the administrative parts are increasingly staffed by people who appear mentally unbalanced. Some of them are taking tranquilizers because they feel "harmed" everywhere and by everyone.

As a society, we need to have a conversation if we want to be governed by people with mental issues.

Post reply on HN