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

261–270 of 474 posts

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

#261

Post by cjohnson318 »

mistermann wrote: post #106
cjohnson318 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visiting a criminal in prison does not condone their crime. Associating with someone that commits crimes, while turning a blind eye to their criminal behavior, does condone their crimes. What do you mean by "stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning"? Do you have a social group in mind that does not enforce its own social norms?

> Visiting a criminal in prison does not condone their crime. Associating with someone that commits crimes, while turning a blind eye to their criminal behavior, does condone their crimes. To me, this does not seem logical (for the dictionary definition of "condone"). Would you mind explaining your reasoning?

This was related to the parent comment that asked, rhetorically, if visiting an incarcerated rapist meant that you condoned rape.

I was pointing out that visiting a criminal does not directly imply that you condoned the actions that landed them in prison. However, if you know someone that is committing crimes, and you do nothing to stop them, then you do condone their behavior. I hope that clears it up?

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

#262

Post by mrkstu »

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.

I, as a Mormon, faced more social pushback in Georgia ~15 years ago, than my Wiccan friends, but neither of us faced any work pushback or worried about our jobs based on our religious beliefs.

Though I did have a co-member there get fired for being a Mormon and win a discrimination suit. His religiously motivated abstemiousness regarding alcohol got him fired from an aircraft maker since they worried about him NOT drinking with clients (as a salesman.)

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

#263

Post by tqi »

Suspending this student for this action was a gross overreaction by the coach, and the AD / school administration should have stepped in to intervene before this reached the point of legal action.

It seems basically impossible to me that the Supreme Court will be able to draft a broad decision that anticipates and handles all cases gracefully. I feel like no matter how they rule, the result will be that schools will be prevented from using common sense on a case by case basis, and instead rely on some convoluted N-point test with a ton of unintended consequences.

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

#264

Post by detaro »

tqi wrote: post #263

Suspending this student for this action was a gross overreaction by the coach, and the AD / school administration should have stepped in to intervene before this reached the point of legal action. It seems basically impossible to me that the Supreme Court will be able to draft a broad decision that anticipates and handles all cases gracefully. I feel like no matter how they rule, the result will be that schools will…

> will be able to draft a broad decision that anticipates and handles all cases gracefully

does it have to? Can't it intentionally narrow down the scope of its decision? (which will of course give some push in one direction anyways, but leave stuff open instead of forcing specific criteria)

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

#265

Post by filoleg »

foolinaround wrote: post #230
filoleg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? You raise an interesting point, because I feel like they would be fired for that indeed. What makes it interesting is that it becomes a political message wrapped in a religious statement, and I have zero clue as to how courts would approach tha…

Ok, but as this example demonstrates, a person's political views may stem from his religious views, which are protected.

>Ok, but as this example demonstrates, a person's political views may stem from his religious views, which are protected.

Yes, which makes me believe that you are legally protected from being fired for publicly expressing your affiliation with a religious group. However, you are not protected from being fired for expressing political views, regardless of whether they stem from the religion you are affiliated with or some other source.

This is just an armchair lawyer level of reasoning on my end here, I have no idea if this is how it actually legally works, but that sort of makes sense. So if someone with the actual knowledge can chime in, that would be appreciated.

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

#266

Post by iczero »

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…

But is it really only jerks? I've seen attempts to get people cancelled for what they've posted on social media over 10 years ago. Sometimes cancellation happens over allegations that are later proven to be false. There was a TED talk once about a woman who found out she was fired after getting off an airplane because she posted an insensitive joke. Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. Should she have been fired on the spot without even having any form of communication with her employer?

What if Twitter one day decided that something you happened to say, perhaps in the past, disagreed with some social "norm" that you weren't even aware of? Would you be happy to be fired? Or can you confidently say that you will never have any opinion different from that of the "social norm"?

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

#267

Post by SiempreViernes »

tomp wrote: post #256
Balgair wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is, where does one draw the line? The article goes into one of the possible problems: cyberbullying. Especially with young women, cyberbullying is a bit of a problem. Though the people involved in this case are not involved with cyberbullying, it's not difficult to jump to that issue with the people involved. Though it depends on local laws, schools often have the mandate to stop bullying and other such…

If cyber-bullying is really that problematic, it should be a crime. Schools aren’t called to solve crime; they should defer to the police.

I'm confused: you say only the police should do something about it, so do you mean that society shouldn't try to prevent bullying, or that the police should run the schools?

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

#268

Post by lostlogin »

mrkstu wrote: post #262
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I, as a Mormon, faced more social pushback in Georgia ~15 years ago, than my Wiccan friends, but neither of us faced any work pushback or worried about our jobs based on our religious beliefs. Though I did have a co-member there get fired for being a Mormon and win a discrimination suit. His religiously motivated abstemiousness regarding alcohol got him fired from an aircraft maker since they worried about him NOT dr…

Was the abstaining done in an offensive or obnoxious manner?

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

#269

Post by vmception »

dnautics wrote: post #260
vmception wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try it in court. Who cares about the hypotheticals or the line? Well I mean, I don't. That's the beauty of it, you don't really need to have strong opinions on anything, just the ability to make an argument that is convenient for you and persuasive to a judge. The extent of consensus, for me, is understanding what reality can match the arbiters that matter. So I don't really have a fixed world view on much of anythin…

> Who cares about the hypotheticals or the line? Well, for one, anyone administering anything IRL. You're a programmer, so you're not really responsible for much besides your own code. If you were a school principal (or a dance studio runner), knowing where the line exists (or is "liable to exist") BEFORE having to walk into court is important. A legal battle is not as easily ninja'd out as println debugging.

correct its good for the principle to not make kneejerk decisions, and it gives them ammunition against kneejerk parents or a board.

ideally their local counsel knows better too.

the best action in inaction.

all they have to do is do nothing. let the student represent whatever values the student wants in most circumstances.

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

#270

Post by StanislavPetrov »

It has always seemed ridiculous to me that schools should have any role whatsoever in the off-campus activities of their students (assuming that the behavior didn't occur on or with school property[such as a school website], while the student was under the supervision of school employees[such as a field trip] or had any involved with any school resources). Aside from being unconstitutional, our schools are struggling to perform their basic core role - education. They should be spending all their resources on figuring out how to educate students at school instead of trying to police their out-of-school behavior. That's what parents are for.
Post reply on HN