421–430 of 474 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were asked to read this article this morning in US Government actually!
I'd say that anyone capable of discussing this case and its implications is capable of reading the word "fuck" uncensored without being corrupted any further than by reading "f--k"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you post the wrong link? Looks like that's about a case regarding distribution of heroin in the 80s? I have not seen any analysis that suggests that the school district has used that argument, but I'd be interesting in reading it. The analysis here[0] (which is the most detailed I've seen) suggests that Mahanoy is arguing that this off-campus speech is causing on-campus harm. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supc…
Oops, sorry. Here is the correct link. https://casetext.com/case/bl-v-mahanoy-area-sch-dist-2 In Part II B. iii Section B: "B.L. Did Not Waive Her Free Speech Rights", the court discusses the defense of waiver for voluntary activities with a separate code of conduct. "The School District next argues that by agreeing to certain school and team rules, B.L. waived her First Amendment right to post the “fuck cheer” snap.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"BL did not waive any constitutional rights when she signed the cheer contract." This is very interesting. I guess they mean any off campus rights. Many rights are clearly restricted on campus, including school events at any location. I also see the bring up that the prohibited conduct in the contract is not strictly defined. Yet we have plenty of laws which are also not strictly defined and they are upheld (so much…
> This is very interesting. I guess they mean any off campus rights No, they mean any Constitutional rights. > Many rights are clearly restricted on campus, including school events at any location. To the extent that that is true, that’s not a waiver by the student. But while it allows considerable regulation, the limitation on free speech on schools is quite narrow. > Yet we have plenty of laws which are also not st…
Willfully bankrupting the school out of mere ego and hubris!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
> Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. You're being somewhat generous here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "stern talking to" is the only action a school is allowed to take? If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment? Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.
I am not sure how you got from "(responce = criminal harassment)" to "(severity If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved . (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.) 0: T…
This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school?
Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account.
I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform.
I don't see what is different or new here.
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…
An even more ridiculous example might be an annocuous disagreement with what a lot of people are saying. "I don't think the cops should be abolished, and anyone should be able to protest for their beliefs".
I don't think anyone disagrees with the other implied strawman of the guy who goes around constantly making rape jokes and is surprised when his friends don't like him anymore. It's more about how easy it is to just spread dirt, truthful or otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same. I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation arg…
Being harassed/doxed is different than being cancelled It is important to disambiguate the two
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Casual reminder that this school is less than 30 minutes from the one that jailed a girl for a year and a half for making a fake myspace page lightly making fun of the principal. (As seen in the excellent doc: Kids For Cash) PA has some extreme deep south vibes in some areas that constitute an aggressive hatred and power addiction over younger people.
They say that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Kentucky in between.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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…
This doesn't materially change if instead everyone finds out jack says these things to randos on a weird forum on weekends, unless jack decides to persuade people that those opinions are not representative of who he is. That would be an entirely different problem.
A religious person who hangs out with pro-choice individuals is condoning that its ok to be pro choice. That's not the same thing as saying pro choice is the right ideology, but that it is a tolerable difference of opinion. It's basically tautological. If you refuse to accept pro-choice individuals and then hang out with them, you're just an inconsistent person.
If you share employment with someone with a different religious background and that really bothers you, but you remain employed, you're ultimately deciding that being employed is more important to you than the virtue of your religious objections.
No amount of politicalization will erase the fact that social reputation is an important part of how humans socialize.