Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by nonameiguess » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #288

iczero wrote: post #266

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…

For those not familiar with the lady he's referring to, her name is Justine Sacco. She was a senior director of corporate communications, and this (among several tweets making fun of people or places) is the one that presumably got her fires: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...

I recognized who the parent comment was talking about immediately. Note that this woman is now the Chief Communications Officer of the Match group.

Goes to show the fear that everyone shows about this topic is almost always overblown. Assuming you aren't actually Harvey Weinstein and didn't do anything criminal, the worst that happens in every other case is you get the same job or even better for a different company a few years later. Brendan Eich and Mel Gibson still have no trouble finding work. Cancellation doesn't ever seem to be a life sentence.

James Damore seems to be doing fine, just not at Google: https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-damore-b277b62b/ (interesting that he doesn't name the startup, though).

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

#442

Post by nonameiguess » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

baryphonic wrote: post #241

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74

Earlier 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…

> 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. Can you direct me to any incidents where someone expres…

There aren't that many Satanists in the world, but the far more common case is presumably people fired as soon as an employer found out they were gay. Note that sexual orientation is still not technically a protected class, though the EEOC will often take up for you anyway: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/.... Many localities explicitly call out sexual orientation and Obama signed an Executive Order mandating non-discrimination in federal agencies and contractors, but the actual Civil Rights Act does not protect this and case law on specific suits has been wildly inconsistent about it.

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

#443

Post by nonameiguess » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #100

vmception wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing I always look for is if I can find some level of discretionary public funding that ties the organization to being a public institution. Or at least creates funding consequences for them if they try to act like a private organization that actually has rights like a private citizen. specifically, when an organization tries to "cancel" someone, it makes me wonder if they are A) able to, or if they must t…

> some level of discretionary public funding That's going to be everything. Is there a categorical difference between, say UVA, and Harvard? Arguably Harvard takes much more federal funding than UVA. How about a local dance studio that got $160,000 in federal loans to keep it afloat during COVID pandemic?

There is a categorical difference between UVA and Harvard. Harvard competes for federal grants on equal footing with all other research institutions. UVA is a permanent line-item on the Virginia state budget. They are treated as legally distinct for that reason and it means UVA is subject to all the restrictions placed on governments but not private actors and Harvard is not except where a restriction is explicitly written into the conditions of accepting funding (i.e. how the federal government sidesteps state sovereignty to enforce a national drinking age).

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

#444

Post by filoleg » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

foolinaround wrote: post #328

filoleg wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

IANAL either, but the abortion issue is one such, and has been around for decades, and people have been vocal about their opinions, and I don't think they have got fired. this whole cancel culture I think has taken a turn for the worse in the recent past.

>the abortion issue is one such, and has been around for decades, and people have been vocal about their opinions, and I don't think they have got fired

Well yeah, but they can be, and their employer won't get in any legal trouble. Having controversial political statements on your tshirt doesn't mean that you will get fired or that you deserve to be fired, it means that your employer has a right to fire you for it with zero legal repercussions. And if the employer doesn't want to fire you for your political statement, they won't, it's up to them.

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

#445

Post by kokanator » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #364

kokanator wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First wearing either t-shirt is no way to approach these subjects as they are very nuanced. Dispelling a myth here, the Bible doesn't actually say "women aren't supposed to hold seniority over men". It is true that it has been used in this manner and interpreted by certain organizations as such. Strong lined Complementarianism [0] espouse this belief. However, the conclusion is not supported by the text and context n…

Is there really a point in arguing over the Bible?

I do think it is important to challenge an off the cuff comment which is not backed up by specific knowledge or reference. Especially if that comment perpetuates an idea that leads to disparaging people.

The comment thread was specifically regarding religion so it is entirely applicable and important.

There are plenty of examples on HN where religious documents other than the Bible or the Pentateuch are discussed. [0][1][2]

Religion and/or the lack thereof impacts our culture and politics in outstanding ways. To ignore them or not discuss them leaves us blind to significant reasonings that have built the world we live in today.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5GCEM_en&q=site:news.yco...

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...

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

#446

Post by teachrdan » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

guessbest wrote: post #429

teachrdan wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Kentucky in between.

What does Kentucky have to do with the faculty?

Kentucky is understood to be less politically progressive than Philadelphia and Pitsburgh.

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

#447

Post by shoemakersteve » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 6:34 PM UTC

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #296

filoleg wrote: post #179

Earlier 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…

"Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement." Why would biological facts be considered "political statements"? (assuming gender = biological sex, which is the usual usage from regular talk to identity papers throughout the world).

Judging from the last sentence, it seems like you're aware that the word "gender" as it's used nowadays often doesn't refer to biological sex, especially in the context of gender identity/expression. Setting aside the semantic argument, is there even anyone out there saying "there are more than two genders", and actually mean biological sex? What would they even mean by that? From what I can tell, anyone saying "there are only two genders, it's a biological fact" seems to be deliberately shifting the goalposts for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. Otherwise I'm not really sure I understand. I've never heard of anyone saying they were genderfluid as a result of their chromosomes.

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

#448

Post by haswell » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 6:36 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #358

tomp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think the issue is if adolescent cyberbullying rises to the level of a crime. Similar to the US military's idea of Non-Judicial Punishment[0] (drop and give me 50!), school administration often also has the lee-way of assigning punishment to students [1]. This punishment often does not rise to the level of a crime, but still requires action. Things like detention, cleaning toilets, scrubbing hallways, etc. Often, t…

I think it's also worth acknowledging the current climate and context of concerns about law enforcement in general. These issues are often deeply nuanced, and I don't think LEA is currently equipped to handle that nuance. The fact that the legal system isn't currently involved in some of these cases is arguably a good thing.

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

#449

Post by hluska » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #434

dragonwriter wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"No, they mean any Constitutional rights" So knives and guns aren't banned? Drug searches without consent are ok? "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." It seems quite broad based on the case laws they cite. It can restrict vulgarity, imaginary stories containing violence, prayer, and…

This is way beyond my knowledge but I found an interesting article about the constitutionality of a US law regulating firearms in schools. It’s not entirely relevant to this subject but it helped me understand a bit more of the how/why of these sorts of decisions.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

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

#450

Post by eloff » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #408

eloff wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked places with diversity and inclusion programs that I think are ridiculous. And I've heard of programs far worse. I smile and say nothing because it's not worth my job. I think there's a lot of people out there like that.

As tempting as it is, "I think a lot of people think like me" isn't really evidence.

For sure. I don't know of any actual evidence though, just anecdotes.