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

She didn't really even mention a freshman making the team, although it was vaguely alluded to.

> You realize she sent this snap to 250 people? Do you have any privacy expectations when sharing stuff with that many people on a social media platform? I wouldn't expect anything to stay private if you put it on thr internet and tell 250 kids. This is not just a circle of friends. I don't see how privacy/recording laws would just stop applying if it was considered private. Which is sort of my point. If there was a valid invasion of privacy, I would expect legal action to be taken. It seems that did not happen.

The point was that it wasn't intended for a larger audience outside of her circle of friends.

> Unless it's disrupting team dynamic. It does goes directly against the goals of the team - promoting school pride and spirit.

Could complaining about the school off-campus and outside of school events disrupt student morale, justifying suspending a student? Anyway, even the judge who dissented in the appeal agreed that it wasn't disruptive:

> Judge Thomas L. Ambro disagreed with his colleagues regarding off-campus speech and said it would have been enough for his colleagues to simply have ruled in Levy’s favor because her speech was not substantially disruptive.

> That's not really true as that's not happening now.

It did happen. She was already restored by a judge to the JV team years ago.

> There are tons of Constitutional rights that are essentially ignored by schools including 1st, 2nd, and 4th.

There are tons of Constitutional rights that are ignored by government at every level.

I don't believe "they'll recover eventually" is in any way an excuse for "let's ruin this person's life [temporarily] for fun". They got fired and are likely unable to have a stable life for a year. I sure wouldn't like to get fired and have the paparazzi in front of my house for the next month.

> Goes to show that the fear everyone shows about this topic is almost always overblown.

Sounds like the right amount of fear to me. Some people don't have the privilege to go without a job for a year. Some people don't have the mental fortitude to deal with the crap that ensues.

People shouldn't need to worry about getting fired because the people of social media didn't agree with what they said.

Cancelling in the way it's being used colloquially is equivilant to "consequences." The vast majority of it takes the form of social media denouncement, boycott attempts, and phone calls stating displeasure with the situation.

The small % of threats and violence are generally the strawman used to denounce the entire concept (which again, is simply the call for someone to face the consequences of their actions)... and generally aren't what people who are inciting someone's "cancellation" are calling for.

If what you're saying was true, there'd be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people being charged with harassment and criminal threat as a result of "cancel culture"... and there's no evidence of that happening, it's a few outliers just like anything else.

that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that.

social ostracization of aggressive, intolerable groups is an effective strategy

effective to do what? to change their mind? i'd like to see some evidence for that, because i don't believe it. ostracization only strengthens people in their opinions. it may make then unable to spread their ideas, but it doesn't help them change.

ostracization also can end up hurting the wrong people. those who want to get out but can't because they don't have anyone helping them. it causes people who are actually unsure get stuck because they have noone showing them that there is another way. it causes people who realize that they are wrong being unable to get out because they have to fear to end up being completely isolated. they don't know that there will be others who welcome them. for all they know they have to expect to remain shunned because they are afraid could not convince anyone that they changed. (this is made even worse by todays climate of ostracizing people for things they said years ago. you said something racist on twitter once, and noone will ever believe that you learned your lesson for the rest of your life)

changing your opinion and then finding new friends looks easy from the outside, but very risky from the inside. finding new friends, and then have those friends help you get out is the only way.

it's up to us to be those friends.

a problem here is also who decides who ought to be ostracized. i should have the right to associate with whoever i want. it's not anyone's place to decide whether i am capable of avoiding to get influenced by those people or not.

if you are a close friend who knows me well, you may be able to tell if these people are getting to me or not and you can tell me, or help me avoid that influence. if you aren't already a friend, then your only option is to become my friend and find out. and if necessary help me understand that these people are influencing me. but if you ostracize me because i am not doing what you think i should, then you will achieve the opposite of what you set out to do.

you see, it's friends all the way down. and all the way up. the only way to change the world, is to change its people, one person at a time.

ostracization leads to disunity, and disunity leads to war. the well-being of the worlds society, its peace and security can not be achieved if we keep ostracizing each other.