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

81–90 of 474 posts

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

#81

Post by kube-system »

chmod775 wrote: post #55

Why the fuck did anyone at that school even care what a 14 year old said? That is not normal behavior for adults. At that age I could've exclaimed something along those lines to my teacher's face and they'd just have laughed at me and asked me to calm down. If I pulled that at work I'd be asked whether everything is alright. Apparently nowadays the appropriate response to a child throwing a tantrum or having a mental…

In my experience, more than a few school administrators and staff take in loco parentis pretty seriously.

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

#82

Post by tclancy »

MelvinButtsESQ wrote: post #78

I'm reading she essentially agreed to a contract in the form of the "team rules" and then violated those rules for which she was held accountable. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a contractual issue.

You need to be 18 in PA to legally sign a binding contract as best I can tell. https://law.jrank.org/pages/11848/Legal-Ages.html

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

#83

Post by anonymousisme »

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…

"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 made. Then we can proceed with either cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the rest for perjury."

Worked for O.J. when his attorneys questioned Mark Fuhrman. Probably had a substantial impact on the jury verdict.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-sim...

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

#84

Post by kube-system »

joshuaheard wrote: post #15

While I support the general proposition that students should not be punished for off-campus speech, there is more to this case. My daughter is a cheerleader, a voluntary association within the school, which has a strict code of conduct. There are rules against public intoxication, sexual promiscuity, and disparagement of the school. So, it is a case of a student violating a voluntary association's code of conduct and…

It's irrelevant whether it's voluntary or not, it matters whether it's an establishment of the state.

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

#85

Post by vmception »

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…

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 tolerate basically any level of speech

B) able to have their own funding consequences by losing government funds if they choose to regulate speech

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

#86

Post by i_haz_rabies »

dqpb wrote: post #29
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 suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime. “Silence is violence”

No, it isn't.

Scenario 1) someone who has bullied you in the past calls classmate a racist term. you stay silent for reasonable fear of reprisals.

Scenario 2) your boss says something overtly sexist. you know he is fairly temperamental, so stay silent because you want to keep your job so as to continue paying your bills.

Scenario 3) the government is jailing a certain ideological group you happen to somewhat agree with. you stay silent for fear of being included in that group and leaving your children parentless.

Do any of those sound like violence? Or do they sound like a reasonable course of action for an individual lacking power over the perpetrators?

I understand the instinct to condemn silence in the face of injustice. But the real world places real demands on people, some of which are more important than abstract notions of justice.

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

#87

Post by kube-system »

MelvinButtsESQ wrote: post #78

I'm reading she essentially agreed to a contract in the form of the "team rules" and then violated those rules for which she was held accountable. This isn't a free speech issue, it is a contractual issue.

Contract law is not ultimate. If your contract violates other laws, or is missing elements of a valid contract, then it could be invalidated.

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

#88

Post by akiselev »

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…

> (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)

Are we talking Church of Satan or the Satanic Temple here?

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

#89

Post by jfengel »

listless wrote: post #68
thatguy0900 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are." Well, historians do. Subject to change.

Accurate. Although I suppose I was referring to "history is written by the victor". America is a great nation, but had the revolution failed, it would have been a disgraceful insurrection instead.

Honestly, it wouldn't even be that much. It would be a trivia question.

Even now the American revolution is kind of a non-event to the British. It is of less interest to them than the French revolution, which led to the Napoleonic wars and ultimately the rather drastic reshaping of European nations. George III is the villain in the American version of the story, but he's mostly known in the UK for his long, sad descent into madness.

They had their own Civil War in the 17th century, and even that tends to be glossed over in British history classes. They've just got so much more history than Americans do that it's just unfathomable. They don't really spare a lot of thought for the successful revolution, and an unsuccessful one would have been a footnote.

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

#90

Post by cjohnson318 »

listless wrote: post #57
klmadfejno wrote: post #50

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.

I don’t think that’s true. If you visit a convicted rapist in prison when nobody else will do you condone rape? Or are you performing an act of kindness? I think the ironic and not obvious answer here is that we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning. That reaction is what gives bad ideas power. People are complicated. You can’t boil them down to a true nature that is “good…

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?

Post reply on HN