[HN Gopher] Cheerleader's Snapchat rant leads to 'momentous' Sup...
___________________________________________________________________
Cheerleader's Snapchat rant leads to 'momentous' Supreme Court case
on speech
Author : pseudolus
Score : 138 points
Date : 2021-04-26 15:04 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| blaser-waffle wrote:
| So will the SCOTUS uphold the "not a cheerocracy, it's a
| cheertatership" rule?
| rtsq wrote:
| I wonder how many of the functionaries who take a private rant of
| a 14 year old seriously are on some form of medication.
|
| In open source projects the administrative parts are increasingly
| staffed by people who appear mentally unbalanced. Some of them
| are taking tranquilizers because they feel "harmed" everywhere
| and by everyone.
|
| As a society, we need to have a conversation if we want to be
| governed by people with mental issues.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| 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.
| underseacables wrote:
| As someone who grew up before the Internet perhaps I have a less
| than optimal view of the issue. I think that in the case of non-
| threatening speech, the school has no business disciplining
| students for off campus speech.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| What if it's not phrased as discipline? What if they said "This
| speech is an example of your character and we'd rather not have
| you on our squad." The assumption is (as someone pointed out up
| thread) that there's no right to be on the squad; that you can
| (as the joke goes) be fired or not hired at anytime for no
| reason but not any reason.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| I would reply that the adults in that case should demonstrate
| their own character by recognizing that teenagers are humans
| with emotions1 who get frustrated and make mistakes. And that
| a mistake that doesn't really harm anyone (an F said in
| conversation with a friend) merits a discussion in the worst,
| not a dismissal dropped like a bomb.
|
| ---
|
| 1Maybe even more so than the adults.
| taylodl wrote:
| Having worked in several youth organizations and youth
| sports for the past 30 years, I bet what actually happened
| is this kid has been "problematic", the adults have been
| trying to do right by the kid, and this was the final
| straw. I've seen that happen. The act resulting in a kid
| getting dismissed from an activity in and of itself isn't
| egregious when considered in isolation. It's all the other
| stuff going on preceding that act that caused the response.
| Obviously I don't know the details of this particular case,
| but it wouldn't surprise if that is what happened here.
| It's typically the way such things go.
| not2b wrote:
| Sorry, not buying it. If the kid had a pattern of
| problematic behavior they could have said that she was
| being dismissed for behavior that took place at team
| practices or events. But they didn't. They are saying
| that it was for the Snapchat rant. If they had something
| else, they could have avoided the court fight.
| dls2016 wrote:
| I would place more money on her being of lower socio-
| economic class than her peers. These "zero-tolerance"
| policies are rarely applied equally across class.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| Although to be exact I would not even call this any
| "mistake". It is simply human. But I do understand that
| others might consider it to be so.
| agloeregrets wrote:
| Ever see the documentary Kids For Cash? Happened 30 minutes
| away from this school.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| Exactly. Isn't that the whole point of free-speech?
| tantalor wrote:
| "Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| Ah, this trite argument. It doesn't even apply when it
| comes to public services or the government, as is the case
| here, in which action is being taken by a public school.
| ecshafer wrote:
| Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That
| phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often
| repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech
| should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line
| is illiberal, and immoral. The principle of free speech is
| one we all ought to attempt to live up to, and that
| principle goes far beyond what the first amendment may
| protect.
|
| Take that phrase to its logical extent. Should certain
| speech mean imprisonment? Should it mean execution by the
| government? Alienation and banishment from society?
| Attacked and lynched by a mob? What about political
| affiliation? Philosphical or religious beliefs? Those are
| all consequences that have, and are used against people who
| exercise their natural rights. Those are the natural
| outcomes of limiting free speech. Limiting free speech is
| the end of a free, liberal society.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Are you saying that I can't make any sort of negative
| decision about you no matter what you say, or I'm
| violating the principle of free speech?
|
| > Alienation and banishment from society?
|
| I literally have to still be friends with you, or I'm
| oppressing you? What are we using language for anyway, if
| we have to ignore it?
| LurkersWillLurk wrote:
| You don't have to associate with anyone as a private
| individual if you don't want to. In the present case, the
| school district is an arm of the state and cannot punish
| a student for constitutionally protected speech.
| [deleted]
| RankingMember wrote:
| In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that
| the government can't suppress your speech (with certain
| narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private
| companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't
| make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| > This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle
| you at their will
|
| But that's a _public_ school, right?
| mannerheim wrote:
| In this case, it's precisely a government institution
| suppressing speech.
| ecshafer wrote:
| Yes the constitution, but that still goes against the
| principle. In the Scarlet Letter, the main character is
| made a pariah for having sex. I think we can all agree
| that is morally wrong, on the part of the town that
| ostracize them. To banish someone for being against your
| ideas, or principles, is inherently to try and be an
| authoritarian. To say that "if you do not follow this
| ideal, I will do what I can to destroy you". It is an
| illiberal idea. liberalism is comfortable with competing
| ideas because ideas stand on their own.
| cozuya wrote:
| I'm going to cherry pick your slippery slope argument:
|
| > Should certain speech mean imprisonment?
|
| Yes. Credible death or terroristic threats in 1st world
| countries can mean you can go to jail. Society has
| decided that people don't have the "natural rights" to
| threaten to murder other people.
| [deleted]
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| Even in the case of threatening speech, I'm not sure the school
| is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.
| djrogers wrote:
| You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14
| year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from
| her nemesis? (and yes - that would be considered
| cyberbullying in many schools)
|
| That's a really bad idea.
| filoleg wrote:
| >You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14
| year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from
| her nemesis?
|
| I don't think that counts as "threatening speech" in terms
| that the parent comment was attempting to describe it. This
| feels more like cyberbullying, which I agree on with you,
| cops shouldn't be dealing with this kind of stuff.
|
| In this context, I think "threatening speech" refers more
| to stuff like an actual threat of imminent danger to
| people, like a bomb threat or other things of similar
| nature.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| Cyberbulling and threatening is not the same thing. And I
| think its clear from the OP, that "threatening" speech
| would be voicing intent to do violence. Yes, law
| enforcement should be the ones to handle those situations.
| flowerlad wrote:
| > _The case will determine whether schools have the right to
| punish pupils for what they say off-campus._
|
| In the old days, we could separate our "school life" and "off-
| campus life" into neat little spheres. But these days we live our
| lives digitally. In this new world the spheres are not as
| separate as they used to be. The student may have typed the
| message while off campus, but her classmates may see the message
| while on-campus. So there is no clear geographic boundaries, and
| there are no "spheres" really.
|
| The same issue appears when a high school teacher publishes nude
| pictures of herself. She may have done it while off campus, but
| the students who see the picture may not see that as a separate
| sphere.
|
| In the digital world there are no distances. Everyone is
| everywhere at the same time.
| theknocker wrote:
| >problems that wouldn't exist if education "professionals" would
| grow up
| supergirl wrote:
| it's in her interest to be banned from cheerleading anyway. so
| many better sports or other things to do with that time. I don't
| get why cheerleading is so popular. a "sport" that just
| sexualizes little girls, parading them at half times. if there
| was ever a sexist tradition that doesn't die, it's this one --
| women training to "cheer" male teams where cheer means doing sexy
| dances at half time to entertain the men drinking beer in the
| audience
| rbanffy wrote:
| As I'm not American, this whole cheerleading thing feels very
| weird to me. It's weird to see the role of boys to play sports
| while the girls cheer doing elaborate choreographies.
|
| Does anyone else feels it weird from a different cultural
| framing?
| watwut wrote:
| Afaik, cheerleading is very physically demanding. In terms of
| strength, agility and how many injuries happen as a result.
| They also have competitions that are quite serious.
|
| As in, if you refuse to accept that it is real physical effort
| kind of like gymnastic or dance, both of which counts a sports,
| then maybe you should look again.
| em-bee wrote:
| cheerleading is like nurses and teachers. male cheerleaders do
| exist, they are just a small minority. we are arguing for more
| male teachers and nurses, and we could just as well be arguing
| that there should be more male cheerleaders.
| jandrese wrote:
| Back when I was in High School there were a handful of male
| cheerleaders. Their job was to fling the girls so high in the
| air that they could break bones if not successfully caught.
| lindy2021 wrote:
| How about modelling? It's dominated by women while men are
| relegated to the proverbial shadows.
| edrxty wrote:
| Haven't you watched Zoolander?
| joemi wrote:
| I'm an American and I've always found it very weird.
| CheezeIt wrote:
| There's also a band in the stands that marches in formation on
| the field at halftime.
| intergalplan wrote:
| In fact, the primary band program at my high school seemingly
| _only existed_ to fulfill this role. I ultimately dropped it
| because I was sick of doing unpaid work for the football
| program outside school hours.
|
| I'm pretty sure the extreme emphasis on marching-compatible
| instruments in high school music programs is _entirely_ due
| to this, in fact. I wonder how many 17-year-olds play the
| tuba or trombone or clarinet in Europe, versus the US, for
| instance? In an ideal world I 'd see all non-specialist
| students at that level learning piano/keyboard, or _maybe_
| guitar or ukulele. Something with good general utility,
| acceptable when played solo even at not-great skill levels,
| and relatively easy to reach a point where you can lead a
| sing-along. Nice, physical, evident mapping of notes and
| theory to the instrument, too, unlike wind and brass
| instruments.
| watwut wrote:
| I would guess that fewer kids in EU play instrument. And
| when they do, it is either classic or self taught hobby.
| Here, basically you can't start officially in high school.
| You are deemed too old.
|
| No one cares that you play, unless you are from family that
| actively encourages it.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| It's not like students have a right to participate in particular
| high school extracurricular activities like sports, right? Could
| this case end up making varsity sports not allowed to cut
| players, or is the expectation just that they turn cuts/bans into
| another "nod and wink" thing where you just aren't chosen/stay
| benched?
| chickenmonkey wrote:
| I'm wondering about how this impacts criticising the school. If
| the school does X, can the school punish students for discussing
| this action and criticising it? Feels like this allows schools to
| crack down on criticism.
| js2 wrote:
| On the one hand:
|
| > The coaches said Levy's snap violated the team rules she had
| agreed to, including showing respect, avoiding "foul language and
| inappropriate gestures," and a strict policy against "any
| negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or
| coaches placed on the Internet."
|
| On the other hand:
|
| > Some cheerleaders complained about Levy's message, and the
| coaches decided to suspend her from the squad for a year.
|
| This entire thing could've been avoided with a reasonable
| response. Like a reminder about the team rules. Maybe a one week
| suspension. A full year suspension is insane.
|
| That said, she obviously had no choice but to agree to the rules,
| so that's no defense against a First Amendment violation.
| ses1984 wrote:
| > That said, she obviously had no choice but to agree to the
| rules, so that's no defense against a First Amendment
| violation.
|
| Not sure what you mean by this, cheerleading is optional,
| right?
| fighterpilot wrote:
| So is advanced math, using the library, and so on.
| MelvinButtsESQ wrote:
| 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.
| tclancy wrote:
| 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
| agloeregrets wrote:
| Super iffy for two general reasons:
|
| 1: She could not legally sign that contract 2: The cheerleading
| team is ultimately an extension of the government (as it is
| part of a government institution).
|
| By literal means, the state is punishing someone for what is
| ultimately private, off-campus speech. A lawyer with goals in
| life would see that as a case worth fighting.
| kube-system wrote:
| Contract law is not ultimate. If your contract violates other
| laws, or is missing elements of a valid contract, then it could
| be invalidated.
| klondike_ wrote:
| Related case:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
|
| >...the Court held, 5-4, that the First Amendment does not
| prevent educators from suppressing student speech that is
| reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at or across the
| street from a school-supervised event.
| ascorbic wrote:
| Anyone else find it ridiculously coy that the Washington Post
| censors the word "fuck" in the quote that is the crux of the
| case. I'm sure the readers are all adults who can handle them
| accurately reporting the quote. Kids aren't reading the
| Washington Post Courts & Law section.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If you don't want to swear in your newspaper, you shouldn't
| have to swear in your newspaper to seem "adult." People reading
| the Courts & Law section are also old enough to know what the
| fuck "f--k" means.
| ascorbic wrote:
| They wouldn't be swearing in their paper, they'd be
| accurately reporting a phrase that is the subject of a
| Supreme Court case. It's not about seeming adult, it's about
| treating readers as adults who are capable of reading some
| naughty words in reported speech without being scandalized.
| chmod775 wrote:
| 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 breakdown is to have one as well.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| Clearly you haven't dealt with many schools. Only when the
| stakes are so low can people afford to be so petty.
|
| Some school faculty and administration are incredibly petty and
| vindictive. Certainly not all but a lot. Grown adults
| absolutely pick favorites, bully students, talk down to them,
| and carry out petty beefs for any reason or no reason at all.
| Sometimes they hurt the children to get back at parents they
| don't like. Sometimes they (for whatever reason) seek
| validation from students and will participate in bullying of
| unpopular students. These can be trivial things, like accepting
| late work from some students but no others or grading one
| student's work more harshly. Other times they believe they are
| doing a student good by "teaching them a lesson" or expressing
| their disapproval of the student or family's lifestyle.
|
| I have absolutely no problem believing the school
| administration and coach were offended and rather than
| discussing it with the 14 year old they decided to prove who
| was boss by punishing her.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| Reading this gave me flashbacks to high school. This is very
| sad but true. While I typically kept to myself and avoided
| their wrath, certain members of the administration were just
| horrible, and I could clearly see the mental toll it took on
| fellow students.
| agloeregrets wrote:
| 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.
| milkytron wrote:
| Growing up in PA I definitely experienced this. Some teachers
| were great, but I remember a particular few who would get
| noticeably upset, angered, and irritated when challenged or
| questioned by students.
|
| The worst case I experienced was when a gym teacher was
| teaching a "graduation course" which was required to be
| passed in order to graduate. We were the first year to have
| this class, and I was in the first semester, part of the
| guinea pig group. We had a semester long project and the
| teacher in charge would not approve my project because it did
| not involve raising money for charity (not a requirement on
| the rubric). Some students sold t-shirts, some organized 5k
| runs, others wrote children's books. We were encouraged to
| make money for a cause, but it was not required. I wanted to
| build an Android app since Android was recently released, and
| I wanted to make something anyone could use.
|
| The teacher repeatedly told me to go back to the drawing
| board, fabricating missed requirements that were not on the
| rubric. Only on the final day of project approvals did he say
| I needed to raise money, which was not a requirement (more
| like a suggestion or even trend). I never got the approval,
| so I shouldn't have passed, but he didn't bring it up the
| rest of the semester and never looked at my work afterwards.
|
| Final day presentations, the principal (awesome guy who knew
| nearly every student) watches and asks what I thought about
| the class and I told my experience. They got rid of that
| "graduation project" class the following year, and the next
| semester had all new teachers for it. Half of the kids didn't
| even donate the money they made.
|
| tl;dr - almost didn't graduate high school because a gym
| teacher wanted me to raise money as part of a project.
| teachrdan wrote:
| They say that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one side,
| Pittsburgh on the other, and Kentucky in between.
| [deleted]
| Igelau wrote:
| That's what shocked me about this. I can't believe how doggedly
| the schoolboard pursued this up the chain. Being told "sorry
| you're upset that a teenager flipped the middle finger but you
| can't just kick her off cheer squad for it" is the point where
| anyone who isn't a lead-contaminated Boomer would just shrug
| and walk away.
| kube-system wrote:
| In my experience, more than a few school administrators and
| staff take _in loco parentis_ pretty seriously.
| morsch wrote:
| "Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck cheer, fuck everything."
|
| Wait, that's it?!
| rychco wrote:
| This is the part that makes me absolutely furious. This is the
| most innocent rant a teenage girl could possibly post.
| agloeregrets wrote:
| Yup!
|
| There was a case of a student making a joking fake myspace for
| a Principal that landed the student in jail for a year and a
| half, happened half an hour away from this place.
| tengbretson wrote:
| I'm trying to figure out a litmus test on how the content of what
| is said could make this justified or not.
|
| Like if a football player got on snapchat and said that they hope
| they lose the game this coming Friday and that they intended to
| take actions that undermined the team, would they be justified in
| being kicked off the team? I think so.
|
| Is there a similar line for cheerleading and did this cross it? I
| don't think so, but it's hard to say for sure. I don't know if
| it's possible to make a ruling that simultaneously defends the
| cheerleader's speech without also preventing the football coach
| from acting in this hypothetical situation.
| [deleted]
| supergirl wrote:
| how was there such a gap in the law that it has to go all the way
| to the supreme court to resolve this?
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/qZqEV
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| What was her initial conflict with cheerleading team?
|
| I think an unsubstantiated temper tantrum is a perfectly
| reasonable cause to suspend her from the team. The real cause for
| concern is their blanket policy against _any_ form of criticism
| whether warranted or not:
|
| > The coaches said Levy's snap violated the team rules she had
| agreed to, including showing respect, avoiding "foul language and
| inappropriate gestures," and a strict policy against "any
| negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or
| coaches placed on the Internet."
|
| It seems like they're justifying the suspension by saying
| something far more incriminating. What exactly are they trying to
| hide? A culture of undue pressure, bullying, maybe groping?
| Cheerleading has after all turned into quite a sexually
| suggestive form of entertainment.
| themgt wrote:
| "Placed on the internet" is imprecise but my interpretation
| would be "posted in public on the internet/web". If Snapchat is
| equivalent to "placed on the internet" presumably so would be
| simply saying something to someone 1-on-1 in a voice-over-IP
| phone call.
|
| Can a public school make participation in extracurriculars
| (often key to future college applications and thus your
| life/employment prospects) contingent on never even in a
| private context criticizing the school's management of said
| activities? That strikes me as an extremely expansive power
| open to all sorts of abuse, and almost certainly
| unconstitutional.
| bombcar wrote:
| The "cheer industry" is a incredible cesspool of dirty tricks
| and corporate malfeasance that would make the tech industry
| blush for shame.
|
| https://www.commercialappeal.com/in-depth/news/2020/09/18/ch...
| rdtwo wrote:
| Yeah cheerleadeing is a scam
| tqi wrote:
| 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.
| detaro wrote:
| > _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)
| random314 wrote:
| If the school uses public funds, isn't she protected by the first
| amendment?
| throwaway823882 wrote:
| The reason the kids are penalized is not because it disrupts the
| school. It's because it destroys their authority. Schools cling
| desperately to authority because they are unwilling or unable to
| use different methods to teach.
| chizhik-pyzhik wrote:
| A better summary can be found at the wikipedia article
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v....
| throwaway_kufu wrote:
| There is validity in the idea that off campus speech on social
| media can interfere with on campus activities, but I think the
| slope is far to slippery to allow the government (yes public
| schools are the government) to extend to all students and all
| times because social media posts can disrupt the learning
| environments. Kids already check their constitutional rights at
| the door of the school, and they can regulate their own
| platforms, but there is no way the courts can allow schools
| unmitigated power to rear children on behalf of the government
| 24/7 in all mediums of expression.
|
| The bullying argument by the school is rich, because that is
| exactly what these adults are doing, they are bullying a kid into
| keeping quiet about the schools behavior.
|
| Sure kids can be bullied on social media off campus but the
| school doesn't need to regulate that, the law provides remedies,
| and if the bullying extends from an off campus social media post
| to an on campus violation then the school can step in at that
| time and punish that behavior.
| fossuser wrote:
| It's one thing for a school to exercise editorial control over
| a student paper (previous SCOTUS case), but it's quite another
| for them to try to control student speech outside of school.
|
| A lot of public schools in the US are miserable places with
| dumb and often hostile adults. I agree that they are the ones
| bullying the student here - I hope the school loses.
| throwaway_kufu wrote:
| They can definitely regulate the use of the word fuck in the
| school or in class, I am fine with that, but I know others
| that would disagree.
|
| You could definitely change the facts just slightly, where a
| student posts something on social media during school hours
| while on campus...then is it fair game for the school to
| regulate/punish? I have to admit myself I'd want to know the
| context, but it really shouldn't matter, either yes they can
| regulate the speech or no they can't.
|
| I think SCOTUS cherry picked this case, so they wouldn't have
| to take a case with more compelling facts like a social media
| post while at school by a student bullying another student.
| Then again the justices are older, and disconnected from a
| generation that grew up connected to social media.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I stopped reading the article when I realized the student was 14
| at the time of the post.
|
| Anything posted by someone at that age, especially on a temporary
| medium such as snapchat, should have an implicit "for
| entertainment purposes only" label on it along with a EULA that
| says that unless it might cause immediate danger to someone else
| that it should be treated as satire.
| newacct583 wrote:
| But the case is about a school punishing her for it. I mean,
| sure, YOU can choose to ignore this 14 year old as irrelevant
| satire, but the school can't. Taking kids' communication
| seriously and teaching them how to interact with the broader
| world in a civil way is literally what schools are for.
|
| And that includes incentives like punishing them when they act
| like an asshole. The question is whether this mandate schools
| have (which we all agree they have!) extends outside school
| grounds, and how far.
|
| Now, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't (I for one am a little
| conflicted here and don't have a clear opinion). But whether it
| does or not has nothing to do with whether we should take
| student speech "seriously".
| lindy2021 wrote:
| That's clearly inconsistent. You don't let 14 year olds vote,
| drink, drive, or own a gun. They are expected to make
| mistakes. Chastising them for a private comment made outside
| of school is inconsistent with their obligations.
|
| The problem is you have these dying institutions riddled with
| power hungry sycophants who feel empowered with this wave of
| cancel culture.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > but the school can't
|
| Oh yes it can. And should.
|
| > The question is whether this mandate schools have (which we
| all agree they have!)
|
| No we don't.
|
| It's literally the first amendment. Student was exercising
| her first amendment rights. School has a right to tell her
| that they don't agree with the opinions she expressed but
| certainly not the authority to punish her.
|
| Else it's a slippery slope [0] [1] [2]
|
| [0] https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/georgia-students-punished-
| over...
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/08/us/georgia-teen-photo-
| crowded...
|
| [2] https://www.popsugar.com/family/Student-Punished-Sharing-
| Sch...
| newacct583 wrote:
| Again, if she said this in school it would be an
| irrelevancy and no one would have heard about it or care.
| _Clearly_ the school is empowered to punish students for
| their speech, period. And SCOTUS isn 't remotely interested
| in trying to draw a line there.
|
| The question here is under what circumstances student
| speech can be regulated, not whether.
| jjcon wrote:
| > Taking kids' communication seriously and teaching them how
| to interact with the broader world in a civil way is
| literally what schools are for
|
| In no way is that the original or even modern purpose of
| schooling
| kodah wrote:
| > "Wherever student speech originates, schools should be able to
| treat students alike when their speech is directed at the school
| and imposes the same disruptive harms on the school environment."
|
| This reads like harm prevention rhetoric with a thin veil of
| authoritarianism.
| adventured wrote:
| It makes sense, as culturally the US is collapsing rapidly into
| a cesspool of nanny state authoritarianism in every possible
| manner. I can't figure out why anybody would want to live here,
| it's an increasingly despicable, suffocating culture. We're
| starting to see the first hints of an American firewall on
| expression and speech. It has gotten drastically worse over the
| past 10-15 years.
|
| Every time I watch a movie made before approximately 2010, I
| laugh about the fact that almost no good movie (any IMDB decent
| rated movie) made prior to then could be made again today, due
| to the authoritarian SJW cancel culture, everyone must be
| protected from being offended at all times. Padded intellectual
| prisons for all.
|
| The biggest hint of the US intellectual infantile collapse and
| how far along it is, is that "hate" speech is increasingly
| taken serious as a notion. Anyone that refers to "love" and
| "hate" as intellectual concepts that should govern human rights
| or speech, is a terrifying and dangerous mental infant. Hate is
| a particularly vague term to use to govern speech, which is the
| entire point, so the people in control can decide what can be
| said and what can't be (including restricting criticism
| directed at those in power; restrictions all authoritarians
| will always pursue).
| [deleted]
| Y_Y wrote:
| > I know a man who is rock hard - he's firm in his pants, he's
| firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most of all, his
| belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a
| man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll
| take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things
| in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally -
| he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the
| climax, for each and every one of you. So please vote for Jeff
| Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school
| can be.
|
| That's the student body election speech that was ruled not to be
| protected in _Fraser_, one of the main precedents in this case.
| will4274 wrote:
| That speech was given in person, in the school building, where
| other students were required to attend, during school hours.
|
| This speech occurred on snapchat, outside of the school
| building, outside of school hours, with no requirement that
| anybody pay any attention at all.
|
| That speech is funny tho.
| harshreality wrote:
| There's a gigantic difference, a hard distinction, so big it
| hurts, between prohibiting disruptive, norm-violating speech
| _on campus within a school function_ (a central focus of the
| _Fraser_ decision), and prohibiting speech _outside of school
| on social media_. At school, the school administration is
| acting _in loco parentis_ in regulating the behavior and speech
| of students. There are limits to how much it can regulate
| garden variety free speech, particularly non-disruptive speech
| or political opinions, but it can regulate it.
|
| The nature of the speech is different. In _Fraser_, the
| language was specifically crafted sexual innuendo. In this
| cheerleader case, the language in question on snapchat was a
| garden variety swearword (f-) expressing frustration, not
| specifically sexual in context. Every high schooler, every
| middle schooler knows that word. A substantial part of the
| decision in _Fraser_ revolved around the audience being minors
| and how the sexual language was potentially damaging to them.
|
| I think even that _Fraser_ decision was wrong... I agree with
| Stevens's dissent that it's not the school's or a federal
| court's business to decide what rhetorical sexual innuendo is
| or isn't damaging to minors unless it's clearly interfering
| with the "educational process" (a phrase mentioned in the
| relevant disciplinary rules, not some artificial scope-
| restriction Stevens made up), or unusually disruptive. The
| cited record mentions school staff opining that the assembly
| was not substantially more disruptive than other assemblies,
| despite some embarrassment and obscene mimicry of the innuendo.
| A student assembly isn't sufficiently connected with the
| educational process to merit the extra censorship you'd expect
| to be enforced in a classroom, which is what the cited school's
| disciplinary code contemplates.
|
| As pointed out elsewhere, the cheerleader's signed "agreement"
| not to disparage the team or classmates as a requirement for
| being on a team is not likely to be valid for a public school.
| The fact that the school can more strictly regulate speech
| _when a student is actively representing the school at an
| event_ , or _in a classroom_ , is not relevant here (or in
| _Fraser_, for that matter). If school staff believe special
| behavioral criteria for attendance or membership at the school
| or on a school team is necessary, they should quit and join a
| private school where that kind of thing flies.
| joshuaheard wrote:
| 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 being
| removed from that association. I think this is distinguished from
| a normal school/student free speech relationship. I look forward
| to reading the court's opinion.
| josefresco wrote:
| They actually have rules against "sexual promiscuity"? What do
| those rules look like and how are they enforced? Is it just a
| dress code, or do they actually discipline students for being
| "promiscuous".
| klyrs wrote:
| I can't help but wonder if the football team also has such
| rules
| filoleg wrote:
| From what I personally have seen and heard from other
| people, football teams either have no such rules or those
| rules are not enforced about 100% of the time.
| agloeregrets wrote:
| If anything, sexual promiscuity is how you get respected
| and are more likely to play in games.
| [deleted]
| bart_spoon wrote:
| Look, I realize there can be a double standard, but
| please, this is a bit much.
|
| As someone who played on the football team, you are more
| likely to play in games by being bigger, stronger,
| faster, and more intense than the other dudes at your
| position. Coaches give no consideration to anything
| beyond that.
| dls2016 wrote:
| > how are they enforced?
|
| I can guarantee these rules are not enforced uniformly across
| socioeconomic class.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Is this voluntary association supported with public funds?
| Managed by public employees?
| LanceH wrote:
| If you go with the "voluntary association" defense, it is just
| a different flavor of lawsuit. The requirement for association
| means giving up your free speech rights, which a _high school_
| cheer team has no business requiring.
| rdtwo wrote:
| I question the reason why the state has any right to make rules
| about sexual promiscuity but whatever
| kube-system wrote:
| It's irrelevant whether it's voluntary or not, it matters
| whether it's an establishment of the state.
| joshuaheard wrote:
| Actually one of the issues in the case was whether she waived
| her 1st Am rights by voluntarily joining the team.
|
| https://casetext.com/case/us-v-levy-22
| kube-system wrote:
| 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/supct/cert/20-255
| tantalor wrote:
| No. Schools are obviously allowed to limit speech inside the
| classroom. The question is whether that right extends
| outside.
| kube-system wrote:
| I was responding to the above assertion that the voluntary
| nature of the program is relevant, in regards to the
| situation in the parent comment. I wasn't referring to the
| case in the top-level post.
| Hfjfjdjfjceijfj wrote:
| My understanding is that the first amendment prohibits federal
| and state governments (and therefore public schools) from
| placing restrictions on free speech in the first place.
| Therefore, parts of the code of conduct are _unconstitutional_
| and so _unenforceable_.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I don't think schools should get involved in off campus speech or
| activities. However, we are seeing more and more of it. This case
| isn't even that extreme compared to others. There are people
| being suspended from actual school for non-threatening photos
| with guns or even just liking a photo of a gun.
|
| On the other hand, I don't see the problem with cutting a student
| from an extracurricular for actions that contradict its intended
| purpose or standards. If you're saying f the school and f
| cheerleading and the goal of the cheer squad is to promote school
| spirit and pride... (she wasn't suspended, given detention, or
| kicked off the softball team) I know I would have been benched or
| cut if I talked about throwing a game or not trying my hardest
| and those statements made it back to the coach. It's not like
| they were monitoring social media for this.
|
| I'll probably get downvoted, but I guess that's the cost of
| exercising my free speech.
| Zee2 wrote:
| Certainly agreed, for the speech that has nothing to do with
| any school activities. Your comparison about talking about
| throwing a game and the coach learning about it is apt; that
| sort of speech is essentially the same as your boss at work
| overhearing that you want to sabotage your work. I feel like
| the coach, or boss, taking action because they don't feel their
| player or employee has the best interests of the team or
| company at heart is well-warranted.
|
| However, for speech that does not relate to any school
| activities (for example, taking your point of a student
| exercising their Second Amendment right) should not result in
| action against the student.
| umvi wrote:
| 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 a major test of
| the US Constitution's First Amendment, which protects free speech
| rights.
|
| As for my own thoughts... I'm hoping the outcome of this case can
| be used as a litmus test for related bannings/cancellations when
| people express an opinion "off-campus" (so to speak).
|
| Edit: More info about the case here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v....
|
| Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a period.
| Clicking the link above won't work; you have to manually
| terminate it with a period before loading (should end with
| "B.L.", not "B.L")
| dmitrygr wrote:
| adding a pointless query string to the url helps, eg:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
| infogulch wrote:
| A hash/fragment at the end likely also works https://en.wikip
| edia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| 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
| damaging to their brand and business goals. This is entirely a
| social phenomena and has no legal basis. People legally can and
| will fire/hire people as it serves my business goals even if
| you think it is lame. There is _no_ 1st amendment violation
| here.
|
| 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.
| MR4D wrote:
| > Conflating these things....
|
| If I'm reading you right, then you are very wrong [0]. So
| much so that the court's own website addresses this:
|
| " _If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
| Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the
| expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea
| itself offensive or disagreeable._ "
|
| The idea of free speech is that for it to be free, you MUST
| allow unpopular speech (otherwise, it's not free!). This is
| hard to remember when we disagree with someone' actions.
|
| A government agent (the school) taking repercussions against
| a child (she was 14 at the time) because she expressed
| frustration about the government should clearly fall into the
| violation category.
|
| To not be a violation would be have an incalculable chill on
| free speech across schools impacting roughly 70 million kids
| (plus their parents).
|
| [0] - https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-
| resources/educational-a...
| [deleted]
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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?
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I'm in New Zealand. Maybe my assumption that people
| wouldn't particularly care is wrong, or my oddities are
| already factored into their behaviour towards me.
| [deleted]
| mavhc wrote:
| The more imaginary friends you have, the more you're
| angry about the imaginary friends other people have.
| mrkstu wrote:
| 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.)
| lostlogin wrote:
| Was the abstaining done in an offensive or obnoxious
| manner?
| mrkstu wrote:
| Nope, hence winning the suit. No one had complained, it
| was a proactive, hey maybe someone might take offense.
| Most likely a cover for actual religious malice, which
| wasn't necessary to prove to win the legal point.
| goatcode wrote:
| >Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and
| institutions
|
| You're making a lot of assumptions about the comment above
| yours. Language changes.
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| Your argument would be stronger if you proposed an
| alternate definition rather than just saying "you're wrong,
| that's not what it means anymore!"
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| Well, that's a weird take on things for being a member of a
| voluntary group activity at school. I certainly wouldn't want
| someone to be banned from school, expelled or given detention
| based on what they said, but I don't see why a coach should
| be keeping people on the team who bad mouth the team, or a
| music director keeping a tuba player on who continually
| speaks out about how bad the flute section is on instagram.
|
| Does that difference make sense?
| [deleted]
| nightski wrote:
| That only makes sense if the "optional" activity is not
| funded by a public school and does not make use of any
| public school property. Otherwise it is a government
| sanctioned activity, however optional.
| baryphonic wrote:
| > 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 expressed
| support for Satanism, even as a joke, and was then summarily
| fired after a mob harassed his employer with angry phone
| calls/tweets expressing (almost entirely empty) threats to
| boycott or worse?
| fanciestManimal wrote:
| Maybe I missed something in this discussion, has someone
| ever said "I'm a Christian" and then been fired?
| vmception wrote:
| 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
| dnautics wrote:
| > 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?
| vmception wrote:
| 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 anything.
| (sidenote: I'd probably be a decent lawyer, but software
| earns so much more without any licenses needed.)
| dnautics wrote:
| > 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.
| vmception wrote:
| 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.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| > 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
| damaging to their brand and business goals.
|
| Being "denied a wedding cake because one is gay" is a choice
| that private bakeries and institutions make to not associate
| themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either
| objectionable or simply damaging to their brand and business
| goals.
| extropy wrote:
| That is not random speech however. That is a protected
| affiliation. Similarly you cannot discriminate on political
| or religious grounds.
|
| Some speech is more protected than others.
| jack9 wrote:
| > The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's
| right to free speech,
|
| "Though public school students do possess First Amendment
| freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate
| certain types of student expression. For example, school
| officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the
| school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many
| courts have held that school officials can restrict student
| speech that is lewd.
|
| Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free
| expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their
| constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal
| Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws
| providing greater protection for freedom of speech." -
| https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-
| rights-...
| iczero wrote:
| 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"?
| eastWestMath wrote:
| > Should she have been fired on the spot without even
| having any form of communication with her employer?
|
| Too be honest, that depends entirely on the joke and her
| role, doesn't it?
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| Yes these things happen, humans are judgmental and leery of
| being associated with people who are undesirable in the
| eyes their peer group and the specific biases of that group
| - so it isn't always fair. That is life and has always been
| true.
|
| However, the term "canceled" itself is more typically about
| a specific and recent set of peers and biases - people on
| the right who are angry that people on the left are telling
| them to stop using the f-g or n-word, etc or angry that
| guys are getting outed for doing exactly the rape-y crap
| they themselves did and normalized and probably celebrated
| when they were in college.
|
| Now, I honestly don't know if Louis CK should have had his
| career ended because he was pervy (pulled his junk out a
| lot, right? I get these stories confused), but that is more
| a function of social media being a huge, new megaphone for
| ostracizing people, not that the left is on some
| spectacular cancel rampage as it is normally characterized.
| We do need to grapple with how to deal with this new
| megaphone, I agree.
|
| However, again, mostly this angst is not about a genuine
| desire to be good citizens and calling out dangerous corner
| cases. If it were, we'd be having a very different and much
| more constructive conversation. Most of this angst is
| really about the right wanting to keep being the right and
| going back to good old days, defensively dismissing the way
| the good old days were actually pretty terrible for a lot
| of people and we've learned a lot about how to be better
| humans. Of course there are cherry picked examples (in a
| population of 7B you can probably found _thousands_ ). But
| those examples don't change the underlying dynamics and
| motivations of what is going on here _on average*._
| iczero wrote:
| I'm not defending the "right" in any means at all. For
| me, the term "cancel" means any attempt to ruin anyone's
| livelihood for saying or doing something considered
| "wrong", sometimes as a baseless accusation. It doesn't
| matter what political opinion they hold. Correct me if
| I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that the
| political "right" is the only group capable of being
| "cancelled". I disagree.
|
| If I see something I disagree with on the Internet, maybe
| a joke gone wrong, I do not necessarily have to like it.
| But I will, nonetheless, celebrate that they are able to
| post what they have without facing potentially career-
| ending repercussions from the other side.
| [deleted]
| akiselev wrote:
| _> (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?
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| Either although mainly from ignorance in the later case.
| TST is freaking awesome, seriously American heroes. (and
| hilarious)
| axaxs wrote:
| Not necessarily.
|
| There are already basic protections in place. For example, it
| would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for
| being a satanist.
|
| I don't see a problem with extending such protections to
| include more free speech. The problem is, where does one draw
| the line? If one is against abortion and protests that, seems
| different than say if one is a full fledged neonazi spewing
| rhetoric.
|
| The way it sits today, the majority of people are afraid to
| speak their thoughts for fear of workplace retaliation. This
| is effectively corporate controlled speech, which is not a
| good thing for society.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and
| everything to do with workers' rights. You can't be fired
| for belonging to a protected class, but you can be fired
| for literally anything else - hence people are still rarely
| punished for firing members of a protected class.
|
| There was an upheld case a few years ago where a man fired
| one of his employees for _being too sexy_. Not _acting_ too
| sexy, or _dressing_ too sexy, but _being_ too sexy. You can
| fire someone for wearing Adidas, or for breathing too
| loudly (unless it can be shown to be the effect of a
| disability.)
|
| The idea that we should have special rules for racists and
| sexists is an insult. It would be in effect creating a
| protected class for bigots, who could still be fired for
| wearing green on Thursday.
|
| The most absurd part of this is that the vast majority of
| the people decrying "cancel culture" are the most
| antagonistic to any normalization of worker's rights, or
| enforcement of minority protections. Apparently, the only
| real racism is when you call someone a racist.
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| Word. Your last point is also right on, and the most
| irritating.
| axaxs wrote:
| Good points all around. Since work is so vital to our
| everyday survival, and as pointed out, often health
| insurance, it should be much harder or with much better
| reason to fire someone than what currently exists
| today(which, in most states is nothing). I by no means
| intended to advocate for chiseling out special
| protections for bigots or antagonists.
| rtpag wrote:
| Where did the post you reply to mention "racists and
| sexists"?
|
| The post mentions people afraid to speak up, like Gen-X
| members educated by super progressive people from the
| real student revolts in 1970.
|
| Except that this education is not sufficient to keep up
| with the arbitrary word games of rich elites, who
| incidentally do _not care about worker 's rights_.
| Balgair wrote:
| > 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 behaviors. Courts
| have been mixed thus far on how cyberbullying is
| legalistically different than regular bullying and where
| the mandates/responsibilities (if they exist) start and end
| for the school administration, especially with mixed minor-
| adult populations. It is, admittedly, a very difficult line
| to draw.
|
| As the article states, SCOTUS rarely gets into school-
| student speech issues, so this decision is expected to set
| the stage for the next 25-50 years of US policy in the now
| digital era
|
| EDIT: It's not just young women, cyberbullying is more of
| an universal problem.
| tomp wrote:
| 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.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Harrassment and terroristic threats are crimes (varies by
| location). Most of the nastier bullying could fit those.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| 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?
| akomtu wrote:
| I find it entertaining that in our society, 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. Our
| free speech laws are very selective.
| filoleg wrote:
| >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 when it comes to employment, while
| political affiliation/speech typically isn't.
| akomtu wrote:
| If one can set up a "church of satan" and call it a
| religious organization with all protections that come
| with that, someone else can set up a "church of two
| genders" and also call it a religious organization and
| then their holy book would be a very protected speech.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| No. There are some interesting conundrums one might
| imagine but not the example you give; that's
| straightforward.
|
| You can't be fired simply for belonging to a religion.
|
| However, belonging to a religion doesn't legally excuse
| your other actions such as harassing _others_ based on
| their religion /sex/whatever.
|
| So, you can belong to the Church of Satan, and even tell
| people that you belong to it -- that's _your_ business.
| But you can 't harass Christians for being Christian.
| That's _their_ business.
|
| Similarly, you can believe there are only two genders and
| those who transgress those boundaries are wrong. That's
| _your_ business. But you can 't harass coworkers based on
| those beliefs. That's _their_ business.
| filoleg wrote:
| To add on top of that, isn't gender now a protected class
| when it comes to employment as well?
|
| If yes, then it would mean that wearing a "there are only
| 2 genders" tshirt would essentially count as harassing a
| protected class based on their belonging to that
| protected class. Which seems like pretty clear grounds
| for termination, and no "this is just my religion"
| excuses are going to help here.
|
| Just like wearing a quote from the bible on your tshirt
| saying that women aren't supposed to hold seniority over
| men would very certainly get you fired as well, despite
| that being a part of your religious textbook and you
| belonging to that protected class.
| foolinaround wrote:
| 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?
|
| I don't think so.
| klyrs wrote:
| Galatians 3:28?
| filoleg wrote:
| >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 that.
|
| I think it just could be the case of a simple misconduct
| that has nothing to do with religious prosecution,
| because I don't think you would be able to get away with
| wearing a tshirt with a lot of really explicit and
| graphic quotes from the old testament at work, despite
| them having nothing to do with gender or politics (e.g.,
| the example of Ezekiel 23:20 with very explicit content
| about reproductive anatomy of horses and donkeys comes to
| mind).
| foolinaround wrote:
| Ok, but as this example demonstrates, a person's
| political views may stem from his religious views, which
| are protected.
| filoleg wrote:
| >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.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Nothing can _prevent_ the firing but they would most
| likely have civil rights lawsuit available to them unless
| the company had less than 15 employees and was in a state
| without a more restrictive law than the federal Civil
| Rights Act.
| fanciestManimal wrote:
| The analogy isn't really 1:1 in the first place. I see
| plenty of people wearing cross necklaces every day, which
| is more equivalent to wearing a shirt with an upside down
| pentagram on it. If the Satanist started wearing shirts
| with hateful stuff about other people, fire that person
| too.
| root_axis wrote:
| Religious affiliation is protected but that doesn't mean
| every action taken based on a religious belief is
| protected. For example, if the individual started wearing
| the t-shirt the day after a heated religious debate in
| the office with an individual that identifies as non-
| binary, that could be perceived as targeted harassment.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| Has that ever happened?
|
| It's worth noting that it's legal in all states but
| Montana to fire someone for absolutely no reason at all,
| meaning that in 49 states + DC _all firing
| discrimination_ is effectively legal so long as it 's
| obfuscated enough to stay out of court.
|
| I see people asking for legal advice online re: being
| fired as soon as they come out as gay or refuse to attend
| the church suggested by their boss like once or twice a
| month. Often times the company has less than 15 employees
| so there's no violation even if it's spelled out.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| I like how cancellation apologists excuse cancel culture
| by saying "oh its just people choosing not to associate
| with rude jerks."
|
| If it were just that then who cares. No, the problem is
| that a small group of agitators whip a mob into a frenzy
| of targeted harassment at friends, family, and employers
| of the person being cancelled, a process that naturally
| gives no way for the target to defend themself or for the
| true facts of the situation to even be known. This is
| literal mob justice.
| teawrecks wrote:
| You're describing harassment, not cancelation.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > There are already basic protections in place. For
| example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to
| fire you for being a satanist.
|
| That's not "basic protections", it's existing case law
| about a conflict within the constitution. Freedom of
| religion and freedom of association are both protected, but
| where they conflict we generally find that whichever side
| is providing some kind of good to the public (be it
| products or employment) needs to bend. You can't fire me
| for my religion because of the nature of "firing" (being
| something that denies me something most people have), not
| "religion". It can't be extended without stepping on some
| other right-holder's toes.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Specifically, one cannot be fired for being a satanist
| because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
|
| The Constitution is completely silent on the interaction
| of corporations and the rights enumerated in the Bill of
| Rights; those rights describe a relationship between the
| people and the government. Within that framework,
| government crafts law that determines how business may
| legally operate.
|
| Congress made a specific choice to extend (part of) a
| protection similar to the one described in the First
| Amendment to employees. It is not a complete extension;
| for example, at the federal level, freedom of association
| is not protected regarding one's business relationships,
| and you can be fired in most states for being a member of
| the KKK (there are some specific states that have added
| additional protections for political activities or
| political beliefs that would preclude such a firing). And
| most of the rights in the Bill of Rights aren't extended
| at all to the employer-employee relationship; employers
| may demand employees (and customers, for that matter)
| bear no arms on their premises, for example.
| axaxs wrote:
| Sure, but it's worth considering whether we should care
| about stepping on the right-holder's toes. That's what
| got us into corporate controlled speech, doxing, and
| twitter mobs in the first place. Read, people wouldn't do
| it if it weren't effective.
|
| It probably wouldn't be -as- bad if in the US healthcare
| wasn't tied to employment. As it sits today, speaking
| your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you
| happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a
| death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob
| doesn't agree with.
|
| Ridiculous hyperbole. First, because it imagines that
| people get killed for tweets, and second because it
| hilariously invokes the idea that this is a new thing.
| You genuinely don't think people have been persecuted for
| opinions in the past? Let me get my dead buddy Galileo to
| drop a few rocks on your head.
|
| Likewise McCarthyism, etc... Objectively free expression
| of inconvenient conservative ideas in the US _has never
| been cheaper, freer, easier or more pervasive than it is
| RIGHT NOW_. Good grief, just look at your own posts. You
| don 't look like someone afraid of being killed by a mob.
| axaxs wrote:
| I certainly didn't mean to offend you, or to pretend
| things today are worse than at any point in the past. It
| was more an argument against this weird celebration of
| getting people fired. I mean, there's even a subreddit
| called ByeByeJob. Just pointing out it's not so simple as
| 'hur hur he got fired.' Imagine you just found out you
| got cancer, and had a public meltdown on the way home
| that someone happened to film. Somewhere people would be
| laughing at you, while others are trying to get you
| fired, and poof there goes your health insurance. Crazy
| world.
| watwut wrote:
| That is exactly what happened to gays and lesbians and
| single moms in conservative places. That is what happens
| to anyone with history of sex work. There is actual
| organization right know to collect wrong thing said by
| liberal professors and to try them get fired.
|
| The abortion clinic volunteers that go with you so that
| you are not yelled at alone are a thing for a reason.
|
| And in civil rights era, white who did not supported
| segregation was economically punished and had hard time
| to find job.
| Fern_Blossom wrote:
| I mean... is what you said advocation to keep this cycle
| going? That's where whataboutism leads to. Justification
| to just swing the pendulum the other direction.
|
| I don't agree with any of it happening to either side of
| the political spectrum. At some point the shit has to
| stop.
| disabled wrote:
| > As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a
| death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob
| doesn't agree with.
|
| Exactly, this is a great reason to leave the USA,
| especially if you already have health issues. With AI
| taking hold and it getting harder to emigrate, the time
| to leave is now. Jobs with benefits for programmers are
| going to become more uncommon, with remote work being
| possible, as more contract work is going to be offered.
|
| I am a dual US|EU (Croatian) citizen, who is culturally
| American. I can legally live in about 30 countries
| (Freedom of Movement rights) as an EU citizen. I left the
| US over healthcare. For most people on here, Ireland is
| the place to go to get EU citizenship. Once you get EU
| citizenship, it levels the playing field and you can go
| to places with better healthcare than Ireland.
| nradov wrote:
| More people migrate from the EU to USA than the reverse.
| So it seems the majority disagree with you.
|
| https://mises.org/wire/3-times-many-europeans-move-us-
| other-...
| Fern_Blossom wrote:
| Nah, people escape from the USA all the time. No one
| moves here. Our border walls are to keep people in, not
| out. I mean, why else would 2018 and 2019 have record
| immigration?
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-
| finding...
|
| https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-
| requested...
|
| Look, people should live where they want, be happy and be
| proud where they're at. Nothing wrong with that. But
| single platform ideals to make wide sweeping judgements
| are a good reason to keep a two party political system.
| Focusing on one issue and bringing a hammer down to
| shatter everything is rather unproductive. Yea, the USA
| has it's problems. Duh. Just like everywhere else has
| problems too. But more people run _to_ the USA. If
| someone is privileged enough to find somewhere better,
| good, go for it. No one wants to stop you.
| syops wrote:
| Most Europeans from Western Europe speak English and have
| at least some cultural knowledge of the U.S. due to our
| cultural hegemonic status. It's easier for Greeks to come
| to the U.S. and integrate than vice versa. Also the U.S.
| has a long history of taking in immigrants. I suggest
| that looking solely at respective numbers of immigrants
| doesn't tell the whole story.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| I'm super ignorant on this case but has there been a case
| in which speaking one's mind has caused their death and
| how was that death actually prosecuted, if it was?
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" has there been a case in which speaking one's mind has
| caused their death"_
|
| The case that immediately sprang to mind for me was that
| of Alan Berg[1], a radio host who was assassinated (and
| about whom Oliver Stone made a movie called Talk
| Radio[2]).
|
| But this has happened many times throughout history,
| where people were assassinated (or imprisoned/executed)
| for their beliefs.
|
| More modern instances are things like journalists being
| assassinated in South America, for instance, for
| reporting on organized crime (similar things happening in
| Italy), or in Russia for criticizing Putin, or in the
| Islamic World for incurring the wrath of religious
| fanatics.. or the Charlie Hedbo attacks in Paris, or
| various beheadings of journalist and teachers.
|
| Some older, but still relatively recent and famous cases
| have been the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr,
| Malcolm X, and Gandhi... etc.
|
| Of course, speaking one's mind against the rulers or
| their system in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany or
| the Soviet Union has always been a quick path to the
| gallows or a concentration/labor/death camp.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Berg
|
| [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Radio_(film)
| EGreg wrote:
| Basically, the difference is whether the US government can
| compel private organizations to give a platform to someone.
|
| The idea of "incorporating" the Bill of Rights against
| states and cities is a result of the Due Process clause of
| the 14th amendment. (For example, I wouldn't be surprised
| if the Heller decision would eventually result in US cities
| like NYC, SF and LA being unable to require gun licenses
| anymore, after someone sues them like in MacDonald vs
| Chicago).
|
| That said, Facebook and Twitter are not publicly owned,
| they are "private" corporations (which are publicly
| traded). The problem isn't their specific decisions, but
| that they are too big.
|
| The Sherman Antitrust act actually gave a lot of teeth to
| the idea that the public government can break up businesses
| if they abuse their monopoly power (and supported even by
| Republican presidents like Teddy Roosevelt). Ma Bell.
| Standard Oil. Etc. Today, people look at Facebook and
| Google as targets for breaking them up into competing
| companies or unbundling their departments from favoring one
| another.
|
| As a left-libertarian, I would instead like to subsidize
| open-source software to disrupt these Big Tech monopolies
| from the ground up. And it's a subtle point, but I would
| like for the State to simply pass laws explicitly
| _declining_ to enforce property rights and other rights of
| entities that "control too much". Landlords who own too
| many houses, or banks that merge together into large
| conglomerates will be put on notice that the public system
| will not enforce their rights against members of the
| public, past a certain point. It doesn't serve society for
| private property to have no limits, similarly to how you
| can't scale up Roman era ships and still have them
| seaworthy.
|
| I recently gave an interview at Glasgow Caledonian
| University about the economics of free speech, where I go
| into detail about the problems and solutions in all the
| aspects around Capitalism and Free Speech, from money in
| politics, to deplatforming, to Big Tech filter bubbles, to
| clickbait news, to the Sinclair television chorus. It
| contains a lot of critiques of Capitalism and Competition
| as the basis for free speech.
|
| If anyone has about 30 minutes to listen through it, I
| would love your feedback: https://youtu.be/M8HbvC6vqIY
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a
| period. Clicking the link above won't work; you have to
| manually terminate it with a period before loading (should end
| with "B.L.", not "B.L")
|
| Did you try
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
| ?
| froh wrote:
| here you go:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
|
| url encoding the dot with %2E does work around it.
| javawizard wrote:
| Redirect created, so your link should work now. Given that
| Hacker News isn't the only platform that does this, I wonder if
| there's a world in which it makes sense for Wikipedia to
| redirect "foo" to "foo." by default, assuming a page named
| "foo." exists and a page named "foo" does not?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The answer should be rather obvious if you put it like this:
| Should a school get to regulate the speech and expression of
| its students outside the class room?
| ecf wrote:
| > I'm hoping the outcome of this case can be used as a litmus
| test for related bannings/cancellations when people express an
| opinion "off-campus"
|
| Additionally, I hope this can also apply to the workplace.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| Private companies are not subject to the first amendment.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Plus the school is "government". This creates an interesting
| wrinkle here.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Is being on the cheerleading squad a natural right?
| LanceH wrote:
| It's a qualified right, which she qualified for. A state
| actor doesn't get to dictate acceptable speech outside of
| that activity.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| So it's fine for a police officer to attend klan events on
| the weekend?
| rdtwo wrote:
| Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org.
| But yeah that's the kind of edge case you have to allow
| for in order to have freedom. Cause today it's a clan
| rally but tomorrow it could easily be a BLM rally and the
| state has historically been more harsh on BLM rallys.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org
|
| The fact the Klan is not labeled as one is deeply
| shocking.
| jaywalk wrote:
| "The Klan" has no relevance these days, and is used as a
| boogey man more than anything else.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| Why should we limit your rule to comments made off duty?
| Why can't a police officer shout racial slurs from a bull
| horn while driving down the street in their cruiser?
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Nope. Certain professions that serve the public require
| professionalism on and off the record. Policing is one of
| those. A police officer who vents racist speech in a
| private chat should reconsider their calling.
|
| Cheerleaders? They are welcome to go to the Klan BBQ and
| liven up the proceedings within the limits of the law;
| like the rest of us.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| LanceH wrote:
| The analogy would be the officer (the state actor)
| refusing service to someone who exercised objectionable
| speech.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| Should a police officer be fired, if they express views
| prejudicial to people that belong to minorities they are
| meant to serve, even if they express these views while
| off-duty?
| maxerickson wrote:
| As a matter of their employment agreement, sure.
|
| I guess students sign behavior pledges or similar, but
| I'm more inclined to enforce an employment agreement
| against an adult than I am to give local school
| administrators complete control over what activities
| students they disapprove of participate in.
| metiscus wrote:
| I believe as public employees, they should be held to at
| least the same standard as people in private employment.
| If I, as the employee of a company, make a Facebook post
| outside of work denigrating a group of people and my
| employer is made aware of that, I believe that I can be
| terminated. Should termination be the only solution? I
| don't think so. In a functioning society, there must be
| room for genuine contrition and redemption of those who
| have erred. I don't know what the proper method of
| addressing it should be, however.. The removal of the
| offensive speech and an immediate and heartfelt apology
| would be a firm minimum IMHO. The same should be true for
| public employees with the difference being that the
| appearance of impropriety should weigh towards sanctions.
| In both cases, pending conflict with employment contracts
| or local law, suspension, re-training, and demotions are
| all possible alternative sanctions.
| textgel wrote:
| Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there,
| minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an
| organisation? I hope you're aware the history of it isn't
| something that should be trivialised?
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| This case would be argued along exactly the same lines
| before the court had the student in question thrown in a
| racial slur. It will also have an impact on the ability
| for schools to punish students for racist cyberbullying
| in future. So I don't think it's problematic in the
| slightest to bring race into the equation.
| textgel wrote:
| One is criticism of the running and operation of an
| organisation; the other is steeped in the history of
| genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around
| the world to protect people from it because of it's
| heinousness. But you're professing that advocacy of
| racism is no more malignant than basic complaints about a
| company?
|
| I'm not sure if what you're advocating is because of
| perhaps missing education on the subject but this is a
| serious hot button issue at the moment; I'm honestly
| surprised you'd espouse this so freely.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| An unreformed racist sprouting out bigotry and a teenage
| girl having a bit of a moan about the cheerleading squad
| are both protected forms of speech under the first
| amendment.
|
| If the Supreme Court made an exceptionally broad ruling
| to the effect of forbidding any organ of the state
| revoking an appointment on the basis of first amendment
| protected speech uttered while not performing duties,
| then the ruling would protect a racist police officer and
| irate cheerleader equally.
|
| The Supreme Court is, of course, very unlikely to make
| such a broad ruling in this case, but it does seem like
| that's the remedy which quite a few people in this thread
| would like to see decided.
| [deleted]
| LanceH wrote:
| 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 made. Then we can proceed with either
| cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the
| rest for perjury. 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.
|
| Sure, there is a blurred line with posting something on a forum
| which is read in school, but this case clearly isn't that. The
| speech wasn't public and wasn't available at large.
| tantalor wrote:
| > It was expressed privately
|
| That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited _any_
| statements of that nature, in private or public.
|
| The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If
| not, then _every_ rule would have a limited scope. The
| article gives some examples of problems this would cause,
| e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment.
|
| If the rules only apply while on school property or in
| public, then why even have rules? The student can just flaunt
| the rules and claim "privacy" when challenged.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Of course every rule should have a limited scope.
| Institutions absolutely should not be allowed to have any
| say about what you do outside of their actual purview (ie:
| off of their property, not during work hours, while not
| representing them, etc).
|
| Almost any way that Institutions have to detect rule
| breaking outside of their purview involves serious privacy
| breaches.
| [deleted]
| dqpb wrote:
| > 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"
| i_haz_rabies wrote:
| 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.
| dqpb wrote:
| I wasn't declaring that silence is violence. I was
| providing it as an example for the OP's enumeration.
| Hence the quotes.
| i_haz_rabies wrote:
| noted, thanks for clarifying.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| 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.
| ramblerman wrote:
| You are conflating your individual right to hang out with
| who you please with that of an institution like a school or
| company.
|
| Nobody would disagree with the individual right.
| listless wrote:
| 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" or "bad". That's "us vs them". Only
| ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the
| bad ideas are.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| " Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides
| what the bad ideas are." Well, historians do. Subject to
| change.
| listless wrote:
| 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.
| jfengel wrote:
| 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.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| There is obviously a balance to be struck here and I
| don't think we yet have a great framework for thinking
| about such problems. A lot of what makes a nice society
| is social norms and conventions. The group must have a
| way of punishing bad behavior or that system falls apart.
|
| If there are no consequences for "acting like a Karen"
| what is the social incentive to stop behaving like an
| angry toddler anytime you don't get your way? Now extend
| this to even more extreme behavior like people who say
| you should be killed just for existing because you're an
| abomination. Is the argument that we should just get
| along and there shouldn't be any social consequences for
| that? Such a view would be incredibly naive at best.
|
| On the flip side clearly people's views do sometimes
| change, people make mistakes, etc. Changing minds and
| hearts is a process, not a one-time event, so complete
| shunning for any perceived slight is rather extreme and
| can be counterproductive.
| exporectomy wrote:
| > A lot of what makes a nice society is social norms and
| conventions. The group must have a way of punishing bad
| behavior or that system falls apart.
|
| Yes. But it's a problem when different cultures coexist
| and see each other's good behavior as bad. Societies that
| kill their "abominations" are also enforcing their social
| norms. And they may even be right to do so given the
| environment they live in and their desire to continue
| existing as a society. Modern western culture has the
| luxury of being very tolerant of diverse types of people
| because we're so wealthy and safe, but many societies or
| their members are closer to the brink and the presence of
| too many ineffective or counter-productive members is an
| existential threat.
| watwut wrote:
| Interestingly, the most common use of Karen I have seen
| is women being assertive and actually right.
|
| Yes, sometimes it is in racist or exaggerating context.
| But, most often, Karen is used to shut up woman who don't
| want to be doormat or is telling you off for good reason.
| plank_time wrote:
| > we stop committing people to the garbage heap of
| humanity via religious-like shunning
|
| There's also religious-like forgiveness too. Some
| incredible acts of forgiveness were accomplished by very
| religious people. Pope John Paul II immediately forgave
| the person who almost killed him.
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| 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?
| listless wrote:
| I don't think you have to "turn a blind eye". It's not a
| zero-sum game. But it does mean you have to engage with
| people. Shunning would be the opposite of that.
|
| The best modern-day example of how we should all live is
| probably Daryl Davis...
|
| "It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes
| fertile for violence. If you spend five minutes with your
| worst enemy -- it doesn't have to be about race, it could
| be about anything...you will find that you both have
| something in common."
|
| https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-
| convinc...
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| I think what you're trying to say is that compassion is a
| more effective tool for bringing people back into the
| fold of widely accepted facts and norms, and you offer
| Daryl Davis as an example.
|
| I hear what you're saying, but I think Daryl Davis is an
| inexplicable exception, not the rule. I think most people
| know someone that has held onto truly shocking beliefs
| for decades, and hasn't responded to reason or
| compassion.
| mistermann wrote:
| > 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?
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| 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?
| smolder wrote:
| Everyone enforces norms some way or another, but their
| statement implies an unwillingness to forgive
| transgressions, which isn't a given. Nowadays people's
| mistakes quite easily become viral memes that are their
| legacy. Huge mobs of shallowly interested detractors are
| unforgiving and can cause disproportionate harm.
| umvi wrote:
| > 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 abortion.
| em-bee wrote:
| worse. if you can't associate with such people, then you
| can't work to change their mind either. i remember a
| story about someone who made friends with kkk members,
| and one by one managed to turn them away from the kkk.
| that probably took some time for each person, during
| which he had to have been seen associating with them.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _i remember a story about someone who made friends with
| kkk members, and one by one managed to turn them away
| from the kkk_
|
| Daryl Davis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis
| watwut wrote:
| However, he did not managed to endanger KKK power one
| bit.
|
| And way more people who socialize in KKK circles end up
| naturally moving toward racism and extremes of it. They
| change toward racism, because that is what choose to hear
| most of time.
|
| It so happens that these are quite aggressive when voice
| disagreements with them, so socialising with the requires
| you to pretend you agree, at least on the edges. It works
| like any other bubble overtime, the anti-racists become
| crazy ennemies.
| exporectomy wrote:
| Why change their mind? You can also let them change your
| mind. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right
| and they're wrong. For these big ethical and moral
| issues, people are often completely certain their view is
| right but they can't explain why. The reason is probably
| because their society tells them they'll be a bad person
| (at risk of being shunned!) for thinking otherwise.
| Strong social punishment for holding a belief isn't a
| good reason that belief is wrong.
| jerkstate wrote:
| Sounds like Daryl Davis:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6FDQ301Q7s
| jfengel wrote:
| As a control, how many people left the KKK without
| knowing him?
| setr wrote:
| It doesn't matter. Guilt by association implies you can't
| even attempt the idea, regardless of success rate. It's
| very strictly an us vs. them heuristic, with little to no
| room for nuance.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| As a control for what, exactly?
| jfengel wrote:
| The assertion is that his friend's acquaintance with KKK
| members was effective at helping them leave. But we can't
| tell how effective unless we know how many people would
| have left without the friend's assistance.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| Reread what they said; it's not their friend and he made
| no claims to efficacy. Your response seems off-context.
| jfengel wrote:
| You're correct: it wasn't their friend, it was something
| they read.
|
| It does sound like they're making a claim to efficacy. It
| says "one by one managed to turn them away". That's the
| part I'm asking for clarification on.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| The anecdote about Daryl Davis is the preamble, the last
| sentence is their point.
|
| I'm not saying that's not a valid point of conversation,
| I'm saying it comes across as off-context to the point
| where it seems a little like bait.
| josefx wrote:
| How many people left the KKK without ever associating
| with people outside of it before?
| smolder wrote:
| There's also the question of how to reform people who
| misbehave and whether shunning is appropriate or effective
| for that purpose.
| will4274 wrote:
| Have you ever watched _The King and I_? The original
| anonymousisme wrote:
| "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...
| [deleted]
| will4274 wrote:
| It's amusing to think that, if she had said it with her boob
| out, she likely would not have been punished by the school,
| because nobody would have saved and rebroadcast it for an
| adult.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I thought the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" supreme court case [1]
| established the school's ability to punish views expressed
| off campus. So, is this just down to whether her intent was
| that the message was to be private? The distinction between
| public and private speech is already fuzzy on these hosted
| chat platforms, and some would argue is disappearing. The
| difference between a public and private message in a forum or
| social media platform might just be a single bit in a
| database. Ignoring the technicalities of end-to-end
| encryption, at the end of the day, you're sending your
| message to a 3rd party company, and that company decides
| ultimately whether it is public or private. As much as I'd
| like to see more first amendment protections for school
| students, I don't think this case is going to be decided in
| favor of the girl.
|
| 1: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-
| resources/educational-a...
| stock_toaster wrote:
| I think the key is that [1] was part of an off campus
| school supervised activity.
| kurthr wrote:
| This is a public school so they are considered a part of
| (subsidized by) the government. But if it were a private
| Christian religious school, and she was promoting Satan worship
| in her out of school TikTok time, would you think the school
| should be forced to ignore it and let her keep singing in their
| televised choir?
|
| Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the meaning of free speech. Forcing a
| private entity to provide an unpaid service is something quite
| different.
| zmix wrote:
| Thank you for the summary! I was just going to ask...
| kstrauser wrote:
| This case will be irrelevant to workplace firings. It's the
| specific situation of children in schools having fewer rights
| than adults in the workplace that's the issue here. Some courts
| have already ruled that kids _don 't_ enjoy a full separation
| between school and personal lives because what they do at home
| can be disruptive at school, and this ruling is expected to
| address that specific line of thinking.
|
| And really, any grown adult who says the same things about
| their employer that Levy did about her school should expect to
| find themselves unemployed as soon as word gets back. I don't
| mean that to diss Levy, who was a kid at the time, and besides,
| what kids _don 't_ privately rant to their friends about
| school? It's neither appropriate nor desirable for a school to
| say "you don't like it, then quit" to a child, whereas it's
| reasonable for most work settings to fire a disgruntled
| employee.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed
| their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for
| letting fly some profanity _privately_ as an expression of
| human emotion cannot be so high in any reasonable
| civilization.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I don't completely disagree with you, FWIW. I do see it as
| fundamentally different to gripe about your job to a
| coworker in your living room or at a bar after work. That's
| the most natural thing ever. It's a different animal to
| make a public post telling the world that your company
| sucks and f- the company and your boss.
|
| In Levy's case, she made a public post (even if she didn't
| mean for it to be public). And to be clear, I'm not going
| to judge a 14 year old for doing things that I'd be annoyed
| with a 30 year old for doing. A kid got frustrated with her
| school and complained about it? Ooh, stop the presses and
| clutch some pearls! I have a much harder time sympathizing
| with people twice her age who complain publicly about how
| much their job sucks, then complain that their boss has
| relieved them of the burden of ongoing employment.
| neogodless wrote:
| I've always thought of Snapchat as "hanging out on your
| back porch with a beer". On the other hand, I've never
| sent any Snaps to more than like... 3 people. Sending it
| to 250 is a bit like hosting the entire class from your
| school at a party, and then getting on a microphone and
| saying "F--- all of you and f--- cheer!" and then someone
| recording that on their phone and showing a coach.
|
| I don't think it's fair to call her action "making a
| public post" because _she_ did not make it public.
| Someone else did.
| wil421 wrote:
| How's it any different from writing a letter to 25
| coworkers saying F** my employer? If one of the 25
| recipients showed the letter to my employer I'd be fired.
|
| How's a private snap any different than a private letter?
| thissorthatt wrote:
| The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas
| the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions
| could be a protected labor activity.
| teawrecks wrote:
| What would/should actually happen in this case is HR/the
| manager would meet with the employee and ask them to vent
| any apparent frustrations. If the statement was made
| publicly, they would probably be fired outright for
| making public statements about the employer without
| permission. If it's only internal, they wouldn't be fired
| outright, but they will likely be passed over for
| promotion. Makes sense, why should a company invest in
| someone who apparently isn't invested in the company? If
| they are ever fired, the reason given would be for some
| other unrelated infraction that they are legally allowed
| to terminate for.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Protected labor activities are protected in the US by
| Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, not by the
| Constitution.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| I believe that I have not made my point clearly: simply,
| you should not be fired for that letter.
| wnoise wrote:
| The by-default ephemeral nature?
| virgil_disgr4ce wrote:
| The snap self-destructs. The correct analogy would be
| showing a photo of the letter to others.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > How's a private snap any different than a private
| letter?
|
| I thought that letters had a copyright? The recipient has
| ownership but cannot publish. If they do copy and
| distribute (as a screenshot of a Snapchat message) does
| this not break copyright?
|
| Edit: In New Zealand (where I am), an employer
| screenshooting and distributed an employee's Facebook
| messages breached privacy laws.
| https://privacy.org.nz/tools/knowledge-base/view/366
| mannerheim wrote:
| Copyright generally doesn't protect usage of a work in
| criticism of it, even if it is basically verbatim usage
| without added commentary. I think Hughes v. Benjamin is
| salient here.
| teawrecks wrote:
| The difference is, one is a private company that you are
| gainfully employed at of your own volition. The other is
| a public school that students are legally obligated to
| attend. The two have nothing to do with each other.
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's the other way around. Public schools have more
| obligations than private employers. That a school is
| obligated to provide the cheerleading experience to a student
| they "don't approve of" doesn't imply that an employer is
| obligated to provide employment to anybody, whether they
| approve of them or not.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I agree with you on general principles. However, the whole
| point of this case being in front of SCOTUS is that other
| courts have ruled that schools _aren 't_ obligated to
| provide that experience. Levy's suing because she disagrees
| (and I do too).
|
| I _think_ she should be allowed to be a cheerleader even
| after complaining about her coach and school, as kids are
| wont to do. Now we 'll find out if the courts see it the
| same way.
| taylodl wrote:
| I predict the SCOTUS will see cheerleading as an extra-
| curricular activity outside of the scope for which a
| public school is obligated to provide and thus may
| restrict access to that activity in any manner they see
| fit. If they don't rule it that way then SCOTUS is about
| to open One Giant Can of Worms.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > in any manner they see fit.
|
| That cannot possibly be true. Here is an example. Imagine
| if a school banned people from sports, because they
| expressed support for Obama or Trump.
|
| Clearly that would be a government infringing on people's
| right to speech, as it is expressely political.
|
| Or imagine that a school gave certain benefits, only to
| students, who publicly support a certain political
| candidate. If you don't support their choice of
| president, you lose privileges or benefits or get
| expelled.
|
| Or, if we are truly talking about "any manner they see
| fit", an obvious counter example would be if they just
| banned women from playing sports.
|
| > is about to open One Giant Can of Worms.
|
| There is no can of worms being opened here. A school is a
| public institution. How speech laws apply to public
| institution is not some crazy out there idea. It is well
| established.
|
| I am not sure why people are making out speech laws,
| which have a long history of how they apply to public
| institutions, as some sort of alien topic.
|
| You wouldn't say that a school could expel people, for
| example, for this kind of speech, out of school. Why is
| it so crazy, for this to be applied to other activities?
| mason55 wrote:
| > _A school is a public institution. How speech laws
| apply to public institution is not some crazy out there
| idea. It is well established._
|
| Free speech laws apply differently in school. They're not
| exactly the same as other public institutions, as SCOTUS
| has ruled numerous times.
|
| Bethel v. Fraser[0] is an example where the Court ruled
| pretty clearly that the school can go as far as to
| prohibit sexual innuendo, it doesn't even have to be
| obscene or vulgar.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_
| v._Fras...
| stale2002 wrote:
| > They're not exactly the same as other public
| institutions, as SCOTUS has ruled numerous times.
|
| I didn't say that they were exactly the same. Instead I
| am saying that there is not some "huge can of worms" that
| is opened on up this topic, if the supreme court rules in
| favor of the student in this case.
|
| It is instead something that predictably might happen,
| and which will have predicable results that are in line
| with how things work in other examples.
|
| So, in other words, the sky will not fall, and schools
| will not collapse under the weight of not being allowed
| to punish students for purely off campus speech.
| maxerickson wrote:
| It would already be subject to Title 9, they have to
| provide equal access.
|
| The school can certainly argue that all students have to
| meet the same requirements to participate, which would
| hinge on whether the student could reasonably anticipate
| the consequences here (an example where that isn't
| possible is if the school created and applied a policy
| for the incident).
|
| My first comment is in response to the people inventing
| parallels that don't exist at all because schools and
| work places are very different things and wasn't an
| attempt to thoroughly examine the specifics. A finding
| that the existing obligations of the school do apply to
| this situation is irrelevant to at will employment.
| mason55 wrote:
| Schools sort of fall in an area between private employer
| and government entity. They have to allow more leeway than
| a private employer (they can't prevent speech just because
| it makes them uncomfortable) but they can put more limits
| on speech than the government normally would be allowed (in
| the interest of the educational mission).
|
| I guess this case is about whether cheerleading falls into
| the former or latter category.
| paxys wrote:
| Can't say about legal rulings and precedent about free speech,
| but I can't remember it ever being okay to, for example, swear in
| front of teachers outside school. Especially in small enough
| towns, conduct outside of the school always came back to bite you
| in the ass since everyone would hear about everything. And I
| imagine social media has amplified this x1000.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-26 23:01 UTC)