Supreme Court Sides With High School Cheerleader Who Cursed Online (cnn.com) 157
schwit1 shares a report from CNN: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former high school cheerleader who argued that she could not be punished by her public school for posting a profanity-laced caption on Snapchat when she was off school grounds. The case involving a Pennsylvania teenager was closely watched to see how the court would handle the free speech rights of some 50 million public school children and the concerns of schools over off-campus and online speech that could amount to a disruption of the school's mission or rise to the level of bullying or threats.
The 8-1 majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer. "It might be tempting to dismiss (the student's) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary," Breyer wrote. Breyer said that the court has made clear that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression even 'at the school house gate.'" "But," he said, "we have also made clear that courts must apply the First Amendment in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." "The school itself has an interest in protecting a student's unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus. America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy," the opinion read.
Breyer disagreed with the reasoning of a lower court opinion that held that a school could never regulate speech that takes place off campus, but at the same time he declined to set forth what he called "a broad, highly general First Amendment rules stating just what counts as 'off-campus speech." Instead, he allowed that while the cheerleader's post were "crude" they "did not amount to fighting words." He said that while she used "vulgarity" her speech was not "obscene." In addition, her post appeared "outside of school hours from a location outside of school" and they did not target any member of the school community with "abusive" language. He added that she used her own personal cellphone and her audience consisted of a private circle of Snapchat friends. Breyer said "these features of her speech" diminish the school's interest in punishing her. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. He wrote that students like the former cheerleader "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs." He added: "For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team. So, too, here."
The 8-1 majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer. "It might be tempting to dismiss (the student's) words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein. But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary," Breyer wrote. Breyer said that the court has made clear that students "do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression even 'at the school house gate.'" "But," he said, "we have also made clear that courts must apply the First Amendment in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." "The school itself has an interest in protecting a student's unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus. America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy," the opinion read.
Breyer disagreed with the reasoning of a lower court opinion that held that a school could never regulate speech that takes place off campus, but at the same time he declined to set forth what he called "a broad, highly general First Amendment rules stating just what counts as 'off-campus speech." Instead, he allowed that while the cheerleader's post were "crude" they "did not amount to fighting words." He said that while she used "vulgarity" her speech was not "obscene." In addition, her post appeared "outside of school hours from a location outside of school" and they did not target any member of the school community with "abusive" language. He added that she used her own personal cellphone and her audience consisted of a private circle of Snapchat friends. Breyer said "these features of her speech" diminish the school's interest in punishing her. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. He wrote that students like the former cheerleader "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs." He added: "For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team. So, too, here."
Does that include /.? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like fuck we do.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/ulIOrQasR18 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
^fucking dolt
FFTFY&FY
Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
The power-greedy efforts of public school administrators — and, increasingly, college administrators — to regulate students’ out-of-school behavior need to be slapped down.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.computerworld.com/... [computerworld.com]
"We need to monitor students for their safety" / Rubs crotch, I mean rubs hands menacingly.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the 'power-greedy efforts' often happen because it spills over into the classroom.
Re:Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the 'power-greedy efforts' often happen because it spills over into the classroom.
The SC decision agreed that spillover is a justification for off-campus constraints on speech.
But they felt, in this case, the school had failed to demonstrate any spillover.
So 8 justices felt schools could constrain off-campus speech, just not in this case, while the only dissenter (Thomas) felt that the schools should have MORE power to constrain speech.
So, even though the cheerleader won, this was not really a victory for free speech.
Re:Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
So, even though the cheerleader won, this was not really a victory for free speech.
I was going to say that I agree, but then I realized that in fact this is a thinly disguised blow against freedom of speech. I'm totally flabbergasted that any court at any level would even entertain the idea that the school has any say in anything that students say or do off school grounds, outside normal classroom hours, with their own personal property. The fact that this tempest-in-a-teapot made it beyond the "school shakes finger at student" stage is just mind-boggling.
As for Thomas' contention that students "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs," gimme a break. In the first place, what was that old saying about "sticks and stones"? In the second place, students have no duty of care to their schools; so if what they say doesn't fall under slander, libel, defamation, or hate speech laws, then the school can stuff its umbrage where the sun doesn't shine.
Re:Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to say that I agree, but then I realized that in fact this is a thinly disguised blow against freedom of speech. I'm totally flabbergasted that any court at any level would even entertain the idea that the school has any say in anything that students say or do off school grounds, outside normal classroom hours, with their own personal property.
From what I've read, the ruling said that schools do have authority when students say things outside of school that have direct, serious, negative effects on the ability of other students to receive their education. This would be things like bullying, threats, etc., to the point that the targeted students are suffering significant harm.
Of course, you could make the perfectly reasonable argument that these issues are a matter for law enforcement (since harassment and threats are illegal) instead of the schools, but it certainly wouldn't be considered protected speech.
Re: (Score:3)
The school allegedly has responsibility for the students while under their watch.
Of course, IME this is a lot of hot horseshit, otherwise everyone in the chain of culpability at for example the junior high school I went to would have been literally jailed because I was regularly physically abused by other students because I was a big weirdo who didn't know how to fight. I got expelled from that school when I finally got attacked by a kid who was even worse at it than I was and whupped his ass. That former k
Re: (Score:2)
Stick and Stones is fine, but there is always going to be a conflict between being an individual and being part of an organization.
I can't reasonably rant and rave and degrade religion openly and then expect to be part of my local mosque/church/whatever.
I can't reasonably hate on my employer openly and then expect to keep my job.
I can't reasonably trash talk and hate on my family publicly and then expect then to keep me involved in family events.
I can't reasonably trash talk and hate on my friends publicly
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of situations where membership of an organisation, employment, contractual arrangements, etc etc. constrain your ability to do certain things and remain as part of that organisation. None of that is inherently preventing free speech since you can always end your relationship with that organisation.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.aclum.org/en/publi... [aclum.org]
Written by Jessica Lewis, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts
February 24, 2019 is the 50th anniversary of the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of students to engage in political protest and expression in public schools. The Court in Tinker ruled that student Mary Beth Tinker and others could not be disciplined for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court held that student speech in schools is protected as long as it does not materially and substantially disrupt the work or discipline of the school.[1]
To mark this anniversary, the ACLU of Massachusetts updates this advisory to remind students, the public, and school officials that public school students, including students in charter schools, may not be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance or to stand during the pledge or national anthem.
In the seminal case from 1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,[2] the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compulsory flag salute would violate students’ right to freedom of expression. Lowers courts have since recognized that this right protects students who engage in silent protest or express dissent during the recitation of the pledge or during other patriotic ceremonies. Courts have held that students may express themselves by remaining seated,[3] raising their fist,[4] and kneeling.[5]
In Barnette, the Court wrote:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.[6]
“The Constitution guarantees students (and all people) the right to engage [in] ‘expressive conduct.’”[7] Sitting during the pledge or visibly expressing dissent is expressive conduct.[8] In a case in which a student was suspended for failing to stand during the pledge as “protest against black repression in the United States,” the court held that “refusing to stand during the pledge ceremony constituted an expression of [the student’s] religious beliefs and political opinions. His refusal to stand was no less a form of expression than the wearing of the black armband was to Mary Beth Tinker.”[9]
Schools may not abridge the right of students to freedom of expression, including their right not to participate in or to dissent during ceremonies of patriotic or nationalist expression.[10] One way school personnel abridge this right is by reprimanding a student’s choice not to participate in the pledge ceremony. “It is well established that a school may not require its students to stand for or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or punish any student for his/her failure to do so.”[11] “Verbal censure is a form of punishment, albeit a mild one,” because the intent behind this act is to dissuade the student from exercising a constitutional right.[12]
Disagreement with the political message – be it perceived as “anti-police” or a demand for racial equality – cannot justify or excuse the abridgement of speech. Rather, “the school must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint” to justify a prohibition of a particular expression of opinion.[13]
In Spence v. Washington, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that speech may be suppressed to protect a purported interest in preserving the American flag as an unalloyed symbol of the nation. A speaker may not be punished “for failing to show proper respect for our national emblem.” [14]
And “[t]hough schools may regulate students’ speech in some limited circumstances, public school students . . . ‘cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises—whether ‘in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours.’”[15]
As the Supreme Court reasoned in Barnette:
[W]e apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. . . . [F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.[16]
“The schoolroom prepares children for citizenship, and the proper exercise of the First Amendment is a hallmark of citizenship in our country.”[17]
As the Court in Tinker reminded us: “state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism.”[18]
Happy birthday, Tinker!
Re: (Score:2)
[1] 393 U.S. at 513. “To support the regulation of student speech under Tinker, school officials must produce some evidence that a restriction ‘is necessary to avoid material or substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.’” Bowler v. Town of Hudson, 514 F. Supp. 2d 168, 178 (D. Mass. 2007) (original emphasis). "The risk that student counseling may be required, or the likelihood of unplanned classroom discussions, does not rise to the level of a substantial and material disruption comprehended by Tinker." Id.
[2] 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
[3] Banks v. Bd. of Public Instr., 314 F. Supp. 285 (S.D.Fla.1970), vacated on procedural grounds by 401 U.S. 988, 91 S.Ct. 1223, 28 L.Ed.2d 526 (1971), reinstated without published opinion by dist. ct. and aff'd, 450 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1971)
[4] Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
[5] V.A. v. San Pasqual Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 17-CV-02471-BAS-AGS, 2017 WL 6541447 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
[6] 319 U.S. at 642.
[7] Harland, 370 F.3d at 1270.
[8] Banks, 314 F.Supp. at 295.
[9] Id. (referring to Tinker, 393 U.S. 503).
[10] See M.G.L., c. 71, 82; see also Pyle v. Sch. Comm., 667 N.E.2d 869, 872 (Mass. 1996) (interpreting Massachusetts law as protecting the rights of the students to free expression).
[11] Rabideau v. Beekmantown Cent. Sch. Dist., 89 F. Supp. 2d 263, 267 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
[12] Harland, 370 F.3d at 1268–69.
[13] See Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509.
[14] 418 U.S. 405, 410-11, 412-13 (1974)
[15] V.A., 2017 WL 6541447, at *4 (citing Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506).
[16] 319 U.S. at 637.
[17] V.A., 2017 WL 6541447, at *5 (quoting Chandler v. McMinnville Sch. Dist., 978 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1992).
[18] 393 U.S. at 511.
Oops. Should've been above, same source, includes important comments.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with much of what you say - but I still maintain that in the cases you're talking about, the more appropriated remedies would be legal and judicial. As for the current topic of discussion, TFA quotes the cheerleader as having said "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything". If that's the entire substance of what she posted, then I also maintain that this is indeed a "tempest in a teapot".
Re: (Score:2)
Being an arsehole is not illegal, neither is being angry at someone and vocalising your anger. Be thankful. You're in her boat, actually more so since she at least self censored her social media outburst. Maybe we think you calling someone an arsehole is unbecoming of a citizen and punish you.
Re: (Score:2)
Demonstrating one's assholism is a long guaranteed right under the First Amendment. Just the same as the First Amendment gives me the right to call someone out for being assholic without legal jeopardy.
Re: Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:2)
Better to remain quiet and be thought an asshole than to open your mouth and remove all doubtâ¦
Re: Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried an excuse like this once in grade school but I just ended up with another check mark next to my name on the board.
Spill-over is a bullshit argument (Score:2)
Spill-over into the classroom is a bullshit argument that has been abused by both liberals and authoritarian school administrators for their own ends.
Schools are part of the community and will always inherit community issues, whether its poverty, drug use, delinquency or other less desirable community traits. School administrators should not be reaching out from campus to try to "solve" these problems even if the problems get imported into their campuses.
Authoritarians shouldn't be allowed to "manage" the
Re: (Score:2)
Spill-over into the classroom is a bullshit argument that has been abused by both liberals and authoritarian school administrators for their own ends.
Maybe, but it's also a legitimate problem. Kids find creative ways of messing with each other but they physically encounter each other at school. Put those two together and you get clear cases to support either assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
... at which point it becomes disruptive behavior which is fair game under case law. However, they were trying to punish her for something posted to the internet, after school hours, and not from school campus. That's private speech, and this school board can go fuck themselves with a thistle for trying it. I'll thank them for the solid precedent once again protecting free speech and rejecting prior restraint though.
Re:Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:5, Interesting)
The power-greedy efforts of public school administrators — and, increasingly, college administrators — to regulate students’ out-of-school behavior need to be slapped down.
Sure, but according to NPR [npr.org] (and other reports) [emphasis mine]:
Joie Green, superintendent for the Mahanoy Area School District, however, was not so sure, noting that in this case Levy had signed a contract to follow the team rules, and she didn't. "All the school did was support the coach's rules," Green said.
I don't know/have the content of that "contract" but presumably it had something about public speech, otherwise the school wouldn't have complained... I mean, celebrities and athletes often have some sort of speech/speaking clause in their contracts so, if a contract w/similar clause existed, why would this be any different -- other than that as a minor she couldn't enter into a legally-binding contract w/o a parent/adult co-signer.
Not defending the school -- at all -- but there may some subtleties we're not aware of. Personally, I think the 8 Justices in the majority were correct as she didn't mention the school or any person by name and was speaking in generalities on her own device, own time, off campus... The lone dissenter Justice Clarence Thomas has always believed students have NO 1st Amendment rights (reported in several places) and is, as usual, out of touch with reality.
Re:Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like the offending speech was also in a private chat group, it wasn't in a (relatively) public facebook post or something.
Re:Free Speech 1, Educrats 0 (Score:4)
I mean, celebrities and athletes often have some sort of speech/speaking clause in their contracts so, if a contract w/similar clause existed, why would this be any different
Normally celebrities and the like get paid huge sums of money in those contracts in consideration of the fact that they have to moderate their public speech and views. In addition, there is a solid business reason for this: the brands paying the huge sponsorship deals are expecting to get good publicity and if the celebrity in question slags off the brand sponsoring them it is very clearly not getting what they are paying for.
I'm not sure how a student making an expletive-laden rant in their own time at home harms the ability of a school to provide a high-quality education although their response to it - a one-year ban from an extra-curricular activity - clearly does.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know/have the content of that "contract" but presumably it had something about public speech
You have the right to sign away speech in a contract. I suspect if this contract actually contained such binding language it would be pivotal to the court case. Instead we're arguing about how aggressive language is and general jurisdiction of schools so it's very likely the wording in the contract was far too vague to be applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Contract law doesn't supercede the constitution. Illegal contracts cannot be enforced. A contract that has a government entity (school) requiring prior restraint outside of recognized exceptions (public safety, national security, etc.) is a violation of constitutional rights.
Contracts with Children aren't enforceable (Score:5, Insightful)
"Levy had signed a contract"
While the superintendent stated the student "had signed a contract to follow the team rules", that really means nothing. Contracts with Children aren't legally enforceable. You can't penalized a minor for violating a contract they signed. That "contract" was just a coercion device to bully the kids into acting a certain way.
Re: (Score:2)
The power-greedy efforts of public school administrators — and, increasingly, college administrators — to regulate students’ out-of-school behavior need to be slapped down.
Or you'll do what exactly? Call for a PTA meeting to rant and rave on deaf ears? Demand the principal step down? Threaten to remove your child from public school and shell out $30K/year for private school?
Perhaps now you're starting to see how much power you've been left with here. And how much choice the average parent can afford.
And if you think it's bad today, just imagine how it will be when we're calling Amazon the US public educator.
Re: (Score:3)
What this ruling dies do is limit the treatment of an athlete or other participant in an extracurricular school activity as a unpaid servant which can be fired at will. This could actually have wide reaching effe
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is that the Court has rejected prior restraint every single time it's come up unless a case of public safety (yelling "fire" in a theater, that kind of thing).
I sure don't know why a school board would think that the bench would do any different than they've ever done. Even *this* court.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to have a look at this:
https://thehill.com/changing-a... [thehill.com]
"superfluous"? (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes to the first, it's wrong to classify anything as "superfluous". It really needs to be binary approach; from a certain, important, perspective speech is either all important or it's not.
"Why?", I might hear you ask? Because the arbitrators of "superfluous" would be the government...the precise people the 1st is supposed to protect us from.
Re: (Score:2)
It really needs to be binary approach; from a certain, important, perspective speech is either all important or it's not.
This is incredibly bad approach to law as humanity is far from binary in existence.
Because the arbitrators of "superfluous" would be the government...the precise people the 1st is supposed to protect us from.
And that is why we have three branches. And it is also why our rights are never a done deal in terms of the battles to be fought. The rights we are given are always a shifting platform and it is up to all of us to continuously fight for them. Setting black and white terms to rights denies the reality that we exist in. We are not binary entities, our rights should not be either. This is the foresight that the founders of
Re:"superfluous"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You managed to get several things wrong here;
1) "Free speech" should be binary; either it's all allowed or none of it is. As I said; the entity ultimately responsible for determining which is allowed and which isn't would be the precise entity that we don't want making that determination ( by definition ). Therefore anything less than a binary approach to this topic implies trust in the government to "do the right thing".
That sense of dread you should be feeling is perfectly normal.
2) We aren't "given" rights. The wellspring of rights flows from the individual; the government acts as a check on that, as an external entity which exists to, largely, deprive us of our rights. By most definitions, that makes the government evil.
Arguments can be made that it's more evil to allow people unfettered personal freedom ( for instance, allowing one person to kill another unprovoked and with no consequence ); that the lesser of the two evils is subjugation to the government's will. In many cases that's true, but it doesn't lessen the evil inherent in said entity depriving one of their rights. That evil should be used judiciously and with great criticism.
Re: "superfluous"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring copyright law to hiring a hitman. It's all just speech, right? How about lying under oath in a court, that's definitely speech. We should be outraged that the right to free speech does not protect this.
Absurd extremes are pretty easy to tear down, they don't stand up to real world problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring a hitman is illegal, but not because of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just using my words. He didn't have to listen to me.
Re:"superfluous"? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) "Free speech" should be binary; either it's all allowed or none of it is. As I said; the entity ultimately responsible for determining which is allowed and which isn't would be the precise entity that we don't want making that determination ( by definition ). Therefore anything less than a binary approach to this topic implies trust in the government to "do the right thing".
That is an extremely short-sighted and untenable position. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are absolute. None of them. In your binary argument, total free speech would allow for libel, slander, perjury, amongst other things. The total lack of free speech would quash any opinion. Have you thought about this at all?
Re: "superfluous"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He has, and has come to the conclusion that it ought to be a line, not a ball of wishy washy lawy wavy stuff.
Uh no. He explicitly said that it should be all or nothing. That's not a line. That's literally no line. You are literally as wrong as you could be.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an extremely short-sighted and untenable position. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are absolute. None of them. In your binary argument, total free speech would allow for libel, slander, perjury, amongst other things. The total lack of free speech would quash any opinion. Have you thought about this at all?
Do you believe free speech also includes murder because ordering a hit involves moving ones lips to answer the question "who do you want to kill?".
I would suggest there is a difference between conveying information such as opinions and ideas and facilitating actions that may or may not be legal.
If I walked into a store, took something off the shelf and walked out without paying one wouldn't question my freedom to walk around or my freedom to look at things in a building open to the public or to carry and pi
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe free speech also includes murder because ordering a hit involves moving ones lips to answer the question "who do you want to kill?".
That is a strawman argument by extending very specific examples I provided to symbolic speech that is no close to my example. In my specific examples, total free speech would include slander, libel, perjury, etc. Further example would sharing state secrets like publishing the names and locations of undercover agents, nuclear launch codes, etc.
I would suggest there is a difference between conveying information such as opinions and ideas and facilitating actions that may or may not be legal.
I would suggest you do not strawman the point.
Yet when it comes to free speech detractors do just that.
You are aware that courts have placed limits to free speech, right ? You seem to be ignoring that there are many court ca
Re:"superfluous"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow this is an absolute mess of understanding rights and the position of the government.
the entity ultimately responsible for determining which is allowed and which isn't would be the precise entity that we don't want making that determination ( by definition ).
By whose definition? Why are they the entity we don't want making that determination? What if there existed a person who wanted them to make that determination? Is their opinion less correct than your opinion? Would you stamp out that person's right to speech because it puts under threat your opinion that those people shouldn't have the ability to dictate that? You make it a binary option, but you only want it a binary option so long as you are the winner in the option it seems.
Therefore anything less than a binary approach to this topic implies trust in the government to "do the right thing".
Yes, that is what good faith means. If someone acts in bad faith it is incumbent on the public to rectify that. Additionally, let's say your opinion here is the correct one. Then who is to enforce your opinion? Who makes it so that speech should be binary? How would you trust those people and what makes them any different than the people you are vilifying?
One thing pretty consistent in history is people who take stances like yours and then when the "utopia" starts that's exactly when the "utopia" ends.
That sense of dread you should be feeling is perfectly normal.
Please. Literally nothing you've said is outside the domain of maybe a first year paralegal study. You should try perhaps sitting in a legal 300 level course if you honestly want dread. And usually that dread usually comes from having to go over historical contexts for legal thought arguments like the fertile-octogenarian rule and what the legislative curative for such argument derives from.
We aren't "given" rights.
You are very incorrect. Sans organization, nothing stop me from just murdering you. The end. The fact that there are repercussions for murder comes from law. This we aren't given rights is a very insulated thinking. By all means go to a place that actually lacks rights. Let me know if you still think rights are this "wellspring" that just comes from being born. Because I've traveled to countries where you would not just be wrong for your thinking of "rights" but you would also be very brutally killed for that thinking.
the government acts as a check on that, as an external entity which exists to, largely, deprive us of our rights
If we let them. Depravity of "rights" assumes that you had rights to begin with. But nothing born of nature in the universe blesses you with those. They are a construct made by man. Rights aren't what happens when hydrogen and selenium bang together. Rights aren't some subatomic particle. Rights aren't some thing governed by the forces of nature. Rights are completely and fully made up of the minds of men and women and should that thought disappear from their brains either by ignorance or by force, then the whole thing called "rights" just stops existing. You talk about the government acting as a check on your right, or the government exists to deprive you of rights. That's insanely small think. Imagine someone not the government doing that. Imagine your own citizens, people who you have trusted and confided in, doing that to you. Imagine if it was some cousin or nephew of yours doing it. The big man coming to take your rights is just the wet dreams of the paranoid who can't think big. You think some person in a suit will take your rights? Or some person in tank? Clearly you've never seen a nation slip into lawlessness.
By most definitions, that makes the government evil.
Please never use the word "evil" if you want to be taken seriously. No one who studies legal theory will give you time of
Re: (Score:2)
That's an opinion, and not a universally-accepted one.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the ruling was that even though some might consider the speech superfluous, it's nonetheless protected. In other words, merely by being speech it is important that it's protected.
So you've basically just repeated the very ruling.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between someone expressing some level of outrage or anger about not making the cut for something they really wanted and bullying. The whole bullying argument is so weak and transparent it's clear that the administration was just looking to punish this young woman specifically and now the taxpayers in that community are on the hook for the legal bill to satisfy some asshole administrator's ego.
Thankful (Score:2)
I'm thankful for this ruling. I feel like free speech rights are being undermined everywhere, and that we're rapidly losing all sense of what it means to live in a free society where people can speak freely what they think, with all of the emotional expressiveness that they desire, and it's not the state's job to police speech or thoughts or emotions.
both school and employeers (Score:2)
Re: both school and employeers (Score:2)
Oh, really? Do let's say you own a company, and one of your salespeople - on their own time, off company property - posts a video attacking the quality and price of the the products he sells, your product, by name.
Do you, as their employer, have no ability to discipline or terminate the employee?
Re: Fuck off (Score:2)
Firing employees in retaliation for this criticism of your employement practices is not legal in the US.
And it varies by state, industry, and union agreements if firing them for other things said off the clock is allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typically, if someone says or does something disreputable and identifies themself as an employee of a company, the company would be on pretty solid ground to punish them. Besides, the First Amendment prevents the government from infringing on your right to free expression. It doesn't protect you from consequences if you bring your employer into disrepute.
However, if someone makes speech off-hours but does not identify themselves in any way as connected with a company, then the company is on thin ice if i
um (Score:2)
If you are an employer, and you have an employee whose 100% lawful private conduct is impacting your business, then you are incompetent. You need to grow a pair, and inform people that you support people having rights, including free speech rights, and personal lives, and you need products and services that are good enough that nobody needs a lame excuse to stop being your customer.
Do you understand that the attitude you just expressed was EXACTLY the justification used by movie studio executives when they
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm your employer and your speech off work hours starts to affect my business or people perception of my business because of your views say online, fuck off and get the fuck out and keep walking.
It should be pointed out here that, whatever other legal problems there are with your argument, the school is not a student's employer. The school is part of the state.
Snapchat (Score:4, Insightful)
It's time these fucking idiot school administrator learns how social media works and realize that not all content is meant for worldwide consumption and some are private conversations unintentionally aired in public.
has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team.
Yeah, let's talk about some things boys/young men from football teams do off campus that they don't get punished for...
But no, they're concerned that a girl swore in public. Boys will be boys, but girls need to be perfect angels at all times.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this snapchat post was apparently private to friends, maybe we should also teach people what "friends" are. I suspect that snapchat group now has one less member.
Wrong line of work (Score:5, Insightful)
If the school officials are going to clutch their pearls every time a teenager uses a 4 letter word when talking to peers, perhaps they should consider another line of work.
Re: Wrong line of work (Score:3)
The mid-level administration in US public schools are all like this to one degree or another. They view high school students as children or in the extreme cases as school property, especially if the student is involved in sports.
I'm not saying its OK. But I'm never surprised by how backwards people are put in charge of our taxpayer funded schools.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said such a thing. You assume too much.
Also, since you bring up the topic. Some so-called privately funded schools still work from some portion of public funds. There is a cabal of weirdos that wants to make all schools "private" but funded with public money. For them it's about cutting the strings of responsibility attached to public money.
Re: (Score:2)
If the school officials are going to clutch their pearls every time a teenager uses a 4 letter word when talking to peers, perhaps they should consider another line of work.
Speak up louder, so the army of Karens running the place can start yelling over you.
TL; DR - This isn't merely their line of work. This is their life.
Tyranny (Score:4, Insightful)
An uncommon win for common sense.
The WOKE brigade is after YOU. For example, an Australian footballer was sacked for posting this on his personal social media "Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 10:28) Drunks Homosexuals Adulterers Liars Fornicators Thieves Atheists Idolaters, hell awaits you, repent, Only Jesus Saves"
The trouble with restricting free speech, is it turns into tyranny. You have to offend to test ideas. Darwin offended himself proposing evolution. Comedians are always pushing the boundary of truth and offense. Scientists offend each other all the time proposing new theories that are different to the established theories. Why not question if same sex marriage is healthy for bringing up children, or changing your perceived gender at will creates some benefit for the individual.
In the UK, you now get a non criminal hate speech conviction for a social media post that offends, where offense is defined by any fruitcake who complains to police without court arbitration.
Canada is handing out massive fines to comedians for offensive jokes, killing the creative arts.
We need to be pushing back against the stupidity coming out of university humanities departments into HR of big companies and government.
Easy Hack to Fix It: Convict MPs (Score:2)
In the UK, you now get a non criminal hate speech conviction for a social media post that offends, where offense is defined by any fruitcake who complains to police without court arbitration.
True but I do wonder why this has still not corrected itself yet. All it will take is several MPs getting convicted because some fruitcake (...or perhaps a free speech activist? ;-) finds something they have posted to be offensive. Once that happens just watch how quickly they fix the law.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, an Australian footballer was sacked for posting this on his personal social media "Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 10:28) Drunks Homosexuals Adulterers Liars Fornicators Thieves Atheists Idolaters, hell awaits you, repent, Only Jesus Saves"
The fact that you're posting it here demonstrates he wasn't prevented from saying it, but he still faced the consequences of unpopular speech. If you went into a biker bar and launched into a long-winded rant about how much you wish the world was rid of bikers, you should similarly not be surprised if your speech is poorly received by your audience.
Times change. Society has progressed a bit since the days most people believed sky-daddy really hates it when two guys consensually use their dangly bits on ea
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is handing out massive fines to comedians for offensive jokes, killing the creative arts.
Kill the creative arts? Ah, no, that's going to more kill Canada. Good luck with your tourism when you require the Almighty Toque of Censorship to be shoved up the ass of every visitor who crosses your borders.
The rest of us will enjoy humor and the mental health benefits it brings while the rest of the uptight Woke Brigade figures out how to Be Offended all the fucking time. It's got to be exhausting, especially when you're down to blaming friends and family.
We need to be pushing back against the stupidity coming out of university humanities departments into HR of big companies and government.
Dunno. It's kind of entertaining watching it
Re: (Score:3)
Only Jesus Saves
Yeah, that's the part of the posting that's the second biggest problem right there. It's typical shaming of anyone who doesn't believe what he believes. But attacking homosexuals for being homosexuals is also understood to be abusive behavior since people don't choose their sexual orientation*.
The trouble with restricting free speech, is it turns into tyranny. You have to offend to test ideas. Darwin offended himself proposing evolution.
Yeah, you're trying to use a defense of new ideas to defend old ideas which have been discredited and which harm people. That's not gonna fly.
Canada is handing out massive fines to comedians for offensive jokes, killing the creative arts.
Now THAT actually IS offensive. I hope they move to the USA where you're st
Not Tyranny (Score:2)
The Australian Footballer wasn't sacked for free speech violations. He was sacked for breaching his contract. Laws for speech are irrelevant, and you can sign your speech away (e.g. a non-disclosure agreement).
There is no tyranny in enforcing a legally binding contract agreed to by both sides.
If I tell you to not do something, you agree to it in exchange for a paycheck and you do it anyway you should be thankful if you *only* get fired.
We need to push back against the "derp derp muh free speeches" brigade w
Re: (Score:2)
There is no tyranny in enforcing a legally binding contract agreed to by both sides.
The person handing out the contract has determined all of the rules maximally in their favor using domain experts to maximize their position and typically your only option is to sign or not. The imbalance of interests is massive and so is the implication for the signing party.
Most of the contracts people sign are non-negotiable and they have either no other options or the alternatives all have similar contracts.
For an example of how Tyranny arises from contract Google "Indentured servitude"
Re: (Score:3)
The person handing out the contract has determined all of the rules maximally in their favor using domain experts to maximize their position and typically your only option is to sign or not.
You're talking like some homeless person getting a minimum wage job. Don't be silly. This contract had significant concessions. Arguing there's an "imbalance of interests" for a professional football player literally being paid millions of dollars a year in compensation for accepting said contract is just truly fucking absurd.
Most of the contracts people sign are non-negotiable
Absolutely false for any public figure. Actually false for private ones as well. And tripply false in Australia where the right to negotiation of work contracts is ingrained in law (un
Re:Tyranny (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
$35k+ sounds like a massive fine for a comedian.
https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]
Comedians are meant to push the boundary of offense (Which is why I choose not to see any comedy, because I find a lot of it offensive)
He didn't cause the kid actual damage: he hurt his feelings.
The slippery slope is we won't allow any criticism of anything as peoples feelings are very malleable and we will become repressed dystopian same thinkers unable to critique anything for fear of losing our jobs, being fined or jailed.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP made it sound like Canada is handing out multiple massive fines. That is not the case at all.
There's only one case in the entire country, and it is being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The specific circumstances of this case are highly unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on comedians (plural) facing fines?
OK. Name one other Canadian comedian facing a fine.
Re: (Score:3)
He was given an 'alleged very large' undisclosed settlement for wrongful termination.
So it seems your in favor for employers being able to control what you do on your own time when NOT representing your employer.
Justice Assumption (Score:4, Interesting)
"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team. So, too, here."
For example, the captain of a football team could go on a profanity-laced rant on social media as to how he lost an eBay auction for a rare Pokemon card, which could result in exactly zero impact because no one cares.
Rule #1: Don't Assume. One would think a judge who elevated themselves to the level of the Supreme Court would be wise enough to fucking know that.
What did she say? (Score:2)
This will haunt her for years (Score:2)
What employer would want to hire her if she can't handle not making a cheer leading squad. This what happens when kids get participation trophies for doing jack squat. She feels entitled which means she's got the potential to be a big pain in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
after she finishes college, plenty. no one will give a shit. I don't even give a shit what she did now.
Re: This will haunt her for years (Score:2)
She was 16 years-old at the time, she's currently enrolled as a college student, having completed her freshman year.
Before hiring you, did your employer examine every aspect of your life back to your 16th birthday? Review your high school transcript? Talk to your college buddies? Review all your social media posts?
Re: This will haunt her for years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She feels entitled to protection for her speech under the first amendment, like every person's speech is supposedly protected.
A school is a government-funded entity and as such should be fully expected to protect your constitutional rights.
Frankly, we should not expect to give up our constitutional rights when employed, period. If you have to do that, they aren't really rights at all. If you have to give up a right when you walk through your employer's door, you never had it to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
"can't handle"? How is that not handling it? That just sounds like venting to me. In your world, is everyone who gets a little disgruntled about problems in their life a dysfunctional wreck who should be shunned forever?
Thank goodness! (Score:2)
"Friends" (Score:2)
and her audience consisted of a private circle of Snapchat friends.
Clearly not all of the people in the private circle of "friends" are worthy of the title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, Politburo representatives!
You don't need to be sorry. The Politburo would never punish you for saying "Oh shit, oh fuck, oh fucking shit." about American government-run schools.
Re:Clarence Thomas (Score:5, Funny)
Would it have killed Thomas to just this once not side with the bad guys?
Re: (Score:2)
Give the poor guy a break. Since Alito died, he doesn't knows which side to take.
Re: (Score:2)
Or who to talk to about that weird hair on the top of his Coke can.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has some of the strongest free speech laws in the world. Unless money, uh, I mean sports, are involved. In that case, you can just shut your fucking mouth.
It's not an arbitrary choice that Thomas used football in his example.
Re:Clarence Thomas (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps if the school's political officer were to slip on some tea, things would improve.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree Thomas is an idiot, schools get sued for not protecting students on and off school grounds so they do have legal standing to control what the student can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Clarence Thomas sounds like a fucking idiot.
Oh shit, oh fuck, oh fucking shit. I participate in an extra-curricular activity. Somehow this means the first amendment doesn't apply to me, and government-run schools can punish me for this post! I'm sorry, Politburo representatives!
You should read the dissent before slamming him. He will often dissent if he thinks the majority opinion is badly reasoned. He did the same here:
From https://thehill.com/regulation... [thehill.com]
Thomas, in dissent, accused the majority of relying on “vague considerations” in deciding the case for the student, while ignoring 150 years of history that supported the cheerleading coach’s decision to discipline Levy.
“A more searching review reveals that schools historically could discipline student
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what markdavis said.
I wonder if this quote is taken out of context or if Thomas is losing his mind.
Re: (Score:3)
>And the Opinion of the Court specifically acknowledges that the First Amendment doesn't apply inside the classroom, even though this exception isn't mentioned anywhere in 1A.
The opinion of the court explicitly quotes "free speech doesn't end at the schoolhouse gates."
The speech in question also took place on the Internet on the student's own time, which has nothing to do with "in the place of a parent."
>Thomas, as a general rule, doesn't like to invent exceptions to things that the law doesn't alread
Re: (Score:3)