Current Events > Teen SUES her High School for Violating her FREE SPEECH!! Is She Hot??

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkbuster posted...

I really hate the notion that it's acceptable for schools to police students on their out of school activities, especially on social media.

JOBS have been doing it for years with employees.

shockthemonkey posted...

A government institution punished her for her speech. The government punishing a person for their speech is a limitation of speech. If there are limits to what you can do without punishments then there are limits to your speech.

A government institution revoked one of her privileges because of her speech. The government institution didn't revoke her right to say what she said.

And there are limits to what you can do without punishments as it stands today any way. Said limits were in place before this situation and are still in place now.

---

LeadPipeCinche posted...

JOBS have been doing it for years with employees.

Most jobs aren't a government entity. Though it is still shitty that they do it.

---

gmanthebest posted...

Most jobs aren't a government entity. Though it is still s***ty that they do it.

Government entities have code of conduct rules that their employees must adhere to in order to work for them, too, though.

The FBI, for example, has a documented code of conduct that also applies to things when an FBI agent is off-duty. If the agent violates one of those rules, he risks getting disciplined by the FBI.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

"The District's concession that B.L.'s speech occurred off-campus is all but fatal", he said

"The District's concession that B.L.'s speech occurred off-campus is all but fatal", he said, finding that Tinker and Fraser's exceptions did not apply as her speech was neither disruptive nor on-campus respectively; he found it more similar to the mock MySpace profile at issue in J.S.. Caputo allowed that there were some other cases which allowed schools to impose greater speech limits on student-athletes, but those did not come into play since B.L. was not engaging in school-sponsored speech.[23]

While it wasn't on-campus, I would argue that the speech was disruptive. It angered other people who were on the cheerleading team and likely would have continued to serve as a point of disruption if she remained on the team.

I doubt the comments made their way to the coaches because other people were fine and dandy with what she said.

---

Heh, yup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L.

As a condition of being a cheerleader, she was required to sign a code of conduct that required squad members show respect for their teammates, coaches, the school, teachers, other schools' cheerleaders; the rule forbade the use of profanity. Another rule forbade cheerleaders from posting "negative information" about "cheerleading, cheerleaders or coaches" on the Internet.[6] The code had been written by previous cheerleading coaches and approved by the school board.[7]

So yeah, she signed an agreement that would have explicitly forbade her from saying "fuck cheer" on the internet in order to be on the team.

---

arguing she shouldn't have been punished for speech that occurred outside school hours

Cheerleading is an extracurricular activity so I don't understand how they thought this argument would fly

---

shockthemonkey posted...

It doesnt work like that with the government though, which is what three separate courts have ruled so far.

It does work like that, though, because again, the FBI has a code of conduct that also applies to scenarios that would occur when the agent is off-duty.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Wow man you definitely just out argued those three courts with that one line

Like Im wasnt sure at all that she was in the right but Im always against the government punishing speech, and then the more I read about this the more it seems like the Supreme Court is hammering out details on how she wins instead of whether she wins

It wasn't just that one line, but sure let's go over it again. You quoted part of a judge's statement where the judge found that the speech wasn't disruptive as part of the reasoning for what you quoted.

It was clearly disruptive, according to the wikipedia article. It mentions people being visibly upset about what she said when they went to the coaches about it.

Also, that "one line" was in response to you saying "it doesn't work like that with the government." I pointed out a specific situation with the government in which it does work like that.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Yes yes your non sequitor totally made sense and every judge is wrong and its all very simple and not something worth analyzing with more than 30 seconds of thought

It isn't a non sequitur.

non sequitur

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement

The judge found that her statements weren't disruptive. They were. They caused a disruption on the cheerleading team.

In response to her signing a code of conduct agreement that would forbid her from saying "fuck cheer" on the internet, you said "it doesn't work like that with the government." It does. FBI agents, for example, also sign code of conduct agreements in order to be FBI agents. The FBI's code of conduct also applies to off-duty scenarios.

Both of those statements logically follow, so I'm not sure why you're calling either one a non sequitur.

---

Does hutton even have a life besides picking fights with gamefaqs users?

---

shockthemonkey posted...

There is no logical reason to compare FBI agents to high school cheerleaders.

There is when we're talking about code of conduct agreements that both agreed to in order to be a part of their respective groups.

You're the one who said "it doesn't work like that with the government." It does, and I've given you a specific example.

---

Duncanwii posted...

You cant post uncensored swears on here.

FUCK! We can't?! Shit, man, this fucking sucks.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Government employment =/= high school cheerleader

If this is what youre going to keep digging in on then idk what you think the point of this conversation is

The comparison here is that both signed code of conduct agreements with government entities. It does work like that with the government.

---

CableZL posted...

The comparison here is that both signed code of conduct agreements with government entities. It does work like that with the government.

One is a job, one is a group of kids. And 3 courts so far agreed with the kids. Wouldn't be the first time public schools did something unconstitutional.

---

gmanthebest posted...

One is a job, one is a group of kids. And 3 courts so far agreed with the kids. Wouldn't be the first time public schools did something unconstitutional.

The 1st amendment allows to adults with jobs the same way it applies to kids in extracurricular activities.

I must have missed the part of the constitution that says you have a right to be in public school cheer teams, basketball teams, football teams, et. Even if you violate the code of conduct agreement you signed. You'd think no one would get kicked out for such off-campus violations in the history of the country.

---

Imagine being shockthemonkey

---

shockthemonkey posted...

It literally doesnt. Youre just talking out of your ass.

What part of the first ammendment differentiates between kids and adults in this regard?

---

LOL! So my threads about game streamers and a April's fools video gets deleted. Yet creepy topics like these gets to stay up?

Man.. fuck the mods in this dam site! LOL!

---

https://splc.org/2021/01/federal-appeals-court-ruling-affirms-students-off-campus-first-amendment-rights/

The standard set by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) said students have the right to speech as long as it does not cause a substantial disruption. Student Press Law Center Senior Legal Council Mike Hiestand said that this standard is good for in-school speech, but students should have even broader rights outside of school. He said students should be afforded the same protections as everyone else when it comes to off-campus expression.

Her comments caused a substantial disruption.

---

Just posting to say I got the 69th vote

---

shockthemonkey posted...

The court rulings that have taken place and established the differences between public school students, private employees, private companies, etc.

Youre trying to win an argument instead of discussing the issue.

What I'm posting is directly related to the issue and your comments.

If I sign a code of conduct with a public school football team that includes rules for conduct when off-campus and I violate that code of conduct, then punishment is fair in that regard.

Sports teams commonly publish students for violations through various means.

When I played football in middle school, there was a steep hill began the school and the practice field. People had to run hills for various violations whether they happened on or off campus. They still had the same constitutional rights before and after the punishment. We just had more stringent rules to follow because we agreed to follow them in order to be a part of the team.


---

shockthemonkey posted...

This is what I mean when I say youre trying to win an argument instead of discussing this. You went from FBI Agents and high school cheerleaders are exactly the same to well I think its disruptive enough despite 3 court rulings that it isnt. Im interested to hear the case that it was disruptive enough to limit their speech and Im curious how highly the Supreme Court regards this kind of speech, because that does matter. Does it count as political speech just because its about a public institution? Dunno. Definitely changes how it has to be interpreted though.

I'm not saying FBI agents and high school cheerleaders are exactly the same. I'm saying they both agree to follow a set of code of conduct rules in order to be a part of their respective groups.

And again, her speech was not limited as a result of the punishment.

The right to free speech is already limited in the US based on our current constitution and civil, state, and federal laws.

Kicking her off of the cheerleading team didn't limit her right to free speech. It was limited a bit from the beginning and nothing in that regard changed when she was removed from the team.

She has free speech rights according to the constitution and all relevant laws. She had the same rights before she was a cheerleader. She had the same rights while she was a cheerleader. She had the same rights after she was suspended from the team.

What was abridged in this regard was her privilege to be a cheerleader. Not her right to free speech. Her right to free speech remained the same throughout.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Ok maybe if you repeat that again itll overrule the other three courts

I'm not claiming to be a legal expert. I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't use a judges o opinion as gospel on the matter when they use flawed reasoning for their rulings. If a judge rules that her speech in question should go unpunished because it wasn't disruptive when it actually was disruptive, then I would argue that the judge's opinion and ruling are flawed.

In the internet age, we're going to see more and more code of conduct agreements that include conduct in social media.

It's better that she learn this lesson just from being a cheerleader in high school than in the real world when it has actual consequences now that she's an adult.

---

El Mexicano Texano posted...

That's mean lol

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Ok youre right the government should limit speech in order to teach people lessons, very good argument

Uhh, no, my point is that the government already limits speech in order to keep the peace. There are a number of situations where you can end up in jail depending on what you say and /or when you say it.

So, it's better that she learn this lesson just by getting kicked off of a cheer team than lose her job that she depends on for income as an adult or end up in jail for causing a disruption in an airplane or a movie theater.

One of the judges said her speech wasn't disruptive. That's false because it did cause a disruption.


---

shockthemonkey posted...

Repeat it again

So you have no counterpoint to any of that. Good to know.

---

CableZL posted...

You don't have a right to be on a cheerleading squad

And?

---

CableZL posted...

https://splc.org/2021/01/federal-appeals-court-ruling-affirms-students-off-campus-first-amendment-rights/

The standard set by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) said students have the right to speech as long as it does not cause a substantial disruption. Student Press Law Center Senior Legal Council Mike Hiestand said that this standard is good for in-school speech, but students should have even broader rights outside of school. He said students should be afforded the same protections as everyone else when it comes to off-campus expression.

Her comments caused a substantial disruption.

Discomfort and unpleasantness is specifically not a substantial disruption.

---

El Mexicano Texano posted...

I'm dead.
---