- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Cheerleader Free Speech Case Puts Liberals in a Bind
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:35 am
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:35 am
Bloomberg
Will be an interesting case with consequential and lasting implications.
quote:
Cheerleader” and “Supreme Court” are not concepts you often see juxtaposed. But they are now, as Supreme Court considers the case of Brandi Levy, who was punished by her school for a profane Snapchat post. The facts of Levy’s case, Mahanoy School District v. B.L., are simple. In the spring of 2017, Levy, then 14, tried out for the varsity cheer squad at Mahanoy Area High School, but only managed to make the JV team. She expressed her reaction on Snapchat in a post that read “F--- school f--- softball f--- cheer f--- everything.” (Our version is expurgated; hers was not.) The post went up on a Saturday, reached some 250 of her friends and, like all other posts to the social media platform, disappeared after 24 hours. Nevertheless, a classmate showed a screenshot to her mother, who happened to be one of the cheer coaches. The coaches disciplined Levy by suspending her from the team for a year. She had broken two team rules, they said. One prohibited “foul language” — although only at “games, fundraisers, and other events.” The other said that “there will be no toleration of any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches placed on the internet.” For good measure, the school district said she’d also violated school rules stating that members of teams must “conduct themselves in such a way that the image of the Mahanoy School District would not be tarnished in any manner.” What is most significant legally about Levy’s case is that she was punished for conduct that took place outside of school. In the landmark 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, the Supreme Court held that kids have First Amendment rights in public schools, provided their speech doesn’t disrupt classwork or invade the rights of others. But the Supreme Court has never said whether speech outside of school can be regulated by administrators. Obviously, the stakes are huge — especially in the era of social media, when conversations in school are inextricably intertwined with what happens online outside of school hours. If kids can’t be disciplined for what they say outside of the school, administrators may feel that they have no meaningful control over students and can’t stop bullying or harassment. Yet if schools can discipline students for what they say online, then the public schools, which are arms of the state, could easily become the speech police for everyone who attends U.S. publics, which is the overwhelming majority of kids and teens. The school rules that applied to Levy go pretty far in limiting free expression. Read closely, they might prohibit any meaningful criticism of teams or coaches. And the school is ultimately the judge of which student speech “tarnishes” the school’s image, which would certainly seem to chill many forms of legitimate criticism. In the absence of direct Supreme Court guidance, the lower federal courts have mostly tried to carve out a compromise position: that schools may discipline off-campus speech when it has a “close nexus to the school environment.” Measured by that test, the Mahanoy rules would likely be allowed. But the majority of the panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that heard the case ruled that the school cannot discipline speech that was off-campus unless it was reasonably interpreted as bearing the imprimatur of the school. That led the school district to seek review by the Supreme Court.
quote:
Where you come down on this case says a lot about your free-speech instincts. The ACLU, which represents Levy, is arguing for near-absolute protection for off-campus speech, because it deeply distrusts the government as the regulator of our communications. Lots of conservative organizations find themselves aligned with the ACLU on this one. In contrast, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, which filed a friend of the court brief, emphasizes that schools have legal duty to protect students against harassment based on race, sex, sexual orientation and disability. It’s clearly worried that if off-campus speech is out of bounds to school administrators, forbidding illegal discrimination will be a hopeless task. Anti-bullying organizations are taking the side of the school district and the Biden administration. In the not-too-distant past, most liberals favored near absolute free speech, and conservatives tended to support the authority of government to regulate. Today, the tables are turned to a striking degree. Many conservatives now favor near absolute free-speech protection, while liberals want the government to use its power to protect equality. Regardless of the outcome, Levy’s case will set a benchmark for how schools may regulate students’ social media use. From a parent’s perspective, it’s hard to think of many subjects more immediately relevant.
Will be an interesting case with consequential and lasting implications.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:42 am to Revelator
Seems pretty easy to me. The school can't "punish" her but the privilege of being a part of a special group within the school can be taken away.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:47 am to Revelator
There seems to have been Code of Conducts for athletes for many years. I remember having implications way back in 85-89 of actions you did away from the school even while not representing the school.
Actions don't equal speech but they could be lumped together.
This is certainly one to follow.
Actions don't equal speech but they could be lumped together.
This is certainly one to follow.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:49 am to Revelator
quote:
"Liberals in a bind"
Similar to unity, coexist.
If the garbage music kids are allowed to listen to is free speech and nothing said equates to hate speech, then the kid can vent without repercussion (other than God and parents). Especially when nothing was directed at a person or the school.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 11:52 am to Revelator
So, no more cancelation for racist post or rants?
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:02 pm to Revelator
I'm conflicted on this.
Part of me wants the school to be able to dismiss her from the team for the comments because it seems blatantly disrespectful.
The other part of me wants the school to not be able to use her social media comments against her in the hope that it will lead to corporate HR no longer being able to troll facebook for excuses to fire employees based on political stances.
This is a part where the libertarian in me who wants freedom of association and freedom to hire and fire conflicts with the pragmatist in me who sees that government and corporations are using social media to purge dissidents from society.
Part of me wants the school to be able to dismiss her from the team for the comments because it seems blatantly disrespectful.
The other part of me wants the school to not be able to use her social media comments against her in the hope that it will lead to corporate HR no longer being able to troll facebook for excuses to fire employees based on political stances.
This is a part where the libertarian in me who wants freedom of association and freedom to hire and fire conflicts with the pragmatist in me who sees that government and corporations are using social media to purge dissidents from society.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:03 pm to Revelator
Supreme Court will take a case and hear the evidence about a cheerleader and won't take a case and hear evidence about election fraud....clowns
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:11 pm to Revelator
Honestly this one should not have gone to the courts. this is going to court because two sides would not come together and find an acceptable solution. Being kicked off the team for the year seems excessive (however we don't know if this girl has had other disciplinary issues.) What ever happened to you have 5 after school 30 minute towel pushing sessions and then you can rejoin the team. The girl was frustrated and took it out on snapchat. I feel like there are probably some better ways to teach a lesson than kicking someone off a team for having a bad attitude. I am personally not a fan of zero-tolerance rules like the one found in the code of conduct here. If you can't listen to the context that a incident took place in, then you have no business being an administrator.
As far as the courts, I can't believe this SCOTUS picked this one up. Monitoring online behavior outside of school is a herculean task and one in which the schools should not be required, nor barred from. Seems like something they wouldnt want to create this level of precedence on. I will be interested to see how this one comes out, I am sure that the courts will trying to narrow the scope as much as possible, even as a conservative, I don't see this being purely a free speech issue, there should be some ramifications for what you say if it is uncivil.
As far as the courts, I can't believe this SCOTUS picked this one up. Monitoring online behavior outside of school is a herculean task and one in which the schools should not be required, nor barred from. Seems like something they wouldnt want to create this level of precedence on. I will be interested to see how this one comes out, I am sure that the courts will trying to narrow the scope as much as possible, even as a conservative, I don't see this being purely a free speech issue, there should be some ramifications for what you say if it is uncivil.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:14 pm to Revelator
quote:
In the not-too-distant past, most liberals favored near absolute free speech, and conservatives tended to support the authority of government to regulate.
Never has this been the case.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:26 pm to Revelator
Not going to lie, kind of pisses me off that they have time to hear this case about a girl who Instagramed something but didn't have the time to hear any election fraud cases.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:35 pm to Revelator
The problem with allowing schools to do this would be the inconsistent and political application of said rules.
Let's say students kneel or make a scene at an event in an effort to make a political expression. You know very well that if the school admin/coach punished the students, they would be attacked and be said they are violating free speech.
If the roles were reversed, you'd better believe they would be calling for the students to be punished.
You cannot allow the school to determine what is an isn't protected free speech unless that speech was deemed to incite others or cause harm to others. Even that has to be applied evenly, which it clearly has not been.
I am fine with applying these rules if they are enforced the same for all instances and not just when one side feels offended.
That said, we need to teach kids that spouting off on social media to get attention has consequences for all those that do it.
That is why this case is important, especially when it comes to public schools.
Let's say students kneel or make a scene at an event in an effort to make a political expression. You know very well that if the school admin/coach punished the students, they would be attacked and be said they are violating free speech.
If the roles were reversed, you'd better believe they would be calling for the students to be punished.
You cannot allow the school to determine what is an isn't protected free speech unless that speech was deemed to incite others or cause harm to others. Even that has to be applied evenly, which it clearly has not been.
I am fine with applying these rules if they are enforced the same for all instances and not just when one side feels offended.
That said, we need to teach kids that spouting off on social media to get attention has consequences for all those that do it.
That is why this case is important, especially when it comes to public schools.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 12:37 pm to Revelator
I am honestly conflicted on this. In my view, things like cheerleading, band, football, baseball, etc, are extracurriculars and I have no problem with schools requiring specific things to participate in those optional activities.
However, it is clear to me that this will now be abused moving forward. Black people who spout hate speech against whites will be completely ignored, but white people who say "make America great again" will be labeled racists and blocked from participating. I think we have come to the time where right is considered wrong and wrong is considered right, so the best case scenario would be to remove all such authority from schools completely.
However, it is clear to me that this will now be abused moving forward. Black people who spout hate speech against whites will be completely ignored, but white people who say "make America great again" will be labeled racists and blocked from participating. I think we have come to the time where right is considered wrong and wrong is considered right, so the best case scenario would be to remove all such authority from schools completely.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 3:08 pm to Revelator
Every conservative on this site should side with the student, because if they open the door to allow schools to punish students for out-of-school speech, conservatives will be targeted disproportionately.
Posted on 4/28/21 at 3:52 pm to Revelator
I think the decision should be easy. This is Snapchat. Someone had to take an extra effort to make it permanent and public like a tweet or Facebook post. It seems too far removed from the school that they could claim she is representing the school in any capacity.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 1:13 pm to Revelator
quote:
The ACLU, which represents Levy, is arguing for near-absolute protection for off-campus speech, because it deeply distrusts the government as the regulator of our communications.
I didn't realize we had a time machine to 2015 available.
Posted on 6/23/21 at 1:21 pm to Revelator
quote:
The ACLU, which represents Levy, is arguing for near-absolute protection for off-campus speech,
"Near-absolute protection" (i.e. better not say anything bad about POC or trannies)
Posted on 7/13/21 at 7:59 pm to Revelator
How about the SCOTUS Hearing a case alleging corruption in a national election of a U.S. President instead of a BS case of a foul mouth cheerleader?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News