‘Cursing cheerleader’ free speech

[Bodi]

Yep, except as it pertains to speech, those rules rightly end when off school property and do not reach outside any official school function or school activity.

Depends on what they say. From what I can tell what she said should not have been a big deal. No suspension from sport.

 

[Helix]

You mean like Google firing employees who outside of work talk about how white male Google employees are? Employees are fired all the time for what they post online and nearly always most Democrats on this forum cheer. This is not about the private sector, but public sector.

I don't think this is a simple as claimed. It's ok for students to go online posting F-U at a teacher? So then, certainly, it is ok for teachers to post F-U about the students too as a free speech right, correct? Or is it only kids who have free speech rights and not adults in relation to schools?

No, I mean what I said.

 

[Bodi]

Except what is developing now in the courts, and rightfully so, is these “creative” ways cannot be based on the lawful speech of a student made off school property and not made during any official school activity or function.

Teachers, coaches, do not get to play a “1984” style tyrant with the lawful free speech rights of kids off of school property or away from an official school function/activity. This is a contractual exchange of playing school sports or extracurricular activities is at the expense of free speech rights away from school, away from school activities.

Depends on what they say... depends on what they do...

 

[joko104]

Do you all also agree it would be free speech rights for a teacher to post "F... the school and F you students?" Or do only students have free speech rights? Does a teacher have a free speech right to insult and make personal attacks against students - specific or in general - when off duty?

 

[Bodi]

Do you all also agree it would be free speech rights for a teacher to post "F... the school and F you students?" Or do only students have free speech rights? Does a teacher have a free speech right to insult and make personal attacks against students - specific or in general - when off duty?

No. That is why I say it depends on what they say. There is no Free Speech No Matter What is society and there is even (as it should be) less with students whether they are in or out of school

 

[Peter]

I have worked for several employers over the years that have social media rules. If I, in the opinion of my employer, post something on social media that brings disrepute to my company, I can be disciplined up to and including termination. It is a condition of my employment.

When this young lady chose to put on a cheerleader uniform, she became the face of her school, a representative of her school. As such, she is obligated to present a positive image of her school to the world. Don't like that? Take off the uniform. Stop presenting yourself a a "leader" of your school.

She's a school kid not the US ambassador to the UK.
I highly doubt she's signed a contract or that she's being paid so the school has no right to say what she can and can't do while not at school.

 

[NotreDame]

It appears that "local control" and "community standards" that applied to primary and secondary schools in my time has been federalized. Do school boards still exist?

School boards still exist in the U.S. How widespread and prevalent, I do not know.

 

[NotreDame]

Depends on what they say. From what I can tell what she said should not have been a big deal. No suspension from sport.

Yes, I concur, “depends on what they say.” If the speech was lawful, and off school property, and not said during a school function/activity while physically in attendance, then the speech is protected.

 

[joko104]

Yes, I concur, “depends on what they say.” If the speech was lawful, and off school property, and not said during a school function/activity while physically in attendance, then the speech is protected.

If a teacher posted the same thing, except about the school and cheerleaders, would that also be protected speech?

 

[craig]

She's a school kid not the US ambassador to the UK.
I highly doubt she's signed a contract or that she's being paid so the school has no right to say what she can and can't do while not at school.

This is all about how we teach our kids to behave in society. If there are no rules then what do you suggest?

 

[NotreDame]

I have to disagree with your interpretation. Probably because in schools, you are not dealing with adults, and attendance is not voluntary. Social media posts outside of school often result in school disciplinary actions. Think 'bullying'.

We aren’t discussing a set of facts involving “in school.” If we were, this would be an entirely different conversation.

Now, your example just begs the question. Maybe “social media posts outside of school often result in school disciplinary action” have been an encroachment upon the free speech rights of the kids. Neither the school nor the government have the authority to mandate of students, while away from school, to speak to others in a manner Jesus would approve.

Kids have a free speech right to bully off school property and away from school, where the bullying is lawful. Free speech doesn’t protect only that speech that is pleasant. Free speech protects speech that offends, that hurts another’s emotions, that angers, pacifies, placates, etcetera. Yes, bullying sucks, but the arm of the public school cannot stretch beyond its four walls to punish speech and neither can it stretch beyond offsite, school sanctioned events.

It is inconsistent with the free speech clause that public schools have the authority to micro manage kids’ speech made away from and off of school property.

 

[NotreDame]

If a teacher posted the same thing, except about the school and cheerleaders, would that also be protected speech?

Said post was made off of school property and not while attending an offsite, school sanctioned event?

 

[joko104]

Said post was made off of school property and not while attending an offsite, school sanctioned event?

Yes, at night from the teacher's home. Could the PE teacher for the cheerleaders post "F... cheerleaders" and it is protected by free speech so could not be reprimanded or discharged? What about a student naming a teacher with her "Fxxx" or teacher naming a student?

 

[NotreDame]

No. That is why I say it depends on what they say. There is no Free Speech No Matter What is society and there is even (as it should be) less with students whether they are in or out of school

there is even (as it should be) less with students whether they are in or out of school

This strikes me as a legal fiction. What case, involving free speech and the 1st Amendment, has determined kids have “even less” free speech when they are out of school?

The text of the 1st amendment free speech clause is a restriction of governmental power in relation to speech. The plain text says nothing about more speech for some based on age and less for others based on age. And there’s no historical evidence for the view the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment recognized any such line drawing on the basis of age.

 

[Peter]

This is all about how we teach our kids to behave in society. If there are no rules then what do you suggest?

Who said anything about there being no rules?

I'm simply saying that a cheerleader outside of school has no obligation at all in or out of uniform.
She swore, it's hardly the end of the world and I bet the teachers all swear outside of school with zero consequence.

The US is supposed to be the land of the free, isn't it?

 

[craig]

Who said anything about there being no rules?

I'm simply saying that a cheerleader outside of school has no obligation at all in or out of uniform.
She swore, it's hardly the end of the world and I bet the teachers all swear outside of school with zero consequence.

The US is supposed to be the land of the free, isn't it?

And so if you swear on this forum we should be OK with that? Go ahead.

 

[Peter]

And so if you swear on this forum we should be OK with that? Go ahead.

Getting shut out of a forum is quite different to being thrown out of a school.
The US puritanism towards swearing is always surprising to me.
Even the late night comedy shows have (I watch and enjoy Stephen Colbert) bleeped swearing and they even blur his mouth.
In the UK after 9pm swearing is all fine and dandy and you can even say the almighty C word.
It's called the watershed and everyone knows and if you let kids watch after 9PM then tough luck.

I was a moderator on the old Games Radar forum before the UK bit broke away to form our own Forum called GRCade for about 10 years and we had a swear filter that you could turn off if you didn't mind swearing.

 

[craig]

Getting shut out of a forum is quite different to being thrown out of a school.
The US puritanism towards swearing is always surprising to me.
Even the late night comedy shows have (I watch and enjoy Stephen Colbert) bleeped swearing and they even blur his mouth.
In the UK after 9pm swearing is all fine and dandy and you can even say the almighty C word.
It's called the watershed and everyone knows and if you let kids watch after 9PM then tough luck.

As I said, it is all about teaching our kids how to behave in society. And yes standards are declining and we will be worse for it.

 

[Peter]

As I said, it is all about teaching our kids how to behave in society. And yes standards are declining and we will be worse for it.

The punishment here doesn't in any way fit the crime.

 

[craig]

The punishment here doesn't in any way fit the crime.

So let her apologies and try aging next year.

 

[Bodi]

If a teacher posted the same thing, except about the school and cheerleaders, would that also be protected speech?

Exactly...

This strikes me as a legal fiction. What case, involving free speech and the 1st Amendment, has determined kids have “even less” free speech when they are out of school?

The text of the 1st amendment free speech clause is a restriction of governmental power in relation to speech. The plain text says nothing about more speech for some based on age and less for others based on age. And there’s no historical evidence for the view the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment recognized any such line drawing on the basis of age.

There does not need to be a case. Every parent on the planet knows that they can punish their kid for talking back... so can teachers. Kids have less free speech when they are IN school. If I mis-wrote that then I apologize.

As I said, it is all about teaching our kids how to behave in society. And yes standards are declining and we will be worse for it.

Standards are not declining... it is kids like this, ridiculous parents and coward officials that let kids get away with it. We have fine standards.

The punishment here doesn't in any way fit the crime.

Not being on the cheerleading team for swearing at the team, school, etc. is not a proper punishment?

Yes, I concur, “depends on what they say.” If the speech was lawful, and off school property, and not said during a school function/activity while physically in attendance, then the speech is protected.

It is protected to a degree... telling your coach to **** off on Instagram one night might mean that the kid will not make the team because of behavior issues... can't tell your boss to **** off on Instagram and expect to have a job... but I agree that pretty much most lawful things should be protected.

 

[mrjurrs]

We aren’t discussing a set of facts involving “in school.” If we were, this would be an entirely different conversation.

Now, your example just begs the question. Maybe “social media posts outside of school often result in school disciplinary action” have been an encroachment upon the free speech rights of the kids. Neither the school nor the government have the authority to mandate of students, while away from school, to speak to others in a manner Jesus would approve.

Kids have a free speech right to bully off school property and away from school, where the bullying is lawful. Free speech doesn’t protect only that speech that is pleasant. Free speech protects speech that offends, that hurts another’s emotions, that angers, pacifies, placates, etcetera. Yes, bullying sucks, but the arm of the public school cannot stretch beyond its four walls to punish speech and neither can it stretch beyond offsite, school sanctioned events.

It is inconsistent with the free speech clause that public schools have the authority to micro manage kids’ speech made away from and off of school property.

Nope. The time, place and manner of speech is subject to restriction. Minors don't have the same rights as adults, and school administrations have regularly disciplined students for off campus actions.

 

[Loulit01]

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”​

― Robert A. Heinlein1

 

[Loulit01]

In this thread the argument has strayed from the facts. I found a Washington Post article that states the facts and the progress of the case thus far. I think it can help us here in basing our opinions on what happened and correcting some false assumptions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-cheerleader-first-amendment/2021/04/25/9d2ac1e2-9eb7-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html

These are a few short excerpts:

None of that was on Levy’s mind, of course, when she and a friend were at the Cocoa Hut, a 24-hour convenience store in Mahanoy City, a town in Pennsylvania’s coal country about 40 miles southwest of Wilkes-Barre. After a year on the Golden Bears junior varsity squad, she had hoped to move up to varsity. Worse, in her view, a rising freshman had gotten a spot ahead of her.

“I was just feeling really frustrated and upset at everything that day,” said Levy, now 18 and a college student studying accounting.

Besides the snap in which she and her friend posed with middle fingers extended, she sent another: “Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn’t matter to anyone else?” She signed off with an upside-down smiley face.

It was sent to about 250 people who received Levy’s snaps, which dissolve within 24 hours. “I didn’t think it would have had an effect on anyone, and it didn’t really,” Levy said.

But one person took a screenshot and showed it to another, who happened to be the daughter of one of the cheerleading coaches. Some cheerleaders complained about Levy’s message, and the coaches decided to suspend her from the squad for a year.

A district judge agreed that the suspension from the squad violated the First Amendment, noting that Brandi’s speech was not disruptive. He ordered her reinstated to the JV squad in her sophomore year, and she made varsity her junior and senior years.

“It was a little awkward,” she said, but the most lasting effect of the case is that fellow students sometimes call her “B.L.” because the case is Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

 

[Bodi]

Nope. The time, place and manner of speech is subject to restriction. Minors don't have the same rights as adults, and school administrations have regularly disciplined students for off campus actions.

Yep... as well they should be allowed to... a school is literally chaos without teacher/Admin control over students crossing the line.