• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case

trixare4kids

trixare4kids

Trix has reentered the building.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
69,231
Reaction score
63,922
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a Pennsylvania high school violated the First Amendment rights of a cheerleader by punishing her for using vulgar language that criticized the school on social media.
The 8-1 opinion upheld lower court rulings against Mahanoy Area High School’s decision to suspend then-student Brandi Levy from her junior varsity cheerleading squad over two Snapchat posts she sent while off school grounds.

The justices had weighed whether a 1969 court decision, which held that public schools have the ability to regulate certain speech, applied in this case, when the speech had occurred off campus.
The decision Wednesday said “courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.”

“The school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus,” because “America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in the majority opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who turned 73 on Wednesday, dissented.
Click to expand...

www.cnbc.com

Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case

The Supreme Court upheld First Amendment claims of cheerleader Brandi Levy, who was disciplined by a Pennsylvania high school for a critical Snap off campus.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case​



Excellent! Free speech, even speech deemed ugly, should be protected speech when expressed "off campus".
 
Seems simple enough to understand that a random school has no place in trying to regulate something like facebook or twitter.

decision appears to be a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
www.cnbc.com

Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case

The Supreme Court upheld First Amendment claims of cheerleader Brandi Levy, who was disciplined by a Pennsylvania high school for a critical Snap off campus.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case​



Excellent! Free speech, even speech deemed ugly, should be protected speech when expressed "off campus".
Click to expand...
While I am all for free speech, it's obvious none of these justices went to HS in the time of social media.
 
It will be interesting to see how this evolves as well. For instance, people who are fired for writing something on their social-media accounts when they are not at work. Should they be able to be terminated for that?

Fundamentally, I think that "social media" has cost us a lot in terms of privacy and protection. And I've long thought that people writing stupid shit on their social media who are fired shouldn't be getting fired for that. They have the right to run their mouths about shit. And if they aren't doing it on company time or company equipment, then it's fine. Assuming, of course, that they aren't posting about committing crimes and stuff like that. However, it's also true that those companies can feel backlash from consumers over it and then it does impact their profits.

Still, I'm not sure that's really enough to give the workplace such large dominance over our private life. But in the end, social media does suck all the ass and is mostly just horrible and useless.
 
The SC decision above addresses the broader question of whether public schools can punish students for what they say off campus....
 
mrjurrs said:
While I am all for free speech, it's obvious none of these justices went to HS in the time of social media.
Click to expand...

So what. What's your point? You think public schools have the right to act like the kids' parents when they are off campus?

I don't.
 
Thomas with yet another bizarre dissent, this time claiming a school can punish you for basically anything you post on social media because it can be seen by people on campus, and therefore can be "disruptive."
 
Ikari said:
It will be interesting to see how this evolves as well. For instance, people who are fired for writing something on their social-media accounts when they are not at work. Should they be able to be terminated for that?

Fundamentally, I think that "social media" has cost us a lot in terms of privacy and protection. And I've long thought that people writing stupid shit on their social media who are fired shouldn't be getting fired for that. They have the right to run their mouths about shit. And if they aren't doing it on company time or company equipment, then it's fine. Assuming, of course, that they aren't posting about committing crimes and stuff like that. However, it's also true that those companies can feel backlash from consumers over it and then it does impact their profits.

Still, I'm not sure that's really enough to give the workplace such large dominance over our private life. But in the end, social media does suck all the ass and is mostly just horrible and useless.
Click to expand...

Good question and I do think this case will raise this issue.
 
Ikari said:
It will be interesting to see how this evolves as well. For instance, people who are fired for writing something on their social-media accounts when they are not at work. Should they be able to be terminated for that?

Fundamentally, I think that "social media" has cost us a lot in terms of privacy and protection. And I've long thought that people writing stupid shit on their social media who are fired shouldn't be getting fired for that. They have the right to run their mouths about shit. And if they aren't doing it on company time or company equipment, then it's fine. Assuming, of course, that they aren't posting about committing crimes and stuff like that. However, it's also true that those companies can feel backlash from consumers over it and then it does impact their profits.

Still, I'm not sure that's really enough to give the workplace such large dominance over our private life. But in the end, social media does suck all the ass and is mostly just horrible and useless.
Click to expand...
I can see where, if a company can prove a direct link to losing revenue or profit due to employee behavior offline would result in a firing or other disciplinary action. Beyond that, I agree, people should have a private life.
 
trixare4kids said:
So what. What's your point? You think public schools have the right to act like the kids' parents when they are off campus?

I don't.
Click to expand...
My point is that with all the complaining about American educational outcomes, SCOTUS has removed a tool administrators had that helped to keep focus on education. Now they don't.

I don't see what your issue is with schools acting like parents when students are off campus, it is what parents ask schools to do when they drop them off.
 
This seems like an obvious decision to arrive at. The relevant component is that the offensive comment was made while not on school grounds and not on school time. The school was completely out of bounds for punishing her.
 
Does anyone have a link to the dissenting opinion?
 
mrjurrs said:
My point is that with all the complaining about American educational outcomes, SCOTUS has removed a tool administrators had that helped to keep focus on education. Now they don't.

I don't see what your issue is with schools acting like parents when students are off campus, it is what parents ask schools to do when they drop them off.
Click to expand...

Your sophomoric opinion is noted.
 
trixare4kids said:
Good question and I do think this case will raise this issue.
Click to expand...
It needs to be raised, because some of this crap is just getting too much. I don't care if some douche goes on a tirade in public or says stupid stuff (again, assuming that this is not in the commission of crimes and such). And for the most part, people should be free to do so. Social media has really changed the landscape, and I'm of the opinion that it hasn't been changed for the better.

I think that companies do need to be restricted, somewhat (probably not completely), from retaliating against employees that do stupid shit on their personal time.
 
mrjurrs said:
My point is that with all the complaining about American educational outcomes, SCOTUS has removed a tool administrators had that helped to keep focus on education. Now they don't.

I don't see what your issue is with schools acting like parents when students are off campus, it is what parents ask schools to do when they drop them off.
Click to expand...
Parents probably expect their children to behave while they are in school. Disciplining them for misbehaving while there is typically ok with parents. But parents don’t expect schools to follow their children around outside and punish them for misbehaving. That’s not we hire them for. And it’s creepy.
 
trixare4kids said:
The SC decision above addresses the broader question of whether public schools can punish students for what they say off campus....
Click to expand...
They also felt this wasn't something they should have had to tackle.
Which I agree. The school over stepped in this case. Had the girl been issuing threats to people then the school would have been justified in their actions. Had she said it in a class room they would have been justified on their actions.

This wasn't that.
 
Overitall said:
Parents probably expect their children to behave while they are in school. Disciplining them for misbehaving while there is typically ok with parents. But parents don’t expect schools to follow their children around outside and punish them for misbehaving. That’s not we hire them for. And it’s creepy.
Click to expand...
You show a massive problem with American education today, the idea that teachers should be responsible for discipline in school. Discipline in school relates directly to parental failure.

You don't have to follow them outside, their social media shite comes right back into the classroom.
 
mrjurrs said:
You show a massive problem with American education today, the idea that teachers should be responsible for discipline in school. Discipline in school relates directly to parental failure.

You don't have to follow them outside, their social media shite comes right back into the classroom.
Click to expand...
Teachers should not have to tolerate parents poorly raising their children. There’s no rule, that I’m aware of, where teachers are required to monitor students outside school. Did parents give permission for that?
 
Overitall said:
Teachers should not have to tolerate parents poorly raising their children. There’s no rule, that I’m aware of, where teachers are required to monitor students outside school. Did parents give permission for that?
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting monitoring them outside of school. Their social media presence returns to school, even if they don't mean it to.

You wouldn't believe the things parents expect teachers to tolerate.
 
Overitall said:
Parents probably expect their children to behave while they are in school. Disciplining them for misbehaving while there is typically ok with parents. But parents don’t expect schools to follow their children around outside and punish them for misbehaving. That’s not we hire them for. And it’s creepy.
Click to expand...
This post shows you are sadly out of touch with reality in school today. In todays "my kids are the greatest thing ever" helicopter parents don't like it when little Johnny or Sally get called out for misbehaving at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom