- Joined
- Mar 9, 2017
- Messages
- 22,103
- Reaction score
- 13,502
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
lol...can't speak for anyone but myself, but I've deserved every infraction point I've received...lol
You deserve them even when you don’t.
I guess the court was technically right, but who would want that spoiled assed little twat on their squad anyways?
I think he just does what his wife tells him to do.Clarence Thomas just LOVES to be Mr. Contrarian.
I don't care about what people do on social media, I don't care how social media response to it government officials shouldn't be allowed to that's what the First Amendment says.Fair enough, I was talking in the context of those folks who blather on and on all over their timeline about politics. If you're talking private groups, that's a bit better, but you're still using your real name, and depending on how careless your rhetoric is, you could still end up getting bit in the ass, or at minimum risk hurting / offending someone who happened to stumble into your group that you may otherwise get along with. (Universal you, as you have said you basically agree with me - at least, your stated behavior would indicate that)
And I guess while I'm tidying up what was perhaps a clumsy thought, I should also say that I'm talking about the kind of posting that reflects this explosive political climate. Some really constructive discussion happens on social media - my MPP has great discussions about political issues, like what to do about the current gypsy moth infestation, or how do we feel about the traffic on Bridge Street. Stuff that can't be turned into just one more gong show, basically. He's my kind of conservative...hehe...
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.
I don't care about what people do on social media, I don't care how social media response to it government officials shouldn't be allowed to that's what the First Amendment says.
I do apologize.I'm thinking this needs an edit, as I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say based on the words you've chosen, but I'm not saying that it shouldn't be allowed...just that it's tacky AF, so stand down, soldier, no one's attacking 1A.
I do apologize.
Basically I'm saying the school has no business snooping in students personal lives.
She was never kicked off the team. Try reading the facts before commenting.As a former teacher, I don't think I like this ruling. Schools have to control behavior or the school can't function. This person got kicked off a voluntary team for acting badly in public. And being disruptive to the school.
Me too. And I'm sure I'll receive many more.lol...can't speak for anyone but myself, but I've deserved every infraction point I've received...lol
If an employee posts stupid shit about where they work, how stupid their company is, and why they hate their boss....they are ASKING to get firedIt 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.
One.. I think its different if its a public entity like a school. A public school is an arm of the government as it were.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.
Decision makes sense to me.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 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".
She was never kicked off the team. Try reading the facts before commenting.
Levy, whose name was abbreviated “B.L.” in court filings, as a high school sophomore in May 2017 failed to make her school’s varsity cheerleading team, but won a place on the junior varsity squad.
...
The messages were flagged to the Mahanoy City school’s cheerleading coaches and its principal, who determined they violated the rules and moved to suspend Levy from the squad for the upcoming year.
Thomas is nuts...this was a very cut and dried case and the sane justices made the right call.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."
She was never kicked off the team. She was a freshman cheerleader, then a JV cheerleader, then a Varsity cheerleader. The school attempted to suspend her from the team but she won a lower court case that prevented them from doing so. She then won a second lower court case, then an Appeals Court case then the SCOTUS case.From the OP cite:
Regardless, though, I still don't think her actions rose to the level of 'disruption' of school function. Were those actions wise? No, definitely not. And actions do have consequences. But schools take this 'in loco parentis' thing waaaay too far. Our district likes to think they have a 'door-to-door' policy but with virtual school (and certainly the internet/social media), that's all out the window as far as I'm concerned.
We're not all helicopter parents and I can't tell you the number of times we've gone into a parent-teacher conference and said, "you let us know if you're having any (behavioral or academic) issues with (our child). We WILL address them." Our kids know....trouble at school means double trouble at home. Teachers are there to teach, not be their nannies or social workers or parents. There's plenty of blame to go around on why/how that's come to be...but it shouldn't...and in this case, SCOTUS has said...well, it shouldn't AND that schools have an even greater responsibility to protect unpopular expression, “especially when the expression takes place off campus." (also from the OP article).
That too is free speech thoDon't care for this ruling because it will be used to defend bigoted speech on campuses.
Social media only sucks if your friends suck.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.
Ginny Thomas is nuts. Clarence just goes along to get along...kind of like how many of us married guys do, from time to time.Thomas is nuts...this was a very cut and dried case and the sane justices made the right call.
I don't like it either, while I understand the idea it promotes. The unfortunate reality is that students social media posts can cause problems inside schools even if they are posted outside of the schools jurisdiction. The bullying of students, planning of disruptive activities etc. We need digital libel and slander laws that address the new abnormal.As a former teacher, I don't think I like this ruling. Schools have to control behavior or the school can't function. This person got kicked off a voluntary team for acting badly in public. And being disruptive to the school.
Especially if the word slander is used.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.
I've had to sign employment agreements that basically say I agree my company can terminate me if I post anything on social media that, in the opinion of my company, disparages or otherwise reflects poorly on the company.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?