Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case

[gino]

Free speech vs good manners. Damn, this isn't a good thing to have to choose between. No good choices here. The truth is, social media has become much too powerful, to everyone's detriment. If this ruling will help reign in cancel culture, maybe it is a good thing.

I do have one question for those who support this decision: Do you also believe there is a thing called hate speech? Should this hate speech be protected?

 

[j brown's body]

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.

We have all these lessons for dealing with bullying in school, but the students tell me it all happens on social media. That's a problem.

 

[calamity]

We have all these lessons for dealing with bullying in school, but the students tell me it all happens on social media. That's a problem.

Ok, so social media is much like the playgrounds of old. Kids were picked on there. But, the schools had no say in who got beat up on a Saturday.

 

[Loulit01]

Free speech vs good manners. Damn, this isn't a good thing to have to choose between. No good choices here. The truth is, social media has become much too powerful, to everyone's detriment. If this ruling will help reign in cancel culture, maybe it is a good thing.

I do have one question for those who support this decision: Do you also believe there is a thing called hate speech? Should this hate speech be protected?

The ACLU (of PA in this case) represented the young lady. The ACLU has also defended the rights of the KKK, Skinheads, neo-Nazis and alt-right militias, to march, demonstrate, wave their flags, carry their banners and signs. I am a card carrying, contributing member of the ACLU despite the fact that I am Hispanic, an immigrant, raised Catholic, and rank just below Black people and Jews on these groups hit lists.

I do so because the 1st Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. To protect the rights of minority positions. To protect the Church of Satan as well as the Church of Christ, WIccans and Buddhists and Voo Doo priests and Santeria and Hare Krishna and Quakers (Society of Friends) and devotees of the Kama Sutra, Bacchus and Dionysus and Unitarians and Eastern Orthodox and Free Will Baptists.

You can't shout Satan orders you to kill Gentiles but you can shout Satan Rules!

 

[j brown's body]

Ok, so social media is much like the playgrounds of old. Kids were picked on there. But, the schools had no say in who got beat up on a Saturday.

Now its everyday.

 

[Loulit01]

Now its everyday.

What's everyday?

 

[Gaius46]

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.

She was being critical of the school - in this case a government agent. This is exactly the kind of speech the 1A was meant to protect.

 

[Loulit01]

She was being critical of the school - in this case a government agent. This is exactly think of speech the 1A was meant to protect.

Hear, Hear!

 

[j brown's body]

What's everyday?

Online bullying of students.

 

[Loulit01]

Online bullying of students.

Schools should stay out of it. Not their job to police social media off campus.

 

[Gaius46]

Online bullying of students.

Is the school similarly responsible to police the behavior of students in a playground off school property?

 

[calamity]

What's everyday?

Some kids got beat up every day, if they ventured out of their yards to play. Granted, if they were beaten at school or on the way to and from, then the school had every right (and duty) to punish the culprits. But, if the action happened after 4PM, miles away and hours removed from the school grounds, there really is nothing they can or should be allowed to do.

 

[trixare4kids]

We have all these lessons for dealing with bullying in school, but the students tell me it all happens on social media. That's a problem.

It often is a problem. Parents should be monitoring, not the schools.

 

[Cardinal]

Free speech vs good manners. Damn, this isn't a good thing to have to choose between. No good choices here. The truth is, social media has become much too powerful, to everyone's detriment. If this ruling will help reign in cancel culture, maybe it is a good thing.

I do have one question for those who support this decision: Do you also believe there is a thing called hate speech? Should this hate speech be protected?

Bearing in mind that the school is a government institution, the school has no right to regulate hate speech outside it’s venue. A private school, however, being a private entity, would have the right to set its own policy and mete out punishments for behavior even outside its venue.

 

[j brown's body]

It often is a problem. Parents should be monitoring, not the schools.

Some parents don't. Then what?

It spills over into the schools. In effect, the school is usually responsible for it since that is what brings the kids together. So the bullying in and out of school is usually a blend thats hard to separate.

If its true that the court ruled that this speech is protected because it is directed at the school, then schools will still have the right to deal with off-site cyberbullying, or any kind of bullying, if they show it is interfering with the learning process. And it usually is.

 

[mrjurrs]

She was being critical of the school - in this case a government agent. This is exactly the kind of speech the 1A was meant to protect.

She wasn't being critical of the school, she was a freshman in HS throwing a hissy fit because she didn't get what she wanted. Having said that, I have two further comments. First, the school was wrong to punish her in the fashion they did for those comments. Second, I'm not as bummed by the decision as I was when I first heard it, there are carveouts that allow schools to continue enforcing some off campus speech issues.

If SCOTUS thinks there is any line between off campus social media posts and reactions in the classroom they are more out of touch than I had imagined.

 

[Gaius46]

She wasn't being critical of the school, she was a freshman in HS throwing a hissy fit because she didn't get what she wanted. Having said that, I have two further comments. First, the school was wrong to punish her in the fashion they did for those comments. Second, I'm not as bummed by the decision as I was when I first heard it, there are carveouts that allow schools to continue enforcing some off campus speech issues.

If SCOTUS thinks there is any line between off campus social media posts and reactions in the classroom they are more out of touch than I had imagined.

Breyer called her comments criticisms. The fact that they were vulger doesn’t change that. Or is perhaps an adult who tells a cop to “go **** himself” also throwing an unprotected hissy fit?

As the opinion notes schools generally do not stand in loco parentis when students are not physically at school. The school’s authority ends at the school’s front gate otherwise, as Breyer noted, schools can regulate speech all the time and that is unacceptable.

He does note that schools may have an interest in regulating some off campus speech, like “extreme” bullying off campus and instances where off campus speech can seriously disrupt the classroom. The latter has been the case since the Tinker decision and is nothing new. But those instances should be very rare and they don’t look anything like this situation.

My view - schools are there to teach and safe guard kids while in school. They arent there to police off campus activites. That’s what parents are for.

 

[Cope]

The problem with any 'line' drawn in the sand between acceptable and not acceptable is going to be both arbitrary and completely subjective, with very few concrete yes or no's.

For that reason alone, this school were idiots for taking this to the USSC.
For business it gets murkier, but they would likely need to PROVE that your post and your post alone specifically caused the company damage, loss of revenue, something.

Thought policing what may or may not happen should be disallowed.

 

[Cope]

She wasn't being critical of the school, she was a freshman in HS throwing a hissy fit because she didn't get what she wanted. Having said that, I have two further comments. First, the school was wrong to punish her in the fashion they did for those comments. Second, I'm not as bummed by the decision as I was when I first heard it, there are carveouts that allow schools to continue enforcing some off campus speech issues.

If SCOTUS thinks there is any line between off campus social media posts and reactions in the classroom they are more out of touch than I had imagined.

There need not exist ANY line between the classroom and outside the classroom. ANY and ALL social media will become a part of the classroom.

Lil Johnny screwed Susie
Nate smoked a blunt with Drew
Sarah was caught naked at the party in the pool.
Alex punched Mike

It can all be construed as "distraction' at school.
BUT, if it didn't happen on school grounds, the school needs to stay the **** out of that business.

 

[mrjurrs]

Breyer called her comments criticisms. The fact that they were vulger doesn’t change that. Or is perhaps an adult who tells a cop to “go **** himself” also throwing an unprotected hissy fit?

As the opinion notes schools generally do not stand in loco parentis when students are not physically at school. The school’s authority ends at the school’s front gate otherwise, as Breyer noted, schools can regulate speech all the time and that is unacceptable.

He does note that schools may have an interest in regulating some off campus speech, like “extreme” bullying off campus and instances where off campus speech can seriously disrupt the classroom. The latter has been the case since the Tinker decision and is nothing new. But those instances should be very rare and they don’t look anything like this situation.

My view - schools are there to teach and safe guard kids while in school. They arent there to police off campus activites. That’s what parents are for.

The vulgar part doesn't bother me at all. Stand in a middle school hallway and you'll hear worse everyday. Criticizing the school doesn't bother me. Nothing about what she said bothers me, the court decision does. There is no bright line between off campus social medial posts and the classroom.

After reading more about the decision, the carve outs for some monitoring makes me feel better. But if you think that's what parents are for...in general they are failing that class.

 

[mrjurrs]

There need not exist ANY line between the classroom and outside the classroom. ANY and ALL social media will become a part of the classroom.

Lil Johnny screwed Susie
Nate smoked a blunt with Drew
Sarah was caught naked at the party in the pool.
Alex punched Mike

It can all be construed as "distraction' at school.
BUT, if it didn't happen on school grounds, the school needs to stay the **** out of that business.

Nice idea Pollyanna. I bet you complain about the state of education in America as well.

 

[Cope]

Nice idea Pollyanna. I bet you complain about the state of education in America as well.

Of course i do.
Schools need to discipline, at school. Schools need to teach the required academics.

We don't pay teachers nearly enough for the job that I would want them to do. Corporal punishment needs to be reinstated. Morals need to be instilled. Parents need to be held accountable.

Long lost are those days.

 

[mrjurrs]

Of course i do.
Schools need to discipline, at school. Schools need to teach the required academics.

We don't pay teachers nearly enough for the job that I would want them to do. Corporal punishment needs to be reinstated. Morals need to be instilled. Parents need to be held accountable.

Long lost are those days.

Imo, there is never a reason to strike a student, moral instruction is not a part of schools missions, and how can we hold parents accountable when in general, they don't hold their kids accountable?

 

[SkyFox76]

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...

Friend of mine found out the hard way that social media doesn't mean you're no longer responsible for saying stupid crap. Not only by posting under his real name but also showing his employer name in his profile. After making a pretty derogatory comment online he was confronted by a young woman who thought he should apologize. Instead he piled on. So she informed him his stupidity was going to bite him. He laughed. Until he got to work.

Whoops...

 

[Gaius46]

After reading more about the decision, the carve outs for some monitoring makes me feel better. But if you think that's what parents are for...in general they are failing that class.

I disagree that parents are failing. Do some fail? Sure. But as a group? You need to provide some evidence of that. And if you do I’ll reply that shifting parental responsibility to the government isn’t a solution.