The Case of the Cursing Cheerleader

That is kind of funny. Izzy is obviously still reading my posts.

The point is obvious... Either you have free speech or you don't have free speech.

If you have free speech only for certain opinions, but not for others, than free speech has no meaning.

The point in this cases is that students don't have comletely free speech in schools. When you are a student your speech is restricted in several imporatn ways.

That was the decision of the Supreme Court in several cases, the issue here is whether this is another example.

That is the question. As a government employee, it isn't really their prerogative. If this were a private school there would be no case, but as a public school, you generally can't take retribution for free speech unless you can show it "would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" per previous Supreme Court decision. The court has granted a lot of leeway to schools in this regard in the past. This Supreme Court is an interesting place to hear this case. This court has been extremely deferential to free speech in the past, but also pretty authoritarian. Justice Thomas has stated he doesn't feel students have any free speech rights at all but this court has also overturned laws that make it illegal for people to lie about their war experiences and medals. It will be an interesting case.

Government authority, really?

Over here state schools are run by the LEA or are self governing.

Headteachers decide how the schools are run.

Kids have been sent home and not allowed back without the right uniform despite what fuss they make.

This would be viewed the same way, but we’re not as litigious as you are, and the only winners here are the lawyers.

Yep, public schools are government agencies. Principals have a lot of autonomy here as well, but they are subject to laws and the Constitution in ways that private schools are not.

It seems ridiculous.

In this case perhaps, but you could envision other cases where schools could try to chill free speech rights. Can a school suspend a student for expressing religious or political views off campus? What if those views are pretty ugly, things like white supremacy or anti-Semitism or just very political like BLM? (I read the existing Supreme Court precedent as saying schools can limit such conduct on campus.) Public schools are often a direct arm of local governments in the US and are used to drive political priorities. There is a wave of bills going through state governments to ban trans-students from sports for example.

I get it - but remember the age and stupid things that you said and done at that age. I just think the whole season is extreme. I have seen and heard kids say disrespectful things about coaches and their school many a time - yes they should be punished but the punishment should fit the crime - I know in one of my daughter's situations - the softball captain was caught on social media drinking - she was stripped of her captain title and suspended for several games. As a result, my daughter a freshman caught her starting spot in the field and her position in the line up- after her suspension she was moved to a different spot within the line up and the field.

The positive is - she actually ended up being a good role model for the younger players - she took them aside and told them what happened to her and why it is was a dumb thing to do - she then spoke up for my daughter and said how well she was doing in her position.

I think sometimes punishing them with a fair and clear reason and allows them another chance and they actually end up better for it as a result.

Good point.

So this is then not about free speech. I think if the school has a written policy on what is allowed and not allowed (including things like use of profanity) to participate in a sport (as a sport is a privilege and not a right) then I see this girl and her parents have no leg to stand on.

Yes, I think in this particular case there is a clear difference between what is constitutional and what would have been the best course of action in this particular case. Honestly, the coach pulling the student aside and discussing it would have been a good course of action IMO. That's why it's a great SC case. It's very silly at its face, but has a really serious question underlying it. I do think it is different than your drinking case. That student broke the law on social media and posted it. Underaged drinking is not constitutionally protected. It would have been really interesting if she had been drinking on vacation in a country where it was legal and the team took action. I also don't think it matters if the school has a published policy if that policy is found to be unconstitutional.

If anyone is practicing hate speech they should be prosecuted.

Why are you bringing up trans athletes, is it because my son is trans?

Part of the issue here is the role of a school (this is not purely a free speech issue). A School has an additional responsibility as an educational institution and as a public trust.

What if the school administration (that wanted to prevent trans students from participating in sports for example) punished students that expressed the opposite opinion. The school could make an argument that the students were being inappropriate, maybe.... but if one opinion is favored over another, I would feel strongly that the school was acting inappropriately..

Does anyone think that this would be appropriate?

Wow, NO! It is an example of how schools are used to push political agendas in the US and is a hot button topic currently. Sorry if you read it that way.

As for hate speech, that is legal in the US. The government cannot censor speech including hate speech. This is a point of contention in the Jan 6 insurrection. Incitement to violence has very strict definitions here to ensure it isn't used to restrict free speech.

Most schools (public and private) as well as the governing board of youth sports have language indicating that foul language is punishable - using a warning, etc.

Now granted this is within the game - not outside - but I still go back to the fact that playing a sport at school is considered a privilege not a right which does the constitution protect your privileges the same as your rights?

I am not a lawyer or an expert on the Constitution but I thought that the Constitution was to protect your rights? More of a question than anything.

There are laws against speech if it’s shown to incite violence.

“Fighting words” are not protected by 1st amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

What makes these cases difficult is that this is speech that is not at school.

These students are expressing their opinion in their own pesonal space (albeit public). The school isn't censoring speech at school, they are censoring speech on social media that has nothing to do with the school.

Did you read the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus case"? This is, in my opinion, where the Supreme Court drew the line far in favor of the schools ability to censor student speech. You should read their decision, it says how the Supreme Court thinks about this.

That is an outstanding question! Is playing sports at a public school a privilege as the school has always told me or a right assuming you make the cut? I've always considered it a privilege. Is booting a student from a sports team a punishment? Well, yes IMO. I was bouncing this off my daughter this morning. She is my uber athlete and is thoroughly enmeshed in these rules. She was on the school's side, but I think I am more on the student's side.

Have you heard the phrase play the ball, not the player?

I got the impression you were doing the opposite.

The problem with fetishising free speech is that you tramp over other people’s rights, particularly the right to life.

The concept of free speech was to make sure those in power were held to account. Now it’s the excuse white supremacists use to spread hate.

In the US it has always cut both ways. If you want to curtail the power of government to shut down its detractors you have to curtail the power of government to curtail all speech. That doesn't mean that speech doesn't have consequences, but the government can't deliver those consequences.

It’s perfectly possible to curtail the power of governments without resorting to hate speech.

The problem is that free speech is seen as an absolute, and when anything is treated like that it’s damaging.

If the only reason to allow something is free speech then there’s no reason at all, there has to be something else.