The Case of the Cursing Cheerleader

@longjon,

longjon wrote:

Quote:
Free speech has consequences

Spoken like a fascist

Was the Hollywood blacklist a fascist endeavor?

0 Replies

I don't know the law or how the supreme court will apply the laws to this case. I do know (as everybody else does) that at the beginning of the year there are handbooks sent out to the students to bring to their parents to sign. Not all of them are the same but I would think if you sign a contract, you are bound by that contract unless some law supersedes it. None of my kids were in cheerleading or even sports beyond grade school so I don't know if there are contracts they have sign which governs these things.

On the whole, I am leery of curtailing free speech unless it is spreading hate or violence or yelling things like "fire" in a crowded place. To me it is like this cheerleader was just venting off steam from her disappointment and a big deal was made of it. But in this day and age of evangelical republicans trying to force their interpretation of religious views down everybody's throats, who know how it will all come down.

Just my 2 Cents

4 Replies

@izzythepush,

I think the issue is the government defines hate speech. There are certainly some politicians in the US today who would categorize the BLM movement has hate speech just like politicians and religious leaders in the South in the 60's characterized MLK as inciting violence.

1 Reply

@revelette3,

There are a lot of precedents here. The Supreme Court has been ruling on these cases through the years.

- A school is not allowed to stop students from political speech. In Tinker v. Demoines the school could not prevent students from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.

- A School can stop obscenities or drug language (even off campus). In Bethel V. Frazier and Morse v. Frederick, the court allowed the school to punish students for their speech.

The court is trying to draw a line that allows students to express political opinions while respecting the schools mandate to provide a good educational environment.

0 Replies

@engineer,

There are legal definitions of hate speech from various different countries. These definitions were not decided by some autocratic power but by lawyers after long periods of deliberation.

Isn’t the government supposed to the people in a democracy anyway?

0 Replies

@revelette3,

revelette3 wrote:

I don't know the law or how the supreme court will apply the laws to this case. I do know (as everybody else does) that at the beginning of the year there are handbooks sent out to the students to bring to their parents to sign. Not all of them are the same but I would think if you sign a contract, you are bound by that contract unless some law supersedes it. None of my kids were in cheerleading or even sports beyond grade school so I don't know if there are contracts they have sign which governs these things.

These handbooks include sports - and yes they need to sign -

This has nothing to do with religion --- to be up front my daughter goes to a Christian school - and I think this is a bit over the top for punishment - and so would my daughter's school. They tend to pull the student's aside and speak with them.

So please be respectful all people and stop lumping groups in - this is not about that - if you want to spout politics and religion please do so in the appropriate threads made for that.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Free speech was eliminated through 1919's Schenck v. United States. It's elimination was further clarified in 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio.

0 Replies

@revelette3,

The government cannot compel you to sign a contract that takes away your rights. That is different than a private school (or company). I think that is one of the questions the SC is being asked to rule on. Are these athlete contracts or rules valid? Can students be forced to surrender their rights to play sports? My guess is the court will rule there must be a compelling educational interest, but that could be read very broadly.

1 Reply

Teachers should be allowed to teach, that involves disciplining children.

If teachers are unable to discipline for fear of litigation they can’t teach because they’re constantly second guessing themselves.

It’s two tier, only those with rich parents can afford lawyers and the rich kids will be able to do whatever they want while the poor kids pick up the pieces.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

The government cannot compel you to sign a contract that takes away your rights. That is different than a private school (or company). I think that is one of the questions the SC is being asked to rule on. Are these athlete contracts or rules valid? Can students be forced to surrender their rights to play sports? My guess is the court will rule there must be a compelling educational interest, but that could be read very broadly.

It is not a right to play a sport it is a privilege at least according to the former public high school my daughter attended. It is stated that way in their handbook - it clearly states that playing a sport is a privilege and not a right.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Teachers should be allowed to teach, that involves disciplining children.

If teachers are unable to discipline for fear of litigation they can’t teach because they’re constantly second guessing themselves.

It’s two tier, only those with rich parents can afford lawyers and the rich kids will be able to do whatever they want while the poor kids pick up the pieces.

Yes and we have run into this stuff over and over again here - local rich kids - their parents step up and fight for their "rights" - my kid can't walk at graduation because they were caught drinking during school hours in their cars on school grounds!

Yep that happened in my town --- stupid kids thinking they could get away with it because it was their senior week and then the parents are fight - why not teach your kids appropriate behavior instead.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

It is not a right to play a sport it is a privilege at least according to the former public high school my daughter attended. It is stated that way in their handbook - it clearly states that playing a sport is a privilege and not a right.

You have to be very careful with this, because defining sports as a "privilege" allows for discrimination of any type.

How would you stop a school from saying that children with same sex parents (for example) couldn't be on the school team?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Linkat wrote:

It is not a right to play a sport it is a privilege at least according to the former public high school my daughter attended. It is stated that way in their handbook - it clearly states that playing a sport is a privilege and not a right.

You have to be very careful with this, because defining sports as a "privilege" allows for discrimination of any type.

How would you stop a school from saying that children with same sex parents (for example) couldn't be on the school team?

Because there are also policies in place in regard to discrimination within the student handbook that addressing all that stuff - sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

This is why these damn handbooks are so large (they have to encompass so many different things and why no one reads them even though you must sign them as a student and parent.

Interestingly though - there is nothing about inappropriate behavior off school grounds and/or outside of school functions - other than legal ones ...

My daughter's private school she attends now, though does include behavior outside of school including summers and vacations (clearly stated in their handbook). The expectation is that they are of a particular character...which you get as you interview to get accepted at her school.

Also interestingly enough - her private school is so much more understanding and bends their rules significantly more than the public - I used to warn her that she could get kicked out of her school for certain behaviors - she honestly loves this school and wanted to leave public for this school so it is a good threat - but as I found out - they have a handbook but they really do not follow it - with the size school they know all the families and students so well they can "customize" things that tend to work better to get the desired results.

0 Replies

I dont know much about law but what i do know is that they are off campus so what they say off campus shouldn't get them in trouble if they say something about the school off campus or on campus they still shouldn't even get in trouble because littarly its freedom of speech you should be allowed to say what you wanna say if you dont like it then so be it, but since the argument is about them off campus well my answer is they technically shouldn't get in trouble.

0 Replies

@revelette3,

I don’t think anybody has said the cheerleader shouldn’t be able to say what she wants on social media about the school.

We’re arguing about the school’s right to act and discipline how it sees fit.

1 Reply

One factor in any member of a team is esprit de corps, the school could quite legitimately say that the student’s comments have damaged morale and that leaving her from the squad would improve esprit de corps.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

It is not a right to play a sport it is a privilege at least according to the former public high school my daughter attended. It is stated that way in their handbook - it clearly states that playing a sport is a privilege and not a right.

I think that is the question. The same is true at my daughter's school. But just because they state it doesn't necessarily make it so. Would you consider kicking someone off a school team because of something they said off campus a punishment? I bet most people would.

1 Reply

@engineer,

It depends what they said and where they said it.

If one of the team screamed a load of abuse at one of the teacher’s kids, loudly calling them a nonce in a public place just because they didn’t like said teacher that would be grounds for something.

I’m not talking about allegations of sexual abuse here which should be taken seriously but kids using such terms as insults.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Well, we are talking about a case coming up in the supreme court. The court is political, currently with an outsized republican majority with the latest one being confirmed. To be real and practical, any time you talking about case like this one or one such as the cake and homosexual couple case, you have to consider who is on the supreme court and who is on the majority opinion and which way they usually vote. In the end almost all these kinds of issues end up in the courts and it matters what which way court's lean politically. Just reality.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I was aware, but thank you just the same.

0 Replies

The Case of the Cursing Cheerleader

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know