The Case of the Cursing Cheerleader

The Izzy argument is a little silly.

He is arguing that anyone has the right to rob a bank. Sure we put bank robbers in jail... but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to rob banks.

If you punish people for voting (or worshipping, or seeking medical care, or marrying, or speaking), it seems to me you are violating their rights.

This is an excellent point. Coaches definitely look at this when pulling a team together. When my daughter was searching out colleges to attend and play at - most of the coaches that met with her also were seeking out what sort of person she was -- you could tell by the questions they asked. When you are playing a team sport they look for someone who will be a good team member - not just the skills (of course you need to meet that first). But they will take a lesser skilled player that fits better with the team than one that is stronger but would be toxic to the team atmosphere. One coach even said - I want to see what you are as a person as much as you as a player.

This was my thought, as well. Would you want a student who acted in such a manner on your team? If I were the coach, or team member, I would not. Her comments clearly showed who she was.

I know Engineer has tried to explain it as best he can, but I still can’t see how a school throwing a student off a cheerleading squad for trashing the school on social media suddenly becomes the government stopping people expressing themselves.

It seems a bit of a leap to say the least, it seems a bit hysterical, it wouldn’t make it to court over here.

Well, I think Linkat's point about having to sign a contract indicates how seriously the school takes it. And the fact that it is a privilege and not a right. She is part of a team at a school who is fostering good behaviour and whatever else.

Even solo athletes generally have to toe the line. Look at Tiger Woods and all the backlash he's gotten for his behaviour. Sponsors cancelled him left and right, and I do believe professional sports teams have the same requirement.

Her behaviour was disgusting, and her ban was only for a year. So, big deal. But the fact that her parents thought it was okay by ponying up for a lawyer tells you a lot.

There's absolutely no way I would condone that behaviour from my children.

And I know the argument is really about her 'rights', but the school must have some, too, surely?

I do think the punishment is severe a year in the life of a teen is much different than an adult and an adult acting inappropriately is quite different than a teen. There definitely should be punishment but a year is a lot considering there are only 4 seasons of opportunity in high school. At this age they are learning what the consequences of their actions are - so punishing for an entire season is extreme - for me I'd rather have her learn from this action and become a better person, however, I doubt it with her parents reaction.

On the flip side though - if it is spelled out that the consequence for doing A is B and that is exactly what she is getting then have less sympathy. I would be curious if it is spelled out that way that profanity and inappropriate team behavior on and off the field/competition practice is a suspension for the season. If it is clear - then I agree.

The other thing is high school sports, although it does teach much as far as competition, team work, good sports so forth - is a quite a bit different than professional and even college sports. The age and maturity of the athlete and the level of competition is so much higher.

I do think though this girl's parents are doing her a disservice especially if the agreement is very clear on the punishment (even if the punishment seems to severe for the infraction). What is this teaching this girl? That if you don't like what happens when you do something wrong that you above the "law" in a sense...that all you need to do is run to mommy and daddy to have them fix it. No in the long run she would have been better off to serve her time, apologize for her actions and take accountability.

That is what I really liked about this girl and her parents from my daughter's team. And you what she re-earned her captain title the following year. She is probably a better person from this and showed real character in how she handled is.

Flip side when my daughter was a senior - one of her co-captain got caught doing the same thing. You would have thought she would have learned from this other girl. So it was toward the end of year so she ended up missing out of her senior night and left her team in the lurch as was suspended at playoffs. Her mom at one of the games - basically poo-poo'ed it and thought the school was being a bit harsh. Again what are you teaching your kids? Because in the end isn't this what it is about?

True again - if you read the student handbook (at my local public high school) it does discuss the students rights for freedom of speech but it is more around political beliefs and similar things - not speaking ill of anything or anyone. So they acknowledge the students have these rights, but there are parameters around it.

I too would like to know what it says in the handbook about students out of school speech. To me, it should not be concern what a person's says as long as they are not preaching hate and violence. Just dissing a school when you're not even at school? I doubt they have words in the handbook about that. But they might. If they do, then the student should have known the rules. Like not following the rules on what you're wearing at school is different than what you are wearing when you are not at school.

I do understand that a year is a long time at that age, and had her parents gone to the school and argued for a reduction, maybe they might have gotten it. But to go to court? Yep, no. And, as you are aware, there are very responsible, hard-working teens out there, so I don't accept her age as an excuse or even a factor. Some people would react this way; others would not. Maybe even her own siblings wouldn't. I am very disturbed at her parents.

FF 8 years - she's at work and she posts a thing like this about her boss or the company. What do you think they'd do? I've never had to sign a contract like that anywhere I've ever worked, but if she's dissing Goldman Sachs or a high profile company like that - she'd be out the bloody door.

And you're right about in the end it's all about learning. If she doesn't learn this now, the future looks grim for her.

Well, this all just too judgmental for my taste. It'll be interesting to know the verdict.

Reporting on the court arguments with no clear partisan breakdown.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/28/991683886/frightened-to-death-cheerleader-speech-case-gives-supreme-court-pause

Thank you... and the article states, "The American Civil Liberties Union took her case to court, claiming that her free speech rights had been violated."

I stand corrected; it wasn't her parents.

I agree. good and kind of reassuring.

love to know if they would had suspend a male student for the same reason.

The Cheerleader won! The court ruled 8-1 today that the school violated her first amendment rights. The decision was based on whether the school had "substantial need to prevent disruption".

I am happy with this decision.

So am I. Now, I wonder if the same thinking will bleed over into employee's speech while not on the job.

Only for government employees. Private-sector employees are not covered by the First Amendment.

I agree with engineer. Whether it is McCarthy or MeToo the ability to blacklist people suspected of holding unpopular opinions seems to be a fact of life.

It may be just a fad or phase... the pendulum has swung once or twice before.