24 ms·

For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations

by umvi 6y ago

For those who can't read the article, here's a summary: > Brandi Levy sent a profanity-laden post to her friends on Snapchat in 2017, venting her frustrations with cheerleading and her school. When coaches at the Pennsylvania school discovered the post, she was barred from the squad for a year. The case will determine whether schools have the right to punish pupils for what they say off-campus. It is being viewed as a major test of the US Constitution's First Amendment, which protects free speech rights. As for my own thoughts... I'm hoping the outcome of this case can be used as a litmus test for related bannings/cancellations when people express an opinion "off-campus" (so to speak). Edit: More info about the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v.... Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a period. Clicking the link above won't work; you have to manually terminate it with a period before loading (should end with "B.L.", not "B.L")

optimalsolver 6y ago
Is being on the cheerleading squad a natural right?
- LanceH 6y ago
  It's a qualified right, which she qualified for. A state actor doesn't get to dictate acceptable speech outside of that activity.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    So it's fine for a police officer to attend klan events on the weekend?
    - LanceH 6y ago
      The analogy would be the officer (the state actor) refusing service to someone who exercised objectionable speech.
      - scoopertrooper 6y ago
        Should a police officer be fired, if they express views prejudicial to people that belong to minorities they are meant to serve, even if they express these views while off-duty?
        textgel 6y ago
        Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of it isn't something that should be trivialised?
        scoopertrooper 6y ago
        This case would be argued along exactly the same lines before the court had the student in question thrown in a racial slur. It will also have an impact on the ability for schools to punish students for racist cyberbullying in future. So I don't think it's problematic in the slightest to bring race into the equation.
        textgel 6y ago
        One is criticism of the running and operation of an organisation; the other is steeped in the history of genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around the world to protect people from it because of it's heinousness. But you're professing that advocacy of racism is no more malignant than basic complaints about a company? I'm not sure if what you're advocating is because of perhaps missing education on the subject but this is a serious hot button issue at the moment; I'm honestly surprised you'd espouse this so freely.
        scoopertrooper 6y ago
        An unreformed racist sprouting out bigotry and a teenage girl having a bit of a moan about the cheerleading squad are both protected forms of speech under the first amendment. If the Supreme Court made an exceptionally broad ruling to the effect of forbidding any organ of the state revoking an appointment on the basis of first amendment protected speech uttered while not performing duties, then the ruling would protect a racist police officer and irate cheerleader equally. The Supreme Court is, of course, very unlikely to make such a broad ruling in this case, but it does seem like that's the remedy which quite a few people in this thread would like to see decided.
    - rdtwo 6y ago
      Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org. But yeah that’s the kind of edge case you have to allow for in order to have freedom. Cause today it’s a clan rally but tomorrow it could easily be a BLM rally and the state has historically been more harsh on BLM rallys.
      - scoopertrooper 6y ago
        Why should we limit your rule to comments made off duty? Why can't a police officer shout racial slurs from a bull horn while driving down the street in their cruiser?
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        > Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org The fact the Klan is not labeled as one is deeply shocking.
        jaywalk 6y ago
        "The Klan" has no relevance these days, and is used as a boogey man more than anything else.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        This is a common practice in media and politics. There are more "Klan" members than there are anarchists, yet supposedly those anarchists burned down every urban business in the nation last summer.
    - Freak_NL 6y ago
      Nope. Certain professions that serve the public require professionalism on and off the record. Policing is one of those. A police officer who vents racist speech in a private chat should reconsider their calling. Cheerleaders? They are welcome to go to the Klan BBQ and liven up the proceedings within the limits of the law; like the rest of us.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
ecf 6y ago
> I’m hoping the outcome of this case can be used as a litmus test for related bannings/cancellations when people express an opinion “off-campus” Additionally, I hope this can also apply to the workplace.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  Private companies are not subject to the first amendment.
zmix 6y ago
Thank you for the summary! I was just going to ask...
LanceH 6y ago
It's not just that it was expressed off campus. It was expressed privately. Her speech on its own never reached the school. It was deliberately recorded and rebroadcast. The disruptive speech was the replaying of what she said, not her saying it. There is a huge difference. If everything private is fair game, then I expect we should be able to depose all parties involved for any disparaging statements they have ever made. Then we can proceed with either cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the rest for perjury. I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime. Sure, there is a blurred line with posting something on a forum which is read in school, but this case clearly isn't that. The speech wasn't public and wasn't available at large.
- dqpb 6y ago
  > I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime. “Silence is violence”
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    No, it isn't. Scenario 1) someone who has bullied you in the past calls classmate a racist term. you stay silent for reasonable fear of reprisals. Scenario 2) your boss says something overtly sexist. you know he is fairly temperamental, so stay silent because you want to keep your job so as to continue paying your bills. Scenario 3) the government is jailing a certain ideological group you happen to somewhat agree with. you stay silent for fear of being included in that group and leaving your children parentless. Do any of those sound like violence? Or do they sound like a reasonable course of action for an individual lacking power over the perpetrators? I understand the instinct to condemn silence in the face of injustice. But the real world places real demands on people, some of which are more important than abstract notions of justice.
    - dqpb 6y ago
      I wasn't declaring that silence is violence. I was providing it as an example for the OP's enumeration. Hence the quotes.
kstrauser 6y ago
This case will be irrelevant to workplace firings. It's the specific situation of children in schools having fewer rights than adults in the workplace that's the issue here. Some courts have already ruled that kids don't enjoy a full separation between school and personal lives because what they do at home can be disruptive at school, and this ruling is expected to address that specific line of thinking. And really, any grown adult who says the same things about their employer that Levy did about her school should expect to find themselves unemployed as soon as word gets back. I don't mean that to diss Levy, who was a kid at the time, and besides, what kids don't privately rant to their friends about school? It's neither appropriate nor desirable for a school to say "you don't like it, then quit" to a child, whereas it's reasonable for most work settings to fire a disgruntled employee.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for letting fly some profanity privately as an expression of human emotion cannot be so high in any reasonable civilization.
  - wil421 6y ago
    How’s it any different from writing a letter to 25 coworkers saying F** my employer? If one of the 25 recipients showed the letter to my employer I’d be fired. How’s a private snap any different than a private letter?
    - thissorthatt 6y ago
      The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.
eagsalazar2 6y ago
This is a lot different than being "canceled". The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, access to education, and equitable access to related school services and programs (including cheerleading). Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or simply damaging to their brand and business goals. This is entirely a social phenomena and has no legal basis. People legally can and will fire/hire people as it serves my business goals even if you think it is lame. There is no 1st amendment violation here. Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  > This is entirely a social phenomena and has no legal basis. It can still be a major problem in a supposedly "free" society if there is a culture of punishing people for their thoughts. For one thing, it makes democracy pointless.
- nailer 6y ago
  > Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications Speaking of straw men. There’s a legitimate concern that political discourse is run through a few monopoly providers with biased and inconsistent moderation. Stating that the actual reason is because they’re jerks is a fantastic straw man of your own.
- brailsafe 6y ago
  You seem awfully against the anti-cancel culture crowd, but do you feel like there should be zero recourse for someone who's company fired them amid public baseless accusations? Say for example a bunch of people jump on a bandwagon to tarnish someone's reputation publicly after hearing from someone else that he (lets be real) did X. So the company fires them because twitter is spreading their name around and then it turns out the accusations were plainly false. Now his income is hamstrung and everything else is just out there. An even more ridiculous example might be an annocuous disagreement with what a lot of people are saying. "I don't think the cops should be abolished, and anyone should be able to protest for their beliefs". I don't think anyone disagrees with the other implied strawman of the guy who goes around constantly making rape jokes and is surprised when his friends don't like him anymore. It's more about how easy it is to just spread dirt, truthful or otherwise.
froh 6y ago
here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v... url encoding the dot with %2E does work around it.
bitexploder 6y ago
Plus the school is “government”. This creates an interesting wrinkle here.
formerly_proven 6y ago
The answer should be rather obvious if you put it like this: Should a school get to regulate the speech and expression of its students outside the class room?
dmitrygr 6y ago
adding a pointless query string to the url helps, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L.?a=b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
- infogulch 6y ago
  A hash/fragment at the end likely also works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L.# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...
javawizard 6y ago
Redirect created, so your link should work now. Given that Hacker News isn't the only platform that does this, I wonder if there's a world in which it makes sense for Wikipedia to redirect "foo" to "foo." by default, assuming a page named "foo." exists and a page named "foo" does not?
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a period. Clicking the link above won't work; you have to manually terminate it with a period before loading (should end with "B.L.", not "B.L") Did you try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v... ?
kurthr 6y ago
This is a public school so they are considered a part of (subsidized by) the government. But if it were a private Christian religious school, and she was promoting Satan worship in her out of school TikTok time, would you think the school should be forced to ignore it and let her keep singing in their televised choir? Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the meaning of free speech. Forcing a private entity to provide an unpaid service is something quite different.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
Another workaround for the issue in Edit 2 is to use the page ID number instead of the title. https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1019908655 https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1019908655

by umvi 6y ago

optimalsolver 6y ago

Is being on the cheerleading squad a natural right?

LanceH 6y ago
It's a qualified right, which she qualified for. A state actor doesn't get to dictate acceptable speech outside of that activity.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  So it's fine for a police officer to attend klan events on the weekend?
  - LanceH 6y ago
    The analogy would be the officer (the state actor) refusing service to someone who exercised objectionable speech.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      Should a police officer be fired, if they express views prejudicial to people that belong to minorities they are meant to serve, even if they express these views while off-duty?
      - textgel 6y ago
        Don't you think you're walking a bit of an edge there, minimising racism by equating it with criticism of an organisation? I hope you're aware the history of it isn't something that should be trivialised?
        scoopertrooper 6y ago
        This case would be argued along exactly the same lines before the court had the student in question thrown in a racial slur. It will also have an impact on the ability for schools to punish students for racist cyberbullying in future. So I don't think it's problematic in the slightest to bring race into the equation.
        textgel 6y ago
        One is criticism of the running and operation of an organisation; the other is steeped in the history of genocide and slavery, there are even laws in place around the world to protect people from it because of it's heinousness. But you're professing that advocacy of racism is no more malignant than basic complaints about a company? I'm not sure if what you're advocating is because of perhaps missing education on the subject but this is a serious hot button issue at the moment; I'm honestly surprised you'd espouse this so freely.
        scoopertrooper 6y ago
        An unreformed racist sprouting out bigotry and a teenage girl having a bit of a moan about the cheerleading squad are both protected forms of speech under the first amendment. If the Supreme Court made an exceptionally broad ruling to the effect of forbidding any organ of the state revoking an appointment on the basis of first amendment protected speech uttered while not performing duties, then the ruling would protect a racist police officer and irate cheerleader equally. The Supreme Court is, of course, very unlikely to make such a broad ruling in this case, but it does seem like that's the remedy which quite a few people in this thread would like to see decided.
  - rdtwo 6y ago
    Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org. But yeah that’s the kind of edge case you have to allow for in order to have freedom. Cause today it’s a clan rally but tomorrow it could easily be a BLM rally and the state has historically been more harsh on BLM rallys.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      Why should we limit your rule to comments made off duty? Why can't a police officer shout racial slurs from a bull horn while driving down the street in their cruiser?
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      > Yes it is unless you label the clan as a terrorist org The fact the Klan is not labeled as one is deeply shocking.
      - jaywalk 6y ago
        "The Klan" has no relevance these days, and is used as a boogey man more than anything else.
        jessaustin 6y ago
        This is a common practice in media and politics. There are more "Klan" members than there are anarchists, yet supposedly those anarchists burned down every urban business in the nation last summer.
  - Freak_NL 6y ago
    Nope. Certain professions that serve the public require professionalism on and off the record. Policing is one of those. A police officer who vents racist speech in a private chat should reconsider their calling. Cheerleaders? They are welcome to go to the Klan BBQ and liven up the proceedings within the limits of the law; like the rest of us.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

ecf 6y ago

> I’m hoping the outcome of this case can be used as a litmus test for related bannings/cancellations when people express an opinion “off-campus” Additionally, I hope this can also apply to the workplace.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
Private companies are not subject to the first amendment.

zmix 6y ago

Thank you for the summary! I was just going to ask...

LanceH 6y ago

It's not just that it was expressed off campus. It was expressed privately. Her speech on its own never reached the school. It was deliberately recorded and rebroadcast. The disruptive speech was the replaying of what she said, not her saying it. There is a huge difference. If everything private is fair game, then I expect we should be able to depose all parties involved for any disparaging statements they have ever made. Then we can proceed with either cancelling the large majority of everyone, and prosecuting the rest for perjury. I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime. Sure, there is a blurred line with posting something on a forum which is read in school, but this case clearly isn't that. The speech wasn't public and wasn't available at large.

dqpb 6y ago
> I suppose there is as third group who just don't say anything at all, and we should just go ahead and nail them for thoughtcrime. “Silence is violence”
- i_haz_rabies 6y ago
  No, it isn't. Scenario 1) someone who has bullied you in the past calls classmate a racist term. you stay silent for reasonable fear of reprisals. Scenario 2) your boss says something overtly sexist. you know he is fairly temperamental, so stay silent because you want to keep your job so as to continue paying your bills. Scenario 3) the government is jailing a certain ideological group you happen to somewhat agree with. you stay silent for fear of being included in that group and leaving your children parentless. Do any of those sound like violence? Or do they sound like a reasonable course of action for an individual lacking power over the perpetrators? I understand the instinct to condemn silence in the face of injustice. But the real world places real demands on people, some of which are more important than abstract notions of justice.
  - dqpb 6y ago
    I wasn't declaring that silence is violence. I was providing it as an example for the OP's enumeration. Hence the quotes.

kstrauser 6y ago

This case will be irrelevant to workplace firings. It's the specific situation of children in schools having fewer rights than adults in the workplace that's the issue here. Some courts have already ruled that kids don't enjoy a full separation between school and personal lives because what they do at home can be disruptive at school, and this ruling is expected to address that specific line of thinking. And really, any grown adult who says the same things about their employer that Levy did about her school should expect to find themselves unemployed as soon as word gets back. I don't mean that to diss Levy, who was a kid at the time, and besides, what kids don't privately rant to their friends about school? It's neither appropriate nor desirable for a school to say "you don't like it, then quit" to a child, whereas it's reasonable for most work settings to fire a disgruntled employee.

anaerobicover 6y ago
Strongly disagreeing. Which of us has not privately cursed their job at some point in frustration? The consequences for letting fly some profanity privately as an expression of human emotion cannot be so high in any reasonable civilization.
- wil421 6y ago
  How’s it any different from writing a letter to 25 coworkers saying F** my employer? If one of the 25 recipients showed the letter to my employer I’d be fired. How’s a private snap any different than a private letter?
  - thissorthatt 6y ago
    The employer is not bound by the 1st Amendment. Whereas the school (functioning as a part of the government) is.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Communicating with coworkers about workplace conditions could be a protected labor activity.

eagsalazar2 6y ago

This is a lot different than being "canceled". The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, access to education, and equitable access to related school services and programs (including cheerleading). Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or simply damaging to their brand and business goals. This is entirely a social phenomena and has no legal basis. People legally can and will fire/hire people as it serves my business goals even if you think it is lame. There is no 1st amendment violation here. Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications (try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career, this isn't a new thing, just people are whining about it more loudly lately). They are very much not the same.

Grustaf 6y ago
> This is entirely a social phenomena and has no legal basis. It can still be a major problem in a supposedly "free" society if there is a culture of punishing people for their thoughts. For one thing, it makes democracy pointless.
nailer 6y ago
> Conflating these things is a favorite straw man of people who simply feel scared and angry that they don't always get to be jerks with zero social or career implications Speaking of straw men. There’s a legitimate concern that political discourse is run through a few monopoly providers with biased and inconsistent moderation. Stating that the actual reason is because they’re jerks is a fantastic straw man of your own.
brailsafe 6y ago
You seem awfully against the anti-cancel culture crowd, but do you feel like there should be zero recourse for someone who's company fired them amid public baseless accusations? Say for example a bunch of people jump on a bandwagon to tarnish someone's reputation publicly after hearing from someone else that he (lets be real) did X. So the company fires them because twitter is spreading their name around and then it turns out the accusations were plainly false. Now his income is hamstrung and everything else is just out there. An even more ridiculous example might be an annocuous disagreement with what a lot of people are saying. "I don't think the cops should be abolished, and anyone should be able to protest for their beliefs". I don't think anyone disagrees with the other implied strawman of the guy who goes around constantly making rape jokes and is surprised when his friends don't like him anymore. It's more about how easy it is to just spread dirt, truthful or otherwise.

froh 6y ago

here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v... url encoding the dot with %2E does work around it.

bitexploder 6y ago

Plus the school is “government”. This creates an interesting wrinkle here.

formerly_proven 6y ago

The answer should be rather obvious if you put it like this: Should a school get to regulate the speech and expression of its students outside the class room?

dmitrygr 6y ago

adding a pointless query string to the url helps, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L.?a=b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...

infogulch 6y ago
A hash/fragment at the end likely also works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L.# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v...

javawizard 6y ago

Redirect created, so your link should work now. Given that Hacker News isn't the only platform that does this, I wonder if there's a world in which it makes sense for Wikipedia to redirect "foo" to "foo." by default, assuming a page named "foo." exists and a page named "foo" does not?

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> Edit2: Looks like HN can't handle URLs that end with a period. Clicking the link above won't work; you have to manually terminate it with a period before loading (should end with "B.L.", not "B.L") Did you try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v._B.L%2E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahanoy_Area_School_District_v... ?

kurthr 6y ago

This is a public school so they are considered a part of (subsidized by) the government. But if it were a private Christian religious school, and she was promoting Satan worship in her out of school TikTok time, would you think the school should be forced to ignore it and let her keep singing in their televised choir? Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the meaning of free speech. Forcing a private entity to provide an unpaid service is something quite different.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

Another workaround for the issue in Edit 2 is to use the page ID number instead of the title. https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1019908655 https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1019908655