6 ms·

As someone who grew up before the Internet perhaps I have a less than optimal view of the issue. I think that in the case of non-threatening speech, the school

As someone who grew up before the Internet perhaps I have a less than optimal view of the issue. I think that in the case of non-threatening speech, the school has no business disciplining students for off campus speech.

FalconSensei 6y ago
Exactly. Isn't that the whole point of free-speech?
- tantalor 6y ago
  "Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.
  - ecshafer 6y ago
    Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. The principle of free speech is one we all ought to attempt to live up to, and that principle goes far beyond what the first amendment may protect. Take that phrase to its logical extent. Should certain speech mean imprisonment? Should it mean execution by the government? Alienation and banishment from society? Attacked and lynched by a mob? What about political affiliation? Philosphical or religious beliefs? Those are all consequences that have, and are used against people who exercise their natural rights. Those are the natural outcomes of limiting free speech. Limiting free speech is the end of a free, liberal society.
    - RankingMember 6y ago
      In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that the government can't suppress your speech (with certain narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.
      - mannerheim 6y ago
        In this case, it's precisely a government institution suppressing speech.
      - ecshafer 6y ago
        Yes the constitution, but that still goes against the principle. In the Scarlet Letter, the main character is made a pariah for having sex. I think we can all agree that is morally wrong, on the part of the town that ostracize them. To banish someone for being against your ideas, or principles, is inherently to try and be an authoritarian. To say that "if you do not follow this ideal, I will do what I can to destroy you". It is an illiberal idea. liberalism is comfortable with competing ideas because ideas stand on their own.
      - FalconSensei 6y ago
        > This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will But that's a _public_ school, right?
        jessaustin 6y ago
        This may be a reason why we've been served the private "charter" school Kool-Aid for a decade now... after all, nearly all discourse has been moved to private online platforms.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      Are you saying that I can't make any sort of negative decision about you no matter what you say, or I'm violating the principle of free speech? > Alienation and banishment from society? I literally have to still be friends with you, or I'm oppressing you? What are we using language for anyway, if we have to ignore it?
      - LurkersWillLurk 6y ago
        You don't have to associate with anyone as a private individual if you don't want to. In the present case, the school district is an arm of the state and cannot punish a student for constitutionally protected speech.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > I can't make any sort of negative decision Are you saying that you believe that any negative consequence at all, against someone, should be allowed for their speech? Because if the answer is "No, there are some consequences that I do not think should be allowed, against speech", then you believe that freedom of speech does mean freedom from some consequences.
    - cozuya 6y ago
      I'm going to cherry pick your slippery slope argument: > Should certain speech mean imprisonment? Yes. Credible death or terroristic threats in 1st world countries can mean you can go to jail. Society has decided that people don't have the "natural rights" to threaten to murder other people.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. I take it, then, you are against existing laws against slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence? And that if I were to try convince your family and coworkers that you were a pedophile, or of some other scandalous rumor, you wouldn't do anything because it would be illiberal and immoral of you to demand that my speech has consequences?
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence? They're not saying that what speech qualifies as free speech has no exceptions whatsoever[0]. They're saying that you can't do a end run around the entire concept of free speech by laundering your enforcement under the vague heading of "consequences", when those consequences are a result of your enforcement. 0: It should have as few exceptions as possible, of course, but if nothing else you shouldn't be able to get away with murder by claiming that the nerve impulses to your trigger finger are free speech, and that shouldn't be a property of nerve impulses versus other ways of transmitting information.
        krapp 6y ago
        >They're not saying that free speech has no exceptions whatsoever. That is literally what they're saying - "Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences" precisely means free speech has no exceptions whatsoever, because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech. Had they said free speech should have as few exceptions as possible, they would have.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech. Sorry, should have been more explicit - edited to clarify that I was talking about exceptions to what qualifies as free speech in the first place, not exceptions to what consequences constitute restriction.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bart_spoon 6y ago
    Ah, this trite argument. It doesn't even apply when it comes to public services or the government, as is the case here, in which action is being taken by a public school.
rattlesnakedave 6y ago
Even in the case of threatening speech, I’m not sure the school is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.
- djrogers 6y ago
  You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? (and yes - that would be considered cyberbullying in many schools) That's a really bad idea.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? I don't think that counts as "threatening speech" in terms that the parent comment was attempting to describe it. This feels more like cyberbullying, which I agree on with you, cops shouldn't be dealing with this kind of stuff. In this context, I think "threatening speech" refers more to stuff like an actual threat of imminent danger to people, like a bomb threat or other things of similar nature.
  - bart_spoon 6y ago
    Cyberbulling and threatening is not the same thing. And I think its clear from the OP, that "threatening" speech would be voicing intent to do violence. Yes, law enforcement should be the ones to handle those situations.
hackeraccount 6y ago
What if it's not phrased as discipline? What if they said "This speech is an example of your character and we'd rather not have you on our squad." The assumption is (as someone pointed out up thread) that there's no right to be on the squad; that you can (as the joke goes) be fired or not hired at anytime for no reason but not any reason.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  I would reply that the adults in that case should demonstrate their own character by recognizing that teenagers are humans with emotions¹ who get frustrated and make mistakes. And that a mistake that doesn't really harm anyone (an F said in conversation with a friend) merits a discussion in the worst, not a dismissal dropped like a bomb. --- ¹Maybe even more so than the adults.
  - anaerobicover 6y ago
    Although to be exact I would not even call this any "mistake". It is simply human. But I do understand that others might consider it to be so.
  - taylodl 6y ago
    Having worked in several youth organizations and youth sports for the past 30 years, I bet what actually happened is this kid has been "problematic", the adults have been trying to do right by the kid, and this was the final straw. I've seen that happen. The act resulting in a kid getting dismissed from an activity in and of itself isn't egregious when considered in isolation. It's all the other stuff going on preceding that act that caused the response. Obviously I don't know the details of this particular case, but it wouldn't surprise if that is what happened here. It's typically the way such things go.
    - not2b 6y ago
      Sorry, not buying it. If the kid had a pattern of problematic behavior they could have said that she was being dismissed for behavior that took place at team practices or events. But they didn't. They are saying that it was for the Snapchat rant. If they had something else, they could have avoided the court fight.
agloeregrets 6y ago
Ever see the documentary Kids For Cash? Happened 30 minutes away from this school.

FalconSensei 6y ago

Exactly. Isn't that the whole point of free-speech?

tantalor 6y ago
"Free speech" does not mean free of consequences.
- ecshafer 6y ago
  Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. The principle of free speech is one we all ought to attempt to live up to, and that principle goes far beyond what the first amendment may protect. Take that phrase to its logical extent. Should certain speech mean imprisonment? Should it mean execution by the government? Alienation and banishment from society? Attacked and lynched by a mob? What about political affiliation? Philosphical or religious beliefs? Those are all consequences that have, and are used against people who exercise their natural rights. Those are the natural outcomes of limiting free speech. Limiting free speech is the end of a free, liberal society.
  - RankingMember 6y ago
    In the context of the US Constitution, it only means that the government can't suppress your speech (with certain narrow exclusions). This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will or you can't make yourself a pariah by being publicly hateful.
    - mannerheim 6y ago
      In this case, it's precisely a government institution suppressing speech.
    - ecshafer 6y ago
      Yes the constitution, but that still goes against the principle. In the Scarlet Letter, the main character is made a pariah for having sex. I think we can all agree that is morally wrong, on the part of the town that ostracize them. To banish someone for being against your ideas, or principles, is inherently to try and be an authoritarian. To say that "if you do not follow this ideal, I will do what I can to destroy you". It is an illiberal idea. liberalism is comfortable with competing ideas because ideas stand on their own.
    - FalconSensei 6y ago
      > This doesn't mean that private companies can't muzzle you at their will But that's a _public_ school, right?
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        This may be a reason why we've been served the private "charter" school Kool-Aid for a decade now... after all, nearly all discourse has been moved to private online platforms.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Are you saying that I can't make any sort of negative decision about you no matter what you say, or I'm violating the principle of free speech? > Alienation and banishment from society? I literally have to still be friends with you, or I'm oppressing you? What are we using language for anyway, if we have to ignore it?
    - LurkersWillLurk 6y ago
      You don't have to associate with anyone as a private individual if you don't want to. In the present case, the school district is an arm of the state and cannot punish a student for constitutionally protected speech.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > I can't make any sort of negative decision Are you saying that you believe that any negative consequence at all, against someone, should be allowed for their speech? Because if the answer is "No, there are some consequences that I do not think should be allowed, against speech", then you believe that freedom of speech does mean freedom from some consequences.
  - cozuya 6y ago
    I'm going to cherry pick your slippery slope argument: > Should certain speech mean imprisonment? Yes. Credible death or terroristic threats in 1st world countries can mean you can go to jail. Society has decided that people don't have the "natural rights" to threaten to murder other people.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences. That phrase is perhaps the most insidious phrase that is often repeated on the internet. To believe that free speech should be met with "consequences" if it crosses some line is illiberal, and immoral. I take it, then, you are against existing laws against slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence? And that if I were to try convince your family and coworkers that you were a pedophile, or of some other scandalous rumor, you wouldn't do anything because it would be illiberal and immoral of you to demand that my speech has consequences?
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > slander, libel, fraud, harassment and incitement to violence? They're not saying that what speech qualifies as free speech has no exceptions whatsoever[0]. They're saying that you can't do a end run around the entire concept of free speech by laundering your enforcement under the vague heading of "consequences", when those consequences are a result of your enforcement. 0: It should have as few exceptions as possible, of course, but if nothing else you shouldn't be able to get away with murder by claiming that the nerve impulses to your trigger finger are free speech, and that shouldn't be a property of nerve impulses versus other ways of transmitting information.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >They're not saying that free speech has no exceptions whatsoever. That is literally what they're saying - "Free Speech precisely means freedom from consequences" precisely means free speech has no exceptions whatsoever, because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech. Had they said free speech should have as few exceptions as possible, they would have.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        > because any possible exception by definition leads to a consequence which restricts speech. Sorry, should have been more explicit - edited to clarify that I was talking about exceptions to what qualifies as free speech in the first place, not exceptions to what consequences constitute restriction.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  Ah, this trite argument. It doesn't even apply when it comes to public services or the government, as is the case here, in which action is being taken by a public school.

rattlesnakedave 6y ago

Even in the case of threatening speech, I’m not sure the school is a role. That should be left up to local law enforcement.

djrogers 6y ago
You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? (and yes - that would be considered cyberbullying in many schools) That's a really bad idea.
- filoleg 6y ago
  >You want armed law enforcement officers to show up to a 14 year old's house because she posts "b*tch" on every IM from her nemesis? I don't think that counts as "threatening speech" in terms that the parent comment was attempting to describe it. This feels more like cyberbullying, which I agree on with you, cops shouldn't be dealing with this kind of stuff. In this context, I think "threatening speech" refers more to stuff like an actual threat of imminent danger to people, like a bomb threat or other things of similar nature.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  Cyberbulling and threatening is not the same thing. And I think its clear from the OP, that "threatening" speech would be voicing intent to do violence. Yes, law enforcement should be the ones to handle those situations.

hackeraccount 6y ago

What if it's not phrased as discipline? What if they said "This speech is an example of your character and we'd rather not have you on our squad." The assumption is (as someone pointed out up thread) that there's no right to be on the squad; that you can (as the joke goes) be fired or not hired at anytime for no reason but not any reason.

anaerobicover 6y ago
I would reply that the adults in that case should demonstrate their own character by recognizing that teenagers are humans with emotions¹ who get frustrated and make mistakes. And that a mistake that doesn't really harm anyone (an F said in conversation with a friend) merits a discussion in the worst, not a dismissal dropped like a bomb. --- ¹Maybe even more so than the adults.
- anaerobicover 6y ago
  Although to be exact I would not even call this any "mistake". It is simply human. But I do understand that others might consider it to be so.
- taylodl 6y ago
  Having worked in several youth organizations and youth sports for the past 30 years, I bet what actually happened is this kid has been "problematic", the adults have been trying to do right by the kid, and this was the final straw. I've seen that happen. The act resulting in a kid getting dismissed from an activity in and of itself isn't egregious when considered in isolation. It's all the other stuff going on preceding that act that caused the response. Obviously I don't know the details of this particular case, but it wouldn't surprise if that is what happened here. It's typically the way such things go.
  - not2b 6y ago
    Sorry, not buying it. If the kid had a pattern of problematic behavior they could have said that she was being dismissed for behavior that took place at team practices or events. But they didn't. They are saying that it was for the Snapchat rant. If they had something else, they could have avoided the court fight.

agloeregrets 6y ago

Ever see the documentary Kids For Cash? Happened 30 minutes away from this school.