10 ms·

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

by 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.
    - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
      noted, thanks for clarifying.
klmadfejno 6y ago
I think its perfectly fine to shun people if you think they're awful. Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things. Choosing not to decide is still a choice. The question at hand is whether you believe isolated private communications to be representative of true nature.
- listless 6y ago
  I don’t think that’s true. If you visit a convicted rapist in prison when nobody else will do you condone rape? Or are you performing an act of kindness? I think the ironic and not obvious answer here is that we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning. That reaction is what gives bad ideas power. People are complicated. You can’t boil them down to a true nature that is “good” or “bad”. That’s “us vs them”. Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Now you're conflating a crime that was committed vs. an uncovered privately held belief. Visiting a repentant criminal doesn't condone their crime, obviously. Visiting a rapist who speaks freely, or privately just to you, about how much he enjoys rape certainly begs the question of why you're doing what you're doing. Employing such a person who says these things speaks volumes about your concern for the feelings of people who feel threatened or have suffered sexual assault in the past, especially on your team. All of this boils down to how much legitimacy we're willing to offer people based on what we know about them. If you want to offer the worst of the worst people just enough legitimacy to have a human conversation once in a while, I think that's defensible. If you think one's reputation doesn't have massive reprecussions on which social groups you welcome them into I think you're naive.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    " Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are." Well, historians do. Subject to change.
anonymousisme 6y ago
"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." Worked for O.J. when his attorneys questioned Mark Fuhrman. Probably had a substantial impact on the jury verdict. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-mark-fuhrman-own-voice-frame-niggers https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-sim...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ryandrake 6y ago
I thought the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" supreme court case [1] established the school's ability to punish views expressed off campus. So, is this just down to whether her intent was that the message was to be private? The distinction between public and private speech is already fuzzy on these hosted chat platforms, and some would argue is disappearing. The difference between a public and private message in a forum or social media platform might just be a single bit in a database. Ignoring the technicalities of end-to-end encryption, at the end of the day, you're sending your message to a 3rd party company, and that company decides ultimately whether it is public or private. As much as I'd like to see more first amendment protections for school students, I don't think this case is going to be decided in favor of the girl. 1: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-morse-v-frederick https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
- stock_toaster 6y ago
  I think the key is that [1] was part of an off campus school supervised activity.
tantalor 6y ago
> It was expressed privately That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited any statements of that nature, in private or public. The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If not, then every rule would have a limited scope. The article gives some examples of problems this would cause, e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment. If the rules only apply while on school property or in public, then why even have rules? The student can just flaunt the rules and claim "privacy" when challenged.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  Of course every rule should have a limited scope. Institutions absolutely should not be allowed to have any say about what you do outside of their actual purview (ie: off of their property, not during work hours, while not representing them, etc). Almost any way that Institutions have to detect rule breaking outside of their purview involves serious privacy breaches.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
will4274 6y ago
It's amusing to think that, if she had said it with her boob out, she likely would not have been punished by the school, because nobody would have saved and rebroadcast it for an adult.

by LanceH 6y ago

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.
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    noted, thanks for clarifying.

klmadfejno 6y ago

I think its perfectly fine to shun people if you think they're awful. Continuing association with someone who is, for example, is supportive of ethnic cleansing, is expressing that you condone those things. Choosing not to decide is still a choice. The question at hand is whether you believe isolated private communications to be representative of true nature.

listless 6y ago
I don’t think that’s true. If you visit a convicted rapist in prison when nobody else will do you condone rape? Or are you performing an act of kindness? I think the ironic and not obvious answer here is that we stop committing people to the garbage heap of humanity via religious-like shunning. That reaction is what gives bad ideas power. People are complicated. You can’t boil them down to a true nature that is “good” or “bad”. That’s “us vs them”. Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Now you're conflating a crime that was committed vs. an uncovered privately held belief. Visiting a repentant criminal doesn't condone their crime, obviously. Visiting a rapist who speaks freely, or privately just to you, about how much he enjoys rape certainly begs the question of why you're doing what you're doing. Employing such a person who says these things speaks volumes about your concern for the feelings of people who feel threatened or have suffered sexual assault in the past, especially on your team. All of this boils down to how much legitimacy we're willing to offer people based on what we know about them. If you want to offer the worst of the worst people just enough legitimacy to have a human conversation once in a while, I think that's defensible. If you think one's reputation doesn't have massive reprecussions on which social groups you welcome them into I think you're naive.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  " Only ideas can be judged that way and history decides what the bad ideas are." Well, historians do. Subject to change.

anonymousisme 6y ago

"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." Worked for O.J. when his attorneys questioned Mark Fuhrman. Probably had a substantial impact on the jury verdict. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-mark-fuhrman-own-voice-frame-niggers https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-sim...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ryandrake 6y ago

I thought the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" supreme court case [1] established the school's ability to punish views expressed off campus. So, is this just down to whether her intent was that the message was to be private? The distinction between public and private speech is already fuzzy on these hosted chat platforms, and some would argue is disappearing. The difference between a public and private message in a forum or social media platform might just be a single bit in a database. Ignoring the technicalities of end-to-end encryption, at the end of the day, you're sending your message to a 3rd party company, and that company decides ultimately whether it is public or private. As much as I'd like to see more first amendment protections for school students, I don't think this case is going to be decided in favor of the girl. 1: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-morse-v-frederick https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

stock_toaster 6y ago
I think the key is that [1] was part of an off campus school supervised activity.

tantalor 6y ago

> It was expressed privately That's immaterial. The teams rules prohibited any statements of that nature, in private or public. The real question is whether such a rule is enforceable. If not, then every rule would have a limited scope. The article gives some examples of problems this would cause, e.g., sharing test answers, bullying, harassment. If the rules only apply while on school property or in public, then why even have rules? The student can just flaunt the rules and claim "privacy" when challenged.

bluefirebrand 6y ago
Of course every rule should have a limited scope. Institutions absolutely should not be allowed to have any say about what you do outside of their actual purview (ie: off of their property, not during work hours, while not representing them, etc). Almost any way that Institutions have to detect rule breaking outside of their purview involves serious privacy breaches.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

will4274 6y ago

It's amusing to think that, if she had said it with her boob out, she likely would not have been punished by the school, because nobody would have saved and rebroadcast it for an adult.