15 ms·

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 equit

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
akiselev 5y ago
> (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) Are we talking Church of Satan or the Satanic Temple here?
- eagsalazar2 5y ago
  Either although mainly from ignorance in the later case. TST is freaking awesome, seriously American heroes. (and hilarious)
vmception 5y ago
The first thing I always look for is if I can find some level of discretionary public funding that ties the organization to being a public institution. Or at least creates funding consequences for them if they try to act like a private organization that actually has rights like a private citizen. specifically, when an organization tries to "cancel" someone, it makes me wonder if they are A) able to, or if they must tolerate basically any level of speech B) able to have their own funding consequences by losing government funds if they choose to regulate speech
- dnautics 5y ago
  > some level of discretionary public funding That's going to be everything. Is there a categorical difference between, say UVA, and Harvard? Arguably Harvard takes much more federal funding than UVA. How about a local dance studio that got $160,000 in federal loans to keep it afloat during COVID pandemic?
  - nonameiguess 5y ago
    There is a categorical difference between UVA and Harvard. Harvard competes for federal grants on equal footing with all other research institutions. UVA is a permanent line-item on the Virginia state budget. They are treated as legally distinct for that reason and it means UVA is subject to all the restrictions placed on governments but not private actors and Harvard is not except where a restriction is explicitly written into the conditions of accepting funding (i.e. how the federal government sidesteps state sovereignty to enforce a national drinking age).
  - vmception 5y ago
    Try it in court. Who cares about the hypotheticals or the line? Well I mean, I don't. That's the beauty of it, you don't really need to have strong opinions on anything, just the ability to make an argument that is convenient for you and persuasive to a judge. The extent of consensus, for me, is understanding what reality can match the arbiters that matter. So I don't really have a fixed world view on much of anything. (sidenote: I'd probably be a decent lawyer, but software earns so much more without any licenses needed.)
axaxs 5y ago
Not necessarily. There are already basic protections in place. For example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for being a satanist. I don't see a problem with extending such protections to include more free speech. The problem is, where does one draw the line? If one is against abortion and protests that, seems different than say if one is a full fledged neonazi spewing rhetoric. The way it sits today, the majority of people are afraid to speak their thoughts for fear of workplace retaliation. This is effectively corporate controlled speech, which is not a good thing for society.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- newacct583 5y ago
  > There are already basic protections in place. For example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for being a satanist. That's not "basic protections", it's existing case law about a conflict within the constitution. Freedom of religion and freedom of association are both protected, but where they conflict we generally find that whichever side is providing some kind of good to the public (be it products or employment) needs to bend. You can't fire me for my religion because of the nature of "firing" (being something that denies me something most people have), not "religion". It can't be extended without stepping on some other right-holder's toes.
  - axaxs 5y ago
    Sure, but it's worth considering whether we should care about stepping on the right-holder's toes. That's what got us into corporate controlled speech, doxing, and twitter mobs in the first place. Read, people wouldn't do it if it weren't effective. It probably wouldn't be -as- bad if in the US healthcare wasn't tied to employment. As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with.
    - newacct583 5y ago
      > As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with. Ridiculous hyperbole. First, because it imagines that people get killed for tweets, and second because it hilariously invokes the idea that this is a new thing. You genuinely don't think people have been persecuted for opinions in the past? Let me get my dead buddy Galileo to drop a few rocks on your head. Likewise McCarthyism, etc... Objectively free expression of inconvenient conservative ideas in the US has never been cheaper, freer, easier or more pervasive than it is RIGHT NOW. Good grief, just look at your own posts. You don't look like someone afraid of being killed by a mob.
lostlogin 5y ago
> try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career I’m pretty sure that people would give me a weird look and then it would carry on as normal. Is this different somewhere?
- eagsalazar2 5y ago
  If you are a politician, performer, athlete, or CEO in the United States of a high profile company - yes absolutely this is different. Are you an IC in Finland or something? People here get very upset and judgmental as a rule.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    I’m in New Zealand. Maybe my assumption that people wouldn’t particularly care is wrong, or my oddities are already factored into their behaviour towards me.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mavhc 5y ago
    The more imaginary friends you have, the more you're angry about the imaginary friends other people have.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Not really - pagans tend to be more open-minded about such things than monotheists.
  - mrkstu 5y ago
    I, as a Mormon, faced more social pushback in Georgia ~15 years ago, than my Wiccan friends, but neither of us faced any work pushback or worried about our jobs based on our religious beliefs. Though I did have a co-member there get fired for being a Mormon and win a discrimination suit. His religiously motivated abstemiousness regarding alcohol got him fired from an aircraft maker since they worried about him NOT drinking with clients (as a salesman.)
jack9 5y ago
> The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, "Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd. Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws providing greater protection for freedom of speech." - https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-to-freedom-of-expression-do-students-have/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-...
axiosgunnar 5y ago
> 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. Being "denied a wedding cake because one is gay" is a choice that private bakeries 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.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else. Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork.
  - valarauko 5y ago
    > Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else. To quote the dissenting Opinion in this case, written by Justice Ginsburg, In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold. The "Jack" in question: > William Jack visited three Colorado bakeries. His visits followed a similar pattern. He requested two cakes “made to resemble an open Bible. He also requestedthat each cake be decorated with Biblical verses. [He]requested that one of the cakes include an image of two groomsmen, holding hands, with a red ‘X’ over the image. On one cake, he requested [on] one side[,] . . . ‘God hates sin. Psalm 45:7’ and on the opposite side of the cake ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin.Leviticus 18:2.’ On the second cake, [the one] with the image of the two groomsmen covered by a red ‘X’[Jack] requested [these words]: ‘God loves sinners’ and on the other side ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 319a; see id., at 300a, 310a. ... The bakeries agreed to bake & sell him these cakes, but without the specific messages he wanted. Jack filled charges against these bakeries, and the Colorado courts upheld the rights of the bakeries in this case. The Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Bakery used this case as the precedent, and I agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissent that it should not apply. > The Court concludes that “the Commission’s considera-tion of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf > Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork. This is addressed in her dissent as well.
calvinmorrison 5y ago
Well, that's a weird take on things for being a member of a voluntary group activity at school. I certainly wouldn't want someone to be banned from school, expelled or given detention based on what they said, but I don't see why a coach should be keeping people on the team who bad mouth the team, or a music director keeping a tuba player on who continually speaks out about how bad the flute section is on instagram. Does that difference make sense?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nightski 5y ago
  That only makes sense if the "optional" activity is not funded by a public school and does not make use of any public school property. Otherwise it is a government sanctioned activity, however optional.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
goatcode 5y ago
>Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions You're making a lot of assumptions about the comment above yours. Language changes.
- mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
  Your argument would be stronger if you proposed an alternate definition rather than just saying “you’re wrong, that’s not what it means anymore!”
  - goatcode 5y ago
    What I'm getting at is this: The story is about notable consequences at a school, which is not a private institution (generally). So, the commenter was probably using the term in conjunction with such consequences. It was clear from the comment, and the response seemed to be nit-picking a pseudo dictionary definition, so I tried to point out the colloquial usage.
baryphonic 5y 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 (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. Can you direct me to any incidents where someone expressed support for Satanism, even as a joke, and was then summarily fired after a mob harassed his employer with angry phone calls/tweets expressing (almost entirely empty) threats to boycott or worse?
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  There aren't that many Satanists in the world, but the far more common case is presumably people fired as soon as an employer found out they were gay. Note that sexual orientation is still not technically a protected class, though the EEOC will often take up for you anyway: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/sexual-orientation-unprotected.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/.... Many localities explicitly call out sexual orientation and Obama signed an Executive Order mandating non-discrimination in federal agencies and contractors, but the actual Civil Rights Act does not protect this and case law on specific suits has been wildly inconsistent about it.
- fanciestManimal 5y ago
  Maybe I missed something in this discussion, has someone ever said "I'm a Christian" and then been fired?
iczero 5y ago
But is it really only jerks? I've seen attempts to get people cancelled for what they've posted on social media over 10 years ago. Sometimes cancellation happens over allegations that are later proven to be false. There was a TED talk once about a woman who found out she was fired after getting off an airplane because she posted an insensitive joke. Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. Should she have been fired on the spot without even having any form of communication with her employer? What if Twitter one day decided that something you happened to say, perhaps in the past, disagreed with some social "norm" that you weren't even aware of? Would you be happy to be fired? Or can you confidently say that you will never have any opinion different from that of the "social norm"?
- sellyme 5y ago
  > Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. You're being somewhat generous here.
  - iczero 5y ago
    Am I though? She posted a joke on Twitter mocking the idea that white people couldn't get AIDS. It's only unfortunate that her statement was immediately interpreted as racist.
    - sellyme 5y ago
      > Am I though? Yes. > She posted a joke on Twitter mocking the idea that white people couldn't get AIDS. Even if you believe the subsequent backtracking, that's still a profoundly stupid thing to be doing in that circumstance, and it shows a complete lack of any critical thought as to how your actions and words are perceived.
      - iczero 5y ago
        > Even if you believe the subsequent backtracking Of course I believe the subsequent backtracking. Have you read the New York Times article? Most people aren't racists. > ... a complete lack of critical thought as to how your actions and words are perceived. A lot of people have times when they don't think about how their words will be perceived. I sure have, and I'm sure you have too. However, I do not believe such minor stupidity should result in immediate loss of job, without warning.
MR4D 5y ago
> Conflating these things.... If I'm reading you right, then you are very wrong [0]. So much so that the court's own website addresses this: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." The idea of free speech is that for it to be free, you MUST allow unpopular speech (otherwise, it's not free!). This is hard to remember when we disagree with someone' actions. A government agent (the school) taking repercussions against a child (she was 14 at the time) because she expressed frustration about the government should clearly fall into the violation category. To not be a violation would be have an incalculable chill on free speech across schools impacting roughly 70 million kids (plus their parents). [0] - https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/express-unpopular-views-rule-law https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bostonsre 5y 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 (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. I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation argument is purely made by evil jerks (e.g. I don't consider lex to be a jerk). You don't think it's easier now than ever before to be 'canceled' by a social media mob? Don't there have to be some negative consequences to allowing for permanent cancelations? By all means, people that do extremely horrible things should be shunned but how and where does the line get drawn for the more mediocre offenses? Also, people are fallible, they screw up and make mistakes. Do they have a right to make amends and be forgiven for dumb things they did in the past? It almost seems like it's trending towards a crowd sourced social credit system similar to what the CCP implemented. I am not on the left or right, but shouting social media mobs with pitch forks doesn't seem like the best way to achieve internet 'justice'.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    > I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. I was talking specifically about "cancelling" people with social media mobs to shout down opposing views or harass them into submission. The scale and ease at which it can be done has allowed it to be used as a tool to beat down morally reprehensible individuals as well as some that have arguably reasonable views. > Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism. I make no claim that sexual harassment and racism are good things or that they should be allowed. My problem is with the gray area that is harder to say whether or not it is allowed. I think trump is a corrupt numbskull, but I think it is absolutely horrible to attempt to "cancel" people or organizations that openly support him and I think the whole idea of shouting down or harassing opposing viewpoints that a good portion of society consider to be reasonable into submission is reprehensible. Vigilante mobs are not rational entities, they should not be used as a tool to win arguments. Their use will continue to further radicalize both sides of the spectrum and I don't see how they could possibly lead to anything good for humanity. Anyone or any group that says I think this therefore I am correct and they are wrong should be looked at skeptically. Policies and issues need to be discussed academically and not through twitter shouting matches.

Grustaf 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.

akiselev 5y ago

> (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) Are we talking Church of Satan or the Satanic Temple here?

eagsalazar2 5y ago
Either although mainly from ignorance in the later case. TST is freaking awesome, seriously American heroes. (and hilarious)

vmception 5y ago

The first thing I always look for is if I can find some level of discretionary public funding that ties the organization to being a public institution. Or at least creates funding consequences for them if they try to act like a private organization that actually has rights like a private citizen. specifically, when an organization tries to "cancel" someone, it makes me wonder if they are A) able to, or if they must tolerate basically any level of speech B) able to have their own funding consequences by losing government funds if they choose to regulate speech

dnautics 5y ago
> some level of discretionary public funding That's going to be everything. Is there a categorical difference between, say UVA, and Harvard? Arguably Harvard takes much more federal funding than UVA. How about a local dance studio that got $160,000 in federal loans to keep it afloat during COVID pandemic?
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  There is a categorical difference between UVA and Harvard. Harvard competes for federal grants on equal footing with all other research institutions. UVA is a permanent line-item on the Virginia state budget. They are treated as legally distinct for that reason and it means UVA is subject to all the restrictions placed on governments but not private actors and Harvard is not except where a restriction is explicitly written into the conditions of accepting funding (i.e. how the federal government sidesteps state sovereignty to enforce a national drinking age).
- vmception 5y ago
  Try it in court. Who cares about the hypotheticals or the line? Well I mean, I don't. That's the beauty of it, you don't really need to have strong opinions on anything, just the ability to make an argument that is convenient for you and persuasive to a judge. The extent of consensus, for me, is understanding what reality can match the arbiters that matter. So I don't really have a fixed world view on much of anything. (sidenote: I'd probably be a decent lawyer, but software earns so much more without any licenses needed.)

axaxs 5y ago

Not necessarily. There are already basic protections in place. For example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for being a satanist. I don't see a problem with extending such protections to include more free speech. The problem is, where does one draw the line? If one is against abortion and protests that, seems different than say if one is a full fledged neonazi spewing rhetoric. The way it sits today, the majority of people are afraid to speak their thoughts for fear of workplace retaliation. This is effectively corporate controlled speech, which is not a good thing for society.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
newacct583 5y ago
> There are already basic protections in place. For example, it would be expressly illegal for a workplace to fire you for being a satanist. That's not "basic protections", it's existing case law about a conflict within the constitution. Freedom of religion and freedom of association are both protected, but where they conflict we generally find that whichever side is providing some kind of good to the public (be it products or employment) needs to bend. You can't fire me for my religion because of the nature of "firing" (being something that denies me something most people have), not "religion". It can't be extended without stepping on some other right-holder's toes.
- axaxs 5y ago
  Sure, but it's worth considering whether we should care about stepping on the right-holder's toes. That's what got us into corporate controlled speech, doxing, and twitter mobs in the first place. Read, people wouldn't do it if it weren't effective. It probably wouldn't be -as- bad if in the US healthcare wasn't tied to employment. As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    > As it sits today, speaking your mind can literally be a death sentence, if you happen to say something a mob doesn't agree with. Ridiculous hyperbole. First, because it imagines that people get killed for tweets, and second because it hilariously invokes the idea that this is a new thing. You genuinely don't think people have been persecuted for opinions in the past? Let me get my dead buddy Galileo to drop a few rocks on your head. Likewise McCarthyism, etc... Objectively free expression of inconvenient conservative ideas in the US has never been cheaper, freer, easier or more pervasive than it is RIGHT NOW. Good grief, just look at your own posts. You don't look like someone afraid of being killed by a mob.

lostlogin 5y ago

> try going around saying you are a satanist and see how that affects your career I’m pretty sure that people would give me a weird look and then it would carry on as normal. Is this different somewhere?

eagsalazar2 5y ago
If you are a politician, performer, athlete, or CEO in the United States of a high profile company - yes absolutely this is different. Are you an IC in Finland or something? People here get very upset and judgmental as a rule.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  I’m in New Zealand. Maybe my assumption that people wouldn’t particularly care is wrong, or my oddities are already factored into their behaviour towards me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mavhc 5y ago
  The more imaginary friends you have, the more you're angry about the imaginary friends other people have.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Not really - pagans tend to be more open-minded about such things than monotheists.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  I, as a Mormon, faced more social pushback in Georgia ~15 years ago, than my Wiccan friends, but neither of us faced any work pushback or worried about our jobs based on our religious beliefs. Though I did have a co-member there get fired for being a Mormon and win a discrimination suit. His religiously motivated abstemiousness regarding alcohol got him fired from an aircraft maker since they worried about him NOT drinking with clients (as a salesman.)

jack9 5y ago

> The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, "Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd. Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws providing greater protection for freedom of speech." - https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-to-freedom-of-expression-do-students-have/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-...

axiosgunnar 5y ago

> 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. Being "denied a wedding cake because one is gay" is a choice that private bakeries 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.

Karunamon 5y ago
Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else. Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork.
- valarauko 5y ago
  > Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else. To quote the dissenting Opinion in this case, written by Justice Ginsburg, In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold. The "Jack" in question: > William Jack visited three Colorado bakeries. His visits followed a similar pattern. He requested two cakes “made to resemble an open Bible. He also requestedthat each cake be decorated with Biblical verses. [He]requested that one of the cakes include an image of two groomsmen, holding hands, with a red ‘X’ over the image. On one cake, he requested [on] one side[,] . . . ‘God hates sin. Psalm 45:7’ and on the opposite side of the cake ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin.Leviticus 18:2.’ On the second cake, [the one] with the image of the two groomsmen covered by a red ‘X’[Jack] requested [these words]: ‘God loves sinners’ and on the other side ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 319a; see id., at 300a, 310a. ... The bakeries agreed to bake & sell him these cakes, but without the specific messages he wanted. Jack filled charges against these bakeries, and the Colorado courts upheld the rights of the bakeries in this case. The Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Bakery used this case as the precedent, and I agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissent that it should not apply. > The Court concludes that “the Commission’s considera-tion of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf > Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork. This is addressed in her dissent as well.

calvinmorrison 5y ago

Well, that's a weird take on things for being a member of a voluntary group activity at school. I certainly wouldn't want someone to be banned from school, expelled or given detention based on what they said, but I don't see why a coach should be keeping people on the team who bad mouth the team, or a music director keeping a tuba player on who continually speaks out about how bad the flute section is on instagram. Does that difference make sense?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nightski 5y ago
That only makes sense if the "optional" activity is not funded by a public school and does not make use of any public school property. Otherwise it is a government sanctioned activity, however optional.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

goatcode 5y ago

>Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions You're making a lot of assumptions about the comment above yours. Language changes.

mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
Your argument would be stronger if you proposed an alternate definition rather than just saying “you’re wrong, that’s not what it means anymore!”
- goatcode 5y ago
  What I'm getting at is this: The story is about notable consequences at a school, which is not a private institution (generally). So, the commenter was probably using the term in conjunction with such consequences. It was clear from the comment, and the response seemed to be nit-picking a pseudo dictionary definition, so I tried to point out the colloquial usage.

baryphonic 5y ago

nonameiguess 5y ago
There aren't that many Satanists in the world, but the far more common case is presumably people fired as soon as an employer found out they were gay. Note that sexual orientation is still not technically a protected class, though the EEOC will often take up for you anyway: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/sexual-orientation-unprotected.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/.... Many localities explicitly call out sexual orientation and Obama signed an Executive Order mandating non-discrimination in federal agencies and contractors, but the actual Civil Rights Act does not protect this and case law on specific suits has been wildly inconsistent about it.
fanciestManimal 5y ago
Maybe I missed something in this discussion, has someone ever said "I'm a Christian" and then been fired?

iczero 5y ago

But is it really only jerks? I've seen attempts to get people cancelled for what they've posted on social media over 10 years ago. Sometimes cancellation happens over allegations that are later proven to be false. There was a TED talk once about a woman who found out she was fired after getting off an airplane because she posted an insensitive joke. Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. Should she have been fired on the spot without even having any form of communication with her employer? What if Twitter one day decided that something you happened to say, perhaps in the past, disagreed with some social "norm" that you weren't even aware of? Would you be happy to be fired? Or can you confidently say that you will never have any opinion different from that of the "social norm"?

sellyme 5y ago
> Was she wrong for doing that? Probably. You're being somewhat generous here.
- iczero 5y ago
  Am I though? She posted a joke on Twitter mocking the idea that white people couldn't get AIDS. It's only unfortunate that her statement was immediately interpreted as racist.
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > Am I though? Yes. > She posted a joke on Twitter mocking the idea that white people couldn't get AIDS. Even if you believe the subsequent backtracking, that's still a profoundly stupid thing to be doing in that circumstance, and it shows a complete lack of any critical thought as to how your actions and words are perceived.
    - iczero 5y ago
      > Even if you believe the subsequent backtracking Of course I believe the subsequent backtracking. Have you read the New York Times article? Most people aren't racists. > ... a complete lack of critical thought as to how your actions and words are perceived. A lot of people have times when they don't think about how their words will be perceived. I sure have, and I'm sure you have too. However, I do not believe such minor stupidity should result in immediate loss of job, without warning.

MR4D 5y ago

> Conflating these things.... If I'm reading you right, then you are very wrong [0]. So much so that the court's own website addresses this: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." The idea of free speech is that for it to be free, you MUST allow unpopular speech (otherwise, it's not free!). This is hard to remember when we disagree with someone' actions. A government agent (the school) taking repercussions against a child (she was 14 at the time) because she expressed frustration about the government should clearly fall into the violation category. To not be a violation would be have an incalculable chill on free speech across schools impacting roughly 70 million kids (plus their parents). [0] - https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/express-unpopular-views-rule-law https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bostonsre 5y 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 (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. I find it hard to believe that the anti cancelation argument is purely made by evil jerks (e.g. I don't consider lex to be a jerk). You don't think it's easier now than ever before to be 'canceled' by a social media mob? Don't there have to be some negative consequences to allowing for permanent cancelations? By all means, people that do extremely horrible things should be shunned but how and where does the line get drawn for the more mediocre offenses? Also, people are fallible, they screw up and make mistakes. Do they have a right to make amends and be forgiven for dumb things they did in the past? It almost seems like it's trending towards a crowd sourced social credit system similar to what the CCP implemented. I am not on the left or right, but shouting social media mobs with pitch forks doesn't seem like the best way to achieve internet 'justice'.

nonameiguess 5y ago
I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  > I don't see how you can possibly say it's easier now than ever. Past incarnations of this type of thing like the KKK, lynch mobs, witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, often had legal authority and canceled you from Earth rather than just forcing you to use some platform other than Twitter or Facebook to publish your opinion. I was talking specifically about "cancelling" people with social media mobs to shout down opposing views or harass them into submission. The scale and ease at which it can be done has allowed it to be used as a tool to beat down morally reprehensible individuals as well as some that have arguably reasonable views. > Nor are Hollywood blacklists a remotely new thing. The only new element is the blacklistable offenses have changed from support of communists and various left radicals to sexual harassment and racism. I make no claim that sexual harassment and racism are good things or that they should be allowed. My problem is with the gray area that is harder to say whether or not it is allowed. I think trump is a corrupt numbskull, but I think it is absolutely horrible to attempt to "cancel" people or organizations that openly support him and I think the whole idea of shouting down or harassing opposing viewpoints that a good portion of society consider to be reasonable into submission is reprehensible. Vigilante mobs are not rational entities, they should not be used as a tool to win arguments. Their use will continue to further radicalize both sides of the spectrum and I don't see how they could possibly lead to anything good for humanity. Anyone or any group that says I think this therefore I am correct and they are wrong should be looked at skeptically. Policies and issues need to be discussed academically and not through twitter shouting matches.